{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-29", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 29, 2018\nMinutes of a Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday August 29, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray; Members Friedman and\nSullivan-Cheah\nAbsent:\nMember Griffiths\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Gregory Kats\nCity Attorney staff: Michael Roush\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. The Committee agreed to move the Consent Calendar item (Agenda Item 5-A) to\nthe end of the agenda.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. None.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\na. None.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the minutes of the July 23, 2018 Special Meeting - moved to end of\nthe agenda.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\nChair Cambra asked for the Committee to discuss a letter the landlords had sent since\nthe last (August 20, 2018) meeting providing feedback on the Committee's rent review\nprocess. Member Sullivan-Cheah said that the RRAC is not a legislative body, is bound\nby the requirements of the Ordinance, and members do their best to be fair.\nVice Chair Murray said she appreciated the letter and the concerns it expressed.\nRegarding mediation, she said, the Housing Authority offered it prior to Committee\nhearings, as the Alameda community desired that parties try to reach agreements\nto\nhousing issues voluntarily. She added that there's an inherent tension in the\nOrdinance's attempt to shift the balance of the common law's bias toward the landlord\nto make it fairer to the tenant, and the Committee's role is also to try to do this. She\nsaid if parties had concerns regarding the operation of law, they should bring up their\nconcerns to the relevant legislative body that makes those laws.\nPage 1 of 9", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-29", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 29, 2018\nMember Friedman said that he requested the landlords provide additional information\non how they calculated fair rate of return at the last meeting, but the landlords' letter\ndid not provide this.\nChair Cambra noted that the RRAC process is different than most other cities' process\nfor holding hearings and evaluating rent increases.\n6-A. CASE 1086 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 222\nTenant: Jamila Harakat\nLandlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher\nProposed rent increase: $310.64, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of\n$1,395.00 to a total rent of $1,705.64.\nMs. Harakat said she and her husband moved to Tropic Sands in 2011 and received\nincreases in 2012 and 2013. She said her husband was injured at that time and could not\nwork. She said that when construction on the apartments started her husband got sick\nand discovered he was allergic to dust. To aid his healing, they left the country during\nthe construction that began in 2015 so he would not be exposed to the construction dust.\nShe said he works part-time now, and their income is limited. She said she works full-\ntime in a shoe store in Alameda, and the proposed increase posed a financial hardship.\nShe added that their apartment required maintenance, and their maintenance concerns\nhave not been addressed. She said there is mold in the unit which she believes is causing\na reaction in her eyes. She said that Darren, former maintenance staff, had come into\ntheir unit without permission twice. She said they could afford an increase of $50.\nVice Chair Murray reflected back Ms. Harakat's concerns and clarified that the tenants\npaid six months' rent up front while they were out of the country during the construction.\nThe landlords stated that the construction ended in 2017 and lasted about 1.5 years. Mr.\nSt. John passed out notes to the RRAC members responding to Ms. Harakat's Form RP-\n01, clarifying that the carpet was new when she moved in, even though she said there\nwas a stain on it.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Harakat when the work was done on the balcony and\nshe said in 2015. The landlords clarified that her balcony faced an interior courtyard.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked about her husband's work and condition. She said he works\npart-time for Uber and was permanently injured, making it hard for him to sit or stand\nfor long periods of time. He then asked her what percentage of her income would go\ntoward rent with the landlords' requested increase. Ms. Harakat said that if the rent\nincreased to $1,527.53 under the multi-year phase-in option, the rent would amount to\nabout 60% of her income, and her husband's income is inconsistent and covers just some\nbasic bills, such as his car and insurance.\nPage 2 of 9", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-29", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 29, 2018\nMember Friedman asked the landlords what portion of the proposed increases could have\nbeen recovered through the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Mr. St. John stated\nthat he believes most of it could have been included. He spoke about what increase he\nthinks the landlords could be entitled to under a fair rate of return analysis.\nMember Friedman asked the landlords how much the total operating expenses for running\nthe building were. St. John provided a response.\nVice Chair Murray asked Ms. Harakat what effect the increase would have on her. Ms.\nHarakat replied that she would have to find another job to pay for it, because she did not\nwant to leave Alameda. Ms. Harakat asked if the increase they're being asked to pay also\nincluded costs of repairing or upgrading other units. Mr. St. John said that the CIP\nexpenses were being divided equally among the units at the property. Ms. Harakat\ncontinued to express concern that she would be paying for part of the work done to make\nunits nicer than hers nicer still. Mr. St. John replied that it's not feasible to allocate costs\ndifferent for each unit, even when for example, some units may benefit more from the\nseismic upgrades than others, and each unit was being asked to pay an equal share.\nChair Cambra asked if it was correct that the landlords did not want to negotiate on the\namounts of the increase. Mr. St. John said that said their increase requests already took\nhardship on the tenants into account.\nThe parties took their seats and the Committee deliberated.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah stated he did not think it was reasonable to have an increase\nthat would require the tenants to have to get a second job.\nVice Chair Murray said that the amount of money the tenants would have to make to pay\nthe increase did not seem excessive to her. She said she thought $50 was too small an\namount to increase the rent considering the expenditures made by the landlords, and\nthat the $132.53 increase proposed by the landlords seemed reasonable.\nChair Cambra said he found the landlords'' 'one size fits all\" formula problematic, as each\nunit may be affected differently by the improvements. He added that he thought the\nCAPX amount of $87.61 provided in the landlords' paperwork seemed like a good number\nto start the discussion.\nMember Friedman discussed the complexity of the cases at Tropic Sands. He said the\nincrease in this case would definitely create a financial hardship on the tenants and said\nhe thought an increase of $75 was reasonable.\nResponding to Vice Chair Murray's comment that $1,500 per year was not a lot of money,\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said opined that this was relative, as it would be a lot of money\nPage 3 of 9", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-29", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 29, 2018\nfor his family, as they are considered low-income in this community. He said that part of\nthe purpose of the Ordinance was meant to keep low-income people in the community.\nHe said $100 would be the maximum amount of increase he would support,\nacknowledging that the landlords could come back next year and request another\nincrease.\nVice Chair Murray responded that she did not mean to say that amount was an\ninsubstantial amount of money, and added that the landlords also had expenses. She\nsaid, for example, that as a landlord she has heavy debts to keep her properties running\nthat constrain her income. She said the Ordinance also asks the Committee to balance\nboth sides' interests. She proposed a $100 per month increase.\nChair Cambra said he was a little uncomfortable with a $100 increase, and would want it\nto be a little less to give the tenants time to adjust.\nMotion and second for a $100 increase (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah).\nMotion failed 2-2.\nMotion and second for a $90 (6.5%) increase (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Chair\nCambra). Motion passed 4-0.\n6-B. CASE 1087 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 111\nTenant: Karen Walters\nLandlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher\nProposed rent increase: $337.06, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of\n$1,495.00 to a total rent of $1,832.06.\nMs. Walters said she paid rent throughout the construction project, although for a couple\nmonths she paid $200 less as compensation for the inconveniences caused by the work.\nShe said she works part-time, in the evening, and does not get home until 10:00 p.m. or\nmidnight and the construction workers would start working as early as 6:30 a.m. to 7:30\na.m. and would wake her up when she needed sleep. She added that the workers would\n\"gawk\" into her apartment and she doesn't feel any increase is warranted. She said she's\nlived in Alameda most of her life and moving out of the city would be a hardship for her.\nShe said she's on a fixed income combined of social security, retirement savings, and\nincome from her part-time job. She said she could afford a small increase but would\nprobably have to pick up extra shifts at work if she could. She said she should not be\nliable for the costs of maintenance that was neglected over the years, and doesn't believe\nshe should have to pay interest on the financing the landlords obtained to do the\nconstruction work. She added that she believes the construction workers were\nincompetent and made more problems than they should have, inducing extra costs.\nPage 4 of 9", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-29", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 29, 2018\nMember Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Murray reflected back Ms. Walters' points. She\nadded that during a time when she was healing from a car accident a neighbor above her\nmade a lot of noise that disturbed her as she was medicated and trying to heal.\nMr. Kessler confirmed that the owners had obtained a loan for the property on which they\nwere paying interest. He said his family acquired the property in the late 1970's.\nMr. St. John stated that Ms. Walters had rent credits in the amount of about $10,000\nduring the construction to alleviate the burdens the construction caused. Ms. Walters said\nshe thought the rent she was paying was still excessive given how hard it was to live in\nher apartment.\nMr. St. John gave the Committee members a document rebutting the concerns the tenant\nraised in her Form RP-01. Ms. Leonard summarized the document.\nMs. Walters said she thought an increase of about 5%, to about $1,575 from $1,495,\nwould be reasonable. She said she would love to have some things in her apartment\nattended to, such as on her balcony and in her bathtub.\nChair Cambra again asked Mr. St. John if he was willing to compromise on the amount of\nthe increase and Mr. St. John again said no. Mr. St. John reiterated that the landlords\nalready made compromises in coming to the increase amounts that they did.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said that he looks at cases individually, and does not set out to\nmake compromises uniformly across all cases.\nChair Cambra said the Committee makes efforts to express a rationale for their decisions\nto ensure that parties do not think the decisions are arbitrary.\nThe parties took their seats and the Committee members deliberated.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah requested clarity from the other members about how landlords\ncalculate increases and compensation during renovations. He said that he acknowledged\nthat Ms. Walters said she would be able to afford a modest increase if she took on\nadditional shifts at her work.\nChair Cambra said he thought the CAPX amount ($93.89) provided by the landlords or a\nlittle more would be reasonable.\nVice Chair Murray acknowledged that Ms. Walters had a fixed income and health concerns\nthat would limit her ability to take on too much additional work. She said it was important\nto both treat cases individually and also be evenhanded in their treatment of each. She\nsaid an increase of $95 to $110 would be a reasonable range.\nPage 5 of 9", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-29", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 29, 2018\nMember Friedman said that the landlords did their best to come up with amounts that\nwork for them, and that the Committee should try to keep the tenants happy with their\nhousing, given the history of poor service expressed by many tenants. He said he would\nsupport a motion in the range being discussed.\nMotion and second for an increase of $95 (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Member\nFriedman). Motion passed 3-1, with Chair Cambra opposed.\nChair Cambra expressed confusion of the amount being voted on.\nMotion and second to reconsider previous motion (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair\nMurray). Motion passed 4-0.\nMotion and second for a $95 (6.4%) increase (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair\nMurray). Motion passed 4-0.\n6-C. CASE 1089 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 306\nTenant: Elizabeth Anderman and Alan Anderman\nLandlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher\nProposed rent increase: $327.84, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of\n$1,395.00 to a total rent of $1,722.84.\nMs. Anderman stated that she misread Form RP-01 and thought the form was asking for\nthe median rent, not that maximum amount that she can pay personally. She said that\n$1,450 is the most rent she can afford. She said she lived at the property since 2012 and\nsaid she is a single mother with multiple emotional or psychological disabilities. She said\nshe felt sexually harassed when a management worker entered her apartment without\nauthorization. She said the same worker made inappropriate comments about her breasts\nand about her minor son's sexual orientation. She said she made complaints to\nmanagement many times starting in 2015 about his behavior and they did nothing to\naddress her complaints and concerns. She said the construction workers woke her up\nfrequently, as early as 6:00am, working on the roof. She said management had her car\ntowed the day before Christmas Eve one year, and it cost her $800 to retrieve it. She\nconcluded that management's lack of respect has made her disinclined to work with them.\nThe landlords distributed a written response to the RRAC members and tenants to the\nstatements Ms. Anderman made in her Form RP-01 submission.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah reflected back Ms. Anderman's concerns.\nMr. St. John said that Ms. Anderman does not pay the rent, but her father does, and both\nshe and her father are on the lease. Ms. Anderman said her father helps her pay the rent\nbecause she only works part-time and can't pay it all herself. She said her father is retired\nand has started developing Alzheimer's disease.\nPage 6 of 9", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-29", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 29, 2018\nMs. Leonard said she investigated Ms. Anderman's claim of harassment and the employee\ndenied the allegation. She said they obtained another maintenance person to attend to\nmaintenance in Ms. Anderman's unit which helped take care of the problem until recently.\nMs. Leonard said that employee, Darren, resigned recently. She said they changed Ms.\nAnderman's lock immediately after he illegally entered her apartment.\nMs. Anderman said she has an income of $1,200 per month from a new job as an office\nmanager of a startup in Alameda, and pays her parents between $500-$700 for rent when\nshe can, and her father writes the rent checks to management each month. She said in\naddition to developing Alzheimer's, her mom recently had a stroke. She said her father\nsaid the increase was excessive but her current rent was below the market average,\nalthough they have not had an in-depth discussion about the increase. She said her\nparents are both retired and on a fixed income from social security and a pension. She\nsaid they had to sell their house and are renting an apartment, and are looking for\nassisted living options.\nThe parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated. Member Friedman said he was\nready to approve a $75 increase.\nVice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah acknowledged that having a cosigner on\nthe lease should be considered, although having limited information on their ability to\npay makes it a tricky matter to deliberate. Vice Chair Murray suggested an increase\nbetween $90 and $110.\nChair Cambra acknowledged the stress having a management employee harassing her,\nand agreed that having a cosigner on the lease was relevant in the deliberation and\nwondered how much of a hardship an increase would affect the parents.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said his range would be between $75 and $90. He said the letter\nthe tenant wrote was difficult for him to review, but wasn't sure how to factor it into the\nrent increase.\nMember Friedman said the condition of the apartment in the past and management's\nresponse was an area of concern.\nMotion and second for an increase of $100 (Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Murray). Motion\nfailed 2-2.\nMotion and second for an increase of $87.61 (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Member\nFriedman). Motion failed 2-2.\nMotion and second for an increase of $90, (Member Friedman and Chair Cambra). Motion\nfailed 2-2.\nPage 7 of 9", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-29", "page": 8, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 29, 2018\nMembers deliberated again.\nMotion and second for an increase of $90 (Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Murray). Motion\npassed 4-0.\n6-D. CASE 1095 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 215\nTenant: Revik Dillon\nLandlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher\nProposed rent increase: $320.19, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of\n$1,350.00 to a total rent of $1,670.19.\nMs. Dillon said she is a fourth generation Bay Area native who has lived in this apartment\nsince 2009. She said she felt the increase was too large. She said she is going through a\ndivorce, and used to own her own home and rent an in-law unit so understood being a\nlandlord as well as a tenant. She said she has no problem with her unit or the\nmanagement, but felt she could only afford an increase of $50 at this point in time. She\nsaid she would probably be able to afford a larger increase next year.\nMr. St. John said he thinks the Committee's focus on CAPX only while leaving out cost of\nliving increases is unfair to the landlords.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked what percentage of her income the rent was, and she\ndeclined to answer.\nVice Chair Murray asked what she did for a living, and she said she is a behavioral\nconsultant, and works part-time for Amazon.\nThe parties took a seat and the Committee began deliberations.\nMotion and second for a $90 increase (Member Friedman and Chair Cambra). Motion\npassed 4-0.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\nNo new business.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\na. None.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nNone.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\nPage 8 of 9", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-29", "page": 9, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 29, 2018\na. Motion and second to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2018 Special Meeting\n(Member Friedman and Chair Cambra). Motion passed 4-0.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018\nPage 9 of 9", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf"}