body,date,page,text,path
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