{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-07-01", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 1, 2019\nMinutes of a Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, July 1, 2019\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.\nPresent:\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Sidelnikov and Chiu\nAbsent:\nChair Murray, Member Johnson\nProgram Staff:\nGrant Eshoo and Bill Chapin\nCity Attorney Staff: Michael Roush\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nStaff informed the Committee that Agenda Items 7-C and 7-F had resolved prior to\nthe meeting.\nStaff called roll of case participants. The tenants for Agenda Item 7-D were not\npresent and the item was moved to the end of the agenda.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 1\nAngie Watson-Hajjem from Echo Housing provided information about the\norganization's Tenant/Landlord Services and Fair Housing Program.\nEric Strimling from Alameda Renter's Coalition (ARC) expressed concern about\nrecent cases with binding decisions in excess of 5 percent. He objected to the idea\nthat it is reasonable for tenants to have to negotiate down from a 10 percent\nincrease.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. Approval of the minutes May 15, 2019 special meeting\nMotion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member and\nSidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.\n5-B. Approval of the minutes June 3, 2019 regular meeting", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-07-01", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 1, 2019\nMotion and second to approve minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member and\nSidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.\n6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A: Discussion on RRAC member attendance requirements.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah expressed concerned about attendance. Currently, there are\nonly three people attending the meetings regularly, which is the minimum for a quorum. It's\nalso the minimum votes needed to pass any kind of motion and it has to be unanimous.\nFurthermore, there are no owner representatives, and that experience and perspective is\nmissed.\nMember Chiu asked if the City Council has been made aware that they might need to\nappoint a new person. Staff informed the committee they will be conducting interviews with\nsomeone to replace Member Johnson in the next few weeks. By August, Chair Murray\nshould be back from out of state work-related activities.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if Member Johnson resigned. Staff replied that she did\nnot apply to have her position be renewed.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he doesn't know what the committee will look like going\nforward, but he thinks that residents have the right to a fully functioning committee.\n7-B. Discussion and vote for Chair and Vice Chair\nBased on his stated concerns about attendance, Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah recommended\nthe committee vote on a new chair and vice chair. He confirmed that he has been serving\nas vice chair and Chair Murray as chair, and he previously served as chair. He said they\ncould nominate Chair Murray to be chair again, and she continues to be chair unless voted\notherwise. The bylaws call for a yearly vote.\nMember Chiu noted the bylaws state that the election should happen at the first meeting\nafter July 1 at which all committee members are present. It could mean that they would\nnever have that vote because they've never had all of their committee members present.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah submitted that Robert's Rules of Order allows meetings to take\nplace under a quorum.\nCity Attorney staff said the intent of the rule is that, if for some reason not all members are\npresent but would be present fairly quickly, then the vote should be delayed until all are", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-07-01", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 1, 2019\navailable. If the committee intent is to move forward in nominating a chair and vice chair\nand vote tonight, it is within the purview.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said if Chair Murray returns and would like to have another\nvote, that's something they can consider. He further noted that the last vote for chair was\nat a different time of the year only because it was the first meeting with new committee\nmembers.\nMember Chiu motion to nominate Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah as the chair of the\ncommittee. City Attorney staff clarified that, if Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah was elected, then\nhe can proceed as chair for the remainder of the meeting.\nMotion and second for nominating Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah as Chair. (Members\nSidelnikov and Chiu). Motion passed 3-0.\nMember Chiu motion to nominate Chair Murray as vice chair. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah\nhearing no second; motion failed.\nMotion and second for nominating Member Chiu as Vice Chair. (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah\nand Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-E. Case 1282 - 1861 Poggi St., Unit B318\nLandlord: Andy King\nTenant: Saba Woldentensai\nProposed rent increase: $131.00 or (9.9%), to a total rent of $1,450, effective\nJuly 1, 2019.\nMr. King said the current ownership purchased the property in October 2017, and the\nproperty had extensive deferred maintenance. To date, the ownership has spent more\nthan $4.6 million on renovations including seismic upgrades, roofing, painting, and\nimprovements to the grounds. The rent increase is intended to recoup some of this\ninvestment.\nMr. King said the previous owner did not keep records of the 2015 rent increase, which\nwas $100.00, or 8.3 percent. The previous owner failed to provide paperwork and notices,\nwhich resulted in new ownership rescinding the increase and refunding $4,000.00 last\nyear. As a result, Mr. King noted the current rent is $19.00 more than what the tenant paid\nfollowing the invalid 2015 increase, and the tenant's payments decreased last year. Mr.\nKing noted that one-bedroom comparable units at the property are currently renting at\n$2,404.00, $2454.00 and $2,354.00.\nMs. Woldentensai said the ownership did a good job with the common areas and\nimprovements. She is currently experiencing financial hardship and medical expenses.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-07-01", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 1, 2019\nShe is a single parent and spends 30 percent of income on rent. She is asking for a 5\npercent increase instead. She mentioned that her carpet is very dirty and the landlord\noffered to replace the carpet if she took the 10 percent increase. However, she would\nrather have a 5 percent increase without having her carpet replaced.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah reminded participants that this was a public meeting, and\nparticipants are not required to justify or disclose anything personal.\nMember Chiu asked Ms. Woldentensai how many people are currently occupying the unit.\nMs. Woldentensai responded she has two sons under the age of 18. Member Chiu asked\nabout her current job, and Ms. Woldentensai explained it is a salaried position.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Woldentensai whether the landlord has made any\nimprovements to the inside of her unit. Ms. Woldentensai responded that her refrigerator\nand window frames were replaced. She said regular rent increases have prompted her to\nconsider moving out of state. Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about the money that was\nrefunded to her because of the invalid increase from the previous owner. Ms.\nWoldentensai confirmed that it was decreased immediately after a 10 percent increase,\nwhich made her reconsider staying longer.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah asked about her sons and length of tenancy. Ms. Woldentensai\nresponded they attend school in Alameda. She has been residing in this apartment for six\nyears, and living in the west side of Alameda since 2009.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Woldentensai whether she was asking for a 5 percent\nincrease because it is something she could afford or because of language in Ordinance\nno. 3148. He clarified that the City Council created different requirements for landlords\nseeking increases above 5 percent, including mandatory review by the committee.\nMs. Woldentensai said she was previously unaware of the ordinance and simply accepted\nany increase that was given by the landlord; however, she understands now and is able to\nafford a 5 percent increase.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah asked if there were additional repairs made when they replaced the\nwindows and balcony. Mr. King responded no.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah asked about the units renting for around $2400.00, and if they are\nremodeled units with new carpeting and paint. Mr. King replied that the units have new\ncarpeting, new paint, and some cases have additional renovations. For example, if\ncabinetry was worn out it was replaced. Mr. King said they replaced all of the toilets in\nrenovated and non-renovated units about 6 months ago. Ms. Woldentensai stated that\nnothing was replaced or upgraded in her bathroom.\nAs the parties were unable to reach an agreement, they took their seats, and the\nCommittee began deliberations.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-07-01", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 1, 2019\nMember Sidelnikov reflected on Ms. Woldentensai's tenancy of 6.5 years in the unit, her\nfinancial hardship and being a single parent with two kids. He understands the issue with\nprior increases. Members Sidelnikov and Chiu expressed concern about two 10 percent\nincreases in a row. Member Chiu said a $66.00 increase (5 percent), is something she\ncould afford to do and he approves of it.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah said the building was not in the best condition under the previous\nowner. He said that there's a history for allowing rent increases to go forward in this\ncomplex. He said he believes a 5 percent increase is fair, however, it's still a large\nincrease.\nMotion and second for an increase of $66 (5 percent), to a total rent of $1385.00, effective\nJuly 1, 2019 (Members Chiu and Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-G. Case 1303 - 781 Central Ave., Unit A\nTenant: Jeffrey Giordano\nLandlords: Andrea Soltero (Property Manager)\nProposed rent increase: $75.00 (4.9%), to a total rent of $1610.00, effective July\n1,2019.\nMr. Giordano has been living in Alameda for the past seven years. He is a teacher's aide\nin special education at a public high school. He's been very involved within the community\nand runs a film series at the main library. When he moved in, he was living and sharing\nrent with his partner at the time, but that is no longer the case. He said annual rent\nincreases have been a shock, and that he does not get a 4.9 percent increase in his salary\nevery year. He had to forbear his student loans when he got the most recent rent increase\nletter.\nMs. Soltero acknowledged that Mr. Giordano first moved in as one of two co-tenants. The\nowner approved the tenancy based on his partner's income. When she moved out, he\nexperienced hardship to continue as a single tenant. Ms. Soltero said that comparable\none-bedroom rent is anywhere from $1,950.00 to $2,025.00 They have increased the\nrent with a small, steady increases each year. She didn't have any arguments with what\nhe submitted. It's an old building requiring a lot of maintenance.\nMr. Giordano said when there is a maintenance issue, the landlord is helpful with taking\ncare of it.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Soltero how the 4.9 percent rent increase was\ndetermined, while acknowledging that those decisions are made by the owners and not by\nher. She said she believes it is based on what Chair Sullivan-Cheah discussed earlier\nregarding requirements for increases greater than 5 percent, although the amount is not\nalways near 5 percent, and that the amount is given across the board to all tenants. Chair", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-07-01", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 1, 2019\nSullivan-Cheah noted the last three increases on this unit were all just under 5 percent and\nthe committee could therefore not issue a binding decision on them.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah and Member Chiu asked about upgrades, improvements, and\nhousing services. Ms. Soltero explained that the unit has had only standard repairs in the\nlast year. The eight-unit building's roof was replaced about six years ago. In addition, in\nthe 12 years she has worked there, work has included a seismic retrofitting, landscaping,\nrepaving the parking lot, and replacing windows. As things needed repair, they would fix it.\nGas, water, and garbage are included in the rent, and tenants pay for electricity. Mr.\nGiordano said he has received the same standard level of maintenance with no recent\nupgrades.\nMember Sidelnikov asked if the nearly 5 percent rent increases reflect the improvements\nmade to the property or if they are policy and related to the Ordinance no. 3148. Ms.\nSoltero said she was not qualified to answer.\nChair Sullivan-Chea asked if it's fair to say rent increases have outpaced the increase in\nhis salary. Mr. Giordano responded yes. He said he limits expenses by cooking at home\nand not traveling. Having enough for rent, gas, insurance, and medical expenses has been\na financial challenge, he said, and he is not able to afford any rent increase.\nChair Sullivan-Chea asked Mr. Giordano if he still feels the same about no rent increase\nbecause it's what he can afford. Mr. Giordano replied yes.\nChair Sullivan-Chea asked Ms. Soltero if the ownership group is staying firm with 4.9%\nincrease, or is there flexibility based on circumstances.\nMs. Soltero said the ownership may be willing to be flexible on the increase. Chair\nSullivan-Chea asked both parties whether a $55 increase may be possible. Mr. Giordano\nsaid he did not think that would be fair because of the history of increases.\nThe parties were unable to reach agreement and returned to their seats.\nBill Rowen provided public comment on the agenda item. He said he has known Mr.\nGiordano ever since Mr. Giordano moved to Alameda. He said Mr. Giordano is\nconsidering leaving Alameda if he cannot resolve his rent issues, which Mr. Giordano\nconfirmed. Mr. Rowen said he has had many of his friends leave Alameda because they\ncould not afford rent increases.\nThe Committee began deliberations.\nMember Sidelnikov said he was concerned that this was the third year of increases just\nunder 5 percent, and that it seems like an approach to avoid a binding decision by the\ncommittee. He said there are people on limited incomes would be displaced by a policy to\nincrease rent 5 percent every year, and people in the workforce often don't see that type of\nincrease in salary.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-07-01", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 1, 2019\nMember Chiu noted that, since 2015, Mr. Giordano's rent has gone up almost 24 percent\nwithout compounding. This increase will make it nearly 30 percent non-compounding over\nabout five years. Many renters would not be able to stay in their units with increases going\nup that much in that amount of time, he said. Member Chiu and Chair Sullivan-Chea noted\nthat the history of rent increases seems to reflect changes in Alameda's policy. Mr.\nGiordano received a 7.1 percent increase right before the ordinance was passed, an\nincrease of 5 percent in 2016 shortly after it passed, and annual increases not subject to\nbinding decisions since then.\nChair Sullivan-Cheah said these increases may not look very large to some, but $75.00\nextra a month can be tough on someone who is already rent burdened. He stated he's not\nsure he would vote for no increase, but it's not outrageous for a tenant to ask for that.\nMember Sidelnikov thanked the landlord's representative for being willing to be able to\nnegotiate. He said he would support an advisory decision of a 0 percent increase given the\nhistory of annual rent increases under 5 percent.\nMotion and second for a $0.00 increase (Chair Sullivan-Chea and Member Sidelnikov).\nMember Chiu opposed. Motion failed 2-1.\nMotion and second for an increase of $30.00, effective July 1, 2019 (Chair Sullivan-Cheah\nand Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-D. Case 1281 - 1861 Poggi St., Unit B306\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2\nNone.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nNone.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-07-01", "page": 8, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 1, 2019\nRRAC Secretary\nBill Chapin\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 5, 2019", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-07-01.pdf"}