{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-03-04", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 4, 2019\nMinutes of a Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, March 4, 2019\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair Murray; Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu &\nJohnson\nAbsent:\nNone\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo; Bill Chapin\nCity Attorney staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nProgram staff informed the Committee that Agenda Items 7-C, 7-D, and 7-E had\nresolved prior to the meeting.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\nProgram staff requested Committee members submit their Form 700 to the City\nClerk by April 2, 2019, and said that a link to the form was emailed to them earlier\nthat day.\nProgram staff informed the Committee that the City would be closed on Monday,\nMay 6, when May's regular meeting had originally been scheduled and requested\ntheir availability for either May 1st or 8th. Member responses concluded that May 1st\nwould be a more favorable date for most members and staff confirmed the meeting\nwould be held May 1st.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\nAngie Watson-Hajjem from ECHO Housing provided information on ECHO's fair\nhousing and landlord-tenant services.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. Approval of the minutes of the January 23, 2019 regular meeting\nMotion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member\nChiu). Motion passed 4-0.\n6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\nNone.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-03-04", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 4, 2019\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. Case 1201 - 1566 Lincoln Ave., Apt. A\nTenant: Gwendolyn Hammer\nLandlord: Charles Hanson\nProposed rent increase: $100.00 (4.8%), to a total rent of $2,200.00,\neffective January 1, 2019\nMs. Hammer said she has lived in the subject unit for over 19 years, and during that\ntime increases averaged almost 4.5% each year. She said the landlord had purchased\nthe house in 1997. She told the Committee that she had received the current rent\nincrease in November 2018, along with an $800 increase in her security deposit. She\nhad asked the landlord if he would reconsider, and was hopeful mediation could occur\nbefore increases were due, as they totaled a $3,000 payment, equaling 67% of her\ntake-home pay. She said she was going through a financial hardship, as she was\nhospitalized for 11 days, and had a dental emergency which required her to take out a\nshort-term loan. She said she works at the California Department of Public Health, and\nher contract with her employer did not include cost of living raises. As a civil service\nemployee, she said, she could not keep pace with the requested rent increases, and\nfeared the increases would cause Alameda to lose people like her. She said she is active\nwith CERT, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and has been involved with Engineers Without\nBorders. She said has never contested a prior rent increase, but found the continuing\nincreases to be egregious, specifically because the landlord kept them just under 5% so\nthey did not require review by and were not subject to the binding authority of the\nRRAC.\nMr. Hanson asked if Ms. Hammer had renters insurance and Ms. Hammer replied that\nhe had never asked for it. Mr. Hanson said that he had asked for it. He said the subject\nproperty is a free-standing one-bedroom duplex unit in Stonehenge, a community that\nis managed by an HOA that provides gardening. He said that the unit has a patio and\ngarage, is approximately 1,200 square feet, has a dining room, fireplace, living room,\nkitchen, and laundry. He said that the rent he was requesting was below market rate\nfor comparable units, which are renting for $3,000. He said the HOA fees he pays\ninclude water and sewer costs.\nMs. Hammer responded that the unit was built in 1936, is very nice inside, but is\nantiquated.\nMr. Hanson said that Ms. Hammer had caused several tenants to move out due to\nnuisance issues, such as having a party in the early hours of the morning, and Ms.\nHammer replied that she had never been made aware of this.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-03-04", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 4, 2019\nMr. Hanson explained that the increase request was an attempt to keep up with\nincreasing costs, such as utilities.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah acknowledged that the landlord had significant expenses for\n2018.\nMember Chiu confirmed that Ms. Hammer had been paying the rent increase since\nJanuary and asked her how paying the increase affected her livelihood.\nMs. Hammer said she has had to cut back on personal things. She said she had an\nunexpected dental bill in November 2018 for which she had to take out a short-term\nloan. She said she has had to tighten an already streamlined budget, and there were\nareas she could not cut, such as medical expenses for very serious injuries. She\nprovided the Committee with a breakdown of her budget and explained that she could\nnot keep up with increases of 4.5% per year.\nMember Johnson asked if her apartment was in working order and Ms. Hammer said\nthe basics were in working order, but there was nothing extravagant in her unit.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah acknowledged the tenancy was long-term, and asked Mr.\nHanson if she has been good tenant. Mr. Hanson replied that she had been a difficult\ntenant.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Hammer if Mr. Hanson has been a good landlord\nand she replied that she did not talk to him unless she had to. She acknowledged that\ntheir perceptions on many things differed, and she has always paid rent on time and\nkept the home clean. She said he made her feel uncomfortable at times and has said\nthings that she considers inappropriate.\nChair Murray asked Mr. Hanson for details of his expenses and he provided them,\nincluding mortgage and sewer expenses. He said he relied on income from this and\nother investments to supplement social security, adding that he cannot afford to live in\nAlameda.\nChair Murray asked what impact it would have on him if he could not get the increase\nhe was requesting. Mr. Hanson said he needed the full increase to build up a reserve to\npay for things that come up, such as resurfacing the driveways.\nChair Murray noted a high level of contentiousness between the parties and no sign\nthey were close to coming to an agreement.\nThe parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.\nMember Chiu noted the rent of the property seemed low given the unit's size and\namenities.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-03-04", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 4, 2019\nMember Johnson said she thought a $100 increase was reasonable.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that Mr. Hanson provided a lot of insight into his\nexpenses at the property, and his net income was low. He said he thought a $100\nincrease was significant, but the total rent for the unit seemed low for the Bay Area.\nMember Chiu said he recognized the impact the increase would have on the tenant, but\nnoted the amount appeared reasonable given prevailing rents, and the cost of upkeep.\nMember Johnson noted that while rents are expensive, the costs to maintain property\nare also high.\nChair Murray stated she did not think Mr. Hanson was making outrageous profit on the\nunit and agreed that the costs of maintaining property were high. She also noted that\nincreases each year just under 5% can place significant burdens on tenants. She also\ncommented that the increased security deposit was a big lump sum payment to ask the\ntenant to make.\nMember Johnson concurred, saying it was okay to increase the security deposit, but it\ncould have been increased more gradually to lessen the impact on the tenant.\nMotion and second for a $100 increase (Members Chiu and Johnson).\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he wanted to bring attention to the fact that increases at\nthe property have historically been high and consistent. While noting the landlord's\ninterest in earning a reasonable rate of return, he said he did not hear Mr. Hanson\narticulate a significant financial impact if he did not get the full amount requested, while\nthe tenant had articulated a burden. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he thought an\nincrease of $50 to $75 would be reasonable.\nChair Murray noted that a motion remained on the floor. Motion failed 2-2.\nChair Murray said she thought the amounts Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah mentioned were\ntoo low and thought they could come to an agreement somewhere in the middle.\nMotion and second for an $80 increase (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Chair Murray).\nMotion passed 3-1.\n7-B. Case 1203 - 553 Pacific Ave., Apt. D\nTenant: William Griffith\nLandlord: Jeff Kirk\nProposed rent increase: $200.00 (18.7%), to a total rent of $1,270.00,\neffective February 1, 2019", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-03-04", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 4, 2019\nMr. Kirk said he was a carpenter and is now retired and disabled, and needed to\nincrease the rent to earn a reasonable rate of return. He said if his requested increase\nwas approved he would earn a return of 3.9 percent. He noted that had he raised the\nrent 5% every year since the tenancy began the rent would be higher than what he\nwas currently requesting. He said he thought the unit was below market rate even with\nthe increase.\nMr. Griffith said that his unit was a studio, that he thought Mr. Kirk had been very fair,\nand acknowledged his rent was below market rate. He said there had been prior\nincreases of about 4% and thought the current requested increase was high. He shared\nthat he was hoping to compromise for an increase of about 10%, or a total rent of\naround $1,230.\nMr. Kirk said previous increases were not 4% each, but 2.9%, 2.7%, 2.7%, 2.6%,\n2.5%, 2.95%, and last year 3.9 percent. He said he had no problem working out a\npayment method for the tenant, but felt he needed to increase the rent the same\namount for him as he did for another tenant in a similar unit. He said he thought he\nhad raised the rent too little in previous years to keep up with costs.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if it was Mr. Kirk's intention to raise rents 5% per year\ngoing forward until the unit reached market rate. Mr. Kirk answered that he wanted to\nraise rents to obtain a fair rate of return, rather than market rate. Mr. Kirk said he had\na\nfamily to consider, and since the value of the property would be determined by the\nincome it could produce, he would be hurting his family if he did not raise the rent.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if there were any outstanding issues with the unit that\nneeded to be addressed and Mr. Griffith replied there was a bit of water damage.\nChair Murray confirmed that the parties were not willing to come to a compromise and\nthey preferred that the Committee make a decision.\nThe participants took a seat and the Committee began deliberations.\nMember Johnson opined that a raise of 15% seemed acceptable.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he did not think the landlord's requested rent increase\nwas unreasonable given its location and the fact that prior increases were relatively low,\nwhile also noting that it was reasonable for the tenant to request a lower increase.\nChair Murray echoed these sentiments, saying she was glad community members felt\ncomfortable coming to the Committee with their concerns and perspectives. She noted\nthe landlord had invested significant upgrades in the property and said it was\nappropriate to seek balance in deciding how much of an increase would be allowed, as\ntoo much of an increase could negatively impact the tenant and too little could hurt the\nlandlord. She said the Committee's charge is to make sure people can stay in Alameda,", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-03-04", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 4, 2019\nwhile at the same time ensuring landlords are appropriately incentivized to provide\nhousing. She said she was inclined to support the $200 increase request for this year,\nwhile acknowledging that in future years what is considered reasonable may be\ndifferent.\nMotion and second for a $200 increase (Chair Murray and Member Chiu). Motion passed\n4-0.\nMotion and second for reconsideration in order to amend and give an effective date\n(Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.\nMotion and second for a $200 increase effective from April 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020\n(Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.\n7-C. Case 1233 - 2133 Santa Clara Ave., Apt. 102\nNo Committee review. The parties reached an agreement prior to RRAC review.\n7-D. Case 1234 - 413 Coral Reef Rd.\nNo Committee review. The parties reached an agreement prior to RRAC review.\n7-E. Case 1243 - 1540 Ninth St., Unit F\nNo Committee review. The parties reached an agreement prior to RRAC review.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2\nNone.\n9. MATTERS INTIATED\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if staff had any further clarification on the\nconfidentiality/privacy concerns raised by the CAO's memo that were discussed at the\nprevious meeting. Program staff replied that further discussion of the matter had been\nplaced on the RRAC's March 11, 2019 agenda.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-03-04", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 4, 2019\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if there was any update on confirming a fifth RRAC\nmember. Program staff replied that a candidate was going to be considered at the next\nCity Council meeting.\nChair Murray asked if the Committee would have the new member by April and\nprogram staff replied that staff would notify the Committee members by email once a\ncandidate was confirmed.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 3, 2019", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-03-04.pdf"}