body,date,page,text,path
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-05-02,1,"Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, May 2, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Present were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Landess, and
Schrader.
Absent: None
Vacancy: One
RRAC staff: Jennifer Kauffman
a. Election of new Chair
The members concurred that it would be preferable to table the election of
permanent officers until the current vacancy was filled and all members could vote. M/S
(Griffiths/Landess) and unanimous to appoint Sullivan-Sariñana as Interim Chair and
Schrader as Interim Vice Chair.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the April 4, 2016 Regular Meeting
Approved by unanimous consent.
At this time, Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing was invited to address the
meeting to explain ECHO's fair housing and tenant/landlord services.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. Cases governed by Ordinance No. 3143, which limits rent increases of 8% or more; no
binding review process for a legal rent increase:
i. Case 363 - 781 Central Avenue, Unit A
Tenant/public speaker: Jeffrey Giordano
Landlord representative/public speaker: Erik Johnson
The landlord's original proposed increase was $90 (6.77%). Following general
discussion, the parties agreed to a $66.50 (5.0%) increase, to be effective July 1, 2016.
M/S (Schrader/Landess) and unanimous to uphold the agreement. Staff stated that
confirmation letters would be sent to all parties.
ii. Case 373 - 1850 Thau Way, Unit 12
Staff stated that prior to the meeting, the case had been withdrawn at the request
of the tenant. The tenant was not required to disclose the terms of the settlement, as this
case was not under the jurisdiction of Ordinance No. 3148.
Page 1 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-05-02,2,"Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
May 2, 2016
At this time, staff gave an overview of the process for cases under the jurisdiction of
Ordinance No. 3148.
b. Cases governed by Ordinance No. 3148; binding third-party decision required:
i. Case 364 - 2465 Shoreline Drive, Unit 120
Staff reported that this case had been withdrawn, as the parties came to an
agreement prior to the meeting. The agreed-upon increase was within the at-or-below 5%
range.
ii. Case 366 - 2465 Shoreline Drive, Unit 416
Staff reported that this case had been withdrawn, as the parties came to an
agreement prior to the meeting. The agreed-upon increase was within the 5.1 - 10.0%
range.
iii. Case 370 - 1721 St. Charles Street
Staff reported that this case would be rescheduled to the next regular meeting, as
the paperwork was not yet complete.
iv. Case 372 - 1812 Willow Street, Unit B
Tenant/public speaker: Fernando Cabrera
Landlord representative/public speaker: Nancy Takamura
Staff recapped the highlights of the case. The landlord's original proposed
increase was $305 (13.90%). The tenant stated his objections to the increase including his
opinion that he was subsidizing the other tenants in the building who were relatives of the
landlord. The landlord stated her opinion that the increase was justified as she did not
impose any increase during the year following the agreement converting from a one-year
lease to a month-to-month agreement. General discussion followed and the parties
negotiated a rent increase of $205 (9.3%). Both parties verbally acknowledged the
agreement and went into the adjacent office to finalize the terms. M/S
(Schrader/Griffiths) and unanimous to uphold the agreement.
c.
Determine date and location of June RRAC Meeting (Note: Independence Plaza is not
available on Monday, June 6.)
M/S (Griffiths/Landess) to keep the June 6 date and change the venue to the City
Council Chambers.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT (none)
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Staff reported that an active recruitment was underway for the neutral homeowner
vacancy on the RRAC. Future RRAC packets will be posted on the City's online Legistar
system. A website dedicated to provide information regarding the new rent ordinance has
been established. The address is www.alamededarentprogram.org
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none)
Page 2 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-05-02,3,"Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
May 2, 2016
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Kauffman
RRAC Secretary
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 6, 2016.
Page 3 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-06-06,1,"Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, June 6, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sarinana; and Members Griffiths, Landess, and
Schrader.
Absent: None
Vacancy: One
RRAC staff: Jennifer Kauffman
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.
Approval of the Minutes of the May 2, 2016 Regular Meeting. Approved by
unanimous consent.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. RRAC Case Summary (for information only)
b. Case 378 - 2445Shoreline Drive #219. This item was resolved and withdrawn prior
to the meeting.
c. Case 380 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #318
Tenant/public speaker: Bengt Mattson
Landlord/public speaker: Spencer Tam
Staff recapped the materials submitted by the landlord and the tenant that were
included in the agenda packet. The tenant was disputing the $150 per month increase
($1,550 to $1,700) for the 12-month option. Based on the tenant's ten-year tenancy with
regular rent increases, the tenant stated that $80 per month would be the maximum
reasonable increase. The landlord stated that the complex had undergone an extensive
$3 million, four-year construction effort and that $1,700 should be the lowest rent for
an existing tenant. Following general discussion in the attempt to achieve a compromise,
the tenant and landlord agreed upon a $100 per month increase. Motion and second
(Landess/Schrader) and unanimous to support this agreement.
d.
Case 382 - 2119 Central Avenue Apt. B. The landlord canceled the rent increase
and this item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.
e.
Case 383 - 1305 Webster Street #C-209. This item was resolved and withdrawn
prior to the meeting.
Page 1 of2",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-06-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-06-06,2,"Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
June 6, 2016
f.
Case 384 - 1254 Pearl Street. This item was resolved and withdrawn prior to the
meeting.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT (none)
Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO' S fair housing and
tenant/landlord mediation services.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Staff reported that at the June 7 City Council meeting, the City Council was scheduled
to consider the Mayor's nominations for appointments to several boards and commissions,
including the vacant homeowner seat on the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Staff will keep
the RRAC informed of these developments.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none)
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Kauffman
RRAC Secretary
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on July 6, 2016.
Page 2of2",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-06-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-07-06,1,"Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Present were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and
Schrader.
Absent: Landess
Vacancy: None
RRAC staff: Jennifer Kauffman
The Chair announced that any business not concluded before 9:30 p.m. was subject to being
continued at a Special Meeting.
The Committee discussed the order of agenda items. Griffiths made a motion to move
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS to the second item on the agenda. Schrader made a second
to the motion and all members were in agreement.
The Committee allowed for ORAL COMMUNICATIONS at this time. The Chair invited
Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing to speak about ECHO's fair housing and
tenant/landlord mediation services.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the June 6, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Approved by unanimous consent.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. Case 386 - 2220 San Antonio Avenue.
Tenant/public speaker: Susi Ostlund
Landlord/public speaker: David Petersen
Ms. Ostlund stated that she receives a fixed disability income from the U.S.
government and also has a serious illness that requires frequent medical
appointments. She stated that the maximum increase that she believed to be
reasonable was 1.9% ($31).
Mr. Petersen stated that the reason he had issued the 60.5% ($980) rent increase
notice in May 2016 was at the advice of his attorney in order to maximize his
negotiating position. The tenant's current rent is $1,620 and Mr. Peterson had
determined that the market value of the unit was $2,600. He stated that he would
accept a 15.7% ($255) increase. A rent increase had been served in October 2015;
Page 1 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-07-06,2,"Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
July 6, 2016
however, it was determined to be invalid under the Moratorium then in effect (a
9.5% increase had already been issued in April 2015).
Mr. Petersen provided documentation of maintenance expenses (sewer, paint, roof,
gutters, and dry rot) totaling over $50,000 over the past three years. Ms. Ostlund
stated that there was a difference between capital expenses and cost-of-business
expenses.
Parties were unable to reach agreement. The Committee discussed a
recommendation for the rent increase. Motion and second (Griffiths and Sullivan-
Sariñana) for a 5% ($81) increase. Friedman stated that a lower rent increase would
be more reasonable considering the circumstances, however, Mr. Friedman agreed
to the 5% rent increase and passed the motion. Schrader was in disagreement with
the motion due to the high capital improvement costs.
Staff explained that the parties had 15 days to: 1) submit written acknowledgement
of an agreement; or 2) request an arbitration hearing. If no action is taken by either
party, the Committee's recommendation would be binding.
b. Case 387 - 2611 Central Avenue
Tenant/public speaker: Allen Nakamura
Landlord/public speaker: Tommy Wong
Mr. Nakamura stated that he did not believe that the 10% ($140) increase was
justified, as he has not seen any improvements to his unit during the three-plus years
he has been living there. The Wong provided documentation of a new roof
installation in December 2015 that cost $10,700, and he wanted to recoup the cost
of the roof. It was also explained that this would be the first rent increase since the
tenant has occupied the unit.
Following discussion, Mr. Nakamura did not want to accept an increase over 5%
and Mr. Wong did not want to accept an increase less than 8%. The parties could
not reach agreement and the Committee made a recommendation for the rent
increase. Motion and second (Friedman and Shrader) for a 6.5% ($91) increase.
Motion passed unanimously. Staff re-stated the options for tenant and landlord and
the 15-day deadline.
c. Case 388 - 2609 Central Avenue
Tenant/public speaker: An-Nisaa Hamza
Landlord/public speaker: Tommy Wong
Ms. Hamza stated that the cost of improvements, such as the new roof, should not
be the total responsibility of the tenants, as the landlord can write off these expenses
on his taxes. Ms. Hamza stated that the maximum increase that she believed to be
reasonable was 4% ($52). Mr. Wong stated that he would reduce the increase from
10% ($130) to 6.5% ($84.50) in order to be fair with his other tenant. Following
discussion, Ms. Hamza did not want to accept an increase over 4% and Mr. Wong
did not want to accept an increase less than 6.5%.
Page 2 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-07-06,3,"Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
July 6, 2016
The Committee discussed a recommendation for the rent increase. There have been
two rent increases over the six-plus years that Ms. Hamza and her husband have
been living in the unit. Member Friedman stated that in view of the rent increase
history with this unit, an increase of 5.8% ($75) would be appropriate. Motion and
second (Griffiths and Schrader) and unanimous to recommend an increase of 5.8%
($75). Staff re-stated the options for tenant and landlord and the 15-day deadline.
d. Case 389 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #126
The case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior
to the meeting for an increase in an amount greater than 10%.
e. Case 390 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #104
The case was canceled, as the tenant decided to move.
f.
Case 395 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #323
The case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior
to the meeting for an increase in an amount between 5.1 and 10%.
g. Case 404 - 1107 Broadway
The case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior
to the meeting for an increase in an amount between 5.1 and 10%.
h. Case 405 - 3271 Central Avenue
Tenant/public speaker: Frances Hayden
Landlord/public speaker: Barbara Jolliffe
Ms. Hayden stated that she did not believe the 7.5% ($98) increase was justified for
maintenance reasons. The Chair stated that maintenance issues were beyond the
RRAC's scope and that there were other alternatives for pursuing maintenance
complaints that could be discussed with staff. The tenant stated that the maximum
increase that she believed to be reasonable was 4% ($64.50).
Ms. Jolliffe cited costs of $31,000 last year for sewer, sidewalk and roof work plus
increased costs for taxes, utilities, insurance, and maintenance labor. She also noted
increased administrative costs and time demands as a result of complying with
Ordinance No. 3148.
(At approximately 9:30 p.m., the Committee voted to extend the meeting time to
9:45 p.m.)
Following discussion, Ms. Jolliffe offered a phased rent increase, delaying payment
of a portion of the rent increase for several months. Ms. Hayden was not agreeable
to this offer. The parties did not reach agreement and the Committee discussed a
recommendation for the rent increase. Motion and Second (Griffiths and Schrader)
and unanimous for a phased $98 increase ($52 for the first six months plus an
additional $46 thereafter). Staff re-stated the 15-day policy.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
No additional public comment.
Page 3 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-07-06,4,"Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
July 6, 2016
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing made an announcement at the beginning of
the meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none)
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Kauffman
RRAC Secretary
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 1, 2016.
Page 4 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-08-01,1,"Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, August 1, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, Landess, and
Schrader.
Absent: None
Vacancy: None
RRAC staff: Jonathan Standifer
2. AGENDA CHANGES (None)
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a.
The Chair invited Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing to speak about ECHO's fair
housing and tenant/landlord mediation services.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the July 6, 2016 Meeting
Approved by unanimous consent.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
6. NEW BUSINESS
a.
Case 409 - 132 Keil Bay.
The case was canceled because the tenant and landlord reached an agreement prior to the
RRAC meeting for an increase in an amount greater than 10%.
b. Case 417 - 1219 Central Avenue #B
Tenant/public speaker: Cynthia Cooper
Landlord/public speaker: Karin Mesterhazy
Ms. Cooper stated that an increase of 10% is excessive. She explained that since 2007 the
rent has been increase by 36.3%. Ms. Cooper also explained that there are maintenance
concerns in the common areas. Ms. Mesterhazy stated that the rent increase is justified due
to increases in expenses including mortgage payments, property taxes, utilities, liability
expenses and building management fees since she now lives out of state.
Following discussion, Ms. Cooper and Ms. Mesterhazy came to an agreement of a rent
increase of $61.25 (4.9%), effective August 1, 2016 and an additional deferred increase of
$61.25 (4.9%) effective January 1, 2017 for a total rent of $1,349. The Committee made a
recommendation to uphold the agreement. Motion and second (Friedman and Griffiths)
and unanimous for the tenant and landlord agreement.
Page 1 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-08-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-08-01,2,"Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
August 1, 2016
c.
Case 421 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #206
The case was canceled because the tenant and landlord reached an agreement prior to the
RRAC meeting for an increase in an amount between 0-5%.
d. Case 425 - 564 Central Avenue #117
Tenant/public speaker: None
Landlord/public speaker: Joe Vargo
The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, no action was taken and the rent increase
remains effective as stated in the rent increase notice. Mr. Vargo provided comment,
expressing concern about the length of the text that is required to be included in rent
increase notices.
e. Review and approve proposed amendments to the Rent Review Advisory Committee's
Rules and Procedures
The Secretary summarized comments from the Members in response to the proposed
amendments:
1) Item B.3., Maintenance of Membership. Clarify who has authority to remove a
member.
2) Item C.1.2., Officers. Require all members to be present for the vote for Chair and
Vice Chair. Revisit the wording for the election date.
3) Item D., Duties. Add wording stating that the Committee will render a decision
regarding rent increases. Ms. Young stated that the City Attorney's Office was in
agreement with the wording stated.
4) Item E.1., Regular Meetings. Change the meeting time to 6:30 p.m. It was noted
that there have not been any complaints since the Committee started meeting at
6:30 p.m. Ms. Young stated that a Reasonable Accommodation request could
always be made.
5) Item E.2., Special Meetings. When a Regular Meeting is rescheduled due to a
holiday, the special meeting should be noticed the same as a regular meeting.
6) Item E.4., Adjournment. Change the official adjournment time to 9:30 p.m., with
the understanding that the Committee can vote to extend the meeting time.
7) Item F., Agenda. Public Hearing:
Additional wording to be added stating that the Chair shall be responsible for
the agenda in consultation with the Secretary. Ms. Young stated that the City
Attorney's Office was in agreement with the addition.
Public Comment for Non-Agenda Items will be moved higher up on the agenda.
Ms. Young stated that according to the City Attorney's Office, public comment
regarding a specific agenda item must be heard before a motion is made. There
Page 2 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-08-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-08-01,3,"Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
August 1, 2016
was some dispute among the Members whether or not public comment should
be heard before or after the case summary is read. The Chair stated that he was
concerned about disrupting the mediation process. Ms. Young stated that she
would discuss this with the City Attorney's Office.
There was general discussion regarding applying Rosenberg's Rules of Order
to RRAC meetings. Clarification was given that the City Attorney's Office has
stated that even though the City Council has not formally adopted Rosenberg's
Rules, it can be used as a guideline; however, the City's Sunshine Ordinance is
where the Committee should look for procedures.
8) Item H.2, Rules of Order. Prior to each deliberation, the Secretary will read aloud
a prepared statement clarifying the deliberation process.
Member Schrader noted some editing corrections that needed to be made.
The Committee Members concurred that this item should be continued to a meeting at
which staff can present an updated draft.
f.
Committee will consider and vote on Chair and Vice Chair to replace Interim Chair and
Interim Vice Chair.
At the Committee meeting on May 2, 2016, Committee Members requested that a new vote
for Chair and Vice Chair be held when there were no longer any vacancies on the
Committee. All Committee positions are now filled.
Member Griffiths nominated and the Committee Members unanimously voted for
Sullivan-Sariñana as Chair. Member Griffiths nominated and the Committee
Members unanimously voted for Landess as Vice Chair.
g. SEEDS mediation training for the Committee Members to be held at the Special Meeting
on August 15
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
No additional public comment.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Member Friedman requested that at the next meeting there be a discussion of ""what we
are all about as members and what we are trying to achieve."" Ms. Young stated that
this discussion could be incorporated into the August 15 mediation training.
Member Friedman requested that Assistant City Attorney Roush meet with the
Committee regarding meeting procedures. Ms. Young stated that she would request
that Mr. Roush attend the September 7 meeting with the intention that the updated
Rules and Procedures document would be ready for resubmittal to the Committee.
The Chair requested that staff provide emailed copies of the Rent Program monthly
report to the Members on submittal to the City.
9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (None)
Page 3 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-08-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-08-01,4,"Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
August 1, 2016
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Standifer
RRAC Secretary
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 7, 2016.
Page 4 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-08-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-09-07,1,"Approved Minutes
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana, Vice-Chair Landess; and Members Griffiths,
Friedman, and Schrader.
Absent: None
Vacancy: None
RRAC staff: Jennifer Kaufman
2. AGENDA CHANGES (None)
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. The Chair invited Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing to speak about ECHO's Fair
Housing and tenant/landlord mediation services.
b.
Staff is developing an information brochure for tenants and landlords regarding new
regulations and protections under Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.
Approval of the Minutes of the August 1, 2016 Regular Meeting
Approved by unanimous consent with the provision that staff confirm the exact
percentage of the agreed rent increase in Case 417. Motion and second (Schrader and
Friedman).
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
6. NEW BUSINESS
a.
Case 434 -941 - Shorepoint Ct. #F318
Tenant/public speaker: Ralph Medina
Landlord/public speaker: Darren Carrington, Katie Edwards
Mr. Medina stated that his family has lived at the property since 2010 and they would
like to continue living there. Mr. Medina noted that the rent has increased significantly
each of the previous three years, which he finds excessive. The tenant did not feel that
the month-to-month offer was an option due to its high rate, and he preferred a 12-month
lease. Mr. Medina proposed a 2.0% rent increase for a 12-month lease. As an alternative
option, he also proposed a 12-month lease with one month of free rent based an offer he
saw in an online advertisement to prospective tenants at the property.
Ms. Edwards and Mr. Carrington stated that the tenant's rent is $400 below the current
market rate. They explained that it was in the interest of the landlord to have long-term
tenants and leases. They believed it was important to comply with the Ordinance and
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-09-07,2,"Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
September 7, 2016
considered the 4.9% increase reasonable, given that it was still below the market rate. To
approximate market rates, they observed rents at Ballena Village, Summer House
Apartments, and Tower Apartment Homes. Ms. Edwards and Mr. Carrington proposed
exploring options to transfer the tenant to another available unit on the property within
the tenant's price range.
Mr. Medina did not have interest in relocating to a different unit on the property. He did
not agree that his unit was $400 below market rent. He stated that the rent increase was
causing him to consider leaving the property to move into a more affordable unit
elsewhere.
Parties were unable to reach agreement. The Committee discussed a recommendation for
the rent increase.
Schrader commented there is a difference between the market rent for a new tenant
and the market rent for a long-term tenant. Additionally, he stated it is difficult to
compare unit rents as there is often variation on floor plan, location on the property,
etc. Due to the fact there have been significant rent increases in the past, he stated
there should be comprise on the rent increase and determined a reasonable rent
increase for a 12-month lease would be $90 (3.6%).
Sullivan-Sariñana stated he finds the multiple rent increases over the recent years
excessive, especially because salaries do not increase quickly enough to match. He
emphasized that the financial burden on the tenant gets to the core of the Ordinance
and its purpose. He stated he was not in dispute of the landlord's concerns, however,
he believed the Committee should consider the intent of the Ordinance.
Landess stated that she understood the landlord's perspective. Nevertheless, she also
observed an apparent conflict between the landlord's statement that long-term tenants
are valued, yet, long-term tenants receive frequent, high rent increases. She agreed
with the $90 (3.6%) rent increase recommendation.
Griffiths agreed with statements by Schrader and Landess. He noted that the
Committee should find the most equitable solution that is possible in each situation.
Griffiths expressed the hope that this recommendation will lead to more discussion
between the landlord and the tenant.
Friedman stated that his main concern is the rent increase's financial impact on the
tenant as the factor gets to the purpose of the Ordinance. He noted that the tenant did
not emphasize a concern regarding financial impact. Friedman commented that it
seems the Alameda community has come together and determined that rent increases
of 5% are reasonable. However, he understood the perspective of other Committee
members and was in agreement with their recommendation.
The Committee recommended a rent increase of $90 (3.6%) effective September 12,
2016. Motion and second (Schrader and Landess) and unanimous consent.
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-09-07,3,"Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
September 7, 2016
b. Case 435 - 941 Shorepoint Ct. #F314
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
c. Case 441 - 941 Shorepoint Ct. #F111
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
d. Case 442 - 941 Shorepoint Ct. #F106
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
e. Case 444 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E323
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
f.
Case 446 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E317
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the
unit.
g. Case 448 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E306
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
h. Case 450 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E304
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
i.
Case 455 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E226
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-09-07,4,"Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
September 7, 2016
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
j.
Case 461 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E113
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
k. Case 463-909 - Shorepoint Ct. #D322
The case was postponed to the RRAC meeting on October 3, 2016.
1.
Case 472 - 344 Westline Dr. #C305
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
m. Case 475 - 300 Westline Dr. #B229
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
n. Case 476 - 330 Westline Dr. #B427
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
O. Case 478 - 344 Westline Dr. #C202
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
p. Case 480 - 344 Westline Dr. #C209
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
q. Case 487 - 300 Westline Dr. #A313
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-09-07,5,"Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
September 7, 2016
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
r.
Case 488 - 310 Westline Dr. #B 101
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
S.
Case 490 - 310 Westline Dr. #B 103
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
t.
Case 497 - 300 Westline Dr. #A216
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
u. Review and approve proposed amendments to the Rent Review Advisory Committee's
Rules and Procedures
Staff summarized amendments in Rules & Procedures based on Committee comments
and feedback from the August 1, 2016 RRAC Regular Meeting.
Members requested additional amendments:
1) Item B.3., Maintenance of Membership. Amended to strike the phrase ""whether
excused or not unexcused."" Motion and second (Schrader and Friedman), passed
unanimously.
2) Item C.3.b., Officers. Concern about who is responsible for archiving and
retaining audio recordings. Staff clarified and the concern was withdrawn.
3) Item D, Duties of the Committee. Concerns about the using the term ""mediation""
as that word does not appear in the Ordinance or Alameda Municipal Code.
Members agreed it is important that their Rules & Procedures match the
Ordinance verbiage exactly.
Motion and second (Schrader and Landess) to strike ""The purpose of the
hearing is to endeavor to settle rent increase disputes through mediation
between parties."" and ""when the parties have not reached an agreement
through mediation"".
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-09-07,6,"Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
September 7, 2016
Motion and second (Schrader and Sullivan-Sariñana) to strike ""If an
agreement by mediation does not occur,""
Both motions passed by Sullivan-Sariñana, Friedman, Landess, and Schrader
in favor, Griffiths abstain.
4) Item E., Meetings
Motion and second (Friedman and Schrader) to amend ""the Chair may
grant such a request"" to ""the Chair shall grant such a request.' Sullivan-
Sariñana, Friedman, Landess, and Schrader in favor, Griffiths abstain.
5) Item H., Rules of Order
Members requested clarification for the reason ""Motion to table"" was
removed from the Rules & Procedures. Staff explained removing the
paragraph did not limit the conduct of the Committee. Members withdrew
concern.
Sullivan-Sariñana, Friedman, Landess, and Schrader in favor, Griffiths abstain, to
approve the Rent Review Advisory Committee's Rules and Procedures with amendments
from September 7, 2016.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
No additional public comment.
8. MATTERS INITIATED
a.
Sullivan-Sariñana stated he would like to invite City Council members to future
RRAC meetings.
b. Staff confirmed the Rent Program's monthly report will be emailed Committee
members.
9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (None)
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on October 3, 2016.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-09-07,7,"Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC
September 7, 2016
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-10-03,1,"Approved Minutes
October 3, 2016
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, October 3, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana, Vice-Chair Landess; and Members Griffiths and
Schrader.
Absent: Member Friedman
Vacancy: None
RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kaufman
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff recommended that items 7-E (Case 528), 7-B (Case 463), 7-C (Case 524), 7-D (Case
525), and 7-F (Case 529) be addressed next because tenants for the listed cases were not
present.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a.
The Program Administrator and ECHO Housing are co-hosting Fair Housing trainings in
the coming months. Registration for trainings can be found on the Rent Program's website
www.alamedarentprogram.org.
b. Staff has developed an information brochure for tenants and landlords regarding new
regulations and protections under Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148. Landlords must
provide the brochure to tenants by October 15th
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and
tenant/landlord mediation services.
b. No additional public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.
Approval of the Minutes of the September 7, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Approved by unanimous consent. Motion and second (Griffiths and Schrader).
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS (None)
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-B. Case 463 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D322
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit.
7-C. Case 524 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D323
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-10-03,2,"Approved Minutes
October 3, 2016
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
7-D. Case 525 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D325
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
7-E. Case 528 - 941 Shorepoint Ct. #F225
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the landlord and some, but not all, of the tenants
agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. The landlord attended the meeting, however, the
tenant who had not yet signed an agreement was not in attendance. Hence, the Committee
took no action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid.
7-F. Case 529 - 941 Shorepoint Ct #F313
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
7-A. Case 499 - 1429 Bay Street #A
Tenant/public speaker: Ryan B. Fanene
Landlord/public speaker: Daniel Barber
Proposed rent increase: $307 (15%), effective date delayed until RRAC review
Mr. Fanene explained that the rent increase review was postponed one month due to
personal health circumstances. He stated that he pays separate additional bills for utilities
and this rent increase would be a financial hardship because his income increases around
2 - 3% annually. Therefore, at most he would be able to pay an increase between 5 - 6%.
Mr. Barber clarified that he pays for exterior lights, gas, and water for all the units and the
tenant pays for the unit's electricity and gas. He stated that he is nervous about not being
able to increase the rent under future City regulations. Moreover, he is near retirement and
will be relying more directly on the income. Additionally, he is anticipating costly repairs
because the building is aging. He also noted that the current rent is below market value.
Member Schrader noted the unit has 3-bedrooms and two occupants. Schrader asked about
the possibility of adding another tenant to the unit to share rent costs. Mr. Barber responded
that he would want to raise rent if there are more tenants. A representative from ECHO
Housing explained there are fair housing guidelines around occupancy standards. Mr.
Fanene explained that he is open to finding another tenant to share costs. Regardless if
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-10-03,3,"Approved Minutes
October 3, 2016
there is an additional roommate, Mr. Fanene stated he believes an increase of 5% is
reasonable for the unit.
Member Griffiths acknowledged the frequency of previous rent increases, noting there was
an 8% rent increase in October 2015. Mr. Barber explained there have been improvements
on the property and future repairs are still needed. Mr. Barber also expressed concern that
future local regulations may make it difficult for him to raise rent. Moreover, he does not
intend to raise the rent by a large amount next year.
After some discussion, the parties reached an agreement of $150 (7.3%) rent increase,
effective November 1st, 2016. The Committee confirmed that Mr. Barber and Mr. Fanene
were agreeable to the arrangement. The Committee unanimously passed a recommendation
upholding the parties' agreement. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths).
7-G. Case 535 - 867 Oak St
Tenant/public speaker: Kelli Martin
Landlord/public speaker: Carl Babcock
Proposed rent increase: $400 (33.3%) effective on November 1st, 2016
Ms. Martin stated the proposed rent increase felt excessive. In addition to the large amount
proposed this year, the tenant explained that she received two rent increases last year in
2015. She noted that for 7 years she has lived in the unit, paying rent on time or early each
month and believes she is a good tenant. Ms. Martin also explained that her fiancé now
lives in the unit, though his income is irregular. She shared that her goal is to eventually
move-out and live in a larger space. In addition, Ms. Martin stated she did not believe many
of the units the landlord researched to estimate market-rent are comparable to hers.
Mr. Babcock stated that he is retired and the unit accounts for a large portion of his income.
He explained that he feels he should have a fair return on the unit and the market rate for a
comparable unit averages about $400 above the current rent. In addition, Mr. Babock noted
that in previous years he did not raise the rent because the tenant informed him that she
planned to move-out soon.
Member Schrader acknowledged that an increase of 33% is significant. He also noted that
the landlord did not raise the rent for around five years, prior to 2015. Vice-chair Landess
asked Mr. Babcock and Ms. Martin about options for the tenant to pay utilities and lowering
the amount of the rent increase.
There was discussion around costs associated with a new tenant and clarification on the
difference between market rent for new tenants and current tenants. Mr. Babcock proposed
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-10-03,4,"Approved Minutes
October 3, 2016
that he would continue paying utilities and offered a rent increase of $200. Ms. Martin
agreed with the arrangement.
The Committee unanimously passed a recommendation upholding the parties' agreement
of a rent increase of $200 (16.7%) effective November 1st. Motion and second (Griffiths,
Schrader).
7-H. Case 536 - 725 Santa Clara
Tenant/public speaker: Michael Jak
Landlord/public speaker: Alice Descovich
Proposed rent increase: $236.50 (10.0%), effective on October 7, 2016
Mr. Jak stated the proposed rent increase would be a financial burden for his family. He
explained that the previous year the rent was raised 10%. Consequently, a 10% rent
increase again in 2016 would be unsustainable. In addition, the tenant stated his family's
income may decrease while living expenses continue to rise. He feels 0% rent increase is
appropriate after the 10% increase last year, though he already made an offer to the landlord
of 5%, which the landlord refused.
Ms. Descovich explained that she is retired and relies on rent from this unit for her income.
She explained she is responsive to maintenance issues and believes the downtown location
adds value to the unit. She also explained she spent significant amount of money to repair
the unit before the current tenants moved-in.
Mr. Jak responded to Ms. Descovich that the previous tenants' damages and costs to repair
the unit before he moved-in are not his responsibility. Moreover, he did not believe repairs
to the unit were major capital improvements. Mr. Jak stated that the most he could afford
would be a 5% increase.
Parties discussed various rent increase options between 5% and 8.8%. Ms. Descovich and
Mr. Jak reached an agreement of a rent increase of $175 (7.4%) on a month to month basis
effective November 7th. The Committee unanimously passed a recommendation upholding
the parties' agreement. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana, Landess).
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2
No additional public comment.
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-10-03,5,"Approved Minutes
October 3, 2016
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Staff clarified the purpose of this item.
b. Member Schrader commended the efforts of staff.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 9, 2016.
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-11-09,1,"Approved Minutes
November 9, 2016
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Present were: Vice-Chair Landess; and Members Friedman, Griffiths, and Schrader.
Absent: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana
Vacancy: None
RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kaufman
2. AGENDA CHANGES (None)
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a.
Staff announced that based on information from the Registrar of Voters Office, unofficially
Measure L1, a City Council sponsored measure concerning rent review, rent stabilization
and limitations on evictions has been approved by the voters. The Registrar, however, is
continuing to count votes and the results concerning Measure L1 will not be certified until
early December. More information can be found on www.alamedarentprogram.org
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the October 3, 2016 Regular Meeting. Approved by unanimous
consent. Motion and second (Schrader and Griffiths).
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS (None)
7. NEW BUSINESS
a.
Case 544 - 310 Westline Dr #B313
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $135 (5.0%) effective 11/11/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $817 (30.1%) effective 11/11/16; Under review
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-11-09,2,"Approved Minutes
November 9, 2016
b. Case 555-915 - Shorepoint Dr #E106
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $135 (4.7%) effective 11/22/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $286 (9.9%) effective 11/22/16; Under review
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
c. Case 559 - 941 Shorepoint Ct #F231
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $32 (1.6%) effective 11/19/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $136 (6.6%) effective 11/19/16; Under review
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
d. Case 561 - 941 Shorepoint Ct #232
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $60 (2.5%) effective 11/30/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $174 (7.3%) effective 11/30/16; Under review
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
e. Case 565 - 941 Shorepoint Ct #F221
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $92 (5.0%) effective 11/19/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $1845 (43.8%) effective 11/19/16; Under review
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
f. Case 567 - 442 1/2 Pacific Ave
Tenant/public speaker: Rasheed Shabazz
Landlord/public speaker: Truyen Dang
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-11-09,3,"Approved Minutes
November 9, 2016
Proposed rent increase: $500 (35.8%) effective 12/1/16
Note: Staff received information that the delivery of the rent increase notice may not be in
accordance with State law. Both parties were notified of this concern and referred to seek legal
advice. The City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance does not stipulate requirements on delivery of
notices. The Program Administrator does not have authority to enforce deficiencies under certain
State law requirements.
The tenant, Mr. Shabazz, stated the maximum rent increase he would be able to pay is
$69.00 (4.9%). Mr. Shabazz explained the proposed rent increase would be a substantial
financial burden because currently he spends around 45% of his income on rent. He
estimated that he would likely have to move if the rent was raised to the proposed
amount. He noted that he has not received additional services or amenities with this rent
increase. The tenant explained that he has lived in the unit for 11 years and emphasized
the value of long-term tenancy. Mr. Shabazz also stated that this increase is a retaliatory
response to an invalid termination notice served in December 2015.
The landlord estimated that the fair market value for a 2-bedroom unit with a separate
single car garage is around $2,200. Hence, he stated the proposed rent remains under fair
market value. Mr. Dang explained that he has worked very hard over his lifetime and is
looking for a fair return on his property. He is retired and relies on this income to provide
for his family. He stated that he does not want the tenant to move. Mr. Dang emphasized
that he has a great deal of respect for Mr. Shabazz and this increase is not retaliatory.
Member Schrader noted that rents for long-term tenants are often lower than those for a
new tenant. Member Friedman asked Mr. Dang if there are any large costs of operation
causing him to request such a large rent increase. Mr. Dang said he considers his operating
costs to be normal.
Mr. Dang explained that while his proposed rent increase is below the market rate, he
would consider lowering the increase to $400 (28.6%). He stated that this is the lowest
increase he could consider.
Member Griffiths asked about the possibility of adding a roommate to the unit, noting there
is currently one tenant residing in a 2-bedroom unit. Mr. Shabazz stated that he is open to
adding a roommate. Mr. Dang stated adding a roommate would not be possible. Member
Friedman emphasized that adding a roommate could allow the landlord to receive higher
rent while also reducing the financial burden on the tenant.
Staff clarified that the tenant and landlord have the option to pause the meeting and speak
privately.
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-11-09,4,"Approved Minutes
November 9, 2016
Public Comment, Agenda Item 7-F:
Name: Caitlin Grey
The speaker stated she is a tenant in Alameda. She stated that Mr. Shabazz shared a great
deal of personal financial information. She stated that she had wanted the landlord to share
more budgetary information such as the number of units owned, overall income, and
overall costs.
Name: Maria D. Dominguez
The speaker stated she is from the Alameda Renter's Coalition. She emphasized that the
rights of low income people of color are at risk. The speaker stated that landlords consider
mortgages, repairs, and profit in determining rent. She stated that transparency from both
parties is needed. The speaker expressed her support for Mr. Shabazz.
Name: Lester Dixon
The speaker said he has known Mr. Shabazz for many years. The speaker stated that Mr.
Shabazz is an integral part of the community. He emphasized the importance of keeping
communities together and that the consequences of a tenant leaving Alameda are
irreversible. He explained that the proposed rent increase is a large shock.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement. The Committee discussed a binding
recommendation for the rent increase.
Member Griffiths stated that the tenant is a valuable member of the community. He
also emphasized the landlord's refusal to consider allowing another roommate in
the unit. Griffiths recommended an increase of $69.00 (near 5%).
Member Friedman thanked the public speakers for their participation. He stated that
it is hard to understand such a large rent increase without more financial
information from the landlord. He emphasized the landlord's refusal to consider
allowing another roommate in the unit and the tenant's inability to pay a higher
rent. Friedman recommended an increase of 3%.
Member Schrader explained that it is difficult for the unit to be so far below the
market rate. He also noted the proposed rent is a significant increase. Referencing
the intent of the Ordinance and the financial burden on the tenant, Schrader
recommended an increase of 5%.
Vice-Chair Landess stated that the proposed increase is difficult to absorb. She
noted that while landlords face many expenses, it is important to address these
through gradual rent increases. Landess recommended an increase of 5%.
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-11-09,5,"Approved Minutes
November 9, 2016
The Committee recommended a rent increase of $69.00 (4.9%) effective December 1, ,
2016. Motion and second (Griffiths and Schrader) and unanimous consent.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and
tenant/landlord mediation services.
b. No additional public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED (None)
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on December 5, 2016.
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-12-05,1,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2016
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, December 5, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.
Absent: Member Vice-Chair Landess
Vacancy: None
RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a.
Staff recommended that items 7-B (Case 583), 7-C (Case 584), 7-D (Case 590), 7-E (Case
591), 7-F (Case 593), and 7-G (Case 595) be addressed first because tenants for the listed
cases were not present. Approved by unanimous consent. Motion and second (Schrader
and Griffiths).
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff announced that there will be an event open to the public at the Alameda City Council
Meeting on December 6, 2016 from 5pm to 8pm. Alameda residents will have the
opportunity to speak with staff about specific issues relating to terminations and rent
increases.
b. The next Committee meeting will be Wednesday, January 11, 2017. More information is
available at www.alamedarentprogram.org.
c.
This meeting has a new room arrangement with a private area for parties interested in
discussing an agreement.
d. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and
procedures for public comment.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the November 9, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Friedman and Schrader). Approved by Members Friedman, Griffiths, and
Schrader. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana abstained.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-12-05,2,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2016
7-B. Case 583 - 330 Westline Dr., Unit B425
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $50.00 (2.0%) effective 12/16/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $359.00 (14.2%) effective 12/16/16; Under review
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
7-C. Case 584 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C111
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $50.00 (2.6%) effective 12/16/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $353.00 (17.4%) effective 12/16/16; Under review
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
7-D. Case 590 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A204
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $140.00 (5.0%) effective 12/26/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $924.00 (32.8%) effective 12/26/16; Under review
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit.
7-E. Case 591 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D207
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $142.00 (4.9%) effective 12/29/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $925.00 (32.0%) effective 12/29/16; Under review
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
7-F. Case 593 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F102
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $125.00 (5.0%) effective 12/16/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $831.00 (33.0%) effective 12/16/16; Under review
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-12-05,3,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2016
7-G. Case 595 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F310
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $123.00 (5.0%) effective 12/28/16; No review
Month-to-month agreement - $819.00 (33.1%) effective 12/28/16; Under review
No review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action
and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
7-A. Case 576 - 1226 Broadway, Unit A
Tenant/public speakers: Blanca Alberts, Ann Petitjean, Michael Bracamontes
Landlord/public speakers: Joseph Cervelli Sr., Joe Cervelli Jr.
Proposed rent increase: $2000.00 (200.0%), effective date January 1, 2017
This rent increase request was originally scheduled for the November 9, 2016 Rent Review
Advisory Committee meeting. The review was postponed one month to the December Rent
Review Advisory Committee meeting.
Mr. Bracamontes stated the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase the tenant, Ms.
Alberts, would be able to pay is $50.00 (5.0%). He explained that Ms. Alberts is 74 years
old and has lived in the unit for 36 years. He explained Ms. Alberts is on a fixed-income
and that the proposed rent increase would have a significant financial impact. He noted
there have been long standing habitability issues in the unit that have affected Ms. Alberts'
health. He explained there was an understanding that in exchange for Ms. Alberts not
asking for repairs, Mr. Cervelli would not increase rent. He noted that Ms. Alberts has paid
for many repairs herself. Mr. Bracamontes stated that the current rent increase is in
retaliation for the tenant's requests to make repairs to the property and her successful
defense against a previous termination of tenancy.
Mr. Cervelli Jr. stated that the landlord, Mr. Cervelli Sr., had offered to meet privately
before the Committee meeting. However, the tenant was only willing to meet at the
attorney's office in San Francisco, which as a burden for his elderly father. He stated there
was never an understanding that Mr. Cervelli Sr. would not increase rent if Ms. Alberts did
not ask for repairs. He stated that his father was unaware of habitability concerns in the
apartment and would have repaired them if he had known. He also explained that within
the last five years, when habitability issues were brought to his attention, repairs and
improvements were made such as a new refrigerator, new carpeting, and a remodeled
bathroom. Mr. Cervelli Jr. estimated the median rent for a comparable unit to be $3,600.00.
He stated that a there have been increases in overall costs, such property taxes, utilities,
and building insurance. He stated that his father is asking for a fair and equitable return on
investment. He emphasized that this increase is not retaliation. Rather, this increase is a
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-12-05,4,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2016
consequence of Mr. Cervelli Sr. avoiding conflict and not increasing rent for a long period
of time, noting eighteen years have passed since the previous increase.
Parties also discussed maintenance issues and a 2015 notice of termination of tenancy that
was dismissed in April 2016.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that $2,000.00 is a very large increase for the tenant, but
that the return on investment to the landlord is likely non-existent. Member Griffiths asked
Mr. Cervelli what return on investment he needs to keep the apartment habitable and
provide a fair return. Mr. Cervelli responded that an increase of $1,000.00 is close to what
is needed.
Member Schrader asked Ms. Alberts what she can afford to pay. Ms. Alberts responded
that she receives fixed social security income and works a part time job. She said she could
afford an increase of 5%. Member Friedman emphasized wanting to maintain Alameda's
community. He also asked the tenant to consider if her income had increased over the 36
years she has resided in the unit.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana noted that there is one tenant in a three-bedroom unit. He asked
Ms. Alberts if she had considered subletting the available rooms. She responded that she
had not considered this option, except for family who previously lived in the unit. She
noted that she feels her health issues limit her ability to handle the stress of subletting the
rooms.
Staff clarified that the case was nearly at its time limit. Staff reminded parties of their option to
discuss privately in another room and parties agreed to discuss privately. The Committee motioned
to table the item, approved by unanimous consent. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana
Griffiths).
After private discussion, parties were unable to reach an agreement. Staff summarized the tenant
and landlord's conversation to provide information for the Committee's binding recommendation:
Tenant increased the amount she would be able to afford, ultimately stating that
$1,200 is the maximum monthly increase the tenant could pay. The tenant
emphasized this is the most that she could afford based on her fixed income. She
also restated that subletting would not be an option based on her current health
situation.
Landlord stated he was open to allowing rooms in the apartment to be sublet. The
landlord expressed that it would be possible to increase the rent from $1,000 to
$1,500 as opposed to his original request of $3,000.
Member Friedman noted that this case was an anomaly in that such a long period has passed
without a rent increase. He also addressed that social security payments have consistently
increased around 2-3% for the last few decades and stated that $1,000 eighteen (18) years
ago is equal to about $1,500 today. Based on these figures, he expressed that a $1,500 rent
seemed reasonable.
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-12-05,5,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2016
Member Schrader noted that CPI since 1980 has increased 3.3% per year. He stated that
raising the rent to $1,500 calculates to around a 2.2% annual rent increase or 2/3 of the CPI
increase. Based on these numbers, Schrader also stated that $1,500 rent appeared
reasonable. He noted that it appeared that the landlord was willing to be flexible to resolve
this issue. He also stated that the people with the best understanding of what is reasonable
rent are the tenant and the landlord.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed concern for situations like this one where there is a long
history of no rent increase and then a significant increase at once. He also noted concern
that $500 may be an unaffordable monthly increase for someone on a fixed income and the
Committee's role is to reduce harm to tenants and keep people in their homes.
Member Griffiths brought up the subletting option, noting the difficulty that the tenant
stated this was not a realistic option based on her health circumstances. He expressed the
consideration and flexibility the landlord had with offering this option. Member Griffiths
supported the rent increase to $1,500 with the option remaining open for the tenant to sublet
rooms when her health improves.
Staff noted the Committee members have the option of phasing a rent increase. Member
Schrader suggested the Committee could use this option by raising the rent to what the
tenant said was affordable and phasing a second rent increase later, allowing the tenant
time to adjust to the increase.
Member Friedman stated that there is an option for either party to appeal the decision of
the Committee.
The Committee recommended a rent increase of $200.00 to a monthly rent of $1,200.00, effective
January 1, 2017 followed by a $300.00 increase to a monthly rent of $1,500.00, effective June 1,
2017. The Committee also strongly encouraged the landlord to allow the tenant the option to sublet
available rooms in the apartment. Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Approved by
Members Friedman, Griffiths, and Schrader. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana voted no.
7-H. Case 581 - 1909 Cambridge Dr.
Proposed Rent Increase: $508.00 (22.0%), effective January 1, 2017
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit.
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-12-05,6,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2016
7-I. Case 596 - 1334 Fernside Blvd.
Proposed Rent Increase: $880.00 (28.4%), effective February 1, 2017
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit
and the landlord submitted paperwork that the rent increase had been rescinded.
7-J. Case 598 - 1537 Schiller St., Unit C
Proposed Rent Increase: $120.00 (10.0%), effective January 1, 2017
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 5-10%.
7-K. Case 599 - 2224 Encinal Ave.
Tenant/public speaker: Rachael Bigelow, Emily Casey, Rose Wantugu
Landlord/public speaker: Elisabeth Middelberg
Proposed rent increase: $194.00 (9.2%), effective date delayed until RRAC review
Staff noted that a rent increase in December 2015 was not in compliance with the City's Urgency
Ordinance no. 3140 (later amended with Ordinance no. 3143), which imposed a temporary
moratorium on rent increases of 8% or more from November 5, 2016 to March 30, 2016. This
limited the December 2015 rent increase to $156.00. As such, the current base rent cannot exceed
$2,106.00. Documentation was submitted to the Program Administrator that the additional
collected rent has been credited to the tenant.
The tenants, Rachael Bigelow, Emily Casey, Rose Wantugu, stated that the maximum
reasonable rent increase would be $39.00 (1.9%). Tenants stated that they received a rent
increase of 10.0% (corrected to 8%) in December 2015 and the landlord's proposal to again
raise rent near 10% poses a financial burden to them. Tenants also emphasized that
comparing their rent to market rate missed the fact that their unit was not comparable in
amenities to many other units. They stated that aside from window and refrigerator
replacement, there have not been improvements to the unit warranting a rent increase. They
stated that the landlord's upkeep on the ground floor unit does not benefit their unit.
Tenants also noted that property taxes for Ms. Middelberg have decreased.
Elisabeth Middelberg, the landlord, stated she offered a rent increase of 7.5% earlier that
day. She stated that she considers the current rent to be below the market rate, especially
with parking and garbage included in the rent. She explained that the tenants' unit benefits
from improvements to the unit below, such plumbing maintenance, pest control and
upgraded parking availability. She also explained that overall costs have increased,
including property taxes, maintenance costs, and repairs needed on the ground floor unit.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-12-05,7,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2016
Additionally, Ms. Middelberg stated that she is a renter and is experiencing rent increases
that have a financial burden on her.
The tenants noted that communicating to Ms. Middelberg about maintenance issues had
been difficult. They stated that more transparency from Ms. Middelberg about operating
costs would help them better understand the reasoning behind rent increases.
Parties discussed various rent increase options between 2.0% and 7.5%. Tenants stated the
highest increase they could afford would be $105.00 (5.0%). Landlord stated the lowest
increase she could afford was $120.00 (5.7%). Committee members emphasized how close
the two parties were to an agreement.
Griffiths proposed the option to phase the increase with a portion effective this month and another
portion effective six months later. Parties discussed the amount and effective date of the option of
phased rent increases. Parties reached an agreement of a rent increase equal to $105.00 to a
monthly rent of $2,211.00, effective December 1, 2016 followed by an increase of $15.00 to a
monthly rent of $2,226.00, effective May 1, 2017. Motion and second (Schrader, Griffiths),
unanimously approved.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a.
Member Friedman requested that the Committee hold a special meeting to discuss Rent
Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148. Staff confirmed that a special meeting would be
scheduled.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
thing
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on January 11, 2017.
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-11,1,"Approved Minutes
January 11, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Member Vice-Chair Landess; and Members
Griffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.
Absent: None
Vacancy: None
RRAC Staff: Claudia Young
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. None.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a.
Staff announced that there will be a special meeting of the Rent Review Advisory
Committee on January 12, 2017 at 6:30pm. Staff clarified that the Committee will not
review cases at this meeting. Rather, the special meeting will be held to discuss Ordinance
no. 3148 as it relates to the Rent Review Advisory Committee,
b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and
explaining procedures for public comment.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the December 5, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Schrader and Landess). Approved by unanimous consent.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Case 582 - 2007 Lincoln Ave., Unit C
Proposed rent increase: $55.00 (5.0%), effective December 1, 2016
No Committee review. Case postponed one month to the February 6, 2017 RRAC meeting.
Page 1 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-11,2,"Approved Minutes
January 11, 2017
7-B. Case 624-344 - Westline Dr., Unit C205
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $124.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $676.00 (26.7%); Under review
Effective date delayed until Committee Review
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-C. Case 629- - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Unit E319
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $43.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $350.00 (16.2%); Under review
Effective date delayed until Committee Review.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-D. Case 640.1 - 1537 Schiller St., Unit D
Proposed rent increase: $110.00 (10.0%), effective February 1, 2017.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a
rent increase between 5.1-10%. -
7-E. Case 651 - 1721 St. Charles St.
Tenant/public speakers: Monica Vehryzka
Landlord/public speakers: Harold Nelson
Proposed rent increase: $ 150.00 (12%) effective March 1, 2017
Staff noted that the landlord filed a request to raise the rent in 2016. The rent increase was found
invalid as it did not comply with regulations. The landlord rescinded the rent increase. The current
Ordinance provides that after a rent increase is found invalid, a landlord may proceed with a rent
increase request if a new notice, in compliance with regulations, is served on the tenant.
The tenant, Ms. Vehryzka, stated the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase would be $62.50
(5.0%). The tenant explained that she has limited income that is not increasing as fast as her rent.
She also stated that the landlord did not provide her with documents required by Ordinance
no. .3148. She explained that she has been a good, long-term tenant and considers Alameda her
home.
The landlord, Mr. Nelson, stated that there have only been two rent increases in the past six years
and the current rent does not cover maintenance and mortgage costs. The landlord explained that
he considers the market rent for comparable units to be $1,700.00 to $1,800.00. Mr. Nelson
expressed concern about his income as he nears retirement. He explained that the unit was re-
painted, and received upgraded the flooring as well as new appliances when the tenant moved in.
Page 2 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-11,3,"Approved Minutes
January 11, 2017
He explained that the procedures for rent increases were difficult to follow. He stated that the
Bay Area is an expensive place to live and that he should not be responsible for the tenant's
income. Member Friedman noted that the Committee is concerned about affordability. The
landlord stated he did not want to raise the rent by less than 10.0%.
Staff clarified that there is currently no hard cap on rent increases in the City of Alameda.
The Committee unanimously passed a motion to extend time on the case by 10 minutes. Motion
and Second (Griffiths and Landess).
Public Comment:
Erick Strimling: Mr. Stimling noted that a rent of $1,150 in 2014 gave the landlord an
adequate rate of return. He questioned the landlord's consideration that an additional
$3,000.00 of rent per year was a reasonable rate of return.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement. The Committee discussed a binding
recommendation for the rent increase.
Member Griffiths recommended an increase of $62.50 immediately followed by an
increase of $62.50 in six months. He explained that he generally prefers stepped increases
since they give the tenant time to adjust to an increase and place only a temporary burden
on the landlord. He also noted that the Committee should make a recommendation that has
the best chance of being accepted by both parties.
Member Friedman noted that both sides have valid perspectives. He emphasized the
tenant's financial constraints and the landlord's cost constraints after years of not raising
rent. He favored a 5.0% increase now, followed by a 5.0% increase in six months. He noted
that this has the best chance of being accepted.
Vice-Chair Landess emphasized that she thought the tenant raised important concerns. She
noted that the landlord did not take the opportunity to show more empathy for the tenant's
situation. In addition, she noted that the landlord lacked transparency in his documented
costs. She stated that a 5.0% increase is fair.
Member Schrader stated that a 10.0% increase would be reasonable since it averages out
to an increase of less than 3.0% per year since the last rent increase. However, he stated he
would support a 5.0% increase now, followed by a 5.0% increase in six months.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana noted that both parties have reasonable positions. He emphasized
that the intent of the Ordinance is to keep Alamedans in their homes. He explained that
stepped increases can cause confusion. Thus, he favored an 8.5% increase.
The Committee unanimously recommended a rent increase of $62.50 to a monthly rent of
$1,312.50, effective March 1, 2017 followed by a $62.50 increase to a monthly rent of $1,375.00,
effective September 1, 2017. Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman).
Page 3 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-11,4,"Approved Minutes
January 11, 2017
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Member Friedman noted that he will submit a discussion outline to Staff for the
Committee's January 12th Special Meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
and
RRAC Secretary
Claudia Young
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 6, 2017.
Page 4 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-12,1,"Approved Minutes
January 12, 2017
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, January 12, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:39 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Friedman, and Schrader.
Absent: Member Vice-Chair Landess, Member Griffiths
Vacancy: None
RRAC Staff: Claudia Young
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Member Friedman proposes canceling the RRAC meeting.
Discussion:
Member Friedman stated that input from three of the Committee members is less valuable
than input from four or five of the members.
Member Schrader stated that if the purpose of the meeting is to provide Committee input,
the entire Committee should be present to discuss.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed concern that not all Committee members were present.
However, he suggested continuing the meeting in order to meet the deadline of providing
input for the City Council to review. He believed that providing some input is better than
canceling the meeting and possibly providing no input. He also suggested that the absent
members hold a separate meeting to discuss their input. He noted that the three present
members represent the tenant, landlord, and homeowner perspectives, which may not
happen again with a rescheduled meeting.
Staff clarified that City Council will consider input at the March 7, 2017 meeting and will
then give direction to staff. Staff also noted that the Committee meeting would need to be
rescheduled before the end of January in order to provide input.
Motion and second to cancel the RRAC meeting and reschedule for a time when a quorum of
members can attend (Friedman and Schrader). Motion passes with Members Friedman and
Schrader voting yes, Chair Sullivan- Sariñana voting no.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Page 1 of 2",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-12.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-12,2,"Approved Minutes
January 12, 2017
a. Staff announced that there will be informational workshops explaining the City of
Alameda's Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 on January 19th and January 26th More
details can be found online at www.alamedarentprogram.org.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Speaker: Maria Dominguez
Speaker commended staff efforts to make forms available online and hoped there would
be further automation in the future. She is concerned that tenants and landlords are not
asked the same questions by the Committee. She also suggested that there be a way for the
public to contact the Committee members with feedback and input.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A Committee members to discuss Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
The meeting was postponed to a later date. Staff will reschedule the meeting.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Member Schrader asked how the public can contact Committee members. Staff stated that
the personal contact information of Committee members is not disclosed. However, the
public can send feedback to staff who will forward it to the Committee member.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Claudia Young
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 6, 2017.
Page 2 of 2",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-12.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-24,1,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, January 24, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:24 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.
Absent: Vice-Chair Landess
Vacancy: None
RRAC Staff: Claudia Young
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Motion and second to add public comment as item 7-B (Schrader and Griffiths). Approved
by unanimous consent.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a.
Staff clarified that the Committee will not review cases at this meeting. Rather, this special
meeting is held for Committee members to discuss Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the
Rent Review Advisory Committee.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Committee members to discuss Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Vice-Chair Landess had submitted questions prior to the meeting. The City Attorney responded
to these inquiries and staff shared the input.
Q: Why is Base Rent Year defined as 2015?
A: Base Rent Year becomes relevant and important when calculating Net Operating Income
because a Landlord's Net Operating Income in any particular year is compared to the
Landlord's Net Operating Income in the Base Rent Year-2015--which was the year before
rent control went into effect. That is, there is a presumption that if a Landlord's NOI say, in
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-24,2,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
2017, is the same as the NOI in 2015, then the Landlord is receiving a fair return on
investment and no rent increase is necessary in order to receive a fair return on investment.
Q: Please explain the discussion of Debt Service?
A: Debt Service is referred to in 'Costs of Operation' and is excluded from a Landlord's
Costs of Operation. Costs of Operation is part of the Net Operating Income formula, i.e.,
gross revenues less the Cost of Operation.
Q: Please provide more clarify that Notices and Materials to be Provided to Current and
Prospective Tenants, (section 6-58.20) is a one-time requirement for existing tenants.
A: There is nothing in Section 6-58.20 to indicate or suggest that providing these materials to
a
current tenant must occur other than with the Landlord's first receipt of rent following
March 31, 2016. Since presumably Landlords have now received rent from the tenants who
were in the units at the end of March 2016, I am proposing to revise subsection B of Section
6-58-20 so that subsection A is applicable only for prospective tenants.""
Committee members discussed the Ordinance following Member Friedman's suggested outline:
1. Should mediation remain part of the Rent Review Advisory Committee meeting?
Member Friedman stated that he does not consider the RRAC process to be mediation.
Particularly, the Committee members are not professional mediators and the meetings are not
private. He raised concern that the process may place pressure on a tenant to sign an
unfavorable agreement. Friedman suggested that an advocate be present at meetings to inform
tenants there is no obligation to sign agreements. He suggested that an option for mediation
be offered prior to the Committee meeting.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana acknowledged that the Committee's dual role as mediator and
decision-maker is challenging. He noted that the Program Administrator is already offering
private mediation and this service is helpful. He also expressed the difficulty that often parties
attend the Committee meetings prepared to argue before a third-party decision maker and this
dynamic can make compromise difficult. Sullivan-Sariñana also addressed that there is an
uneven balance of power in a tenant and landlord relationship. He suggested that requiring
mediation prior to the Committee meeting may provide the tenant more support in the
situation.
Member Griffiths stated he believes the Committee's mediation role is useful. He expressed
concern that a mandatory mediation may place an unwarranted burden on one of the parties.
He recommended that private mediation prior to the Committee meeting remain optional.
Member Schrader stated that the Ordinance does not explicitly include the term ""mediation.'
Schrader considers mediation during the RRAC meeting useful because the parties are often
motivated to reach an agreement. He suggested that optional, professional mediation be
offered prior to the Committee meeting. Additionally, the Committee should reduce the time
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-24,3,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
spent on mediation and focus more time on questions and determining the Committee's
decision. He reiterated that Committee members are not professional mediators.
Staff explained the Program Administrator's role in processing rent increase submission
through the scheduling of the rent increase review before the RRAC.
The Committee recommended that mediation and the RRAC process be defined in the
Ordinance. Additionally, the Committee recommended that optional mediation prior to the
RRAC meeting be encouraged.
2. Should rent increase criterion from Section 6-58.125 be included in the Committee's criteria
when deciding a rent increase?
Member Friedman listed the criteria in Section 6-58.85 (B) under consideration by the
Committee in determining rent increases. He stated that ""just and reasonable rate of return""
should be more clearly defined and that market rate should not be included in the
Committee's consideration. He suggested adding ""maintenance of Net Operating Income
for the Base Year as adjusted by inflation over time provides a Landlord with a just and
reasonable rate of return on property"" to the Committee's criteria.
Member Schrader noted that the flexibility of the Committee's criteria is important;
especially in cases when a landlord had not raised rent for many years. Member Griffiths
agreed that more flexibility is better. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that the Committee
and the Hearing Officer play different roles. Hence, different criteria should be considered.
No recommendation from the Committee.
3. Should 5% remain the threshold for a Landlord Request for Rent Review? Should increases of
5% or less receive a binding decision from the Committee?
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that 5% is an arbitrary threshold and has a significant impact
on the negotiation. He expressed concern that this threshold limits discussion because many
landlords expect at least a 5% increase.
Staff clarified that tenants can contest rent increases of 5% or less by contacting the
Program Administrator.
Member Griffiths noted that many cities relate rent control to inflation. Member Schrader
stated that the Bay Area's housing cost inflation is 4.8%. Member Schrader also noted that
the 5% threshold affects what data is collected more than it affects whether or not a case
comes before the Committee.
Member Griffiths noted 5% is a good threshold because it captures large rent increases,
rather than every increase. However, he expressed concern that the Committee has not seen
a tenant-initiated case for several months. He raised concern that the tenant may not believe
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-24,4,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
they have power to challenge increases of 5% or less because the Committee's decision is
non-binding. He recommended that the Committee have binding authority for all non-
exempt unit cases.
Member Schrader agreed and clarified that state law prevents municipalities from making
binding decisions for certain units. He agreed it would be positive for the Committee to
have binding authority on all non-exempt units, rather than being seen as a procedural
process for increases of 5% or less.
Member Friedman agreed with the previous statements. He added that currently he believes
a landlord can work around a Committee recommendation of less than 5%. He explained
that if a landlord disagrees with a Committee recommendation of less than 5%, the landlord
could rescind the current notice and serve a new notice equal to 5%, which would not
receive a binding decision by the Committee.
Staff stated that removing the rent increase percentage threshold for binding decisions may
increase the Committee's caseload and additional staffing may be necessary.
Member Schrader stated he would prefer to review those cases, even if it meant an
increased caseload. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana agreed.
The Committee recommended that the Committee have binding authority for any non-
exempt unit initiated by a tenant.
4. In some situations, two rent increases are offered simultaneously. This requires review if at
least one offer is above 5%. Should lease options be limited?
Member Schrader stated that the RRAC should not limit lease options. Chair Sullivan-
Sariñana noted that offering a large month-to-month rent increase option is a way to
pressure tenants into accepting a 5% rent increase.
Staff clarified that multiple lease options are generally only seen at one property and month
to month options are directed towards corporate leases. Staff explained that tenants
receiving more than one rent increase offer are contacted by the Program Administrator.
However, staff has found that most of these tenants do not contact staff back and usually
accept one of the rent increase offers or chose to vacate the unit.
No recommendation from the Committee.
Motion and second to take a five minute break (Sullivan-Sariñana and Schrader). Unanimously
approved.
5. Should the Ordinance allow short-term rentals without the offer of a one year lease option?
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-24,5,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Member Schrader stated that this is not related to the Committee's role. Staff clarified that
any Committee member can email their recommendations as a private citizen to the City
Attorney's Office.
No recommendation from the Committee.
6. The Rent Review process and the Hearing Officer can be used to delay a rent increase as long
as possible. Should we recommend changes?
Staff clarified that no case has been appealed and reviewed by the Hearing Officer.
No recommendation from the Committee.
7. Should language be added to clarify when a case is withdrawn from the RRAC process?
Member Schrader recommended that the Ordinance clarify there is no RRAC review of
rent increase submissions when an agreement between tenant and landlord is reached prior
to the RRAC meeting.
Member Griffiths and Chair Sullivan-Sariñana agreed it should be clear that the Committee
does not make decisions on rent increases when the tenant and landlord have already
reached an agreement.
The Committee recommended to add language to section 6.58-75 (D) that states a rent
increase request is considered closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process when the
Program Administrator receives an agreement between a tenant and landlord concerning
the amount of the rent increase.
8. Should language be added to require all data on rent increase submissions to be shared
publicly?
Member Friedman stated that the phrase ""terms of agreement"" in section 6.58-75 (D)
indicates that the exact terms of an agreement must be reported to the Program
Administrator. Member Schrader added that data collection is an important part of the
Ordinance.
Staff clarified that currently any private agreement between tenant and landlord must
state the terms of agreement by indicating a percentage range: 0-5%; 5.1-10%; or above
10%. Staff reports of all rent increase submissions are available on
www.alamedarentprogram.org
No recommendation from the Committee.
Staff summarized the Committee's recommendations:
Professional mediation be offered and encouraged prior to the RRAC meeting
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-24,6,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
RRAC decisions to be binding for tenant-initiated non-exempt unit cases
Add language to Section 6.58-75 (D) that states a rent increase request is considered
closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process when the Program Administrator
receives an agreement between a tenant and landlord concerning the amount of the rent
increase.
7.b. PUBLIC COMMENT
Erick Strimling: Speaker stated that he has never seen the mediation process work at a
Committee meeting. He noted that many tenants and landlords are exhausted by the
process. He explained that mediation is a well-defined term and should be facilitated
by a professional prior to the Committee meeting. He stated many tenants feel
pressure to sign rent increase agreements. He noted that tenants are often hesitant to
submit requests for rent increase reviews before RRAC because they do not want to
risk the relationship with their landlord. He suggested that staff always explain
options to each tenant and landlord in separate meetings prior to any mediation. He
stated that tenants should not be penalized for selecting a month-to-month option.
Additionally, he emphasized that data is needed and the terms of agreements for all
cases submitted to the Program Administrator should be public information.
Toni Grimm: Speaker stated that she appreciates the time and thoughtfulness of the
Committee. She expressed disappointment that the Hearing Officer's criteria was
not added to the Committee's criteria. She stated that the same criteria should be
applied to each case.
Ed Paul: Speaker thanked the Committee for their work. He stated that the Committee
process appears to be working. He noted that the process seems to be addressing
the situation when an excessive rent increase is reported.
Motion and second for the following recommendations (Schrader and Griffiths). Approved by
unanimous consent.
Mediation be offered and encouraged prior to the RRAC meeting
RRAC decisions to be binding for tenant-initiated cases with non-exempt units
Add language to Section 5.58-75 (D) that if the Program Administrator receives an
agreement between a tenant and landlord regarding a rent increase, then the case is
considered closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process.
Staff clarified that these recommendations will be sent to the City Attorney and will be
presented to City Council.
Motion and second for Chair Sullivan-Sariñana to present the Committee's recommendations
at the City Council meeting. (Griffiths and Schrader). Approved by unanimous consent.
8. MATTERS INITIATED
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-01-24,7,"Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
a. None
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Claudia Young
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-06,1,"Approved Minutes
February 6, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, February 6, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Vice-Chair Landess; Members Griffiths, Friedman
Absent: None
Vacancy: One Landlord member
RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney Staff: Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. None.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a.
The next Committee meeting will be Wednesday, February 22, 2017. More information is
available at www.alamedarentprogram.org.
b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and
explaining procedures for public comment.
4.
PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.
Approval of the Minutes of the January 11, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess). Unanimously approved.
b. Approval of the January 12, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Friedman). Unanimously approved.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Case 582 - 2007 Lincoln Ave., Unit C
Tenant: Heather Reed and Eric Strimling as designated representatives for tenant, Sia Sellu
Landlord: John Galleto
Proposed rent increase: $55.00/month increase, effective December 1, , 2016
Page 1 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-06,2,"Approved Minutes
February 6, 2017
Committee members asked for clarification concerning the role of the tenant advocates. They
verified they were authorized on behalf of Ms. Sellu to agree to a rent increase of $25.00/month
and do not have authority beyond that. Mr. Roush stated that the representatives' participation on
behalf of the tenant satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance that the tenant appear at the RRAC
meeting.
Mr. Strimling explained that Ms. Sellu was interested in resolving this matter privately with the
landlord but the landlord was not open to that suggestion. Ms. Reed explained that Ms. Sellu can
only accept a small increase due to her disability and her fixed income. Ms. Sellu does not consider
the quality of the unit to warrant a $55.00/month increase. She noted that Ms. Sellu likes living in
Alameda and considers it her home. Ms. Reed also explained that the stress of the rent review
process has negatively affected Ms. Sellus health.
The landlord, Mr. Galleto, explained that the building is operating at a loss and that the unit's rent
is
below market rate. He said he is willing to reconsider the amount of the rent increase if the
tenant provides documentation to demonstrate her claim that she us unable to pay the $55.00
increase. He clarified that he would need to see the type of documentation associated with a typical
rental application.
The tenant advocates stated Ms. Sellu would be willing to complete a rental application form but
wanted to ensure that her medical information would not be used against her and that her tenancy
would not be terminated.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana emphasized that the goal of the Committee is to facilitate discussions
between a tenant and a landlord in order to reach an agreement between the tenant and landlord.
When parties are unable to reach an agreement, the Committee shifts from facilitators to making
a recommendation regarding the amount of the rent increase. Mr. Roush added that the tenant and
landlord may still negotiate an agreement after the Committee recommendation.
Member Friedman recommended postponing the case to allow both parties an opportunity to
negotiate. The tenant advocates stated that Ms. Sellu would like a decision this evening. The
Committee agreed to make a recommendation.
Vice-Chair Landess expressed concern for both parties. She acknowledged that it appeared
this rent increase and review process have been stressful for the tenant. She also stated that
the landlord expenses have increased. She recommended that a $55.00 (5%) is reasonable.
Member Friedman noted that landlord included in the rent increase calculation costs related
to a reserve fund to be used when a termination requires relocation assistance fees. While
he noted this is a real cost, he did not agree that the landlord's calculation of these costs
were reasonable and did not agree that the costs justify a 5% increase. In addition, he noted
that he does not believe the landlord's mortgage costs are valid factors in calculating a rent
Page 2 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-06,3,"Approved Minutes
February 6, 2017
increase. Taking in good faith the comments of the tenant, he asserted that it appears the
5% increase poses a financial burden on the tenant. He recommended a $33 (3.0%)
increase.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana noted that he is taking the comments of the landlord and tenant in
good faith. He summarized that the tenant expressed she is unable to pay the 5% increase
and the landlord stated he would reconsider the amount of the rent increase if the tenant
provides documentation of her inability to pay the higher rent. In addition, the tenant
representatives stated the tenant would be willing to provide the requested documentation.
Therefore, he stated that it appears both parties may be able to work out an agreement of a
$25 increase when the requested documentation is provided by the tenant. Thus, he
recommended a $25 (2.3%) increase.
Member Griffiths stated that he recognizes the tenant is facing a hardship with this rent
increase. He also noted that he appreciates that the landlord has a history of reasonable
rent increases. While he agrees with Member Landess that 5% is a reasonable increase for
the landlord, he also acknowledged the tenant is a difficult situation. He recommended an
increase of $25.00 (2.3%) and encouraged parties to meet privately so that the landlord's
requested documentation could be provided by the tenant.
Motion and second for Committee to recommend an increase of $25.00 (2.3%) effective March
1st, 2017 (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Passed with Sullivan-Sariñana, Griffiths, and Friedman
voting yes and Landess voting no.
Motion and second for 5 minute recess (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess). Unanimously approved.
7-B. Case 653 - 43 Sandpiper Pl.
Proposed Rent Increase: $480.00 (15.1%), effective March 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-C. Case 683 - 871 Oak St.
Proposed Rent Increase: $1,000.00 (50.0%), effective March 15, 2017
Review was postponed to the February 22, 2017 Committee meeting.
7-D. CASE 655 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A101
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $60.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $785.00 (25.7%); Under review
Effective date: 2/16/2017
Page 3 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-06,4,"Approved Minutes
February 6, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation
to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-E. CASE 656 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A102
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $60.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $785.00 (25.7%); Under review
Effective date: 3/1/17
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation
to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-F. CASE 657 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A112
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $101.00 (4.8%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $538.00 (25.8%); Under review
Effective date: 2/6/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-G. CASE 659 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B207
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $82.00 (2.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $771.00 (27.2%); Under review
Effective date: 2/17/17
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation
to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-H. CASE 660 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B213
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $73.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $959.00 (26.1%); Under review
Effective date: Delayed until RRAC review.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation
to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-I. CASE 661 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B315
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $64.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $842.00 (26.1%); Under review
Effective date: Delayed until RRAC review.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
Page 4 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-06,5,"Approved Minutes
February 6, 2017
7-J. CASE 663 - 330 Westline Dr., Unit B329
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $105.00 (4.7%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $552.00 (25.0%); Under review
Effective date: 2/5/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-K. CASE 664 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C115
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $101.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $538.00 (26.4%); Under review
Effective date: 2/21/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
7-L. CASE 665 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C119
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $43.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $497.00 (22.6%); Under review
Effective date: 2/20/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
7-M. CASE 666 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C223
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $44.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $502.00 (22.6%); Under review
Effective date: 2/9/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase of 15.0%.
7-N. CASE 668 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D214
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $39.00 (1.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $657.00 (33.0%); Under review
Effective date: 2/18/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
Page 5 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-06,6,"Approved Minutes
February 6, 2017
7-O. CASE 669 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D216
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $46.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $355.00 (15.2%); Under review
Effective date: Delayed until RRAC review.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-P. CASE 670 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D316
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $112.00 (5.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $406.00 (18.1%); Under review
Effective date: Delayed until RRAC review.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation
to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-Q. CASE 672 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Unit E230
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $122.00 (4.8%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $732.00 (28.5%); Under review
Effective date: 2/10/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-R. CASE 673 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Unit E309
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $54.00 (1.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $713.00 (26.7%); Under review
Effective date: 2/19/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-S. CASE 675 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F203
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $102.00 (5.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $541.00 (26.3%); Under review
Effective date: 2/17/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
7-T.CASE 676 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F303
Page 6 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-06,7,"Approved Minutes
February 6, 2017
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $46.00 (1.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $517.00 (21.6%); Under review
Effective date: 2/23/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
7-U. CASE 677 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F328
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $117.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $701.00 (29.2%); Under review
Effective date: Delayed until RRAC review.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation
to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-V. CASE 679 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Unit G201
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $57.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $756.00 (26.1%); Under review
Effective date: 2/22/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation
to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-W. CASE 680 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Unit G308
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $124.00 (5.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $741.00 (29.9%); Under review
Effective date: 2/12/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to
choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.
7-X. CASE 681 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Unit G314
Proposed rent increases:
12-month lease - $66.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $441.00 (32.9%); Under review
Effective date: 2/10/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-Y Discuss Committee members' attendance at the March 7, 2017 City Council meeting to
represent recommendations passed at the January 24, 2017 RRAC special meeting
Page 7 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-06,8,"Approved Minutes
February 6, 2017
Staff shared an update that the City Council meeting to review the Ordinance will not be held in
March. Staff will update the Committee when the exact date is known. City Attorney staff
confirmed that he will forward the Committee recommendations, approved January 24, 2017, to
all Committee members for review prior to the City Council meeting.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana confirmed that he will attend the meeting to present the Committee's
recommendations. He encouraged other Committee members to attend the meeting as well.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and tenant-
landlord mediation services.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana suggested setting aside time at an upcoming meeting to discuss
the criteria the Committee uses in determining a reasonable rent increase. He requested that
the City Attorney's Office provide guidance for that discussion. Staff confirmed that this
matter will be agendized in a future Committee meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 6, 2017.
Page 8 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-22,1,"Approved Minutes
February 22, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Vice-Chair Landess; Member Griffiths
Absent: Member Friedman
Vacancy: Housing Provider member
Program Administrator staff: Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney staff: Michael Roush
Translation staff: Haiyan Chen
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. None.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. The next Committee meeting will be Monday, March 6, 2017. More information is
available at www.alamedarentprogram.org.
b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and
procedures for public comment. Staff noted there is translation at tonight's meeting and the
Committee will adjust as needed.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting.
Vice-Chair Landess noted that she will abstain from this vote as she was not in attendance at
the January 24, 2017 meeting. Staff recommends continuing this item to the next meeting until
three members are able to vote on the item. Motion and second to continue this item to a future
Committee meeting (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Approved by unanimous consent.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 683 - 871 Oak St.
Tenant: Merin Lund
Landlord: Lori Hanson, Daniel Cheung
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-22,2,"Approved Minutes
February 22, 2017
Proposed Rent Increase: $1,000.00 (50.0%), effective March 15, 2017
This rent increase review was originally scheduled for the February 6, 2017 Rent Review Advisory
Committee meeting. The review was postponed two weeks to the February 22, 2017 meeting. Staff
researched the number of housing units on the property and determined that there is only one
housing unit; therefore the rent increase is exempt from a binding decision.
The tenant, Merin Lund, stated that there should be no rent increase. Ms. Lund stated that the rent
increase is not warranted given the property's current condition. She also noted that the rent was
raised $500.00 in March 2016 and $100.00 the previous fall. These previous increases have been
a financial burden on her and she is not in a position to pay for an additional increase in the amount
requested by the landlord. Additionally, Ms. Lund has several concerns regarding maintenance of
the property. In July 2016, she said mold had been discovered in the unit and she remains
concerned that the efforts to eliminate the mold have not been successful. Ms. Lund stated that she
believes the large rent increase is in retaliation of her raising concerns about the mold to the
landlord. She noted that she would prefer to live in a unit that was healthy for her family and that
she does not have full use of the property because the landlord uses some space for storage and
occasionally stays in a shed in the back of the property. Ms. Lund said that she has been a good
tenant for the eight years she has resided at the property.
The landlord, Ms. Hanson, stated that the rent increase will raise rent to comparable rates for
similar units. The landlord noted that she considers rent of similar units to range between $3,000
and $3,200. She explained that the increase is also related to her interest in seeking a reasonable
return on the property; currently, she noted that she has not yet made a profit on the property. In
addition, Ms. Hanson explained the rent increase was necessary for recent and projected capital
expenses for the property including foundation work, window repair, gutter repair, mold removal,
and yardwork. She said there had been a temporary reduction in rent of $200 for several months
in 2016. She stated that she is a diligent landlord and follows up on maintenance and code
enforcement issues.
Mr. Cheung, the attorney for Ms. Hanson, explained that the rent increase is necessary to cover
maintenance costs. He suggested postponing the increase to give the tenant a chance to search for
a new unit.
Ms. Lund stated she was open to this option but would need at least 4 or 5 months to search for
new housing.
Mr. Cheung stated that postponing the rent 4 months while the tenant searched for a new unit
would be acceptable to the landlord. He suggested that the rent increase to $3,000.00 become
effective March 15th, but not be enforced for 4 months. If the tenant does not vacate the unit at the
end of the 4 months, the tenant would owe the amount of the rent increase ($1,000) for the 4
months it was delayed. Mr. Cheung explained that he could draft an agreement to ensure those
conditions enforceable.
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-22,3,"Approved Minutes
February 22, 2017
Staff clarified the current base rent is $2,000.00.
Ms. Lund explained that while it is possible for her to vacate in four months, she is concerned
about owing back rent if she cannot vacate in time.
Mr. Cheung suggested a full and early return of Ms. Lund's security deposit to facilitate the moving
process.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement.
The Committee made the following non-binding decision:
The $1,000 (50.0%) rent increase from $2,000 to $3,000, effective March 15, 2017, is
delayed four months to provide the tenant the opportunity to search for new housing.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Unanimous approval.
7-B Case 648.1 - 1715 Sherman St., Unit B
Tenant/Public speakers: Ernest Yip and Cai Hong Zhang
Landlord/Public speakers: Wai Cheung [with representative for translation]
Translation staff: Haiyan Chen
Proposed Rent Increase: $450.00 (32.1%)
The tenants stated the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase should be $100.00 (7.1%). Mr.
Yip explained that they have been willing to negotiate and offered the landlord a $120.00 (8.6%)
rent increase. He explained that the proposed $450.00 increase would be a financial burden. He
expressed concerns regarding his current job security and provided earnings statements to
demonstrate only a small raise last year. The tenants noted that they currently pay for water and
electricity in addition to rent. In addition, the tenants stated they do not believe it is fair to average
the increases over the previous 10 years. The tenants also noted several maintenance issues, such
as peeling exterior paint and mold concerns.
The landlord, Mr. Cheung, explained that the rent had not been raised for 7 years. He explained
that when all the increases are averaged over the entire tenancy, there is about a 2% increase per
year. Mr. Cheung indicated that the rent increase is related to keeping up with costs of operation
and inflation, such as utilities, maintenance bills, and property taxes. He explained that the
property was poorly managed in its early years and he now seeks to manage it better and raise
the rent closer to market rate. Mr. Cheung indicated that a 2 bedroom unit payment standard for
the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is equal to $2,390. Mr. Cheung noted that he
quoted this rate for reference and was not asking for the rent to be $2,390.00.
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-22,4,"Approved Minutes
February 22, 2017
Mr. Cheung offered to reduce his increase request to $300.00 (21.0%), for a total rent of
$1,700.00.
The tenants offered to pay $140.00 (10.0%) rent increase, for a total rent of $1,540.00. The tenants
expressed concern about maintenance issues such as a leaking roof.
The landlord clarified that he had fixed the roof but will re-inspect it immediately. The landlord
explained that he is very invested in maintaining the property.
Mr. Cheung explained that he does not have more room to negotiate because another unit in the
building agreed to a rent increase. He expressed that he wants to be fair to all tenants and charge
the same rent for all units.
The tenants explained that they pay for water while the other tenants do not. Therefore, charging
the same rent is not treating each tenant equally.
Staff clarified that each unit has a separate rental history and a separate agreement around
amenities. Therefore, reasonable rent is determined for each unit separately.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement.
Member Griffiths acknowledged that the current rent appears less than market rates. However, he
noted that this rent increase is not consistent with the landlord's previous rent increase requests.
While the landlord reduced his request from $450 to $300, Member Griffiths noted that $300 is
still a significant jump to absorb at one time. Member Griffiths also stated that even though the
tenant offered to pay a $140.00 (10%) increase, this amount of an increase is still very significant
to absorb at one time. Therefore, he stated he would be most comfortable with a rent increase of
$120.00 (8.6%).
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that this is a difficult situation with a very large rent increase
following a long period of no increases. He noted that the original $450.00 increase request is not
in line with the landlord's previous increases of $50.00 and $100.00. He explained that he believes
the reduced offer to a $300 increase is also unreasonable. He explained that the purpose of the
Ordinance is to keep Alameda renters in their homes. He recommended a $140.00 (10.0%) rent
increase.
Vice Chair Landess asked City Attorney staff to clarify the purpose of the Ordinance.
Mr. Roush explained that the Ordinance may not specifically indicate its purpose as keeping
Alameda renters in their homes. Rather, the Ordinance looks to keep rents in a posture to be
affordable for individuals to continue to live in Alameda. He noted that there is an inherent tension
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-22,5,"Approved Minutes
February 22, 2017
in keeping rents affordable for Alameda residents and providing property owners a fair return on
investment. The Committee's task is to find some balance between those tensions.
Vice Chair Landess acknowledged that prior property management set an unsustainable precedent
of not increasing rent. However, an increase of 32% ($450) is excessive. She stated that having
more information on capital improvements would have helped justify such an increase. Without
this information, she recommended an increase of $140.00 (10.0%).
The Committee recommended a rent increase of $140.00 (10.0%) from $1,400.00 to $1,540.00,
effective March 1, 2017. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess). Unanimous
approval.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
a.
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on April 3, 2017.
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,1,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, March 6, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m.
Present: Vice-Chair Landess, Members Griffiths and Friedman
Absent: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana
Vacancy: Housing Provider member
Program Administrator staff: Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney staff: Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a.
Staff requested that the Committee address item 7-Z first to allow for translation services.
Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Approved by unanimous consent.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and
procedures for public comment. Staff noted there is translation at tonight's meeting and the
Committee will modify logistics, as needed.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and tenant-
landlord counseling services.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting.
Motion and second to continue this item to a future Committee meeting when three
members who attended the January 24, 2017 meeting are present. (Griffiths and Friedman).
Approved by unanimous consent.
b. Approval of the Minutes of the February 6, 2017 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Friedman and Griffiths). Approved by unanimous consent.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS (None)
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-Z. Case 691.1 - 1526 Verdi St., Unit E
Tenant: Khurelbaatar Janchivdorj, Enkhlen Khurelbaatar (Providing translating)
Landlord: Robert Cliff, Cathy Cliff
Page 1 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,2,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
Proposed rent increase: $300 (23%), effective date delayed until RRAC review
Staff announced that the landlord submitted additional documents after the agenda was published.
These documents are available in the agenda packet at the back of the room. Staff also stated that
the tenant's daughter is providing translation for the evening and professional phone translation
will be available, if needed.
The tenant, Khurelbaatar Janchivdorj, explained that this increase would pose a significant
financial burden on his family. He stated that he had recently lost his job and does not have a stable
income. He acknowledged there had been seismic improvements to the building and that there had
not been a rent increase for four years. He proposed a rent increase of $200.00 (15.4%), explaining
that he is searching for employment and he has always paid rent on time.
Staff asked if Mr. Khurelbaatar preferred to continue translation with his daughter, Ms.
Khurelbaatar, or if he would prefer to use a professional translator via phone. Mr. Khurelbaatar
confirmed he preferred translation with his daughter and staff ended the phone call with the
professional translator.
The landlord, Mr. Cliff, stated that the unit's rent is below market rate. He believed that market
rate for a comparable unit is near $1,800. He explained that there had been costly capital
improvements and repairs to the unit, such as seismic upgrades, securing walls, and repairing leaks.
Mr. Cliff also noted that the business is currently operating at a loss. He explained that the income
from this unit is an essential part of his retirement income. Mr. Cliff stated that $1,600.00 was that
lowest rent increase he could accept.
Vice Chair Landess noted that the parties may not have had the chance to discuss the rent increase
in person since they live in different cities. She emphasized that this meeting is an opportunity for
the parties find an arrangement that works for both of them.
Member Friedman noted that the tenant has been very transparent about what his family can afford.
Member Griffiths proposed a stepped rent increase.
Member Friedman suggested a stepped rent increase of $200.00, followed by a $100.00 increase
some months later.
The parties discussed the timing of the rent increase and a potential stepped increase the following
year. The landlord stated that if the rent increased $300 this year, he expected to raise rent no more
than 5% the following year.
The parties agreed to a $300 rent increase with $100 delay for 10 months. The landlord stated he
intends to raise the rent no more than 5% the following year.
Member Griffiths recommended that the Committee take action to confirm the parties' agreement
of a rent increase of $300.00 (base rent $1,300 to $1,600) effective April 1, 2017, with $100 of the
Page 2 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,3,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
$300 deferred until January 1, 2018, i.e., effective April 1, 2017 the rent would be increased from
$1300 to $1500 and on February 1, 2017, the rent would increase to the full $1600. Motion and
second (Griffiths, Friedman). Approved by unanimous consent.
7-A. Case 684.1 - 1815 Broadway, Unit B
Tenant: Latricia Amadeo
Landlord: Karry Kelley-Cahill, Sean Kelley-Cahill
Proposed rent increase: $100 (4.9%), effective date February 1, 2017
The tenant, Ms. Amadeo, stated that she does not believe a rent increase is warranted because there
are maintenance issues at the property. Specifically, she noted that she did not have a working
heater for much of the year. She explained that she would be open to a rent increase if the landlord
was responsive to outstanding maintenance issues.
The landlord, Mr. Kelley-Cahill, stated that the unit's rent is below the market rent for comparable
units. The landlord explained that this increase is related to covering the costs of taxes and recent
major repairs at the property. He expressed that he is good landlord and involved in the Alameda
community. Additionally, the landlord explained that he was responsive to maintenance issues
when he was notified of the issue.
After discussion between the parties, they were unable to reach an agreement as to the amount of
the rent increase.
There was public comment on the agenda item.
Public Comment
Speaker: Heather Reed
The speaker stated that community participation is crucial to the City's Rent
Stabilization Ordinance. She emphasized the importance for landlords and tenants to
listen to each other and to avoid having the review become an adversarial meeting.
The Committee began its deliberations. :
Member Friedman stated that he does not support any increase because the landlord was
not willing to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way.
Vice-Chair Landess stated that the tenant is within her right to request a review of the rent
increase and she also believes that the $100 rent increase is reasonable. She recommended
an increase of $100.
Page 3 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,4,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
Member Griffiths acknowledged that the landlord has the authority to impose the $100 rent
increase because the percentage is below 5%. He recommended that the rent increase be
$100.
Motion and second to approve a rent increase of $100.00 (Griffiths and Landess). Vice-Chair
Landess and Member Griffiths voted to approve the motion. Member Friedman voted against the
motion and therefore the motion did not pass.
The Committee did not reach a decision as to the amount of the rent increase but because the rent
increase was below 5%, any decision the Committee would have made is non-binding.
7-B. Case 741 - 1220 Park Ave., Unit C
Tenant: Barbara Maerz, Eric Strimling
Landlord: Harold R. Vanderlaan
Proposed rent increase: $700 (43.9%), effective April 1, 2017
The tenant, Ms. Maerz, stated that the maximum reasonable monthly increase would be $79.75
(5.0%). She stated that she has lived at the property for over 26 years and is member of the Alameda
community. Ms. Maerz expressed that she has been a good tenant by paying rent on time and
quickly notifying the landlord about maintenance issues. She stated that the rent increase process
has been stressful and intimidating. She explained that the $700.00 increase is a financial burden
for her. She also explained that the quality of the unit has not been upgraded to the quality of
market rate units; as such, she does not believe such a large increase is warranted.
The landlord, Mr. Vandelann, stated that his father purchased the property as an investment. He
explained that the property's income is primarily used to cover his mother's costly medical
expenses. He expressed that he is not profiting from this rent increase, rather he is looking to
support his mother with her medical payments. Additionally, the rent increase will help to cover
the costs of maintenance, such as carpet replacement and plumbing repairs. He stated that while
his parents managed the property, the unit's rent was not increased for many years. He noted that
the property manager commented that the unit's rent was below market rate. Mr. Vandelann
expressed that even with the rent increase, the unit's rent would remain below market rate. He
suggested implementing a stepped increase of 14.6% over three years. As another option, the
landlord offered that the tenant could sublease the two available bedrooms in the apartment.
Ms. Maerz stated that she would not feel comfortable adding a stranger as a subtenant, but might
be open to adding a friend or family member in the future, though does not currently know a friend
or family member looking for housing. She also explained that she is not open to a stepped
increase.
Page 4 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,5,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
Eric Strimling, tenant representative, referenced the landlord's submitted documents and noted
that the landlord states his expenses have increased 5% and his rental income has increased 30%.
Mr. Strimling commented that this data demonstrates the landlord is already receiving sufficient
profit from his property; hence, the proposed $700 increase is not warranted. He urged the
Committee to consider the tenant's perspective and not recommend an increase that is halfway
between the tenant's and landlord's offers.
The tenant offered to pay a $127.60 (8%) rent increase.
The landlord noted that the moratorium last year limited the amount he could raise the rent. He
expressed his concern with keeping ahead of his mother's medical bills and upcoming repairs. He
restated that the tenant has the option to have a roommate. With that said, he agreed he would
accept an 8% rent increase.
There was public comment on the agenda item.
Public Comment
Speaker: Pamela Jordan
The speaker stated that she is a resident of Alameda and is speaking to address several concerns
that have arisen for her while listening to the conversation between the landlord and tenant.
She noted that the tenant's rent has increased about 27.6% over the previous three years, which
is greater than 5% each year. Additionally, she noted that it is a best practice to replace carpets
every 10 years and it is reasonable for the tenant to request carpet repairs after 25 years of
residency. She requested the Committee consider the guidelines of the Ordinance and limit the
rent increase to 5%.
Speaker: Heather Reed
The speaker stressed that long-term tenants are integral to the community. Additionally, she
noted that she questions if offering the tenant an option to have roommate is reasonable for the
current situation.
The Committee moved to confirm the parties' agreement of a $127.60 (8.0%) rent increase,
effective April 1, 2017. Motion and second (Griffiths and Landess). Approved by unanimous
consent.
7-C. Case 699 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A105
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $305.00 (16.0%); Under review
12 month offer - $90.00 (4.7%): No review
Effective date: 4/1/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
Page 5 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,6,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
7-D. Case 702 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B112
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $284.00 (16.3%): Under review
12 month offer - $84.00 (4.8%); No review
Effective date: 4/1/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-E. Case 705 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C124
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $365.00 (11.9%); Under review
12 month offer - $59.00 (1.9%); No review
Effective date: 3/21/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-F. Case 704 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C117
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $302.00 (17.8%); Under review
12 month offer - $82.00 (4.8%); No review
Effective date: 4/1/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-G. Case 708 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C219
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $330.00 (16.8%); Under review
12 month offer - $98.00 (5.0%); No review
Effective date: 3/23/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation
to the landlord that the tenant will vacate the unit.
Page 6 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,7,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
7-H. Case 709 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C327
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $358.00 (16.2%); Under review
12 month offer - $90.00 (4.7%): No review
Effective date: 4/1/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-I. Case 714 - 909 Shoreline Court, Unit D314
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $284.00 (13.9%); Under review
12 month offer - $39.00 (1.9%); No review
Effective date: 3/2/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-J. Case 718 - 915 Shoreline Court, Unit E201
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $352.00 (16.3%); Under review
12 month offer - $104.00 (4.8%); No review
Effective date: 3/17/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-K. Case 719 - 915 Shoreline Court, Unit E204
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $358.00 (16.5%); Under review
12 month offer - $106.00 (4.9%); No review
Effective date: 3/12/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-L. Case 720 - 915 Shoreline Court, Unit E209
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $409.00 (15.7%); Under review
Page 7 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,8,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
12 month offer - $130.00 (5.0%); No review
Effective date: 3/30/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation
to the landlord that the tenant will vacate the unit.
7-M. Case 721 - 915 Shoreline Court, Unit E215
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $330.00 (16.0%); Under review
12 month offer - $98.00 (4.8%); No review
Effective date: 3/24/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-N. Case 722-915 Shoreline Court, Unit E335
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $334.00 (15.0%); Under review
12 month offer - $108.00 (4.9%); No review
Effective date: 3/14/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-O. Case 724 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F202
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $404.00 (15.3%); Under review
12 month offer - $129.00 (4.9%); No review
Effective date: 3/7/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-P. Case 725 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F211
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $301.00 (13.6%); Under review
12 month offer - $44.00 (2.0%); No review
Effective date: 3/13/2017
Page 8 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,9,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-Q. Case 726 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F307
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $355.00 (16.2%); Under review
12 month offer - $107.00 (4.9%); No review
Effective date: 3/21/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-R. Case 727 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F329
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $292.00 (14.8%); Under review
12 month offer - $39.00 (2.0%); No review
Effective date: 3/25/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-S. Case 728 - 937 Shoreline Court, Unit G110
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $292.00 (18.4%); Under review
12 month offer - $79.00 (5.0%); No review
Effective date: 4/1/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-T. Case 731 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F213
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $342.00 (16.4%); Under review
12 month offer - $101.00 (4.9%); No review
Effective date: 3/26/2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
Page 9 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,10,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
7-U. Case 732 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F218
Proposed Rent Increases:
Month to month offer - $396.00 (15.3%); Under review
12 month offer - $126.00 (4.9%); No review
Effective date: 3/26/2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-V. Case 742 - 2031 Eagle Ave., Unit B
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 5.1-10%.
7-W. Case 752 - 1725 Eagle Ave., Unit B
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase above 10%.
7-X. Case 754 - 1907 Union Street
Committee review was postponed two weeks to the March 20, 2017 Committee meeting.
7-Y. Case 755 - 1729 Eagle Ave., Unit A
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 5. 1-10%. -
7-AA. Case 758 - 114 Keil Bay
Committee review was postponed two weeks to the March 20, 2017 Committee meeting.
7-AB. Case 760 - 2152 Alameda Ave.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 5.1-10%.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2
No additional public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Page 10 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-06,11,"Approved Minutes
March 6, 2017
a. Staff announced that the next Committee meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2017. Staff
noted that the Committee typically schedules an additional meeting for the third Monday
of the month when there is a high volume of submissions.
b. The Committee asked when the new landlord Committee member will be nominated. City
Attorney staff confirmed that the new member will likely be nominated and attend
Committee meetings starting in April.
c.
Member Friedman expressed appreciation for the night's public speakers.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.
Page 11 of 11",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-20,1,"Approved Minutes
March 20, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, March 20, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present were: Vice-Chair Landess; Member Griffiths and Friedman
Absent: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana
Vacancy: Housing provider member
RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney Staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a.
Staff noted that the tenant and landlord at 111 Crolls Garden Ct. (7-D) reached an
agreement regarding the rent increase.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and
procedures for public comment.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 758 - 114 Keil Bay
Tenant: Ifthar Awawda
Landlord: Elena Chan, Nelson Cheung
Proposed Rent Increase: $200.00 (6.9%) effective March 1, 2017
This case was postponed two weeks from the March 6, 2017 RRAC meeting. The tenant was
also approved for a reasonable accommodation and attended the RRAC meeting via phone.
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-20,2,"Approved Minutes
March 20, 2017
The tenant, Ms. Awawda, stated she did not consider any rent increase reasonable because the
rent was raised significantly the previous two years. However, she recognized the landlord has
expenses and she proposed a rent increase of $90.00 (3.1%) for a two-year lease. The tenant
noted that she pays for all utilities in the unit and has completed repairs and maintenance to
the property. The tenant acknowledged that she owes the landlord over $1,800 and that she
plans to reimburse the landlord in the next few months. The tenant stated that the proposed
rent increase would be a financial burden because her family has limited income as result of a
disability and underemployment. Ms. Awawda explained that she would like to move, but
cannot afford to. The tenant also noted she has trouble paying rent by the 5th as she does not
receive certain income by that time. In addition, it has been difficult to by the rent by cashiers'
check.
The landlord, Ms. Chan, proposed a reduced rent increase of $145.00 (5.0%). She explained
that she has worked with the tenant for the last few years, accepting late rent and noted the
tenant owes the landlord around $1,800. The landlord stated the rent increase is in effort to
have a reasonable rate of return and that the unit's rent is below the market rate. Ms. Chan
considered market rate for a comparable unit to be about $3,600. She also noted that the unit
is in good condition and that she is responsive to maintenance requests. She stated that the
increase will help to cover rising expenses related to taxes, insurance, interest rates, and
homeowner association fees. She noted that she would keep the rent due on the 8th rather than
the 5th to allow more time for the tenant to pay the rent. In addition, the landlord would create
a way for the tenant to pay rent by direct deposit.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement.
Member Friedman stated that the situation is difficult. He acknowledged that he heard the
tenant wished to move out and proposed that the landlord raise the rent less for six months
to allow the tenant time to search for housing, with the ability to raise the rent at the end of
the six months if the tenant did not vacate. The landlord did not feel comfortable with this
option.
Member Griffiths noted that the tenant was in a difficult situation and that the landlord had
put a great deal of effort to accommodate the tenant. He explained that he supports a 5.0%
increase to encourage negation between parties. He recommended that this reduced rent
increase become effective on March 1, 2017.
Vice Chair Landess acknowledged the efforts of parties to work with each other. She noted
that the landlord appears to recognize the tenant's hardship and seems to be
accommodating by allowing near $1,800 to remain as owed rent. She supported a 5.0%
increase effective March 1, 2017.
The Committee made the following non-binding decision:
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-20,3,"Approved Minutes
March 20, 2017
$145.00 (5.0%) rent increase from $2,900.00 to $3,045.00, effective March 1, 2017. The
Committee also recommended that rent be due on the 8th of each month and that the tenant
have the option to pay by direct deposit.
Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Unanimous approval.
7-B. Case 692.1 - 101 Crolls Garden Ct.
Tenant: Steve Devaney
Landlord: Kumari Judge and Steve Hofer (property manager)
Proposed Rent Increase: $82.00 (4.9%), effective March 7, 2017
Ms. Judge expressed concern that the tenant had damaged property while searching for
termites. She explained that other tenants pay $2,600 for comparable units and the rent for this
unit has not been raised for over a year. She stated that she considers an increase of 5% is
reasonable and noted that she relies on the property's income for her retirement.
Mr. Hofer explained that he has only begun working for the property in the last year and a half.
He is currently working on taking care of the maintenance issues raised by the tenant. He stated
that all health and safety issues have been addressed. He explained that the property's security
gate was updated recently. He agreed to inspect the unit and address maintenance concerns
raised by the tenant.
The tenant, Mr. Devaney, explained that he did not damage property to investigate termite and
dry rot issues. He explained that there are several outstanding maintenance and safety concerns
on the property. He stated that the landlord had committed to address these maintenance issues
at a 2015 Committee meeting and many of the issues remain unresolved. He expressed concern
for other tenants on the property who are also receiving rent increases without improvement to
the property. Mr. Devaney also stated that this increase is a financial burden for his family.
Vice-Chair Landess clarified that the Committee cannot inspect a unit to address
maintenance issues. If there the tenant would like to request an inspection, a request must
be sent to Code Enforcement, Building Department.
Member Friedman suggested that Mr. Hofer and Mr. Devaney make a schedule to address
maintenance issues.
Mr. Hofer stated that it would take six to eight months to address all concerns raised by the
tenant. However, the issues related to dry rot could be addressed in about two weekends. The
tenant stated that if the maintenance issues are addressed on the agreed schedule, he would
accept the rent increase. Both parties agreed they would work out a schedule for the repairs.
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-20,4,"Approved Minutes
March 20, 2017
The
Committee made the following non-binding recommendation to recognize the
tenant/landlord's oral agreement:
-
$81.50 (4.8%) rent increase from $1,688.50 to $1,770.00, effective April 1, 2017 (three-
week delay). The Committee also encouraged both parties to communicate and address the
maintenance concerns.
Motion and second (Griffiths and Landess). Unanimous approval.
7-C. CASE 696.1 - 107 Crolls Garden Ct.
Tenant: Michael Pacheco
Landlord: Kumari Judge and Steve Hofer (property manager)
Proposed Rent Increase: $82.00 (4.9%), effective March 7, 2017
Ms. Judge explained that other tenants are paying $2,500 for comparable units and she believes
a 5% is reasonable. She stated that she relies on the property's income for retirement. Mr.
Hofer noted that he is committed to the upkeep of the property.
Mr. Pacheco explained that the current state of the property causes him concern for his health
and safety as well as health and safety of the tenants. Mr. Pacheco also acknowledged he is
aware he can make a complaint to Code Enforcement, but hoped he could resolve the matter
without having to go that route. He noted that he has paid for many repairs in the unit. He
stated that he has worked with Mr. Hofer to establish a maintenance request system and to
diffuse tensions between other tenants and management. Mr. Pacheco noted that there is a price
and quality difference between his unit and a unit for a new tenant. He also stated that this
increase is a financial burden for his family since he is recently unemployed and much of his
time is spent caring for a relative.
Ms. Judge stated that if the tenant has receipts for his repairs in the unit, she would reimburse
him the expenses. Mr. Hofer noted that he intends to work with the tenant to address the
maintenance concerns. The landlord also agreed to delay the rent increase until April 1, 2017.
The tenant confirmed that he would be accept the increase if maintenance issues are addressed.
The Committee made the following non-binding recommendation to recognize the
tenant/landlord's oral agreement:
-
$81.50 (4.8%) rent increase from $1,688.50 to $1,770.00, effective April 1, 2017. The
Committee also recommended that the landlord address the maintenance concerns raised
by the tenant.
Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Unanimous approval.
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-03-20,5,"Approved Minutes
March 20, 2017
7-D. Case 697.1 - 111 Crolls Garden Ct.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Member Friedman noted that he will be absent at the April 4th Committee meeting.
b. Staff stated that Jeff Cambra was nominated on March 7th by the Mayor to fill the vacant
Housing Provider position on the Committee. City Council will decide whether to confirm
Mr. Cambra at City Council's March 21st meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT
a.
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-04-03,1,"Approved Minutes
April 3, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, April 3, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present were: Chair: Sullivan-Sarinana; Vice-Chair: Landess; Members Cambra and Griffiths
Absent: Member Friedman
RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney Staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff recommended addressing item 7-P first, as only the tenant for this unit was present.
Motion and second (Landess and Griffiths) Unanimous approval.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff welcomed newly appointed Committee member Jeff Cambra.
b. Staff stated that City Council will meet April 4, 2017 to review Rent Program staff's annual
report and consider amendments to Ordinance no. 3148.
c. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and
procedures for public comment.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's fair housing and tenant-
landlord mediation services.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes from the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting.
Motion and second to continue this item to a future Committee meeting when three Committee
members who attended the January 24th meeting are present. (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess)
Unanimous approval.
b. Approval of the Minutes from the February 22, 2017 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Griffiths and Sullivan-Sariñana) Unanimous approval.
c.
Approval of the Minutes from the March 6, 2017 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second to continue this item to a future Committee meeting when three Committee
members who attended the March 6th meeting are present. (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess)
Unanimous approval.
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-04-03,2,"Approved Minutes
April 3, 2017
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-P. CASE 762.1 - 1940 Franciscan Way, Unit 319
Tenant: Rhonda Jones and Shallen SoBrian (daughter)
Landlord: Judith Murray
Proposed Rent Increase: $75.00 (4.5%), effective June 1, 2017
Ms. Murray explained that she is raising rent to cover expenses such as property taxes, loan payments,
and renovations. She stated that $36.00 of the $75.00 will cover increased property taxes and she is
spending about $100 per month on property improvements. Ms. Murray also explained that she
expects to repair the parking lot in the coming year and the estimated costs are $80,000-$100,000. She
emphasized that she wants to treat tenants fairly by giving everyone the same increase.
Ms. Jones stated that she has lived in the unit for over 10 years and has always paid her rent on time.
She explained that this rent increase poses a financial burden for her and she is asking for the landlord
to recognize her situation. Her daughter, Shallen Jones, expressed concerns that the rent increase is
retaliatory given their maintenance requests.
Ms. Murray clarified that the City had shut off water to repair pipes and that this rent increase was not
in retaliation, stating every tenant receives the same rent increase. She restated her need to treat
everyone at the property the same, though recognized the tenant is in a difficult situation. She offered
an immediate return of the tenant's security deposit to accommodate the tenant's current financial
difficulty.
The tenants agreed to accept the rent increase and a full and immediate return of the security deposit.
The Committee made the following non-binding recommendation to recognize the tenant/landlord's
oral agreement:
$75.00 (4.5%) rent increase from $1,595 to $1,670, effective June 1, 2017. The Committee also
encouraged parties to discuss the oral agreement reached at the meeting for the landlord to make
a full return and immediate return of the security deposit.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñan: and Cambra). Unanimous approval.
7-A. CASE 764 - 310 Westline Drive, Unit B304
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-04-03,3,"Approved Minutes
April 3, 2017
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $72.00 (3.1%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $620.00 (26.9%); Under review
Effective date: April 15, 2017
Ms. Edwards explained that often tenants with rent increases scheduled for the Committee's review
do not attend the Committee meeting because the plan to accept the less than 5%, 12-month option,
but have not yet signed the lease. She stated that many tenants choose to negotiate privately with
property managers closer to their renewal date.
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent
increase notice.
7-B. CASE 769 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D110
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $96.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $618.00 (31.9%); Under review
Effective date: April 29, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent
increase notice.
7-C. CASE 771 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D210
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $98.00 (4.5%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $598.00 (30.5%); Under review
Effective date: April 8, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent
increase notice.
7-D. CASE 772 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D226
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-04-03,4,"Approved Minutes
April 3, 2017
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $22.00 (1.1%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $688.00 (33.0%); Under review
Effective date: April 30, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent
increase notice.
7-E. CASE 774 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D303
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $68.00 (1.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $677.00 (19.2.0%); Under review
Effective date: April 14, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-F. CASE 779 - 941 Shorepoint Court, Unit F214
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $54.00 (1.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $627.00 (22.2%); Under review
Effective date: April 20, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-G. CASE 780 - 941 Shorepoint Court, Unit F321
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $92.00 (4.7%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $602.00 (30.8%); Under review
Effective date: April 28, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation
to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-H. CASE 781 - 941 Shorepoint Court, Unit F323
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $46.00 (1.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $594.00 (25.0%); Under review
Effective date: April 26, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-I. CASE 788 - 1921 Willow St.
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-04-03,5,"Approved Minutes
April 3, 2017
Proposed Rent Increase: $1, 100.00 (84.6%), effective May 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase above 10%.
7-J. CASE 790 - 937 Shorepoint Court, Unit G313
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $80.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $586.00 (36.5%); Under review
Effective date: April 16, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent
increase notice.
7-K. CASE 792 - 915 Shorepoint Court, Unit E135
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $132.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $758.00 (28.7%); Under review
Effective date: May 1,2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-L. CASE 794 - 915 Shorepoint Court, Unit E117
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $83.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $526.00 (31.4%); Under review
Effective date: May 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-M. CASE 796 - 310 Shorepoint Court, Unit B110
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $91.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $607.00 (32.9%); Under review
Effective date: April 29, 2017
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-04-03,6,"Approved Minutes
April 3, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent
increase notice.
7-N. CASE 789 - 300 Westline Drive, Unit A110
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $86.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $561.00 (32.4.0%); Under review
Effective date: May 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-O. CASE 799 - 937 Shorepoint Court, Unit G309
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $89.00 (4.7%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $620.00 (32.8%); Under review
Effective date: May 1, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no
action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent
increase notice.
7-Q. CASE 804 - 215 Hudson Bay
a.
Case postponed one month to the May 1, 2017 Committee meeting.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. Speaker Robert Schrader explained his experience as a Committee Member and his reasons
for resigning from the Committee.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Vice-Chair Landess requested a discussion at the meeting of non-binding case reviews and
tenant absences for agenized rent increase.
b. Chair Sullivan-Sarinana requested input from other Committee members for the Committee's
recommendations to City Council at the April 4, 2017 meeting. Staff clarified that input must
be limited to clarifying items and not a full discussion of the matters as the matter was not
agendized. Per the Chair's request, staff provided information on the schedule for Ordinance
amendments to be approved by the City Council.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-04-03,7,"Approved Minutes
April 3, 2017
c. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana requested a discussion of the coming vacancies on the Committee for
the next agenda.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,1,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, May 1, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Vice-Chair Landess; Members Cambra and
Friedman
Absent: Member Griffiths
Committee Staff: Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney Staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff noted that the only tenant present at the meeting was the tenant for the agenda item
7-AF. Motion and second (Sullivan Sariñana and Landess) to hear agenda item 7-AF first.
Unanimous approval.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a.
Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and
procedures for public comment.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's fair housing and tenant-
landlord mediation services.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.
Approval of the Minutes from the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting.
Agenda item continued to a future Committee meeting when three Committee members
are present who attended or listened to the audio of the January 24th Committee meeting.
b. Approval of the Minutes from the March 6, 2017 Regular Meeting.
6. Agenda item continued to a future Committee meeting when three Committee members are
present who attended or listened to the audio of the March 6th Committee meeting.
7. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
8. NEW BUSINESS
Page 1 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,2,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
7-AF. CASE 805.1 - 2006 Santa Clara Ave.
Tenant: Roberto De La Torre
Landlord: Mortimer Howard and Felicia Howard
Proposed Rent Increase: $350.00 (12.5%) effective June 1, 2017.
Mr. Howard explained that the rent increase is an effort to earn a fair return on investment and that
the unit's rent is below the market rate. He considered market rate for a comparable unit to be
$3,400 based on his online research and conversations with real estate agents. He stated that the
quality and location of the unit contributes to its value. Mr. Howard noted that he made costly
improvements to the kitchen, floors, backyard, and roof when he purchased the property. Both Mr.
Howard and his daughter expressed a desire to reach an agreement with the tenant.
Mr. De La Torre explained there was a miscommunication with his landlord during the initial
conversation of the rent increase. He was not informed of his rights in the notice and therefore the
landlord was required to re-notice the rent increase. Mr. De La Torre stated this rent increase
request poses a financial burden for his family. He also noted that he felt pressure from his landlord
to accept the increase or move. Mr. De La Torre raised some concerns about the maintenance of
the back fence and explained that he works hard to maintain the property to the best of his ability.
He stated that an increase of $200.00 is more reasonable and affordable.
Committee members asked about the number of tenants and bedrooms. Mr. De La Torre clarified
that there are three adults and six children in the unit. He also clarified that they use two bedrooms,
a converted living room, and a finished basement as a total of four sleeping rooms. Committee
members requested that staff explain the fair housing occupancy standards. Staff described the two
people per bedroom, plus one, guidelines.
Members asked several questions of both parties to facilitate dialogue. The parties were unable to
reach an agreement.
Committee members concluded the conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation
between members to render a recommendation.
Member Friedman noted the history of rent increases: four years of 5% increases, and more
recently, two years of higher increases. He explained that the rent increase request is high,
but also that the number of occupants is also high. He stated that he would support
recommending a 10% increase.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed concern for the tenant's ability to afford the requested
increase. He explained that the requested 12% increase was very large. He added that the
Committee does not consider market rent into their recommendation. He recommended an
increase of 10%.
Page 2 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,3,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
Member Cambra expressed concern that the return on investment calculation may be
misrepresented depending on the actual number of bedrooms in the unit. He noted that the
Committee does not consider the market rent in their recommendation. He agreed that the
high number of tenants in the unit creates a burden on the property. He stated that an
increase above 5% is justified, but expressed concern about the tenant's ability to pay. He
supported an increase 10%.
Vice-Chair Landess noted that both the tenant and the landlord take pride in the property.
She agreed that the number of tenants in the unit adds to wear and tear. She supported a
10% increase with the stipulation that all the tenant's maintenance concerns are addressed.
The Committee made the following non-binding recommendation:
-
$280.00 (10.0%) rent increase from $2,800 to $3,080.00, effective June 1, 2017.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Cambra). Unanimous approval.
7-A. CASE 804 - 215 Hudson Bay
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Absent
Proposed Rent Increase: $1,525.00 (51.2%) effective March 7, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the landlord withdrew the rent increase
request. The tenant is purchasing the property.
7-B. CASE 818 - 2701 San Jose Ave.
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Absent
Proposed Rent Increase: $150.00 (7.5%) effective May 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-C. CASE 820 - 300 Westline Dr., A205
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $49.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $673.00 (27.3%); Under review
Page 3 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,4,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
Effective date: May 31, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-D. CASE 821 - 300 Westline Dr., A301
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $135.00 (5.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $680.00 (25.2%); Under review
Effective date: May 2, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-E. CASE 823 - 310 Westline Dr., B206
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $84.00 (4.7%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $592.00 (33.0%); Under review
Effective date: May 25, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-F. CASE 824 - 330 Westline Dr., B225
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $103.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $597.00 (28.8%); Under review
Effective date: May 28, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
Page 4 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,5,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
7-G. CASE 825 - 344 Westline Dr., C112
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $89.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $543.00 (30.5%); Under review
Effective date: June 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-H. CASE 826 - 344 Westline Dr., C114
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $56.00 (1.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $646.00 (22.7%); Under review
Effective date: May 10, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-I. CASE 827 - 344 Westline Dr., C211
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $94.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $588.00 (31.0%); Under review
Effective date: May 24, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-J. CASE 828 - 344 Westline Dr., C215
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
Page 5 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,6,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
12-month lease - $82.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $512.00 (31.0%); Under review
Effective date: May 17, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-K. CASE 829 - 344 Westline Dr., C227
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $82.00 (3.6%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $656.00 (28.8%); Under review
Effective date: May 23, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-L. CASE 830 - 344 Westline Dr., C228
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $105.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $642.00 (30.5%); Under review
Effective date: May 28, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-M. CASE 831 - 344 Westline Dr., C311
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $81.00 (3.6%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $655.00 (28.8%); Under review
Effective date: May 21, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written
documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
Page 6 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,7,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
7-N. CASE 832 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., D205
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $73.00 (2.6%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $677.00 (24.4%); Under review
Effective date: June 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written
documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-O. CASE 833 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., D312
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $43.00 (1.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $611.00 (28.1%); Under review
Effective date: May 6, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written
documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-P. CASE 834 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E101
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $78.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $466.00 (29.6%); Under review
Effective date: May 15, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-Q. CASE 835 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E107
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Page 7 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,8,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $109.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $576.00 (26.2%); Under review
Effective date: May 18, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-R. CASE 836 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E111
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $112.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $600.00 (26.6%); Under review
Effective date: May 24, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-S. CASE 837 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E119
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $81.00 (3.6%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $652.00 (29.1%); Under review
Effective date: May 29, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-T. CASE 838 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E206
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $115.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $615.00 (26.5%); Under review
Effective date: May 24, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
Page 8 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,9,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
7-U. CASE 839 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E214
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $113.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $604.00 (26.6%); Under review
Effective date: May 26, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-V. CASE 840 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E228
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $71.00 (3.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $594.00 (32.9%); Under review
Effective date: May 10, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written
documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.
7-W. CASE 841 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E324
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $57.00 (1.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $657.00 (22.9%); Under review
Effective date: May 26, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-X. CASE 842 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F107
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Page 9 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,10,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $88.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $550.00 (31.0%); Under review
Effective date: May 15, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-Y. CASE 843 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F117
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $69.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $461.00 (33.0%); Under review
Effective date: May 18, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-Z. CASE 844 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F129
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $37.00 (1.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $564.00 (30.4%); Under review
Effective date: May 25, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-AA. CASE 845 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F133
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $67.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $444.00 (32.9%); Under review
Effective date: May 24, 2017
Page 10 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,11,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-AB. CASE 846 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F233
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $37.00 (2.0%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $560.00 (30.4%); Under review
Effective date: May 20, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-AC. CASE 847 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F315
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $46.00 (2.4%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $571.00 (30.3%); Under review
Effective date: May 22, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-AD. CASE 848 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., G116
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $110.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $649.00 (29.3%); Under review
Effective date: May 2, 2017
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took
no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the
rent increase notice.
7-AE. CASE 849 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., G217
Page 11 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,12,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
Tenant: Absent
Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
Proposed Rent Increases:
12-month lease - $76.00 (4.9%); No review
Month-to-month agreement - $502.00 (33.0%); Under review
Effective date: May 24, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent
increase between 0-5%.
7-AG. Committee members will discuss the role of maintenance concerns as it applies to
the rent review process.
Member Cambra explained that previous Committees had used maintenance concerns as a
negotiating tool, but did not enforce maintenance agreements. He noted that maintenance
contributes to the value of the property and is relevant to the tenant-landlord discussion. Vice-chair
Landess asked staff for clarification regarding the ability of the Committee to consider
maintenance. Member Friedman noted that maintenance is relevant to the tenant-landlord
relationship.
Staff clarified that the Committee has the authority to render recommendations concerning the
amount the rent increase. In determining the reasonable amount of a rent increase, the Committee
may take into consideration maintenance concerns that result in a decrease in housing services.
However, it is not within the Committee's authority to require maintenance as a stipulation of a
rent increase.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed concern that the public may not be informed of the Committee's
scope. Member Friedman suggested that parties access mediation services or the courts to address
maintenance concerns. Vice-Chair Landess emphasized that the Committee's involvement in the
case ends when a recommendation is given.
Staff clarified that parties are given the option of free, private mediation before the Committee
meeting. Staff explained that parties can come to an agreement on their own terms and that staff
acknowledges this agreement. Staff also noted that in addition to any written documents,
agreements reached at the Committee meeting are captured in audio recording.
Vice-Chair Landess requested that staff provide additional training on the matter.
Public comment:
Speaker Toni Grimm stated that parties always run out of time during the meeting. She
explained that if tenants know maintenance issues will not be considered, they can spend
more time talking about financial burden and other important factors. She also explained
Page 12 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,13,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
that outside parties should not contact Committee members directly. She stated that these
parties should attend the Committee meetings and give public comment.
7-AG. Discussion of trends and concerns with rent increases from large properties.
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana clarified that he intended this item allow for a discussion of the
Committee's non-binding decisions for rent increases equal to or less than 5%. He noted that there
are very few tenants that bring cases to the Committee for rent increases equal to or less than 5%.
He expressed concern that tenants may be unaware of the option to request reviews and asked if
there are opportunities to communicate the RRAC process to the public. Member Friedman
suggested that the Chair write a letter to the newspaper to inform tenants of the review process.
Staff explained that the program administrator is responsible for outreach and education. Staff
summarized some of the most recent outreach efforts and the City Attorney staff identified that
the Committee's scope is specific to rent increase reviews.
Public comment:
Speaker Toni Grimm stated that she believes many tenants with increases equal to or less
than 5% do not request rent increase reviews because the Committee's decision is non-
binding. Moreover, tenants are concerned with creating a confrontational dynamic with
their landlord.
Speaker Trish Spencer stated that Committee members are welcome to attend City Council
meetings and give public comment in an effort to educate the public. She also noted that
the City Council can share information about the RRAC process.
7-AG. Upcoming opportunities to become a RRAC member.
Staff announced that two Committee member terms expire on June 30, 2017. There is currently
an open call for applications to fill one tenant and one landlord seat. More information can be
found on www.alamedarentprogram.org and by contacting the City Clerk's office. Chair Sullivan-
Sariñana expressed appreciation for the current members' service and encouraged current
members to re-apply.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
10. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Staff announced that the next Committee meeting is scheduled for June 5, 2017.
b. Staff announced that City Council will meet on May 16, 2017 to consider amendments to
Ordinance no. 3148. Vice-Chair Landess requested that staff forward the meeting agenda
to the Committee.
Page 13 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-05-01,14,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2017
c. Staff announced that Program Administrator and City Attorney staff are looking to
schedule a training for Committee members.
d. Member Friedman asked for clarification on the procedures if a member is familiar with
an individual scheduled on the agenda. Staff explained that when a Committee member is
familiar with a party, the member must notify staff prior to the RRAC meeting and staff
will give further direction.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Committee Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on July 5, 2017.
Page 14 of 14",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-06-05,1,"Approved Minutes
June 5, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, June 5, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Vice-Chair Landess; Members Cambra,
Friedman, Griffiths
RRAC Staff:
Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney Staff:
John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed Committee that item 7-A had resolved prior to the meeting.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff announced that the July RRAC meeting is rescheduled for July 5th, due to the holiday.
b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and
procedures for public comment.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem, ECHO Housing representative, spoke about ECHO's fair housing
and tenant- landlord counseling services.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes from the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting.
Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Approved Landess, Sullivan-Sariñana,
Griffiths and Friedman. Abstention Cambra.
b. Approval of the Minutes from the March 6, 2017 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess). Approved by Landess, Sullivan-
Sariñana, Griffiths and Friedman. Abstention Cambra.
c. Approval of the Minutes from the March 20, 2017 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Approved by Landess, Sullivan-
Sariñana, Griffiths and Friedman. Abstention Cambra.
d. Approval of the Minutes from the April 3, 2017 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess). Approved by unanimous consent.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
Page 1 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-06-05,2,"Approved Minutes
June 5, 2017
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 871-3356 - Tonga Lane.
Proposed rent increase: $500.00 (21.7%), effective July 1, 2017.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a
mutually agreeable arrangement of a 250.00 (10.1%) rent increase.
7-B. CASE 862.1- - 2259 San Jose Avenue, Unit 1.
Tenant: Karen DeSouza
Landlord: Anthony Lau & Amy Wong
Proposed Rent Increase: $147.00 (13.1%), effective July 1, 2017.
Mr. Lau explained that the rent increase is an effort to earn a fair return in investment and cover
maintenance issues as well as invest in their retirement and provide for their children. He stated
that they are not trying to take advantage their tenants and kept rents affordable even before there
were restrictions on rent increases. In addition, the proposed rent increase would still keep the rent
below market rent for comparable units. He acknowledged that the tenant has lived in the unit for
seven years and they value her tenancy. Mr. Lau also lowered the rent increase offer to $112.00.
Committee members asked if the maintenance cost are averaged through the years. Mr. Lau
clarified that while there are routine annual maintenance costs, the major expenses accrued over
the previous 12-14 months are not anticipated as the average annual maintenance costs. He
elaborated that the recent repairs were needed because the building's routine maintenance had been
neglected for some time.
Ms. DeSouza explained that this rent increase poses a financial burden for her. She acknowledged
that she has a good relationship with her landlord and her concern is centered on her ability to
afford the requested rent. She stated that her wages have increased an average of 2.5% since 2010
and her rent has increased 26%. Her calculation estimated that the rent has increased 6% more than
the cost of living in the past seven years. The proposed rent increase of 13.1% would mean a 43%
rent increase from the initial rent and she feels this request is unreasonable.
Member Cambra asked Mr. Lau to describe the repairs completed on the property that are
calculated in the maintenance costs. He also asked for the landlord to clarify their definition of a
reasonable rate of return. The discussion included an explanation of the landlord's practices
regarding several years without a rent increase followed by several significant rent increases.
Mr. Lau explained that a comparable unit at the property has a monthly rent of $1,588.00, while
Ms. DeSouza pays $1,123.00.
Committee members engaged in a discussion with landlord and tenant regarding unit amenities,
future maintenance costs, and the amount of the tenant's income spent on rent. There was also
discussion regarding a previous invalid rent increase initially offered at 10%. The landlord offered
Page 2 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-06-05,3,"Approved Minutes
June 5, 2017
to reduce the rent increase to 8%, since they had come to an agreement with a different unit for an
8% rent increase.
Ms. DeSouza stated that even a 5% rent increase was a significant financial burden, particularly
since she felt that the previous rent increases were quite high.
Ms. Wang proposed a stepped rent increase of $57 (5%), effective July 2017 and an additional $40
(3%), effective February 2018, followed by no increase until February 2019.
Ms. DeSouza said that she is not interested in a stepped rent increase option.
Griffiths motion to extend the meeting for 30 minutes, Sullivan-Sariñana second. Unanimous
approval.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the conversation
with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to render a recommendation.
Vice-Chair Landess noted the difficulty of the situation and the challenge tenants face with
rents increasing more rapidly than wages. She acknowledged the effort of landlords to keep
the rents affordable prior to these rental regulations and recognized the need to establish
an income to cover maintenance and operation costs.
Member Friedman explained that the tenant was offered this rental unit seven years ago
based on the landlord's system for considering her income qualifications. He noted that
with the previous rent increases, a significant portion of the tenant's income is now paid
towards rent. Friedman stated that he believed the history of previous increases were
sufficient to cover the indicated maintenance costs. He would consider a 3% increase a
considerate rent increase amount.
Member Griffiths acknowledged there are ongoing expenses for the landlord to maintain
the property. He proposed a 5.0% increase as this amount would also provide more balance
with the previous rent increases.
Member Cambra expressed concern for the rent increases practices of years without
increases followed by several years of significant increases. He noted that while the
landlord spent around $16,000 on renovations, most of the work does not relate to annual
expenses. He recommended an increase of $60 (5.4%).
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed concern for the tenant's ability to afford the increase as
well as the landlord's ability to keep up with maintenance expenses.
Griffiths motioned to extend the meeting for 30 minutes, Sullivan-Sariñana second. Unanimous
approval.
Page 3 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-06-05,4,"Approved Minutes
June 5, 2017
The Committee made the following binding recommendation:
-
$45.00 (4%) rent increase from $1,123 to $1,168.00, effective July 1, 2017.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Friedman). Four members in favor. Landess abstained.
7-C. Discuss process to implement RRAC's consideration of maintenance concerns raised
during RRAC meeting.
Staff summarized that the role of the Committee is to review rent increases. The Committee can
encourage repairs, but does not have authority to require maintenance. Maintenance can be
considered by the Committee to determine a reasonable rent increase when a Committee member
believes a maintenance concern rises to a level of a decrease in housing services.
Vice Chair Landess and member Friedman suggested that this discussion be incorporated in the
RRAC training scheduled for July 17th.
7-D. Consider staff recommendation concerning the memorializing of agreements at
RRAC meetings.
Staff summarized the request from the Committee for this agenda item. Staff explained that the
duties of the Committee are defined as rendering recommendations for rent increases. The duties
do not provide the Committee the authority to monitor agreements.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a.
Staff announced that City Council will meet on June 6, 2017 to consider a rental unit fee
as well as amendments to Ordinance no. 3148 proposed at the May 16, 2017 meeting.
b. Staff announced that two current members' terms end on June 30, 2017. It is anticipated
that the July 5th meeting will include the two members confirmed by City Council at the
June 20th meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Committee Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 7, 2017.
Page 4 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-07-05,1,"Approved Minutes
July 5, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Cambra, Friedman,
Griffiths, Murray
Committee Staff:
Jennifer Kauffman, Claudia Young
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed Committee that item 7-A had resolved prior to the meeting.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff welcomed the members, Sarah Murray and incumbent, Chris Griffiths, to the
beginning of their term on the Committee.
b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting
agenda and procedures for public comment.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem, ECHO Housing representative, spoke about ECHO's fair
housing and tenant- landlord counseling services.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes from the May 1, Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Approved Sullivan-Sariñana,
Griffiths, Friedman, and Cambra. Murray abstained.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 876- 1835 Santa Clara Ave.
Proposed rent increase: $300.00 (14.3%).
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached
a mutually agreeable arrangement of a 200.00 (9.5%) rent increase.
7-B. CASE 884 - 1336 Park St. Apt 217
Tenant: Patrick Donaldson
Page 1 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-07-05,2,"Approved Minutes
July 5, 2017
Landlord: Vickie Corley
Proposed Rent Increase: $77.50 (5.0%), effective July 1, 2017
Ms. Corley stated that the rent includes water, gas, electricity and garbage/recycle
and these expenses have increased significantly in the past year. She explained that
the unit was renovated before the tenant moved-in and the property anticipates costs
with renovations planned in common areas on the property. Ms. Corely shared that
this increase is partly to keep rents somewhat in balance with the market, but the
amount requested does not bring the total rent up to market rate. She also explained
that all tenants at the property received 5% increases this year.
Mr. Donaldson explained that he requested the rent increase review because he
wanted to understand the rationale for the increase. He stated that he believes the
5.0% is excessive because his tenancy began one year ago. He explained that other
studio units may not be comparable because it is important to factor square feet of
the apartment. He noted that while he feels he can afford this increase, the amount
is substantial and he has concern if the rent will be raised to this level each year. He
explained he considers himself a good tenant and would like to have more information
from the landlord to substantiate this increase.
Members asked several questions of both parties to facilitate dialogue. Discussion
included tenant and landlord perspectives on market trends, increase practices, utility
costs, and rent review process.
The tenant and landlord reached a mutually agreeable arrangement of a $77.50
(5.0%), effective July 1, 2017.
7-C. Committee will consider and vote on Chair and Vice-Chair.
Members Cambra and Friedman self-nominated for the Chair. Cambra voted in as
Chair by Murray and Griffiths; Member Sullivan-Sariñana voted for Friedman as Chair.
Member Griffiths nominated Member Sullivan-Sariñana as Vice-Chair. Committee
members unanimously voted for Sullivan-Sariñana as Vice-Chair.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Page 2 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-07-05,3,"Approved Minutes
July 5, 2017
a. Staff announced that the upcoming RRAC meeting will be a training for Committee
members and no cases will be reviewed. Staff shared a brief summary of items
proposed for the upcoming training.
b. Staff announced that, at present, the regulations under Ordinance no. 3148 remain
the same.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Committee Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 6, 2017.
Page 3 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-07-17,1,"Approved Minutes
July 17, 2017
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, July 17, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:39 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Friedman, Griffiths, and Murray
Committee Staff:
Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney Staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff noted that a revised agenda was published today and is available in the back
of the room or online.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff for the record stated there are no cases reviewed at tonight's meeting.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Overview of Rent Program Administrative Procedures
Review of RRAC meeting procedures
Schedule possible Brown Act/Sunshine Ordinance Training
Staff explained the administrative procedures for the Ordinance, noting the
information is also available at public informational workshops. The discussion
included the following topics:
Communication between staff and parties
Invalid notices and reimbursements on violations
Qualifications for the individual meeting the Ordinance's definition of ""Landlord""
Reasonable accommodation process
Page 1 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-07-17,2,"Approved Minutes
July 17, 2017
Public record requests
Referrals to regional legal and social services
Mediation options
Committee members discussed factors under consideration for rent increase reviews
including the role of supportive documentation. The discussion addressed the
information provided to parties prior to Committee meetings, types of supportive
documentation relevant to rent increases, parties' inclusion or exclusion of
supportive documents. Committee members requested staff share with each
member a copy of the template letters provided to parties prior to the RRAC
meeting.
Members discussed the Committee's role and procedures during the mediation and
recommendation phase. City attorney staff identified section 6-58.85.A, noting that
members are not advocates for either the Landlord or the Tenant. Members requested
that staff provide guidance on City Council's intent with the role of mediation and
dialogue during the RRAC process. Member Friedman stated he will follow-up with
City attorney staff at a later time if he is interested in pursuing this topic.
Member Sullivan-Sariñana introduced topic regarding the appropriate time allotment
per case. Members discussed the procedures and noted that changes will be made
through an amendment to the RRAC Rules and Procedures.
Chair Cambra made logistical recommendations on the following topics:
Seating arrangement
Time management
Name badges
Member's roles
Room acoustics
Member's ability to discuss Committee procedures in the future
Members request staff agendize the opportunity for a Committee
members to debrief on the RRAC process at each meeting.
Motion and second for the meeting to extend 10 minutes beyond 9:30pm (Griffiths
and Sullivan-Sariñana). Approved by unanimous consent.
Chair Cambra and Member Sullivan-Sariñana discussed updating the RRAC chair
announcements. Cambra and Sullivan-Sariñana agreed to prepare the language
together to share at the upcoming RRAC meetings.
Page 2 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-07-17,3,"Approved Minutes
July 17, 2017
City attorney staff informed Committee members that a Sunshine Ordinance video
training is available to the public online at the City's website. Staff confirmed that the
information will be sent to Committee members and each members is welcome to
contact the City attorney's office with questions once they view the video.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Chair Cambra requested the Committee agendize a discussion on the low volume
of reviews requested by tenants for increases equal to or less than 5%. Members
and staff discussed the scope and purview of the Committee. Cambra withdrew
the request and noted he will introduce the topic at a later date.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Committee Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 6, 2017.
Page 3 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-08-07,1,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, August 7, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana: Members
Griffiths and Murray
Absent:
Member Friedman
RRAC Staff:
Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney Staff:
John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed Committee that items 7-B, C, D & E resolved prior to the meeting and will
not be reviewed by the Committee.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff stated that the following meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 6th, due to
the Monday holiday.
b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and
procedures for public comment.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a.
Angie Watson-Hajjem, ECHO Housing representative, spoke about ECHO's fair housing
and tenant- landlord counseling services.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.
Approval of the Minutes from the June 5, Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Approved Landess, Sullivan-
Sariñana, Griffiths and Friedman. Abstention Cambra.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 871- 431 Pacific Ave., Apt. 202
Tenant: Lakeisha Cornelius, accompanied by her father Mr. Cornelius
Landlord: Hen-Shin Wu
Property Manager: Charles Kline
Page 1 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-08-07,2,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2017
Proposed Rent Increase: $450.00 (50.0%), effective as a stepped increase over three
months.
Mr. Wu stated that Ms. Cornelius's mother had previously worked at the property. When
she was no longer been able to work, they agreed to provide her housing at the premises
for rent that was below market rate. The mother no longer lives at the unit and the owner
feels it is reasonable to raise rent closer to market value.
Ms. Cornelius asked that Mr. Cornelius speak on her behalf. Mr. Cornelius explained that
Ms. Cornelius's mother passed away a year and a half ago. Ms. Cornelius is on the lease
and it was their understanding that the owner's willingness to provide a courtesy
extended to the family.
Both parties acknowledged that there had been no discussion about future rent or future
rent increases.
The tenant explained that the current rent is about 50% of her income and she believes a
reasonable increase would be between 5-10%. She has been the sole occupant since her
mother's passing in August 2015 and that it would not be possible for her to get a
roommate based on the unit layout.
Member Griffiths acknowledged that $900.00 is well under market. He also stated that a
50% increase in any expense is challenging to absorb.
The tenant and landlord discussed the timeline for the rent increase and the relationship
between current rent and market rent. Mr. Cornelius explained that more gradual
increases over time would make it more possible for Ms. Cornelius to prepare for the
changes.
Mr. Cornelius stated that they would be willing to accept a $250 increase to a total rent of
$1,150 starting on September 1, 2017. They requested that any future rent increases be on
a regular schedule in an amount near 5%.
The landlord offered a $350 increase to a total rent of rent at $1,250, acknowledging the
tenant has the option to continue month-to-month or sign a one year lease.
The tenant explained that she current earns $12/hour and the $250 increase would require
her father to cover some of her other expenses.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the
conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to
render a recommendation.
Page 2 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-08-07,3,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2017
Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana considered a $250 (27.7%) increase to $1,150 the
maximum that he would vote as fair and reasonable. Sullivan-Sariñana
emphasized he takes tenants and landlords at their word and the tenant stated
$1,150 would be something she could handle.
Member Murray acknowledged the courtesy the landlord provided when the unit
was offered to the mother at a rent below market rate. She noted that the current
City rent regulations impact the amount of future increases and the landlord is in
this situation because he was generous in the past. Murray identified that one of
the current challenges relates to communication regarding assumptions made by
both parties and lack of dialogue around expectations moving forward. Murray
stated that the $100 difference between the landlord's offer and the tenant's offer
appears to constitute a more serious hardship to the tenant. The $1,150 offer
seems reasonable in that it represents a sacrifice by both parties in effort to
establish a middle ground. She explained that it appears the tenant is
acknowledging the previous generosity of the landlord by trying to stretch herself
to bring the unit closer to market rate. Murray stated that $1,150 is the maximum
amount that she would find acceptable.
Member Griffiths recommended a $180 (20%) increase. He explained concerns
that a monthly rent of $1,150 would not provide enough income remaining for
other living expenses based on the tenant's income. Acknowledging the unique
circumstances of the original $900 agreement, he pointed out that such a
significant jump in the rent amount would be difficult. He would encourage a
more gradual increase over time.
Chair Cambra acknowledged the landlord provided the tenant a benefit for two
years by offering the unit at $900. Cambra stated that he agrees with Griffiths in
that the financial burden on the tenant is significant, noting with a $1,150 rent she
would need financial assistance from her father. A stepped increase would
provide the tenant more time to prepare and absorb the additional rent. Cambra
explained that the landlord's total rent is reasonable with the market, though he is
also factoring in the structure of implementation and impact on the tenant. He also
stated that the tenant's relative burden appears more than the landlord's burden.
Cambra proposed the $1,150 rent as a stepped increase: $180 increase, effective
September 1, followed by an additional $70, six months later.
Motion and second for $1,150 rent as a stepped increase: $180 increase, effective
September 1st, followed by an additional $70, six months later (Griffiths and Cambra).
Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray opposed. Motion fails.
Page 3 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-08-07,4,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2017
Motion and second for $1,150 rent, effective September 1st (Sullivan-Sariñana and
Murray). Cambra approved; Griffiths opposed. Motion passes.
7-B. CASE 894 - 89 Maitland Dr., Unit O
Proposed Rent Increase: $187.00 (20.0%) effective September 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a
mutually agreeable arrangement of a $187.00 (20.0%) rent increase.
7-C. CASE 896 - 89 Maitland Dr., Unit Q
Proposed Rent Increase: $99.00 (9.9%) effective September 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a
mutually agreeable arrangement of a $99.00 (9.9%) rent increase.
7-D. CASE 908 - 1569 Lincoln Ave., Unit B
Proposed Rent Increase: $237.60 (17.6%), effective September 1, 2017
No Committee review. The landlord withdrew the rent increase.
7-E. CASE 910 - 1029 Regent St., Unit A
Proposed Rent Increase: $215.00 (10.0%), effective August 1, 2017
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a
mutually agreeable arrangement of a $175.00 (8.2%) rent increase.
7-F. Discussion of any considerations raised during the events of previous meetings
to improve Committee review process
Chair Cambra discussed the basis for raising rent when a landlord indicates the tenant has
lease violations. Sullivan-Sariñana noted that the timeline of events is critical when
understanding the circumstances related to the rent increase request.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a.
Member Sullivan-Sariñana asked for clarify on email addresses.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Committee Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 6, 2017.
Page 4 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-09-06,1,"Draft Minutes
September 6, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Friedman, Griffiths, Murray
Committee Staff:
Jennifer Kauffman, Janice Heredia, Grant Eshoo
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that three cases on the agenda will not be heard.
As those cases are called, staff will provide more detail.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting
agenda and procedures for public comment.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes from the July 5th Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Murray and Sullivan-Sariñana) Approved by unanimous
consent.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 911 - 2904 Central Avenue
Case postponed.
7-B. CASE 872.1- - 2058 Buena Vista Ave, Unit B
Tenant: Labib Ramdoun
Landlord: Corwin and Teresa Hockema
Proposed Rent Increase: $650 (59.1%), effective December 1, 2017
Third-party rent decision: Binding
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-09-06,2,"Draft Minutes
September 6, 2017
Mr. Hockema explained he is in the Coast Guard and was recently stationed in Alameda.
He purchased the property this summer and will be living in one of the units. Mr. Hockema
stated that the constitution entitles him to a fair rate of return on the property. He is
asking for this rent increase in order to cover expenses and mortgage. Mr. Hockema
acknowledged that he was aware of Alameda's rent regulations at the time of purchase.
He was out of state during most of the sale process and does not believe he was provided
with accurate information for the seller.
Mr. Ramdoun stated that he moved to the US from Syria 14 years ago. His wife is currently
in school and Mr. Ramdoun's income as a limousine driver supports his wife, 2 year-old
daughter and mother, who lives nearby. Mr. Ramdoun stated that he understands the
landlord's situation and would offer more financially if he was able. At present, if he were
to pay the full rent increase requested, he would not have enough income to support his
family. He expects that his family's financial situation will change in the next 2 years
once his wife completes her master's degree in chemistry. He stated that he was friends
with his previous landlord and they had a verbal agreement that we would fix
maintenance issues in exchange for no rent increases.
Committee members asked questions regarding the landlord's financial decisions when
reviewing the property for purchase. There was discussion around the short term and
long term goals of both parties.
Mr. Hockema stated that the lowest rent increase he is comfortable with would be $1,500.
If he does not receive this amount, he is concerned that his effort to invest in property
would be fruitless and he may have to sell in a few months. Committee members asked
about income from the other rental unit on the property. Mr. Hockema stated that he
preferred not to discuss at this time as there are several pending issues with the tenant.
Mr. Ramdoun stated that a $100.00 increase to $1,200 is the maximum his family could
afford.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the
conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to
render a recommendation.
Member Friedman explained that he sees a clear financial impact on the
tenant. He stated that the reasonable rent increase depends on the
Committee's understanding of a fair return on investment for the landlord.
He noted that this matter can be defined in a number of different ways.
Acknowledging that the topic is not the Committee's area of expertise, his
understanding is that a landlord does not have the right to immediately
break even when a property is recently purchased. A return on investment
is calculated over the long term. Member Friedman brought attention to
the City's regulations that a landlord has reasonable presumption to cover
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-09-06,3,"Draft Minutes
September 6, 2017
the cost of operations. Cost of operations, defined by the Ordinance, does
not include debt service, such as mortgage expenses. Thus, it appears
there would need to be an increase in services or operation costs to
warrant a landlord's right to raise rent. He stated a $30.00 (3%) appears
reasonable based on the financial information provided by the tenant and
landlord. Friedman noted that a large increase would impact the tenant
significantly.
Member Murray explained she relies on section 6-58.85 for guidance on
rendering a fair decision on a rent increase. She acknowledged this is a
difficult situation because it appears that the new owner was misinformed
about the current tenants' rents and leases. She stated that it appears if
the rent is raised to $1,500 the tenant will have to relocate. If the landlord
does not receive an increase to $1,500 he may not be able to continue
owning the property. She noted that the time frame used to determine a
reasonable rate of return is significant and she believes a longer time
frame is expected. She noted that the landlord indicated near $20,000 in
capital improvements has already been invested in the property.
Chair Cambra addressed Friedman's point that it seems unrealistic for
a
landlord to expect a newly purchased property to generate a cash flow.
Cambra stated that a tenant does not have input on an owner's decision
to invest in a property. He explained that capital improvements are
expected to be amortized over the useful life of the improvement.
Cambra also expressed concern that the landlord is not receiving income
from the other unit and believes once that matter is resolved the landlord
may be more flexible financially. Taking into consideration the financial
hardship of the tenant, he recommended an increase between $75-$100.
Member Griffiths shared that, without a change in ownership, the
Committee would also be factoring into the history of past rent increases.
This tenancy history shows that the rent had not been raised since the
tenancy began. While the current landlord is not able to answer for the
previous landlord's choices, Griffiths noted this factor of frequency should
be taken into consideration. He explained that a tenant should not be
held responsible for landlord's decisions that are not within their control.
He proposed a $100 increase, as offered by the tenant, to a total rent of
$1,200.
Vice-Chair Sullivan Sariñana explained that he listened to both parties to
identify their pain and flexibility. He noted that there appears to be some
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-09-06,4,"Draft Minutes
September 6, 2017
discrepancy with the landlord's knowledge of the City's regulations and
choice to purchase property that puts them in this difficult situation. He
acknowledged that the landlord has identified financial pressures, though
it appears that those pressures may be more adaptable than the tenant's.
Recognizing that any Committee decision will cause one or both of the
families to struggle, Sullivan Sariñana recommended a $275 increase to a
total rent of $1,375.
Motion and second for $100 rent increase to a total rent of $1,200 (Griffiths and
Friedman). Motion passes with Cambra approval; Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray
opposed.
7-C. CASE 919 - 1625 Santa Clara Ave., Unit 2
Tenant: Charles Sullivan, Gini Zuniga
Landlord: David Harris
Proposed Rent Increase: $130 (10%) to a total rent of $1,430.00, effective date
delayed until RRAC review
Third-party rent decision: Binding
David Harris stated that the current rent is 38% below market rate. The rent was not
raised annually and there are anticipated costs near $150,000 related foundation
repairs due to the raising water table. Mr. Harris explained that he is retired an
increasingly relies on the property for income. The current annual profit is $23,000
annually which is a 1.7% return on investment. The landlord clarified that his
calculated annual expenses do not include a $150,000 loan, which he pays separate
from the management company. He explained that family needs have taken his focus
away from the rental property for the last five years. Based on the lack of previous
rent increases, below market rent, and anticipated foundation repairs, he considers a
10% increase modest.
Charles Sullivan and Gini Zuniga stated they have lived in Alameda for six years. They
are concerned that the property has been flooding during rains and seems to have
malfunctioning pipes. The tenants noted they had never met Mr. Harris and have only
corresponded with the management company. They indicated the rent increase poses
a financial difficulty based on their salaries working as a pre-K teacher and emergency
technician, indicating that currently about 45% of their income is spend on rent. The
tenants affirmed that they do not always receive annual raises. Mr. Sullivan indicated
that the $130 rent increase offer was a surprise and feels like a significant jump.
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-09-06,5,"Draft Minutes
September 6, 2017
Committee members asked questions regarding the profit and loss statements,
landlord's alternative income sources, capital reserve practices, and maintenance
concerns.
Committee members facilitated dialogue between parties. Tenant and landlord
reached an agreement for a $130 rent increase effective October 1, 2017 with $65
delayed until April 1, 2017.
7-D - CASE 920 - 1625 Santa Clara Ave., Unit 3
Proposed rent increase: $115.00 (10.0%), to total rent of $1,265.00
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a
mutually agreeable arrangement of a $115.00 (10.0%) rent increase.
7-E - Case 921 1625 Santa Clara Ave #4
Proposed rent increase: $ 120.00 (9.8%), to total rent of $1,345.00
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. The rent increase will
become effective as stated in the notice.
7-F. CASE 926 - 1305 Webster St., #C-209
Tenant: Max Langaard, Felicie Standley
Landlord: Stefan Galvez and Natalia Aurrecaechea
Proposed Rent Increase: $1,100 (78.6%) to a total rent of $2,500, effective
September 1, 2017
Third-party rent decision: advisory only
Natalia Aurrecaechea stated they are small property owners who purchased the unit
as a retirement investment. She noted there are risks in owning property and
market uncertainty is placed on the landlord. She indicated that in the last 6 years
between $6,000 and $7,000 has been invested in the unit. The rent increase is
related to increased living costs, below market rent, and their family will be
increasingly relying on the rental income because Mr. Galvez is retiring. She stated
they have been working with their tenants to come to some agreement. At present,
the she has adjusted the offer to $2,100, which she believes is on the lower end of
comparable market rate units. The landlords acknowledged that Max Langaard and
Felicie Standley are great tenants and they do not want to see them move out.
The tenants indicated they would be accept a $400 rent increase to $1,800.
Max Langaard stated they have had a great relationship with their landlord.
However, the last several months have been very stressful because the landlords
are asking for a rent that would require them to vacate their home. He explained
they agreed to a rent increase last year of more than 5% to avoid the RRAC
process. It was their understanding that the 2017 rent increase would be modest
because they had agreed to more than 5% in 2016. They were surprised by the
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-09-06,6,"Draft Minutes
September 6, 2017
78.6% rent increase offer. He considers this rent increase as a way to avoid the
near $7,000 relocation expenses the landlord would be obligated to pay if they
served a termination notice. Mr. Langaard also noted that $2,100 seems high for a
unit that has not been recently remodeled. Felicie Standley noted that she grew up
in the Bay Area and is concerned that she will be able to stay.
Committee members asked questions and facilitated dialogue around utility costs,
timelines, termination regulations and market trends.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the
conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to
render an advisory recommendation.
Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana considered the tenant's offer to $1,800
reasonable.
Member Griffiths affirmed that he also agrees $1,800 total rent is
reasonable considering it is a significant leap from the tenants' current
rent.
Member Friedman noted that the landlord's request for a $700 increase
from $1,400 to $2,100 is a large step. He stated he would agree to the
tenants' $1,800 offer. He noted that $1,800 is a significant step and the
two factors leading him to recommend this amount is that the tenant
offered it and the Committee's decision is advisory only for this case.
Member Murray concurred that $1,800 is reasonable based on the
tenants' statement that they would agree to the substantial increase. It
appears the tenants recognize they have received a good deal on the
apartment and have had a good relationship with the landlord. She noted
that the landlord did not demonstrate operating expenses or information
on a return of investment that justified the $2,100 requested increase.
She explained that the City's current policy looks at balancing tenants and
landlords interests.
Motion and second for $400 rent increase to a total rent of $1,800, effective
October 1, 2017 (Murray and Griffiths). Motion passes unanimously.
7-G. CASE 927.1 - 2305 San Jose Ave., Unit B
Proposed rent increase: $648.00 (60.0%), to a total rent of $1,743.00
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a
mutually agreeable arrangement of a $320.00 (29.2%) rent increase.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-09-06,7,"Draft Minutes
September 6, 2017
7-H. CASE 923.1 - 2305 San Jose Ave., Unit D
Proposed rent increase: $900.00 (81.8%), to total rent of $2,000.00
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant indicated they intend
to vacate the unit.
Tenant was not present.
Kyle Chuah, landlord, provided comments. He addressed the Committee to thank the
members for their time and service.
7-I. Discuss time keeping mechanisms.
No public comment.
Motion and second to move the item to the next available agenda (Cambra and
Griffiths). Motion passes unanimously.
7-J. Discussion of policy input regarding the written letters and resources
provided to RRAC participants prior to a case review.
No public comment.
Motion and second to move the item to the next available agenda (Cambra and
Griffiths). Motion passes unanimously.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 1.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Staff clarified the procedures for Committee members to request agenda items for
upcoming RRAC meetings.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:45PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Draft until approved
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-10-02,1,"Draft Minutes
October 2, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, October 2, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Friedman, Murray
Absent was:
Member Griffiths
Committee Staff:
Jennifer Kauffman, Janice Heredia, Grant Eshoo
City Attorney staff:
John Le, Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that two cases on the agenda will not be heard. As
those cases are called, staff will provide more detail.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff explained where to find meeting minutes, agendas, and other materials
relating to the RRAC meeting and Rent Program, both printed and online.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem provided an overview of ECHO's housing services. She
provided flyers and business cards for the public.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. No items on the consent calendar.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 911 - 2904 Central Avenue
Tenant: Valerie Adams
Landlord: Jack Sullivan
Current Rent: $2,025 for a 3-bedroom single family residence.
Proposed Rent Increase: $1,556.26 (76.9%) for a total rent of $3,581.96, effective
September 1, 2017
Third-party rent decision: Non-binding
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-10-02,2,"Draft Minutes
October 2, 2017
Mr. Sullivan stated the purpose of the rent increase is related to a need for additional
income because the landlords are retired and have a fixed income. Mr. Sullivan stated
that Ms. Adams has been a good tenant for 13 years. The landlords are requesting this
increase due to the property's operating costs and the landlord's interest in a return on
the investment. He stated that market rate for a comparable unit would be near $4,500
and the rent increase is an effort to raise the rent closer to market value. Mr. Sullivan
explained that $7,500 has been spent to repair the roof. Additional expenses are
anticipated for further repairs.
Ms. Adams stated that she had resided at the unit for 13 years and has completed many
repairs herself. She raised concerns over current maintenance issues and stated code
enforcement is currently reviewing the property. She explained that there have not been
repairs or improvements that would justify the requested rent increase.
Committee members asked to review supporting documents related to the maintenance
issues. The parties discussed issues the timeline and nature of roof repairs. Staff clarified
that the Building Department resolves concerns regarding code violations.
Ms. Adams stated she would be willing to pay a $250 increase if repairs were completed.
Mr. Sullivan was not willing to accept less than the proposed increase.
Motion and second for 15 minute extension passed the 40 minute review (Cambra and
Friedman).
The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the
conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to
render an advisory recommendation.
Member Friedman identified three considerations for this case: 1). what is
reasonable rent for this property; 2). what is the landlord's reasonable return; 3).
how does the housing services and condition of the maintenance issues impact the
reasonable rent. Friedman noted that had the rent increased around 3% each year
over the 13 years of tenancy, the rent would be around $2,850. This would have
helped create a reserve for repairs. He noted that he did not hear the tenant raise
financial concerns regarding the rent. Friedman explained the landlord has the
option to get a loan for the repairs. He recommended a $400 rent increase, noting
the landlord has the option to increase rent the next year.
Member Sullivan-Sariñana stated he agrees the difficulty of the current situation
appears to be stemming from the lack of previous rent increase over the tenancy.
He does not believe that the tenant should be punished for the landlord's business
decisions. The timeline of maintenance issues causes him concern that the tenant
has decreased housing services for an extended period of time. He acknowledged
that the option for a roommate is important to consider given the Bay Area housing
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-10-02,3,"Draft Minutes
October 2, 2017
dynamic. He stated he would be inclined to agree with Member Friedman's
recommendation.
Member Murray noted that it is clear the property is in need of repairs. It appears
the landlord will need a rent increase to afford the repairs and the tenant does not
believe an increase is justified until the repairs are complete. She explained that
the rent would be at a reasonable place had the landlord raised the rent around
5% over the tenancy. Murray stated that ultimately the $3,600 requested total
rent is reasonable for the property. However, she does not believe it is reasonable
to request the increase all at once. She also noted there is one tenant living in a
3-bedroom house. She recommended a $600 rent increase with $300 delayed for
six months. She acknowledged she would support the $400 proposal if the amount
became effective immediately.
Chair Cambra explained the landlord has control over the rent in an increasing
market. Looking over the tenancy, it is necessary to acknowledge that rents when
up and down. He is concerned with the burden on the tenant when a landlord is
looking to catch-up on rents when they did not raise rents annually. He explained
major repairs, such as a roof, are often not expensed as they are amortized over
the useful life of the improvement. He noted that the landlord will have the
opportunity for a rent increase every year. He also acknowledged roofs can be
difficult to repair and does not see negligence on the landlord. He stated he agrees
with Member Friedman's $400 recommendation.
Motion and second for $400 rent increase to a total rent of $2,420, effective September
1, 2017 (Friedman and Cambra). Motion passes with Murray approval; Sullivan-Sariñana
opposed.
7-B. CASE 929 - 877 Cedar Street
Proposed rent increase: $1,080.00 (45.6%), to total rent of $3,450.00
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenants gave the landlord a
notice to vacate.
7-C. CASE 930 - 611 Santa Clara Ave., #D
Proposed rent increase: $685.00 (46.0%), to total rent of $2,175.00
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenants gave the landlord a
notice to vacate.
7-D - CASE 932 - 2220 San Antonio Ave.
Tenant: Susan Ostlund
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-10-02,4,"Draft Minutes
October 2, 2017
Landlord: Dave Petersen
Current Rent: $1,701 for a 2-bedroom duplex
Proposed Rent Increase: $85.00 (5.0%), to total rent of $1,786.00, effective
October, 2017
Recommendation: Non-binding
Chair Cambra recused himself on a non-financial grounds.
Ms. Ostlund stated that she is an army veteran, 100 percent disabled, on a fixed
income of $2,900 a month and not likely to increase anytime soon. She believes the
Ordinance was put into place to help people like her. She acknowledged her right to
withhold sensitive medical information, but nonetheless, stated she wanted to share
that she has metastatic breast cancer and her medical care providers are concerned
about her access to a stable living environment. The history of rent increases has
pushed her near the limits of her ability to pay based on her fixed income. She stated
the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase would be $32.32 (1.9%) due to
financial burden.
Mr. Petersen stated that he believes requested rent increase is fair, not excessive, and
that necessary to keep up with maintenance costs. He considers the current rent
below market rate and explained that the rent does not cover the property expenses.
He is concerned that without a rent increase it will be difficult to continue to make
needed repairs. He stated he was making a concession by only requesting a 5%
increase because he is sympathetic to her serious medical condition and understands
she has a fixed income. Mr. Petersen explained that Ms. Ostlund was not the original
tenant and the rent was originally set low as a curtesy to the individual originally on
the lease. Committee members asked questions regarding income sources and
flexibility with adding a roommate to the unit.
Motion and second for 15 minute extension passed the 40 minute review (Sullivan-
Sariñana and Murray).
Committee members facilitated dialogue between parties. The tenant and the
landlord agreed to a $50 rent increase effective October 1, 2017 with an additional
$35 (which would bring the increase to 5%) delayed until January 1, 2018.
7-E - Discussion of time-keeping mechanisms
No Committee review because the device under review was not at the meeting.
The item will be moved to the next available meeting agenda.
Motion and second to hear 7-G next and call to 7-F if time permits (Cambra and Murray).
Motion passes unanimously.
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-10-02,5,"Draft Minutes
October 2, 2017
7-F. Discussion of policy input regarding the written letters and resources
provided to RRAC participants prior to a case
No Committee review as time did not permit for item discussion. The item will be
moved to the next available meeting agenda.
7-G. Committee members to review CAO guidance on using just and
reasonable rate of return and tenant's financial hardship as factors in the
RRAC deliberation process
Michael Roush, Assistant City Attorney, presented the memo concerning CAO
guidance on just and reasonable rate of return and the tenant's financial hardship as
factors in the RRAC deliberation process. Mr. Roush answered Committee members'
questions to clarify their understanding of the memo.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 1.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Member Friedman requested clarity on the case review process.
b. Cambra requested an agenda item for the following meeting to discuss the
Committee's procedures for facilitating dialogue relevant to Case 911. Motion and
second with unanimous approval (Cambra and Sullivan-Sariñana).
c. Member Sullivan-Sariñana requested staff follow-up to clarify the nature of the
discussion for agenda item 7-F.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:56pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Draft until approved
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,1,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Griffiths and Friedman
Absent:
Member Murray
Committee staff:
Grant Eshoo, Janice Heredia
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be
heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. Eric Strimling commented that for rent increases above 5%, the burden of proof
should be on the landlord to show why it is reasonable.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff acknowledged that it had welcomed and oriented the attendees and
participants prior to the meeting being called to order.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the November 6, 2017 Regular Meeting
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Motion passed unanimously of
the members present.
5-B. Approval of the Minutes of the December 4, 2017 Regular Meeting
Chair Cambra made a suggestion to edit the minutes.
Motion and second (Cambra and Griffiths). Motion passed unanimously of the
members present.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 972 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit A
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $279.58, a 26.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,325, effective February 1, 2018.
Page 1 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,2,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
7-B. CASE 963 - 1030 Lincoln Ave., Unit A
Tenants: Temo Martinez and Laura Martinez
Landlords: Craig Wallace and Laurie-Anne King
Spanish language translator: Rent Program staff member Janice Heredia
Proposed rent increase: $1,190 (90.8%) to a total rent of $2,500, effective
February 1, 2018
The landlords stated that rent was below market and the building needed maintenance.
They referred to a quote for foundation work in the amount of $30,000. They said they
have a good relationship with their tenants. They informed the Committee that they
purchased the home for $1.7 million, so their mortgage and property taxes were higher
than that of the previous owners. They acknowledged that the tenants had a personal
relationship with the previous landlord and that they worked at the previous landlord's
restaurant in addition to living at his property.
The tenants stated that they have lived in the unit since 1998 and that their son was born
in the home and it was the only home he had ever known. They said that they understood
that the landlord was making a business decision but they could not afford the increase
they were requesting. They stated that their household income was about $4,000 per
month, that there are times when they cannot make ends meet, and times when they
have up to a $500 monthly surplus. They said they could afford a 5% rent increase.
Chair Cambra asked for a numerical value for how much they could afford. The Mr.
Martinez responded they could afford a $300-$400 increase at most. Vice Chair Sullivan-
Sariñana added that the parties were not compelled to answer questions about finances.
Chair Cambra asked if the parties learned anything they did not know before. The
landlords said they thought that the tenants had only occupied the unit for two years, as
their management company, OMM, only began managing the unit in 2015 and only had
records going back that far. The tenants restated that they had been there since 1998
and added that they had a brother who lived in the unit from 1990 until 1998. The tenants
said they did not know the purchase price of the property before the meeting.
Chair Cambra asked if either party wanted to change their position in light of the new
information they learned. Mr. Wallace said he'd like to be generous but if they only
increased the rent 5% each year, they could never bring the unit up to market rate, which
would be detrimental to their finances.
Page 2 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,3,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
Mr. Martinez stated that his income fluctuated from $2,400 to $2,800 and Ms. Martinez's
income was about $1,200 per month. He said they were worried about being priced out
of the area and concerned that their son would have to change schools mid-year.
Chair Cambra asked the landlords if the bank extended their mortgage loan knowing the
amount of rent the in-place tenants were paying. Mr. Wallace confirmed that the bank
had that information.
Member Griffiths asked the landlords what would happen to them if they only got a 5%
increase versus a $300 increase. Ms. King said they would appeal the decision. She said
that she and Mr. Wallace were both self-employed and their income could be
unpredictable, while rental income from the property provided them a stable source of
income.
Mr. Wallace stated that anything less than $2,000 per month total rent for the unit would
be inadequate. He said they wanted to expand the unit and wanted to see if they would
qualify for the ""capital evictions"" process.
Mr. Martinez said that to meet a $400 per month increase, he would have to work 14-16
hour days. Ms. Martinez said that they had to a new expense of $300 per month for their
son's healthcare and had forgotten about that when they said they could pay a $300-
$400 per month increase. She said they were still offering to pay a $65 increase.
Member Friedman commented that the tenants would have to move if they were required
to pay the increase the landlords were requesting. He restated that the landlords
purchased the property knowing about the costs involved, Ordinance 3148's
requirements, and the amount of rent the tenants were paying, and that the bank
assessed that the landlords could maintain payments on their mortgage loan given those
circumstances.
Mr. Wallace said that they wanted to improve the property. Ms. King added that unlike
the previous landlords they did not benefit from the tenants working at their business.
She said their mortgage was $5,700 per month.
Chair Cambra stated that the goal of the RRAC was to balance the landlord's interest in
obtaining reasonable rate of return with the tenants' interest in not being displaced. He
estimated the landlord's monthly cash flow was $7,500.
Ms. King stated that they chose to purchase rental property in the City of Alameda
because they thought the laws were more reasonable toward landlords than in other
rent-stabilized communities. She said she did not think the landlords should be restricted
by their tenants' income forever, as they would have to return to the RRAC each year to
get future increases.
Page 3 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,4,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
Chair Cambra asked the parties to take a seat so the RRAC could begin deliberations to
reach a decision.
Public Comment from Mari Perez-Ruiz, President of the Alameda Renters Coalition, on
Item 7-B: claimed the tenants did not know about the RRAC hearing until the day before
and were not given the opportunity to prepare.
Public Comment from Laurie-Anne King, landlord at subject property, on Item 7-B: stated
that it was a breach of California law for employers to pay workers less than minimum
wage and compensate for that by subsidizing their living expenses by charging them
below-market rent.
Public Comment from Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda resident, on Item 7-B: said he came
before the RRAC one-and-a-half years ago. He said he wanted to acknowledge the
inequality in society that allowed the landlords to have access to $300,000 from their
insurance policy, while the tenants would have to work 30,000 hours to make an equal
sum. He opined that the rent increase imposes a great burden on the tenants and hoped
the RRAC decision was one that allowed the tenants to remain in place.
Member Friedman thanked the parties for attending the hearing. He acknowledged that
the tenants may have had an agreement for below-market rent with the prior owners.
He restated that the landlords financed the property with the current tenants' rental rate
known by themselves and the lending institution, and said that with a 5% increase, the
tenants would be paying 40% of their income for rent if their income was $3,400 per
month. He stated that the purpose of the Ordinance is to stabilize the rental market and
proposed a $65 increase.
Chair Cambra stated that if the tenants' income was $4,000 per month, a $300 increase
would have the tenants paying 40% of their income toward rent.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana opined that a 5% increase would be reasonable as it was
what the tenants said they could afford.
Chair Cambra commented that a 10% increase, or $130, would provide the landlords
extra income they could use to improve the property.
Member Griffiths answered that there was a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process
landlords could use to finance improvements. He said he thought the tenants could only
pay a 5% increase and suggested the landlords look into the CIP process for future
increases.
Chair Cambra responded that many landlords find the CIP process unworkable.
Page 4 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,5,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
Member Griffiths replied that if the CIP process did not work, the City Council should fix
it rather than making capital improvements part of the RRAC's responsibility.
Member Friedman made a motion for a $65 increase. Member Griffiths seconded. The
vote passed 3-1, Chair Cambra opposed.
7-C. CASE 964 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit B
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $140.00, a 9.9% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,555.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-D. CASE 965 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit C
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $67.00, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$760.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-E. CASE 966 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit E
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $100.00, a 7.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,400.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-F. CASE 967 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit F
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $95.00, a 9.5% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,095.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-G. CASE 968 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit M
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $150.00, a 5.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$2,775.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-H. CASE 969 - 2031 Eagle Ave., Unit A
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $115.50, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,310.00, effective February 1, 2018.
7-I. CASE 970 - 2031 Eagle Ave., Unit B
Page 5 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-01-10,6,"Approved Minutes
January 10, 2018
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $131.00, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,480.00, effective April 1, 2018.
7-J. CASE 971 - 2033 Eagle Ave.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $120.00, a 7.8% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,650.00, effective February 1, 2018.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. Eric Strimling commented that staff should look into expanding its translation and
multilingual communications services.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Member Sullivan-Sariñana asked staff if public commenters could comment on
other public comments and if it was appropriate or required for RRAC members or
City staff to reply to public comments. City Attorney staff John Le replied that there
was no rule on public commenters commenting on other public comments, and
stated that RRAC members could direct questions to City staff but that the RRAC
and City staff are not required to respond to public comment.
b. Member Friedman commented that perhaps the RRAC could use simultaneous
translation technology to facilitate multilingual communications.
c. Chair Cambra requested that staff make a presentation on its provisions for
multilingual access at the next RRAC meeting.
0.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 5, 2018
Page 6 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-02-05,1,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, February 5, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Murray and Friedman
Absent:
Member Griffiths
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be
heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant,
and mediation services.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff welcomed the attendees and participants, and informed them of the process
for participating in meeting.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the January 10, 2018 Regular Meeting
Motion and second (Friedman and Cambra). Motion passed 3-0, with Member Murray
abstaining.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 931.2 - 840 Oak St., Apt. A
Tenant: Jessica Lorega
Landlord: Park Young
Proposed rent increase: $97.50 (5.0%) to a total rent of $2,047.50, effective
January 1, 2018
Prior to the review, Program Staff provided the Committee and public two photographs
of the front of the outside of the subject property that the landlord had submitted to
the Rent Program several days prior to the hearing.
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-02-05,2,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
Mr. Young, referencing the Craigslist ads submitted by the tenants of units renting for
less than their rent, stated that the ""comparatives"" offered by the tenants were not
relevant since they signed a lease (in 2016) at the rate of $1,950.
Ms. Lorega informed the Committee that Program Staff had invalidated two previous
rent increase attempts. She said she believed her rent was above market-rate
considering the condition of the unit, lack of amenities, lack of maintenance and
repairs, and the fact that most utilities were not included. She said that the increased
rent would comprise about 36% of their current income.
Mr. Young responded that the apartment was in fine condition and the tenants did not
take good care of the property. He told the Committee that the tenants had two pet
rabbits when they told him they only had one, and that the unit smelled bad inside.
Referencing the photographs submitted by the landlord, Ms. Lorega replied that most of
the items depicted belonged to her downstairs neighbors. She added that both rabbits
were disclosed to the landlord when they moved in and were in fact mentioned in the
lease, and that she cleaned up after them as needed.
Mr. Young replied that the building was old and that he was not making money from it,
adding that repairs were expensive. He said that the tenants did not inform him of any
work that needed to be done.
Ms. Lorega replied that they did not often ask for repairs because the landlord does
repairs himself and they had concerns about him making repairs to their unit because
he was not mindful of their personal property when doing repair work.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked the tenant if her household was single-income. She
said that it was until her husband very recently found employment. She confirmed that
when he starts bringing in money, the rent will comprise less of their income than the
percentage she stated earlier.
Member Murray asked the tenant to describe the interior of the unit. The tenant said
that she, her husband, and her daughter were the occupants, and that the interior had
broken floor tiles, and multiple different kinds of flooring in various parts of the unit.
She said that caulking was excessively used throughout the apartment in place of
making needed repairs.
Mr. Young said that he was a general contractor and again stated that the tenants did
not ask him for repairs. He said he bought the property in 2013.
Member Friedman asked the tenant how the landlord could help improve her living
situation. Ms. Lorega replied that the landlord was very adversarial, adding that he
drove past the property twice a day. She said that when the Rent Program informed the
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-02-05,3,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
landlord that an offer of a one-year lease was required along with the first rent increase
since enactment of the Ordinance, he came to her door at 8:45 p.m. (close to her
child's bed time) and tried to force her to sign a lease. She said that she did not want to
sign it and does not see herself living there a long time. Member Friedman asked if
improvements to the property would encourage her to stay, and she said they would
have to be substantial.
Chair Cambra asked the landlord if any costs to run the property had increased and Mr.
Young replied that some costs had increased, without specifying which costs.
Member Murray asked the landlord what it cost to pay the mortgage and insurance and
Mr. Young replied that it was about $3,100 per month. Mr. Young expressed that the
rent from both units at the property barely covered the costs of running the property.
Chair Cambra asked the parties if they learned anything new that they did not know
prior to the meeting. Mr. Young said that he did not know that the tiles needed repair.
Chair Cambra asked the tenant if she would be open to a rent increase if the landlord
did repairs. Ms. Lorega responded that the bedroom door would have to be repainted
and made to fit properly and the floors would need to be repaired. Mr. Young said he
was open to fixing the broken floor tiles.
Chair Cambra clarified that the Committee did not have the authority to require repairs
or maintenance in exchange for increased rent and that the parties would have to come
to an agreement between themselves for this. Chair Cambra further clarified that any
agreement is unenforceable by the City and that an agreement would waive the current
right to a hearing. Ms. Lorega said she did not feel comfortable making an agreement
with the landlord.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked the landlord how much rent the tenants in the other
unit paid, and Mr. Young replied that their rent was $2,586 per month.
Member Friedman asked if the tenant was concerned about her deposit being returned
and Ms. Lorega said she was. Member Friedman suggested she may seek outside
assistance, referencing Angie Hajjem-Watson's earlier public comment on ECHO's
housing services.
The parties took their seats and the Committee members began deliberations. Member
Murray said that she believed the rent to be high compared to comparable units in the
area, but not high in relation to the landlord's costs of operation. She echoed that now
that the tenants would have two incomes, the rent increase did not appear to cause a
financial hardship. She stated she believed the fundamental problem was a bad
relationship between the parties. She opined that a 5% increase was reasonable.
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-02-05,4,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana echoed Member Murray's comments, adding that the best
solution may be for the tenants to move to a less expensive unit, as Ms. Lorega
expressed little desire to remain in that apartment.
Member Friedman stated that he did not believe the landlord's costs of operation have
likely increased 5%, but did not think that a lower increase would keep the tenant in
her home considering the reservations she expressed during the meeting.
Chair Cambra reiterated that the main issue was a lack of trust between the parties and
a 5% increase would not displace the tenants. He added that a landlord cannot always
expect a property to generate cash flow.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray) made for a $97.50 (5%) increase.
Passed 3-0, with Member Friedman abstaining.
7-B. CASE 977 - 2027 Encinal Ave., Apt. C
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $150.00, a 9.1% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,800.00, effective March 1, 2018.
7-C. CASE 958.1 - 2215 Central Ave., Apt. H
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $91.50, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,929.00, effective February 1, 2018.
Roberta Borglum, the tenant in this case, was present at the meeting and made a
public comment at this time. She said that she was thankful for the RRAC and the
Ordinance. She informed the Committee that several days prior to the meeting,
her landlord came to her home and told her he would not negotiate the amount
of the increase at the RRAC meeting and asked her to sign Form RP-05 agreeing
to the increased amount. He told her that if she did not like the increase, she could
move out. She said she felt intimidated by the landlord and signed the form. She
added that she had lived in the home for 20 years, and suggested the City of
Alameda consider adopting a stricter form of rent control where tenants did not
have to negotiate with their landlords to avoid situations where the tenant could
feel intimidated.
7-D. CASE 982 - 958 Park St., Apt. B
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $72.60, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,524.60, effective February 1, 2018.
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-02-05,5,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
7-E. CASE 983 - 958 Park St., Apt. 1
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $75.63, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,588.13, effective February 1, 2018.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. Referencing public comment in Agenda Item 7-C, Eric Strimling commented that
the current Ordinance's stipulations encouraging landlords and tenants to
negotiate the amount of rent increases leads to damaged relationships between
the parties. He opined that the City of Alameda should move toward adopting a
strict form of rent control in place of the current system to avoid situations where
a tenant could feel intimidated.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Referencing public comment in Agenda Item 7-C, Member Friedman asked if
Program Staff could do anything to help tenants who feel intimidated. City Attorney
Staff commented that Committee members could ask Program Staff to agendize
items for future discussion, but suggested it may be better to communicate with
Staff directly on certain topics rather than agendizing them for discussion in public
forums. He added that while matters like intimidation and coercion may not be
appropriate topics for Committee discussion, Program Staff might provide
resources to tenants facing those issues, such as by adding resources and
information to the Rent Program's FAQ.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:36 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 5, 2018
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-03-05,1,"Approved Minutes
March 5, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, March 5, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Griffiths and Friedman
Absent:
Member Murray
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be
heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. No public comment.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff welcomed the attendees and participants, and informed them of the process
for participating in the meeting.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the February 5, 2018 Regular Meeting, with
amendments from Chair Cambra.
Motion and second to approve minutes, as amended (Friedman and Sullivan-
Sariñana). Motion passed 3-0, with Member Griffiths abstaining.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 984 - 753 Lincoln Ave., Apt. B
Tenants: Srijana and Uma Devi Kandel
Landlord: Malcolm Lee
Proposed rent increase: $368.00 (21.3%) to a total rent of $2,100.00, effective
March 1, 2018
Landlord Malcolm Lee opened the discussion saying that he was requesting the increase
due to increased costs of running the property. He cited costs incurred from his
neighbor's trees causing problems, the Rent Program fee, and water damage in the
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-03-05,2,"Approved Minutes
March 5, 2018
subject unit, which caused him to have to remodel the bathroom. He stated that he
believed market rate rent for the unit was $2,300-$2,500 based on his review of
Craigslist ads for similar units. He added that the repairs the property needed would
require a bank loan, the payment of which will require increased rental income from
each unit.
Tenant Srijana Kandel replied that she did not ask Mr. Lee to remodel the bathroom,
but that he had to do it due to water damage. She added that the rest of the units in
the property were remodeled, but no other part of their unit except the bathroom had
been renovated. She said she believes that because their apartment is unimproved, it
could not fetch market-rate rent. She informed the Committee that she is the only
person living at the unit who brings in income, and that paying the increased amount
requested by Mr. Lee would create a financial hardship.
Mr. Lee added that he voluntarily changed the carpet in the unit upon the tenants'
initial move-in, put in a new stove and fridge, and rented it below market to them at
the time because he sympathized with them as they shared the experience of being
immigrants. He said he also prefers to rent to families rather than roommates and liked
that a family would be living there.
Ms. Kandel replied that the stove had not been working for 3-6 months and Mr. Lee had
not yet fixed it, despite being notified it was broken. She said that her father lives in
Japan where he runs a restaurant and takes care of his elderly father.
Chair Cambra asked if Mr. Lee learned anything new from the discussion thus far. Mr.
Lee replied that he did not know that the tenant's father was taking care of his father.
Mr. Lee added that the tenants were subleasing the apartment, and he believed they
could pass on some of the cost to the subtenants.
Chair Cambra asked Ms. Kandel if she had learned something new thus far. She replied
that she did not know Mr. Lee had new expenses on the property.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked Mr. Lee if he had approached the neighbor about
paying for some of the costs incurred by the neighbor's trees falling on his property. Mr.
Lee said that he had but that the neighbor was not responsive and it was easier for him
to take care of the damage himself than wait for his neighbor to act.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked about whether there was a sub-tenancy and Ms.
Kandel replied that her uncle came to visit often but was not subleasing or helping pay
the rent.
Member Friedman asked Ms. Kandel how much of her income goes to pay the rent. She
replied that more than half of her income went toward rent and that she must ask her
father for financial support frequently.
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-03-05,3,"Approved Minutes
March 5, 2018
Member Friedman asked Mr. Lee what his monthly costs relating to the unit were, and
Mr. Lee replied that they were $2,250 per month. Mr. Lee distributed a list of income
and costs that had not been previously submitted. It stated that the rent required to
break even for the unit in 2017 was $1,557.01, and the cost to break even in 2018 is
$1,814.08.
Member Griffiths asked Ms. Kandel what the maximum she could pay was, and she
replied $1,850 (a 7% increase).
Chair Cambra asked and Mr. Lee replied that he had owned the building for 13 years.
Chair Cambra noted that the rental amount Mr. Lee was requesting was $100 more
than the cost of the unit, including vacancy costs. Chair Cambra advised Mr. Lee to
continue to work with neighbors to have them fix trees that were causing problems. He
noted that Mr. Lee's previous rent increases were reasonable and gradual, and
commented how going from those smaller, more gradual increases to a 21% increase
presented a difficulty for the tenant and the Committee in allowing the jump. He asked
Mr. Lee if other units in the building were at market rate. Mr. Lee said they were. Chair
Cambra asked for the gross monthly rent at the complex, and Mr. Lee replied it was
$23,100 per month, and total expenses were $19,667 per month.
Mr. Lee said he could come down from asking for $2,100 to $2,000 total rent, a $268
(15.5%) increase.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked Mr. Lee when he anticipated having his vacant unit
ready for rental and Mr. Lee said it's available now, but that he was having trouble
finding a good tenant with the right credentials, stating that many applicants have
""challenging credit."" He said he was asking $2,350 for the vacant unit.
Member Friedman noted that he believed the landlord's proposed cost for retrofitting
the roof may be on the high end, and that he may be able to do the work for less than
the proposed $200,000. Mr. Lee briefly replied explaining his reasons for coming to that
number.
Chair Cambra and Member Griffiths asked if Mr. Lee would be open to a stepped
increase. Mr. Lee replied that he would be open to receiving a lower increased amount
for the first three months of the following year, then $2,000 total rent per month for
rest of the year.
Ms. Kandel stated that her unit is on the ground floor and is not remodeled like others
in the building that can fetch market rate. She said the unit was dark all the time due to
little natural light exposure, and they had to keep the lights on all the time.
Mr. Lee replied that not all other units are remodeled. He added that Unit C is also on
the ground floor and was currently renting for $1,950.
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-03-05,4,"Approved Minutes
March 5, 2018
The parties returned to their seats, and the RRAC members deliberated over the case.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that he believed the reasonable range of rent for the
subject unit was between $1,850 and $2,000.
Member Friedman stated that he believed Mr. Lee's proposed increase goes more
toward profit than keeping up with expenses. He said he believed Mr. Lee needs about
$100 more per month, and he thought Ms. Kandel's proposed increase to $1,850 was
reasonable.
Member Griffiths stated that he believed $1,900 total monthly rent was reasonable
based on Mr. Lee's operating costs, and noted that it was about half way between the
tenant and landlord's proposed amounts. He noted that Mr. Lee provided a lot of
detailed evidence of his costs, while Ms. Kandel did not provide evidence of financial
burden.
Chair Cambra stated that he believed a $150 increase was reasonable.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths) for a $168 (9.7%) increase to a
total rent of $1,900. Motion passed 4-0.
Program staff commented that the RRAC must also determine the effective date of the
increase.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Friedman) to amend, adding an April 1, 2018
effective date. Motion passed 4-0.
7-B. CASE 995 - 413 Coral Reef Rd.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $347.50, a 16.1% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$2,500.00, effective April 1, 2018.
7-C. CASE 998 - 1151 Park Ave., Apt. B
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $50.00, a 2.6% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$2,000.00, effective March 1, 2018.
7-D. CASE 1000 - 732 Central Ave., Apt. 11
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-03-05,5,"Approved Minutes
March 5, 2018
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $80.00, a 4.9% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,7150, effective October 1, 2018.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Chair Cambra stated that he wanted agendize an item to discuss the possibility of
submitting comments alongside the Rent Program's annual report to City Council in
April. Program staff replied that staff could get back to the RRAC about the timeline and
guidelines for submitting comments. Chair Cambra asked the other RRAC members if
they would like to make comments. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana and Member Griffiths
said they would.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that he doesn't think the timing of the Housing
Authority's report to the City Council should necessarily influence when the RRAC
submits comments or suggestions to staff or City Council.
Member Friedman said he thought the RRAC should discuss making and presenting a
report to City Council separate from Program staff's report.
City Attorney staff interjected that it may be best to not speak about this topic at length
presently, but agendize a time to discuss it after staff has had a chance to provide
details consistent with the RRAC's direction.
Chair Cambra commented that he believes the City of Alameda's RRAC is a very
successful process with superior results compared to other jurisdictions he has
reviewed.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 7, 2018
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-04-02,1,"Approved Minutes
April 2, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, April 2, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Murray and Friedman
Absent:
Member Griffiths
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff announced that several cases on the agenda would not be heard, as they
resolved prior to the hearing, and that the order of some cases had changed.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant,
and mediation services.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. No staff announcements.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that he would like to suggest edits to the March
minutes. He confirmed he would email staff suggested amendments before May's
RRAC meeting.
Motion and second to table approval of the minutes until May's meeting. (Sullivan-
Sariñana and Friedman). Motion passed 4-0.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-F. CASE 1005.1 - 114 Keil Bay
Tenant: Maryann Sadoon
Landlord: Elena and Nelson Chan
Proposed rent increase: $152.25 (5.0%) to a total rent of $3,197.25, effective April
1, 2018
Page 1 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-04-02,2,"Approved Minutes
April 2, 2018
No Committee review. Prior to the meeting, staff approved Ms. Sadoon's request to
attend the meeting by phone. Staff called Ms. Sadoon and she declined to participate.
As the tenant declined to participate in the hearing, the rent increase will go into effect
as proposed.
7-A. CASE 1006 - 111 Crolls Garden Ct.
Tenant: Abel Macias III
Landlord: Property Manager Steve Ace Hofer, on behalf of owner, Kumari Judge
Proposed rent increase: $85.00 (4.8%) to a total rent of $1,855.00, effective April
1, 2018
Mr. Macias acknowledged the landlord had made improvements to his unit, and stated
his desire for the landlord to address other concerns he had about the condition of the
unit and complex. To illustrate an example of his concerns, he showed photos on his
laptop showing a parked vehicle blocking access to part of the complex. He shared other
photos that showed stairs at the property that were in need of maintenance. He pointed
out they had worn tread, wood rot, and presented other safety concerns. He said that
although some improvements had recently been made, more were needed to make the
stairs safer.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana clarified that the RRAC cannot directly address maintenance
concerns, but that it could facilitate dialogue that may allow the parties to resolve those
issues together along with the rent increase amount.
Mr. Hofer stated that management took maintenance of the property seriously and
intends to keep the property in good condition.
Mr. Macias said he had brought up his maintenance concerns to management before and
management had not addressed all of them. Member Murray asked if Mr. Hofer was a
new manager and he said he had been employed as the manager at that property for
about two years and was working to fix long-standing problems that the previous
manager had neglected. Mr. Macias acknowledged that Mr. Hofer had done some work
to improve the property and reiterated that he wanted to make sure his concerns were
addressed if he is to pay a rent increase.
Member Murray re-clarified that the RRAC could facilitate the parties coming to an
agreement but could not make a decision regarding the maintenance concerns.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that Mr. Macias could voice his concerns about
management doing his requested repairs in a timely manner. Mr. Macias confirmed that
he did have concerns about the work being done in a timely manner. Mr. Hofer said he
hoped to address the maintenance issues within the next month or so.
Page 2 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-04-02,3,"Approved Minutes
April 2, 2018
Mr. Macias also raised concern about other tenants following the rules, such as by parking
correctly. Mr. Hofer explained that he does address those matters with other tenants in
an ongoing manner.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked Mr. Macias if he was comfortable with paying the rent
increase going forward. Mr. Macias responded that he was comfortable agreeing to the
increase if the landlord agreed to make the repairs he had requested, which Mr. Hofer
agreed to do.
The parties reached a voluntary agreement that Mr. Macias would pay the rent increase
and Mr. Hofer would address Mr. Macias' concerns.
7-B. CASE 1008 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. F213
Tenants: Soniya Kullar and Arjmand Yousefian
Landlord: Katie Edwards
Proposed rent increase: $104.00 (4.9%) to a total rent of $2,239.00, effective
March 26, 2018
No Committee review. The tenants did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as proposed.
7-C. CASE 1002.1 - 2056 Encinal Ave., Apt. 4
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a
rent increase of $90.00, a 10.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $990.00 effective
April 1, 2018.
7-D. CASE 1003.1 - 2056 Encinal Ave., Apt.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a
rent increase of $80.00, a 10.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $880.00 effective
April 1, 2018.
7-E. CASE 1004.1 - 2056 Encinal Ave., Apt. 2
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to
a
rent increase of $105.00, a 10.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,155.00
effective April 1, 2018.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
None.
Page 3 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-04-02,4,"Approved Minutes
April 2, 2018
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 7, 2018
Page 4 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-05-07,1,"Approved Minutes
May 7, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, May 7, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Murray, Friedman, and Griffiths
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff announced that several cases on the agenda would not be heard, as they
resolved prior to the hearing.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. No public comment.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. No staff announcements.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Griffiths and Cambra) with two typos
corrected by Chair Cambra. Motion passed 4-0. Member Murray abstained.
5-B. Approval of the Minutes of the April 2, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray). Motion
passed 3-0. Chair Cambra and Member Griffiths abstained.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 1013 - 1586 Lincoln Ave.
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a
rent increase of $154.25, a 10.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,703.00
effective May 20, 2018.
Page 1 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-05-07,2,"Approved Minutes
May 7, 2018
7-B. CASE 1015 - 2251 San Jose Ave., Unit B
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant informed the landlord that
she would vacate the unit.
7-C. CASE 1016 - 2251 San Jose Ave., Unit C
Tenant: Micah Beasley
Landlords: Cindy Ou, Linda, Joe
Proposed rent increase: $106.25 (6.8%), $78.25, plus 10% of the water bill which
amounts to approximately $28.00 per month, to a total rent of $1,643.25 plus
10% of the water bill, effective June 1, 2018
Cindy Ou explained that she thought that making her tenants partially responsible for the
water bill would encourage them to use water more frugally. She and Joe stated that
they reduce their own water usage and wanted to ensure that the tenants also take steps
to conserve water.
Micah Beasley explained that she thought her rent increase was going up 15% and asked
for clarification. Chair Cambra and Member Murray clarified that the landlords were asking
for a $78.25 rent increase plus 10% of each water bill, which averaged approximately
$28.00 per month.
Ms. Beasley said that she already conserves water. She added that she has to let the
water run a long time before the water heats up. She noted that other units may use
more water and therefore charging her 10% of the bill makes her feel like she will be
paying for other tenants' water usage.
Member Murray confirmed the points and concerns Ms. Beasley made.
Ms. Ou stated that the total rent increase, including the unbundling of part of the water
bill, amounted to about 7%, not 15 percent. She stated that the landlords would be
paying 50% of the total water bill and the other 50% of the bill would be divided equally
at each of the five units on the property.
Ms. Beasley noted that her salary did not increase 7% per year and believed continued
increases would pose a financial burden on her household in the future. She said she has
had previous rent increases from previous landlords, although this was the first from this
landlord.
Ms. Ou added that the landlord pays for the utilities in all common areas, the laundry
room, and the hallways.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana referenced the prior rent increases that Ms. Ou provided on
her Form RP-04 and asked Ms. Beasley if those rent increases were correct. Ms. Beasley
said she did not remember if they were correct.
Page 2 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-05-07,3,"Approved Minutes
May 7, 2018
Member Murray asked Ms. Beasley to confirm if she felt like she could handle this rent
increase, but not future increases above five percent. Ms. Beasley confirmed this was
accurate. Member Murray asked Ms. Ou if she had plans to increase the rent more than
5% in the future. Ms. Ou said she intends to increase the rent at or below 5% in the
future. She added that the only reason she had to come to the RRAC hearing for this
increase was because of the unbundling of the water bill, which made the rent increase
go above five percent.
Ms. Beasley said she was a long-time Alameda resident going back to 1995. She said she
lived here before that time as well, when her father was stationed at the Alameda Naval
Base. She expressed a desire to remain in Alameda and had concerns about being priced
out of the city.
Member Murray stated that the purpose of Ordinance 3148 is to keep long-time residents
from being priced-out. City Attorney staff Le added that a tenant could request RRAC
review of an increase of 5% or less if she had concerns about future rent increases. Chair
Cambra acknowledged this was correct.
Joe opined that having to run the water longer to get hot is not a fixable problem, as
water needs to travel from the heater to her unit. Ms. Ou and Joe noted that Ms. Beasley
lived farther from the hot water heater than other tenants. They pointed out that Ms.
Beasley may end up using more water than other tenants because of the distance of her
unit from the water heater, yet she would only have to pay the same 10% of the total
water bill that the other tenants would have to pay.
Member Murray acknowledged that Ms. Beasley was already taking steps to conserve
water and Ms. Beasley felt she could not cut back on water usage more than she has.
Ms. Ou confirmed her intention to increase the rent next year at 5% or less.
Member Friedman expressed appreciation for the landlords, as rather than attempting to
bring the rent to market rate or compensate for having a larger mortgage than previous
property owners, the landlords were asking for a relatively modest rent increase. He also
expressed appreciation for Ms. Beasley attending the meeting to discuss the increase and
learn about the rent review process.
Member Griffiths restated that tenants can request review of rent increases of 5% or less.
Member Murray acknowledged that the RRAC review process presented an opportunity
for parties to discuss concerns and provided a space for parties to try to work things out.
Ms. Beasley agreed to the rent increase the landlords were requesting.
Page 3 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-05-07,4,"Approved Minutes
May 7, 2018
Public comment on Agenda Item 7-C: Eric Strimling applauded Ms. Beasley for coming to
the hearing to find out what the rent increase review process was like. He also applauded
the landlords for keeping the increase close to 5% and trying to conserve water. He said
that the landlords could have increased the rent by less to make the total increase,
including the unbundling of the water bill, equal to or less than five percent. He added
that upgraded water systems for hot water can be installed cheaply and may help reduce
the water wastage that occurs when running the water while waiting for it to get hot.
7-D. CASE 1017 - 2251 San Jose Ave., Unit D
Tenant: Kristie Nachtsheim
Landlord: Cindy Ou, Linda, Joe
Proposed rent increase: $106.25 (6.8%), $78.25, plus 10% of the water bill which
amounts to approximately $28.00 per month, to a total rent of $1,643.25 plus
10% of the water bill, effective June 1, 2018
No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The rent increase will go
into effect as proposed.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
None.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:17 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 6, 2018
Page 4 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-06-06,1,"Approved Minutes
June 6, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday June 6, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Murray, Friedman, and Griffiths
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff announced that one of the cases on the agenda would not be heard, as it
resolved prior to the hearing.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. No public comment.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. No staff announcements.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray). Motion
passed 5-0.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 1023 - 1621 Broadway, Apt. A
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to
a
rent increase of $120.00, a 7.1% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,820.00
effective June 1, 2018.
7-B. CASE 1025 - 1621 Broadway, Apt. B
Tenant: Raquel Vazquez, accompanied by non-tenant supporter Carlos
Landlords: Allen and Loretta Gravelle
Proposed rent increase: $165.00 (10.0%), from $1,650.00 to $1,815.00, effective July 1,
2018
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-06-06,2,"Approved Minutes
June 6, 2018
Mr. Gravelle stated that they were looking for a 10% increase and had submitted
documents showing that their costs of operation have increased. Ms. Gravelle added that
they take care of the property and they had just hired a gardener to maintain the outside
of the property.
Member Murray asked for specific monetary amounts of the costs the landlords have
incurred. The landlords stated that in 2016 they made $16,000 of improvements on the
property. Ms. Gravelle provided the Committee with specific dollar amounts of costs that
have increased, including taxes, utilities, and insurance. She added that they had only
increased the rent twice since the tenancy began six years ago.
Ms. Vazquez requested that Carlos present her perspective on the rent increase. (Carlos
was later introduced as her ex-husband who was there to support her during the hearing).
Carlos stated that a 10% increase would create a financial burden for Ms. Vazquez. He
acknowledged that the landlords made improvements to the property, but stated that the
improvements were not to Ms. Vazquez's unit and therefore did not directly benefit her.
He said that both the back and front yards were not well maintained. He said that the
landlords have not had a gardener and it's uncertain if they will keep the new gardener
they claim to have hired. He said that Ms. Vazquez was not opposed to any increase, but
believes 10% is excessive. He mentioned that the tenant used to pay the PG&E bill, but
that the landlords pay it now.
Chair Cambra asked the landlords why they started paying the PG&E bill. Mr. Gravelle
replied that when they renovated the laundry room, the new dryers they put in were
powered by gas, the meter for which was not severable from the tenant's unit. In order
to proceed with the renovation, including the new gas-powered dryers and to ensure that
Ms. Vazquez was not paying gas for the common laundry room, they took over payment
of her gas bill, which amounted to about $25 per month.
Mr. Gravelle stated that prior to hiring the new gardener, his son would periodically do
grounds keeping work, but not regularly and the grounds keeping will now be done
regularly by the new gardener.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked the landlords why they did not ask for smaller rent
increases over several years instead of one larger one. Ms. Gravelle acknowledged that
this would have been better with hindsight. Mr. Gravelle added that when they were
doing their taxes this year they realized they needed to have more income from the
property.
Member Murray asked the landlords what the purpose of the property was for them. Mr.
Gravelle stated that he hopes to have income from the property as part of their retirement
income, as he was retiring in about one and a half years. Member Murray asked if they
were currently running at a profit or loss. Mr. Gravelle stated that in prior years they were
running at a loss, and that more recently they may be just breaking even.
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-06-06,3,"Approved Minutes
June 6, 2018
Member Murray asked Ms. Vazquez why her income had decreased. Ms. Vazquez replied
that her former employer retired last year, and her new job did not pay as much, and
was on contract, not permanent employment. Member Murray asked Ms. Vazquez if she
saw a clear path to increasing her income. Ms. Vazquez replied that she believes her
income will increase but was not sure when. Member Murray asked her what impact a
10% increase would have on her. Ms. Vazquez replied that she would probably have to
move, but was not sure to where since rents are high everywhere. Member Murray asked
her if she could afford a 5% rent increase and Ms. Vazquez said she could.
Member Friedman asked the landlords how much their expenses relating to the property
have increased over the past year. Ms. Gravelle provided some concrete expense
increases and added that operational costs and costs of supplies had also increased.
Member Friedman asked if there had been a 10% increase in expenses. Mr. Gravelle
stated that some of the 10% they were now requesting is not directly related to this last
year's increases, but also includes a desire to ""catch up"" because they had not raised the
rent in four of the past six years. Member Murray commented that a larger one time
increase can be harder for a tenant to afford than multiple smaller increases, as it may
give the tenant less of an ability to adjust and plan their finances in a regular, sustainable
way. She acknowledged that the purpose of Ordinance 3148 is to stabilize tenants' living
situations, which smaller, more regular increases would do better than fewer larger
increases.
Chair Cambra asked if any party learned something new that they did not know before
the hearing began. Ms. Gravelle said she didn't know that Ms. Vazquez had taken a pay
cut with her new job. Chair Cambra asked if they were willing to modify their rent increase
offer having learned this. Mr. Gravelle stated that they would accept a $124 rent increase
(7.5%). Member Griffiths asked Ms. Vazquez how much she would be comfortable paying
and she said she could pay 5% increase or $82.50 increase.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked the landlords what impact not having the full increase
would have on their life. Mr. Gravelle restated that they had been losing money on the
property, and understands that that's common for a number of years after buying a rental
property. Ms. Gravelle added that they had two out of three of their children currently in
college, and that Mr. Gravelle would be retiring soon adding to their need for additional
income from the property.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana pointed out that Ms. Vazquez had indicated that she thought
a $50 increase was reasonable on her response form, and asked her to think about how
much she could really afford.
Member Murray noted that both parties had genuine financial concerns. She proposed a
stepped rent increase: an increase of $85 for the first six months, followed by an
additional $80 for the second six months of the coming year.
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-06-06,4,"Approved Minutes
June 6, 2018
Ms. Vazquez stated that she could not afford this proposed increase and said she could
do an increase of $50 for 11 months and then an additional $124 increase after that.
Chair Cambra and Member Murray explained to the parties that the RRAC would discuss
their perspectives on what they had heard and give them one last chance to come to an
agreement before asking them to return to their seats in the audience while the
Committee makes a decision.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that he believed all parties have legitimate financial
concerns and did not believe the landlord's request to be outrageous.
Chair Cambra acknowledged that the landlords only imposed two increases in six years,
totaling $250, and noted that making up for not increasing the rent in increments is
problematic. He said he believes the unit was under market rate, that he gives a lot of
weight to the tenant's hopefully temporary financial situation, and at the same time
wanted to give the landlords a fair increase.
Member Friedman stated that the financial hardship on the tenant is an important
consideration, noting that Ordinance 3148 requires the Committee to weigh the interests
of the parties when deciding on a fair increase. He said he did not believe a 10% increase
was needed for the landlord to maintain the property, and was inclined to approve an
$85 (about 5%) increase.
Member Griffiths disclosed that he believes a stepped increase would be an appropriate
solution given that the tenant stated her belief that her financial hardship was temporary,
and given the landlords' interest in earning a reasonable rate of return on the property.
Member Murray noted a financial need and good will on both sides. She said she believed
a 10% increase was generally reasonable but that it would cause distress to the tenant
in this circumstance, and so would support a lesser increase amount this year. She noted
that the Committee is charged with stabilizing housing in the community and sees a
stepped increase as a good option.
Chair Cambra asked the parties if they'd like to change the offers made thus far. Mr.
Gravelle stated he believes a stepped increase after six months is the best solution, and
believes the increase should jump to 10% from the current rent after six months.
Member Murray stated she believes a stepped increase that brought the increase to 10%
was higher than the Committee members were considering. She said she believes around
$50 for the first step would be reasonable and the next increase would be more than
$50, but not 10% above the current rent.
Ms. Gravelle stated she believed a $50 increase was too low.
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-06-06,5,"Approved Minutes
June 6, 2018
After a recess, as the parties did not reach an agreement, they took their seats in the
audience.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said he did not believe a 10% increase would be warranted
even if it were stepped, as it might force the tenant out of her home. He added that
finding a new job was not necessarily easy and that the consequences for the tenant
paying a rate too high were greater than the consequences for the landlords if they did
not get the full increase they were requesting. He stated he believed a $50 increase for
six months, plus $74 additional dollars for the second six months, was a good option.
Member Murray stated that a $50 increase for the first six months would mean that the
second step would be too high to make it a 7.5% increase.
Chair Cambra asked the Committee members if they were comfortable with starting at a
$50 increase for six months.
Member Murray said she would be and added that she thought the second six months
should add an additional $75 to the rent, which would take the total increased amount
to a 7.5% total over the course of the year.
Member Friedman stated that a $50 increase for the first six months would give the
tenant an increase she would be comfortable with, and bringing the rent up to a total of
7.5% in the second six months would give the landlord an amount they had earlier
expressed was acceptable for them.
Member Griffiths proposed a $50 increase for the first eight months, then an additional
$115 for the last four months of the year. He pointed out this would give the tenant an
extra two months of lower rent while she's looking for permanent, higher paying work,
and give the landlords the full rent increase they were seeking in the last four months.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that he does not believe the base rent should be
raised by 10% over the course of the year as it would be under Member Griffith's
proposal.
Member Murray said she would favor Member Griffith's proposal over ones previously
proposed.
Member Griffiths said his proposal is based off 1. The immediate need of the tenant, 2.
That the landlords said they were comfortable with a 7.5% increase throughout the year,
and 3. It gets the rent where the landlords wanted it to be by the end of one year. He
added that he was open to additional proposals.
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-06-06,6,"Approved Minutes
June 6, 2018
Member Murray clarified that Member Griffith's proposal would give the landlords an
increase in rental income just above 5% over the course of the next year in total amount
of rent paid.
Member Murray made motion to adopt Member Griffith's proposal: eight months of a $50
increase, followed by an additional $115 increase for the last four months.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana noted that his proposal was only slightly different than
Member Murray's original proposal.
Member Friedman stated that he favors a proposal where the tenant pays a $50 increase
in the first six months, but was not yet sure how much the increase in the second six
months should be.
The Members reviewed several of the proposals and found that the differences in total
rent paid after one year to be minimal.
Chair Cambra seconded Member Murray's motion.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana restated that he did not want the base rent to increase by
10%, but would rather have it increase 7.5%, even if it means that the tenant had six
rather than eight months of the lower increase. He moved to amend Member Murray's
original motion as follows: a $50 increase for first six months, to a total rent of $1,700,
then in the second six months an additional $75 to a total rent of $1,775.
Member Friedman seconded the amended motion, stating that he believed the concerns
for the parties for this year were addressed with either stepped proposal.
Member Murray reminded the Committee that Mr. Gravelle would be retiring in one or
two years, and the landlords' household income would then go down. She said that they
had a legitimate interest in obtaining additional income from their investment property.
She stated that she believed the original proposal balances the needs to of the parties
more equitably than the amended proposal.
City Attorney staff clarified that the vote before the Committee was a vote on whether to
amend the original motion, and if it fails, Member Murray's original motion would still
stand.
The Committee voted on Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana's motion to amend Member
Murray's motion. The motion to amend Member Murray's original passed 4-1, with
Member Murray voting against the motion to amend.
Chair Cambra called for a vote on the amended motion to adopt Vice Chair Sullivan-
Sariñana's proposal (which was seconded by Member Friedman) for a $50 increase for
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-06-06,7,"Approved Minutes
June 6, 2018
the first six months, and an additional $75 in the second six months. The motion passed
4-1, with Member Murray voting against the amended motion.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Program staff reminded the Committee that during the next regularly scheduled meeting
on July 2, 2018 they would again vote for Chair and Vice Chair for the Committee.
Program staff also announced that staff was looking to schedule their annual training for
late July and would email them requesting their availability to coordinate a date and time
that would work.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on July 2, 2018
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-02,1,"Approved Minutes
July 2, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday July 2, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Murray and Griffiths
Absent:
Member Friedman
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Changes were announced as each item was called.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant,
and mediation services.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. No staff announcements.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the June 6, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Griffiths and Murray). Motion passed
4-0.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 1038 - 330 Westline Dr., Apt. B325
Tenant: Kristen Dodson
Landlord: Katie Edwards
Proposed rent increases:
Month-to-month option: $715.00 (27.5%)
Lease option: $62.00 (2.4%)
Effective August 1, 2018
No Committee review. The tenant did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to
the tenant.
Page 1 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-02,2,"Approved Minutes
July 2, 2018
7-B. CASE 1039 - 330 Westline Dr., Apt. B422
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a
rent increase of $64.00, a 2.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $2,400.00
effective August 1, 2018.
7-C. CASE 1040 - 344 Westline Dr., Apt. C117
Tenant: Mirembe Francis
Landlord: Katie Edwards
Proposed rent increases:
Month-to-month option: $598.00 (33.5%)
Lease option: $146.00 (7.6%)
Effective August 1, 2018
No Committee review. The tenant did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to
the tenant.
7-D. CASE 1041 - 344 Westline Dr., Apt. C203
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenants provided notice that they
would vacate the unit.
7-E. CASE 1042 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. E105
Tenants: Sara Carlson, Elijan Alcantar, Isias Alcantar, & Paula Garcia
Landlord: Katie Edwards
Proposed rent increases:
Month-to-month option: $867.00 (31.2%)
Lease option: $138.00 (5.0%)
Effective August 1, 2018
No Committee review. The tenants did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to
the tenants.
7-F. CASE 1043 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. E117
Tenants: Tina Weatherly & John Furtado
Landlord: Katie Edwards
Proposed rent increases:
Month-to-month option: $532.00 (30.3%)
Lease option: $85.00 (4.8%)
Effective August 1, 2018
No Committee review. The tenants did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to
the tenants.
Page 2 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-02,3,"Approved Minutes
July 2, 2018
7-G. CASE 1044 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. E201
Tenants: Brook Gebrechristos & Raheal Solomon
Landlord: Katie Edwards
Proposed rent increases:
Month-to-month option: $688.00 (29.6%)
Lease option: $110.00 (4.7%)
Effective August 1, 2018
No Committee review. The tenants did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to
the tenants.
7-H. CASE 1046 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. F231
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a
rent increase between 0-5%, effective August 1, 2018.
7-I. CASE 1048 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. F307
Tenant: Carol Barrette
Landlord: Katie Edwards
Proposed rent increases:
Month-to-month option: $686.00 (30.5%)
Lease option: $109.00 (4.8%)
Effective August 1, 2018
Ms. Barrette informed the Committee that she had lived in her apartment for about two
years. She said her mother was ill and she may need to stay with her at some point in
the near future, but was unsure when. As a result, she needed the flexibility a month-to-
month lease offers. She said that the month-to-month rent increase offer provided by the
landlords seemed excessive and would present a financial burden for her.
Member Murray restated Ms. Barrette's situation and asked what she thought a fair rent
increase offer would be. Ms. Barrette said she thought a 4% ($109) rent increase offer
was fair.
Ms. Edwards said she understands and sympathizes with Ms. Barrette's situation. She
proposed a $217 (9.9%) increase for a month-to-month agreement. She explained that
month-to-month agreements create uncertainty and increased costs for housing
providers.
Member Murray confirmed that the rent increase offer presented by Ms. Edwards would
increase the rent from $2,199 to $2,416 per month.
Ms. Barrette stated that she had to pay utilities in addition to rent. After hesitating for a
moment, she said she would be able to pay Ms. Edwards' proposed increase.
Page 3 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-02,4,"Approved Minutes
July 2, 2018
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked Ms. Barrette to confirm that she found Ms. Edwards'
proposed increase acceptable. Ms. Barrette said that she would rather not pay that much
of an increase.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana clarified his question, asking her if she was able to pay the
increase. Ms. Barrette said she would be able to pay it, as she would probably only be
there a couple more months.
Chair Cambra restated that she would be okay paying this increase if she were to stay in
the unit only two months, but asked if it would be okay if she had to stay longer, as she
had previously stated she was not sure how long she would have to stay. Ms. Barrette
said that the longer she had to pay the increase the harder it would be for her. She
expressed skepticism about why the management would have increased expenses by
providing her a month-to-month lease, as she was already an in-place tenant, and
thought the newly proposed increase was still excessive considering that she was already
in-place.
Member Murray clarified what Ms. Barrette was currently paying - $2,199 rent, plus $50
pet rent, plus garbage, water, water heating, and an administrative fee, all of which come
out to several hundred dollars in addition to the rent.
Ms. Edwards asked the Committee why they were questioning Ms. Barrette's original
statement that she would be fine with the $217 (9.9%) increase.
Chair Cambra explained that attending the public hearing and discussing a rent increase
could cause pressure on the parties, so the Committee wanted to ensure that the tenant
could genuinely afford the increase, and explore the issue in greater detail. He alluded to
the fact that she said she could afford the proposed increase for two months, but that
may be different if it were raised to that level for six months. Member Murray added that
the goal of the hearing was to have the parties come to agreements that would work
long-term, and not rush people into making agreements that may later unravel.
Ms. Barrette added that she would have to dip into her savings to pay this increase, and
proposed a 5% increase. Ms. Edwards rejected the proposal.
Chair Cambra asked if a lease less than one year would be acceptable to the parties. Ms.
Edwards said that it would be acceptable and she would be willing to give Ms. Barrette a
6-month lease at the 12-month rate (an increase of $109.00, or 4.8%). Ms. Barrette
expressed concern considering she may have to leave before the end of six months. Ms.
Edwards stated that getting someone to take over a lease at the end of a year is often
difficult, so she was not inclined to let tenant break the proposed 6-month lease early.
Ms. Edwards offered a $175.00 (8.0%) increase for a month-to-month agreement.
Page 4 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-02,5,"Approved Minutes
July 2, 2018
Ms. Barrette agreed, concluding the case review, and preempting the RRAC from making
a decision concerning the increase.
7-J. CASE 1049 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. F309
Tenants: Emily Abad & Courtane Stanton
Landlord: Katie Edwards
Proposed rent increases:
Month-to-month option: $694.00 (31.2%)
Lease option: $111.00 (5.0%)
Effective August 1, 2018
No Committee review. The tenants did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to
the tenants.
7-K. CASE 1050 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. G110
Tenant: Deborah Golay
Landlord: Katie Edwards
Proposed rent increases:
Month-to-month option: $521.00 (31.2%)
Lease option: $83.00 (5.0%)
Effective August 1, 2018
No Committee review. The tenant did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to
the tenant.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. Stewart Chen congratulated the Committee on its high success rate in resolving
cases. He expressed a possible need for more outreach to the Chinese-speaking
community about the Rent Stabilization Program and RRAC rent review process.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Program staff reminded the Committee they are scheduled to vote on a Chair and Vice
Chair. As there was a member absent the Committee expressed reservations about
voting. Motion and second to table the vote to the next regular meeting on August 6,
2018 (Murray and Sullivan-Sariñana). Motion passed 4-0.
City Attorney staff added that the vote also served to suspend the rules that the annual
vote for Chair and Vice Chair would happen in July.
Program staff requested Committee member confirmations of their availability for the
annual training on July 23, 2018. All but Member Murray confirmed their availability for
that day. Program staff informed the Committee that staff would send additional details
about the annual training before that training date.
Page 5 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-02,6,"Approved Minutes
July 2, 2018
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 6, 2018
Page 6 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,1,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday July 23, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Friedman and Griffiths
Absent:
Member Murray
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats, Jennifer Kauffman, Janice
Heredia
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. None.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. None.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff announced that several trainings for RRAC members would be given
periodically throughout the next year, and that several other presenters had
already been identified. Staff informed the Committee that additional details would
be provided closer to the training dates.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. A special meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee is being
convened to allow a quorum of its members to participate in a meeting
facilitation training.
Staff introduced the speaker, Stewart Levine, and the topic for the day's training:
Meeting Management Skills.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Levine began the training by asking the RRAC
members to introduce themselves, say something about why they chose to be on this
Committee, and provide their desired outcome for the day.
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,2,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
Each member introduced themselves and provided their answers. Member Griffiths
mentioned wanting to improve RRAC meetings by making them more regular. Vice
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed a desire to help his community. Member Friedman
provided that he feels like he makes a worthwhile contribution to the Committee and
community by serving on the RRAC. He also said he hopes to learn new things by
serving.
Chair Cambra said that he has been described as having an almost religious zeal for
mediation and hopes to bring parties together. He said his desired outcome for the day
was to receive affirmations for things the Committee does well and constructive
criticism for areas where they could improve.
Mr. Levine introduced himself, informing the Committee that he has been a practicing
attorney before pursuing work in mediation and divorce mediation. He said he had
written two books: The Book of Agreement and Collaboration 2.0. He said he was
providing the presentation on behalf of The Consulting Team, is an Alameda resident,
and a concerned citizen about the housing situation in the region.
Mr. Levine asked the Committee members to rate their last meeting on a scale from
one to ten, and include why they choose the number they did. He shared a quote with
the members to consider, ""Use your thinking speed wisely.""
Member Friedman commented that he found the respectfulness of the Committee
members to be a positive. He opined that a RRAC hearing was not a good forum for
mediation because the meeting is very public, which can inhibit participants from fully
participating.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said he would rate the last meeting a 7/10, commenting
that the Committee did a good job facilitating communication between landlord and
tenant. He said that RRAC meetings often run long because members tend to be wordy,
but that the reason for that was to share their thinking processes.
Member Griffiths gave last meeting a 6/10, noting both positives and areas for
improvement. Mr. Levine asked the members if they thought it was good for parties to
know how they came to a decision. Member Griffiths said that he thought it was a good
thing, so that participants did not think the decisions were arbitrary.
Chair Cambra added that discussion of one's thought processes also served to allow
members to understand what other members were thinking. He said he would rate
three components of the last meeting: efficiency 5-7 out of 10; the mediation phase a
8-9 out of 10, and the recommendation phase an 8 out of 10. He said he would give
the meeting a 7 out of 10 overall.
The members discussed their different perspectives.
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,3,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
Mr. Levine presented how listening, focusing, using agreements, problem solving and
decision-making are important considerations for improving efficiency and
complemented the Committee for their problem solving skills. He added that when it
comes to efficiency, ""Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough.""
Mr. Levine provided the members with the acronym ""ROAR: Roles, Outcome, Agenda,
Rules"" and suggested members focus on the agenda for each case that comes before
them. He acknowledged that the rules are pretty clearly set out, and how to get to an
outcome is the challenge.
Mr. Levine brought up the importance of agreements and suggested the members
make a commitment to agree to stay on time and keep focused on agenda. Member
Friedman responded that there were problems with rigidly adhering to time limits as
each case was different, and that there were no formal rules limiting the amount of
time the Committee could spend on any given matter. He stated that staff occasionally
attempted to impose time limits on the Committee.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said that he understood the reasons for adhering to a time
limit, as it would ensure fairness that each set of parties would get equal time.
Chair Cambra said he agreed with the principle of equity, but sometimes members need
extra time to get information out of the parties.
Member Griffiths said he would not mind codifying a 45-minute per case rule in the
Committee's bylaws, if it allowed the possibility of extensions.
Program staff added that equity was one issue, but time was also a valuable tool the
Committee can use to move the hearings forward.
City Attorney staff added that while the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is silent on the
issue of time limits, it was worth noting that the City Council recognized the importance
of time management and imposed time limits on themselves. He said he believes
Member Griffith's proposal to add a time limit to the bylaws should be considered.
Member Friedman responded that he believes the Committee should have a non-rigid
time limit and have a discussion and on it before voting it into the bylaws.
Chair Cambra said the Committee could agendize a time for discussion on a time limit
for the next meeting.
City Attorney staff added that the Committee could include a ""suspension of the rules""
option along with the rule for cases where additional time may be needed.
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,4,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
Mr. Levine presented the importance of separating rolls and duties to improve meeting
efficiency, such as by designating a timekeeper to track time limits. He said the roll of
the timekeeper should be to monitor the meeting time, time each agenda item, and
givers periodic alerts when approaching time limits.
Chair Cambra replied that he was the timekeeper as well as Chair and he uses cards to
notify parties of impending time limits.
Mr. Levine suggested that the roll be designated to someone other than the Chair, to
ensure that one person was not taking on too much. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said
that he could take on the role of timekeeper.
Member Friedman expressed a desire to discuss whether time was a problem the
Committee needed to address. Member Griffiths replied that staff had already brought
up reasons, e.g., for purposes of equity. Mr. Levine added that timekeeping also
functioned to ensure all the cases scheduled at any given meeting could be addressed.
Member Griffiths opined that the problem the Committee runs into with time
management lies in the middle of the discussions during a case, which seem to often go
overtime. He recognized that the Committee did not treat all cases the same, as when
there were multiple cases on an agenda, the Committee moved them along faster than
when there were fewer cases.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana acknowledged that one of the inherent weaknesses of the
City's rent review process was the uncertainty that comes with each case, as every case
was different and had to be treated on a case-by-case basis. He said he believes having
a time limit would be fine as long as they had the ability to extend it.
Mr. Levine emphasized the importance of urgency, saying that there had to be a certain
amount of urgency to keep the hearing moving along. He asked each member to write
a personal, measurable goal that will improve meeting efficiency.
Chair Cambra shared that if the Committee were able to better perceive when parties
are not likely to come to an agreement, it could improve speed and efficiency. Member
Friedman and Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana suggested various ways of informing the
parties they had a limited amount of time to come to an agreement to encourage them
to try to resolve matters faster.
Chair Griffiths suggested reducing repetitive comments, and Vice Chair Sullivan-
Sariñana responded that restating comments have value. Member Griffiths replied that
the Committee could work on finding a middle ground.
Mr. Levine asked if the training stopped right now, what would be the take away for
each member.
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,5,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
Member Griffiths replied that the Committee's process has a lot of room for
improvement and the members should not be resistant to improving it. Member
Friedman said he would like to improve listening and focusing skills.
Me. Levine presented a sample RRAC case timeline with time limits on each part of the
review process and the members discussed. Mr. Levine suggested having a pre-printed
list of questions that Committee members could use to move case discussions along
more efficiently. Member Friedman replied that having a pre-printed list of questions
was interesting but was not something that the Committee had considered before. He
expressed frustration that mediation was part of the RRAC review process, as the
parties had an opportunity to mediate prior to the hearing with program staff.
Member Griffiths replied that the mediation format of the RRAC hearing process had
value as it produced many mutual agreements between the parties. He added that
Committee members sometimes treated binding and nonbinding cases differently, and
were quicker to come to a conclusion when the case was binding. He said they may
want to try to encourage parties to come to agreements themselves especially where
the Committee's decision is nonbinding.
Mr. Levine brought the discussion back to the importance of agreements and
consequences for not sticking to agreements. As an example of a consequence of not
adhering to time limits, he posited that the consequence could be, ""having to hire me
again."" He praised the Committee for approaching the cases from a place of inquiry
rather than judgment. He discussed listening strategies and praised the Committee for
their listening skills. He reflected on the importance of approaching each case from an
unbiased perspective.
Member Friedman replied that there were some instances when he found it difficult to
be neutral, e.g., when landlords say they need additional rental income for retirement.
He asked if it was permissible for members to express their values.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana responded that everyone needs to feel they are getting a
fair hearing. He acknowledged that everyone brings some biases, but what was of
paramount importance was for attendees to feel they are heard.
Member Cambra expressed the importance of recognizing the concerns of the parties
regardless of the any subjective biases. He added that the perspectives each Committee
member brings was important, as long as they didn't act as advocates for either party.
Mr. Levine recapped that recognizing biases allows one to reduce their impact on
decision-making.
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,6,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
In discussing additional efficiency strategies, Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed
a
need for Committee members to interrupt more, especially when parties bring up
matters not directly related to the rent increase. Chair Cambra acknowledged that
interrupting could be difficult in general, he would personally find it difficult, and
sometimes venting can be a valuable part of the process.
Mr. Levine asked if Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana, as timekeeper, could be the one who
interrupts, and the Committee discussed. Mr. Levine pointed out the importance of
being mindful of the way one interrupts: tone of voice, phrasing, etc. He summarized
the process of hearing a case: 1. Getting the facts out on the table, 2. Allowing parties
to discuss their concerns and frustrations, 3. Seeing if a mutually-agreeable resolution
seems likely, and 4. If such a resolution seems unlikely, making a decision.
Mr. Levine summarized the training: members embraced the importance of
timekeeping, efficiency, and urgency, and will have a discussion about codifying it into
the Committee's bylaws.
Member Friedman said he thought the Committee members should have been
consulted about what the training covered.
Chair Cambra said the training made him recognize how well Committee members
discussed issues among themselves, and said he found the presentation helpful.
7-B. Discuss content for letter from RRAC to City Council to be submitted
with annual report.
Program staff introduced background for this agenda item: during a previous RRAC
meeting, Committee members asked to submit feedback to City Council in a letter that
may be submitted to the City Council at the same time as the annual program report.
Member Friedman asked staff if the Committee could form a sub-committee to draft
a
letter. Program staff replied that suggestions and draft letters may be sent to staff over
email and staff could combine members' letters into a single letter and send it back to
Committee members for approval.
Member Friedman said he believes staff is doing a good job managing the program.
City Attorney staff stated that the requirement for the program's annual report is built
into Ordinance 3148 and the purpose of the report is to advise the City Council on how
the Ordinance is working.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana requested that the Committee needed to clarify if they in
fact wanted to write a letter, and requested Committee members recognize that the
Committee's charge is narrow, i.e., reviewing and rendering decisions on rent increases.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,7,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
City Attorney staff notified members that a letter from RRAC members may be more
effective next year, as the City Council was not hearing substantive changes to
Ordinance 3148 this year, but may be next year.
Committee members discussed options about what they might want to write, such as
inviting City Council members to attend a RRAC meeting, and expressed options about
what they might want to include.
Chair Cambra stated that he would want the letter to include both qualitative feedback
and quantitative feedback.
City Attorney staff suggested that one member should draft something for the others to
review, add to, and sign.
Member Griffiths said that he would not sign a letter that did more than invite to City
Council members to attend a RRAC hearing and complement staff.
Chair Cambra said that each member should submit their own letter if they wanted.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Program staff informed the Committee that there were a large number of cases scheduled
for review in August and that two RRAC hearings had been scheduled to review them,
one on August 6 and the second on August 20.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 29, 2018
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-06,1,"Approved Minutes
August 6, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday August 6, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah (formerly Sullivan-
Sariñana); Members Friedman, Murray, and Griffiths
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Motion and second to move Agenda Item 7-C to be heard first, and move each
item of New Business down one place (Member Friedman and Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah). Passed 5-0.
b. Motion and second to move Agenda Item 7-B to be heard second (Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah and Member Murray). Motion to move 7-B to be heard first, and
move each other item down one place (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Friedman). Passed 5-0.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff announced that two hearing dates were scheduled in August, two in
September, and perhaps two in October.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant,
and mediation services.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Motion to approve the minutes of the July 2, 2018 Regular Meeting (Chair Cambra
and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0, with one abstention (Member
Friedman).
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-B. CASE 1055 - 2157 San Jose Ave., Unit B
Tenant: Michelle Rae Grey & LaVar Douglas Grey, present
Landlord: Lisa Fowler, absent
Proposed rent increase: $95.00 (4.9%), effective July 1, 2018
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-06,2,"Approved Minutes
August 6, 2018
No Committee review. The tenants were present at the hearing but the landlord was
not. The rent increase notice is therefore void, and the landlord may not increase the
tenants' rent for at least 12 months from the effective date of this increase.
7-C. CASE 1058 - 1540 Court St.
Tenant: Holly Harrison, present
Landlord: David Armitage, owner, present, and attorney Clifford Fried, present
Proposed rent increase:
Month-to-month offer: $1,800.00 (75.0%)
Lease offer: $2,100.00 (87.5%)
Effective September 1, 2018
Mr. Fried stated that the owner flew in from Florida to participate in the hearing because
his participation in the process is mandatory, even though the property is a single family
residence, which is exempt from rent control. Mr. Fried stated that the legality of the
requirement for a landlord to participate is questionable. He said that Mr. Armitage is
looking to obtain a fair rate of return on his investment. He said that the landlord is retired
from the U.S. Navy, and was previously stationed in Alameda when he purchased his
home, and has kept the house as a rental since then. Mr. Fried went on to say that no
one tells grocery stores what to charge for a loaf of bread, or doctors to charge their
patients or Walgreens to charge for their products. He said there is an item on the
November ballot to repeal Costa Hawkins, which exempts certain units such as the one
in question, but until then, the landlord had a right to charge market rates like other
businesses do. He added that even with this proposed rent increase, the landlord believes
the rent is still below market rate.
Ms. Harrison stated that the landlords were friendly, but that as a result of the increase,
her family would have to move. She said she brings home $2,152.26 biweekly, and the
increase would mean that all of her salary would be going toward rent. She said she did
not understand the rent review process. Chair Cambra told her she may share her
perspective on the increase. She said she had doubts that the landlord's costs of
operation, such as his mortgage, were going up at the rate he was increasing the rent.
She said she did research on other market rate rents for comparable units and found a
similar unit for rent for only $3,100 which she would consider moving to.
Member Murray explained that the Committee's intent is to create a forum to mediate
between the parties, even where the decision is non-binding.
Ms. Harrison stated that her rent had been increased twice, but one of the increases was
rescinded before this latest increase. She said that she would like to stay in Alameda four
more years because of her daughter, before moving back to Washington State, where
the cost of living was more affordable.
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-06,3,"Approved Minutes
August 6, 2018
Chair Cambra asked if Mr. Fried had a response to Ms. Harrison's comments. Mr. Fried
said that if the landlord doesn't get this increase, he would have to sell the property.
Mr. Armitage said that he had raised the rent $400 in October 2017 and tenants agreed,
but subsequently learned there was an Ordinance. He said that upon contacting Mr.
Fried's firm, he learned that the increase was improper and was advised to rescind and
the increase and refund the excessive amounts charged under it, which he did.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Armitage how he came to the increase amounts he
did. Mr. Armitage replied that he did research to see what the market rate was for
comparable units and decided he wanted to raise it to market value in anticipation that
Costa Hawkins may be overturned. He said he was concerned that if that law was
overturned, he may be stuck with below market rate rent forever. Mr. Armitage said that
he had just retired and did not have as much money coming in as he used to when he
was working.
Chair Cambra asked if the possible Costa Hawkins repeal was the main reason he was
asking for the increase, and Mr. Fried said it was the impending reason, but the long-
term reason was to ensure the landlords could obtain adequate rental income in their
retirement.
Member Friedman said that even though they could not render a binding decision, the
Committee still had a responsibility to stabilize the rental market and see if they might
help families like Ms. Harrison's stay in the community. He questioned the level of urgency
to raise the rent that Mr. Fried provided, and wondered if there was room to come to an
agreement where everyone's needs were met.
Mr. Fried said he would counsel his client to raise the rent now before any impending
legislation takes effect. Chair Cambra asked if the repeal of Costa Hawkins would change
local rent control laws beyond making exempt units nonexempt.
City Attorney's Office staff said that it would not be self-executing; most cities would have
to make amendments, as it is not as though rent control would immediately kick in after
repeal.
Member Murray further explained the intention of the Ordinance and the Committee.
Ms. Harrison said she found rents on comparable homes starting in the low $3,000s and
said they were looking for the least expensive way to attain housing accommodations.
Member Murray further clarified that the Committee would be looking to see if a
compromise or agreement could be made.
Mr. Fried said that he would never advise his client to lower the rent, and suggested it
was in the tenants' best interests to move somewhere with lower rent. He said only Santa
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-06,4,"Approved Minutes
August 6, 2018
Monica and Berkeley would not need to amend their ordinances if Costa Hawkins was
repealed.
City Attorney's Office staff clarified that the Ordinance does not prevent the parties from
coming to mutual agreements outside the rent review process.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Armitage if he had improved the home. Mr. Armitage
said he had redone some plumbing and worked on the carport. He said he had told Ms.
Harrison's husband to tell him if anything needed to be done. Ms. Harrison said that they
never ask for anything from their landlord.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that having a long-term tenant who is willing to pay a
substantial rent increase, even if it's not what the landlord is looking for, may be
something the landlord would want to consider.
Member Friedman asked Ms. Harrison why she did not submit a statement. She said she
did not understand the process or the Committee.
Member Murray asked Ms. Harrison if a postponement of the effective date of the increase
until September would be advantageous to her, and she said it would be.
Mr. Fried responded that he would never advise his client to postpone rent increases,
because he thought it might put his client at a disadvantage if any court proceedings
were required, such as an unlawful detainer further down the road. He said that the
parties were doing fine before they came here, and parties could always come to fair
agreements without rent control measures. He added that the rules in court are rigged
against the property owner.
Member Friedman asked what appeal options were available to the parties. City staff
clarified that the appeal process for a nonbinding decision was a request to have City
Council review.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he would not vote for what the landlords were asking for
as he did not feel the landlords had demonstrated a need for the rent increase, e.g., they
did not show documentation of income or expenses. He said that even though the tenant
did not provide a written response, she did provide detailed financial information during
the hearing that showed a financial burden, which he would take into account.
Member Murray said that she believed that the landlord had a genuine concern to obtain
a rent increase prior to an impending law that would affect how much he could charge,
which would not only affect his retirement income, but also the value of the property
itself. She said she also saw the stress the increase put on the tenants and would like to
see a deferment or temporarily decreased amount to allow them more time to adjust,
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-06,5,"Approved Minutes
August 6, 2018
especially with the school year starting. She raised the possibility of moving the effective
date from September 1 to November 1.
Member Friedman said he believes the rental business is a different kind of business than
many other businesses, and the community should have a say in what can be charged.
He said he thought a $540 increase to $2,940 was reasonable. He explained this would
be 5% above the $2,800 that the tenants agreed to pay last year before that increase
was rescinded.
Member Murray suggested that since the tenant said she would be able to move to a unit
charging $3,100 rent, an increase to $3,100 would be reasonable, and again posited
whether a delay in the effective date would be appropriate.
Member Griffiths suggested a stepped increase that may allow the tenants to stay longer,
and bring the landlord up to a higher base rent in the long run.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that he thought the $2,940 total rent suggested by
Member Friedman was fair, while acknowledging it was a large increase.
Chair Cambra said he thought Member Friedman's suggestion of a $540 increase was
reasonable, proposing perhaps a $400 increase now and a $140 increase later.
Motion and second to increase the rent $540 starting September 1, 2018 (Member
Griffiths and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah).
Member Murray added that she thought the landlord's position to raise the rent now was
reasonable, both as supplemental retirement income and before a potential change in
the law could change his rights to raise the rent later.
Member Friedman noted that the Ordinance does not entitle landlords to obtain market
rate rent, but to keep up with operating costs.
Member Murray responded that fair rate of return was difficult to define.
Vote for $540 increase effective September 1, 2018. Motion passed 3-2.
7-A. Committee will consider and vote on Chair and Vice Chair
Member Griffiths nominated Member Murray to be Chair. She declined, stating she does
not know the rules to operate Committee meetings well enough at this time.
Motion and second to nominate Chair Cambra to remain Chair (Members Friedman and
Murray). Motion passed 5-0.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah nominated himself to remain Vice Chair.
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-06,6,"Approved Minutes
August 6, 2018
Member Murray nominated herself for Vice Chair. The Committee members discussed
and decided that the vote did not need a motion.
Members Griffiths and Murray, and Chair Cambra voted for to make Member Murray the
new Vice Chair.
7-D. CASE 1059 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D226
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-E. CASE 1061 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B305
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-F. CASE 1062 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C301
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-G. CASE 1063 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A311
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-H. CASE 1064 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D203
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-I. CASE 1066 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A307
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-J. CASE 1067 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D318
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-K. CASE 1068 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A206
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-L. CASE 1070 - 768 Eagle Ave., Upstairs Unit
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord came to an
agreement regarding the amount of the rent increase. Program staff informed attendees
that details of agreements reached prior to being reviewed by the Committee could be
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-06,7,"Approved Minutes
August 6, 2018
found in the Rent Stabilization Program's monthly reports, which are posted monthly on
the Program's website, www.alamedarentprogram.org
Chair Cambra requested the details of the resolution. Staff said staff did not have the
details available. Chair Cambra requested the details of the resolution be put on a future
agenda.
7-M. CASE 1026.2 - 768 Eagle Ave., Downstairs Unit
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord came to an
agreement regarding the amount of the rent increase. Program staff informed attendees
that details of agreements reached prior to being reviewed by the Committee could be
found in the Rent Stabilization Program's monthly reports, which are posted monthly on
the Program's website, www.alamedarentprogram.org.
Chair Cambra requested the details of the resolution. Staff said staff did not have the
details available. Chair Cambra requested the details of the resolution be put on a future
agenda.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. None.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 5, 2018
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-20,1,"Approved Minutes
August 20, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday August 20, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:38 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray (arrived at 6:48pm);
Members Friedman, Sullivan-Cheah, and Griffiths
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff called roll of parties present for the agendized cases. All tenants were
present at roll call except the tenant for Agenda Item 7-D. Item 7-D was moved
to the end of New Business.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Motion and second to table the vote on approval of the July 23, 2018 minutes
(Member Friedman and Chair Cambra). Passed 4-0 (Member Murray not yet
present).
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 1077 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 217
Tenants: Erika Cavallone & Fabrizio Benin
Landlords: Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher
Proposed rent increase: $208.22, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of
$1,695.00 to a total rent of $1,903.22
Mr. St. John stated that the owners had done major renovation of the building from 2013-
2018. He said the hard and soft costs amounted to $2.87 million. He added that the total
cost including financing was $4.96 million. During the project, he said, the owners had to
forgo rent payments and rent increases, and suffered vacancy losses to allow the
Page 1 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-20,2,"Approved Minutes
August 20, 2018
construction to go forward. Including these additional costs, he added, the total cost was
$5.4 million. He clarified that the current rent increase requests only took into
consideration the $2.87 million in hard and soft costs.
He said the project did not qualify for the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process
because the work started prior to the date allowed under the City's CIP resolution.
However, he continued, using the CIP plan would have allowed for an increase of $483
per unit, per month, while the increases the landlord was requesting were less than this.
He explained that the landlords offered most of the tenants either a ""phase-in"" or a ""one-
time"" increase option, and explained the differences between and reasons for the two
options. He said that the one-time increase front-ends the costs, while the phase-in
apportions the costs over several years.
Mr. Kessler added that a seismic upgrade began in 2013, and no increases had been
given since 2014.
Member Friedman reflected back and clarified some of the landlord's figures. The
landlords confirmed that increases for tenants who arrived before 2015 have some
portion of CAPX improvements calculated into the increase amounts, and tenants who
have been in place since before 2013 are being asked to pay 100% of the total CAPX
costs.
Ms. Cavallone asked if this hearing was for this year's increase only. Vice Chair Murray
explained the RRAC's ability to make a decision regarding an increase can only be for an
increase of one year.
Ms. Cavallone said she was only comfortable making an agreement for one year. She said
she works as a researcher at UCSF and her husband works as an Uber driver. She said
her income was relatively fixed, and her husband had a history of multiple
hospitalizations, which rendered them living on one income for a period of time. She said
the increase request posed a financial hardship for them. She added that they were not
happy with their living situation and she believed upper management (Berger Enterprises)
had been unprofessional in the management of their building. She mentioned that a
relative of the manager behaved inappropriately, such as by entering the unit of a tenant
without notice, which showed there were safety concerns at the property. Ms. Cavallone
requested a change of management or a retraining of management staff.
Member Friedman reflected back the tenants' concerns.
Mr. St. John explained that they used ""maintenance of net operating income"" to
determine fair rate of return.
Page 2 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-20,3,"Approved Minutes
August 20, 2018
The landlords presented the Committee with photos of the property. Member Sullivan-
Cheah asked staff if the photos submitted would be included in an updated agenda. Staff
clarified that the agenda for tonight would be unchanged, but that copies of the photos
submitted may be requested through a Public Records Act request.
Mr. St. John said that many tenants had expressed concerns (in their RP-01 submissions)
that no work was done to the inside of their units. He said much of the work was
""invisible"" - e.g., retrofitting, structural upgrades, dry rot remedied, seismic upgrades.
Chair Cambra asked if the landlords informed the tenants during the years of work that
the costs for the work would be passed on to them in the form of rent increases. The
landlords responded that the tenants were not informed.
Member Friedman asked why the landlords were asking for the tenants to pay for the
costs of the work in the first year or years. Mr. Fisher replied that they were not, and the
total costs would be spread out over a longer period of time.
Ms. Cavallone stated that she believed a total rent of $1,779 was reasonable, because it
was a 5% increase. Chair Cambra asked that the tenants provide a numerical value of an
increase amount they thought was reasonable and Ms. Cavallone said she thought a $40
increase was reasonable.
Chair Cambra asked the landlords if they learned anything during the hearing that would
entice them to compromise on the amount of the increase, and Mr. St. John said no. He
added that when tenants were inconvenienced during the construction, such as being
temporarily relocated, the landlords paid for their temporary relocation.
The members discussed their thoughts on the items the parties shared and asked the
parties to take a seat before they began the decision-making phase of the hearing.
Vice Chair Murray explained the importance of landlords keeping properties in good
condition, such as by the seismic retrofitting that the landlords did at this property.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said that he thought the 9.5% increase figure was not
unreasonable, and noted that while the tenants did not have a rent increase since 2013,
they also had a decrease in housing services due to the ongoing construction during the
period where no increases were imposed. He offered that an $85 (5%) increase would
be significant given the tenants' financial hardship.
Member Friedman said he thought a $100 (5.9%) increase would be reasonable.
Chair Cambra said he agreed with Vice Chair Murray that it was important that the RRAC
not discourage landlords from implementing capital improvements.
Page 3 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-20,4,"Approved Minutes
August 20, 2018
Vice Chair Murray proposed a $127.12 (7.5%) increase, stating that would best balance
the interests of the landlords with the financial hardship of the tenants.
Member Griffiths said he was open to either a $100 or $127.12 increase.
Chair Cambra suggested a $120 increase.
Member Friedman suggested a $112 increase.
Motion and second for an increase of $125 (7.4%) (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice
Chair Murray). Motion passed 4-1, with Member Friedman voting against it.
7-B. CASE 1083 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 311
Tenants: Timothy Larson & Mengxia (Judy) Zhu
Landlords: Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Johanna Leonard
Proposed rent increase: $309.06, effective October 1, 2018
Mr. Larson said that they disagreed with the rent increases offered and did not believe
any increase was warranted, as the tenants were still recovering from their losses during
the preceding years of construction. He said that during construction the roof leaked large
amounts of water into their unit, destroyed their property, and created mold in the unit.
He said that the landlords temporarily housed them off-site, into an unsanitary motel
infested with fleas, for three months while work was being done to restore the unit. He
went on to add that upon moving back into the unit, the movers broke some of their
property and they were not reimbursed for all of it, and the mold in the unit was not
remedied. He stated that additional repairs were not effective at remedying a myriad of
problems at the property.
Ms. Leonard explained the temporary move to a motel from the perspective of the
management. She said tenants who did not have access to their balconies were given a
rent credit during the construction on the property. She took the position that
management had already reimbursed tenants or gave them rent credits during the
inconveniences caused by the construction.
Chair Cambra asked if the landlords learned anything new. Mr. St. John said he did not
as he had read the tenant's response. He said he was not willing to make any concession
on the amount of rent increase they were looking for, as the tenants had already been
compensated for the inconveniences of the construction project.
Mr. Larson said he did not know that the landlords would come back to collect the money
they were reimbursed or not charged for the inconveniences caused by the loss of
services. He said he still felt that no increase was fair.
Page 4 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-20,5,"Approved Minutes
August 20, 2018
Member Murray asked if tenants submitted losses and expenses to the landlord and Mr.
Larson said he did. Ms. Zhu said she thought it was unfair that the landlords seemed to
want to retrieve the rent credits they had been paid as compensation for the construction
and related mishaps. Mr. St. John denied that this was the reason for the present
increases, and said the current increases were for work that was yet to be done on the
property.
Vice Chair Murray asked the landlords what the tenant complaint process looked like. Ms.
Leonard described the process.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants how much of their household income goes
toward rent and the tenants declined to answer.
The parties took a seat and the members deliberated.
Member Griffiths suggested a $100.17 increase for the phase-in CAPX. Motion and second
for a $100 (6.3%) increase starting October 1, 2018 (Member Griffiths and Member
Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 5-0.
7-C. CASE 1086 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 222
The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date.
7-D. CASE 1087 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 111
The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date.
7-E. CASE 1089 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 306
The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date.
7-F. CASE 1095 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 215
The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date.
7-G. CASE 1099 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 313
The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date.
7-H. CASE 1100 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 109
The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date.
7-I. CASE 1101 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 209
Page 5 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-20,6,"Approved Minutes
August 20, 2018
The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Member Sullivan-Cheah stated that he found being timekeeper to be distracting from
concentrating on the cases. He asked if another Committee member or staff could take
on the role of timekeeper. Staff replied that staff could be timekeeper again, and
reminded the Committee that staff had previously been timekeeper and each time staff
would inform the Committee that a time limit had passed, the Committee members would
give themselves extensions.
Vice Chair Murray suggested that, at the beginning of each meeting the members choose
a timekeeper, and the members share the responsibility.
Member Friedman requested a discussion item be placed on the agenda of the next
regularly scheduled meeting for the members to discuss amending the bylaws to include
a per-case time limit.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018
Page 6 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-29,1,"Approved Minutes
August 29, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday August 29, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray; Members Friedman and
Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
Member Griffiths
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. The Committee agreed to move the Consent Calendar item (Agenda Item 5-A) to
the end of the agenda.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the minutes of the July 23, 2018 Special Meeting - moved to end of
the agenda.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
Chair Cambra asked for the Committee to discuss a letter the landlords had sent since
the last (August 20, 2018) meeting providing feedback on the Committee's rent review
process. Member Sullivan-Cheah said that the RRAC is not a legislative body, is bound
by the requirements of the Ordinance, and members do their best to be fair.
Vice Chair Murray said she appreciated the letter and the concerns it expressed.
Regarding mediation, she said, the Housing Authority offered it prior to Committee
hearings, as the Alameda community desired that parties try to reach agreements
to
housing issues voluntarily. She added that there's an inherent tension in the
Ordinance's attempt to shift the balance of the common law's bias toward the landlord
to make it fairer to the tenant, and the Committee's role is also to try to do this. She
said if parties had concerns regarding the operation of law, they should bring up their
concerns to the relevant legislative body that makes those laws.
Page 1 of 9",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-29,2,"Approved Minutes
August 29, 2018
Member Friedman said that he requested the landlords provide additional information
on how they calculated fair rate of return at the last meeting, but the landlords' letter
did not provide this.
Chair Cambra noted that the RRAC process is different than most other cities' process
for holding hearings and evaluating rent increases.
6-A. CASE 1086 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 222
Tenant: Jamila Harakat
Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher
Proposed rent increase: $310.64, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of
$1,395.00 to a total rent of $1,705.64.
Ms. Harakat said she and her husband moved to Tropic Sands in 2011 and received
increases in 2012 and 2013. She said her husband was injured at that time and could not
work. She said that when construction on the apartments started her husband got sick
and discovered he was allergic to dust. To aid his healing, they left the country during
the construction that began in 2015 so he would not be exposed to the construction dust.
She said he works part-time now, and their income is limited. She said she works full-
time in a shoe store in Alameda, and the proposed increase posed a financial hardship.
She added that their apartment required maintenance, and their maintenance concerns
have not been addressed. She said there is mold in the unit which she believes is causing
a reaction in her eyes. She said that Darren, former maintenance staff, had come into
their unit without permission twice. She said they could afford an increase of $50.
Vice Chair Murray reflected back Ms. Harakat's concerns and clarified that the tenants
paid six months' rent up front while they were out of the country during the construction.
The landlords stated that the construction ended in 2017 and lasted about 1.5 years. Mr.
St. John passed out notes to the RRAC members responding to Ms. Harakat's Form RP-
01, clarifying that the carpet was new when she moved in, even though she said there
was a stain on it.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Harakat when the work was done on the balcony and
she said in 2015. The landlords clarified that her balcony faced an interior courtyard.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked about her husband's work and condition. She said he works
part-time for Uber and was permanently injured, making it hard for him to sit or stand
for long periods of time. He then asked her what percentage of her income would go
toward rent with the landlords' requested increase. Ms. Harakat said that if the rent
increased to $1,527.53 under the multi-year phase-in option, the rent would amount to
about 60% of her income, and her husband's income is inconsistent and covers just some
basic bills, such as his car and insurance.
Page 2 of 9",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-29,3,"Approved Minutes
August 29, 2018
Member Friedman asked the landlords what portion of the proposed increases could have
been recovered through the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Mr. St. John stated
that he believes most of it could have been included. He spoke about what increase he
thinks the landlords could be entitled to under a fair rate of return analysis.
Member Friedman asked the landlords how much the total operating expenses for running
the building were. St. John provided a response.
Vice Chair Murray asked Ms. Harakat what effect the increase would have on her. Ms.
Harakat replied that she would have to find another job to pay for it, because she did not
want to leave Alameda. Ms. Harakat asked if the increase they're being asked to pay also
included costs of repairing or upgrading other units. Mr. St. John said that the CIP
expenses were being divided equally among the units at the property. Ms. Harakat
continued to express concern that she would be paying for part of the work done to make
units nicer than hers nicer still. Mr. St. John replied that it's not feasible to allocate costs
different for each unit, even when for example, some units may benefit more from the
seismic upgrades than others, and each unit was being asked to pay an equal share.
Chair Cambra asked if it was correct that the landlords did not want to negotiate on the
amounts of the increase. Mr. St. John said that said their increase requests already took
hardship on the tenants into account.
The parties took their seats and the Committee deliberated.
Member Sullivan-Cheah stated he did not think it was reasonable to have an increase
that would require the tenants to have to get a second job.
Vice Chair Murray said that the amount of money the tenants would have to make to pay
the increase did not seem excessive to her. She said she thought $50 was too small an
amount to increase the rent considering the expenditures made by the landlords, and
that the $132.53 increase proposed by the landlords seemed reasonable.
Chair Cambra said he found the landlords'' 'one size fits all"" formula problematic, as each
unit may be affected differently by the improvements. He added that he thought the
CAPX amount of $87.61 provided in the landlords' paperwork seemed like a good number
to start the discussion.
Member Friedman discussed the complexity of the cases at Tropic Sands. He said the
increase in this case would definitely create a financial hardship on the tenants and said
he thought an increase of $75 was reasonable.
Responding to Vice Chair Murray's comment that $1,500 per year was not a lot of money,
Member Sullivan-Cheah said opined that this was relative, as it would be a lot of money
Page 3 of 9",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-29,4,"Approved Minutes
August 29, 2018
for his family, as they are considered low-income in this community. He said that part of
the purpose of the Ordinance was meant to keep low-income people in the community.
He said $100 would be the maximum amount of increase he would support,
acknowledging that the landlords could come back next year and request another
increase.
Vice Chair Murray responded that she did not mean to say that amount was an
insubstantial amount of money, and added that the landlords also had expenses. She
said, for example, that as a landlord she has heavy debts to keep her properties running
that constrain her income. She said the Ordinance also asks the Committee to balance
both sides' interests. She proposed a $100 per month increase.
Chair Cambra said he was a little uncomfortable with a $100 increase, and would want it
to be a little less to give the tenants time to adjust.
Motion and second for a $100 increase (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah).
Motion failed 2-2.
Motion and second for a $90 (6.5%) increase (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Chair
Cambra). Motion passed 4-0.
6-B. CASE 1087 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 111
Tenant: Karen Walters
Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher
Proposed rent increase: $337.06, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of
$1,495.00 to a total rent of $1,832.06.
Ms. Walters said she paid rent throughout the construction project, although for a couple
months she paid $200 less as compensation for the inconveniences caused by the work.
She said she works part-time, in the evening, and does not get home until 10:00 p.m. or
midnight and the construction workers would start working as early as 6:30 a.m. to 7:30
a.m. and would wake her up when she needed sleep. She added that the workers would
""gawk"" into her apartment and she doesn't feel any increase is warranted. She said she's
lived in Alameda most of her life and moving out of the city would be a hardship for her.
She said she's on a fixed income combined of social security, retirement savings, and
income from her part-time job. She said she could afford a small increase but would
probably have to pick up extra shifts at work if she could. She said she should not be
liable for the costs of maintenance that was neglected over the years, and doesn't believe
she should have to pay interest on the financing the landlords obtained to do the
construction work. She added that she believes the construction workers were
incompetent and made more problems than they should have, inducing extra costs.
Page 4 of 9",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-29,5,"Approved Minutes
August 29, 2018
Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Murray reflected back Ms. Walters' points. She
added that during a time when she was healing from a car accident a neighbor above her
made a lot of noise that disturbed her as she was medicated and trying to heal.
Mr. Kessler confirmed that the owners had obtained a loan for the property on which they
were paying interest. He said his family acquired the property in the late 1970's.
Mr. St. John stated that Ms. Walters had rent credits in the amount of about $10,000
during the construction to alleviate the burdens the construction caused. Ms. Walters said
she thought the rent she was paying was still excessive given how hard it was to live in
her apartment.
Mr. St. John gave the Committee members a document rebutting the concerns the tenant
raised in her Form RP-01. Ms. Leonard summarized the document.
Ms. Walters said she thought an increase of about 5%, to about $1,575 from $1,495,
would be reasonable. She said she would love to have some things in her apartment
attended to, such as on her balcony and in her bathtub.
Chair Cambra again asked Mr. St. John if he was willing to compromise on the amount of
the increase and Mr. St. John again said no. Mr. St. John reiterated that the landlords
already made compromises in coming to the increase amounts that they did.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said that he looks at cases individually, and does not set out to
make compromises uniformly across all cases.
Chair Cambra said the Committee makes efforts to express a rationale for their decisions
to ensure that parties do not think the decisions are arbitrary.
The parties took their seats and the Committee members deliberated.
Member Sullivan-Cheah requested clarity from the other members about how landlords
calculate increases and compensation during renovations. He said that he acknowledged
that Ms. Walters said she would be able to afford a modest increase if she took on
additional shifts at her work.
Chair Cambra said he thought the CAPX amount ($93.89) provided by the landlords or a
little more would be reasonable.
Vice Chair Murray acknowledged that Ms. Walters had a fixed income and health concerns
that would limit her ability to take on too much additional work. She said it was important
to both treat cases individually and also be evenhanded in their treatment of each. She
said an increase of $95 to $110 would be a reasonable range.
Page 5 of 9",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-29,6,"Approved Minutes
August 29, 2018
Member Friedman said that the landlords did their best to come up with amounts that
work for them, and that the Committee should try to keep the tenants happy with their
housing, given the history of poor service expressed by many tenants. He said he would
support a motion in the range being discussed.
Motion and second for an increase of $95 (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Friedman). Motion passed 3-1, with Chair Cambra opposed.
Chair Cambra expressed confusion of the amount being voted on.
Motion and second to reconsider previous motion (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair
Murray). Motion passed 4-0.
Motion and second for a $95 (6.4%) increase (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair
Murray). Motion passed 4-0.
6-C. CASE 1089 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 306
Tenant: Elizabeth Anderman and Alan Anderman
Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher
Proposed rent increase: $327.84, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of
$1,395.00 to a total rent of $1,722.84.
Ms. Anderman stated that she misread Form RP-01 and thought the form was asking for
the median rent, not that maximum amount that she can pay personally. She said that
$1,450 is the most rent she can afford. She said she lived at the property since 2012 and
said she is a single mother with multiple emotional or psychological disabilities. She said
she felt sexually harassed when a management worker entered her apartment without
authorization. She said the same worker made inappropriate comments about her breasts
and about her minor son's sexual orientation. She said she made complaints to
management many times starting in 2015 about his behavior and they did nothing to
address her complaints and concerns. She said the construction workers woke her up
frequently, as early as 6:00am, working on the roof. She said management had her car
towed the day before Christmas Eve one year, and it cost her $800 to retrieve it. She
concluded that management's lack of respect has made her disinclined to work with them.
The landlords distributed a written response to the RRAC members and tenants to the
statements Ms. Anderman made in her Form RP-01 submission.
Member Sullivan-Cheah reflected back Ms. Anderman's concerns.
Mr. St. John said that Ms. Anderman does not pay the rent, but her father does, and both
she and her father are on the lease. Ms. Anderman said her father helps her pay the rent
because she only works part-time and can't pay it all herself. She said her father is retired
and has started developing Alzheimer's disease.
Page 6 of 9",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-29,7,"Approved Minutes
August 29, 2018
Ms. Leonard said she investigated Ms. Anderman's claim of harassment and the employee
denied the allegation. She said they obtained another maintenance person to attend to
maintenance in Ms. Anderman's unit which helped take care of the problem until recently.
Ms. Leonard said that employee, Darren, resigned recently. She said they changed Ms.
Anderman's lock immediately after he illegally entered her apartment.
Ms. Anderman said she has an income of $1,200 per month from a new job as an office
manager of a startup in Alameda, and pays her parents between $500-$700 for rent when
she can, and her father writes the rent checks to management each month. She said in
addition to developing Alzheimer's, her mom recently had a stroke. She said her father
said the increase was excessive but her current rent was below the market average,
although they have not had an in-depth discussion about the increase. She said her
parents are both retired and on a fixed income from social security and a pension. She
said they had to sell their house and are renting an apartment, and are looking for
assisted living options.
The parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated. Member Friedman said he was
ready to approve a $75 increase.
Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah acknowledged that having a cosigner on
the lease should be considered, although having limited information on their ability to
pay makes it a tricky matter to deliberate. Vice Chair Murray suggested an increase
between $90 and $110.
Chair Cambra acknowledged the stress having a management employee harassing her,
and agreed that having a cosigner on the lease was relevant in the deliberation and
wondered how much of a hardship an increase would affect the parents.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said his range would be between $75 and $90. He said the letter
the tenant wrote was difficult for him to review, but wasn't sure how to factor it into the
rent increase.
Member Friedman said the condition of the apartment in the past and management's
response was an area of concern.
Motion and second for an increase of $100 (Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Murray). Motion
failed 2-2.
Motion and second for an increase of $87.61 (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Friedman). Motion failed 2-2.
Motion and second for an increase of $90, (Member Friedman and Chair Cambra). Motion
failed 2-2.
Page 7 of 9",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-29,8,"Approved Minutes
August 29, 2018
Members deliberated again.
Motion and second for an increase of $90 (Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Murray). Motion
passed 4-0.
6-D. CASE 1095 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 215
Tenant: Revik Dillon
Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher
Proposed rent increase: $320.19, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of
$1,350.00 to a total rent of $1,670.19.
Ms. Dillon said she is a fourth generation Bay Area native who has lived in this apartment
since 2009. She said she felt the increase was too large. She said she is going through a
divorce, and used to own her own home and rent an in-law unit so understood being a
landlord as well as a tenant. She said she has no problem with her unit or the
management, but felt she could only afford an increase of $50 at this point in time. She
said she would probably be able to afford a larger increase next year.
Mr. St. John said he thinks the Committee's focus on CAPX only while leaving out cost of
living increases is unfair to the landlords.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked what percentage of her income the rent was, and she
declined to answer.
Vice Chair Murray asked what she did for a living, and she said she is a behavioral
consultant, and works part-time for Amazon.
The parties took a seat and the Committee began deliberations.
Motion and second for a $90 increase (Member Friedman and Chair Cambra). Motion
passed 4-0.
7. NEW BUSINESS
No new business.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
Page 8 of 9",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-29,9,"Approved Minutes
August 29, 2018
a. Motion and second to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2018 Special Meeting
(Member Friedman and Chair Cambra). Motion passed 4-0.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018
Page 9 of 9",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-30,1,"Approved Minutes
August 30, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday August 30, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray; Members Friedman,
Griffiths, and Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. None.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
6-A. CASE 1099 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 313
Tenant: Joseph Moran
Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher
Proposed rent increase: $354.19, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of
$1,550.00 to a total rent of $1,904.19.
Mr. St. John opened by commenting that the word ""hardship"" was being used during the
Committee hearings in two senses - first in the sense that Ordinance 3148 discusses
financial hardship, and second, some tenants are claiming that the construction at the
property has imposed a hardship.
City Attorney staff said that the Committee may take into consideration a number of
factors, noting that ""including, but not limited to"" are the words in the Ordinance. He
added that the Ordinance states that an increase or decrease in housing services may be
considered specifically.
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-30,2,"Approved Minutes
August 30, 2018
Mr. St. John said that documents on the Rent Program website indicate RRAC cases result
in an average increase of 9.32%, and in the cases involving Tropic Sands, the Committee
is allowing increases of just above 6% on each case decided. He reiterated (from previous
meetings) that management had already taken into account tenant hardship in the
increase amounts requested.
Chair Cambra replied that each unit, tenant, landlord and case is unique and the
Committee takes each case on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Moran stated that because his unit is on the top floor his apartment gets really hot,
and that following construction on the property, the temperature has been 10-15 degrees
hotter in his apartment than before because the construction has resulted in less of a
breeze that comes inside the unit. Specifically, Mr. Moran pointed to the replacing of
spoke wrapping around the balcony with panels that were higher, did not let the breeze
through, as well as blocked the view of the Bay from a sitting position. He added that
there is no insulation to keep the temperature steady, and the lack of insulation also fails
to insulate the unit from noise. His biggest concern, he said, was that the new panel
wrapping around the balcony resulted in about a 75% loss of the Bay view he had with
the spoke wrapping. The view, he said, was the most valuable amenity the apartment
offered.
Mr. Kessler replied that the work done was up to code, was inspected by the city, and
there were code changes on wrapping heights, adding that they put in panels on the
balcony instead of spokes because they thought they looked good.
Vice Chair Murray asked if he's considering moving out and Mr. Moran said he may
consider it now, whereas prior to this change he was not considering moving.
Member Friedman asked him what he thought was a fair increase for the next year and
Mr. Moran said he thought about $100 was fair for this year. He said he would pay
additional increase if the view had not been taken away.
Vice Chair Murray clarified that according to his Form RP-01 response Mr. Moran indicated
he thought a reasonable amount of rent to pay is $1,750.
Mr. St. John said he understands Mr. Moran feels the loss of view is a service reduction,
which is the first time he's heard a tenant bring up a true service reduction, rather than
express complaints about the temporary inconveniences cause by the construction.
Vice Chair Murray asked Mr. Moran to clarify his statement that $1,750 would be what he
was willing to pay. Mr. Moran said that he had meant that he thought an increase to
$1,750 would be a reasonable one-time increase, not part of any expected multi-year
phase-ins.
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-30,3,"Approved Minutes
August 30, 2018
Mr. St. John offered a one-time increase to $1,695, not part of the phase-in. Mr. Moran
accepted and the Committee dismissed the case without having to come to a decision.
6-B. CASE 1100 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 109
Tenant: Michael Scalisi
Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher
Proposed rent increase: $310.83, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of
$1,295.00 to a total rent of $1,605.83.
Michael Scalisi said that he reviewed the management's increase offers but found them
unsatisfactory. He said he had a health limitation that has limited his ability to earn income
that he did not want to discuss in a public forum. He said the construction at the property
resulted in a partial obstruction of his view of San Francisco and his unit was noticeably
warmer. He said he's had a difficult time financially this year and had just stabilized a
couple weeks ago.
The Committee members helped clarify their role and limitations regarding multi-year
lease agreements, and assured the parties that the tenant would have to be noticed each
year and each year would have the right to RRAC review, automatically for increases over
5%, and optionally for increases of 5% or less.
Member Griffiths told Mr. Scalisi it may be more helpful for him to think of the increases
not as a phase-in option and a one-time option, but simply as a single increase of some
amount for 2018.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked what impact the landlord's requested increase would have
on him, and what percentage of his income it would be. Mr. Scalisi said it was substantial
considering the financial hardship he just experienced.
Mr. Roush clarified that following a binding RRAC decision the parties may appeal for a
hearing officer, and a RRAC decision only becomes binding after 15 days where no party
has appealed.
Mr. Scalisi requested that the Committee make a decision and reiterated his opinion that
a $65 increase was reasonable. Mr. St. John reminded Mr. Scalisi that the options they
presented are still on the table. Mr. Scalisi said he would like the Committee to make a
decision.
Member Friedman asked if the tenant can pay the one-time $310 increase. Mr. Scalisi
said that his financial security is ambiguous and thought the question was difficult to
answer. Member Friedman asked if he could pay $150. Chair Cambra interjected that Mr.
Scalisi had said he thought a $65 increase was reasonable, and Member Friedman replied
that he wanted to get a better sense of the tenant's ability to pay. Mr. Scalisi repeated
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-30,4,"Approved Minutes
August 30, 2018
he had difficulty answering the question as it was a complex matter and saw his financial
future as uncertain.
The parties took a seat and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he thought the tenant could afford more than $65 and still
stay in his home.
Member Griffiths proposed a $123.03 increase, the 9.5% increase the landlords proposed
in their first year of the phased-in option.
Vice Chair Murray agreed that the tenant could pay that amount, and did not think the
landlords should get less than that without a compelling hardship shared by the tenant.
Member Friedman said he did not think the tenant had demonstrated a financial hardship,
and said that the landlord's phase-ir amount was reasonable.
Chair Cambra said he also supported the $123.03 amount as the tenant had considered
paying the $310 one-time offer.
Motion and second for an increase of 123.03 (Vice Chair Murray and Chair Cambra).
Motion passed 5-0.
6-C. CASE 1101 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 209
Tenant: Carrie & Mounaim Bouderka
Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher
Proposed rent increase: $344.84, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of
$1,495.00 to a total rent of $1,839.84.
Ms. Bouderka said she and her husband have lived at this property for 11 years. She said
they used to have a good view of the Bay, but after the construction, they lost most of
their view. She said paint stains remained on the balcony following the painting of it. She
presented a number of repair and maintenance issues they had at the property that went
unaddressed, including potential asbestos problems, black mold, and water leakage, as
well as security issues, as they believe someone moved some of their property, and a
gold ring went missing. They said they felt management did not take their concerns
seriously.
Ms. Leonard admitted that the paint coating on the balcony did not perform well, so they
plan to recoat all of the balconies. She said she would take care of the pending
maintenance concerns.
Ms. Bouderka said the repeated letters and materials sent by St. John & Associates felt
condescending and offensive.
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-30,5,"Approved Minutes
August 30, 2018
Mr. Kessler said he would be talking with Ms. Leonard to address their health and security
concerns. The landlords and tenants discussed how to make proper work order requests,
e.g., through email to management.
Vice Chair Murray asked Mr. and Ms. Bouderka about their income. Mr. Bouderka said he
is studying music at Laney College and does not plan on having income for at least the
next year. Ms. Bouderka said she is gainfully employed. Vice Chair Murray asked if the
increase would be a financial hardship and Ms. Bouderka said the $142.03 being proposed
by the landlord's would be a hardship and she would have to cut back on groceries.
Member Friedman asked the tenants how much of an increase they could afford, and
how much they think is fair considering the issues they've raised. Ms. Bouderka said she
believes a $50 increase for this year would be reasonable. She said she wrote in her
response that an increase of $100 was what she thought was fair, but clarified she only
thought that would be fair if the rent stayed at that rate for a period of three years, as
previously the landlords would raise their rents only once every three years.
Vice Chair Murray asked the landlords if asbestos was present at the property. Ms.
Leonard said she did not think there was because they've passed the City's inspections.
Ms. Bouderka said there was an asbestos warning posted in the unit.
Ms. Leonard said there were popcorn ceilings in the building, which were removed by
Synergy Environmental, a professional, certified environmental contractor that is qualified
to remove asbestos.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked about the tenants' financial situation. The tenants replied
they had new expenses, such as a car payment, and had concerns about keeping up with
the cost of living in the area. Ms. Bouderka said living at the property had been stressful,
as the apartments were having so many issues with mold, asbestos, security, loss of view,
and abrasive letters from the landlords.
Vice Chair Murray asked what percentage of the tenants' income the rent would be if it
was increased to what the landlords were requesting, and the tenants declined to answer.
The parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he thought an increase of $50 was low considering the
landlords had committed to addressing the ongoing maintenance, and health and safety
concerns.
Member Griffiths proposed an increase of $93.89, the CAPX cost.
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-30,6,"Approved Minutes
August 30, 2018
Vice Chair Murray said she believes the management will take care of the tenants'
maintenance issues. She said she felt the tenants' distress and concerns, and mentioned
that many upgrades and improvements may not be visible to the tenants, yet tenants
benefit from them nonetheless. She acknowledged a potential financial hardship with only
one income, the loss of a view, and other concerns. She acknowledged increased costs
for the tenants and stated that landlords also have increased costs. She said she would
not support an increase less than $100.
Member Friedman agreed that the tenants did not present a clear financial need, but they
did present a substantial loss of service, such as the view, and need for living in a safe,
sanitary environment, while the situation they had found themselves in may not have
been ideal. He said he believes the loss of services experienced by the tenants would
continue. He said Ordinance 3148 excluded capital improvements costs from ""costs of
operation"". He said he would support an increase of about $75, about 5%.
Vice Chair Murray replied that because the capital improvements started prior to the City's
CIP, the landlords had to come through the RRAC to try to get increases for them. She
said that this makes these cases a special circumstance.
Member Friedman explained why he found the issues raised by the tenants especially
concerning. He said he believed landlords should be setting aside money from rent every
year to pay for capital improvements rather than expect to raise the rents more to pay
for them.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he felt that the owners were owed increases so they could
get a fair rate of return in their property.
Chair Cambra explained the issues he was considering in concluding that an increase
amount of at least $93.89 was warranted.
Member Griffiths made a motion for an increase of $93.89. No second.
Motion and second for an increase of $75 (Member Friedman and Member Griffiths).
Motion failed 2-3.
Motion and second for an increase of $100 (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Griffiths). Motion passed 4-1, with Chair Cambra voting against it.
7. NEW BUSINESS
No new business.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. None.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-08-30,7,"Approved Minutes
August 30, 2018
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Member Griffiths said that the Committee spent 40 minutes deliberating on the last cases,
which he found unacceptable time management. He said he would like to set a time for
discussion about time limits. Staff informed the Committee that a discussion regarding
amending the Committee bylaws would be on the agenda at an upcoming meeting.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-05,1,"Approved Minutes
September 5, 2018
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present were:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Friedman
Absent:
Chair Cambra and Member Sullivan-Cheah
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that the agenda had substantial changes and they
would be shared prior to the commencement of the first case being called.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Motion and second to approve the minutes from the August 6, 2018 regular
meeting (Members Griffiths and Friedman). Motion passed 3-0.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Case 1059 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D226
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-B. Case 1061 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B305
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-C. Case 1062 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C301
Page 1 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-05,2,"Approved Minutes
September 5, 2018
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-D. Case 1063 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A311
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-E. Case 1064 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D203
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-F. Case 1066 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A307
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-G. Case 1067 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D318
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-H. Case 1068 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A206
Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for
administrative reasons.
7-I. Case 1106 - 3267 Central Ave.
Program staff informed the Committee that the parties had come to a private agreement
prior to the hearing, and that details of the agreement would be available on the Rent
Stabilization Program's website, www.alamedarentprogram.org
7-I. Case 1053.1 - 3105 La Campania
No Committee review. Staff called roll to ascertain the attendance of the parties in this
case. The tenants were present and the landlords were not. Staff informed the Committee
that a landlord's failure to appear for a hearing meant that the rent increase notice would
be rendered void and the landlord could not increase the rent for at least 12 months from
the effective date of the proposed increase.
7-K. Reporting on cases that resolved prior to RRAC hearing
Page 2 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-05,3,"Approved Minutes
September 5, 2018
Motion and second to table this agenda item because the Chair had requested it and was
not present (Members Griffiths and Friedman). Motion passed 3-0.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Staff informed the Committee that staff would contact the members to schedule a
special meeting to discuss adopting time limits into the Committee's bylaws.
10.ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chair Murray suggested adjourning the meeting. The landlords for Case 1053.1
arrived and protested the meeting being adjourned without their case being heard. City
Attorney staff and Vice Chair Murray informed the landlords their case would not be
heard since that agenda item and section of the agenda had already passed and they
were not present.
The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018
Page 3 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-17,1,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, September 17, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and
Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
Member Friedman
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le (came at 7:05 p.m.)
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that staff had approved a request of the tenant in
case 1098.1 to be heard first and requested they hear this case first. The
Committee assented to hear the case first.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
Staff called roll of the parties present and reordered those cases to be heard first where
the parties were present at roll call; those where parties were not present were moved
to the end of the New Business section of the agenda and would be heard if time allowed
in their remaining order. If time ran out before the cases were called and/or heard, the
remaining items would be heard on a future date.
7-K. Case 1098.1 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102
Tenant: Barbara Aschenbrener
Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia
Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $310.83 (24.0%), effective November 1, 2018
Page 1 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-17,2,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
Mr. St. John said that the owners were requesting rent increases that would compensate
them for the improvements they made to the property, while still being fair to the tenants
by not creating too great a financial burden. He reminded the Committee that two options
were provided to most of the tenants: a larger one-time increase, or a series of smaller
phased-in increases over several years. He said that residents had already been
compensated for the inconveniences caused by the construction by having no increases
during the period of time when the work was being performed, the tenants' rents were
abated if they could not use some or all of their units, and they were provided alternative
accommodations if they needed to temporarily leave their units.
Ms. Aschenbrener said that she wrote her landlords a letter explaining that they have
narrowed her balcony making it less user-friendly. She said there were other repair or
maintenance issues that she's currently working with management to address. She said
she felt the proposed rent increases were too high for a studio apartment. She added
that she is a senior citizen and has to work. She said she began living at the complex
since 1983, minus a period of six years when she lived somewhere else.
Vice Chair Murray asked staff if staff had received a copy of Ms. Aschenbrener's letter
and staff replied that we did not a written response from the tenant for this submission.
Vice Chair Murray read the letter into the record, providing Ms. Aschenbrener's
perspective.
The Committee members discussed several of Ms. Aschenbrener's repair and
maintenance concerns with her and the landlords, including her the loss of space on her
balcony.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if the repair of the balcony was done in the same way as
the other balconies in the building. Ms. Hawkins said it was comparable to other studios'
balconies. Ms. Hawkins added that she had just rented the unit above Ms. Aschenbrener's
unit for $2,150 per month, adding that that other unit was fully renovated.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Aschenbrener what impact a $123 (year one of the
proposed phase-in increase) or $310 (the proposed one-time rent increase) increase
would have on her. She said she would probably have to move out of her home. He asked
her what percentage of her income goes toward her housing costs. She said that her
social security check pays for her rent, and her income from her job pays for everything
else. She said she believed a 5% or $65 rent increase would be fair.
Chair Cambra clarified that the RRAC can only make a decision for an increase of one
year, and tenants could come back each year to have future increases reviewed.
Vice Chair Murray asked what other expenses Ms. Aschenbrener had and she said she
had a car payment, insurance payment, and other basic expenses of daily life.
Page 2 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-17,3,"Approved Minutes
September 17,2018
When asked if he learned anything new, Mr. St. John said he wasn't aware that the
balconies got narrower by four inches.
Chair Cambra asked if the parties might come to an agreement, and after some
discussion, the parties did not come to an agreement.
The parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said that this case was the first from the other cases heard at
this property where a tenant informed the Committee that the redesigned balconies
resulted in diminished use for the tenant. He said he felt what the landlords were asking
for would cause a hardship for the tenant.
Vice Chair Murray noted that the tenant had indicated that she could pay more than a
5% increase. She proposed a $90 (6.9%) increase.
Member Griffiths proposed an increase of $81.33 to match the CAPX increase.
Vice Chair Murray responded that CAPX doesn't include other costs landlords have that
aren't included in this figure.
Chair Cambra said he thought an increase between $90 and $100 would be fair.
Members discussed their positions. Motion for a $90 rent increase (Chair Cambra and
Vice Chair Murray). Motion failed 2-2.
Motion and second for an $81.33 increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah). Motion
failed 2-2.
Motion and second for an $85.00 increase (Chair Cambra and Member Griffiths). Motion
passed 4-0.
7-A. Case 1081 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 316
Tenant: William (""Will"") Tsui
Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia
Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $293.95 (19.7%), effective October 1, 2018
Vice Chair Murray summarized the tenant's main points - that the proposed rent increase
would cause a financial burden, that the improvements to the property did not improve
his unit, that he had unaddressed maintenance concerns, as well as safety and security
concerns.
Page 3 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-17,4,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
The landlords provided a letter during the hearing responding to Mr. Tsui's concerns and
the Committee read it.
Chair Cambra asked Mr. Tsui how much of an increase he thought was reasonable. Mr.
Tsui responded that he believed an increase of $100 would be fair.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Tsui about his living and financial situation. He said he
did not complain about most minor maintenance issues in the unit. He added that being
relocated during maintenance work caused frequent inconveniences and added expenses
that he would not have had to endure if he had lived in his unit. He said that in addition
to his own expenses he had to provide financial assistance to his parents, who were
separated and lived apart from each other.
Vice Chair Murray asked Mr. Tsui his occupation. He said he works for a media company
maintaining their online platform. She asked him for additional details on the maintenance
concerns he raised and he responded. She asked if he received concessions on rent during
construction and he said no. She asked if he'd received increases and he said no. He said
that he only reaches out for maintenance assistance when there is a strong need and
added that the manager, Ms. Hawkins, is good about responding. Vice Chair Murray said
that it's a tenant's responsibility to notify the landlord of needed repairs. He clarified that
his position was more centered on the fact that there have been no improvements to his
unit.
RRAC members discussed the purpose and amounts of the increase requests with the
landlords.
Member Griffiths asked the landlords if they are running at a loss and Mr. St. John said
they were not, adding that the building was not losing money each year.
The parties took a seat and the RRAC members deliberated.
Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths voiced support for an increase between the $100
the tenant said he thought was fair with the one-year amount of $142.03 the landlords
were requesting for this year. Vice Chair Murray said she thought the tenant did not show
a financial hardship and that they Committee should give the landlords the amount they
were requesting.
Chair Cambra said he thought an increase of $130-142 would be reasonable. He said he's
concerned about the fact that the tenant had to support his parents but did not think it
could be taken into consideration by the Committee. He added that the CPI does not
reflect on the expenses of a landlord.
Member Sullivan-Cheah responded that he would be in favor of a $142 increase to
compensate the landlords for the work they put into the unit. He said that if the parties
Page 4 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-17,5,"Approved Minutes
September 17,2018
came before the Committee again the following year, he would likely be less inclined to
give another 9.5% increase. Chair Cambra agreed.
Motion and second for $142.03 (Vice Chair Murray and Chair Cambra). Motion passed 3-
1, with Member Griffiths voting no.
7-B. Case 1104 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 210
Tenant: Victoria (""Vicki"") Roman
Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia
Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $326.99 (23.5%), effective October 1, 2018
Ms. Roman said that she believed the repairs to the building were due to landlord neglect
on the part of the landlords, the expenses for which should not be passed on to the
tenants. She said she is a senior citizen working past retirement age. She said that she
believes an $85 rent increase would be fair, which she had revised down from her written
response where she said an increase of $112 would be reasonable. She provided the
Committee with photographs of the interior of her apartment to review showing what she
stated illustrated the neglected repair and maintenance concerns she had.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked why she changed her mind about the amount of increase
she believes is reasonable. She said that three years ago she went from being employed
as an instrument technician to a housekeeping position, which resulted in a large salary
decrease.
Mr. Kessler said management would address some of the concerns she's brought up such
as the dishwasher and stove needing repair.
The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations. Member
Sullivan-Cheah said he thought that an increase of $112 would be reasonable, as she first
proposed, and as it was more or less in-line with past increases she had received that
were around $100.
Vice Chair Murray said that she would consider an increase of $90-95 appropriate, near
the CAPX amount provided by the landlords, and would consider a range between $85
and $112. She expressed concern for the tenant's loss of income.
Member Griffiths said he believed $112 was too high, and should not be considered, as
it was rescinded by the tenant. He said he thought a range of $90-$95 would be
reasonable.
Motion and second for a $95 increase (Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths). Motion
passed 4-0.
Page 5 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-17,6,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
7-C. Case 1073 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 214
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a
rent increase of $162.42 (9.0%), bringing the rent to a total of $1,957.41 effective
October 1, 2018.
7-D. Case 1075 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 305
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant(s) indicated that they had
vacated the unit.
7-E. Case 1076 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 216
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant(s) indicated that they had
vacated the unit.
7-G. Case 1082 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 103
Tenant: Jason Gonsalves and Shannon
Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia
Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $326.99 (23.5%), effective October 1, 2018
Mr. Gonsalves stated that he is under severe financial hardship, including $100,000 of
student loans that are coming due soon, which would be a new bill coming into the
household. Shannon said they were taking care of their mother. Mr. Gonsalves said his
work is of a seasonal nature making a steady stream of income difficult. They also
expressed security concerns and said they felt a $100 increase at the most would be fair.
Shannon said she worked at a help desk and had very few pay increases, adding that
without Mr. Gonsalves' income, she would not be able to afford to live in the unit.
Mr. Gonsalves brought up the CIP resolution's restrictions on the landlords' ability to
request an increase. City Attorney staff clarified that this rent increase was not being
asked under the CIP resolution, but the Committee could still consider the landlords'
expenses from their capital improvements under Ordinance 3148.
The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Griffiths said that he thought a $100 increase would be reasonable. Motion and
second for a $100 increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
7-F. Case 1078 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 202
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
Page 6 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-17,7,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
7-H. Case 1084 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 204
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
7-I. Case 1092 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 219
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
7-J. Case 1097 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 213
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
7-L. Case 1103 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
7-M. Case 1105 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 218
No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time
constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.
7-N. Discuss and approve amendments to the Rent Review Committee's
Rules and Procedures addressing various issues including, RRAC hearing
time limits, participant's attendance or failure to appear under section
6-58.90, annual elections, and other appropriate amendments
The Committee agreed to table this agenda item to a special meeting on September 19,
2018.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. None.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Page 7 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-17,8,"Approved Minutes
September 17, 2018
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018
Page 8 of 8",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-19,1,"Approved Minutes
September 19, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray (arrived at 7:11 p.m.);
Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: None
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. None.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff announced that the Committee's homeowner member, Milton Friedman, had
tendered his resignation the day before and would no longer be on the Committee.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-N. Discuss and approve amendments to the Rent Review Committee's
Rules and Procedures addressing various issues, including, RRAC
hearing time limits, participant's attendance or failure to appear under
section 6-58.90, annual elections, and other appropriate amendments
Staff suggested the following items as a starting point for the discussion:
Making a 45-minute time limit for each individual case scheduled to be heard,
which would be inclusive, applying to the entirety of the case including testimony,
procedural action, and deliberation.
Adopting rules regarding a party's failure to appear:
Staff would call roll immediately before the cases set to be heard. No new
cases would be initiated after 9:30PM.
Page 1 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-19,2,"Approved Minutes
September 19,2018
Cases where participants were not present for initial roll call would be
moved to the end of the agenda. To ensure both parties did not fail to
appear they would be asked to wait until their name was called again.
Prior to adjourning the meeting staff would call roll again for all agenized
but unheard cases. If both parties were present at that time, the case would
be heard if commenced prior to 9:30pm. However, if both parties were
there and the case could not be commenced before 9:30pm, the case would
be moved to the next hearing.
If either party were absent at second roll call, the RRAC would make a
finding as to the parties' failure to appear pursuant to section 6-58.90.
Adjournment: Meetings should adjourn no later than 9:30 p.m. The Committee
could vote to extend a hearing past this cutoff time.
Vice Chair Murray arrived and the foregoing suggestions were restated for her.
Member Griffiths said he liked most of the suggestions. He posited changing the ending
time to 10:00 p.m., while not allowing the Committee to begin hearing any new cases
after 9:30 p.m. He stressed the importance of adhering to a time limit for purposes of
equity between cases, as well as to allow participants to know what to expect.
Members discussed how to proceed and decided that they would review staff suggestions
first and then add their own suggestions.
Member Sullivan-Cheah stated that with the cases that had been heard lately an end time
of 9:30 p.m. could be difficult, while under normal circumstances it could work. He
suggested staff could change the bylaws to state that no new cases can be heard after
9:00 p.m. so the members could adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m., unless a motion was
passed to extend.
The Committee members discussed the timing of agenda items. They surmised that
it
takes about 10-15 minutes to get through roll call and preliminary agenda items before
case reviews began.
In discussing the question of a 45 minute time limit per case, Vice Chair Murray expressed
concern that 45 minutes may not be enough time to have both sides state their case
because sometimes their discussions can be emotionally charged. She added that
members went over 45 minutes because members want to explain themselves and their
decisions, as well as give parties ample opportunity to come to a mutual agreement.
Staff provided that the intent behind the 9:30 p.m. cutoff was to allow staff time to have
the room vacated and cleaned up by 10:00 p.m.
Page 2 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-19,3,"Approved Minutes
September 19, 2018
Staff raised the possibility of the Committee adopting different procedures for bulk versus
non-bulk submissions. Staff reminded the Committee that staff provided parties with
ample time to share their perspectives and mediate prior to a RRAC hearing.
Chair Cambra suggested outlining a breakdown of how a standard case typically
proceeds: five minutes for each side to present their opening statement, three minutes
for opposing parties to reply, 10 minutes for questions from the Committee to the parties,
five minutes to respond to the parties' presentations, and 20 minutes for deliberations
among the members themselves, totaling 61 minutes. Members discussed ways of
shortening the process.
Additional benefits of adopting time limits were discussed, e.g., to ensure that parties on
the agenda did not have to wait all night or multiple nights for their case to be heard.
Member Sullivan-Cheah suggested adopting a time limit of one hour per case.
Staff and Committee members discussed the administrative process of receiving
submissions and scheduling them for hearings. They also discussed prioritizing the
agenda in different ways.
Member Griffiths stated that he thinks that an hour per case is too long.
Vice Chair Murray suggested and the members discussed that the Committee could ask
the parties if they had statements in addition to what had already been submitted to try
to save time. She also suggested that a Committee member summarize the main points
of each side's arguments and ask if they missed anything rather than having each side
present their position as if the Committee had not already read their submissions. Other
members suggested that the parties' opening statements allowed them to feel they can
fully express their position and was an important part of the process.
Member Griffiths suggested and the members discussed whether more time should be
used for cases involving non-binding versus binding decisions.
The members outlined a new ideal breakdown of time per case. The first proposal
included the following:
Segment 1: Each party would be given three minutes to present their perspective,
a Committee member would be given two minutes to reflect back to the parties,
for a total of 10 minutes;
Segment 2: Would provide the Committee 10 minutes for questions and discussion
with the parties; and
Segment 3: Would provide the Committee 20 minutes for deliberation and decision
making.
Page 3 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-09-19,4,"Approved Minutes
September 19,2018
The members suggested that these time limits be flexible. They questioned whether
instead of allowing 10 minutes for Segment 2 and 20 minutes for Segment 3, they might
want to allocate 15 minutes to each.
A second proposal was discussed wherein parties would also be given about two minutes
to reply to the opening statements of the other party. This would result in each of the
three segments allotted 15 minutes, or 45 minutes per case.
Member Griffiths requested that staff call roll of all parties present at beginning of each
hearing, and if the parties were not present, the item be moved to the end of the agenda.
He suggested that if the parties were still not present during second roll call their case
would not be heard by the Committee. He requested the roll call and time limit rules
discussed be presented to the Committee as two separate agenda items for a future
hearing wherein the Committee could consider and vote on amending the bylaws to
incorporate them.
Vice Chair Murray stated she will not be at the next hearing and is comfortable with the
Committee voting on the new suggestions without her being present. Staff and
Committee members affirmed that nothing would be changed in the by-laws until staff
presented the proposals discussed for a Committee vote.
Chair Cambra proposed and the Committee discussed the possibility of conferencing in a
member or participant via video if they were unable to attend the hearing. Two members
stated that they were uncomfortable with this suggestion. Staff informed the Committee
that generally, unless parties requested disability-based reasonable accommodations,
they had to attend the hearings in-person.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. None.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018
Page 4 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-10-01,1,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, October 1, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present were:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
Chair Cambra
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Program staff announced that changes would be shared with the Committee as
each agenda item was called.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Program staff announced that the RRAC was looking to recruit a new member and
encouraged the Committee members and public to contact staff for more
information or send interested parties to staff to learn how to apply.
a. Following up on Chair Cambra's request at the August 6, 2018 meeting to provide
information on the resolutions of cases that are published on meeting agendas but
resolve prior to the Committee hearing them, Staff referenced the July 2018 report
that had been provided to the Committee at the September 6, 2018 hearing
(attachment to Agenda Item 7-K). Staff informed the Committee that details of
any cases that resolved prior to RRAC review could be found in the Rent
Stabilization Program's monthly reports, which are published monthly on the
Program's website, www.alamedarentprogram.org
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) member Eric Strimling commented that landlords
should adopt and implement good business plans to account for expenses, which
would help preclude their needing to request large, sudden rent increases.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
6-A. CASE 1078 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 202
No Committee review. The tenant was not present at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as noticed.
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-10-01,2,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
6-B. CASE 1084 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 204
Tenant: Yolande Perry
Landlords: Randall Kessler, Andrew Fisher, Asia Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $290.85 (20.4%), effective October 1, 2018
Mr. Kessler asked if there was a quorum of Committee members and how many votes
would be needed in order for a motion to carry. The Committee and City Attorney staff
informed the parties that three members made a quorum and that all three members
present would have to vote the same way for any motion to pass.
Mr. Fisher told the Committee that the landlords will have spent a total of $5.5 million
dollars in work that went into fixing, maintaining, and improving the building, including
financing and losses. He said that management came to the rent increase amounts they
did after evaluating how to fairly spread the costs out to the tenants without imposing
financial hardships.
Ms. Perry said that the increase request posed a financial hardship for her. She said
that she was paying into a mandatory retirement plan at work, although she would
never be able to retire, and also had increased medical expenses. She said she could
afford an increase of $75 to $85. She said there was a laundry room next door to her
unit that made noise in her unit late into the night.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked her if she received a rent abatement during the
construction and she said had not, but they gave her a $100 rent abatement for use of
a parking space that she did not use for four months. Ms. Perry said she would like a
new carpet and new kitchen appliances.
Member Griffiths asked her what a $135 increase would mean for her, and Ms. Perry
said she did not think she could afford her health plan if her rent were increased that
much.
Vice Chair Murray asked what she did for work, and Ms. Perry said she was a case
manager working for the State of California. Vice Chair Murray asked if she received pay
increases at work, and Ms. Perry said she did, but the increases were already allocated
to paying other increased expenses.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Hawkins how much this type of unit rents for at
market rate and she said she had recently rented a comparable unit for $2,395 per
month. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Perry if she used the parking spot that came
with her unit and she said she did not.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if management would be interested in asking for less of
an increase if Ms. Perry gave up her parking spot so that management could rent it to
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-10-01,3,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
another tenant. The landlords discussed this and said they would consider it, but would
have to talk to the property managers at Berger Enterprises to ascertain the exact value
of the parking space.
The parties returned to their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Griffiths made a motion for $75 increase, for which there was no second.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he believed Ms. Perry had expressed a financial hardship.
He said he believed an $85 increase (parking space aside) was fair considering the
landlords had demonstrated that they put a significant amount of work into the
property.
Motion and second for an $80 monthly rent increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
6-C. CASE 1092 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 219
No Committee review. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement concerning
the amount of the rent increase. Details of the agreement can be found in the Rent
Stabilization Program's monthly report at www.alamedarentprograms.org
6-D. CASE 1097 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 213
No Committee review. The tenant was not present at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as noticed.
6-E. CASE 1103 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102
Tenant: Christopher Wooten
Landlords: Randall Kessler, Andrew Fisher, Asia Hawkins
Proposed rent increase: $310.83 (24.0%), effective October 1, 2018
Ms. Hawkins said that management had been working on attending to the issues Mr.
Wooten raised in his submitted response to the Committee, such as remediating any
mold in the unit, and repainting the walls. Mr. Fisher pointed out that although no
improvements were made to the inside of the unit, all tenants benefit from the work
that was done to the property, which is why the increases were being spread somewhat
evenly to most or all of the tenants at the property. Ms. Hawkins passed around a
picture of the work that had been done to improve Mr. Wooten's kitchen cabinets.
Mr. Wooten said that he had two kids in school in Alameda and if the rent increased too
much they would have to relocate outside Alameda, uprooting their children, which
could be very hard on them. He said he works as a case manager in the mental health
field, and had experienced a decrease in income, which has made him look into
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-10-01,4,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
changing careers, which could come with its own increased costs (e.g., paying for
additional education). He said his wife was working full-time and was also in school.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Wooten what percentage of his income the rent,
after the requested increases, would represent. Mr. Wooten said that the requested
increase of $310 would make the rent payment come out to about 40% of their
household income. He said that he and his wife were paying for their education through
their savings.
Vice Chair Murray asked what his wife did and he said she was an assistant teacher at a
Montessori school. She asked the ages of his kids and he said they were 11 and 13
years old. Vice Chair Murray asked what he thought a reasonable rent increase would
be, and, referencing his paperwork, pointed out that he had indicated in his submission
that he thought an increase of $105 would be reasonable. Mr. Wooten confirmed he
thought that amount was reasonable. Vice Chair Murray asked if he could afford the full
increase requested by landlords for one year, $123.03, and he said he would have to
start sacrificing things, like programs for his kids.
The parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he thought the $105 offered by the tenant was reasonable.
Vice Chair Murray added that it represents more than the CAPX costs of $81.33, and so
it included some increased operating costs.
Motion and second for a $105 increase (Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths). Motion
passed 3-0.
6-F. CASE 1105 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 218
No Committee review. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement concerning
the amount of the rent increase. Details of the agreement can be found in the Rent
Stabilization Program's monthly report at www.alamedarentprograms.org
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 1136.1 - 3269 Central Ave.
No Committee review. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement concerning
the amount of the rent increase. Details of the agreement can be found in the Rent
Stabilization Program's monthly report at www.alamedarentprograms.org,
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-10-01,5,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
7-B. CASE 1103 - 1507 Lincoln Ave.
Tenant: Rosemary Esmedina, accompanied by ARC member Brad Hirn
Landlords: Robert Rowe, Stacey Rowe
Proposed rent increase: $500.00 (50.0%), effective October 28, 2018
Mr. Rowe said that the subject property, a single family house, was originally owned by
his grandmother. He said the house was now held in trust to provide income for the
benefit of his sister, who had considerable medical needs. Ms. Rowe said that he and
Ms. Rowe had unsuccessfully tried to come to an agreement concerning the amount of
the increase with the tenants. Ms. Rowe said they offered to lower the increase to $300
per month, bringing the monthly rent to $1,300. She said that if they had increased the
rent by 5% per year in previous years, the tenant's current rent would be just a little
less than this, but they did not know that more frequent incremental increases were
preferable to fewer larger increases. She said that part of the reason they were
increasing the rent was to ensure they had money to keep up the unit.
Ms. Esmedina said that the requested increase would create a financial hardship and
displace her. She said she was permanently disabled and receives SSI income of about
$1,219 per month, and that about 82% of her income goes toward rent. She said the
increased amount would account for about 120% of her income. She said the lights in
part of the house flicker sometimes and she uses candles and flashlights when this
happens. She proposed a $50 (5.0%) rent increase and said she believes she has been
a good tenant and has maintained the home to the best of her ability.
Vice Chair Murray asked the landlords what impact not getting an increase to $1,300
would have on them. Mr. Rowe said that they not be able to generate income from the
property and Ms. Rowe added that the purpose of keeping the home was to generate
money to support Mr. Rowe's sister, her sister-in-law, adding that selling the house was
not something they were considering. They said the house was held in trust by Mr.
Rowe for his sister's benefit and they were working on improving her health to get her
back to work following an injury that caused her to stop working 10 months ago.
Member Sullivan-Cheah went over the landlords' expenses in repairing and maintaining
the property and verified them.
Member Griffiths asked Ms. Esmedina what would happen to her if future increases
came in the years to follow and she said she did not know what she would do. Vice
Chair Murray asked if she had family in the area and she said she did, but did not think
they would be able to help her.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if Ms. Esmedina had considered obtaining a roommate
for the second bedroom in the home. She said it would not be ideal as she had lived
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-10-01,6,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
alone for 20 years. The landlords responded that they would want a higher increase
amount for another person in the unit to compensate for additional wear and tear.
Vice Chair Murray mentioned that the possible repeal of Costa Hawkins in the
November election was something the landlords may have to consider when setting the
rent, as it may make raising the rent in the future more difficult.
Ms. Rowe responded that another reason they were requesting this increase now was
because the possible appeal of Costa Hawkins may make raising the rent in the future
more difficult.
Member Griffiths proposed a stepped increase, such as allowing a smaller increase for
11 months and then having the rent increase another, larger amount in the 12th month
so that the base rent for the next year and moving forward would be something that
the landlords could accept.
Member Sullivan-Cheah opined that a roommate situation may be unavoidable to keep
Ms. Esmedina in her home and provide the income the landlords needed for their
sister's needs and proper upkeep of the house.
Member Griffiths said he believed the Committee should make a decision that would lay
the foundation for a more in-depth discussion among the parties following the hearing
that would consider a stepped increase, the addition of a roommate, and other possible
solutions.
Vice Chair Murray asked Program staff if they would be willing to mediate with the
parties after the hearing. Staff confirmed they would be willing to work with the parties
to explore options for an agreement.
The parties took their seats and the Committee deliberated.
Member Griffiths proposed an increase of $50 (to $1,050) for the first 11 months that
would then increase an additional $700 (to $1,750) in the final month. Member
Sullivan-Cheah said he liked the idea of a stepped increase but thought that 11 months
at $1,050 may provide the landlords insufficient income to cover any needed repairs at
the property. He proposed a rent of $1,050 for the first six months, and Vice Chair
Murray agreed. Member Griffiths countered with nine months at $1,050, followed by
$1,750 for the last three months.
Motion and second to extend discussion for five minutes (Vice Chair Murray and
Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he thought nine months at $1,050 then three months at
$1,650 would be preferable. Vice Chair Murray disagreed, pointing out that even $1,750
for a two-bedroom house was still under market rate.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-10-01,7,"Approved Minutes
October 1, 2018
Motion and second for a rent increase to $1,050 for the first nine months following the
effective date, followed by another increase to $1,750 for next three months (Member
Griffiths and Vice Chair Murray). Motion failed 2-1. -
Motion and second to extend discussion another five minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah
and Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
Motion and second to increase the rent to $1,050 for first nine months, then to $1,700
for the next three months, effective October 28, 2018 (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice
Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. ARC member Gloria Rios said she had lived in Alameda since the 1990's and has
noticed that the rate of rent increases outpaces the rate of salary increases. She
opined that smaller, incremental rent increases were easier for tenants to adapt
to than less frequent, larger increases.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. The Committee asked staff for an update on changes to the Committee's rules and
procedures that were discussed at the September 19, 2018 special meeting. Staff
informed the Committee that staff had drafted the proposed changes and they
were currently under review by the City Attorney's Office.
10.ADJOURNMENT
a. The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-07,1,"Approved Minutes
November 7, 2018
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
Present were:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: None
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Motion and second to move Agenda Item 7-H to the beginning of New Business
(Vice Chair Murray and Member Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Program staff requested Committee members provide their availability for future
special meetings to hear additional cases. Members indicated their availability for
special meetings on November 19, November 27, December 12, and December
17, 2018.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
Alameda resident Regis Paul Marcelin expressed thanks to program staff for their
assistance and services. He mentioned that he had previously made a public
comment regarding his positive relationship with his previous landlord and is
looking to developing a positive relationship with his new landlord.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the August 20, 2018 Special Meeting.
Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and
Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
5-B. Approval of the Minutes of the August 29, 2018 Special Meeting.
Vice Chair Murray requested staff add additional comments she made during the
meeting to Agenda Item 6 of the minutes. Motion and second to approve of the
minutes after amendment is made (Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths). Motion
passed 3-0.
5-C. Approval of the Minutes of the August 30, 2018 Special Meeting.
Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and
Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
5-D. Approval of the Minutes of the September 5, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-07,2,"Approved Minutes
November 7, 2018
Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and
Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
5-E. Approval of the Minutes of the September 17, 2018 Special Meeting.
Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and
Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
5-F. Approval of the Minutes of the September 19, 2018 Special Meeting.
Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and
Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
5-G. Approval of the Minutes of the October 1, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and
Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-H. Review and approve amendments to the Rent Review Committee's
Rules and Procedures addressing various issues including, RRAC
hearing time limits, participant's attendance or failure to appear under
section 6-58.90, annual elections, and other appropriate amendments
Motion and second to adopt amended Rules and Procedures (Members Griffiths and
Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
Program staff called roll of the participants present. The tenants in Agenda Items 7-C and
7-F were not present. The Committee approved moving these agenda items to the end
of New Business.
7-A. CASE 1145 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. E
Tenant: Victor Rodriguez, assisted by staff-provided translator
Landlords: Heidi Hausauer, Cassie Hausauer, owners, and Albert Pena, manager
Proposed rent increase: $100.00 (8.3%), effective November 1, 2018
The landlords stated that they were requesting an increase to keep up with the property's
expenses and improvements, including new fences, yard work, and earthquake
preparedness improvements. They said that they paid for gas, water, electric, and
gardening, and had put new carpets and fridges in some units.
Mr. Rodriguez said he has lived there 18 years and his carpeting was only changed once.
He added that his kitchen needed repainting and his unit needed a new front door
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-07,3,"Approved Minutes
November 7, 2018
because the current one is drafty. He said the gardener came infrequently and the
grounds were always dirty. He said that the landlords gave him paint to repaint his unit
himself. He added that the windows do not open or close, and the tenants are not allowed
to use the outside hose.
Mr. Pena responded that the owner pays the water and did not want the tenants using
the hose irresponsibly. He added that Mr. Rodriguez has unauthorized persons living in
his unit.
Member Griffiths asked staff to clarify the prior increases. Staff informed the Committee
that the base rent was currently $1,200 because a prior increase from $1,200 to $1300
was found to be invalid and the landlords were required to reimburse the tenants amounts
collected under that increase, which they did. Staff clarified that the landlords were
currently requesting a $100 increase from $1,200 to $1,300.
Committee members asked clarifying questions as to what the landlords were willing to
do to address the tenant's stated needs.
The parties came to an agreement for a $100 increase effective December 1, 2018 and
the landlords made a commitment to address a number of the concerns the tenant raised.
7-B. CASE 1147 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. B
Tenant: Florencio Reyna & Catherine Reyna, assisted by staff-provided translator
Landlords: Heidi Hausauer, Cassie Hausauer, owners, and Albert Pena, manager
Proposed rent increase: $100.00 (8.3%), effective November 1, 2018
Mr. Pena said the tenants were wonderful tenants, and he and his daughter Catherine
were the sole occupants.
The tenants expressed concern that they are not able to use the hose, should they need
it in an emergency, such as a fire. They said some of the windows on the property are
broken, their front door is drafty, and they have a hole in their bathroom wall. They said
that they have always had to paint their own unit and their carpet had never been
replaced in their 14 years of tenancy. They said they've informed the landlord about the
needed repairs, but the landlord had not addressed them.
The parties came to an agreement for a $100 increase effective December 1, 2018, and
the landlords made a commitment to address a number of the concerns the tenants
raised.
7-D. CASE 1143 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. F
Tenant: Kimberly Perez
Landlords: Heidi Hausauer, Cassie Hausauer, owners, and Albert Pena, manager
Proposed rent increase: $100.00 (8.3%), effective November 1, 2018
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-07,4,"Approved Minutes
November 7, 2018
Mr. Pena said the tenant has lived in the unit for seven years. He said that he wanted to
clean the tenant's carpets but the tenant's dog would relieve itself on the carpet making
that difficult, so the tenant replaced the carpet with flooring, and the owner offered to
pay for the flooring materials, but not the labor. Mr. Pena said he would like Ms. Perez to
keep the apartment cleaner. He added that her oven is out of order, and he's planning
to get it fixed.
Ms. Perez stated that her front door is drafty, her bathtub faucet leaks water and won't
shut off completely. She said she is currently recovering from an operation and it takes
her longer to clean right now, but she does clean. She said only two burners on her stove
are working and mentioned a dispute over a parking space. She said she was amenable
to the $100 increase from $1,200 to $1,300 as long as her repair concerns are addressed.
The parties came to an agreement for a $100 increase effective December 1, 2018 and
the landlords made a commitment to address a number of the concerns the tenant raised.
7-E. CASE 1144 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. G
Tenant: Samuel Johnson
Landlords: Heidi Hausauer, Cassie Hausauer, owners, and Albert Pena, manager
Proposed rent increase: $100.00 (8.3%), effective November 1, 2018
Mr. Pena said Mr. Johnson moved in about nine years ago, and lives by himself, although
his family moved in at one point but are not currently there. He said Mr. Johnson
requested laminated wood floors instead of carpet, which the owners have agreed to
provide. He said there's an ongoing issue with parking with all of the residents.
Mr. Johnson said he didn't mind an increase to $1,300 if the landlords would address
some of his concerns. He said there are stray dogs that defecate on the property, and his
neighbors cause vandalism and nuisance problems. He said he has had to call the police
on his neighbors and fears he may have to use physical force to defend himself from
them. He said he would like more security at the property and would like the tenants
below him to not make so much noise. He added that he would like to be able to use the
outside hose again, and he has had things stolen from his car, which is parked in the
carport. He said that this evening was the first time he had heard that the landlords were
willing to replace his carpet with flooring, and he was even willing to pay part of the cost
to install it. He said that his neighbor's friend's car is parked on the property but the
manager won't get it towed. He said he would like more lighting on the property because
it's very dark.
The parties came to an agreement for a $100 increase effective December 1, 2018 and
the landlords made a commitment to address a number of the concerns the tenant raised.
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-07,5,"Approved Minutes
November 7, 2018
Motion and second to hear one additional case after 9:00 p.m. (Members Griffiths and
Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
7-G. CASE 1152 - 467 Santa Clara Ave.
Tenants: Michele Santorio and Heidi Ohrtman
Landlords: Greta Jenkins and Gary Jenkins
Proposed rent increase: $1,400.00 (93.3%), effective November 23, 2018
Ms. Jenkins said the property is owned by a trust that is set up to provide income to Mr.
Jenkins' mother, Sarah Moll, and as a trustee of the trust, she has a fiduciary duty to
obtain as much money from the trust assets as possible. She said the current income is
insufficient to provide Ms. Moll the income she needs, which is why they are asking for a
rent increase.
Mr. Santoro said that the tenants have had to take care of everything on the property.
He said that the house leaks water and the heater is ineffective because the house is so
drafty. He and Ms. Ohrtman said they believe the current rent of $1,500 is a fair market
rate considering the poor condition of the property. They said they would not be able to
afford to stay in the home if the rent were raised to the $2,900 as the landlords are
requesting. Mr. Santorio said he has run a deli in the community for nine years and if the
rent were greatly increased, he would have to move out of Alameda and close his
business.
Mr. Jenkins said that the work the tenants put into the property was part of the agreement
they had when they moved in, in exchange for rent credits. He said that he has informed
the tenants at various times that he would have to raise the rent to market rate at some
point as it was his mother's only source of income.
Chair Murray asked what the tenants thought was a reasonable amount of an increase
and the tenants said they thought that a 5% increase was reasonable because of the
condition of the house.
Motion and second to extend the time of the agenda item an extra 15 minutes (Member
Griffiths and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.
Member Sullivan-Cheah clarified that the subject unit, a single family residence, was
exempt from a binding decision under state law. He discussed how this impacted the
Committee's decision-making authority - that the Committee can only make a nonbinding
decision regarding the increase amount. He also explained the appeals process that was
available to either party if they were not satisfied with the Committee's decision.
Vice Chair Murray impressed upon the parties the value of coming to a mutual agreement.
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-07,6,"Approved Minutes
November 7, 2018
The landlords said they could lower their requested rent from $2,900 to $2,700. Mr.
Santorio said he was willing to pay a 10% increase but they would not be able to afford
$2,700, saying they could pay $1,800 at most. The landlords stated that that was
insufficient.
Motion and second to extend the time of the agenda item an additional 10 minutes
(Member Griffiths and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.
Member Griffiths asked the landlords if they would consider a smaller increase this year,
and stretch out the requested increase over multiple years, or alternately, give the
tenants a stepped increase with a lower amount for the first part of the year, followed by
a larger amount later in the year.
Mr. Santorio said that he was not amenable to large incremental increases and would
fight any increase.
Member Sullivan-Cheah stated that the home is exempt from a binding decision and the
owners have made clear they're going to raise the rent beyond what the tenants can
afford. Therefore, the Committee was trying to buy Mr. Santorio and his family time to
make arrangements for other housing options.
Motion and second to extend the time of the agenda item an additional 10 minutes (Vice
Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
Motion and second for an increase to $1,800 for the first nine months of the next year,
followed by an increase to $2,700 for the remaining three months of the year, effective
11/23/18 (Member Griffiths and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.
7-C. CASE 1148 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. A
No Committee review. The tenant was not present at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as noticed.
7-F. CASE 1146 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. C
No Committee review. The tenant was not present at the hearing. The rent increase will
go into effect as noticed.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
None.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-07,7,"Approved Minutes
November 7, 2018
10. ADJOURNMENT
a. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 4, 2019
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-19,1,"Approved Minutes
November 19, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, November 19, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
Present were:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: None
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff called roll of participants present. All were present except for the tenants in
Agenda Item 7-D, which was moved to the end of New Business, to be called after
Agenda Item 7-G.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 1059 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D226
Tenants: Thu Thanh Tran Ngo and Calvin (last name unknown)
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $117.85 (9.9%), effective September 1, 2018
Mr. King said his company acquired the property in October 2017, and had spent over $3
million to improve it. He provided the Committee with a document that listed
improvements made to the property, which included before and after photos. He said the
owners were requesting increases to compensate for both the cost of the upgrades and
improvements and because the tenants' rents were below market rate.
Through her son Calvin, who translated for her, Ms. Ngo said she believed the increase
being requested was excessive because the improvements were made to the common
Page 1 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-19.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-19,2,"Approved Minutes
November 19,2018
areas, other tenants' units, and the exterior of the property, rather than to her unit in
particular. She said she believed a 5% increase was appropriate due to unresolved issues
that go back to the previous owner.
Member Griffiths asked when the retrofitting would be done and Mr. Raufi said it was
ongoing. Member Griffiths asked why the landlords did not ask for an increase through
the City's capital improvement process and they said they did not know about it. Member
Griffiths asked how many units were at the property and the landlords replied that there
are 186 units at the property.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if the rent increases were calculated to be about 10% per
unit and Mr. King said they were, adding that he believed the 10% increase would not
bring the tenants to market rate.
The tenants expressed some ongoing concerns, e.g., mold in the bathroom, a piece of
drywall that had fallen off of the ceiling, and the failure of the toilet to flush properly.
Vice Chair Murray asked about the property's profitability and Mr. King said that the
building did not bring in as much money as was put into it in 2018. She asked if it would
be profitable moving forward and the landlords said they did not anticipate running at a
loss in future years.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants if the landlords addressed their concerns,
asked if they thought a 10% increase would be okay. Ms. Ngo said that she thought 10%
was still excessive even with the concerns addressed.
Vice Chair Murray asked if the requested increase would cause a financial hardship and
the tenants replied that they could afford it but did not think it was justified.
The parties were not able to reach an agreement and were asked to take their seats, as
the Committee began deliberations.
Motion and second for an increase of $90.00 (7.5%) effective Sept. 1, 2018 (Member
Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.
7-B. CASE 1061 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B305
Tenants: Adalah Musaid and Amran Musaid
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $157.00 (10.0%), effective September 1, 2018
Mr. King informed the Committee of additional work and improvements that he believed
added value to the property.
Ms. Musaid said that she thought a 5% increase would be acceptable. She said the
apartment was old, but she would rather have a lower rent increase than improvements
Page 2 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-19.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-19,3,"Approved Minutes
November 19,2018
done to their unit, or the property in general, as they were currently struggling to pay
the rent. Mr. Musaid said he thought the improvements themselves added value to the
building, increasing its value for the owner, and that asking the tenants to then pay for
the improvements would be a form of double-dipping.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if the tenants had a balcony and they said they did, and
improvements were made to it, but it was still being worked on because it still had issues.
He asked them if they were given a rent abatement while the work was being done and
the tenants said no. Mr. Musaid added that the bedroom window was extremely drafty
and needed attention.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked how the requested increase would impact them financially.
Vice Chair Murray asked the tenants what their source of income was. Mr. Musaid said
he was a Lyft driver and Ms. Musaid worked at CVS. He added that they had an 11 year
old child and an elderly mother to care for, and that they could not afford the requested
10% increase. The tenants said they do not utilize the property's amenities except for
the laundry.
The parties could not come to an agreement and took their seats. The Committee began
deliberations on the increase amount.
Motion and second for an increase of $79.00 (5.0%) effective September 1, 2018
(Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
Member Sullivan-Cheah motioned to amend the previous motion to make the effective
date December 1, 2018. No second.
The Landlords were brought back to the table to answer additional questions.
Motion and second to amend the motion in agenda item 7-A to a $0 increase from
September 1, 2018 through November 30, 2018, followed by a $90.00 increase from
December 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. (Member Griffiths and Vice Chair Murray).
Motion passed 3-0.
Motion and second to amend previous motion in this agenda item (7-B) for a stepped
increase of $0 from September 1, 2018 through November 30, 2018, followed by a $79.00
increase from December 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. (Member Griffiths and Vice
Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.
7-C. CASE 1062 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C301
Tenant: Tina Dabney, accompanied by Erica Walker
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $151.10 (10.0%), effective September 1, 2018
Page 3 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-19.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-19,4,"Approved Minutes
November 19,2018
Ms. Walker, daughter of tenant Tina Dabney, said that the improvements to the building
did not benefit her mother's unit. She said Ms. Dabney was experiencing a financial
hardship as her partner moved out and as a result she lost a considerable portion of her
social security income. She said she was requesting no rent increase due to the financial
hardship she is currently experiencing. She said her mom has lived at the unit for almost
20 years which is why the unit was below market rate. Ms. Dabney said her current
roommate, who works as a waiter, pays half of the rent. Ms. Walker said they were
working with Bay Area Legal Aid to try to reinstate some of her benefits. Ms. Walker said
Ms. Dabney's roommate told her he would probably have to move out if the rent were
increased. Ms. Dabney said she collects recyclable cans to make extra money but it did
not substantially augment her income.
The parties took a seat and the Committee began deliberations.
Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths expressed a belief that a 0% increase would be
reasonable this year based on the facts presented by the tenant.
Motion and second for a $0 increase effective September 1, 2018. (Members Griffiths and
Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
7-E. CASE 1064 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A311
Tenant: Maninderpal Singh
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $164.25 (9.9%), effective September 1, 2018
Mr. Singh said no improvements have been made to the inside of his apartment. He said
he does not have a storage unit like other tenants and was not given a clear answer by
management as to why he does not have one. He said he does not have a balcony, but
knows they improved other tenant's balconies. He said the increase does not pose a
financial hardship, but does not think the requested amount correlates with any benefit
that has inured to him.
Committee members asked him questions that allowed Mr. Singh to share further details,
e.g., he has three other roommates, he just finished college, and was looking to enter
a
master's program. He said he was a software engineer and worked on contract. The
tenant said he and his roommates would pay more rent for a renovated apartment. Mr.
King invited him to apply for a newer apartment and said that a newer two-bedroom unit
would rent from $2,600 to $2,900.
The parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Griffiths noted that he thought a 7.5% increase was a reasonable as the
landlords did not provide a reason for the 10% figure or demonstrate any financial
Page 4 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-19.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-19,5,"Approved Minutes
November 19, 2018
hardship if they did not get the full amount they were requesting. He acknowledged that
the requested increase did not pose a hardship for the tenant.
Motion and second to extend the time for 5 minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member
Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
Motion and second for a $0 increase from September 1, 2018 through November 30,
2018, followed by a $135.00 increase from December 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019.
(Member Griffiths and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.
Motion and second to extend acceptance of new cases after 9:00 p.m. (Member Griffiths
and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.
7-F. CASE 1067 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D318
Tenant: Veronika Jones
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $123.70 (10.0%), effective September 1, 2018
Mr. King said that the management actively works with tenants to resolve maintenance
issues such as mold.
Ms. Jones said she has lived at the property for over 25 years and most appliances in her
unit had not been changed since she moved in. She said the gym and other amenities
the landlords added are not of use to her. Ms. Jones said she works as an HR consultant
and sports therapist on a per-project basis, and budgets for increases each year. She said
she budgeted for a 6% increase this year.
Ms. Jones said she is the sole occupant of the unit and is solely responsible for the rent.
She said an increase of 10% would pose a hardship, as she is currently three months into
a six-month contract. She said an increase of 6-7% or around $90 would be acceptable
to her. The landlords said they would agree to an increase of $90.00.
The parties reached an agreement of a $0 increase from September 1, 2018 through
November 30, 2018, followed by a $90.00 increase from December 1, 2018 through
August 31, 2019. As the parties reached an agreement, the Committee made no decision.
7-G. CASE 1068 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A206
Tenant: Tsegai Tensae
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $147.00 (10.0%), effective September 1, 2018
Mr. Tensae said that the rent increases he receives outpace increases in his income and
there are ongoing maintenance issues that have gone unaddressed at his unit. One such
Page 5 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-19.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-19,6,"Approved Minutes
November 19, 2018
problem was that the windows leak when it rains, and neither the old or new landlords
have fixed them. He said he is a single father who supports two sons who sometimes live
with him, one of whom is in college and the other a recent graduate. Mr. Tensae said he
works in freight delivery services for Old Dominion and business was slowing down, which
affects how many hours of work he can get. He said the requested increase would pose
a financial hardship, adding he could afford a $30 increase, as he was already paying
50% of his income toward rent.
Mr. King said he would agree to a 5% increase and Mr. Tensae said he was not sure he
could afford it. He said he could afford a $40 increase to $1,510.
As the parties could not come to an agreement, the Committee began deliberations.
Motion and second for a $0 increase from September 1, 2018 through November 30,
2018, followed by a $40.00 increase from December 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019
(Vice Chair Murray and Member Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.
7-D. CASE 1063 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A311
No Committee review. The Committee did not have time to call this case. It will be
continued to a meeting on November 27, 2018.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
Alameda resident Rasheed Shahbazz asked why the cases heard at this meeting were
postponed from a previous meeting. Staff and Committee members clarified the purpose
of public comment and invited the speaker to contact staff during normal business hours
to find an answer to his question.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
None.
10. .ADJOURNMENT
a. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Draft Until Approved
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on January 23, 2019
Page 6 of 6",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-19.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-27,1,"Approved Minutes
November 27, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, November 27, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:56 p.m.
Present were:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Jennifer Kauffman, Samantha Columbus
City Attorney staff: None
2. AGENDA CHANGES
None.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 1063 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A311
Tenants: Yosief Philipos
Landlords: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $119.00 (10.0%), effective September 1, 2018
Mr. King said that Vue Alameda was purchased by new ownership in October 2017. He
said the new ownership intended to address the deferred maintenance concerns of the
residents to make the property safer, as well as provide new amenities. He said the new
owners have spent $3 million on improvements and expect the improvements to be
completed by 2019. He explained that the owners are requesting a rent increase above
5% to compensate for the additional services that are being provided to residents and to
help cover some of the renovation expenses. Some examples of improvements include
new pedestrian and vehicle gates, additional storage space, a fitness center, a child
center, propane barbeque equipment, a new roof, a new pool, new roofing, and new
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-27,2,"Approved Minutes
November 27,2018
landscaping. Additionally, safety upgrades were made to the units with balconies,
including seismic retrofitting for earthquake safety.
Vice Chair Murray asked about a discrepancy in the rent increase history provided at the
unit and asked if he had any information on when the rent increases occurred and what
the circumstances for the rent increases were. Mr. King replied that when they took over
the property in 2017 there were a number of lease files that were incomplete.
Mr. Philipos stated that he has seen changes to the outside of apartments but no changes
inside. He said his carpet was more than 15 years old and when he asked his previous
landlord to fix it they just covered up the parts that needed fixing. He also stated that
there are water leaks in the bathroom that has caused the floor to bubble up. He stated
the requested increase of 10% would pose a financial hardship, explaining that he is the
only person working in his family and has to take care of his mother.
Mr. King responded that tenants were encouraged to come to management with
maintenance issues, and that things like water leaks were considered a priority to fix.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King if there were procedures in-place for maintenance
requests.
Mr. King stated that there were several ways to request a maintenance work, including
an online submission form.
Mr. Philipos stated that he did not know about the online submission form but would use
it to request maintenance work.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Philipos about the rent increase history details at the
unit and Mr. Philipos said he could not recall.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if Mr. Philipos' wife was able to work, and Mr. Philipos
stated that she is able to but has not found work yet. He asked if Mr. Philipos is the sole
caretaker for his mother and Mr. Philipos said that he supports her financially.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Philipos what percentage of his income would go
towards his rent if the 10% increase went into effect. Mr. Philipos stated that it would be
too much, and he would have to make adjustments to his lifestyle and budget to
accommodate.
Vice Chair Murray asked what Mr. Philipos' occupation was, and he said he is an engineer.
She asked the maximum increase he could afford and he said $55.00.
The parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated.
Motion and second for a $0 increase from September 1, 2018 through November 30,
2018, followed by an increase of $100.00 from December 1, 2018 through August 31,
2019 (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-27,3,"Approved Minutes
November 27, 2018
7-B. CASE 1107 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A309
Tenants: Brandon Isaacson
Landlords: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $175.00 (10.0%), effective October 1, 2018
Mr. Isaacson said that this is the 2nd rent increase at his apartment in the past three
years, adding the improvements were more cosmetic than structural. He stated that there
have been no changes made to the inside of the apartment, and voiced concern over a
possible safety hazard with a gap in between cement floors and railing in his unit.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked about the tenant's prior rent increases, and Mr. Isaacson
said the rent had been raised 5% every year that he has been a resident.
Vice Chair Murray asked what effect the increase would have on Mr. Isaacson, and he
stated that it would strain their finances; for example, that they were already putting off
having car repairs done due to shortage of money.
Member Griffiths asked how much of an increase he could afford and Mr. Isaacson replied
he could afford an increase of about $52, which coincided with the 2-3% increase in his
salary.
The parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated.
Motion and second for a $0 increase from October 1, 2018 through November 30, 2018,
followed by an increase of $100.00 from December 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019
(Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
At 8:10 p.m. the Committee agreed to take a five-minute break.
At 8:14 p.m., Vice Chair Murray made an announcement that given the time remained
they could only hear two more cases for the night, so they are going to defer two cases
- Agenda Items 7-G and 7-I - to the next meeting.
7-C. CASE 1108 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A310
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-D. CASE 1109 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A313
Tenant: Naza Hojic
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $126.00 (9.9%), effective October 1, 2018
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-27,4,"Approved Minutes
November 27,2018
Mr. Hojic stated he has lived in the unit for about ten years, and there have been no
changes made to the inside of his apartment during that time. He presented to the
Committee a picture of his bathtub, which he believed was in need of repair. He shared
that he had been without work for two months, and his wife was disabled and worked
part-time, as they tried to raise a 10 year old daughter. He noted that the landlords had
made improvements to the outside of the property, but reiterated that no improvements
have been made to his unit.
Mr. King withdrew the rent increase, stating that he was not aware of the tenants'
circumstances.
7-E. CASE 1110 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B101
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-F. CASE 1111 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B103
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-G. CASE 1112 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B202
No Committee review. Review of this case was postponed to a future meeting due to time
constraints.
7-H. CASE 1115 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B301
No Committee review. The tenant presented evidence that she had received a rent
increase within the last twelve months and the landlord withdrew the rent increase
request.
7-I. CASE 1116 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B304
No Committee review. Review of this case was postponed to a future meeting due to time
constraints.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-11-27,5,"Approved Minutes
November 27,2018
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked staff why City Attorney staff had been absent for several
meetings. Staff replied that the absences were due to the fact that the increased and
irregularly-scheduled RRAC meetings sometimes ran concurrently with other meetings
that City Attorney staff had to attend, such as City Council meetings.
10.ADJOURNMENT
a. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on January 23, 2019
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-05,1,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
Present were:
Members Sullivan-Cheah, Johnson, and Chiu
Absent:
Vice Chair Murray and Member Griffiths
Program staff:
Greg Kats, Grant Eshoo
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that the parties in Agenda Item 7-D came to an
agreement prior to the meeting.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Staff announced it would call roll of the parties present at the beginning of New
Business.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
Catherine from the Alameda Renters Coalition announced that free legal services
for tenants were now being provided by Centro Legal de la Raza.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the November 7, 2018 regular meeting
The Committee agreed to table consideration of this item to a future meeting.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
Staff called roll of the parties present. All parties were present except the tenant in
Agenda Item 7-C. Staff informed the Committee it would call roll again at the end of
new business to see if the missing tenant had arrived.
7-A. Case 1149 - 3268 Briggs Ave., Apt. B
Tenants: Stella Park
Landlords: Calvin and Serena Wong
Proposed rent increase: $300.00 (25.0%) to a total rent of $1,455.00, effective
January 1, 2019
Page 1 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-05,2,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2018
Ms. Wong informed the Committee that they had recently purchased the property. She
said they wanted to improve the driveway, and obtained an estimate that it would cost
$35,000. She said they were requesting the increase to help pay for improvements to
the property. She said they were currently making about $180 income per year. Mr.
Wong added that they would like to have a reserve fund for future expenses.
Ms. Park stated that she understands why the landlords want to raise the rent, but her
income had not increased by 25%, the amount they were asking for, or as fast as rents
have gone up. She said she was hoping to discuss and negotiate the amount of the rent
increase with the landlords and proposed a 10% increase, acknowledging that the
landlords did not raise the rent the previous year.
Member Johnson asked the landlords about the amount requested at this and other
units on the property.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked the parties about the layout of unit and property as a
whole. Ms. Park said no upgrades have been made to her property since she moved in
but the unit was in good condition.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked the landlords what they thought of Ms. Park's offer of a
10% ($115.50) increase. The landlords countered with a $195 offer. Ms. Park said that
her health insurance had gone up a lot and had substantial student loan payments. Ms.
Park asked the landlords if they would accept a rent of $1,300.
The parties could not reach an agreement and took their seats and the Committee
began deliberations.
Member Johnson said she thought the 10% increase offered by the tenant seemed fair,
and also understood the landlords' income concerns.
Member Chiu discussed each sides' perspectives and said he thought the tenant's last
offer of $1,300 was reasonable.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said that he understood $1,300 to be Ms. Park's upper limit of
what she would be able to pay, and noted that Ms. Park's unit did not have some of the
amenities that other units on the property had, such as balconies.
Member Johnson expressed that the landlords would probably be better off
incrementally increasing the rent each year to build a reserve rather than asking for a
large lump sum increase.
Motion and second for an increase of $135 to a total rent of $1,290, effective January
1, 2019 (Members Sullivan-Cheah and Johnson). Motion passed 3-0.
7-B. CASE 1181 - 2157 Santa Clara Ave Unit Q
Tenants: Regis Paul Marcelin
Page 2 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-05,3,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2018
Landlords: David Chui
Proposed Rent Increase: $87.10 (4.9%), to a total rent of $1,849, effective
November 16, 2018
Mr. Marcelin said he had lived in the unit for eight years. He discussed the history of
rent increases at the unit, at least one of which had been reversed following staff
review. Mr. Marcelin said he would agree to the requested increase if the landlord
committed to adhering to Ordinance 3148 and improved the unit with utility efficiency
upgrades.
Mr. Chui said that they intend to comply with the Ordinance, and had remedied past
errors. He said that they had AMP audit the property and AMP determined that some of
the upgrades suggested by the Mr. Marcelin were unfeasible, but they would implement
some improvements that they could. Some upgrades were already in-place, Mr. Chui
said, such as dual-flush toilets to help save water. He said although the rent increase
did not go into effect until November 16, 2018, the rent is always due on the first of the
month, and therefore had the tenant pay a prorated increase for November on
November 1, 2018, even though the effective date of the increase did not start until
November 16, 2018.
Mr. Marcelin said that he did not have a dual-flush or water-saving toilet, and he had an
old refrigerator that used a lot of electricity. He said he hoped to have a long-term
tenancy and establish a good relationship with the new landlord, as he had with his
previous landlord.
The parties agreed to the proposed increase of $87.10.
7-C. CASE 1183 - 442 1/2 Pacific Ave
Tenants: Rasheed Shahbazz
Landlord: Truyen Dang
Proposed Rent Increase: $76.00 (5.0%) Effective date December 1, 2018
Staff called role a second time and Mr. Shabazz was still not present. The rent increase
will therefore go into effect as noticed, or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
Eric Strimling from the Alameda Renters Coalition welcomed and thanked the new
RRAC members, Chiu and Johnson, as this was their first RRAC meeting.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
None.
Page 3 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-05,4,"Approved Minutes
December 5, 2018
10. ADJOURNMENT
a. The meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on January 23, 2019
Page 4 of 4",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-12,1,"Approved Minutes
December 12, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:56 p.m.
Present were:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Chiu and Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Greg Kats, Grant Eshoo
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that the parties in Agenda Items 7-C, 7-D, and 7-F
had come to agreements prior to the meeting.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 1112 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B202
Tenant: Steven Kim
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $137.00 (9.9%), to a total rent of $1,515, effective
October 1, 2018
Mr. King opened by introducing the ownership's improvements to the property as a
basis for requesting the rent increases.
Mr. Kim acknowledged the improvements to the property have improved the aesthetics
of the property, but were mostly cosmetic except for the structural, earthquake-related
improvements. Mr. Kim said he is a federal employee whose salary increases are usually
very modest compared to the 10% increase the landlord was requesting. He said
previous annual increases were about 5%. He said that the management office offered
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-12.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-12,2,"Approved Minutes
December 12, 2018
him a gift certificate to encourage an agreement regarding the rent increase prior to the
RRAC meeting. He said one of the improvements, a gate, makes a lot of noise when it
opens and closes, which was hard to get used to. The same gate, he continued, also
made it difficult for him to get out of his parking spot. He said the improvements made
were not worth it to him to pay more rent.
Vice Chair Murray asked what he did for work, and Mr. Kim said he worked for the
Social Security Department. She asked if he lived alone and he said he did. She asked
what impact the requested increase would have on his budget, and he said he would
have to eliminate things in his budget. She asked if the increase would cut into his
ability to purchase necessities and he replied that it probably would not but it would
interfere with his quality of life by having to relinquish certain hobbies.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked how much of an increase he could afford. Mr. Kim asked
Mr. King if they planned on raising the rent each year moving forward and he replied
that it would depend on market conditions at the time of future increases. Mr. Kim said
he could afford an increase of $100.
Vice Chair Murray asked if a $100 increase would be acceptable to Mr. King and he
replied that he would like to continue to ask for the full $137 increase.
The parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated.
Motion and second for a $0 increase from 10/1/18 to 12/31/18, followed by a $137
increase effective 1/1/19-9/30/19 (Members Sullivan-Cheah and Chiu). Motion passed
3-0.
7-B. CASE 1116 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B304
Tenants: Larry Padriquilla and Marty Montejo
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $154.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,697.50, effective
October 1, 2018
Ms. Montejo stated that she had requested improvements to the inside of the unit, as
there were many things that needed to be improved or replaced, such as the carpets
and the kitchen cabinets. She said the requested increase would stretch their budget,
as Mr. Padriquilla was disabled and had limited income. She added the ramp into the
parking lot was too steep and had damaged her car's bumper.
Ms. Montejo said that if the increase was reduced to 5% it would allow her to purchase
needed things, such as new appliances. Mr. Padriquilla also voiced a concern about a
10% increase and compounding over the years, which he feared might dislocate them.
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-12.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-12,3,"Approved Minutes
December 12, 2018
Vice Chair Murray asked the tenants what they did for work and Ms. Montejo said she
was a home care aid working on contract, and Mr. Padriquilla said he's on permanent
disability after suffering damage to his hand at his job at Tesla; he said he's looking into
future employment options.
Mr. King offered an increase of $80 and the tenants agreed, effective 1/1/19, with a $0
increase from 10/1/18 to 12/31/18.
7-C. CASE 1118 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C209
No Committee review. The parties reached an agreement regarding the amount of the
increase prior to the meeting.
7-D. CASE 1119 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C303
No Committee review. The parties reached an agreement regarding the amount of the
increase prior to the meeting.
7-E. CASE 1120 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C307
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upor by the parties.
7-F. CASE 1121 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D116
No Committee review. The parties reached an agreement regarding the amount of the
increase prior to the meeting.
7-G. CASE 1123 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D204
Tenant: Ganeshwar Chand
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed Rent Increase: $142.75 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,576, effective
October 1, 2018
City Attorney staff recommended the agenda item be tabled. Motion to continue to a
future meeting (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
7-H. CASE 1124 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D219
Tenant: Long Nguyen
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed Rent increase: $167.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,841, effective
October 1, 2018
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-12.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-12,4,"Approved Minutes
December 12, 2018
Mr. Nguyen said that he was a cosigner and the authorized representative for his
mother, the tenant-in-residence at the subject property. He agreed to provide written
documentation that he has the authority to represent his mother, Ngoc Duong, in her
absence at the hearing.
Mr. Nguyen expressed concern that the landlord has been collecting the increased
amount in November and December and serving the tenants with Three Day Notices.
He said the increase requested creates a financial burden, as his mother cannot pay the
rent herself, and he must help her financially as well as meet his own family's financial
needs.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked what he did for work, and he said he processes cases for
the County of Alameda. Mr. Nguyen noted that no improvements were made to the
interior of the apartment.
Vice Chair Murray asked if his mother could live with him or other family members and
Mr. Nguyen said she could not.
Vice Chair Murray asked how much of an increase the tenant could afford and he said
about $100. She asked Mr. King if that was something he would agree to and he said
he would like the Committee to make a decision.
The parties took their seats and the Committee deliberated.
Member Sullivan-Cheah noted that the tenant's rent was on the high end for a one-
bedroom apartment and thought the tenant's offer of a $100 increase was reasonable.
Vice Chair Murray and Member Chiu echoed Member Sullivan-Cheah's observation and
belief that a $100 increase was reasonable.
Motion and second for an increase of $0 for October-December 2018, followed by an
increase of $100, effective January-September 2019 (Members Sullivan-Cheah and
Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if a vote could be scheduled for a new Chair and
Vice Chair. Staff informed the Committee a vote would be place on the agenda for the
Committee's January 9, 2019 meeting.
10.ADJOURNMENT
a. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-12.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-12,5,"Approved Minutes
December 12, 2018
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on January 23, 2019
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-12.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,1,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, December 17, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present were:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Johnson and Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
Member Chiu
Program staff:
Greg Kats, Grant Eshoo
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that the tenant in Agenda Item 7-C requires
translation services and recommended that it be heard first.
Staff informed the Committee that Agenda Item 7-E had informed staff that he
would have to take time off work to attend the meeting and recommended the
Committee hear this item second.
Motion and second to reorder the agenda to accommodate these recommendations
(Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
Staff called roll to ascertain which parties were present. The tenants for Agenda
Items 7-A, 7-B, 7-E, 7-H, 7-I, 7-J, 7-K, 7-L, 7-M, and 7-N were not present and were
moved to the end of the agenda.
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
None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
6-A. CASE 1123 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D204
No Committee review. Prior to the hearing the parties reached an agreement concerning
the amount of the rent increase.
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,2,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-C. CASE 1173 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B217
Tenant: Oyunjargal Tsedendash
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $179.00 (10%), to a total rent of $1,974, effective
December 1, 2018
Using a speaker phone Staff called a translation service to obtain a Mongolian translator
for Ms. Tsedendash. Ms. Tsedendash stated that she lives at the unit with her husband
and child. She said the rent increase would pose a hardship because she does not work
and her husband brings in a limited income.
Vice Chair Murray explained the meeting procedure and Member Sullivan-Cheah
reflected back the tenant's opening statements.
Mr. King stated that his company purchased the property over a year ago and has
made $3 million in improvements, as the prior owners had neglected maintaining and
improving the property. Mr. King detailed the improvements made to the property,
which included seismic retrofitting, security improvements, and the addition of
amenities. He added that the property tax bill was approximately half a million dollars
more than the previous owner.
Ms. Tsedendash responded that an increase up to $80 would be acceptable to her and
the suddenness and amount being requested was not something that her family could
accommodate.
Vice Chair Murray asked if Mr. King would like to revise the requested increase amount
and Mr. King proposed an increase of $100 in light of the difficulties presented by the
tenant.
Ms. Tsedendash replied that she and her family had just moved to this country and they
were trying to adapt to life here. She added that they had a car loan and had just
received a $500 auto-related fine. She said that a $100 increase would be acceptable,
but $80 would be much easier for them.
Mr. King said that he would be agreeable to an $80 increase in light of the tenants'
situation.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Tsedendash about a broken window she had
mentioned earlier. She replied that water was dripping from the window. Mr. King
informed her how to request a repair.
The parties agreed to an increase of $0 for December 2018, followed by an $80
increase from January-November 2019.
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,3,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
7-D. CASE 1179 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D223
Tenant: Tam Trung Nguyen
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $169.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,864, effective
December 1, 2018
Using a speaker phone Staff called a translation service to obtain a Vietnamese
translator for Mr. Nguyen. Vice Chair Murray explained the meeting procedure to Mr.
Nguyen.
Mr. King stated that his company purchased the property over a year ago and have
made $3 million in improvements, as the prior owners had neglected maintaining and
improving the property. Mr. King detailed the improvements made to the property,
which included seismic retrofitting, security improvements, and the addition of
amenities. He said the property tax bill was approximately half a million dollars more
than the previous owner.
Mr. Nguyen said he had lived in the unit for two years, and is paying more than many
current residents. He said that he could afford a 5% increase but not the 10% the
landlord was requesting. He said that there have been improvements to the property
but not the inside of his unit.
Member Johnson asked Mr. King how many units were currently vacant and he
provided an approximate number. She asked how much current units were renting for
and Mr. King provided a range of current market rate rents.
Mr. Nguyen said he was a baker for Sugar Bowl Bakery and his son attended a high
school in the City of Alameda. He said his wife worked part-time in a local spa as a nail
technician.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Nguyen how much of a rent increase he could afford.
Mr. Nguyen said he could afford a maximum increase of $80. He said an increase above
that would make their budget very tight considering their other expenses.
The parties were not able to make an agreement and the Committee began
deliberations.
Member Johnson said she thought an increase of about 5% was reasonable as the
landlord acquired the property knowing the improvements that needed to be done and
how much the current tenants' rents were.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he found the previous increases significant considering the
tenants' short tenancy, and that the rent was generally close to market rate. He said he
was thinking that a rent of $1,784 would be reasonable.
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,4,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
Vice Chair Murray said she agreed a 5% increase was reasonable, and thought a rate of
$1,780 (increase of $85) was reasonable, and on the high side for comparable units.
Motion and second for an increase of $0 for December 2018, followed by an increase of
$85 effective January 2019 through November 2019 (Members Sullivan Cheah and
Johnson). Motion passed 3-0.
7-F. CASE 1158 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A318
Tenant: Jason Bey, accompanied by Jeff Cambra
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed Rent Increase: $179.00 (10.0%) to a total rent of $1,984, effective
December, 1 2018
Mr. Cambra submitted a document that provided a summary of market rate one-
bedroom apartments. He stated that landlords should not expect to be able to recoup
all of the costs for improvements immediately, as the landlord should amortize the costs
of the improvements over the life of the improvements and use those amortized
amounts as the basis on which to request gradual rent increases.
Mr. Bey said he was a single parent caring for his daughter, who attends Encinal High
School. He said he works as a security guard and makes approximately $1,000 per
week and had increasing expenses for his family. He said that if the rent increased to
the amount the landlord was requesting he would be paying half of his income toward
rent.
Mr. King responded that the improvements made to the unit should increase the market
value of the unit. He provided alternative comparable units, including a one-bedroom
renting for $2,500, adding that new tenants at Vue Alameda paid about $2,300 for a
similar unit.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Bey if he had received any improvements to the
inside of his unit and Mr. Bey replied that the balcony was remodeled, but nothing was
improved on the inside of the unit.
Vice Chair Murray asked Mr. Bey if he thought he would continue to be a security guard
for the foreseeable future and he said yes. He added that his daughter was currently
applying for college. She asked what effect the full increase would have on his family
and he said it would be difficult for them to make it fit into their budget.
Member Johnson clarified with Mr. King how he capitalizes expenses at the property.
Mr. King proposed an increase of $80 from January 2019 to November 2019, and Mr.
Bey accepted.
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,5,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
7-G. CASE 1159 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C106
Tenant: Cecilia Maldonado
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $179.00 (10.0%) to a total rent of $1,974, effective
December 1, 2018
Mr. King opened with an offer of an increase of $80 per month.
Ms. Maldonado said that she thought the improvements done by the landlord made the
property more secure and look better. She said she was a single parent of a disabled
child, which has brought extra expenses and challenges for her. She said that she had
reported the window and sliding door in her unit needed fixing, but was told they would
be taken care of later, after the other renovations were finished. She said her daughter
is on a respirator and it was important that her daughter did not breathe cold, wet air.
She said the bathroom plumbing had needed repair, as it had leaked and discolored the
hardwood floor around the toilet. She said there was something that falls from their
bathroom ceiling into her tub, but she was not sure what it was. She added that she
moved to Alameda because she was able to get her daughter into a special education
program to help with her disability-related needs.
She said that she was accustomed to an increase of around 3% every three years, and
could currently afford an increase of $55.
Mr. King said he would like to correct whatever was wrong with her toilet even though
it did not seem like an old one that was slated to be replaced.
Member Sullivan-Cheah explained the City of Alameda's rent review and rent
stabilization process. He asked Ms. Maldonado what she does for work and she said she
does clerical work for the County of Alameda. She said she and her daughter were the
only occupants of the unit and no one else helped her pay rent. He asked how much of
her income would go toward rent if the landlord's proposed increase of $80 went into
effect and she said about half.
Vice Chair Murray asked if Ms. Maldonado received extra assistance to help with the
expenses related to her daughter's needs and she said she does not. She confirmed she
has health insurance that covers some of her daughter's medical needs.
The parties were not able to reach an agreement and the Committee began
deliberations.
Member Sullivan-Cheah commented that the rent was on the high end for one-bedroom
units and expressed concerns about the tenant's ability to remain in the City if she was
paying up to half of her income toward rent. He said he favored an increase of $55 as
proposed by the tenant.
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,6,"Approved Minutes
December 17,2018
Member Johnson agreed and added that Ms. Maldonado's daughter, being very young
(4 years old), needed to stay in the community in order to keep the special needs
education that she's able to obtain here.
Vice Chair Murray said that she thought an increase of $40 would be a reasonable
amount considering the needs presented by the tenant.
Motion and second for an increase of $0 for December 2018, followed by an increase of
$55 effective January 2019 through November 2019 (Members Sullivan-Cheah and
Johnson). Motion passed 3-0.
7-A. CASE 1126 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D312
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-B. CASE 1127 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D321
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-E. CASE 1156 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A302
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-H. CASE 1172 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B210
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-I. CASE 1166 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D322
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-J. CASE 1170 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B207
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,7,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
7-K. CASE 1177 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D120
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-L. CASE 1164.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D222
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-M. CASE 1162.1 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C302
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-N. CASE 1176 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B315
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Vice Chair Murray asked to place two items on the agenda for January 9, 2019: a
discussion regarding and a vote for Chair and Vice Chair.
10.ADJOURNMENT
a. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Grant Eshoo
RRAC Secretary
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 4, 2019
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,1,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, January 23, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Chiu, Johnson, and Sullivan-
Cheah
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Samantha Columbus
City Attorney staff: John Le
Staff called roll of case participants. All parties were present.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
None.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Program staff announced that January 25 is the last day to turn in applications for
the open RRAC seat.
Program staff requested Committee members provide their availability for future
special meetings to hear additional cases. Members indicated their availability for
special meetings on February 7, February 25, March 4, and March 11.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the November 7, 2018 regular meeting
The Committee agreed to table consideration of this item to a future meeting to
allow revisions.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the November 19, 2018 special
meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,2,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
5-C. Approval of the minutes of the November 27, 2018 special
meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
5-D. Approval of the minutes of the December 5, 2018 special meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
5-E. Approval of the minutes of the December 12, 2018 special meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Discussion of vote for Chair and Vice Chair
Member Chiu expressed support for Vice Chair Murray, who has been serving as Interim
Chair, to continue as Chair, and for Member Sullivan-Cheah to serve as Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Murray stated that, should the Committee gain a fifth member, the
Committee could hold a new vote for Chair and Vice Chair at that point.
7-B. Vote on Chair and Vice Chair
Motion and second to elect Vice Chair Murray as Chair of the Committee (Members Chiu
and Johnson). Motion passed 4-0.
Motion and second to elect Member Sullivan-Cheah as Vice Chair of the Committee
(Members Chiu and Johnson). Motion passed 4-0.
Positions are effective immediately.
7-C. Case 1110 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B101
Tenant: Nasir Khan
Landlord: Andy King",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,3,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
Proposed rent increase: $164.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,811.00,
effective October 1, 2018
Mr. King stated that current ownership purchased the building a little over a year ago,
and the previous owner left a lot of deferred maintenance to address. Over the course
of the past year, they have spent over $3 million on seismic bracing, replacing rotting
balconies, roof maintenance, re-painting, and amenities including a gym, children's play
area, new seating, and gas barbecue grill. To cover some of that investment they are
asking for rent increases in excess of five percent. The rent increases are also informed
by the market rates, with the landlord renting comparable one-bedroom units for
$2,200.
Mr. Khan stated that the increase would be a burden. He is the sole income earner for a
four-person household that includes his wife and two children, and he also provides
support for his parents. He has lived in the unit since 2015 and has paid rent in a timely
manner. He stated he generally makes about $1,400 every two weeks, but his work
hours vary. He said in previous years the rent has increased 4.9 percent.
Chair Murray asked Mr. King if he wanted to respond. Mr. King said he appreciated Mr.
Khan's concerns but it can be difficult to keep rents affordable while also making repairs
to the property, particularly addressing seismic safety.
Member Chui asked Mr. Khan if there was an increase amount with which he would be
comfortable. Mr. Khan responded five percent.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah, and Chair Murray asked Mr. Khan for clarification and details
about his family and employment situations. Mr. Khan reported that his children are 4
and 6 years old, and they attend school in Alameda; his wife has been unable to find
work and he anticipates she will continue to take care of the home and children; he
currently works as a salesman; and he is paid hourly and typically receives an annual
raise between $0.50 and $1 per hour.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if Mr. Khan could express the rent increase he would
be comfortable with as a dollar amount. Mr. Khan responded $82. Vice Chair Sullivan-
Cheah asked what financial impact the full rent increase would have on Mr. Khan's
household. Mr. Khan stated he would not be able to afford food and out-of-pocket
medical expenses.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what utilities are included in the rent. Mr. King
responded that all utilities are included except for gas. Mr. Khan stated a typical gas bill
is sometimes $15, but varies depending on the season.
Committee members had no further questions.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,4,"about debris left behind from the construction, and although it has since been cleaned
up, the inspector informed her that the landlords have lost their construction permit for
a new apartment, perhaps having to do with the City's electrical code. This occurred in
September and the tenants received the rent increase notices in October.
Upon review of her statement, Ms. Conway corrected the amount of the property tax
discrepancy she alleged to $20,071, which was $8,000 less than what Ms. Rousseau
submitted.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,5,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
Chair Murray asked Ms. Rousseau if she wanted to respond. She stated that she believes
the discrepancy in the property tax figures may be due to the purchase occurring in the
middle of the calendar year. The utility estimate includes $600 for garbage service every
two months and is also the same that the previous owner used during the sale. She said
she was unsure what Ms. Conway was referring to in reference to the lost permit.
Member Johnson asked if Ms. Rousseau had received a comprehensive assessment or
official report of the maintenance issues prior to purchasing. Ms. Rousseau confirmed
that they did.
Member Chiu asked clarifying questions about Ms. Conway's tenancy and the property.
She stated that she has lived there since 2010, her rent increased $19 in 2011, $45 in
2017, and $50 in 2018, and she was comfortable with those increases. She added that
the property does not include laundry or common areas other than stairwells, hallways,
and lighted outdoor spaces.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked whether Ms. Conway was the only working adult in the
unit. She responded that she was, and her use of ""we"" in submitted materials refers to
tenants of other units. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what sources had informed her
statement that 1/3 of take-home pay is a reasonable amount. She responded that in her
experience it is a common rule and often a prerequisite when property management
companies are evaluating applicants.
Chair Murray asked clarifying questions about Ms. Rousseau's family and finances. She
responded that she bought the property with her brother, who is disabled and not able
to work. She said he receives SSI and she provides him with additional support. She
stated her brother is dependent on income from the building to supplement his income,
which was their intention when they purchased the property, and the purchase was also
a retirement investment. Chair Murray asked what the impact on Ms. Rousseau and her
brother would be if they did not get the rent increase they were seeking. She responded
that she would not be able to help her brother as much as she wanted, and that it would
limit needed upgrades to the building. She said the electrical upgrade would cost $30,000,
and interior painting would cost $3,000 per unit, and the building has seven one-bedroom
units of similar size.
Ms. Conway questioned whether her unit should be considered a one-bedroom apartment
because it does not have interior doors. Ms. Rousseau provided a floorplan of the unit.
Chair Murray noted that Ms. Rousseau's submitted expenses include the annual housing
program fee, which the Ordinance expressly forbids from passing on to tenants.
Chair Murray asked Ms. Conway about the current condition of her unit. Ms. Conway
stated that none of the issues identified in her submission rose to the level of emergency.
She said she wears slippers to avoid injuries due to loose floor tiles, and the windows are",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,6,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
hard to open and close. She stated she loves the apartment and has a close relationship
with the neighbors. Chair Murray stated that it seemed she was reporting on maintenance
issues that need to be addressed. Ms. Conway raised the issue of the revoked
construction permit for a rear unit, which is not occupied. Chair Murray noted that Ms.
Rousseau had not disclosed any issues with permits or intent to construct.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Conway if the previous landlord had a formal process
for submitting maintenance issues or repair requests. She replied that she would call the
previous owner to report maintenance problems. She said she had not submitted a
request about the loose tiles or windows.
Chair Murray asked if either landlord or tenant had changed their positions. Ms. Conway
asked if Ms. Rousseau would consider a 3 percent increase, and Ms. Rousseau declined.
Chair Murray asked Ms. Rousseau if there was an amount smaller than $391 that would
meet her goals and needs. Ms. Rousseau suggested $1,300 per month, a $245 increase.
Ms. Conway countered with a rent of $1,125 per month. Ms. Rousseau declined, noting
that she calculates the property tax increase alone is $246 per unit. Ms. Conway noted
the housing program fee cannot be included.
Chair Murray asked Ms. Conway about her income. She responded that she is salaried
and usually gets a 2 percent raise per year.
Member Chiu asked Ms. Rousseau if she knew how long the previous landlords had owned
the building. She said she did not, but it was a long time, and the property had passed
from parents to children, which explained the low tax base.
Chair Murray asked Ms. Rousseau what effect not getting the full requested increase
would have on her ability to address deferred maintenance. Ms. Rousseau responded that
it would be hard to keep up with the needed maintenance. Chair Murray asked if Ms.
Rousseau had set aside any funds for maintenance and upgrades based on the
assessments and inspections conducted during the purchase. Ms. Rousseau stated that
they had, but they had not anticipated the full cost of the electrical upgrade because of
the undergrounding requirement, which added about $20,000.
Ms. Conway made an offer of $1,200 per month. Chair Murray asked Ms. Conway if an
increase to $1,300 would force her to move. Ms. Conway stated that she could continue
to live there but it would require a change of lifestyle.
The parties agreed on a monthly rent of $1,250. Program staff clarified that the effective
date would be Feb. 1, 2019.
At 7:55 p.m., the Committee agreed to take a five minute break.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,7,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
7-E. Case 1190 - 2412 Eagle Ave., Apt. E
Tenant: Marine Hovanessian
Landlord: Kathy Rousseau
Proposed rent increase: $391.00 (50.1%), to a total rent of $1,171.00,
effective January 1, 2019
Ms. Rousseau stated that the current rent of $780 a month is 230 percent below the
market rate, based on comparable one-bedroom units in the area. She said she was
requesting the same $391 increase for all tenants of the property, and even with the
increase, the rent would still be 50 percent below the market rate. Ms. Rousseau pointed
out that the amount she was requesting was comparable to the amount the rent would
be had the previous owner increased the rent 4.25 percent each year over the length of
the tenancy.
Ms. Hovanessian referred the Committee to the letter she submitted. She added that she
has lived in the unit for 15 years and had built her life based on her existing rent.
Specifically, she sponsored her mother's immigration to the United States in 2009 and
her father's in 2013, and he explained that she is financially responsible for them, as they
are unable to work because of their age and language barriers. She said she understands
Ms. Rousseau's position, but the increase will have a large impact on her and her parents.
The building does not have laundry facilities. There have been no upgrades to her
apartment in the 15 years she has lived there. She said there are cracks between the tiles
in her kitchen floor that water gets into. The windows cannot fully close which lets in cold
air. She said living in Alameda provides a safe community for her parents. Her apartment
is a little smaller than Unit D from the previous case.
Member Chiu asked for clarification on previous rent increases and her finances. Ms.
Hovanessian stated that there had been few rent increases during her tenancy,
including none during the first six years. She said her monthly income is about $4,500
monthly, and expenses are about $4,430.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked for clarification on the condition of Ms. Hovanessian's
apartment. She stated the previous owners replaced a broken heater and a window that
would not close, although the window still has issues.
Chair Murray noted that Ms. Hovanessian stated in her materials that no increase would
be reasonable. Given the costs outlined by Ms. Rousseau, Chair Murray asked if there
was any increase that Ms. Hovanessian could afford. Ms. Hovanessian questioned
whether Ms. Rousseau would be OK with a 5 percent increase. Chair Murray responded
that the hearing was an opportunity for the parties to talk directly and make offers.
Ms. Hovanessian clarified that her mother and daughter lived with her immediately after
their immigration, but her parents and daughter now lived in a small two-bedroom",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,8,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
apartment elsewhere in Alameda. She said her daughter work part-time and attends
college, and she contributes to her daughter's food and utilities, as well as pays the full
$1,600 monthly rent on that apartment, in addition to her own.
The parties were not able to reach an agreement and the Committee began
deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that neither party's position S unreasonable. He said in
these situations he considers who has the financial ability to absorb more financial
hardship.
Chair Murray stated it may not be possible for the tenant to continue this arrangement
with two households in the long-term, but the Committee can consider a compromise
that avoids forcing an immediate relocation.
Member Johnson stated she believes the landlord is justified in seeking an increase of
more than 5 percent, but that those buying a rental property must consider the
likelihood of successfully seeking a 50 percent increase when deciding on a purchase
price.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated he believes the tenant's position that 10 percent is a
maximum increase she could afford based on her budget.
Member Johnson stated that the owner did make an investment, and it is reasonable to
expect a return.
Chair Murray noted that both parties are trying to provide financially for family
members who are unable to work. She noted that the committee only has the ability to
make a decision for one year.
Member Johnson stated she believes a 50 percent increase is too large, but a 10
percent increase may not be enough for the landlord given the higher tax base and few
rent increases over the years.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that their decision on this case, as well as the building's
history, would be part of the public record and could therefore be considered if the
landlord seeks a new increase on the unit after a year.
Member Chiu suggested a $100 increase, recognizing it would be a challenge for the
tenant but perhaps low enough to give her time to figure out a long-term solution. Vice
Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated he thought it was reasonable, but emphasized he
understands that a roughly $15 per month difference is not trivial for tenants on tight
budgets. Chair Murray questioned whether $15 a month would be trivial for a landlord.
Members Chiu and Johnson said they believed it would not be trivial because it helps to
establish a base for future rents.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,9,"Approved Minutes
January 23,2019
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah motioned for an increase of $100 effective February 1, 2019.
He amended his motion to an increase of $0 for January 2019, followed by an increase
of $100 from February 2019 through December 2019. Motion seconded by Member
Chiu. The motion passed as amended 4-0.
7-F. Case 1193 - 2121 Santa Clara Ave., Apt. 5
Tenant: Damu Sudi Alii
Landlord: Edward Wong
Proposed rent increase: $50.00 (4.8%), to a total rent of $1,100.00, effective
January 1, 2019
Mr. Alii said he is a senior on fixed income and has been renting this unit from Mr.
Wong since 2006. For the first three or four years, he said, there were no rent
increases, but in the last five or six years the size of the requests had steadily
increased. He said he has been supplementing his income by working part time as a
teacher and musician, but his deteriorating health is making work difficult. He feels the
amount is unreasonable given the living space, which is a converted garage. He has to
pay additional money for storage space elsewhere on the site. He is now at a point
where he cannot keep up with the increases. He said the ventilation in the unit is not
good, and poor heat retention leads to higher utility bills. He stated Mr. Wong has been
a good landlord but has not always addressed his requests, such as fixing the gap
under his front door.
Mr. Wong said the unit is 800 to 900 square feet and used to be a firehouse. He said he
values Mr. Alii as a tenant. He said his other tenants are all Section 8, and the increases
he is asking from them are double what he is asking from Mr. Alii. He said the building
is old and requires a lot of maintenance, and n the last four to five years, he has had to
replace the sewer and roof. He said he believes he is asking for a reasonable rate of
return, adding that he and his wife are in their 80's and depend on income from the
property.
Mr. Alii said he intends to stop using the storage space to decrease his costs. Mr. Wong
said he would reduce Mr. Alii's overall payments by $15 if he removes his items from
storage. Chair Murray asked Mr. Alii if he could afford a $35 rent increase. Mr. Alii said
it would still be a hardship.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Alii to clarify his concerns about rising expenses.
Mr. Alii said he is partly worried about absorbing future increases, but primarily he does
not think the unit is worth the price Mr. Wong is asking.
Member Chiu asked how many units the property has. Mr. Wong said Mr. Alii's unit is a
small cottage behind four units. Chair Murray asked about Mr. Wong's income. He",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,10,"Motion and second for an increase of $0 for January 2019, followed by an increase of
$35 effective February 2019 through December 2019 (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and
Member Chiu). Motion passed 3-1.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,11,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about the timeline for approving another Committee
member. Program staff responded that following the submission deadline on January
25, it will take a few weeks to process applications and for the Mayor's office to review
them and decide which applicants to interview.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 4, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.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
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,1,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, February 25, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present:
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu and Johnson
Absent:
Chair Murray
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo; Bill Chapin
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff called roll of case participants. The tenants for Agenda Items 7-A and 7-B were
not present and moved to the end of the agenda.
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 February 4, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Johnson). Motion passed 3-0.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-C. Case 1213 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A306
Tenant: Purereseren Tervee
Landlord: Andy King",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,2,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
Proposed rent increase: $389.00 (24.7%), to a total rent of $1,964.00,
effective March 1, 2019
Program staff explained that, while processing this case, they found that previous rent
increases for this unit were invalid, and directed the current landlord to lower the
tenant's rent to $1,575, the last valid amount, and refund the overpayment. The
landlord's notice shows a $178 increase over the invalid amount the tenant had been
paying, while staff's summary shows a $389 increase over the valid base rent. The total
rent is the same in both cases.
Mr. King clarified that the invalid rent increases were issued by the previous owner, but
current ownership refunded the tenant as directed. He said that the current ownership
has spent $4 million in the last year and a half on renovations including seismic
upgrades, roofing, painting, and improvements to the grounds. He submitted a 2018
profit-loss statement for the entire four-building complex, showing the property was not
profitable last year. The amount they are seeking from Mr. Tervee is still below what
they estimate they need to charge per unit to break even.
Mr. Tervee stated that he derives no benefit from the improvements to the outside of
the property, and there have been no improvements inside his unit. He said he has
complained to both the previous owner and current owner about issues with his
bathtub, refrigerator, carpet, and parking space, and neither addressed his concerns.
He said his income is the same as when he moved in six years ago.
Member Chiu asked for clarification on the invalid rent increases and what Mr. Tervee
had paid in the last year. Mr. Tervee indicated that he continued to pay the invalid
amount on his most recent payment. Mr. King said that Mr. Tervee would be refunded
any overpayment made in February 2019.
Member Chiu asked Mr. Tervee what he would consider a fair increase. Mr. Tervee
responded he is happy with $1,575.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Tervee if, since his rent has been decreased and
the current owner paid for mistakes of previous ownership, it was reasonable for
ownership to seek a higher rent. Mr. Tervee said an increase would only be reasonable
if improvements were made to his unit.
Mr. King said that he would notify property management about the issues that Mr.
Tervee raised in the hearing. He said the parking lot is scheduled to be resurfaced and
repainted, but it could not be done until after the seismic work was completed.
Member Johnson asked for clarification about the ownership's income statement. She
noted that the balance would be positive if it expenses did not include mortgage
interest.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,3,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
The parties were not able to reach an agreement, and the Committee began
deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the Committee does not consider mortgage
interest in evaluating operating expenses. He noted that the landlord is seeking a 10
percent increase over what the tenant had been paying, which is consistent with other
increases at the property that have come before the Committee.
Member Chiu noted that the unit has two bedrooms and $1,575 is low compared to
comparable units at this property and nearby. He said because the tenant had been
able to pay $1,786, that amount should be a starting point for deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that it was not the tenant's fault that they received a
refund and rent decrease. He also noted that upgrades to roofs and seismic stability
provide benefit to tenants even if they do not notice.
Member Chiu suggested a total rent of $1,836, which would be 2.8 percent more than
what the tenant had been paying. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said that, while that would
be a large increase over $1,575, the tenant had demonstrated a financial ability to pay
$1,786 since 2017.
Member Johnson expressed concern about setting a precedent for what would appear
to be such a large increase over the valid base rent. She said she would support an
increase over $1,786, but a small increase based on the tenant's stated difficulty in
getting building management to respond to complaints.
Motion and second for an increase of $261 to a total rent of $1,836, effective March
2019 (Member Chiu and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
7-D. Case 1214 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A304
Tenant: Raza Jasarevic
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $172.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,894.00,
effective March 1, 2019
Mr. King said that the ownership had made offers to tenants who voluntarily accepted
rent increases. Options included replacing carpeting, replacing appliances, and a $1,000
gift card. Mr. King said this was an effort to reach agreements prior to a Committee
hearing and also address concerns about the condition of the units that had been raised
by residents in hearings.
Ms. Jasarevic noted issues she has had with building management. These including not
having a number to call for emergency maintenance issues, damage to her ceiling that
occurred during the roofing work, and windows that rattle when it is windy. Her rent",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,4,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
increased five percent last year. She shared photos of the ceiling damage with the
Committee. Mr. King said he would direct building management to address the issues
raised by Ms. Jasarevic.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Jasarevic, if those issues were addressed, what
rent increase would be reasonable and what she could afford. She responded $40 or
$50. He asked her if she would have trouble paying for other necessities if a $189
increase was approved. She said that she would.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King if not receiving the full increases the
ownership is seeking would have an effect on future projects and improvements. Mr.
King responded they do not want to postpone maintenance.
The parties were not able to reach an agreement, and the Committee began
deliberations.
Member Johnson noted that a $50 increase would be 2.9 percent. Member Johnson and
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah both said they would support such an increase. Member
Johnson said a smaller increase would signal to landlords that maintenance issues need
to be addressed when tenants bring them up.
Motion and second for an increase of $50, effective March 2019 (Vice Chair Sullivan-
Cheah and Member Johnson). Motion passed 3-0.
7-A. Case 1207 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A103
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
7-B. Case 1208 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A217
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
7-E. Continuation of discussion of memo from CAO to RRAC concerning
confidentiality of information on agenda materials provided to the
Committee and the public
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what action, if any, the Committee was being asked to
consider. City Attorney staff said the memo is an attempt to provide clarification on",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,5,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
concerns that had been raised by Committee members. Program staff summarized
three concerns raised at the February 4, 2019, meeting if the names of parties and unit
numbers are not disclosed on agendas: 1) how Committee members would address
parties during a hearing, 2) how Committee members would know whether they have a
conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed, and 3) how Committee members could
reference prior, related cases to preparing for a hearing. Program staff recommended
that the first concern could be handled by asking the parties at the start of a hearing,
while the other two concerns could be handled by giving the information directly to
Committee members prior to the meeting. City Attorney staff added that conflicts of
interest could be brought up at the beginning of a hearing if a Committee member
recognizes one of the parties.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that waiting until a meeting to determine whether
Committee members need to recuse themselves could cause problems with quorum. He
said Committee members have had to recuse themselves three times in his time on the
Committee.
City Attorney staff noted that records provided ahead of time would be subject to public
records requests.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he believes this is an issue the Committee should vote on
because it would be a significant departure from what the City Council envisioned. City
Attorney staff said that the Committee may vote on changes to its bylaws, but for
changes to Ordinance no. 3148 the Committee can only make recommendations to City
Council.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah proposed tabling the item until a fifth Committee member has
been appointed so that it can be discussed by a full board, and to give staff an
opportunity to consider the Committee's initial feedback and report back.
The Committee tabled further consideration of the confidentiality memo to a future
RRAC meeting.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
None.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,6,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 1, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-03-04,1,"Approved Minutes
March 4, 2019
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, March 4, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m.
Present:
Chair Murray; Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu &
Johnson
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo; Bill Chapin
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Program staff informed the Committee that Agenda Items 7-C, 7-D, and 7-E had
resolved prior to the meeting.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Program staff requested Committee members submit their Form 700 to the City
Clerk by April 2, 2019, and said that a link to the form was emailed to them earlier
that day.
Program staff informed the Committee that the City would be closed on Monday,
May 6, when May's regular meeting had originally been scheduled and requested
their availability for either May 1st or 8th. Member responses concluded that May 1st
would be a more favorable date for most members and staff confirmed the meeting
would be held May 1st.
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 January 23, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Chiu). Motion passed 4-0.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-03-04,2,"Approved Minutes
March 4, 2019
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Case 1201 - 1566 Lincoln Ave., Apt. A
Tenant: Gwendolyn Hammer
Landlord: Charles Hanson
Proposed rent increase: $100.00 (4.8%), to a total rent of $2,200.00,
effective January 1, 2019
Ms. Hammer said she has lived in the subject unit for over 19 years, and during that
time increases averaged almost 4.5% each year. She said the landlord had purchased
the house in 1997. She told the Committee that she had received the current rent
increase in November 2018, along with an $800 increase in her security deposit. She
had asked the landlord if he would reconsider, and was hopeful mediation could occur
before increases were due, as they totaled a $3,000 payment, equaling 67% of her
take-home pay. She said she was going through a financial hardship, as she was
hospitalized for 11 days, and had a dental emergency which required her to take out a
short-term loan. She said she works at the California Department of Public Health, and
her contract with her employer did not include cost of living raises. As a civil service
employee, she said, she could not keep pace with the requested rent increases, and
feared the increases would cause Alameda to lose people like her. She said she is active
with CERT, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and has been involved with Engineers Without
Borders. She said has never contested a prior rent increase, but found the continuing
increases to be egregious, specifically because the landlord kept them just under 5% so
they did not require review by and were not subject to the binding authority of the
RRAC.
Mr. Hanson asked if Ms. Hammer had renters insurance and Ms. Hammer replied that
he had never asked for it. Mr. Hanson said that he had asked for it. He said the subject
property is a free-standing one-bedroom duplex unit in Stonehenge, a community that
is managed by an HOA that provides gardening. He said that the unit has a patio and
garage, is approximately 1,200 square feet, has a dining room, fireplace, living room,
kitchen, and laundry. He said that the rent he was requesting was below market rate
for comparable units, which are renting for $3,000. He said the HOA fees he pays
include water and sewer costs.
Ms. Hammer responded that the unit was built in 1936, is very nice inside, but is
antiquated.
Mr. Hanson said that Ms. Hammer had caused several tenants to move out due to
nuisance issues, such as having a party in the early hours of the morning, and Ms.
Hammer replied that she had never been made aware of this.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-03-04,3,"Approved Minutes
March 4, 2019
Mr. Hanson explained that the increase request was an attempt to keep up with
increasing costs, such as utilities.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah acknowledged that the landlord had significant expenses for
2018.
Member Chiu confirmed that Ms. Hammer had been paying the rent increase since
January and asked her how paying the increase affected her livelihood.
Ms. Hammer said she has had to cut back on personal things. She said she had an
unexpected dental bill in November 2018 for which she had to take out a short-term
loan. She said she has had to tighten an already streamlined budget, and there were
areas she could not cut, such as medical expenses for very serious injuries. She
provided the Committee with a breakdown of her budget and explained that she could
not keep up with increases of 4.5% per year.
Member Johnson asked if her apartment was in working order and Ms. Hammer said
the basics were in working order, but there was nothing extravagant in her unit.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah acknowledged the tenancy was long-term, and asked Mr.
Hanson if she has been good tenant. Mr. Hanson replied that she had been a difficult
tenant.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Hammer if Mr. Hanson has been a good landlord
and she replied that she did not talk to him unless she had to. She acknowledged that
their perceptions on many things differed, and she has always paid rent on time and
kept the home clean. She said he made her feel uncomfortable at times and has said
things that she considers inappropriate.
Chair Murray asked Mr. Hanson for details of his expenses and he provided them,
including mortgage and sewer expenses. He said he relied on income from this and
other investments to supplement social security, adding that he cannot afford to live in
Alameda.
Chair Murray asked what impact it would have on him if he could not get the increase
he was requesting. Mr. Hanson said he needed the full increase to build up a reserve to
pay for things that come up, such as resurfacing the driveways.
Chair Murray noted a high level of contentiousness between the parties and no sign
they were close to coming to an agreement.
The parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Chiu noted the rent of the property seemed low given the unit's size and
amenities.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-03-04,4,"Approved Minutes
March 4, 2019
Member Johnson said she thought a $100 increase was reasonable.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that Mr. Hanson provided a lot of insight into his
expenses at the property, and his net income was low. He said he thought a $100
increase was significant, but the total rent for the unit seemed low for the Bay Area.
Member Chiu said he recognized the impact the increase would have on the tenant, but
noted the amount appeared reasonable given prevailing rents, and the cost of upkeep.
Member Johnson noted that while rents are expensive, the costs to maintain property
are also high.
Chair Murray stated she did not think Mr. Hanson was making outrageous profit on the
unit and agreed that the costs of maintaining property were high. She also noted that
increases each year just under 5% can place significant burdens on tenants. She also
commented that the increased security deposit was a big lump sum payment to ask the
tenant to make.
Member Johnson concurred, saying it was okay to increase the security deposit, but it
could have been increased more gradually to lessen the impact on the tenant.
Motion and second for a $100 increase (Members Chiu and Johnson).
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he wanted to bring attention to the fact that increases at
the property have historically been high and consistent. While noting the landlord's
interest in earning a reasonable rate of return, he said he did not hear Mr. Hanson
articulate a significant financial impact if he did not get the full amount requested, while
the tenant had articulated a burden. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he thought an
increase of $50 to $75 would be reasonable.
Chair Murray noted that a motion remained on the floor. Motion failed 2-2.
Chair Murray said she thought the amounts Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah mentioned were
too low and thought they could come to an agreement somewhere in the middle.
Motion and second for an $80 increase (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Chair Murray).
Motion passed 3-1.
7-B. Case 1203 - 553 Pacific Ave., Apt. D
Tenant: William Griffith
Landlord: Jeff Kirk
Proposed rent increase: $200.00 (18.7%), to a total rent of $1,270.00,
effective February 1, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-03-04,5,"Approved Minutes
March 4, 2019
Mr. Kirk said he was a carpenter and is now retired and disabled, and needed to
increase the rent to earn a reasonable rate of return. He said if his requested increase
was approved he would earn a return of 3.9 percent. He noted that had he raised the
rent 5% every year since the tenancy began the rent would be higher than what he
was currently requesting. He said he thought the unit was below market rate even with
the increase.
Mr. Griffith said that his unit was a studio, that he thought Mr. Kirk had been very fair,
and acknowledged his rent was below market rate. He said there had been prior
increases of about 4% and thought the current requested increase was high. He shared
that he was hoping to compromise for an increase of about 10%, or a total rent of
around $1,230.
Mr. Kirk said previous increases were not 4% each, but 2.9%, 2.7%, 2.7%, 2.6%,
2.5%, 2.95%, and last year 3.9 percent. He said he had no problem working out a
payment method for the tenant, but felt he needed to increase the rent the same
amount for him as he did for another tenant in a similar unit. He said he thought he
had raised the rent too little in previous years to keep up with costs.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if it was Mr. Kirk's intention to raise rents 5% per year
going forward until the unit reached market rate. Mr. Kirk answered that he wanted to
raise rents to obtain a fair rate of return, rather than market rate. Mr. Kirk said he had
a
family to consider, and since the value of the property would be determined by the
income it could produce, he would be hurting his family if he did not raise the rent.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if there were any outstanding issues with the unit that
needed to be addressed and Mr. Griffith replied there was a bit of water damage.
Chair Murray confirmed that the parties were not willing to come to a compromise and
they preferred that the Committee make a decision.
The participants took a seat and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Johnson opined that a raise of 15% seemed acceptable.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he did not think the landlord's requested rent increase
was unreasonable given its location and the fact that prior increases were relatively low,
while also noting that it was reasonable for the tenant to request a lower increase.
Chair Murray echoed these sentiments, saying she was glad community members felt
comfortable coming to the Committee with their concerns and perspectives. She noted
the landlord had invested significant upgrades in the property and said it was
appropriate to seek balance in deciding how much of an increase would be allowed, as
too much of an increase could negatively impact the tenant and too little could hurt the
landlord. She said the Committee's charge is to make sure people can stay in Alameda,",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-03-04,6,"Approved Minutes
March 4, 2019
while at the same time ensuring landlords are appropriately incentivized to provide
housing. She said she was inclined to support the $200 increase request for this year,
while acknowledging that in future years what is considered reasonable may be
different.
Motion and second for a $200 increase (Chair Murray and Member Chiu). Motion passed
4-0.
Motion and second for reconsideration in order to amend and give an effective date
(Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
Motion and second for a $200 increase effective from April 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020
(Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
7-C. Case 1233 - 2133 Santa Clara Ave., Apt. 102
No Committee review. The parties reached an agreement prior to RRAC review.
7-D. Case 1234 - 413 Coral Reef Rd.
No Committee review. The parties reached an agreement prior to RRAC review.
7-E. Case 1243 - 1540 Ninth St., Unit F
No Committee review. The parties reached an agreement prior to RRAC review.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if staff had any further clarification on the
confidentiality/privacy concerns raised by the CAO's memo that were discussed at the
previous meeting. Program staff replied that further discussion of the matter had been
placed on the RRAC's March 11, 2019 agenda.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-03-04,7,"Approved Minutes
March 4, 2019
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if there was any update on confirming a fifth RRAC
member. Program staff replied that a candidate was going to be considered at the next
City Council meeting.
Chair Murray asked if the Committee would have the new member by April and
program staff replied that staff would notify the Committee members by email once a
candidate was confirmed.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 3, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-01,1,"Approved Minutes
April 1, 2019
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, April 1, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
Present:
Chair Murray; Member Chiu; Member Sidelnikov
Absent:
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Member Johnson
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo; Bill Chapin
City Attorney staff:
Michael Roush
Program staff called roll of case participants. All parties were present.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Program staff informed the Committee that Agenda Item 7-A would not be heard, as
the parties came to an agreement prior to the hearing.
Program staff informed the Committee that Agenda Items 7-B and 7-C were granted
a postponement until the April 17, 2019 meeting.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Program staff reminded Committee members that a RRAC decision from a prior
meeting was scheduled for City Council review on April 2, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. at City
Hall and that Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah would be in attendance on behalf of the
RRAC.
Program staff requested Committee members' availability for May or June for a
planned member training. Chair Murray expressed a preference for June, and staff
informed members that an email would be sent to them to follow-up regarding
proposed dates in June.
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 February 25, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to table consideration to a future meeting (Chair Murray and
Member Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-01,2,"Approved Minutes
April 1, 2019
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Case 1235 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C103
No Committee review. The parties reached an agreement prior to the meeting.
7-B. Case 1236 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D214
No Committee review. Review was postponed to the Committee's April 17, 2019 meeting.
7-C. Case 1237 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt D307
No Committee review. Review was postponed to the Committee's April 17, 2019 meeting.
7-D. Case 1239- - 1801 Alameda Ave.
Tenant: Ellen Seltzer
Landlord: Phoebe Yu
Proposed rent increase: $65.00 (4.8%), to a total rent of $1,430.00,
effective March 1, 2019
Ms. Seltzer stated that she was at the hearing to have the present rent increase and
previous rent increases reviewed due to violations of California Civil Code section
1941.1-1941.2. She said there have been rodent droppings in her home and she
informed her landlord and City agencies but did not hear back. She stated that there
were maintenance issues with her apartment and wanted to overturn the current and
previous rent increases.
Ms. Yu stated that the landlords believe that they have followed the Ordinance
correctly. She said the owner bought the property in 2017 and at the time of purchase
tenants in all six units at the property were paying below market rate rents. She said
the owner intended to raise the rent 5% every year until the rates reached market rate,
as well as to provide funds to maintain the property. She said that market rate for
similar properties in the area was about $1,995.00
Ms. Seltzer responded that she was low income and this increase would create extreme
hardship for her, even though the current rental amount was below market rate.
Member Chiu asked the Chair and CAO if the tenant's request to review a previous rent
increase was within the Committee's purview. Chair Murray answered that before a",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-01,3,"Approved Minutes
April 1, 2019
case came before the Committee program staff reviewed previous rent increases for
compliance and remedied issues associated with any prior invalid increases. She said
that to her understanding there was no improper prior notice served to the tenant.
Member Chiu asked Ms. Seltzer how this rent increase would create financial hardship
for her. She replied that she would have to juggle her finances to be able to pay all her
bills. She added that a family member had been helping her financially and she was
also receiving government assistance. She said if this rent increase was imposed she
would have to ask for additional assistance to pay the proposed amount.
Member Chiu asked Ms. Seltzer if the landlord had been responsive to her requests. She
replied that she sometimes received responses but for the most part she did not.
Member Chiu asked Ms. Yu if she had received text messages from the tenant and if
she responded to them. Ms. Yu stated that she responds concerning maintenance
issues in about 1-3 business days.
Member Chiu asked Ms. Yu what other amenities were offered at the property. She
replied that the subject property was a 6-unit building on a very quiet street, and there
was a lot of greenery on the grounds. She added the previous owner did not take good
care of the property so there were many deferred maintenance issues. She confirmed
that the new owner got an inspection report prior to the purchase, and knew about the
building's issues. She said the owner's plan was to raise the rent gradually so he would
be able to make all needed repairs.
Chair Murray asked Ms. Yu about the turnover at the property since its purchase in
2017. Ms. Yu stated that only one unit had turned over and only one tenant was
currently paying market-rate rent.
Member Sidelnikov asked if the heating issue had been addressed. Ms. Yu replied that
there was one heating unit that provided heat for all six units, and that the property
was not as modern as it could be, but everything was in working condition.
Chair Murray asked Ms. Yu what the financial impact would be on the owner if the rent
increase was not granted. Ms. Yu responded that for the current year the owner was
already operating at a loss due to all the renovations being made. She added that
quotes for future planned renovations equaled about $100,000.00. She said that the
owner purchased the property to provide financial security during retirement.
Member Sidelnikov asked Ms. Yu if there was an agreement they could reach that could
benefit both parties. Ms. Yu replied that in order to get a fair rate of return on the
property, the owner needed to increase the rent by 5% per year for the next few years.
The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-01,4,"Approved Minutes
April 1, 2019
Member Sidelnikov commented that the Committee would have to balance the owner's
need for an increase with the financial impact an increase would have on a fixed-
income tenant.
Member Chiu acknowledged that while imposing regular below 5% increases, the owner
was also making improvements to the property. He opined that a $45-$50 increase
could be reasonable given the property, its desirable location, and a fair rate of return.
Chair Murray commented that she thought the requested increase was reasonable,
while at the same time posing a hardship for the tenant. She said that future increases
would be necessary for required renovations and in order for the owner to obtain a fair
rate of return. She proposed a $30 increase to alleviate some of the immediate
pressure on the tenant, while at the same time providing the landlord a higher base
rent in future years.
Motion and second for a $30.00 increase from March 1, 2019 through February 28,
2020 (Chair Murray and Member Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.
7-E. Case 1241 - 2713 Bayview Dr.
Tenant: Daniel Pando
Landlords: Esther Wipaki and Jose Cerda-Zein
Proposed rent increase: $1,500.00 (42.9%), to a total rent of $5,000.00
effective May 1, 2019
Ms. Wipaki stated that the requested increase was financially necessary for her and if
the tenant could not pay it she may have to sell the property.
Mr. Pando responded that the requested increase would create a financial hardship for
him. He said that he has two children, has to make child support payments, and has
been so far unsuccessfully seeking a roommate to try to cover the rent increase.
Ms. Wipaki stated that she did not want to request this steep an increase but she was
in a position where she had to, given this was an important source of income in
retirement.
Chair Murray asked what impact selling the property would have on her and Ms. Wipaki
replied that there would be a lot of pressure lifted if she was to sell the home.
Mr. Cerda- Zein stated that Ms. Wipaki came to him and asked what her options were
to obtain an adequate income from the property. He stated that they looked at
comparable units and decided on the suggested rent increase amount. He said the
owner would have to raise the rent to the requested amount or sell the house to meet
her needs.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-01,5,"Approved Minutes
April 1, 2019
Member Sidelnikov asked the parties if there was an increase amount that would work
for both of them, but they were not able to find a mutually-agreeable amount. Member
Sidelnikov asked Ms. Wipaki if she was open to allowing the tenant to obtain co-tenants
to help with the increase, and she replied that she was unsure.
The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.
Member Chiu questioned whether the property would rent for $5,000.00 per month and
said he could understand both parties' situations.
Member Sidelnikov commented that the tenancy was fairly new and the requested
increase seemed like it may be intended to drive the tenant out.
Chair Murray stated that the Committee discouraged large, sudden increases that did
not allow the tenants time to adjust.
Member Chiu said he believed a reasonable increase would be in the 5-7% range.
Member Sidelnikov recommended a 7% increase.
Motion and second for a $250.00 increase from May 1, 2019 through April 30, 2020.
(Members Chiu and Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
7-F. Continuation of discussion of memo from CAO to RRAC
Committee members discussed their concerns with the memo. CAO offered a response
to some of their concerns.
Motion and second to table further discussion (Chair Murray and Member Sidelnikov).
Motion passed 3-0.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-01,6,"Approved Minutes
April 1, 2019
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 15, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-17,1,"Approved Minutes
April 17, 2019
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m.
Present:
Chair Murray; Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah;
Members Chiu and Sidelnikov
Absent:
Member Johnson
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo; Bill Chapin
City Attorney staff: None
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff called roll of case participants. The tenants for Agenda Items 7-C, 7-D, and 7-F
were not present and moved to the end of the agenda.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Staff requested Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah provide dates between
June 10 and June 22, 2019, for upcoming training.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Case 1236 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D214
Tenant: Bashir, last name unknown
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $198.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $2,182.00,
effective March 1, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-17,2,"Approved Minutes
April 17, 2019
Mr. King said the current ownership purchased the property in October 2017, and the
property had extensive deferred maintenance. The ownership has spent more than $3
million in the last year and a half on renovations including seismic upgrades, roofing,
painting, and improvements to the grounds. The rent increase is intended to recoup
some of this investment. The request is also based on market rates; Mr. King submitted
information showing the ownership currently asks $2,524 for a slightly smaller 2-
bedroom unit at a nearby property.
Bashir said the four tenants are all students attending a nearby university. He said they
accepted two previous rent increases without question but now are having trouble
making ends meet. He said they have been good tenants and requested consideration
for the fact that all tenants will be graduating within the next year and a half. The
tenants have no complaints about the management; the only issue is their financial
situation.
Mr. King declined to respond.
Committee members asked for additional information about the tenants' financial
situation. Bashir said that some tenants work part-time and some receive scholarships.
Their parents occasionally help with bills when they request help. He said they would
have to consider moving if the 10 percent increase became effective.
Committee members asked for more information about the unit. Mr. King said a new
tenant would be charged $2,660 per month for an identical two-bedroom unit at this
property. Bashir said there have been no significant improvements made to the interior
of the unit, and noted the windows rattle during strong winds.
In response to statements made by Bashir, Mr. King explained that the ownership has
begun offering incentives to tenants who agree to proposed rent increases. These
include upgraded appliances or carpeting or a $1,000 gift card.
Member Sidelnikov noted that Bashir mentioned multiple rent increases, but records
provided to the Committee showed just one previous increase. Bashir said the tenants
originally paid $1,775 per month. Staff said if this was the case, the 2017 rent increase
to $1,890 would have been in excess of 5 percent. Since it was not filed with the
program, such an increase would be invalid. In such a case, staff would direct the
landlord to reset the rent to the last valid level and refund any overpayment, which
would alter the base rent. Chair Murray suggested the Committee may need to defer
hearing the case until a factual basis can be established.
Mr. King said the submission was based on records on file for the unit, but the previous
ownership's records were not always accurate. He noted that there was currently no
evidence to back up the tenant's statement or that rent would need to be refunded. He",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-17,3,"Approved Minutes
April
proposed a lesser rent increase to a total of $2,025. Staff said such an agreement could
constitute the tenant waiving his rights, which is not allowed under Ordinance no. 3148.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah expressed concern that the Committee was mediating a
private agreement based on assumptions. Motion and second to table this item until
staff can verify rent history and present any updated facts to the Committee (Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 4-0.
7-B. Case 1237 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D307
Tenant: Moyende Kamali
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $170.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,878.00,
effective March 1, 2019
Mr. King submitted online rental postings showing the current asking rates for three
comparable one-bedroom units at this property and a neighboring property owned by
the same group, ranging from $2,271 to $2,341.
Mr. Kamali said he works as a self-employed general contractor, so his income can vary
based on his current clientele. He said he does not believe the requested rental rate
reflects the quality of the unit, and he specifically cited damaged windows where the
frame does not close correctly, leaving a gap that lets in air.
Following questions about the incentives program, Mr. King said the ownership would
be willing to replace windows in the unit if Mr. Kamali agreed to the rent increase. Mr.
Kamali proposed an 8 percent increase. The parties agreed on an increase of $136 to a
total rent of $1,844, effective May 1, 2019.
7-E. Case 1250.1 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A202
Tenants: Jason Schabert and Tammy Cordero-Schabert
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $127.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,402.00,
effective June 1, 2019
Mr. King had no specific statements unique to this case.
Mr. Schabert said he is a blue-collar worker and his wife is a homemaker. He said he
receives an annual salary increase, but it is not large enough to keep pace with regular
rent increases of more than 5 percent. He said the apartment currently has mold in the
bathroom and bedroom that will require them to sleep in another apartment for
a
minimum of two to three days while repairs are made. He said he would agree to a 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-17,4,"Approved Minutes
April 17, 2019
percent rent increase, but any more than that seems excessive to him. Member
Sidelnikov noted that the form the tenants filed said a total rent of $1,350 would be
acceptable, which is a 5.88 percent increase. Mr. Schabert said he would accept a 5
percent increase. Ms. Cordero-Schabert said they were trying to compromise by
meeting in the middle.
Chair Murray noted the filed paperwork had conflicting dates that the increase would
become effective. Staff confirmed an effective date of June 1, 2019.
Committee members asked for additional information on the tenants' financial situation.
Mr. Schabert said the full rent increase would strain their ability to pay for medical care,
prescriptions, groceries, and gasoline. He said he has come to rely on substantial
overtime at his warehouse job. Medical issues prevent Ms. Cordero-Schabert from
working. This is a recent development, and she currently receives no income.
The parties were not able to reach an agreement, and the Committee began
deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said this is a case where the rent increase is reasonable, but
the full increase would create financial hardship for the tenant. Members Chiu and
Sidelnikov agreed the tenant had demonstrated hardship. Chair Murray suggested an
increase to a total rent of $1,350 because the tenants had indicated in paperwork that
they were comfortable with that amount, even if the percentage came out to greater
than 5 percent.
Motion and second for an increase of $75 to a total rent of $1,350, effective June 1,
2019 (Member Chiu and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
7-F. Case 1249.1 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A210
Tenants: Desiree Ann Shaver
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $120.50 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,328.00,
effective June 1, 2019
Mr. King had no specific statements unique to this case.
Ms. Shaver shares the 1-bedroom apartment with her mother and 22-year-old
daughter. Ms. Shaver's salary is the primary source of income for the household,
although her mother does receive some Social Security benefits and her daughter works
part-time. She also provides some financial support to her father. Her mother has
medical issues, and Ms. Shaver is responsible for her care and transport to medical
appointments. She said she understands an increase is inevitable but a 10 percent
increase would be hardship.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-17,5,"Approved Minutes
April 17,2019
Mr. King declined to respond.
Member Chiu noted that the paperwork Ms. Shaver filed stated a total rent of $1,267.87
would be acceptable, which would be a 5 percent increase. Ms. Shaver said she could
even afford a 6 percent increase to a total rent of $1,280.
Committee members asked for additional information on the family's financial situation.
Ms. Shaver said her daughter currently works three days a week and helps pay the cell
phone and cable bills. She is not currently attending school. Ms. Shaver works for an
accounting firm.
Committee members asked about any maintenance issues with the apartment. Ms.
Shaver said the stove and the bathroom fan do not work, the cold water sometimes
comes out hot, the bathtub does not drain, and the bathroom floor is discolored.
The parties were not able to reach an agreement, and the Committee began
deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said that, while the proposed rent increase is significant, he
was inclined to approve it based on the idea that Ms. Shaver's daughter is capable of
working full time and contributing to the rent. Member Sidelnikov and Chair Murray
expressed agreement. Chair Murray added that the Committee should encourage and
recognize landlords who make investments in seismic upgrades.
Motion and second for an increase of $120.50 to a total rent of $1,328, effective June
1, 2019 (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 4-0.
7-C. Case 1256 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C104
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
7-D. Case 1264 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D216
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
7-G. Continuation of discussion of memo from CAO to RRAC concerning
confidentiality of information on agenda materials provided to the
Committee and the public",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-04-17,6,"Approved Minutes
April 17, 2019
Chair Murray said the Committee wants all five members present to consider this item.
Staff noted that, based on Committee members' stated conflicts, the next three
meetings will not have the full committee present.
Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah summarized some of the Committee's
previously stated concerns with the policy. Chair Murray said the City Attorney's Office
was to consider those concerns and present alternatives. The Committee has not seen
alternatives, and the memo remains unchanged. She asked that the item be added to
the agenda for the next meeting when all five Committee members and a
representative of the City Attorney's Office will be present so there can be a discussion.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Bill Chapin
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 15, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-01,1,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2019
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present:
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu, Johnson, and
Sidelnikov
Absent:
Chair Murray
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo; Gregory Kats
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that Agenda Items 7-C and 7-F had resolved prior to
the meeting.
Staff called roll of case participants. The tenants for Agenda Item 7-D were not
present and the item was moved to the end of the agenda.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Staff confirmed with the members that they would be available for a training on the
evening of Friday, June 21, 2019.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the February 25, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Member Chiu and Vice Chair Sullivan
Cheah). Motion passed 3-0, with Member Sidelnikov abstaining.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6-A. Continuation of discussion of memo from CAO to RRAC concerning
confidentiality of information on agenda materials provided to the
Committee and the public
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah re-introduced the item and confirmed the Committee was
not required to take action. He asked if anyone had anything further they wanted to",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-01,2,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2019
discuss. Other members indicated they did not have anything further to discuss. Vice
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked staff when the confidentiality procedures would be
implemented. Staff replied that an implementation date had not yet been considered.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about how the Committee would be able to
reference previous cases under the proposed confidentiality rules. Staff replied that
staff would call each RRAC member prior to the meeting to inform them if they had
heard a submission dealing with the same parties and subject property before so they
could go back to review the minutes or audio to refresh their recollection prior to the
meeting.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about the Committee's concerns regarding knowing
who the parties were so they could recuse themselves if there were a conflict of
interest. Staff replied that staff would provide the names and addresses of the parties
during the aforementioned phone calls so that Committee members would know in
advance who the parties were and if they might need to recuse themselves from
reviewing a case.
City Attorney staff spoke on the importance of balancing the tenant's privacy
concerns with their ability to present enough information to demonstrate their
perspective on the increase, such as if the requested increase would pose a financial
hardship. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah commented that parties are not required to disclose
information and City Attorney staff replied that the new confidentiality rules may allow
tenants to feel more comfortable disclosing a larger amount of information, especially
sensitive information.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Case 1207 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A103
Tenant: Clark Parker
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $189.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $2,079.00,
effective March 1, 2019
Mr. King said the owner purchased the property in 2017 with the intention of upgrading
it. To date, he said, the owner had invested more than $3 million in improvements,
which include an improved roof, seismic upgrades, new amenities, new paint, and new
carpet in the hallways. He said that comparable two-bedroom units were currently on
the market for about $2,600 per month.
Mr. Parker said the landlord had made cosmetic improvements to the outside of the
building, but had not improved the interiors of the units, including his. He said he has
had to improve his apartment himself, including repainting it and mending the carpet.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-01,3,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2019
He shared that there were ongoing problems in the unit relating to mold. He said his
income was stagnating and the requested increase amount presented a hardship as it
outpaced increases in his pay. He said a smaller increase around 3% might be
reasonable, but the 10% requested was not.
Mr. King said he would like to have the management take care of the mold problem,
and added that a new kids' play area would be available for residents in the next few
weeks.
Member Johnson asked Mr. Parker if this was his first rent increase and he said it was.
She asked how he took care of the mold and he said he painted over it but it came
back.
Member Chiu asked if he lived with anyone and Mr. Parker said he lived in the unit with
his three sons, who were all in school.
Member Johnson asked if Mr. King was able to rent the other two-bedroom units for the
asking rate of $2,600 and he said he was able to rent them for that much or more.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Parker how long he had been living in the unit and
he said since 2014 with another person's name on the lease, and since 2017 with his
name on the lease.
Member Johnson asked Mr. King how the landlord remedies mold in the units. Mr. King
shared that another tenant experiencing mold was transferred to another unit during
the duration of the mold remediation, and they replaced his windows to ensure they
were waterproof. Member Johnson asked how many units were assessed for mold
problems and Mr. King said he did not know as he was not part of the team involved in
that. He said the management did periodic, usually annual, inspections.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King how tenant could report maintenance issues
and Mr. King explained the process.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Parker what dollar amount he thought a reasonable
increase would be, and Mr. Parker replied that he thought $80-$90 would be
reasonable, but he would have to stretch his budget to pay it. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah
explained that an increase of 5% is a trigger for mandatory review but that it was not
to be construed as a default assumption that 5% was always reasonable. Mr. Parker
said the location of the unit was good for him because it is close to his kids' school.
Mr. King offered a revised increase of $85 and Mr. Parker said he would agree. The
parties clarified there would be no increase in March, April, and May, with the $85 to go
into effect June 1, 2019 through the end of February 2020.
7-B. Case RI1248.1 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A211",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-01,4,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2019
Tenant: Abeba Woldermariam
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $127.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,402.00,
effective June 1, 2019
Mr. King noted that this unit was one-bedroom and said that one-bedroom units were
renting at market rate between $2,100 and $2,300.
Ms. Woldenmariam said the requested increase would cause a hardship for her family.
She said they only spent money on necessities and an increase would mean cutting
essential costs like food. She told the Committee that nothing had been changed in her
unit in her 17 years of tenancy - the carpet was damaged, there were nails sticking out
of the floor, the closet door did not shut correctly, the walls needed to be repainted as
the paint was peeling off, and the balcony screen was torn. She said she could not work
a second job to pay high rent increases because she has two small children to look
after. She added that the location of her apartment was good for her.
Member Chiu confirmed the unit's occupants included Ms. Woldenmariam, her husband,
and their two children, and that both parents work.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if she had photos of the unit to share and she passed
photos on her phone around to the members and Mr. King.
Member Sidelnikov asked Mr. King about the landlord's offering of incentives including
carpet replacements, repainting, or new appliances in exchange for agreeing to rent
increases outside of the RRAC review process. Member Sidelnikov pointed out that
there had been two tenants at this meeting with nails sticking out of carpets, which
seemed to be a health and safety concern. Mr. King replied that the landlord complies
with applicable habitability laws.
Member Johnson clarified that the mentioned incentives were only offered to tenants
who waived their right to RRAC review of a rent increase, and Mr. King confirmed that
was correct.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about Ms. Woldenmariam's husband's job and she said
that his job was full-time, 40 hours per week, that he was paid hourly, and that he
made about minimum wage with only a few cents wage increases each year. Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah asked what other items she would have to cut costs for, and she said all
necessities including food and clothing.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that he had heard Mr. King tell tenants in previous
cases that he would fix habitability issues when tenants brought them up.
Mr. King proposed a revised increase amount of $60. Ms. Woldenmariam asked Mr.
King if he could take care of the carpet and he said he could not promise to replace it",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-01,5,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2019
because he would have to check with management. She said she would be happy if
it
were repaired. She also asked if she could have a fridge that did not make noise and he
said he would get them a replacement fridge that did not make noise. She said she
thinks she is making reasonable requests as her tenancy was long-term. She added that
there was a gap or hole in the balcony that she did not feel was safe and shared
another photo on her phone.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah explained the RRAC did not have the authority to enforce
promises relating to repairs and maintenance.
The parties agreed to a rent increase of $50 to a total rent of $1,325 (effective June 1,
2019). The parties also agreed that the tenant's fridge would be replaced, and several
other maintenance concerns would be looked into or addressed.
7-E. Case 1265.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D220
Tenant: Amarjit Kaur
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $153.02 (9.9%), to a total rent of $1,691.00,
effective June 1, 2019
Ms. Kaur said her husband had signed an agreement form without realizing what he
was signing, but they could not afford to pay the requested increase. She said she had
been living in the unit since 2013, some of her windows were old and shake, the paint
was peeling, and the stove was replaced in the past but still did not work. She said
there was rust around the sink and toilet, and the bathtub had mold in it. She said she
would have to cut back on expenses relating to their children's education if the increase
went into effect.
Member Johnson confirmed that the unit was one-bedroom, and that Ms. Kaur, her
husband, and their two small children all lived in the apartment. Ms. Kaur said that she
and her husband worked.
Member Sidelnikov noted the rent increased 4.9% in 2018 and the landlord was now
requesting an additional 9.9% increase, and Mr. King confirmed that was accurate.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what additional hardship the increase would have and
Ms. Kaur said they would have to cut back on clothing, sports, and educational
opportunities for the kids. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Kaur how much of an
increase she thought was reasonable, and how much she could afford. She replied $40.
Mr. King agreed to a revised increase of $40, to a total rent of $1,577.98, effective June
1, 2019.
7-F. Case RI1240.2 - 1740 Pearl St., Apt. B",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-01,6,"Approved Minutes
May 1, 2019
No Committee review. The parties reached an agreement prior to the hearing.
7-G. Case RI1274.1 - 1415 Broadway, Apt. 311
No Committee review. The case was removed from the agenda for further
administrative review.
7-D. Case RI1261.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D119
No Committee review. The tenant was not present after a second roll call. The landlord
may impose the rent increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 3, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-15,1,"Approved Minutes
May 15, 2019
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m.
Present:
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu and Sidelnikov
Absent:
Chair Murray, Member Johnson
Program staff:
Gregory Kats, Grant Eshoo, Bill Chapin
City Attorney staff:
Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that Agenda Item 7-D would not be heard as the
tenants had given the landlord notice to vacate.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Staff reminded the Committee that their next training was scheduled at 6:30 p.m.
on Friday, June 21, 2019. Staff said we were still waiting on final confirmation from the
trainer, but so far he had indicated that the date and time would work.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the March 4, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to table approval of the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and
Member Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the April 1, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.
5-C. Approval of the minutes of the April 17, 2019 special meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-15.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-15,2,"Approved Minutes
May 15, 2019
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Case RI1236 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D214
Tenant: Bashir Ahmed Rumy
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $198.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $2,182.00,
effective March 1, 2019
Mr. King said that the current owner purchased the property in 2017 and inherited
deferred maintenance issues that they have addressed and will continue addressing. He
said they have spent $3.5 million on improvements to the common areas and upgrades
to the property, including seismic retrofitting, and repairing or replacing rotting
balconies. He said they have also added amenities at the property and were looking for
earning a reasonable return. He said there were currently no two bedroom units
available, and the last one they rented was at a rate of over $2,700.00 per month. He
added that review for the increase at this unit was postponed at a prior RRAC meeting
so that it could be determined if a prior rent increase was valid and it was valid.
Mr. Rumy said he had no complaints about the landlords or the property, but was
requesting the RRAC decide on a lower increase or no increase as the four current
residents were all students with tight financial situations. He said that he was working
20 hours per week while maintaining a 3.9 GPA. He said he and his roommates would
probably not be able to continue living at the unit if the increase was imposed. He said
that as students they could not work a lot because they had to study, and the school
prevented them from working more than 20 hours per week, which he was currently
doing. He shared that they were already finding it hard to make ends meet, and had
financial aid (scholarships and loans) in addition to working and sometimes having to
ask their parents for help.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if all the occupants worked and Mr. Rumy replied that
two of the four currently worked, and the others did not currently as they were
approaching finals and were spending all their time studying.
As no agreement was reached, the parties took their seats and the Committee began
deliberations.
Member Sidelnikov asked staff to confirm that the issue raised in the last meeting
regarding the prior rent amount had been resolved and staff confirmed it was resolved.
Member Sidelnikov noted that two of the four tenants were not currently working but it
seemed like they could possibly work if they needed to in order to pay an increase.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-15.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-15,3,"Approved Minutes
May 15, 2019
Member Chiu commented that he could appreciate the pressures the tenants were
facing, and added that he was not sure if their situation was in the realm of extreme
hardship the Committee had seen in other cases. He said that he thought an increase of
10% was significant and was inclined to support an increase between five and 10
percent.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he did not doubt the tenants' hardship, and
acknowledged Mr. Rumy's ability to work and maintain a 3.9 GPA. He noted that the
requested increase would amount to an extra $50.00 per person per month, and said
that he himself would struggle to pay that much of an increase. He also noted that the
request to bring the rent to $2,182.00 was still below the market rate the landlord had
indicated they obtained for similar two-bedroom units.
Member Chiu said he would support an increase of about $140.00, which would amount
to $35.00 per tenant per month.
Motion and second for an increase of $140.00 to a total rent of $2,124.00, effective
June 1, 2019, with a $0.00 increase for March, April, and May 2019 (Member Chiu and
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
7-B. Case RI1252.1 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A109
Tenant: Rienzie Espana
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $139.00 (11.1%), to a total rent of $1,386.00,
effective June 1, 2019
Staff clarified that the current, valid base rent was $1,247.00.
Mr. King said this was the first rent increase the current landlord was requesting at this
one-bedroom unit. He said that the current owner cured deficiencies in increases
imposed by the prior owner and refunded increase amounts collected under those
increases. He said the last three comparable units rented for around $2,300.00 to
$2,400.00.
Mr. Espana said he worked at an airport and made $13.00 per hour. He said his wife
works part-time and they have a baby. He said they could not afford increases of 10%
per year, but he thought 5% per year or 10% every two or three years would be
reasonable.
Mr. King responded that he thought it was unreasonable for an employer to expect an
employee to be able to live on $13.00 per hour.
Member Chiu asked Mr. Espana how long he had been at his current job and he said he
has had the job for seven years. Member Chiu asked if he received any increase in",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-15.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-15,4,"Approved Minutes
May 15, 2019
wages and Mr. Espana replied that increases were minimal and the last one was two or
three years ago.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah clarified that the Committee had the ability to look at cases
individually, and could make decisions for an increase only over a one year period. He
reminded the participants that documents submitted to the Rent Stabilization Program
and things discussed at RRAC meetings were a matter of public record that the RRAC
could use when considering future increases.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King if most other tenants also received no rent
increases since the current ownership acquired the property and Mr. King replied that
the new ownership had faced challenges in the management of the property because of
inadequate record-keeping by the prior owner.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if the owners planned on continuing to ask for 10%
annual increases going forward and Mr. King replied that the owner had not established
a policy for increases in future years.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Espana how much his wife worked and how much
she made and Mr. Espana replied that she worked six hours on the weekend and
earned $12 per hour.
Member Sidelnikov asked and Mr. King confirmed that the total rent amount being
requested was unaltered by the change in base rent.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that if the tenants' jobs were their only source of
income they would be paying over 50% of their income toward rent. Mr. Espana
confirmed that was correct.
As no agreement was reached, the parties took their seats and the Committee began
deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the tenants seemed like they would be considered
rent burdened. He said he had heard the tenant say he would be able to pay the
requested increase this year, and understood the tenant's fear of large future increases.
Motion and second for an increase of $139.00, effective June 1, 2019 (Members
Sidelnikov and Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.
7-C. Case RI1254.1 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A117
Tenant: Mohammed Eqbal Khan
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $184.00 (15.6%), to a total rent of $1,369.00,
effective June 1, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-15.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-15,5,"Approved Minutes
May 15, 2019
Mr. King noted that this was the first rent increase the current ownership group was
requesting for this unit, which is a one-bedroom unit with a patio.
Mr. Khan said he was still paying $1,245.00 instead of the reduced base rent of
$1,185.00 after staff had found prior increases invalid. Mr. Raufi replied that
management had informed Mr. Khan that his rent would be reduced to the last valid
base rent of $1,185.00, and Mr. King said if Mr. Khan had overpaid, a credit would be
applied to his account for the overpaid balance.
Mr. Khan said the landlord's construction had caused inconveniences, there were issues
with parking at the property, including having cars towed, he had security concerns
about the gate, his carpet had not been changed since his tenancy began in 2005, and
his screen door was old and allowed a lot of mosquitoes to enter the unit. He requested
the screen door be fixed and said he was okay with a rent increase that was 10%
above the base rent of $1,185.00.
Member Sidelnikov asked about how repayment of overpaid rent worked and Mr. Raufi
said management usually deducted the overpaid amount from the next month's rent.
Member Sidelnikov asked how parking was offered and Mr. Raufi said there was one
space assigned per unit. Member Sidelnikov noted there should be no reason to tow a
car unless the tenant complained about it.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah ascertained with the landlords that they had a contract with a
towing service. Mr. Raufi explained that a resident may contact the towing service
directly if they needed a car towed from their assigned spot.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Khan what impact the requested increase would
have on him and his family and Mr. Khan replied that it would be hard for them, stating
he and his wife had three children and his wife was not working.
As no agreement was reached, the parties took their seats and the Committee began
deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted the landlord seemed to be instituting 10% increases
across the board to recoup the costs for the investments they made. He noted the
tenant indicated he would not be able to pay the total amount requested and said he
would not be comfortable giving an increase of more than a $118.50, the amount the
tenant indicated he could pay.
Members Chiu and Sidelnikov concurred that was a reasonable amount.
Motion and second for an increase of $118.50, to a total rent to $1,303.50, effective
June 1, 2019 (Member Chiu and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-15.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-15,6,"Approved Minutes
May 15, 2019
7-D. Case RI1245.1 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B115
No Committee review. The tenants provided notice they would be vacating the unit.
7-E. Case RI1255.1 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B308
Tenant: Mohamad Manea
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $189.60 (10.0%), to a total rent of $2,088.00,
effective June 1, 2019
Mr. Manea said he was the only working member of his family, which consisted of his
wife and four children, ages 3-14 years old. He said they found it difficult to make ends
meet and the requested 10% increase would be too much for them.
Member Chiu asked where he worked and how much he made and Mr. Manea replied
that he worked at restaurant and made $3,200 per month after taxes and he did not
receive regular raises.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if Mr. Manea had any concerns about his apartment
and Mr. Manea replied he thought the requested rent was fair but it would still pose a
burden. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what financial impact the requested increase
would have and Mr. Manea replied that business was slow, and paying more rent would
make it harder to pay other bills.
As no agreement was reached, the parties took their seats and the Committee began
deliberations.
Member Chiu noted that the tenant was already paying about 60% of his take home
pay in rent and the requested increase would increase that burden.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that many Bay Area residents are rent-burdened and
clarified that he thought that ""rent burdened"" meant paying more than 30% of take
home pay toward rent.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted there was a history of rent increases at this unit over
the previous two years and said he thought an increase of less than 10% was
warranted to ensure the tenants would not be displaced.
Member Chiu said he agreed and was thinking of an increase between $130 and $140,
which would amount to 6.8% to 7.4 percent.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah opined that he was more comfortable with an increase of
$100 at this unit given its increase history and the tenants' situation.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-15.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-15,7,"Approved Minutes
May 15, 2019
Member Sidelnikov said he was thinking of an increase between $80 and $100,
considering prior increases.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted the rent for the unit, a 2-bedroom, seemed below
average for units of comparable size, further noting that improvements had been made
to the property, which was behavior the Committee wanted to encourage by allowing
increases to compensate landlords for making investments.
Motion and second for an increase of $100.00, effective June 1, 2019 (Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
Program staff informed the Committee that there was an open house that evening
at City Hall West to obtain feedback on a number of possible amendments to the Rent
Stabilization Ordinance (Ordinance 3148), including matters related to just cause
terminations, a maximum rent cap, and changes in the capital improvement plan
process. Staff said the feedback would be presented to City Council on May 21st and
also in June. Staff mentioned that in the past when the Council was considering
changes, members of the Committee had written letters to Council to make their
thoughts known, and they were welcome to do that now as well.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said that previous RRAC Chairs had proposed submitting a
single letter on behalf of all members, and said he did not recommend they do that, so
it did not seem like the Committee was seen as taking a public position. He said he
thought if they wrote individually, that perception might be avoided.
Member Sidelnikov said he thought a single letter on behalf of all members might be
more effective.
City Attorney staff clarified that there was nothing on the Council's agenda dealing with
the RRAC, and they were currently looking at elimination of ""no cause"" as an allowable
ground for termination of tenancy.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that his term was scheduled to be up in June. City
Attorney staff clarified that members would serve until they were replaced or resigned,
rather than their term automatically ceasing if no replacement had been found. Vice
Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he thought that was asking a lot of a volunteer member of
the public, especially once they saw how much work the Committee had to do.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-15.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-05-15,8,"Approved Minutes
May 15, 2019
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated he was concerned about attendance, as the Committee
was supposed to represent a cross-section of the community that included tenants,
landlords, and a homeowner, and requested staff place a discussion item on the next
agenda regarding member attendance.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on July 1, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-15.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-06-03,1,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, June 3, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present:
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu and Sidelnikov
Absent:
Chair Murray, Member Johnson
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo and Samantha Columbus
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff recommended that the Committee hear Agenda Item 7-B first in New Business,
as an interpreter had been reserved for the tenant, and the Committee agreed.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Staff informed the Committee that staff was waiting on Chair Murray to confirm
whether or not she would like to remotely attend the planned June 21, 2019 Committee
training or postpone it, as she was not able to be physically present for it.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the March 4, 2019 regular meeting
Member Sidelnikov indicated he had reviewed the audio for this meeting, so that he
may vote on approval of the minutes even though he was not in attendance at the
March 4 meeting. Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah
and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the May 1, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-06-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-06-03,2,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
Staff called roll of meeting participants and all parties for all agenda items were
present.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah made an announcement that this was a public meeting
and anything said or shared during the proceedings would become a public record, as
the meeting was audio recorded and minutes were taken.
7-B. Case RI1263.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D209
Tenant: Gamil Hadwan
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $251.50 (15.5%), to a total rent of $1,879.00,
effective July 1, 2019
Mr. King said the current owners purchased the complex two years ago with the intent
to make improvements such as seismic upgrades, balcony repairs, and add new
amenities like a fitness center and children's playground. He shared that the owners
had repainted the building and replaced roofs. Mr. King provided the Committee with a
printout of a unit he said is comparable that was asking $2,250.00 per month.
Through an interpreter, Mr. Hadwan said the landlord offered a $1,000 gift card or
option to fix things in the apartment in return for the tenant signing a contract agreeing
to the requested rent increase without RRAC review. He said his rent was lowered to
$1,627.50 but did not understand why. He added the amount requested, $1,879.00,
was too high.
Staff clarified that the landlords reset the base rent after staff had alerted them to prior
invalid increases at the unit.
Member Chiu asked Mr. Hadwan to describe the hardship the increase would have. Mr.
Hadwan said his son is going to San Francisco City College, and he is paying his son's
education expenses. He said his commuting costs come to about $200 per month, and
other expenses were already hard to meet. He stated that he makes about $3,000.00
per month, but his income varies, and he is the only working member of his household.
Member Sidelnikov asked how much of an increase he could afford, and Mr. Hadwan
replied he was not sure what was fair, and would like the Committee to make the
decision for him.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-06-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-06-03,3,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah clarified that Mr. Hadwan's stated income of $3,000.00 per
month was his net income. Mr. Hadwan added that he can sometimes make extra
money working overtime, but overtime was not guaranteed. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah
asked if there had been improvements made to his unit and Mr. Hadwan said that
nothing in his unit had been improved or replaced. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr.
Hadwan what does for a living, and he said he is a janitor.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King to clarify what amount he believed
comparable units were renting for and Mr. King said $2,250.00 and they had recently
leased two one-bedroom units for $2,404.00. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if those
units had received upgrades and Mr. King replied that they had new paint, carpet, and
some of them had new cabinetry.
Mr. King proposed a total rent of rent of $1,785.00, and increase of $157.50 (9.7%),
effective 7/1/19, and Mr. Hadwan accepted.
7-A. Case RI1274.1 - 1415 Broadway, Apt. 311
Tenant: Valerie Price and Brad Price
Landlords: George Gousios
Proposed rent increase: $147.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,617.00,
effective May 1, 2019
Ms. Price said she has lived in Alameda for four years with her husband and two
children. She said the increase would cause a financial hardship and she believed the
owner should not raise the rent because of an ongoing mold problem. She said they
have not had access to the pool since shortly after moving in, which she believed was a
decrease in housing services, and that should result in a decrease in rent. She told the
Committee that their current rent accounted for 35% of their combined income, that
the unit was small and had old appliances and fixtures, and that the unit's rent was
below market because of the condition of the unit.
Mr. Price said that the windows leaked, the bathroom lacked an exhaust fan, there was
a tarp covering a leaky ceiling, and their electricity bill had increased after the landlord
gave them a dehumidifier to combat moisture in the unit. He added that they had been
temporarily relocated during prior remediation work and alleged multiple increases had
been imposed within a 12 month period (which the landlord had rescinded and
reimbursed) including an increase in their parking fee earlier in the year.
Mr. Gousios said that a prior increase was reversed because it was slightly over 5% and
the current increase request was less than if they had increased the rent 5% per year
over the last two years. He said the rent was below market rate, and he had paid
$7,000 remedying the unit's mold problem, and the roof leak was scheduled to be
addressed before the next rainy season. He said he thinks the tenants make more",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-06-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-06-03,4,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
money now than when they moved in and would be happy to come to an agreement
where they would be paying the same income-to-rent ratio as when they moved in. He
said the pool was not open when the tenants moved in and he had been looking into
restoring it.
Mr. Chiu asked how recently the pictures provided in the tenants' submission were
taken and Mr. Price said they were taken several months ago and prior to the landlord
remedying the unit, but doubted whether the remediation would last as the mold had
returned after the first time they remedied it. Mr. Gousios responded that the walls
were treated by a professional and believes the work was done in an acceptable
manner. The tenants said they had moved back in the last month and a half and no
further water intrusion had been observed, but they were worried it would return when
heavier winter rains return. Member Chiu asked if they both worked and the tenants
affirmed they did.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants if they were satisfied with the work done
by the landlord and they said they were satisfied with the work done to date. Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah asked if other units had similar problems and Mr. Gousios said that none
did, and this unit did not either until the current tenancy. Mr. Gousios and Ms. Moran
provided pictures of the work done to the unit. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr.
Gousios how he came to the requested increase amount and Mr. Gousios replied that
he would like a 10% increase to have 5% for this year and 5% for the prior invalid
increase he had to pay back to the tenants that was invalid because it was $0.50 over
the 5% limit.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants how much of an increase they thought was
reasonable and Mr. Price said he thought 5% or $73.00 was reasonable because it was
what they could afford. Ms. Price said their budget was tight, that they had maybe
$30.00 left over after their bills were paid each month.
Mr. Gousios offered an increase of 8% and Ms. Price replied that they could not afford
it. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Gousios why he was requesting the increase and
Mr. Gousios replied that he had increased labor costs, had refinanced the property and
those costs increase if the property is not generating income or seeing rent increases
that keep up with costs. He said he thinks the unit is below market rate. The tenants
replied that their income had dropped since they moved in and having a second child
had increased their expenses.
As the parties were unable to reach an agreement, they took their seats, and the
Committee began deliberations.
Member Chiu reflected on the tenant's financial burden, the improvements made to the
property, and other factors the parties offered. He said he thought an increase of 7-8%
would be reasonable.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-06-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-06-03,5,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Mr. Sidelnikov referenced that the tenants had been paying an increase of 5% for some
time before it was reversed and also thought an increase of around 8% was a middle
ground between the 5% offered by the tenant and the 10% requested by landlord. He
said he thought the amount of time it took for the landlord to fix the maintenance
issues was a concern.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he was also concerned by the time it took for the
landlord to address the repairs, and noted the tenants had not been able to use the
pool since the first summer after the tenancy began, which seemed like a decrease in
housing services. He questioned basing a decision on percentages, and offered that his
own rent was 70% of his income and he thought it made more sense to consider the
increase in dollars.
Motion and second for an increase of $102.00 (6.9%), to a total rent of $1,572.00,
effective July 1, 2019 (Members Chiu and Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
7-C. Case RI1270.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D317
Tenant: Alamin Abdelkadir
Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi
Proposed rent increase: $190.00 (15.5%), to a total rent of $1,415.00,
effective July 1, 2019
Mr. King clarified that the original increase request was 9.9% and became 15.5% after
the valid base rent was lowered and a previous invalid increase was rescinded and
overcharges were reimbursed to the tenant.
Mr. Abdelkadir said the management offered a gift card or improvements in exchange
for agreeing to the rent increase without RRAC review and he did not agree. He said
that his unit has not been upgraded at all since he moved in.
Mr. King added that another resident in the unit had previously agreed to the rent
increase but program staff determined the agreement was invalid and the matter could
proceed for RRAC review.
Mr. Abdelkadir said he would pay an increase if repairs were done: having the windows
replaced because they leaked, the carpet replaced because it was old, the refrigerator
replaced because it made noise, and the stove replaced because it did not work.
Mr. King said he would replace the carpet, stove, and refrigerator in exchange for a
$190 rent increase. Mr. Abdelkadir accepted. Mr. King said they could do the upgrades
before the increase went into effect on July 1, 2019.
7-D. Case RI1278 - 1365 Ballena Blvd., Apt. A",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-06-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-06-03,6,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Tenants: Tamu Harper and Tim Taylor
Landlords: Antonio Di Marco and Patty Sul
Proposed rent increase: $92.00 (4.8%), to a total rent of $2,015.00,
effective June 22, 2019
Ms. Harper said that years ago her family was displaced by a fire at a different property
managed by the same company and were moved to this unit. She said that the
manager has had to remediate mold in their unit several times, yet mold was still an
ongoing issue. She said the County Health Department had determined that several
repairs were needed to bring the unit into compliance with code and they were
concerned about habitability issues, as the mold may be returning. She said because of
a change in management she thinks there may have been gaps in communication that
had caused an unsatisfactory customer service experience.
Ms. Harper mentioned health concerns due to the mold and staff reminded the
attendees that the meeting was public and what was said would become a matter of
public record. Ms. Harper said she was fine with her statements being public.
Ms. Sul said that her company began managing the building in 2017. She said they
monitored the unit for moisture intrusion and other reported problems and tried
different things to try to keep air circulating, repaired a leak, and the unit passed
inspection after repairs were made. She said they implemented increases of under 3%
the last two years and would continue doing repairs moving forward as needed. She
added that they provided the tenants with $2,500.00 as compensation for the
inconveniences they experienced, and in exchange for the tenants signing a release
form, which they did.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he wanted to make sure that parties were focusing on
current issues and not past matters that had been resolved. Ms. Harper said she
thought the current mold problem was not addressed in a timely enough manner, as it
took management 60 days to respond.
Ms. Suk replied that management had enlisted third party hygienists to analyze the
unit, and they were scheduled to visit the unit tomorrow. She explained they take
samples and test them in a lab, and the last samples they tested showed that the mold
spores levels inside the unit were less than samples taken from outside air. Ms. Harper
said she did not trust the result of the test because they had remediated the unit before
and the mold had come back.
Staff noted less than 20 minutes remained before the Committee could not initiate
review of additional agenda items and asked if the Committee would like to dismiss the
parties who were waiting to be called for the last item on the agenda. Vice Chair
Sullivan-Cheah said he thought he could get through the current case within 20
minutes.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-06-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-06-03,7,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Mr. Taylor said he was the only member of the household working and thought there
should be no increase in rent. Ms. Suk replied that she thought the work done on the
building recently justified the requested increase amount. Ms. Harper said the laundry
machines were prone to breaking, and the gym was not up to par. Mr. Taylor said he
pays about 60% of his income toward rent.
Ms. Suk said she would accept an increase of $50.00 and Mr. Taylor and Ms. Harper
agreed to the $50.00 increase with a one-year lease, effective June 23, 2019.
7-E. Case RI1285 - 901 Central Ave., Apt. B
Tenant: Salem Boussadia
Landlord: Jose Cerda-Zein
Proposed rent increase: $89.00 (5.0%), to a total rent of $1,874.00,
effective June 1, 2019
Mr. Boussadia said he lost his job three months ago and his wife is the only household
member working right now. He said he was having trouble scheduling some job
opportunities that had come his way. He said he and his wife have two minor children,
and his wife is a medical assistant. Concerning the unit, he said that the windows were
old, the floors creaked, and they could not afford 5% increases each year.
Mr. Cerda-Zein said this property was a recent acquisition for his management
company, but he did not believe there were any outstanding maintenance issues, as
several had been remedied in the past year. He said they had requested a 5% increase
in December 2018 but withdrew it to fix additional things and to give the tenants
additional time to prepare for the increase. He shared that the average rent for a two-
bedroom unit in Alameda was $2,600.00 per month.
Mr. Boussadia said the unit did not insulate noise and they recently discovered a water
leak. Mr. Cerda-Zein responded that he had not been made aware of the water leak,
but if a tenant makes a complaint, their policy is to respond within three business days.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Boussadia if he had any job leads and he replied he
did not currently. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked how much of their household income
went toward rent and he replied that about 85% of their income went toward rent,
adding that he needed to find a job as soon as possible.
Mr. Cerda-Zein said he thought the requested amount was fair and the owner wanted
to implement it before the City Council passed further legislation restricting rent
increases. He said the owner depends on income from the property and was losing
money on another vacant commercial unit he owns.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-06-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-06-03,8,"Approved Minutes
June 3, 2019
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he did not think it was unreasonable for the landlord to
be asking for this increase. He also noted the tenant was severely rent-burdened,
paying 85% of their income toward rent.
Member Sidelnikov said he thought the tenant's situation was severe and at the same
time noted that the rent was below market rate. He commented that rescinding the
prior increase to give the tenant extra time was a commendable thing to do and the
tenant may have to adjust his schedule to accommodate employment opportunities.
Motion and second for a $0.00 increase for June 2019 followed by a $44.00 (2.5%)
increase, to a total rent of $1,829.00, effective July 1, 2019 (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah
and Member Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.
7-F. Discussion on RRAC member attendance requirements
The Committee agreed to table discussion of this item, as new items may not be
initiated after 9:00 p.m.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on July 1, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-06-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-07-01,1,"Approved Minutes
July 1, 2019
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, July 1, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present:
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Sidelnikov and Chiu
Absent:
Chair Murray, Member Johnson
Program Staff:
Grant Eshoo and Bill Chapin
City Attorney Staff: Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that Agenda Items 7-C and 7-F had resolved prior to
the meeting.
Staff called roll of case participants. The tenants for Agenda Item 7-D were not
present and the item was moved to the end of the agenda.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 1
Angie Watson-Hajjem from Echo Housing provided information about the
organization's Tenant/Landlord Services and Fair Housing Program.
Eric Strimling from Alameda Renter's Coalition (ARC) expressed concern about
recent cases with binding decisions in excess of 5 percent. He objected to the idea
that it is reasonable for tenants to have to negotiate down from a 10 percent
increase.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes May 15, 2019 special meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member and
Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
5-B. Approval of the minutes June 3, 2019 regular meeting",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-07-01,2,"Approved Minutes
July 1, 2019
Motion and second to approve minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member and
Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A: Discussion on RRAC member attendance requirements.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah expressed concerned about attendance. Currently, there are
only three people attending the meetings regularly, which is the minimum for a quorum. It's
also the minimum votes needed to pass any kind of motion and it has to be unanimous.
Furthermore, there are no owner representatives, and that experience and perspective is
missed.
Member Chiu asked if the City Council has been made aware that they might need to
appoint a new person. Staff informed the committee they will be conducting interviews with
someone to replace Member Johnson in the next few weeks. By August, Chair Murray
should be back from out of state work-related activities.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if Member Johnson resigned. Staff replied that she did
not apply to have her position be renewed.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he doesn't know what the committee will look like going
forward, but he thinks that residents have the right to a fully functioning committee.
7-B. Discussion and vote for Chair and Vice Chair
Based on his stated concerns about attendance, Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah recommended
the committee vote on a new chair and vice chair. He confirmed that he has been serving
as vice chair and Chair Murray as chair, and he previously served as chair. He said they
could nominate Chair Murray to be chair again, and she continues to be chair unless voted
otherwise. The bylaws call for a yearly vote.
Member Chiu noted the bylaws state that the election should happen at the first meeting
after July 1 at which all committee members are present. It could mean that they would
never have that vote because they've never had all of their committee members present.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah submitted that Robert's Rules of Order allows meetings to take
place under a quorum.
City Attorney staff said the intent of the rule is that, if for some reason not all members are
present but would be present fairly quickly, then the vote should be delayed until all are",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-07-01,3,"Approved Minutes
July 1, 2019
available. If the committee intent is to move forward in nominating a chair and vice chair
and vote tonight, it is within the purview.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said if Chair Murray returns and would like to have another
vote, that's something they can consider. He further noted that the last vote for chair was
at a different time of the year only because it was the first meeting with new committee
members.
Member Chiu motion to nominate Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah as the chair of the
committee. City Attorney staff clarified that, if Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah was elected, then
he can proceed as chair for the remainder of the meeting.
Motion and second for nominating Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah as Chair. (Members
Sidelnikov and Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.
Member Chiu motion to nominate Chair Murray as vice chair. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah
hearing no second; motion failed.
Motion and second for nominating Member Chiu as Vice Chair. (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah
and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
7-E. Case 1282 - 1861 Poggi St., Unit B318
Landlord: Andy King
Tenant: Saba Woldentensai
Proposed rent increase: $131.00 or (9.9%), to a total rent of $1,450, effective
July 1, 2019.
Mr. King said the current ownership purchased the property in October 2017, and the
property had extensive deferred maintenance. To date, the ownership has spent more
than $4.6 million on renovations including seismic upgrades, roofing, painting, and
improvements to the grounds. The rent increase is intended to recoup some of this
investment.
Mr. King said the previous owner did not keep records of the 2015 rent increase, which
was $100.00, or 8.3 percent. The previous owner failed to provide paperwork and notices,
which resulted in new ownership rescinding the increase and refunding $4,000.00 last
year. As a result, Mr. King noted the current rent is $19.00 more than what the tenant paid
following the invalid 2015 increase, and the tenant's payments decreased last year. Mr.
King noted that one-bedroom comparable units at the property are currently renting at
$2,404.00, $2454.00 and $2,354.00.
Ms. Woldentensai said the ownership did a good job with the common areas and
improvements. She is currently experiencing financial hardship and medical expenses.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-07-01,4,"Approved Minutes
July 1, 2019
She is a single parent and spends 30 percent of income on rent. She is asking for a 5
percent increase instead. She mentioned that her carpet is very dirty and the landlord
offered to replace the carpet if she took the 10 percent increase. However, she would
rather have a 5 percent increase without having her carpet replaced.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah reminded participants that this was a public meeting, and
participants are not required to justify or disclose anything personal.
Member Chiu asked Ms. Woldentensai how many people are currently occupying the unit.
Ms. Woldentensai responded she has two sons under the age of 18. Member Chiu asked
about her current job, and Ms. Woldentensai explained it is a salaried position.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Woldentensai whether the landlord has made any
improvements to the inside of her unit. Ms. Woldentensai responded that her refrigerator
and window frames were replaced. She said regular rent increases have prompted her to
consider moving out of state. Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about the money that was
refunded to her because of the invalid increase from the previous owner. Ms.
Woldentensai confirmed that it was decreased immediately after a 10 percent increase,
which made her reconsider staying longer.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about her sons and length of tenancy. Ms. Woldentensai
responded they attend school in Alameda. She has been residing in this apartment for six
years, and living in the west side of Alameda since 2009.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Woldentensai whether she was asking for a 5 percent
increase because it is something she could afford or because of language in Ordinance
no. 3148. He clarified that the City Council created different requirements for landlords
seeking increases above 5 percent, including mandatory review by the committee.
Ms. Woldentensai said she was previously unaware of the ordinance and simply accepted
any increase that was given by the landlord; however, she understands now and is able to
afford a 5 percent increase.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if there were additional repairs made when they replaced the
windows and balcony. Mr. King responded no.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about the units renting for around $2400.00, and if they are
remodeled units with new carpeting and paint. Mr. King replied that the units have new
carpeting, new paint, and some cases have additional renovations. For example, if
cabinetry was worn out it was replaced. Mr. King said they replaced all of the toilets in
renovated and non-renovated units about 6 months ago. Ms. Woldentensai stated that
nothing was replaced or upgraded in her bathroom.
As the parties were unable to reach an agreement, they took their seats, and the
Committee began deliberations.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-07-01,5,"Approved Minutes
July 1, 2019
Member Sidelnikov reflected on Ms. Woldentensai's tenancy of 6.5 years in the unit, her
financial hardship and being a single parent with two kids. He understands the issue with
prior increases. Members Sidelnikov and Chiu expressed concern about two 10 percent
increases in a row. Member Chiu said a $66.00 increase (5 percent), is something she
could afford to do and he approves of it.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah said the building was not in the best condition under the previous
owner. He said that there's a history for allowing rent increases to go forward in this
complex. He said he believes a 5 percent increase is fair, however, it's still a large
increase.
Motion and second for an increase of $66 (5 percent), to a total rent of $1385.00, effective
July 1, 2019 (Members Chiu and Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
7-G. Case 1303 - 781 Central Ave., Unit A
Tenant: Jeffrey Giordano
Landlords: Andrea Soltero (Property Manager)
Proposed rent increase: $75.00 (4.9%), to a total rent of $1610.00, effective July
1,2019.
Mr. Giordano has been living in Alameda for the past seven years. He is a teacher's aide
in special education at a public high school. He's been very involved within the community
and runs a film series at the main library. When he moved in, he was living and sharing
rent with his partner at the time, but that is no longer the case. He said annual rent
increases have been a shock, and that he does not get a 4.9 percent increase in his salary
every year. He had to forbear his student loans when he got the most recent rent increase
letter.
Ms. Soltero acknowledged that Mr. Giordano first moved in as one of two co-tenants. The
owner approved the tenancy based on his partner's income. When she moved out, he
experienced hardship to continue as a single tenant. Ms. Soltero said that comparable
one-bedroom rent is anywhere from $1,950.00 to $2,025.00 They have increased the
rent with a small, steady increases each year. She didn't have any arguments with what
he submitted. It's an old building requiring a lot of maintenance.
Mr. Giordano said when there is a maintenance issue, the landlord is helpful with taking
care of it.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Soltero how the 4.9 percent rent increase was
determined, while acknowledging that those decisions are made by the owners and not by
her. She said she believes it is based on what Chair Sullivan-Cheah discussed earlier
regarding requirements for increases greater than 5 percent, although the amount is not
always near 5 percent, and that the amount is given across the board to all tenants. Chair",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-07-01,6,"Approved Minutes
July 1, 2019
Sullivan-Cheah noted the last three increases on this unit were all just under 5 percent and
the committee could therefore not issue a binding decision on them.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member Chiu asked about upgrades, improvements, and
housing services. Ms. Soltero explained that the unit has had only standard repairs in the
last year. The eight-unit building's roof was replaced about six years ago. In addition, in
the 12 years she has worked there, work has included a seismic retrofitting, landscaping,
repaving the parking lot, and replacing windows. As things needed repair, they would fix it.
Gas, water, and garbage are included in the rent, and tenants pay for electricity. Mr.
Giordano said he has received the same standard level of maintenance with no recent
upgrades.
Member Sidelnikov asked if the nearly 5 percent rent increases reflect the improvements
made to the property or if they are policy and related to the Ordinance no. 3148. Ms.
Soltero said she was not qualified to answer.
Chair Sullivan-Chea asked if it's fair to say rent increases have outpaced the increase in
his salary. Mr. Giordano responded yes. He said he limits expenses by cooking at home
and not traveling. Having enough for rent, gas, insurance, and medical expenses has been
a financial challenge, he said, and he is not able to afford any rent increase.
Chair Sullivan-Chea asked Mr. Giordano if he still feels the same about no rent increase
because it's what he can afford. Mr. Giordano replied yes.
Chair Sullivan-Chea asked Ms. Soltero if the ownership group is staying firm with 4.9%
increase, or is there flexibility based on circumstances.
Ms. Soltero said the ownership may be willing to be flexible on the increase. Chair
Sullivan-Chea asked both parties whether a $55 increase may be possible. Mr. Giordano
said he did not think that would be fair because of the history of increases.
The parties were unable to reach agreement and returned to their seats.
Bill Rowen provided public comment on the agenda item. He said he has known Mr.
Giordano ever since Mr. Giordano moved to Alameda. He said Mr. Giordano is
considering leaving Alameda if he cannot resolve his rent issues, which Mr. Giordano
confirmed. Mr. Rowen said he has had many of his friends leave Alameda because they
could not afford rent increases.
The Committee began deliberations.
Member Sidelnikov said he was concerned that this was the third year of increases just
under 5 percent, and that it seems like an approach to avoid a binding decision by the
committee. He said there are people on limited incomes would be displaced by a policy to
increase rent 5 percent every year, and people in the workforce often don't see that type of
increase in salary.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-07-01,7,"Approved Minutes
July 1, 2019
Member Chiu noted that, since 2015, Mr. Giordano's rent has gone up almost 24 percent
without compounding. This increase will make it nearly 30 percent non-compounding over
about five years. Many renters would not be able to stay in their units with increases going
up that much in that amount of time, he said. Member Chiu and Chair Sullivan-Chea noted
that the history of rent increases seems to reflect changes in Alameda's policy. Mr.
Giordano received a 7.1 percent increase right before the ordinance was passed, an
increase of 5 percent in 2016 shortly after it passed, and annual increases not subject to
binding decisions since then.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah said these increases may not look very large to some, but $75.00
extra a month can be tough on someone who is already rent burdened. He stated he's not
sure he would vote for no increase, but it's not outrageous for a tenant to ask for that.
Member Sidelnikov thanked the landlord's representative for being willing to be able to
negotiate. He said he would support an advisory decision of a 0 percent increase given the
history of annual rent increases under 5 percent.
Motion and second for a $0.00 increase (Chair Sullivan-Chea and Member Sidelnikov).
Member Chiu opposed. Motion failed 2-1.
Motion and second for an increase of $30.00, effective July 1, 2019 (Chair Sullivan-Cheah
and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.
7-D. Case 1281 - 1861 Poggi St., Unit B306
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2
None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
None.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-07-01,8,"Approved Minutes
July 1, 2019
RRAC Secretary
Bill Chapin
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 5, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-05,1,"Approved Minutes
August 5, 2019
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, August 5, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m.
Present:
Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu and Sidelnikov
Absent:
Member Murray
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo and Bill Chapin
City Attorney staff:
Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that Agenda Items 7-A, 7-B, and 7-D had resolved
prior to the meeting.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the July 1, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Chiu).
Motion passed 3-0.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-C. Case 1320 - 1821 Encinal Ave., Unit C
Tenant: Sabrina Wiley
Landlord: Jose Cerda-Zein (Property Manager)",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-05,2,"Approved Minutes
August 5, 2019
Proposed rent increase: $47.74 (3.0%), to a total rent of $1,639.09,
effective August 1, 2019
Ms. Wiley said the unit was listed for $1,500 when she moved in 3 years ago. She has
received annual increases since then. Throughout she has been paying a bit more than
the monthly rent and building up credit with the landlord. She lives by herself and earns
about $1,500 every other week after taxes. She said the apartment is like a studio and
she feels the latest increase makes the rent more than the space is worth. She is
concerned about future increases and said that if rent approaches $1,700 it will become
an issue for her.
Mr. Cerda-Zein said the unit is a rear cottage and considers it a ""studio plus."" All the
rent increases have been 3.0 percent, and he said he anticipates that there will be a 2.8
percent in one year in compliance with the new Annual General Adjustment (AGA).
Member Sidelnikov asked how much Ms. Wiley has been paying in excess of her rent.
She responded $1,595.00, which is $3.65 more than what was owed.
Vice Chair Chiu asked for clarification on the AGA. City Attorney Office staff explained
the new ordinance.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah clarified that, under current legislation, the City Council created
different requirements for landlords seeking increases above 5 percent, including
mandatory review by the committee.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Wiley to clarify her income and whether there have
been any modifications or improvements to the unit. Ms. Wiley and Mr. Cerda-Zein
verified that there has been only standard maintenance.
Mr. Cerda-Zein said that he was not authorized to accept an increase of less than 3
percent.
As the parties were unable to reach an agreement, they took their seats, and the
Committee began deliberations.
Member Sidelnikov and Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that, while the rent represents a
more than half of Ms. Wiley's after-tax income, the requested increase seems
reasonable, especially given impending AGA cap. Chair Sullivan-Cheah said tenants are
not obligated to accept a rent increase just because it is less than the change in the
Consumer Price Index, but he did not think it would not be useful for the committee to
advise an increase less than 3 percent.
Motion and second for an increase of $47.74 (3 percent), to a total rent of $1,639.09,
effective August 1, 2019 (Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed
3-0.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-05,3,"Approved Minutes
August 5, 2019
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked staff to clarify what is happening to the Committee once
Ordinance no. 3246 goes into effect, and the status of Committee members' re-
appointments. City Attorney Staff explained that the Committee will continue to make
non-binding decisions on rent increases for single-family homes, condominiums, and
multi-family properties built after 1995 unless the City Council enacts legislation that
takes away that authority, and unless Committee members resign, they will continue to
serve even if their term expires. Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted it has been difficult to keep
his schedule free in case City Council decides to review his application for a new term.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Bill Chapin
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 14, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-07,1,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2019
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, August 7, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present:
Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Vice Chair Chiu, Members Murray and
Sidelnikov
Absent:
None
Program Staff:
Gregory Kats, Grant Eshoo and Angel Nguyen
City Attorney Staff: Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that Agenda Item 7-B had resolved prior to the
meeting.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
Staff announced that the time for this meeting and next week's RRAC meeting starts
at 6:30 p.m. The website shows 6:00 p.m. but will be changed to the correct time
tomorrow.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah made an announcement that this was a public meeting and
anything said or shared during the proceedings would become a public record.
7-A. RI1307 - 1825 Poggi Street, Unit A206
Landlord: Andy King
Tenant: Tsegai Tensae",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-07,2,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2019
Proposed rent increase: $148 (9.8%), to a total rent of $1,658, effective
September 1, 2019.
Mr. King said the current owner purchased the property a few years ago and invested
about $4 million on renovations. They are attempting to earn a return on the
investment made in addition to the base property investment. He said the rent for this
unit is about $1,000-$1,200 below the rate that current two-bedrooms are renting. At
last year's Committee meeting, there was a $40 (2%) increase on this unit, which is
why they are asking for 9.8% increase in an effort to earn a return.
Mr. Tensae said in the last year 5 years, his rent has increased over 23%. New
ownership had made some repairs, like replacing windows inside his unit, but water
continues to leak through his bedroom windows when it rains. He notified maintenance,
and they said they were going to fix it from the outside, but nothing had been fixed. He
said he's currently working for a freight company and doesn't have a full schedule,
which was creating a financial hardship. He asked for a decrease in rent or keeping the
same rent if possible.
Member Murray asked Mr. Tensae if his hours were cut back and he replied yes. She
asked about his current work schedule. Mr. Tensae said that his schedule fluctuates
every week. Sometimes he works 2 days, 3 days, or 5 days out of the week. He said his
employer would call an hour in the morning before the shift started.
Member Murray asked Mr. Tensae if there was a guaranteed schedule provided at work.
He responded no. He said he asked his employer for a set schedule, so that he can look
for another job, but his employer was unable to help.
Member Murray asked Mr. Tensae if anyone else is living in the unit. Mr. Tensae said
his son is living with him. He is currently working part-time as an accountant.
Member Murray asked Mr. Tensae if his son is in school. Mr. Tensae said his son just
completed his bachelor's degree and is planning on going back for his master's to help
him get a full-time job.
Member Murray asked Mr. Tensae if his son is contributing anything towards rent. He
said his son has been making some contributions.
Member Chiu asked Mr. Tensae if his income had changed in the last year. Mr. Tensae
responded that his income had decreased by about 25-30%.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about the water issues in the unit and if it had been
completely addressed. Mr. Tensae said after complaining to maintenance, they said",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-07,3,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2019
they were going to repair and seal the windows from the outside. However, last winter,
rain water continued to leak through.
Mr. King said they replaced the windows and Mr. Tensae agreed that they were
replaced, but rain water continued to leak through when it rained. Last year, Mr.
Tensae made a complaint to the people in the office and was told that maintenance
was going to fix it and seal it from the outside.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah said the Committee did not have any jurisdiction over repairs, but
it was a good forum to address ongoing maintenance issues.
Mr. King said he was surprised with the ongoing leaks because the windows were
replaced and it had been dry over the last couple of months. He said if there was water
in the unit, he would talk to maintenance to get it resolved.
Mr. Tensae said he's not sure what needs to be done in order to get things resolved
when making a complaint with the office.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if Mr. Tensae was given a work order number when he put
in the request at the office. Mr. Tensae responded no.
Mr. King said they would have an internal record of work order and will check on that
record.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah recommended that Mr. Tensae follow up with the office about the
work order.
To have a better understanding of Mr. Tensae's financial situation, Chair Sullivan-Cheah
asked Mr. Tensae about his current work schedule and his son's status in school.
Mr. Tensae said that he asked his company for additional hours to make up for the loss
of income, but his company was unable to help. He said that his son is living with him
and just completed his bachelor's degree in accounting. His son is planning on
furthering his education to be more marketable.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Tensae that apart from the windows replaced, were
there any other repairs made. Mr. Tensae said the carpet and kitchen has been in the
same condition for 15 years. He was given the option to have the carpets replaced with
a 10% increase, but declined the offer.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Tensae what would be a reasonable amount for a rent
increase, and he asked for a decrease of $200 instead.
Member Murray asked Mr. King about the formula that was used to determine the cost
of replacing the windows. He calculated $3500 for the windows.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-07,4,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2019
Member Murray asked Mr. King if they have made any specific improvements to the
unit. He said not that he's aware of.
Member Murray asked Mr. Tensae how much his son is contributing to rent and is he
paying for school. Mr. Tensae replied his son is contributing $300 each month for rent
and is receiving financial aid for school.
Member Murray asked Mr. Tensae if his son is going to continue living there while
working on his masters. He responded yes.
Member Murray asked Mr. Tensae if his son gets accepted into grad school, will he have
the ability to contribute $300 towards rent. Mr. Tensae responded 60% of his income
and $300 from his son goes to rent.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King if he's able to decrease rent by $200, is firm with
the original request or open to anything in between. Mr. King offered an increase of $80
in light of the circumstances.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Tensae if $80 is acceptable. Mr. Tensae said he would
like the rent to stay the same.
As no agreement was reached, the parties took their seats and the Committee began
deliberations.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he was more comfortable with an increase of $80 at this unit
given its rent increase history and tenant's situation.
Member Sidelnikov noted that there's been over a 20% increase since 2015. A 2%
increase was approved last year based on financial hardship and he believes that $80 is
reasonable.
Vice Chair Chiu acknowledged the tenant's employment issues. He agreed that an $80
increase would be reasonable.
Member Murray noted the $4 million initial investment and $3500 to replace all the
windows. She said to recoup those costs would be around $179 per month with no
interest, therefore $80 is a small amount. She said she understands the tenant's
financial challenges. However, the owners need to be compensated for their
investment.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Member Murray about the cost increase for property taxes.
Member Murray replied 4% each year and insurance and water have increased as well.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah made a motion for $65 rent increase. No second.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-07,5,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2019
Motion and second for an increase of $80, effective September 1, 2019 (Chair Sullivan-
Cheah and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 4-0.
7-C. RI1309 - 1825 Poggi Street, Unit A311
Landlord: Andy King
Tenant: Yoseif Philipos
Proposed rent increase: $127 (9.8%), to a total rent of $1,417, effective
September 1, 2019.
Mr. Philipos said that in the past two years his rent has increased exponentially. He
works as an engineer with the same salary. His wife hasn't been working since last
year. He said that he's been taking care of his 2 children and his ill mother and is
experiencing financial hardship.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King if what he heard was different. Mr. King replied
that he recalls the case from last year and offered a $40 rent increase.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Philipos if $40 is acceptable. Mr. Philipos said $25 would
make a difference.
Member Murray asked Mr. Philipos of any changes in work or income since last year. He
said there's been an increase with transportation by bus of $40 a month.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Philipos if there were any major upgrades to the unit.
Mr. Philipos responded no.
As no agreement was reached, the parties took their seats and the Committee began
deliberations.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah said the property has a history of regular increases and there was
a larger rent increase last year of 10%, which helped with repairs. Any increase
between $25 and $40 would be reasonable.
Member Chiu noted a member of the household of working age is currently not working
and haven't been contributing to rent.
Member Murray said that $25 would be another 25% increase from 2016. There was
another increase the previous year of 8.4%. She said both amounts would be
reasonable in the framework of the costs. However, she felt that a $25 increase would
be more appropriate. Since Bay Area living requires multiple people living in the unit to
work and contribute, she agreed to the $40 increase.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-07,6,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2019
Motion and second for an increase of $40, effective September 1, 2019 (Vice Chair Chiu
and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-1.
7-D. RI1310 - 1825 Poggi Street, Unit A312
Landlord: Andy King
Tenant: Mirza Mehic
Proposed rent increase: $136 (9.8%), to a total rent of $1,522, effective
September 1, 2019
Mr. Mehic said he was there to represent his father, since his father is in another
country taking care of his sick brother. Mr. Mehic is currently living in the unit with his
mother and father and is working part-time. He asked to share some pictures and
videos of damaged items in the unit and of the water leakage when it rains.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah said Mr. Mehic's father submitted a request to have his rent
increased to $1,420.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah reminded the public that any information shared will be public
recorded. Mr. Mehic continued sharing pictures and videos of the unit to the committee.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah advised Mr. Mehic to send the files to staff.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah said the condition of the unit doesn't warrant a high rent increase
and asked Mr. Mehic if the property manager is aware of the issues. Mr. Mehic said his
father contacted maintenance for assistance.
Mr. King said he's not aware of the maintenance issue and they replaced the roof last
fall. He asked Mr. Mehic if the water leakage is from the most recent rainy season.
Mr. Mehic said it was leaking when it rained last fall and the sink is damaged as well.
Mr. King said he will have maintenance check and repair the items.
Based on the current condition of the unit, Mr. King agreed to Mr. Mehic's proposed
rent increase of $34, to a total rent of $1,420, effective September 1, 2019.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Program staff confirmed with the committee about their attendance for the
upcoming meeting. Member Murray said she's not sure if she will be available.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-07,7,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2019
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:38pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Angel Nguyen
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 9, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-07.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-14,1,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2019
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present:
Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Vice Chair Chiu and Member Sidelnikov
Absent:
Member Murray
Program Staff:
Gregory Kats, Grant Eshoo, and Angel Nguyen
City Attorney Staff: Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that Agenda Items 7-A, 7-B, 7-C, and 7-D had
resolved.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the August 5, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Chiu).
Motion passed 3-0.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. RI1307 - 1333 Webster St., Unit A102
The property owner was not present, but the property manager was. The
tenants were present. Mr. Roush reminded the Committee that under the
Ordinance a property owner is required to appear at the Committee's review of a
rent increase of more than 5%, which is the case here, unless the property
owner has good cause for not appearing and informs the Program Administrator",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-14.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-08-14,2,"Approved Minutes
August 7, 2019
prior to the meeting of the reasons for being unable to attend. Because it was
not clear that had occurred, the Committee did not review the rent increase.
Staff informed the Committee that it would review the matter following the
meeting to determine next steps.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Program staff confirmed with the Committee about the need for a meeting in
September.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 9, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-08-14.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-09-09,1,"Approved Minutes
September 9, 2019
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, September 9, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present:
Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Vice Chair Chiu and Member Sidelnikov
Absent:
Member Murray
Program Staff:
Gregory Kats, Grant Eshoo, and Angel Nguyen
City Attorney Staff: Absent
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that Agenda Item 7-B had resolved.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Program Staff informed the Committee that this was the last meeting and extended
gratitude to the Committee for being so accommodating with all of the recent
changes the last few months.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
Toni Grimm from Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) expressed heartfelt thanks to the
RRAC for serving the community as volunteers throughout the years. She also
acknowledged the Rent Program Staff for their dedication in being equitable and
professional in serving tenants and landlords. She shared that during the ""No
Cause"" eviction policy, many tenants were intimidated to attend a RRAC meeting,
because they were concerned about retaliation and being evicted.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. and 5-B. Approval of the minutes of the August 7, 2019 and
August 14, 2019 special meetings.
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Chiu).
Motion passed 3-0.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. RI1307 - 1333 Webster St., Unit A102",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-09-09.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-09-09,2,"Approved Minutes
September 9, 2019
The property owner and property manager were present, but the tenants were
not present.
Program Staff informed the Committee that the tenants did not give a clear
answer about the resolution of the matter, but indicated that they would not
attend the meeting.
Chair Sullivan-Cheah announced that the landlord's request will move forward
since the tenants were not present.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
Eric Strimling from ARC expressed gratitude to the Committee. He said he'd seen
how the RRAC had evolved and progressed in ways that he appreciated over time.
In addition, he commented, the RRAC over the last six months had been very fair.
He also recognized the Program Staff for their efforts and agreed with Ms. Grimm's
comments.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
As a resident of Alameda, Chair Sullivan-Cheah expressed his appreciation for the
Program Staff's dedication and hard work.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Angel Nguyen
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on October 21, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-09-09.pdf