body,date,page,text,path
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