{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-06", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 6, 2018\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday August 6, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra; Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah (formerly Sullivan-\nSari\u00f1ana); Members Friedman, Murray, and Griffiths\nAbsent:\nNone\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Gregory Kats\nCity Attorney staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Motion and second to move Agenda Item 7-C to be heard first, and move each\nitem of New Business down one place (Member Friedman and Vice Chair\nSullivan-Cheah). Passed 5-0.\nb. Motion and second to move Agenda Item 7-B to be heard second (Vice Chair\nSullivan-Cheah and Member Murray). Motion to move 7-B to be heard first, and\nmove each other item down one place (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member\nFriedman). Passed 5-0.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff announced that two hearing dates were scheduled in August, two in\nSeptember, and perhaps two in October.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant,\nand mediation services.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Motion to approve the minutes of the July 2, 2018 Regular Meeting (Chair Cambra\nand Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0, with one abstention (Member\nFriedman).\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. None.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-B. CASE 1055 - 2157 San Jose Ave., Unit B\nTenant: Michelle Rae Grey & LaVar Douglas Grey, present\nLandlord: Lisa Fowler, absent\nProposed rent increase: $95.00 (4.9%), effective July 1, 2018\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-06", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 6, 2018\nNo Committee review. The tenants were present at the hearing but the landlord was\nnot. The rent increase notice is therefore void, and the landlord may not increase the\ntenants' rent for at least 12 months from the effective date of this increase.\n7-C. CASE 1058 - 1540 Court St.\nTenant: Holly Harrison, present\nLandlord: David Armitage, owner, present, and attorney Clifford Fried, present\nProposed rent increase:\nMonth-to-month offer: $1,800.00 (75.0%)\nLease offer: $2,100.00 (87.5%)\nEffective September 1, 2018\nMr. Fried stated that the owner flew in from Florida to participate in the hearing because\nhis participation in the process is mandatory, even though the property is a single family\nresidence, which is exempt from rent control. Mr. Fried stated that the legality of the\nrequirement for a landlord to participate is questionable. He said that Mr. Armitage is\nlooking to obtain a fair rate of return on his investment. He said that the landlord is retired\nfrom the U.S. Navy, and was previously stationed in Alameda when he purchased his\nhome, and has kept the house as a rental since then. Mr. Fried went on to say that no\none tells grocery stores what to charge for a loaf of bread, or doctors to charge their\npatients or Walgreens to charge for their products. He said there is an item on the\nNovember ballot to repeal Costa Hawkins, which exempts certain units such as the one\nin question, but until then, the landlord had a right to charge market rates like other\nbusinesses do. He added that even with this proposed rent increase, the landlord believes\nthe rent is still below market rate.\nMs. Harrison stated that the landlords were friendly, but that as a result of the increase,\nher family would have to move. She said she brings home $2,152.26 biweekly, and the\nincrease would mean that all of her salary would be going toward rent. She said she did\nnot understand the rent review process. Chair Cambra told her she may share her\nperspective on the increase. She said she had doubts that the landlord's costs of\noperation, such as his mortgage, were going up at the rate he was increasing the rent.\nShe said she did research on other market rate rents for comparable units and found a\nsimilar unit for rent for only $3,100 which she would consider moving to.\nMember Murray explained that the Committee's intent is to create a forum to mediate\nbetween the parties, even where the decision is non-binding.\nMs. Harrison stated that her rent had been increased twice, but one of the increases was\nrescinded before this latest increase. She said that she would like to stay in Alameda four\nmore years because of her daughter, before moving back to Washington State, where\nthe cost of living was more affordable.\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-06", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 6, 2018\nChair Cambra asked if Mr. Fried had a response to Ms. Harrison's comments. Mr. Fried\nsaid that if the landlord doesn't get this increase, he would have to sell the property.\nMr. Armitage said that he had raised the rent $400 in October 2017 and tenants agreed,\nbut subsequently learned there was an Ordinance. He said that upon contacting Mr.\nFried's firm, he learned that the increase was improper and was advised to rescind and\nthe increase and refund the excessive amounts charged under it, which he did.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Armitage how he came to the increase amounts he\ndid. Mr. Armitage replied that he did research to see what the market rate was for\ncomparable units and decided he wanted to raise it to market value in anticipation that\nCosta Hawkins may be overturned. He said he was concerned that if that law was\noverturned, he may be stuck with below market rate rent forever. Mr. Armitage said that\nhe had just retired and did not have as much money coming in as he used to when he\nwas working.\nChair Cambra asked if the possible Costa Hawkins repeal was the main reason he was\nasking for the increase, and Mr. Fried said it was the impending reason, but the long-\nterm reason was to ensure the landlords could obtain adequate rental income in their\nretirement.\nMember Friedman said that even though they could not render a binding decision, the\nCommittee still had a responsibility to stabilize the rental market and see if they might\nhelp families like Ms. Harrison's stay in the community. He questioned the level of urgency\nto raise the rent that Mr. Fried provided, and wondered if there was room to come to an\nagreement where everyone's needs were met.\nMr. Fried said he would counsel his client to raise the rent now before any impending\nlegislation takes effect. Chair Cambra asked if the repeal of Costa Hawkins would change\nlocal rent control laws beyond making exempt units nonexempt.\nCity Attorney's Office staff said that it would not be self-executing; most cities would have\nto make amendments, as it is not as though rent control would immediately kick in after\nrepeal.\nMember Murray further explained the intention of the Ordinance and the Committee.\nMs. Harrison said she found rents on comparable homes starting in the low $3,000s and\nsaid they were looking for the least expensive way to attain housing accommodations.\nMember Murray further clarified that the Committee would be looking to see if a\ncompromise or agreement could be made.\nMr. Fried said that he would never advise his client to lower the rent, and suggested it\nwas in the tenants' best interests to move somewhere with lower rent. He said only Santa\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-06", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 6, 2018\nMonica and Berkeley would not need to amend their ordinances if Costa Hawkins was\nrepealed.\nCity Attorney's Office staff clarified that the Ordinance does not prevent the parties from\ncoming to mutual agreements outside the rent review process.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Armitage if he had improved the home. Mr. Armitage\nsaid he had redone some plumbing and worked on the carport. He said he had told Ms.\nHarrison's husband to tell him if anything needed to be done. Ms. Harrison said that they\nnever ask for anything from their landlord.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that having a long-term tenant who is willing to pay a\nsubstantial rent increase, even if it's not what the landlord is looking for, may be\nsomething the landlord would want to consider.\nMember Friedman asked Ms. Harrison why she did not submit a statement. She said she\ndid not understand the process or the Committee.\nMember Murray asked Ms. Harrison if a postponement of the effective date of the increase\nuntil September would be advantageous to her, and she said it would be.\nMr. Fried responded that he would never advise his client to postpone rent increases,\nbecause he thought it might put his client at a disadvantage if any court proceedings\nwere required, such as an unlawful detainer further down the road. He said that the\nparties were doing fine before they came here, and parties could always come to fair\nagreements without rent control measures. He added that the rules in court are rigged\nagainst the property owner.\nMember Friedman asked what appeal options were available to the parties. City staff\nclarified that the appeal process for a nonbinding decision was a request to have City\nCouncil review.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he would not vote for what the landlords were asking for\nas he did not feel the landlords had demonstrated a need for the rent increase, e.g., they\ndid not show documentation of income or expenses. He said that even though the tenant\ndid not provide a written response, she did provide detailed financial information during\nthe hearing that showed a financial burden, which he would take into account.\nMember Murray said that she believed that the landlord had a genuine concern to obtain\na rent increase prior to an impending law that would affect how much he could charge,\nwhich would not only affect his retirement income, but also the value of the property\nitself. She said she also saw the stress the increase put on the tenants and would like to\nsee a deferment or temporarily decreased amount to allow them more time to adjust,\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-06", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 6, 2018\nespecially with the school year starting. She raised the possibility of moving the effective\ndate from September 1 to November 1.\nMember Friedman said he believes the rental business is a different kind of business than\nmany other businesses, and the community should have a say in what can be charged.\nHe said he thought a $540 increase to $2,940 was reasonable. He explained this would\nbe 5% above the $2,800 that the tenants agreed to pay last year before that increase\nwas rescinded.\nMember Murray suggested that since the tenant said she would be able to move to a unit\ncharging $3,100 rent, an increase to $3,100 would be reasonable, and again posited\nwhether a delay in the effective date would be appropriate.\nMember Griffiths suggested a stepped increase that may allow the tenants to stay longer,\nand bring the landlord up to a higher base rent in the long run.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that he thought the $2,940 total rent suggested by\nMember Friedman was fair, while acknowledging it was a large increase.\nChair Cambra said he thought Member Friedman's suggestion of a $540 increase was\nreasonable, proposing perhaps a $400 increase now and a $140 increase later.\nMotion and second to increase the rent $540 starting September 1, 2018 (Member\nGriffiths and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah).\nMember Murray added that she thought the landlord's position to raise the rent now was\nreasonable, both as supplemental retirement income and before a potential change in\nthe law could change his rights to raise the rent later.\nMember Friedman noted that the Ordinance does not entitle landlords to obtain market\nrate rent, but to keep up with operating costs.\nMember Murray responded that fair rate of return was difficult to define.\nVote for $540 increase effective September 1, 2018. Motion passed 3-2.\n7-A. Committee will consider and vote on Chair and Vice Chair\nMember Griffiths nominated Member Murray to be Chair. She declined, stating she does\nnot know the rules to operate Committee meetings well enough at this time.\nMotion and second to nominate Chair Cambra to remain Chair (Members Friedman and\nMurray). Motion passed 5-0.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah nominated himself to remain Vice Chair.\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-06", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 6, 2018\nMember Murray nominated herself for Vice Chair. The Committee members discussed\nand decided that the vote did not need a motion.\nMembers Griffiths and Murray, and Chair Cambra voted for to make Member Murray the\nnew Vice Chair.\n7-D. CASE 1059 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D226\nProgram staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for\nadministrative reasons.\n7-E. CASE 1061 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B305\nProgram staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for\nadministrative reasons.\n7-F. CASE 1062 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C301\nProgram staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for\nadministrative reasons.\n7-G. CASE 1063 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A311\nProgram staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for\nadministrative reasons.\n7-H. CASE 1064 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D203\nProgram staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for\nadministrative reasons.\n7-I. CASE 1066 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A307\nProgram staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for\nadministrative reasons.\n7-J. CASE 1067 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D318\nProgram staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for\nadministrative reasons.\n7-K. CASE 1068 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A206\nProgram staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for\nadministrative reasons.\n7-L. CASE 1070 - 768 Eagle Ave., Upstairs Unit\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord came to an\nagreement regarding the amount of the rent increase. Program staff informed attendees\nthat details of agreements reached prior to being reviewed by the Committee could be\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-06", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 6, 2018\nfound in the Rent Stabilization Program's monthly reports, which are posted monthly on\nthe Program's website, www.alamedarentprogram.org\nChair Cambra requested the details of the resolution. Staff said staff did not have the\ndetails available. Chair Cambra requested the details of the resolution be put on a future\nagenda.\n7-M. CASE 1026.2 - 768 Eagle Ave., Downstairs Unit\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord came to an\nagreement regarding the amount of the rent increase. Program staff informed attendees\nthat details of agreements reached prior to being reviewed by the Committee could be\nfound in the Rent Stabilization Program's monthly reports, which are posted monthly on\nthe Program's website, www.alamedarentprogram.org.\nChair Cambra requested the details of the resolution. Staff said staff did not have the\ndetails available. Chair Cambra requested the details of the resolution be put on a future\nagenda.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\na. None.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. None.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 5, 2018\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf"}