{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, December 5, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.\nAbsent: Member Vice-Chair Landess\nVacancy: None\nRRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na.\nStaff recommended that items 7-B (Case 583), 7-C (Case 584), 7-D (Case 590), 7-E (Case\n591), 7-F (Case 593), and 7-G (Case 595) be addressed first because tenants for the listed\ncases were not present. Approved by unanimous consent. Motion and second (Schrader\nand Griffiths).\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff announced that there will be an event open to the public at the Alameda City Council\nMeeting on December 6, 2016 from 5pm to 8pm. Alameda residents will have the\nopportunity to speak with staff about specific issues relating to terminations and rent\nincreases.\nb. The next Committee meeting will be Wednesday, January 11, 2017. More information is\navailable at www.alamedarentprogram.org.\nc.\nThis meeting has a new room arrangement with a private area for parties interested in\ndiscussing an agreement.\nd. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and\nprocedures for public comment.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. No public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes of the November 9, 2016 Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second (Friedman and Schrader). Approved by Members Friedman, Griffiths, and\nSchrader. Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana abstained.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\n7-B. Case 583 - 330 Westline Dr., Unit B425\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $50.00 (2.0%) effective 12/16/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $359.00 (14.2%) effective 12/16/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\n7-C. Case 584 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C111\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $50.00 (2.6%) effective 12/16/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $353.00 (17.4%) effective 12/16/16; Under review\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\n7-D. Case 590 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A204\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $140.00 (5.0%) effective 12/26/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $924.00 (32.8%) effective 12/26/16; Under review\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit.\n7-E. Case 591 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D207\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $142.00 (4.9%) effective 12/29/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $925.00 (32.0%) effective 12/29/16; Under review\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\n7-F. Case 593 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F102\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $125.00 (5.0%) effective 12/16/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $831.00 (33.0%) effective 12/16/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\n7-G. Case 595 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F310\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $123.00 (5.0%) effective 12/28/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $819.00 (33.1%) effective 12/28/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\n7-A. Case 576 - 1226 Broadway, Unit A\nTenant/public speakers: Blanca Alberts, Ann Petitjean, Michael Bracamontes\nLandlord/public speakers: Joseph Cervelli Sr., Joe Cervelli Jr.\nProposed rent increase: $2000.00 (200.0%), effective date January 1, 2017\nThis rent increase request was originally scheduled for the November 9, 2016 Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee meeting. The review was postponed one month to the December Rent\nReview Advisory Committee meeting.\nMr. Bracamontes stated the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase the tenant, Ms.\nAlberts, would be able to pay is $50.00 (5.0%). He explained that Ms. Alberts is 74 years\nold and has lived in the unit for 36 years. He explained Ms. Alberts is on a fixed-income\nand that the proposed rent increase would have a significant financial impact. He noted\nthere have been long standing habitability issues in the unit that have affected Ms. Alberts'\nhealth. He explained there was an understanding that in exchange for Ms. Alberts not\nasking for repairs, Mr. Cervelli would not increase rent. He noted that Ms. Alberts has paid\nfor many repairs herself. Mr. Bracamontes stated that the current rent increase is in\nretaliation for the tenant's requests to make repairs to the property and her successful\ndefense against a previous termination of tenancy.\nMr. Cervelli Jr. stated that the landlord, Mr. Cervelli Sr., had offered to meet privately\nbefore the Committee meeting. However, the tenant was only willing to meet at the\nattorney's office in San Francisco, which as a burden for his elderly father. He stated there\nwas never an understanding that Mr. Cervelli Sr. would not increase rent if Ms. Alberts did\nnot ask for repairs. He stated that his father was unaware of habitability concerns in the\napartment and would have repaired them if he had known. He also explained that within\nthe last five years, when habitability issues were brought to his attention, repairs and\nimprovements were made such as a new refrigerator, new carpeting, and a remodeled\nbathroom. Mr. Cervelli Jr. estimated the median rent for a comparable unit to be $3,600.00.\nHe stated that a there have been increases in overall costs, such property taxes, utilities,\nand building insurance. He stated that his father is asking for a fair and equitable return on\ninvestment. He emphasized that this increase is not retaliation. Rather, this increase is a\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\nconsequence of Mr. Cervelli Sr. avoiding conflict and not increasing rent for a long period\nof time, noting eighteen years have passed since the previous increase.\nParties also discussed maintenance issues and a 2015 notice of termination of tenancy that\nwas dismissed in April 2016.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated that $2,000.00 is a very large increase for the tenant, but\nthat the return on investment to the landlord is likely non-existent. Member Griffiths asked\nMr. Cervelli what return on investment he needs to keep the apartment habitable and\nprovide a fair return. Mr. Cervelli responded that an increase of $1,000.00 is close to what\nis needed.\nMember Schrader asked Ms. Alberts what she can afford to pay. Ms. Alberts responded\nthat she receives fixed social security income and works a part time job. She said she could\nafford an increase of 5%. Member Friedman emphasized wanting to maintain Alameda's\ncommunity. He also asked the tenant to consider if her income had increased over the 36\nyears she has resided in the unit.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana noted that there is one tenant in a three-bedroom unit. He asked\nMs. Alberts if she had considered subletting the available rooms. She responded that she\nhad not considered this option, except for family who previously lived in the unit. She\nnoted that she feels her health issues limit her ability to handle the stress of subletting the\nrooms.\nStaff clarified that the case was nearly at its time limit. Staff reminded parties of their option to\ndiscuss privately in another room and parties agreed to discuss privately. The Committee motioned\nto table the item, approved by unanimous consent. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana\nGriffiths).\nAfter private discussion, parties were unable to reach an agreement. Staff summarized the tenant\nand landlord's conversation to provide information for the Committee's binding recommendation:\nTenant increased the amount she would be able to afford, ultimately stating that\n$1,200 is the maximum monthly increase the tenant could pay. The tenant\nemphasized this is the most that she could afford based on her fixed income. She\nalso restated that subletting would not be an option based on her current health\nsituation.\nLandlord stated he was open to allowing rooms in the apartment to be sublet. The\nlandlord expressed that it would be possible to increase the rent from $1,000 to\n$1,500 as opposed to his original request of $3,000.\nMember Friedman noted that this case was an anomaly in that such a long period has passed\nwithout a rent increase. He also addressed that social security payments have consistently\nincreased around 2-3% for the last few decades and stated that $1,000 eighteen (18) years\nago is equal to about $1,500 today. Based on these figures, he expressed that a $1,500 rent\nseemed reasonable.\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\nMember Schrader noted that CPI since 1980 has increased 3.3% per year. He stated that\nraising the rent to $1,500 calculates to around a 2.2% annual rent increase or 2/3 of the CPI\nincrease. Based on these numbers, Schrader also stated that $1,500 rent appeared\nreasonable. He noted that it appeared that the landlord was willing to be flexible to resolve\nthis issue. He also stated that the people with the best understanding of what is reasonable\nrent are the tenant and the landlord.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana expressed concern for situations like this one where there is a long\nhistory of no rent increase and then a significant increase at once. He also noted concern\nthat $500 may be an unaffordable monthly increase for someone on a fixed income and the\nCommittee's role is to reduce harm to tenants and keep people in their homes.\nMember Griffiths brought up the subletting option, noting the difficulty that the tenant\nstated this was not a realistic option based on her health circumstances. He expressed the\nconsideration and flexibility the landlord had with offering this option. Member Griffiths\nsupported the rent increase to $1,500 with the option remaining open for the tenant to sublet\nrooms when her health improves.\nStaff noted the Committee members have the option of phasing a rent increase. Member\nSchrader suggested the Committee could use this option by raising the rent to what the\ntenant said was affordable and phasing a second rent increase later, allowing the tenant\ntime to adjust to the increase.\nMember Friedman stated that there is an option for either party to appeal the decision of\nthe Committee.\nThe Committee recommended a rent increase of $200.00 to a monthly rent of $1,200.00, effective\nJanuary 1, 2017 followed by a $300.00 increase to a monthly rent of $1,500.00, effective June 1,\n2017. The Committee also strongly encouraged the landlord to allow the tenant the option to sublet\navailable rooms in the apartment. Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Approved by\nMembers Friedman, Griffiths, and Schrader. Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana voted no.\n7-H. Case 581 - 1909 Cambridge Dr.\nProposed Rent Increase: $508.00 (22.0%), effective January 1, 2017\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit.\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\n7-I. Case 596 - 1334 Fernside Blvd.\nProposed Rent Increase: $880.00 (28.4%), effective February 1, 2017\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit\nand the landlord submitted paperwork that the rent increase had been rescinded.\n7-J. Case 598 - 1537 Schiller St., Unit C\nProposed Rent Increase: $120.00 (10.0%), effective January 1, 2017\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 5-10%.\n7-K. Case 599 - 2224 Encinal Ave.\nTenant/public speaker: Rachael Bigelow, Emily Casey, Rose Wantugu\nLandlord/public speaker: Elisabeth Middelberg\nProposed rent increase: $194.00 (9.2%), effective date delayed until RRAC review\nStaff noted that a rent increase in December 2015 was not in compliance with the City's Urgency\nOrdinance no. 3140 (later amended with Ordinance no. 3143), which imposed a temporary\nmoratorium on rent increases of 8% or more from November 5, 2016 to March 30, 2016. This\nlimited the December 2015 rent increase to $156.00. As such, the current base rent cannot exceed\n$2,106.00. Documentation was submitted to the Program Administrator that the additional\ncollected rent has been credited to the tenant.\nThe tenants, Rachael Bigelow, Emily Casey, Rose Wantugu, stated that the maximum\nreasonable rent increase would be $39.00 (1.9%). Tenants stated that they received a rent\nincrease of 10.0% (corrected to 8%) in December 2015 and the landlord's proposal to again\nraise rent near 10% poses a financial burden to them. Tenants also emphasized that\ncomparing their rent to market rate missed the fact that their unit was not comparable in\namenities to many other units. They stated that aside from window and refrigerator\nreplacement, there have not been improvements to the unit warranting a rent increase. They\nstated that the landlord's upkeep on the ground floor unit does not benefit their unit.\nTenants also noted that property taxes for Ms. Middelberg have decreased.\nElisabeth Middelberg, the landlord, stated she offered a rent increase of 7.5% earlier that\nday. She stated that she considers the current rent to be below the market rate, especially\nwith parking and garbage included in the rent. She explained that the tenants' unit benefits\nfrom improvements to the unit below, such plumbing maintenance, pest control and\nupgraded parking availability. She also explained that overall costs have increased,\nincluding property taxes, maintenance costs, and repairs needed on the ground floor unit.\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\nAdditionally, Ms. Middelberg stated that she is a renter and is experiencing rent increases\nthat have a financial burden on her.\nThe tenants noted that communicating to Ms. Middelberg about maintenance issues had\nbeen difficult. They stated that more transparency from Ms. Middelberg about operating\ncosts would help them better understand the reasoning behind rent increases.\nParties discussed various rent increase options between 2.0% and 7.5%. Tenants stated the\nhighest increase they could afford would be $105.00 (5.0%). Landlord stated the lowest\nincrease she could afford was $120.00 (5.7%). Committee members emphasized how close\nthe two parties were to an agreement.\nGriffiths proposed the option to phase the increase with a portion effective this month and another\nportion effective six months later. Parties discussed the amount and effective date of the option of\nphased rent increases. Parties reached an agreement of a rent increase equal to $105.00 to a\nmonthly rent of $2,211.00, effective December 1, 2016 followed by an increase of $15.00 to a\nmonthly rent of $2,226.00, effective May 1, 2017. Motion and second (Schrader, Griffiths),\nunanimously approved.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na.\nMember Friedman requested that the Committee hold a special meeting to discuss Rent\nStabilization Ordinance no. 3148. Staff confirmed that a special meeting would be\nscheduled.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:17 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nthing\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on January 11, 2017.\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}