pages
344 rows where body = "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee"
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
date (date) >30 ✖
- 2019-01-23 11
- 2018-08-29 9
- 2019-02-04 9
- 2018-09-17 8
- 2019-05-15 8
- 2019-06-03 8
- 2019-07-01 8
- 2017-09-06 7
- 2018-06-06 7
- 2018-07-23 7
- 2018-08-06 7
- 2018-08-30 7
- 2018-10-01 7
- 2018-11-07 7
- 2018-12-17 7
- 2019-03-04 7
- 2019-08-07 7
- 2018-01-10 6
- 2018-07-02 6
- 2018-08-20 6
- 2018-11-19 6
- 2019-02-25 6
- 2019-04-01 6
- 2019-04-17 6
- 2019-05-01 6
- 2017-10-02 5
- 2018-02-05 5
- 2018-03-05 5
- 2018-11-27 5
- 2018-12-12 5
- …
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-06-05 | 1 | Approved Minutes June 5, 2017 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, June 5, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Vice-Chair Landess; Members Cambra, Friedman, Griffiths RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman City Attorney Staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff informed Committee that item 7-A had resolved prior to the meeting. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff announced that the July RRAC meeting is rescheduled for July 5th, due to the holiday. b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and procedures for public comment. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1 a. Angie Watson-Hajjem, ECHO Housing representative, spoke about ECHO's fair housing and tenant- landlord counseling services. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of the Minutes from the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting. Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Approved Landess, Sullivan-Sariñana, Griffiths and Friedman. Abstention Cambra. b. Approval of the Minutes from the March 6, 2017 Regular Meeting. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess). Approved by Landess, Sullivan- Sariñana, Griffiths and Friedman. Abstention Cambra. c. Approval of the Minutes from the March 20, 2017 Regular Meeting. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Approved by Landess, Sullivan- Sariñana, Griffiths and Friedman. Abstention Cambra. d. Approval of the Minutes from the April 3, 2017 Regular Meeting. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess). Approved by unanimous consent. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. Page 1 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-06-05 | 2 | Approved Minutes June 5, 2017 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 871-3356 - Tonga Lane. Proposed rent increase: $500.00 (21.7%), effective July 1, 2017. No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a mutually agreeable arrangement of a 250.00 (10.1%) rent increase. 7-B. CASE 862.1- - 2259 San Jose Avenue, Unit 1. Tenant: Karen DeSouza Landlord: Anthony Lau & Amy Wong Proposed Rent Increase: $147.00 (13.1%), effective July 1, 2017. Mr. Lau explained that the rent increase is an effort to earn a fair return in investment and cover maintenance issues as well as invest in their retirement and provide for their children. He stated that they are not trying to take advantage their tenants and kept rents affordable even before there were restrictions on rent increases. In addition, the proposed rent increase would still keep the rent below market rent for comparable units. He acknowledged that the tenant has lived in the unit for seven years and they value her tenancy. Mr. Lau also lowered the rent increase offer to $112.00. Committee members asked if the maintenance cost are averaged through the years. Mr. Lau clarified that while there are routine annual maintenance costs, the major expenses accrued over the previous 12-14 months are not anticipated as the average annual maintenance costs. He elaborated that the recent repairs were needed because the building's routine maintenance had been neglected for some time. Ms. DeSouza explained that this rent increase poses a financial burden for her. She acknowledged that she has a good relationship with her landlord and her concern is centered on her ability to afford the requested rent. She stated that her wages have increased an average of 2.5% since 2010 and her rent has increased 26%. Her calculation estimated that the rent has increased 6% more than the cost of living in the past seven years. The proposed rent increase of 13.1% would mean a 43% rent increase from the initial rent and she feels this request is unreasonable. Member Cambra asked Mr… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-06-05 | 3 | Approved Minutes June 5, 2017 to reduce the rent increase to 8%, since they had come to an agreement with a different unit for an 8% rent increase. Ms. DeSouza stated that even a 5% rent increase was a significant financial burden, particularly since she felt that the previous rent increases were quite high. Ms. Wang proposed a stepped rent increase of $57 (5%), effective July 2017 and an additional $40 (3%), effective February 2018, followed by no increase until February 2019. Ms. DeSouza said that she is not interested in a stepped rent increase option. Griffiths motion to extend the meeting for 30 minutes, Sullivan-Sariñana second. Unanimous approval. The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to render a recommendation. Vice-Chair Landess noted the difficulty of the situation and the challenge tenants face with rents increasing more rapidly than wages. She acknowledged the effort of landlords to keep the rents affordable prior to these rental regulations and recognized the need to establish an income to cover maintenance and operation costs. Member Friedman explained that the tenant was offered this rental unit seven years ago based on the landlord's system for considering her income qualifications. He noted that with the previous rent increases, a significant portion of the tenant's income is now paid towards rent. Friedman stated that he believed the history of previous increases were sufficient to cover the indicated maintenance costs. He would consider a 3% increase a considerate rent increase amount. Member Griffiths acknowledged there are ongoing expenses for the landlord to maintain the property. He proposed a 5.0% increase as this amount would also provide more balance with the previous rent increases. Member Cambra expressed concern for the rent increases practices of years without increases followed by several years of significant increases. He noted that while the landlord spent around … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-06-05 | 4 | Approved Minutes June 5, 2017 The Committee made the following binding recommendation: - $45.00 (4%) rent increase from $1,123 to $1,168.00, effective July 1, 2017. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Friedman). Four members in favor. Landess abstained. 7-C. Discuss process to implement RRAC's consideration of maintenance concerns raised during RRAC meeting. Staff summarized that the role of the Committee is to review rent increases. The Committee can encourage repairs, but does not have authority to require maintenance. Maintenance can be considered by the Committee to determine a reasonable rent increase when a Committee member believes a maintenance concern rises to a level of a decrease in housing services. Vice Chair Landess and member Friedman suggested that this discussion be incorporated in the RRAC training scheduled for July 17th. 7-D. Consider staff recommendation concerning the memorializing of agreements at RRAC meetings. Staff summarized the request from the Committee for this agenda item. Staff explained that the duties of the Committee are defined as rendering recommendations for rent increases. The duties do not provide the Committee the authority to monitor agreements. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2. a. No public comment. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. Staff announced that City Council will meet on June 6, 2017 to consider a rental unit fee as well as amendments to Ordinance no. 3148 proposed at the May 16, 2017 meeting. b. Staff announced that two current members' terms end on June 30, 2017. It is anticipated that the July 5th meeting will include the two members confirmed by City Council at the June 20th meeting. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Committee Secretary Jennifer Kauffman Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 7, 2017. Page 4 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-06-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-07-05 | 1 | Approved Minutes July 5, 2017 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday, July 5, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Cambra, Friedman, Griffiths, Murray Committee Staff: Jennifer Kauffman, Claudia Young 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff informed Committee that item 7-A had resolved prior to the meeting. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff welcomed the members, Sarah Murray and incumbent, Chris Griffiths, to the beginning of their term on the Committee. b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and procedures for public comment. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1 a. Angie Watson-Hajjem, ECHO Housing representative, spoke about ECHO's fair housing and tenant- landlord counseling services. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of the Minutes from the May 1, Regular Meeting. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Approved Sullivan-Sariñana, Griffiths, Friedman, and Cambra. Murray abstained. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 876- 1835 Santa Clara Ave. Proposed rent increase: $300.00 (14.3%). No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a mutually agreeable arrangement of a 200.00 (9.5%) rent increase. 7-B. CASE 884 - 1336 Park St. Apt 217 Tenant: Patrick Donaldson Page 1 of 3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-07-05 | 2 | Approved Minutes July 5, 2017 Landlord: Vickie Corley Proposed Rent Increase: $77.50 (5.0%), effective July 1, 2017 Ms. Corley stated that the rent includes water, gas, electricity and garbage/recycle and these expenses have increased significantly in the past year. She explained that the unit was renovated before the tenant moved-in and the property anticipates costs with renovations planned in common areas on the property. Ms. Corely shared that this increase is partly to keep rents somewhat in balance with the market, but the amount requested does not bring the total rent up to market rate. She also explained that all tenants at the property received 5% increases this year. Mr. Donaldson explained that he requested the rent increase review because he wanted to understand the rationale for the increase. He stated that he believes the 5.0% is excessive because his tenancy began one year ago. He explained that other studio units may not be comparable because it is important to factor square feet of the apartment. He noted that while he feels he can afford this increase, the amount is substantial and he has concern if the rent will be raised to this level each year. He explained he considers himself a good tenant and would like to have more information from the landlord to substantiate this increase. Members asked several questions of both parties to facilitate dialogue. Discussion included tenant and landlord perspectives on market trends, increase practices, utility costs, and rent review process. The tenant and landlord reached a mutually agreeable arrangement of a $77.50 (5.0%), effective July 1, 2017. 7-C. Committee will consider and vote on Chair and Vice-Chair. Members Cambra and Friedman self-nominated for the Chair. Cambra voted in as Chair by Murray and Griffiths; Member Sullivan-Sariñana voted for Friedman as Chair. Member Griffiths nominated Member Sullivan-Sariñana as Vice-Chair. Committee members unanimously voted for Sullivan-Sariñana as Vice-Chair. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2. a. No public… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-07-05 | 3 | Approved Minutes July 5, 2017 a. Staff announced that the upcoming RRAC meeting will be a training for Committee members and no cases will be reviewed. Staff shared a brief summary of items proposed for the upcoming training. b. Staff announced that, at present, the regulations under Ordinance no. 3148 remain the same. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Committee Secretary Jennifer Kauffman Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 6, 2017. Page 3 of 3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-07-17 | 1 | Approved Minutes July 17, 2017 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, July 17, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:39 p.m. Present were: Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Friedman, Griffiths, and Murray Committee Staff: Jennifer Kauffman City Attorney Staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff noted that a revised agenda was published today and is available in the back of the room or online. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff for the record stated there are no cases reviewed at tonight's meeting. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1 a. None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. None. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. Overview of Rent Program Administrative Procedures Review of RRAC meeting procedures Schedule possible Brown Act/Sunshine Ordinance Training Staff explained the administrative procedures for the Ordinance, noting the information is also available at public informational workshops. The discussion included the following topics: Communication between staff and parties Invalid notices and reimbursements on violations Qualifications for the individual meeting the Ordinance's definition of "Landlord" Reasonable accommodation process Page 1 of 3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-07-17 | 2 | Approved Minutes July 17, 2017 Public record requests Referrals to regional legal and social services Mediation options Committee members discussed factors under consideration for rent increase reviews including the role of supportive documentation. The discussion addressed the information provided to parties prior to Committee meetings, types of supportive documentation relevant to rent increases, parties' inclusion or exclusion of supportive documents. Committee members requested staff share with each member a copy of the template letters provided to parties prior to the RRAC meeting. Members discussed the Committee's role and procedures during the mediation and recommendation phase. City attorney staff identified section 6-58.85.A, noting that members are not advocates for either the Landlord or the Tenant. Members requested that staff provide guidance on City Council's intent with the role of mediation and dialogue during the RRAC process. Member Friedman stated he will follow-up with City attorney staff at a later time if he is interested in pursuing this topic. Member Sullivan-Sariñana introduced topic regarding the appropriate time allotment per case. Members discussed the procedures and noted that changes will be made through an amendment to the RRAC Rules and Procedures. Chair Cambra made logistical recommendations on the following topics: Seating arrangement Time management Name badges Member's roles Room acoustics Member's ability to discuss Committee procedures in the future Members request staff agendize the opportunity for a Committee members to debrief on the RRAC process at each meeting. Motion and second for the meeting to extend 10 minutes beyond 9:30pm (Griffiths and Sullivan-Sariñana). Approved by unanimous consent. Chair Cambra and Member Sullivan-Sariñana discussed updating the RRAC chair announcements. Cambra and Sullivan-Sariñana agreed to prepare the language together to share at the upcoming RRAC meetings. Page 2 of 3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-07-17 | 3 | Approved Minutes July 17, 2017 City attorney staff informed Committee members that a Sunshine Ordinance video training is available to the public online at the City's website. Staff confirmed that the information will be sent to Committee members and each members is welcome to contact the City attorney's office with questions once they view the video. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2. a. No public comment. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. Chair Cambra requested the Committee agendize a discussion on the low volume of reviews requested by tenants for increases equal to or less than 5%. Members and staff discussed the scope and purview of the Committee. Cambra withdrew the request and noted he will introduce the topic at a later date. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Committee Secretary Jennifer Kauffman Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 6, 2017. Page 3 of 3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-08-07 | 1 | Approved Minutes August 7, 2017 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, August 7, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. Present were: Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana: Members Griffiths and Murray Absent: Member Friedman RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman City Attorney Staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff informed Committee that items 7-B, C, D & E resolved prior to the meeting and will not be reviewed by the Committee. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff stated that the following meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 6th, due to the Monday holiday. b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and procedures for public comment. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1 a. Angie Watson-Hajjem, ECHO Housing representative, spoke about ECHO's fair housing and tenant- landlord counseling services. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of the Minutes from the June 5, Regular Meeting. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Approved Landess, Sullivan- Sariñana, Griffiths and Friedman. Abstention Cambra. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 871- 431 Pacific Ave., Apt. 202 Tenant: Lakeisha Cornelius, accompanied by her father Mr. Cornelius Landlord: Hen-Shin Wu Property Manager: Charles Kline Page 1 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-08-07 | 2 | Approved Minutes August 7, 2017 Proposed Rent Increase: $450.00 (50.0%), effective as a stepped increase over three months. Mr. Wu stated that Ms. Cornelius's mother had previously worked at the property. When she was no longer been able to work, they agreed to provide her housing at the premises for rent that was below market rate. The mother no longer lives at the unit and the owner feels it is reasonable to raise rent closer to market value. Ms. Cornelius asked that Mr. Cornelius speak on her behalf. Mr. Cornelius explained that Ms. Cornelius's mother passed away a year and a half ago. Ms. Cornelius is on the lease and it was their understanding that the owner's willingness to provide a courtesy extended to the family. Both parties acknowledged that there had been no discussion about future rent or future rent increases. The tenant explained that the current rent is about 50% of her income and she believes a reasonable increase would be between 5-10%. She has been the sole occupant since her mother's passing in August 2015 and that it would not be possible for her to get a roommate based on the unit layout. Member Griffiths acknowledged that $900.00 is well under market. He also stated that a 50% increase in any expense is challenging to absorb. The tenant and landlord discussed the timeline for the rent increase and the relationship between current rent and market rent. Mr. Cornelius explained that more gradual increases over time would make it more possible for Ms. Cornelius to prepare for the changes. Mr. Cornelius stated that they would be willing to accept a $250 increase to a total rent of $1,150 starting on September 1, 2017. They requested that any future rent increases be on a regular schedule in an amount near 5%. The landlord offered a $350 increase to a total rent of rent at $1,250, acknowledging the tenant has the option to continue month-to-month or sign a one year lease. The tenant explained that she current earns $12/hour and the $250 increase would require her father to cover some of her other… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-08-07 | 3 | Approved Minutes August 7, 2017 Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana considered a $250 (27.7%) increase to $1,150 the maximum that he would vote as fair and reasonable. Sullivan-Sariñana emphasized he takes tenants and landlords at their word and the tenant stated $1,150 would be something she could handle. Member Murray acknowledged the courtesy the landlord provided when the unit was offered to the mother at a rent below market rate. She noted that the current City rent regulations impact the amount of future increases and the landlord is in this situation because he was generous in the past. Murray identified that one of the current challenges relates to communication regarding assumptions made by both parties and lack of dialogue around expectations moving forward. Murray stated that the $100 difference between the landlord's offer and the tenant's offer appears to constitute a more serious hardship to the tenant. The $1,150 offer seems reasonable in that it represents a sacrifice by both parties in effort to establish a middle ground. She explained that it appears the tenant is acknowledging the previous generosity of the landlord by trying to stretch herself to bring the unit closer to market rate. Murray stated that $1,150 is the maximum amount that she would find acceptable. Member Griffiths recommended a $180 (20%) increase. He explained concerns that a monthly rent of $1,150 would not provide enough income remaining for other living expenses based on the tenant's income. Acknowledging the unique circumstances of the original $900 agreement, he pointed out that such a significant jump in the rent amount would be difficult. He would encourage a more gradual increase over time. Chair Cambra acknowledged the landlord provided the tenant a benefit for two years by offering the unit at $900. Cambra stated that he agrees with Griffiths in that the financial burden on the tenant is significant, noting with a $1,150 rent she would need financial assistance from her father. A stepped increase would provide the tenant mor… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-08-07 | 4 | Approved Minutes August 7, 2017 Motion and second for $1,150 rent, effective September 1st (Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray). Cambra approved; Griffiths opposed. Motion passes. 7-B. CASE 894 - 89 Maitland Dr., Unit O Proposed Rent Increase: $187.00 (20.0%) effective September 1, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a mutually agreeable arrangement of a $187.00 (20.0%) rent increase. 7-C. CASE 896 - 89 Maitland Dr., Unit Q Proposed Rent Increase: $99.00 (9.9%) effective September 1, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a mutually agreeable arrangement of a $99.00 (9.9%) rent increase. 7-D. CASE 908 - 1569 Lincoln Ave., Unit B Proposed Rent Increase: $237.60 (17.6%), effective September 1, 2017 No Committee review. The landlord withdrew the rent increase. 7-E. CASE 910 - 1029 Regent St., Unit A Proposed Rent Increase: $215.00 (10.0%), effective August 1, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a mutually agreeable arrangement of a $175.00 (8.2%) rent increase. 7-F. Discussion of any considerations raised during the events of previous meetings to improve Committee review process Chair Cambra discussed the basis for raising rent when a landlord indicates the tenant has lease violations. Sullivan-Sariñana noted that the timeline of events is critical when understanding the circumstances related to the rent increase request. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2. a. No public comment. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. Member Sullivan-Sariñana asked for clarify on email addresses. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Committee Secretary Jennifer Kauffman Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 6, 2017. Page 4 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-08-07.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-09-06 | 1 | Draft Minutes September 6, 2017 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday, September 6, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Friedman, Griffiths, Murray Committee Staff: Jennifer Kauffman, Janice Heredia, Grant Eshoo City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff informed the Committee that three cases on the agenda will not be heard. As those cases are called, staff will provide more detail. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and procedures for public comment. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1 a. No public comment. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of the Minutes from the July 5th Regular Meeting. Motion and second (Murray and Sullivan-Sariñana) Approved by unanimous consent. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 911 - 2904 Central Avenue Case postponed. 7-B. CASE 872.1- - 2058 Buena Vista Ave, Unit B Tenant: Labib Ramdoun Landlord: Corwin and Teresa Hockema Proposed Rent Increase: $650 (59.1%), effective December 1, 2017 Third-party rent decision: Binding Page 1 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-09-06 | 2 | Draft Minutes September 6, 2017 Mr. Hockema explained he is in the Coast Guard and was recently stationed in Alameda. He purchased the property this summer and will be living in one of the units. Mr. Hockema stated that the constitution entitles him to a fair rate of return on the property. He is asking for this rent increase in order to cover expenses and mortgage. Mr. Hockema acknowledged that he was aware of Alameda's rent regulations at the time of purchase. He was out of state during most of the sale process and does not believe he was provided with accurate information for the seller. Mr. Ramdoun stated that he moved to the US from Syria 14 years ago. His wife is currently in school and Mr. Ramdoun's income as a limousine driver supports his wife, 2 year-old daughter and mother, who lives nearby. Mr. Ramdoun stated that he understands the landlord's situation and would offer more financially if he was able. At present, if he were to pay the full rent increase requested, he would not have enough income to support his family. He expects that his family's financial situation will change in the next 2 years once his wife completes her master's degree in chemistry. He stated that he was friends with his previous landlord and they had a verbal agreement that we would fix maintenance issues in exchange for no rent increases. Committee members asked questions regarding the landlord's financial decisions when reviewing the property for purchase. There was discussion around the short term and long term goals of both parties. Mr. Hockema stated that the lowest rent increase he is comfortable with would be $1,500. If he does not receive this amount, he is concerned that his effort to invest in property would be fruitless and he may have to sell in a few months. Committee members asked about income from the other rental unit on the property. Mr. Hockema stated that he preferred not to discuss at this time as there are several pending issues with the tenant. Mr. Ramdoun stated that a $100.00 increase to $1,200 is the max… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-09-06 | 3 | Draft Minutes September 6, 2017 the cost of operations. Cost of operations, defined by the Ordinance, does not include debt service, such as mortgage expenses. Thus, it appears there would need to be an increase in services or operation costs to warrant a landlord's right to raise rent. He stated a $30.00 (3%) appears reasonable based on the financial information provided by the tenant and landlord. Friedman noted that a large increase would impact the tenant significantly. Member Murray explained she relies on section 6-58.85 for guidance on rendering a fair decision on a rent increase. She acknowledged this is a difficult situation because it appears that the new owner was misinformed about the current tenants' rents and leases. She stated that it appears if the rent is raised to $1,500 the tenant will have to relocate. If the landlord does not receive an increase to $1,500 he may not be able to continue owning the property. She noted that the time frame used to determine a reasonable rate of return is significant and she believes a longer time frame is expected. She noted that the landlord indicated near $20,000 in capital improvements has already been invested in the property. Chair Cambra addressed Friedman's point that it seems unrealistic for a landlord to expect a newly purchased property to generate a cash flow. Cambra stated that a tenant does not have input on an owner's decision to invest in a property. He explained that capital improvements are expected to be amortized over the useful life of the improvement. Cambra also expressed concern that the landlord is not receiving income from the other unit and believes once that matter is resolved the landlord may be more flexible financially. Taking into consideration the financial hardship of the tenant, he recommended an increase between $75-$100. Member Griffiths shared that, without a change in ownership, the Committee would also be factoring into the history of past rent increases. This tenancy history shows that the rent had not been raised since the… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-09-06 | 4 | Draft Minutes September 6, 2017 discrepancy with the landlord's knowledge of the City's regulations and choice to purchase property that puts them in this difficult situation. He acknowledged that the landlord has identified financial pressures, though it appears that those pressures may be more adaptable than the tenant's. Recognizing that any Committee decision will cause one or both of the families to struggle, Sullivan Sariñana recommended a $275 increase to a total rent of $1,375. Motion and second for $100 rent increase to a total rent of $1,200 (Griffiths and Friedman). Motion passes with Cambra approval; Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray opposed. 7-C. CASE 919 - 1625 Santa Clara Ave., Unit 2 Tenant: Charles Sullivan, Gini Zuniga Landlord: David Harris Proposed Rent Increase: $130 (10%) to a total rent of $1,430.00, effective date delayed until RRAC review Third-party rent decision: Binding David Harris stated that the current rent is 38% below market rate. The rent was not raised annually and there are anticipated costs near $150,000 related foundation repairs due to the raising water table. Mr. Harris explained that he is retired an increasingly relies on the property for income. The current annual profit is $23,000 annually which is a 1.7% return on investment. The landlord clarified that his calculated annual expenses do not include a $150,000 loan, which he pays separate from the management company. He explained that family needs have taken his focus away from the rental property for the last five years. Based on the lack of previous rent increases, below market rent, and anticipated foundation repairs, he considers a 10% increase modest. Charles Sullivan and Gini Zuniga stated they have lived in Alameda for six years. They are concerned that the property has been flooding during rains and seems to have malfunctioning pipes. The tenants noted they had never met Mr. Harris and have only corresponded with the management company. They indicated the rent increase poses a financial difficulty based on their sal… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-09-06 | 5 | Draft Minutes September 6, 2017 Committee members asked questions regarding the profit and loss statements, landlord's alternative income sources, capital reserve practices, and maintenance concerns. Committee members facilitated dialogue between parties. Tenant and landlord reached an agreement for a $130 rent increase effective October 1, 2017 with $65 delayed until April 1, 2017. 7-D - CASE 920 - 1625 Santa Clara Ave., Unit 3 Proposed rent increase: $115.00 (10.0%), to total rent of $1,265.00 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached a mutually agreeable arrangement of a $115.00 (10.0%) rent increase. 7-E - Case 921 1625 Santa Clara Ave #4 Proposed rent increase: $ 120.00 (9.8%), to total rent of $1,345.00 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. The rent increase will become effective as stated in the notice. 7-F. CASE 926 - 1305 Webster St., #C-209 Tenant: Max Langaard, Felicie Standley Landlord: Stefan Galvez and Natalia Aurrecaechea Proposed Rent Increase: $1,100 (78.6%) to a total rent of $2,500, effective September 1, 2017 Third-party rent decision: advisory only Natalia Aurrecaechea stated they are small property owners who purchased the unit as a retirement investment. She noted there are risks in owning property and market uncertainty is placed on the landlord. She indicated that in the last 6 years between $6,000 and $7,000 has been invested in the unit. The rent increase is related to increased living costs, below market rent, and their family will be increasingly relying on the rental income because Mr. Galvez is retiring. She stated they have been working with their tenants to come to some agreement. At present, the she has adjusted the offer to $2,100, which she believes is on the lower end of comparable market rate units. The landlords acknowledged that Max Langaard and Felicie Standley are great tenants and they do not want to see them move out. The tenants indicated they would be accept a $400 rent increase to $1,800. Max Langaard stated… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-09-06 | 6 | Draft Minutes September 6, 2017 78.6% rent increase offer. He considers this rent increase as a way to avoid the near $7,000 relocation expenses the landlord would be obligated to pay if they served a termination notice. Mr. Langaard also noted that $2,100 seems high for a unit that has not been recently remodeled. Felicie Standley noted that she grew up in the Bay Area and is concerned that she will be able to stay. Committee members asked questions and facilitated dialogue around utility costs, timelines, termination regulations and market trends. The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to render an advisory recommendation. Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana considered the tenant's offer to $1,800 reasonable. Member Griffiths affirmed that he also agrees $1,800 total rent is reasonable considering it is a significant leap from the tenants' current rent. Member Friedman noted that the landlord's request for a $700 increase from $1,400 to $2,100 is a large step. He stated he would agree to the tenants' $1,800 offer. He noted that $1,800 is a significant step and the two factors leading him to recommend this amount is that the tenant offered it and the Committee's decision is advisory only for this case. Member Murray concurred that $1,800 is reasonable based on the tenants' statement that they would agree to the substantial increase. It appears the tenants recognize they have received a good deal on the apartment and have had a good relationship with the landlord. She noted that the landlord did not demonstrate operating expenses or information on a return of investment that justified the $2,100 requested increase. She explained that the City's current policy looks at balancing tenants and landlords interests. Motion and second for $400 rent increase to a total rent of $1,800, effective October 1, 2017 (Murray and Griffiths). Motion passes unanimously. 7-G. CASE 927.1 - 2305 San Jose Ave., Unit B Propose… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf,7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-09-06 | 7 | Draft Minutes September 6, 2017 7-H. CASE 923.1 - 2305 San Jose Ave., Unit D Proposed rent increase: $900.00 (81.8%), to total rent of $2,000.00 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant indicated they intend to vacate the unit. Tenant was not present. Kyle Chuah, landlord, provided comments. He addressed the Committee to thank the members for their time and service. 7-I. Discuss time keeping mechanisms. No public comment. Motion and second to move the item to the next available agenda (Cambra and Griffiths). Motion passes unanimously. 7-J. Discussion of policy input regarding the written letters and resources provided to RRAC participants prior to a case review. No public comment. Motion and second to move the item to the next available agenda (Cambra and Griffiths). Motion passes unanimously. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 1. a. No public comment. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. Staff clarified the procedures for Committee members to request agenda items for upcoming RRAC meetings. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45PM. Respectfully submitted, Draft until approved RRAC Secretary Jennifer Kauffman Page 7 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-10-02 | 1 | Draft Minutes October 2, 2017 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, October 2, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Friedman, Murray Absent was: Member Griffiths Committee Staff: Jennifer Kauffman, Janice Heredia, Grant Eshoo City Attorney staff: John Le, Michael Roush 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff informed the Committee that two cases on the agenda will not be heard. As those cases are called, staff will provide more detail. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff explained where to find meeting minutes, agendas, and other materials relating to the RRAC meeting and Rent Program, both printed and online. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1 a. Angie Watson-Hajjem provided an overview of ECHO's housing services. She provided flyers and business cards for the public. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. No items on the consent calendar. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 911 - 2904 Central Avenue Tenant: Valerie Adams Landlord: Jack Sullivan Current Rent: $2,025 for a 3-bedroom single family residence. Proposed Rent Increase: $1,556.26 (76.9%) for a total rent of $3,581.96, effective September 1, 2017 Third-party rent decision: Non-binding Page 1 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-10-02 | 2 | Draft Minutes October 2, 2017 Mr. Sullivan stated the purpose of the rent increase is related to a need for additional income because the landlords are retired and have a fixed income. Mr. Sullivan stated that Ms. Adams has been a good tenant for 13 years. The landlords are requesting this increase due to the property's operating costs and the landlord's interest in a return on the investment. He stated that market rate for a comparable unit would be near $4,500 and the rent increase is an effort to raise the rent closer to market value. Mr. Sullivan explained that $7,500 has been spent to repair the roof. Additional expenses are anticipated for further repairs. Ms. Adams stated that she had resided at the unit for 13 years and has completed many repairs herself. She raised concerns over current maintenance issues and stated code enforcement is currently reviewing the property. She explained that there have not been repairs or improvements that would justify the requested rent increase. Committee members asked to review supporting documents related to the maintenance issues. The parties discussed issues the timeline and nature of roof repairs. Staff clarified that the Building Department resolves concerns regarding code violations. Ms. Adams stated she would be willing to pay a $250 increase if repairs were completed. Mr. Sullivan was not willing to accept less than the proposed increase. Motion and second for 15 minute extension passed the 40 minute review (Cambra and Friedman). The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to render an advisory recommendation. Member Friedman identified three considerations for this case: 1). what is reasonable rent for this property; 2). what is the landlord's reasonable return; 3). how does the housing services and condition of the maintenance issues impact the reasonable rent. Friedman noted that had the rent increased around 3% each year over the 13 years of tenanc… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-10-02 | 3 | Draft Minutes October 2, 2017 dynamic. He stated he would be inclined to agree with Member Friedman's recommendation. Member Murray noted that it is clear the property is in need of repairs. It appears the landlord will need a rent increase to afford the repairs and the tenant does not believe an increase is justified until the repairs are complete. She explained that the rent would be at a reasonable place had the landlord raised the rent around 5% over the tenancy. Murray stated that ultimately the $3,600 requested total rent is reasonable for the property. However, she does not believe it is reasonable to request the increase all at once. She also noted there is one tenant living in a 3-bedroom house. She recommended a $600 rent increase with $300 delayed for six months. She acknowledged she would support the $400 proposal if the amount became effective immediately. Chair Cambra explained the landlord has control over the rent in an increasing market. Looking over the tenancy, it is necessary to acknowledge that rents when up and down. He is concerned with the burden on the tenant when a landlord is looking to catch-up on rents when they did not raise rents annually. He explained major repairs, such as a roof, are often not expensed as they are amortized over the useful life of the improvement. He noted that the landlord will have the opportunity for a rent increase every year. He also acknowledged roofs can be difficult to repair and does not see negligence on the landlord. He stated he agrees with Member Friedman's $400 recommendation. Motion and second for $400 rent increase to a total rent of $2,420, effective September 1, 2017 (Friedman and Cambra). Motion passes with Murray approval; Sullivan-Sariñana opposed. 7-B. CASE 929 - 877 Cedar Street Proposed rent increase: $1,080.00 (45.6%), to total rent of $3,450.00 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenants gave the landlord a notice to vacate. 7-C. CASE 930 - 611 Santa Clara Ave., #D Proposed rent increase: $685.00 (46.0%), to total rent of… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-10-02 | 4 | Draft Minutes October 2, 2017 Landlord: Dave Petersen Current Rent: $1,701 for a 2-bedroom duplex Proposed Rent Increase: $85.00 (5.0%), to total rent of $1,786.00, effective October, 2017 Recommendation: Non-binding Chair Cambra recused himself on a non-financial grounds. Ms. Ostlund stated that she is an army veteran, 100 percent disabled, on a fixed income of $2,900 a month and not likely to increase anytime soon. She believes the Ordinance was put into place to help people like her. She acknowledged her right to withhold sensitive medical information, but nonetheless, stated she wanted to share that she has metastatic breast cancer and her medical care providers are concerned about her access to a stable living environment. The history of rent increases has pushed her near the limits of her ability to pay based on her fixed income. She stated the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase would be $32.32 (1.9%) due to financial burden. Mr. Petersen stated that he believes requested rent increase is fair, not excessive, and that necessary to keep up with maintenance costs. He considers the current rent below market rate and explained that the rent does not cover the property expenses. He is concerned that without a rent increase it will be difficult to continue to make needed repairs. He stated he was making a concession by only requesting a 5% increase because he is sympathetic to her serious medical condition and understands she has a fixed income. Mr. Petersen explained that Ms. Ostlund was not the original tenant and the rent was originally set low as a curtesy to the individual originally on the lease. Committee members asked questions regarding income sources and flexibility with adding a roommate to the unit. Motion and second for 15 minute extension passed the 40 minute review (Sullivan- Sariñana and Murray). Committee members facilitated dialogue between parties. The tenant and the landlord agreed to a $50 rent increase effective October 1, 2017 with an additional $35 (which would bring the increase to … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-10-02 | 5 | Draft Minutes October 2, 2017 7-F. Discussion of policy input regarding the written letters and resources provided to RRAC participants prior to a case No Committee review as time did not permit for item discussion. The item will be moved to the next available meeting agenda. 7-G. Committee members to review CAO guidance on using just and reasonable rate of return and tenant's financial hardship as factors in the RRAC deliberation process Michael Roush, Assistant City Attorney, presented the memo concerning CAO guidance on just and reasonable rate of return and the tenant's financial hardship as factors in the RRAC deliberation process. Mr. Roush answered Committee members' questions to clarify their understanding of the memo. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 1. a. No public comment. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. Member Friedman requested clarity on the case review process. b. Cambra requested an agenda item for the following meeting to discuss the Committee's procedures for facilitating dialogue relevant to Case 911. Motion and second with unanimous approval (Cambra and Sullivan-Sariñana). c. Member Sullivan-Sariñana requested staff follow-up to clarify the nature of the discussion for agenda item 7-F. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:56pm. Respectfully submitted, Draft until approved RRAC Secretary Jennifer Kauffman Page 5 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-01-10 | 1 | Approved Minutes January 10, 2018 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday, January 10, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Griffiths and Friedman Absent: Member Murray Committee staff: Grant Eshoo, Janice Heredia City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. Eric Strimling commented that for rent increases above 5%, the burden of proof should be on the landlord to show why it is reasonable. 4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff acknowledged that it had welcomed and oriented the attendees and participants prior to the meeting being called to order. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the November 6, 2017 Regular Meeting Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Motion passed unanimously of the members present. 5-B. Approval of the Minutes of the December 4, 2017 Regular Meeting Chair Cambra made a suggestion to edit the minutes. Motion and second (Cambra and Griffiths). Motion passed unanimously of the members present. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 972 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit A No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $279.58, a 26.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,325, effective February 1, 2018. Page 1 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-01-10 | 2 | Approved Minutes January 10, 2018 7-B. CASE 963 - 1030 Lincoln Ave., Unit A Tenants: Temo Martinez and Laura Martinez Landlords: Craig Wallace and Laurie-Anne King Spanish language translator: Rent Program staff member Janice Heredia Proposed rent increase: $1,190 (90.8%) to a total rent of $2,500, effective February 1, 2018 The landlords stated that rent was below market and the building needed maintenance. They referred to a quote for foundation work in the amount of $30,000. They said they have a good relationship with their tenants. They informed the Committee that they purchased the home for $1.7 million, so their mortgage and property taxes were higher than that of the previous owners. They acknowledged that the tenants had a personal relationship with the previous landlord and that they worked at the previous landlord's restaurant in addition to living at his property. The tenants stated that they have lived in the unit since 1998 and that their son was born in the home and it was the only home he had ever known. They said that they understood that the landlord was making a business decision but they could not afford the increase they were requesting. They stated that their household income was about $4,000 per month, that there are times when they cannot make ends meet, and times when they have up to a $500 monthly surplus. They said they could afford a 5% rent increase. Chair Cambra asked for a numerical value for how much they could afford. The Mr. Martinez responded they could afford a $300-$400 increase at most. Vice Chair Sullivan- Sariñana added that the parties were not compelled to answer questions about finances. Chair Cambra asked if the parties learned anything they did not know before. The landlords said they thought that the tenants had only occupied the unit for two years, as their management company, OMM, only began managing the unit in 2015 and only had records going back that far. The tenants restated that they had been there since 1998 and added that they had a brother who lived in the u… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-01-10 | 3 | Approved Minutes January 10, 2018 Mr. Martinez stated that his income fluctuated from $2,400 to $2,800 and Ms. Martinez's income was about $1,200 per month. He said they were worried about being priced out of the area and concerned that their son would have to change schools mid-year. Chair Cambra asked the landlords if the bank extended their mortgage loan knowing the amount of rent the in-place tenants were paying. Mr. Wallace confirmed that the bank had that information. Member Griffiths asked the landlords what would happen to them if they only got a 5% increase versus a $300 increase. Ms. King said they would appeal the decision. She said that she and Mr. Wallace were both self-employed and their income could be unpredictable, while rental income from the property provided them a stable source of income. Mr. Wallace stated that anything less than $2,000 per month total rent for the unit would be inadequate. He said they wanted to expand the unit and wanted to see if they would qualify for the "capital evictions" process. Mr. Martinez said that to meet a $400 per month increase, he would have to work 14-16 hour days. Ms. Martinez said that they had to a new expense of $300 per month for their son's healthcare and had forgotten about that when they said they could pay a $300- $400 per month increase. She said they were still offering to pay a $65 increase. Member Friedman commented that the tenants would have to move if they were required to pay the increase the landlords were requesting. He restated that the landlords purchased the property knowing about the costs involved, Ordinance 3148's requirements, and the amount of rent the tenants were paying, and that the bank assessed that the landlords could maintain payments on their mortgage loan given those circumstances. Mr. Wallace said that they wanted to improve the property. Ms. King added that unlike the previous landlords they did not benefit from the tenants working at their business. She said their mortgage was $5,700 per month. Chair Cambra stated that… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-01-10 | 4 | Approved Minutes January 10, 2018 Chair Cambra asked the parties to take a seat so the RRAC could begin deliberations to reach a decision. Public Comment from Mari Perez-Ruiz, President of the Alameda Renters Coalition, on Item 7-B: claimed the tenants did not know about the RRAC hearing until the day before and were not given the opportunity to prepare. Public Comment from Laurie-Anne King, landlord at subject property, on Item 7-B: stated that it was a breach of California law for employers to pay workers less than minimum wage and compensate for that by subsidizing their living expenses by charging them below-market rent. Public Comment from Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda resident, on Item 7-B: said he came before the RRAC one-and-a-half years ago. He said he wanted to acknowledge the inequality in society that allowed the landlords to have access to $300,000 from their insurance policy, while the tenants would have to work 30,000 hours to make an equal sum. He opined that the rent increase imposes a great burden on the tenants and hoped the RRAC decision was one that allowed the tenants to remain in place. Member Friedman thanked the parties for attending the hearing. He acknowledged that the tenants may have had an agreement for below-market rent with the prior owners. He restated that the landlords financed the property with the current tenants' rental rate known by themselves and the lending institution, and said that with a 5% increase, the tenants would be paying 40% of their income for rent if their income was $3,400 per month. He stated that the purpose of the Ordinance is to stabilize the rental market and proposed a $65 increase. Chair Cambra stated that if the tenants' income was $4,000 per month, a $300 increase would have the tenants paying 40% of their income toward rent. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana opined that a 5% increase would be reasonable as it was what the tenants said they could afford. Chair Cambra commented that a 10% increase, or $130, would provide the landlords extra income they could use… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-01-10 | 5 | Approved Minutes January 10, 2018 Member Griffiths replied that if the CIP process did not work, the City Council should fix it rather than making capital improvements part of the RRAC's responsibility. Member Friedman made a motion for a $65 increase. Member Griffiths seconded. The vote passed 3-1, Chair Cambra opposed. 7-C. CASE 964 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit B No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $140.00, a 9.9% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,555.00, effective February 1, 2018. 7-D. CASE 965 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit C No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $67.00, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $760.00, effective February 1, 2018. 7-E. CASE 966 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit E No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $100.00, a 7.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,400.00, effective February 1, 2018. 7-F. CASE 967 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit F No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $95.00, a 9.5% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,095.00, effective February 1, 2018. 7-G. CASE 968 - 1815 San Antonio Ave., Unit M No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $150.00, a 5.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $2,775.00, effective February 1, 2018. 7-H. CASE 969 - 2031 Eagle Ave., Unit A No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $115.50, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,310.00, effective February 1, 2018. 7-I. CASE 970 - 2031 Eagle Ave., Unit B Page 5 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-01-10 | 6 | Approved Minutes January 10, 2018 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $131.00, a 9.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,480.00, effective April 1, 2018. 7-J. CASE 971 - 2033 Eagle Ave. No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $120.00, a 7.8% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,650.00, effective February 1, 2018. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. Eric Strimling commented that staff should look into expanding its translation and multilingual communications services. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. Member Sullivan-Sariñana asked staff if public commenters could comment on other public comments and if it was appropriate or required for RRAC members or City staff to reply to public comments. City Attorney staff John Le replied that there was no rule on public commenters commenting on other public comments, and stated that RRAC members could direct questions to City staff but that the RRAC and City staff are not required to respond to public comment. b. Member Friedman commented that perhaps the RRAC could use simultaneous translation technology to facilitate multilingual communications. c. Chair Cambra requested that staff make a presentation on its provisions for multilingual access at the next RRAC meeting. 0.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM. Respectfully submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 5, 2018 Page 6 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-01-10.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-02-05 | 1 | Approved Minutes February 5, 2018 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, February 5, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Murray and Friedman Absent: Member Griffiths Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant, and mediation services. 4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff welcomed the attendees and participants, and informed them of the process for participating in meeting. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the January 10, 2018 Regular Meeting Motion and second (Friedman and Cambra). Motion passed 3-0, with Member Murray abstaining. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 931.2 - 840 Oak St., Apt. A Tenant: Jessica Lorega Landlord: Park Young Proposed rent increase: $97.50 (5.0%) to a total rent of $2,047.50, effective January 1, 2018 Prior to the review, Program Staff provided the Committee and public two photographs of the front of the outside of the subject property that the landlord had submitted to the Rent Program several days prior to the hearing. Page 1 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-02-05 | 2 | Approved Minutes February 5, 2018 Mr. Young, referencing the Craigslist ads submitted by the tenants of units renting for less than their rent, stated that the "comparatives" offered by the tenants were not relevant since they signed a lease (in 2016) at the rate of $1,950. Ms. Lorega informed the Committee that Program Staff had invalidated two previous rent increase attempts. She said she believed her rent was above market-rate considering the condition of the unit, lack of amenities, lack of maintenance and repairs, and the fact that most utilities were not included. She said that the increased rent would comprise about 36% of their current income. Mr. Young responded that the apartment was in fine condition and the tenants did not take good care of the property. He told the Committee that the tenants had two pet rabbits when they told him they only had one, and that the unit smelled bad inside. Referencing the photographs submitted by the landlord, Ms. Lorega replied that most of the items depicted belonged to her downstairs neighbors. She added that both rabbits were disclosed to the landlord when they moved in and were in fact mentioned in the lease, and that she cleaned up after them as needed. Mr. Young replied that the building was old and that he was not making money from it, adding that repairs were expensive. He said that the tenants did not inform him of any work that needed to be done. Ms. Lorega replied that they did not often ask for repairs because the landlord does repairs himself and they had concerns about him making repairs to their unit because he was not mindful of their personal property when doing repair work. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked the tenant if her household was single-income. She said that it was until her husband very recently found employment. She confirmed that when he starts bringing in money, the rent will comprise less of their income than the percentage she stated earlier. Member Murray asked the tenant to describe the interior of the unit. The tenant said that she, … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-02-05 | 3 | Approved Minutes February 5, 2018 landlord that an offer of a one-year lease was required along with the first rent increase since enactment of the Ordinance, he came to her door at 8:45 p.m. (close to her child's bed time) and tried to force her to sign a lease. She said that she did not want to sign it and does not see herself living there a long time. Member Friedman asked if improvements to the property would encourage her to stay, and she said they would have to be substantial. Chair Cambra asked the landlord if any costs to run the property had increased and Mr. Young replied that some costs had increased, without specifying which costs. Member Murray asked the landlord what it cost to pay the mortgage and insurance and Mr. Young replied that it was about $3,100 per month. Mr. Young expressed that the rent from both units at the property barely covered the costs of running the property. Chair Cambra asked the parties if they learned anything new that they did not know prior to the meeting. Mr. Young said that he did not know that the tiles needed repair. Chair Cambra asked the tenant if she would be open to a rent increase if the landlord did repairs. Ms. Lorega responded that the bedroom door would have to be repainted and made to fit properly and the floors would need to be repaired. Mr. Young said he was open to fixing the broken floor tiles. Chair Cambra clarified that the Committee did not have the authority to require repairs or maintenance in exchange for increased rent and that the parties would have to come to an agreement between themselves for this. Chair Cambra further clarified that any agreement is unenforceable by the City and that an agreement would waive the current right to a hearing. Ms. Lorega said she did not feel comfortable making an agreement with the landlord. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked the landlord how much rent the tenants in the other unit paid, and Mr. Young replied that their rent was $2,586 per month. Member Friedman asked if the tenant was concerned about her deposit … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-02-05 | 4 | Approved Minutes February 5, 2018 Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana echoed Member Murray's comments, adding that the best solution may be for the tenants to move to a less expensive unit, as Ms. Lorega expressed little desire to remain in that apartment. Member Friedman stated that he did not believe the landlord's costs of operation have likely increased 5%, but did not think that a lower increase would keep the tenant in her home considering the reservations she expressed during the meeting. Chair Cambra reiterated that the main issue was a lack of trust between the parties and a 5% increase would not displace the tenants. He added that a landlord cannot always expect a property to generate cash flow. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray) made for a $97.50 (5%) increase. Passed 3-0, with Member Friedman abstaining. 7-B. CASE 977 - 2027 Encinal Ave., Apt. C No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $150.00, a 9.1% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,800.00, effective March 1, 2018. 7-C. CASE 958.1 - 2215 Central Ave., Apt. H No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $91.50, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,929.00, effective February 1, 2018. Roberta Borglum, the tenant in this case, was present at the meeting and made a public comment at this time. She said that she was thankful for the RRAC and the Ordinance. She informed the Committee that several days prior to the meeting, her landlord came to her home and told her he would not negotiate the amount of the increase at the RRAC meeting and asked her to sign Form RP-05 agreeing to the increased amount. He told her that if she did not like the increase, she could move out. She said she felt intimidated by the landlord and signed the form. She added that she had lived in the home for 20 years, and suggested the City of Alameda consider adopting a stricter form of rent control where tenants did not have to negotiate… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-02-05 | 5 | Approved Minutes February 5, 2018 7-E. CASE 983 - 958 Park St., Apt. 1 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $75.63, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,588.13, effective February 1, 2018. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. Referencing public comment in Agenda Item 7-C, Eric Strimling commented that the current Ordinance's stipulations encouraging landlords and tenants to negotiate the amount of rent increases leads to damaged relationships between the parties. He opined that the City of Alameda should move toward adopting a strict form of rent control in place of the current system to avoid situations where a tenant could feel intimidated. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. Referencing public comment in Agenda Item 7-C, Member Friedman asked if Program Staff could do anything to help tenants who feel intimidated. City Attorney Staff commented that Committee members could ask Program Staff to agendize items for future discussion, but suggested it may be better to communicate with Staff directly on certain topics rather than agendizing them for discussion in public forums. He added that while matters like intimidation and coercion may not be appropriate topics for Committee discussion, Program Staff might provide resources to tenants facing those issues, such as by adding resources and information to the Rent Program's FAQ. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:36 PM. Respectfully submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 5, 2018 Page 5 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-03-05 | 1 | Approved Minutes March 5, 2018 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, March 5, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Griffiths and Friedman Absent: Member Murray Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. No public comment. 4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff welcomed the attendees and participants, and informed them of the process for participating in the meeting. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the February 5, 2018 Regular Meeting, with amendments from Chair Cambra. Motion and second to approve minutes, as amended (Friedman and Sullivan- Sariñana). Motion passed 3-0, with Member Griffiths abstaining. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 984 - 753 Lincoln Ave., Apt. B Tenants: Srijana and Uma Devi Kandel Landlord: Malcolm Lee Proposed rent increase: $368.00 (21.3%) to a total rent of $2,100.00, effective March 1, 2018 Landlord Malcolm Lee opened the discussion saying that he was requesting the increase due to increased costs of running the property. He cited costs incurred from his neighbor's trees causing problems, the Rent Program fee, and water damage in the Page 1 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-03-05 | 2 | Approved Minutes March 5, 2018 subject unit, which caused him to have to remodel the bathroom. He stated that he believed market rate rent for the unit was $2,300-$2,500 based on his review of Craigslist ads for similar units. He added that the repairs the property needed would require a bank loan, the payment of which will require increased rental income from each unit. Tenant Srijana Kandel replied that she did not ask Mr. Lee to remodel the bathroom, but that he had to do it due to water damage. She added that the rest of the units in the property were remodeled, but no other part of their unit except the bathroom had been renovated. She said she believes that because their apartment is unimproved, it could not fetch market-rate rent. She informed the Committee that she is the only person living at the unit who brings in income, and that paying the increased amount requested by Mr. Lee would create a financial hardship. Mr. Lee added that he voluntarily changed the carpet in the unit upon the tenants' initial move-in, put in a new stove and fridge, and rented it below market to them at the time because he sympathized with them as they shared the experience of being immigrants. He said he also prefers to rent to families rather than roommates and liked that a family would be living there. Ms. Kandel replied that the stove had not been working for 3-6 months and Mr. Lee had not yet fixed it, despite being notified it was broken. She said that her father lives in Japan where he runs a restaurant and takes care of his elderly father. Chair Cambra asked if Mr. Lee learned anything new from the discussion thus far. Mr. Lee replied that he did not know that the tenant's father was taking care of his father. Mr. Lee added that the tenants were subleasing the apartment, and he believed they could pass on some of the cost to the subtenants. Chair Cambra asked Ms. Kandel if she had learned something new thus far. She replied that she did not know Mr. Lee had new expenses on the property. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana aske… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-03-05 | 3 | Approved Minutes March 5, 2018 Member Friedman asked Mr. Lee what his monthly costs relating to the unit were, and Mr. Lee replied that they were $2,250 per month. Mr. Lee distributed a list of income and costs that had not been previously submitted. It stated that the rent required to break even for the unit in 2017 was $1,557.01, and the cost to break even in 2018 is $1,814.08. Member Griffiths asked Ms. Kandel what the maximum she could pay was, and she replied $1,850 (a 7% increase). Chair Cambra asked and Mr. Lee replied that he had owned the building for 13 years. Chair Cambra noted that the rental amount Mr. Lee was requesting was $100 more than the cost of the unit, including vacancy costs. Chair Cambra advised Mr. Lee to continue to work with neighbors to have them fix trees that were causing problems. He noted that Mr. Lee's previous rent increases were reasonable and gradual, and commented how going from those smaller, more gradual increases to a 21% increase presented a difficulty for the tenant and the Committee in allowing the jump. He asked Mr. Lee if other units in the building were at market rate. Mr. Lee said they were. Chair Cambra asked for the gross monthly rent at the complex, and Mr. Lee replied it was $23,100 per month, and total expenses were $19,667 per month. Mr. Lee said he could come down from asking for $2,100 to $2,000 total rent, a $268 (15.5%) increase. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked Mr. Lee when he anticipated having his vacant unit ready for rental and Mr. Lee said it's available now, but that he was having trouble finding a good tenant with the right credentials, stating that many applicants have "challenging credit." He said he was asking $2,350 for the vacant unit. Member Friedman noted that he believed the landlord's proposed cost for retrofitting the roof may be on the high end, and that he may be able to do the work for less than the proposed $200,000. Mr. Lee briefly replied explaining his reasons for coming to that number. Chair Cambra and Member Griffiths asked if M… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-03-05 | 4 | Approved Minutes March 5, 2018 The parties returned to their seats, and the RRAC members deliberated over the case. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that he believed the reasonable range of rent for the subject unit was between $1,850 and $2,000. Member Friedman stated that he believed Mr. Lee's proposed increase goes more toward profit than keeping up with expenses. He said he believed Mr. Lee needs about $100 more per month, and he thought Ms. Kandel's proposed increase to $1,850 was reasonable. Member Griffiths stated that he believed $1,900 total monthly rent was reasonable based on Mr. Lee's operating costs, and noted that it was about half way between the tenant and landlord's proposed amounts. He noted that Mr. Lee provided a lot of detailed evidence of his costs, while Ms. Kandel did not provide evidence of financial burden. Chair Cambra stated that he believed a $150 increase was reasonable. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths) for a $168 (9.7%) increase to a total rent of $1,900. Motion passed 4-0. Program staff commented that the RRAC must also determine the effective date of the increase. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Friedman) to amend, adding an April 1, 2018 effective date. Motion passed 4-0. 7-B. CASE 995 - 413 Coral Reef Rd. No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $347.50, a 16.1% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $2,500.00, effective April 1, 2018. 7-C. CASE 998 - 1151 Park Ave., Apt. B No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $50.00, a 2.6% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $2,000.00, effective March 1, 2018. 7-D. CASE 1000 - 732 Central Ave., Apt. 11 Page 4 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-03-05 | 5 | Approved Minutes March 5, 2018 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $80.00, a 4.9% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,7150, effective October 1, 2018. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. No public comment. 9. MATTERS INITIATED Chair Cambra stated that he wanted agendize an item to discuss the possibility of submitting comments alongside the Rent Program's annual report to City Council in April. Program staff replied that staff could get back to the RRAC about the timeline and guidelines for submitting comments. Chair Cambra asked the other RRAC members if they would like to make comments. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana and Member Griffiths said they would. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that he doesn't think the timing of the Housing Authority's report to the City Council should necessarily influence when the RRAC submits comments or suggestions to staff or City Council. Member Friedman said he thought the RRAC should discuss making and presenting a report to City Council separate from Program staff's report. City Attorney staff interjected that it may be best to not speak about this topic at length presently, but agendize a time to discuss it after staff has had a chance to provide details consistent with the RRAC's direction. Chair Cambra commented that he believes the City of Alameda's RRAC is a very successful process with superior results compared to other jurisdictions he has reviewed. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 7, 2018 Page 5 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-03-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-04-02 | 1 | Approved Minutes April 2, 2018 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, April 2, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Murray and Friedman Absent: Member Griffiths Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff announced that several cases on the agenda would not be heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing, and that the order of some cases had changed. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant, and mediation services. 4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. No staff announcements. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2018 Regular Meeting. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that he would like to suggest edits to the March minutes. He confirmed he would email staff suggested amendments before May's RRAC meeting. Motion and second to table approval of the minutes until May's meeting. (Sullivan- Sariñana and Friedman). Motion passed 4-0. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-F. CASE 1005.1 - 114 Keil Bay Tenant: Maryann Sadoon Landlord: Elena and Nelson Chan Proposed rent increase: $152.25 (5.0%) to a total rent of $3,197.25, effective April 1, 2018 Page 1 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-04-02 | 2 | Approved Minutes April 2, 2018 No Committee review. Prior to the meeting, staff approved Ms. Sadoon's request to attend the meeting by phone. Staff called Ms. Sadoon and she declined to participate. As the tenant declined to participate in the hearing, the rent increase will go into effect as proposed. 7-A. CASE 1006 - 111 Crolls Garden Ct. Tenant: Abel Macias III Landlord: Property Manager Steve Ace Hofer, on behalf of owner, Kumari Judge Proposed rent increase: $85.00 (4.8%) to a total rent of $1,855.00, effective April 1, 2018 Mr. Macias acknowledged the landlord had made improvements to his unit, and stated his desire for the landlord to address other concerns he had about the condition of the unit and complex. To illustrate an example of his concerns, he showed photos on his laptop showing a parked vehicle blocking access to part of the complex. He shared other photos that showed stairs at the property that were in need of maintenance. He pointed out they had worn tread, wood rot, and presented other safety concerns. He said that although some improvements had recently been made, more were needed to make the stairs safer. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana clarified that the RRAC cannot directly address maintenance concerns, but that it could facilitate dialogue that may allow the parties to resolve those issues together along with the rent increase amount. Mr. Hofer stated that management took maintenance of the property seriously and intends to keep the property in good condition. Mr. Macias said he had brought up his maintenance concerns to management before and management had not addressed all of them. Member Murray asked if Mr. Hofer was a new manager and he said he had been employed as the manager at that property for about two years and was working to fix long-standing problems that the previous manager had neglected. Mr. Macias acknowledged that Mr. Hofer had done some work to improve the property and reiterated that he wanted to make sure his concerns were addressed if he is to pay a rent increase. Member… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-04-02 | 3 | Approved Minutes April 2, 2018 Mr. Macias also raised concern about other tenants following the rules, such as by parking correctly. Mr. Hofer explained that he does address those matters with other tenants in an ongoing manner. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked Mr. Macias if he was comfortable with paying the rent increase going forward. Mr. Macias responded that he was comfortable agreeing to the increase if the landlord agreed to make the repairs he had requested, which Mr. Hofer agreed to do. The parties reached a voluntary agreement that Mr. Macias would pay the rent increase and Mr. Hofer would address Mr. Macias' concerns. 7-B. CASE 1008 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. F213 Tenants: Soniya Kullar and Arjmand Yousefian Landlord: Katie Edwards Proposed rent increase: $104.00 (4.9%) to a total rent of $2,239.00, effective March 26, 2018 No Committee review. The tenants did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will go into effect as proposed. 7-C. CASE 1002.1 - 2056 Encinal Ave., Apt. 4 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $90.00, a 10.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $990.00 effective April 1, 2018. 7-D. CASE 1003.1 - 2056 Encinal Ave., Apt. No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $80.00, a 10.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $880.00 effective April 1, 2018. 7-E. CASE 1004.1 - 2056 Encinal Ave., Apt. 2 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $105.00, a 10.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,155.00 effective April 1, 2018. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. No public comment. 9. MATTERS INITIATED None. Page 3 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-04-02 | 4 | Approved Minutes April 2, 2018 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 7, 2018 Page 4 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-04-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-05-07 | 1 | Approved Minutes May 7, 2018 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, May 7, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Murray, Friedman, and Griffiths Absent: None Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman, Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff announced that several cases on the agenda would not be heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. No public comment. 4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. No staff announcements. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2018 Regular Meeting. Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Griffiths and Cambra) with two typos corrected by Chair Cambra. Motion passed 4-0. Member Murray abstained. 5-B. Approval of the Minutes of the April 2, 2018 Regular Meeting. Motion and second to approve the minutes (Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray). Motion passed 3-0. Chair Cambra and Member Griffiths abstained. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 1013 - 1586 Lincoln Ave. No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $154.25, a 10.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,703.00 effective May 20, 2018. Page 1 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-05-07 | 2 | Approved Minutes May 7, 2018 7-B. CASE 1015 - 2251 San Jose Ave., Unit B No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant informed the landlord that she would vacate the unit. 7-C. CASE 1016 - 2251 San Jose Ave., Unit C Tenant: Micah Beasley Landlords: Cindy Ou, Linda, Joe Proposed rent increase: $106.25 (6.8%), $78.25, plus 10% of the water bill which amounts to approximately $28.00 per month, to a total rent of $1,643.25 plus 10% of the water bill, effective June 1, 2018 Cindy Ou explained that she thought that making her tenants partially responsible for the water bill would encourage them to use water more frugally. She and Joe stated that they reduce their own water usage and wanted to ensure that the tenants also take steps to conserve water. Micah Beasley explained that she thought her rent increase was going up 15% and asked for clarification. Chair Cambra and Member Murray clarified that the landlords were asking for a $78.25 rent increase plus 10% of each water bill, which averaged approximately $28.00 per month. Ms. Beasley said that she already conserves water. She added that she has to let the water run a long time before the water heats up. She noted that other units may use more water and therefore charging her 10% of the bill makes her feel like she will be paying for other tenants' water usage. Member Murray confirmed the points and concerns Ms. Beasley made. Ms. Ou stated that the total rent increase, including the unbundling of part of the water bill, amounted to about 7%, not 15 percent. She stated that the landlords would be paying 50% of the total water bill and the other 50% of the bill would be divided equally at each of the five units on the property. Ms. Beasley noted that her salary did not increase 7% per year and believed continued increases would pose a financial burden on her household in the future. She said she has had previous rent increases from previous landlords, although this was the first from this landlord. Ms. Ou added that the landlord pays for the utilities in … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-05-07 | 3 | Approved Minutes May 7, 2018 Member Murray asked Ms. Beasley to confirm if she felt like she could handle this rent increase, but not future increases above five percent. Ms. Beasley confirmed this was accurate. Member Murray asked Ms. Ou if she had plans to increase the rent more than 5% in the future. Ms. Ou said she intends to increase the rent at or below 5% in the future. She added that the only reason she had to come to the RRAC hearing for this increase was because of the unbundling of the water bill, which made the rent increase go above five percent. Ms. Beasley said she was a long-time Alameda resident going back to 1995. She said she lived here before that time as well, when her father was stationed at the Alameda Naval Base. She expressed a desire to remain in Alameda and had concerns about being priced out of the city. Member Murray stated that the purpose of Ordinance 3148 is to keep long-time residents from being priced-out. City Attorney staff Le added that a tenant could request RRAC review of an increase of 5% or less if she had concerns about future rent increases. Chair Cambra acknowledged this was correct. Joe opined that having to run the water longer to get hot is not a fixable problem, as water needs to travel from the heater to her unit. Ms. Ou and Joe noted that Ms. Beasley lived farther from the hot water heater than other tenants. They pointed out that Ms. Beasley may end up using more water than other tenants because of the distance of her unit from the water heater, yet she would only have to pay the same 10% of the total water bill that the other tenants would have to pay. Member Murray acknowledged that Ms. Beasley was already taking steps to conserve water and Ms. Beasley felt she could not cut back on water usage more than she has. Ms. Ou confirmed her intention to increase the rent next year at 5% or less. Member Friedman expressed appreciation for the landlords, as rather than attempting to bring the rent to market rate or compensate for having a larger mortgage than previous p… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-05-07 | 4 | Approved Minutes May 7, 2018 Public comment on Agenda Item 7-C: Eric Strimling applauded Ms. Beasley for coming to the hearing to find out what the rent increase review process was like. He also applauded the landlords for keeping the increase close to 5% and trying to conserve water. He said that the landlords could have increased the rent by less to make the total increase, including the unbundling of the water bill, equal to or less than five percent. He added that upgraded water systems for hot water can be installed cheaply and may help reduce the water wastage that occurs when running the water while waiting for it to get hot. 7-D. CASE 1017 - 2251 San Jose Ave., Unit D Tenant: Kristie Nachtsheim Landlord: Cindy Ou, Linda, Joe Proposed rent increase: $106.25 (6.8%), $78.25, plus 10% of the water bill which amounts to approximately $28.00 per month, to a total rent of $1,643.25 plus 10% of the water bill, effective June 1, 2018 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The rent increase will go into effect as proposed. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. No public comment. 9. MATTERS INITIATED None. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:17 PM. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 6, 2018 Page 4 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-05-07.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-06-06 | 1 | Approved Minutes June 6, 2018 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday June 6, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Murray, Friedman, and Griffiths Absent: None Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff announced that one of the cases on the agenda would not be heard, as it resolved prior to the hearing. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. No public comment. 4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. No staff announcements. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting. Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray). Motion passed 5-0. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 1023 - 1621 Broadway, Apt. A No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $120.00, a 7.1% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $1,820.00 effective June 1, 2018. 7-B. CASE 1025 - 1621 Broadway, Apt. B Tenant: Raquel Vazquez, accompanied by non-tenant supporter Carlos Landlords: Allen and Loretta Gravelle Proposed rent increase: $165.00 (10.0%), from $1,650.00 to $1,815.00, effective July 1, 2018 Page 1 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-06-06 | 2 | Approved Minutes June 6, 2018 Mr. Gravelle stated that they were looking for a 10% increase and had submitted documents showing that their costs of operation have increased. Ms. Gravelle added that they take care of the property and they had just hired a gardener to maintain the outside of the property. Member Murray asked for specific monetary amounts of the costs the landlords have incurred. The landlords stated that in 2016 they made $16,000 of improvements on the property. Ms. Gravelle provided the Committee with specific dollar amounts of costs that have increased, including taxes, utilities, and insurance. She added that they had only increased the rent twice since the tenancy began six years ago. Ms. Vazquez requested that Carlos present her perspective on the rent increase. (Carlos was later introduced as her ex-husband who was there to support her during the hearing). Carlos stated that a 10% increase would create a financial burden for Ms. Vazquez. He acknowledged that the landlords made improvements to the property, but stated that the improvements were not to Ms. Vazquez's unit and therefore did not directly benefit her. He said that both the back and front yards were not well maintained. He said that the landlords have not had a gardener and it's uncertain if they will keep the new gardener they claim to have hired. He said that Ms. Vazquez was not opposed to any increase, but believes 10% is excessive. He mentioned that the tenant used to pay the PG&E bill, but that the landlords pay it now. Chair Cambra asked the landlords why they started paying the PG&E bill. Mr. Gravelle replied that when they renovated the laundry room, the new dryers they put in were powered by gas, the meter for which was not severable from the tenant's unit. In order to proceed with the renovation, including the new gas-powered dryers and to ensure that Ms. Vazquez was not paying gas for the common laundry room, they took over payment of her gas bill, which amounted to about $25 per month. Mr. Gravelle stated that prior to h… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-06-06 | 3 | Approved Minutes June 6, 2018 Member Murray asked Ms. Vazquez why her income had decreased. Ms. Vazquez replied that her former employer retired last year, and her new job did not pay as much, and was on contract, not permanent employment. Member Murray asked Ms. Vazquez if she saw a clear path to increasing her income. Ms. Vazquez replied that she believes her income will increase but was not sure when. Member Murray asked her what impact a 10% increase would have on her. Ms. Vazquez replied that she would probably have to move, but was not sure to where since rents are high everywhere. Member Murray asked her if she could afford a 5% rent increase and Ms. Vazquez said she could. Member Friedman asked the landlords how much their expenses relating to the property have increased over the past year. Ms. Gravelle provided some concrete expense increases and added that operational costs and costs of supplies had also increased. Member Friedman asked if there had been a 10% increase in expenses. Mr. Gravelle stated that some of the 10% they were now requesting is not directly related to this last year's increases, but also includes a desire to "catch up" because they had not raised the rent in four of the past six years. Member Murray commented that a larger one time increase can be harder for a tenant to afford than multiple smaller increases, as it may give the tenant less of an ability to adjust and plan their finances in a regular, sustainable way. She acknowledged that the purpose of Ordinance 3148 is to stabilize tenants' living situations, which smaller, more regular increases would do better than fewer larger increases. Chair Cambra asked if any party learned something new that they did not know before the hearing began. Ms. Gravelle said she didn't know that Ms. Vazquez had taken a pay cut with her new job. Chair Cambra asked if they were willing to modify their rent increase offer having learned this. Mr. Gravelle stated that they would accept a $124 rent increase (7.5%). Member Griffiths asked Ms. Vazquez … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-06-06 | 4 | Approved Minutes June 6, 2018 Ms. Vazquez stated that she could not afford this proposed increase and said she could do an increase of $50 for 11 months and then an additional $124 increase after that. Chair Cambra and Member Murray explained to the parties that the RRAC would discuss their perspectives on what they had heard and give them one last chance to come to an agreement before asking them to return to their seats in the audience while the Committee makes a decision. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that he believed all parties have legitimate financial concerns and did not believe the landlord's request to be outrageous. Chair Cambra acknowledged that the landlords only imposed two increases in six years, totaling $250, and noted that making up for not increasing the rent in increments is problematic. He said he believes the unit was under market rate, that he gives a lot of weight to the tenant's hopefully temporary financial situation, and at the same time wanted to give the landlords a fair increase. Member Friedman stated that the financial hardship on the tenant is an important consideration, noting that Ordinance 3148 requires the Committee to weigh the interests of the parties when deciding on a fair increase. He said he did not believe a 10% increase was needed for the landlord to maintain the property, and was inclined to approve an $85 (about 5%) increase. Member Griffiths disclosed that he believes a stepped increase would be an appropriate solution given that the tenant stated her belief that her financial hardship was temporary, and given the landlords' interest in earning a reasonable rate of return on the property. Member Murray noted a financial need and good will on both sides. She said she believed a 10% increase was generally reasonable but that it would cause distress to the tenant in this circumstance, and so would support a lesser increase amount this year. She noted that the Committee is charged with stabilizing housing in the community and sees a stepped increase as a good opti… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-06-06 | 5 | Approved Minutes June 6, 2018 After a recess, as the parties did not reach an agreement, they took their seats in the audience. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said he did not believe a 10% increase would be warranted even if it were stepped, as it might force the tenant out of her home. He added that finding a new job was not necessarily easy and that the consequences for the tenant paying a rate too high were greater than the consequences for the landlords if they did not get the full increase they were requesting. He stated he believed a $50 increase for six months, plus $74 additional dollars for the second six months, was a good option. Member Murray stated that a $50 increase for the first six months would mean that the second step would be too high to make it a 7.5% increase. Chair Cambra asked the Committee members if they were comfortable with starting at a $50 increase for six months. Member Murray said she would be and added that she thought the second six months should add an additional $75 to the rent, which would take the total increased amount to a 7.5% total over the course of the year. Member Friedman stated that a $50 increase for the first six months would give the tenant an increase she would be comfortable with, and bringing the rent up to a total of 7.5% in the second six months would give the landlord an amount they had earlier expressed was acceptable for them. Member Griffiths proposed a $50 increase for the first eight months, then an additional $115 for the last four months of the year. He pointed out this would give the tenant an extra two months of lower rent while she's looking for permanent, higher paying work, and give the landlords the full rent increase they were seeking in the last four months. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that he does not believe the base rent should be raised by 10% over the course of the year as it would be under Member Griffith's proposal. Member Murray said she would favor Member Griffith's proposal over ones previously proposed. Member Griffiths said h… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-06-06 | 6 | Approved Minutes June 6, 2018 Member Murray clarified that Member Griffith's proposal would give the landlords an increase in rental income just above 5% over the course of the next year in total amount of rent paid. Member Murray made motion to adopt Member Griffith's proposal: eight months of a $50 increase, followed by an additional $115 increase for the last four months. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana noted that his proposal was only slightly different than Member Murray's original proposal. Member Friedman stated that he favors a proposal where the tenant pays a $50 increase in the first six months, but was not yet sure how much the increase in the second six months should be. The Members reviewed several of the proposals and found that the differences in total rent paid after one year to be minimal. Chair Cambra seconded Member Murray's motion. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana restated that he did not want the base rent to increase by 10%, but would rather have it increase 7.5%, even if it means that the tenant had six rather than eight months of the lower increase. He moved to amend Member Murray's original motion as follows: a $50 increase for first six months, to a total rent of $1,700, then in the second six months an additional $75 to a total rent of $1,775. Member Friedman seconded the amended motion, stating that he believed the concerns for the parties for this year were addressed with either stepped proposal. Member Murray reminded the Committee that Mr. Gravelle would be retiring in one or two years, and the landlords' household income would then go down. She said that they had a legitimate interest in obtaining additional income from their investment property. She stated that she believed the original proposal balances the needs to of the parties more equitably than the amended proposal. City Attorney staff clarified that the vote before the Committee was a vote on whether to amend the original motion, and if it fails, Member Murray's original motion would still stand. The Committee voted on Vice Chair… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf,7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-06-06 | 7 | Approved Minutes June 6, 2018 the first six months, and an additional $75 in the second six months. The motion passed 4-1, with Member Murray voting against the amended motion. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. No public comment. 9. MATTERS INITIATED Program staff reminded the Committee that during the next regularly scheduled meeting on July 2, 2018 they would again vote for Chair and Vice Chair for the Committee. Program staff also announced that staff was looking to schedule their annual training for late July and would email them requesting their availability to coordinate a date and time that would work. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on July 2, 2018 Page 7 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-06-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-02 | 1 | Approved Minutes July 2, 2018 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday July 2, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:35 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Murray and Griffiths Absent: Member Friedman Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Changes were announced as each item was called. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant, and mediation services. 4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. No staff announcements. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the June 6, 2018 Regular Meeting. Motion and second to approve of the minutes (Griffiths and Murray). Motion passed 4-0. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 1038 - 330 Westline Dr., Apt. B325 Tenant: Kristen Dodson Landlord: Katie Edwards Proposed rent increases: Month-to-month option: $715.00 (27.5%) Lease option: $62.00 (2.4%) Effective August 1, 2018 No Committee review. The tenant did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to the tenant. Page 1 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-02 | 2 | Approved Minutes July 2, 2018 7-B. CASE 1039 - 330 Westline Dr., Apt. B422 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $64.00, a 2.7% increase, bringing the rent to a total of $2,400.00 effective August 1, 2018. 7-C. CASE 1040 - 344 Westline Dr., Apt. C117 Tenant: Mirembe Francis Landlord: Katie Edwards Proposed rent increases: Month-to-month option: $598.00 (33.5%) Lease option: $146.00 (7.6%) Effective August 1, 2018 No Committee review. The tenant did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to the tenant. 7-D. CASE 1041 - 344 Westline Dr., Apt. C203 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenants provided notice that they would vacate the unit. 7-E. CASE 1042 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. E105 Tenants: Sara Carlson, Elijan Alcantar, Isias Alcantar, & Paula Garcia Landlord: Katie Edwards Proposed rent increases: Month-to-month option: $867.00 (31.2%) Lease option: $138.00 (5.0%) Effective August 1, 2018 No Committee review. The tenants did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to the tenants. 7-F. CASE 1043 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. E117 Tenants: Tina Weatherly & John Furtado Landlord: Katie Edwards Proposed rent increases: Month-to-month option: $532.00 (30.3%) Lease option: $85.00 (4.8%) Effective August 1, 2018 No Committee review. The tenants did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to the tenants. Page 2 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-02 | 3 | Approved Minutes July 2, 2018 7-G. CASE 1044 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. E201 Tenants: Brook Gebrechristos & Raheal Solomon Landlord: Katie Edwards Proposed rent increases: Month-to-month option: $688.00 (29.6%) Lease option: $110.00 (4.7%) Effective August 1, 2018 No Committee review. The tenants did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to the tenants. 7-H. CASE 1046 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. F231 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%, effective August 1, 2018. 7-I. CASE 1048 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. F307 Tenant: Carol Barrette Landlord: Katie Edwards Proposed rent increases: Month-to-month option: $686.00 (30.5%) Lease option: $109.00 (4.8%) Effective August 1, 2018 Ms. Barrette informed the Committee that she had lived in her apartment for about two years. She said her mother was ill and she may need to stay with her at some point in the near future, but was unsure when. As a result, she needed the flexibility a month-to- month lease offers. She said that the month-to-month rent increase offer provided by the landlords seemed excessive and would present a financial burden for her. Member Murray restated Ms. Barrette's situation and asked what she thought a fair rent increase offer would be. Ms. Barrette said she thought a 4% ($109) rent increase offer was fair. Ms. Edwards said she understands and sympathizes with Ms. Barrette's situation. She proposed a $217 (9.9%) increase for a month-to-month agreement. She explained that month-to-month agreements create uncertainty and increased costs for housing providers. Member Murray confirmed that the rent increase offer presented by Ms. Edwards would increase the rent from $2,199 to $2,416 per month. Ms. Barrette stated that she had to pay utilities in addition to rent. After hesitating for a moment, she said she would be able to pay Ms. Edwards' proposed increase. Page 3 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-02 | 4 | Approved Minutes July 2, 2018 Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked Ms. Barrette to confirm that she found Ms. Edwards' proposed increase acceptable. Ms. Barrette said that she would rather not pay that much of an increase. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana clarified his question, asking her if she was able to pay the increase. Ms. Barrette said she would be able to pay it, as she would probably only be there a couple more months. Chair Cambra restated that she would be okay paying this increase if she were to stay in the unit only two months, but asked if it would be okay if she had to stay longer, as she had previously stated she was not sure how long she would have to stay. Ms. Barrette said that the longer she had to pay the increase the harder it would be for her. She expressed skepticism about why the management would have increased expenses by providing her a month-to-month lease, as she was already an in-place tenant, and thought the newly proposed increase was still excessive considering that she was already in-place. Member Murray clarified what Ms. Barrette was currently paying - $2,199 rent, plus $50 pet rent, plus garbage, water, water heating, and an administrative fee, all of which come out to several hundred dollars in addition to the rent. Ms. Edwards asked the Committee why they were questioning Ms. Barrette's original statement that she would be fine with the $217 (9.9%) increase. Chair Cambra explained that attending the public hearing and discussing a rent increase could cause pressure on the parties, so the Committee wanted to ensure that the tenant could genuinely afford the increase, and explore the issue in greater detail. He alluded to the fact that she said she could afford the proposed increase for two months, but that may be different if it were raised to that level for six months. Member Murray added that the goal of the hearing was to have the parties come to agreements that would work long-term, and not rush people into making agreements that may later unravel. Ms. Barrette added that she … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-02 | 5 | Approved Minutes July 2, 2018 Ms. Barrette agreed, concluding the case review, and preempting the RRAC from making a decision concerning the increase. 7-J. CASE 1049 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. F309 Tenants: Emily Abad & Courtane Stanton Landlord: Katie Edwards Proposed rent increases: Month-to-month option: $694.00 (31.2%) Lease option: $111.00 (5.0%) Effective August 1, 2018 No Committee review. The tenants did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to the tenants. 7-K. CASE 1050 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Apt. G110 Tenant: Deborah Golay Landlord: Katie Edwards Proposed rent increases: Month-to-month option: $521.00 (31.2%) Lease option: $83.00 (5.0%) Effective August 1, 2018 No Committee review. The tenant did not appear at the hearing. The rent increase will go into effect as proposed, with both the month-to-month and lease options available to the tenant. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. Stewart Chen congratulated the Committee on its high success rate in resolving cases. He expressed a possible need for more outreach to the Chinese-speaking community about the Rent Stabilization Program and RRAC rent review process. 9. MATTERS INITIATED Program staff reminded the Committee they are scheduled to vote on a Chair and Vice Chair. As there was a member absent the Committee expressed reservations about voting. Motion and second to table the vote to the next regular meeting on August 6, 2018 (Murray and Sullivan-Sariñana). Motion passed 4-0. City Attorney staff added that the vote also served to suspend the rules that the annual vote for Chair and Vice Chair would happen in July. Program staff requested Committee member confirmations of their availability for the annual training on July 23, 2018. All but Member Murray confirmed their availability for that day. Program staff informed the Committee that staff would send additional details about the annual training before that training date. Page 5 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-02 | 6 | Approved Minutes July 2, 2018 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 6, 2018 Page 6 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-23 | 1 | Approved Minutes July 23, 2018 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday July 23, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:02 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Friedman and Griffiths Absent: Member Murray Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats, Jennifer Kauffman, Janice Heredia City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. None. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. None. 4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff announced that several trainings for RRAC members would be given periodically throughout the next year, and that several other presenters had already been identified. Staff informed the Committee that additional details would be provided closer to the training dates. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. None. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. None. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. A special meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee is being convened to allow a quorum of its members to participate in a meeting facilitation training. Staff introduced the speaker, Stewart Levine, and the topic for the day's training: Meeting Management Skills. Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Levine began the training by asking the RRAC members to introduce themselves, say something about why they chose to be on this Committee, and provide their desired outcome for the day. Page 1 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-23 | 2 | Approved Minutes July 23, 2018 Each member introduced themselves and provided their answers. Member Griffiths mentioned wanting to improve RRAC meetings by making them more regular. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed a desire to help his community. Member Friedman provided that he feels like he makes a worthwhile contribution to the Committee and community by serving on the RRAC. He also said he hopes to learn new things by serving. Chair Cambra said that he has been described as having an almost religious zeal for mediation and hopes to bring parties together. He said his desired outcome for the day was to receive affirmations for things the Committee does well and constructive criticism for areas where they could improve. Mr. Levine introduced himself, informing the Committee that he has been a practicing attorney before pursuing work in mediation and divorce mediation. He said he had written two books: The Book of Agreement and Collaboration 2.0. He said he was providing the presentation on behalf of The Consulting Team, is an Alameda resident, and a concerned citizen about the housing situation in the region. Mr. Levine asked the Committee members to rate their last meeting on a scale from one to ten, and include why they choose the number they did. He shared a quote with the members to consider, "Use your thinking speed wisely." Member Friedman commented that he found the respectfulness of the Committee members to be a positive. He opined that a RRAC hearing was not a good forum for mediation because the meeting is very public, which can inhibit participants from fully participating. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said he would rate the last meeting a 7/10, commenting that the Committee did a good job facilitating communication between landlord and tenant. He said that RRAC meetings often run long because members tend to be wordy, but that the reason for that was to share their thinking processes. Member Griffiths gave last meeting a 6/10, noting both positives and areas for improvement. Mr. Levine asked t… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-23 | 3 | Approved Minutes July 23, 2018 Mr. Levine presented how listening, focusing, using agreements, problem solving and decision-making are important considerations for improving efficiency and complemented the Committee for their problem solving skills. He added that when it comes to efficiency, "Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough." Mr. Levine provided the members with the acronym "ROAR: Roles, Outcome, Agenda, Rules" and suggested members focus on the agenda for each case that comes before them. He acknowledged that the rules are pretty clearly set out, and how to get to an outcome is the challenge. Mr. Levine brought up the importance of agreements and suggested the members make a commitment to agree to stay on time and keep focused on agenda. Member Friedman responded that there were problems with rigidly adhering to time limits as each case was different, and that there were no formal rules limiting the amount of time the Committee could spend on any given matter. He stated that staff occasionally attempted to impose time limits on the Committee. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said that he understood the reasons for adhering to a time limit, as it would ensure fairness that each set of parties would get equal time. Chair Cambra said he agreed with the principle of equity, but sometimes members need extra time to get information out of the parties. Member Griffiths said he would not mind codifying a 45-minute per case rule in the Committee's bylaws, if it allowed the possibility of extensions. Program staff added that equity was one issue, but time was also a valuable tool the Committee can use to move the hearings forward. City Attorney staff added that while the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is silent on the issue of time limits, it was worth noting that the City Council recognized the importance of time management and imposed time limits on themselves. He said he believes Member Griffith's proposal to add a time limit to the bylaws should be considered. Member Friedman responded that he believes the Com… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-23 | 4 | Approved Minutes July 23, 2018 Mr. Levine presented the importance of separating rolls and duties to improve meeting efficiency, such as by designating a timekeeper to track time limits. He said the roll of the timekeeper should be to monitor the meeting time, time each agenda item, and givers periodic alerts when approaching time limits. Chair Cambra replied that he was the timekeeper as well as Chair and he uses cards to notify parties of impending time limits. Mr. Levine suggested that the roll be designated to someone other than the Chair, to ensure that one person was not taking on too much. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said that he could take on the role of timekeeper. Member Friedman expressed a desire to discuss whether time was a problem the Committee needed to address. Member Griffiths replied that staff had already brought up reasons, e.g., for purposes of equity. Mr. Levine added that timekeeping also functioned to ensure all the cases scheduled at any given meeting could be addressed. Member Griffiths opined that the problem the Committee runs into with time management lies in the middle of the discussions during a case, which seem to often go overtime. He recognized that the Committee did not treat all cases the same, as when there were multiple cases on an agenda, the Committee moved them along faster than when there were fewer cases. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana acknowledged that one of the inherent weaknesses of the City's rent review process was the uncertainty that comes with each case, as every case was different and had to be treated on a case-by-case basis. He said he believes having a time limit would be fine as long as they had the ability to extend it. Mr. Levine emphasized the importance of urgency, saying that there had to be a certain amount of urgency to keep the hearing moving along. He asked each member to write a personal, measurable goal that will improve meeting efficiency. Chair Cambra shared that if the Committee were able to better perceive when parties are not likely to come … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-23 | 5 | Approved Minutes July 23, 2018 Member Griffiths replied that the Committee's process has a lot of room for improvement and the members should not be resistant to improving it. Member Friedman said he would like to improve listening and focusing skills. Me. Levine presented a sample RRAC case timeline with time limits on each part of the review process and the members discussed. Mr. Levine suggested having a pre-printed list of questions that Committee members could use to move case discussions along more efficiently. Member Friedman replied that having a pre-printed list of questions was interesting but was not something that the Committee had considered before. He expressed frustration that mediation was part of the RRAC review process, as the parties had an opportunity to mediate prior to the hearing with program staff. Member Griffiths replied that the mediation format of the RRAC hearing process had value as it produced many mutual agreements between the parties. He added that Committee members sometimes treated binding and nonbinding cases differently, and were quicker to come to a conclusion when the case was binding. He said they may want to try to encourage parties to come to agreements themselves especially where the Committee's decision is nonbinding. Mr. Levine brought the discussion back to the importance of agreements and consequences for not sticking to agreements. As an example of a consequence of not adhering to time limits, he posited that the consequence could be, "having to hire me again." He praised the Committee for approaching the cases from a place of inquiry rather than judgment. He discussed listening strategies and praised the Committee for their listening skills. He reflected on the importance of approaching each case from an unbiased perspective. Member Friedman replied that there were some instances when he found it difficult to be neutral, e.g., when landlords say they need additional rental income for retirement. He asked if it was permissible for members to express their values. Vi… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-23 | 6 | Approved Minutes July 23, 2018 In discussing additional efficiency strategies, Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed a need for Committee members to interrupt more, especially when parties bring up matters not directly related to the rent increase. Chair Cambra acknowledged that interrupting could be difficult in general, he would personally find it difficult, and sometimes venting can be a valuable part of the process. Mr. Levine asked if Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana, as timekeeper, could be the one who interrupts, and the Committee discussed. Mr. Levine pointed out the importance of being mindful of the way one interrupts: tone of voice, phrasing, etc. He summarized the process of hearing a case: 1. Getting the facts out on the table, 2. Allowing parties to discuss their concerns and frustrations, 3. Seeing if a mutually-agreeable resolution seems likely, and 4. If such a resolution seems unlikely, making a decision. Mr. Levine summarized the training: members embraced the importance of timekeeping, efficiency, and urgency, and will have a discussion about codifying it into the Committee's bylaws. Member Friedman said he thought the Committee members should have been consulted about what the training covered. Chair Cambra said the training made him recognize how well Committee members discussed issues among themselves, and said he found the presentation helpful. 7-B. Discuss content for letter from RRAC to City Council to be submitted with annual report. Program staff introduced background for this agenda item: during a previous RRAC meeting, Committee members asked to submit feedback to City Council in a letter that may be submitted to the City Council at the same time as the annual program report. Member Friedman asked staff if the Committee could form a sub-committee to draft a letter. Program staff replied that suggestions and draft letters may be sent to staff over email and staff could combine members' letters into a single letter and send it back to Committee members for approval. Member Friedman said h… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf,7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-23 | 7 | Approved Minutes July 23, 2018 City Attorney staff notified members that a letter from RRAC members may be more effective next year, as the City Council was not hearing substantive changes to Ordinance 3148 this year, but may be next year. Committee members discussed options about what they might want to write, such as inviting City Council members to attend a RRAC meeting, and expressed options about what they might want to include. Chair Cambra stated that he would want the letter to include both qualitative feedback and quantitative feedback. City Attorney staff suggested that one member should draft something for the others to review, add to, and sign. Member Griffiths said that he would not sign a letter that did more than invite to City Council members to attend a RRAC hearing and complement staff. Chair Cambra said that each member should submit their own letter if they wanted. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. None. 9. MATTERS INITIATED Program staff informed the Committee that there were a large number of cases scheduled for review in August and that two RRAC hearings had been scheduled to review them, one on August 6 and the second on August 20. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 29, 2018 Page 7 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-06 | 1 | Approved Minutes August 6, 2018 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday August 6, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah (formerly Sullivan- Sariñana); Members Friedman, Murray, and Griffiths Absent: None Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Motion and second to move Agenda Item 7-C to be heard first, and move each item of New Business down one place (Member Friedman and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Passed 5-0. b. Motion and second to move Agenda Item 7-B to be heard second (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member Murray). Motion to move 7-B to be heard first, and move each other item down one place (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member Friedman). Passed 5-0. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff announced that two hearing dates were scheduled in August, two in September, and perhaps two in October. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant, and mediation services. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Motion to approve the minutes of the July 2, 2018 Regular Meeting (Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0, with one abstention (Member Friedman). 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. None. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-B. CASE 1055 - 2157 San Jose Ave., Unit B Tenant: Michelle Rae Grey & LaVar Douglas Grey, present Landlord: Lisa Fowler, absent Proposed rent increase: $95.00 (4.9%), effective July 1, 2018 Page 1 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-06 | 2 | Approved Minutes August 6, 2018 No Committee review. The tenants were present at the hearing but the landlord was not. The rent increase notice is therefore void, and the landlord may not increase the tenants' rent for at least 12 months from the effective date of this increase. 7-C. CASE 1058 - 1540 Court St. Tenant: Holly Harrison, present Landlord: David Armitage, owner, present, and attorney Clifford Fried, present Proposed rent increase: Month-to-month offer: $1,800.00 (75.0%) Lease offer: $2,100.00 (87.5%) Effective September 1, 2018 Mr. Fried stated that the owner flew in from Florida to participate in the hearing because his participation in the process is mandatory, even though the property is a single family residence, which is exempt from rent control. Mr. Fried stated that the legality of the requirement for a landlord to participate is questionable. He said that Mr. Armitage is looking to obtain a fair rate of return on his investment. He said that the landlord is retired from the U.S. Navy, and was previously stationed in Alameda when he purchased his home, and has kept the house as a rental since then. Mr. Fried went on to say that no one tells grocery stores what to charge for a loaf of bread, or doctors to charge their patients or Walgreens to charge for their products. He said there is an item on the November ballot to repeal Costa Hawkins, which exempts certain units such as the one in question, but until then, the landlord had a right to charge market rates like other businesses do. He added that even with this proposed rent increase, the landlord believes the rent is still below market rate. Ms. Harrison stated that the landlords were friendly, but that as a result of the increase, her family would have to move. She said she brings home $2,152.26 biweekly, and the increase would mean that all of her salary would be going toward rent. She said she did not understand the rent review process. Chair Cambra told her she may share her perspective on the increase. She said she had doubts that the la… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-06 | 3 | Approved Minutes August 6, 2018 Chair Cambra asked if Mr. Fried had a response to Ms. Harrison's comments. Mr. Fried said that if the landlord doesn't get this increase, he would have to sell the property. Mr. Armitage said that he had raised the rent $400 in October 2017 and tenants agreed, but subsequently learned there was an Ordinance. He said that upon contacting Mr. Fried's firm, he learned that the increase was improper and was advised to rescind and the increase and refund the excessive amounts charged under it, which he did. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Armitage how he came to the increase amounts he did. Mr. Armitage replied that he did research to see what the market rate was for comparable units and decided he wanted to raise it to market value in anticipation that Costa Hawkins may be overturned. He said he was concerned that if that law was overturned, he may be stuck with below market rate rent forever. Mr. Armitage said that he had just retired and did not have as much money coming in as he used to when he was working. Chair Cambra asked if the possible Costa Hawkins repeal was the main reason he was asking for the increase, and Mr. Fried said it was the impending reason, but the long- term reason was to ensure the landlords could obtain adequate rental income in their retirement. Member Friedman said that even though they could not render a binding decision, the Committee still had a responsibility to stabilize the rental market and see if they might help families like Ms. Harrison's stay in the community. He questioned the level of urgency to raise the rent that Mr. Fried provided, and wondered if there was room to come to an agreement where everyone's needs were met. Mr. Fried said he would counsel his client to raise the rent now before any impending legislation takes effect. Chair Cambra asked if the repeal of Costa Hawkins would change local rent control laws beyond making exempt units nonexempt. City Attorney's Office staff said that it would not be self-executing; most cities would … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-06 | 4 | Approved Minutes August 6, 2018 Monica and Berkeley would not need to amend their ordinances if Costa Hawkins was repealed. City Attorney's Office staff clarified that the Ordinance does not prevent the parties from coming to mutual agreements outside the rent review process. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Armitage if he had improved the home. Mr. Armitage said he had redone some plumbing and worked on the carport. He said he had told Ms. Harrison's husband to tell him if anything needed to be done. Ms. Harrison said that they never ask for anything from their landlord. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that having a long-term tenant who is willing to pay a substantial rent increase, even if it's not what the landlord is looking for, may be something the landlord would want to consider. Member Friedman asked Ms. Harrison why she did not submit a statement. She said she did not understand the process or the Committee. Member Murray asked Ms. Harrison if a postponement of the effective date of the increase until September would be advantageous to her, and she said it would be. Mr. Fried responded that he would never advise his client to postpone rent increases, because he thought it might put his client at a disadvantage if any court proceedings were required, such as an unlawful detainer further down the road. He said that the parties were doing fine before they came here, and parties could always come to fair agreements without rent control measures. He added that the rules in court are rigged against the property owner. Member Friedman asked what appeal options were available to the parties. City staff clarified that the appeal process for a nonbinding decision was a request to have City Council review. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he would not vote for what the landlords were asking for as he did not feel the landlords had demonstrated a need for the rent increase, e.g., they did not show documentation of income or expenses. He said that even though the tenant did not provide a written response, she did p… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-06 | 5 | Approved Minutes August 6, 2018 especially with the school year starting. She raised the possibility of moving the effective date from September 1 to November 1. Member Friedman said he believes the rental business is a different kind of business than many other businesses, and the community should have a say in what can be charged. He said he thought a $540 increase to $2,940 was reasonable. He explained this would be 5% above the $2,800 that the tenants agreed to pay last year before that increase was rescinded. Member Murray suggested that since the tenant said she would be able to move to a unit charging $3,100 rent, an increase to $3,100 would be reasonable, and again posited whether a delay in the effective date would be appropriate. Member Griffiths suggested a stepped increase that may allow the tenants to stay longer, and bring the landlord up to a higher base rent in the long run. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that he thought the $2,940 total rent suggested by Member Friedman was fair, while acknowledging it was a large increase. Chair Cambra said he thought Member Friedman's suggestion of a $540 increase was reasonable, proposing perhaps a $400 increase now and a $140 increase later. Motion and second to increase the rent $540 starting September 1, 2018 (Member Griffiths and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Member Murray added that she thought the landlord's position to raise the rent now was reasonable, both as supplemental retirement income and before a potential change in the law could change his rights to raise the rent later. Member Friedman noted that the Ordinance does not entitle landlords to obtain market rate rent, but to keep up with operating costs. Member Murray responded that fair rate of return was difficult to define. Vote for $540 increase effective September 1, 2018. Motion passed 3-2. 7-A. Committee will consider and vote on Chair and Vice Chair Member Griffiths nominated Member Murray to be Chair. She declined, stating she does not know the rules to operate Committee meetings well eno… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-06 | 6 | Approved Minutes August 6, 2018 Member Murray nominated herself for Vice Chair. The Committee members discussed and decided that the vote did not need a motion. Members Griffiths and Murray, and Chair Cambra voted for to make Member Murray the new Vice Chair. 7-D. CASE 1059 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D226 Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for administrative reasons. 7-E. CASE 1061 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B305 Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for administrative reasons. 7-F. CASE 1062 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C301 Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for administrative reasons. 7-G. CASE 1063 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A311 Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for administrative reasons. 7-H. CASE 1064 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D203 Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for administrative reasons. 7-I. CASE 1066 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A307 Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for administrative reasons. 7-J. CASE 1067 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D318 Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for administrative reasons. 7-K. CASE 1068 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A206 Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for administrative reasons. 7-L. CASE 1070 - 768 Eagle Ave., Upstairs Unit No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord came to an agreement regarding the amount of the rent increase. Program staff informed attendees that details of agreements reached prior to being reviewed by the Committee could be Page 6 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf,7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-06 | 7 | Approved Minutes August 6, 2018 found in the Rent Stabilization Program's monthly reports, which are posted monthly on the Program's website, www.alamedarentprogram.org Chair Cambra requested the details of the resolution. Staff said staff did not have the details available. Chair Cambra requested the details of the resolution be put on a future agenda. 7-M. CASE 1026.2 - 768 Eagle Ave., Downstairs Unit No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord came to an agreement regarding the amount of the rent increase. Program staff informed attendees that details of agreements reached prior to being reviewed by the Committee could be found in the Rent Stabilization Program's monthly reports, which are posted monthly on the Program's website, www.alamedarentprogram.org. Chair Cambra requested the details of the resolution. Staff said staff did not have the details available. Chair Cambra requested the details of the resolution be put on a future agenda. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. None. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. None. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 5, 2018 Page 7 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-20 | 1 | Approved Minutes August 20, 2018 Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday August 20, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:38 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray (arrived at 6:48pm); Members Friedman, Sullivan-Cheah, and Griffiths Absent: None Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff called roll of parties present for the agendized cases. All tenants were present at roll call except the tenant for Agenda Item 7-D. Item 7-D was moved to the end of New Business. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. None. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Motion and second to table the vote on approval of the July 23, 2018 minutes (Member Friedman and Chair Cambra). Passed 4-0 (Member Murray not yet present). 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. None. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 1077 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 217 Tenants: Erika Cavallone & Fabrizio Benin Landlords: Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher Proposed rent increase: $208.22, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of $1,695.00 to a total rent of $1,903.22 Mr. St. John stated that the owners had done major renovation of the building from 2013- 2018. He said the hard and soft costs amounted to $2.87 million. He added that the total cost including financing was $4.96 million. During the project, he said, the owners had to forgo rent payments and rent increases, and suffered vacancy losses to allow the Page 1 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-20 | 2 | Approved Minutes August 20, 2018 construction to go forward. Including these additional costs, he added, the total cost was $5.4 million. He clarified that the current rent increase requests only took into consideration the $2.87 million in hard and soft costs. He said the project did not qualify for the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process because the work started prior to the date allowed under the City's CIP resolution. However, he continued, using the CIP plan would have allowed for an increase of $483 per unit, per month, while the increases the landlord was requesting were less than this. He explained that the landlords offered most of the tenants either a "phase-in" or a "one- time" increase option, and explained the differences between and reasons for the two options. He said that the one-time increase front-ends the costs, while the phase-in apportions the costs over several years. Mr. Kessler added that a seismic upgrade began in 2013, and no increases had been given since 2014. Member Friedman reflected back and clarified some of the landlord's figures. The landlords confirmed that increases for tenants who arrived before 2015 have some portion of CAPX improvements calculated into the increase amounts, and tenants who have been in place since before 2013 are being asked to pay 100% of the total CAPX costs. Ms. Cavallone asked if this hearing was for this year's increase only. Vice Chair Murray explained the RRAC's ability to make a decision regarding an increase can only be for an increase of one year. Ms. Cavallone said she was only comfortable making an agreement for one year. She said she works as a researcher at UCSF and her husband works as an Uber driver. She said her income was relatively fixed, and her husband had a history of multiple hospitalizations, which rendered them living on one income for a period of time. She said the increase request posed a financial hardship for them. She added that they were not happy with their living situation and she believed upper management (Berger E… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-20 | 3 | Approved Minutes August 20, 2018 The landlords presented the Committee with photos of the property. Member Sullivan- Cheah asked staff if the photos submitted would be included in an updated agenda. Staff clarified that the agenda for tonight would be unchanged, but that copies of the photos submitted may be requested through a Public Records Act request. Mr. St. John said that many tenants had expressed concerns (in their RP-01 submissions) that no work was done to the inside of their units. He said much of the work was "invisible" - e.g., retrofitting, structural upgrades, dry rot remedied, seismic upgrades. Chair Cambra asked if the landlords informed the tenants during the years of work that the costs for the work would be passed on to them in the form of rent increases. The landlords responded that the tenants were not informed. Member Friedman asked why the landlords were asking for the tenants to pay for the costs of the work in the first year or years. Mr. Fisher replied that they were not, and the total costs would be spread out over a longer period of time. Ms. Cavallone stated that she believed a total rent of $1,779 was reasonable, because it was a 5% increase. Chair Cambra asked that the tenants provide a numerical value of an increase amount they thought was reasonable and Ms. Cavallone said she thought a $40 increase was reasonable. Chair Cambra asked the landlords if they learned anything during the hearing that would entice them to compromise on the amount of the increase, and Mr. St. John said no. He added that when tenants were inconvenienced during the construction, such as being temporarily relocated, the landlords paid for their temporary relocation. The members discussed their thoughts on the items the parties shared and asked the parties to take a seat before they began the decision-making phase of the hearing. Vice Chair Murray explained the importance of landlords keeping properties in good condition, such as by the seismic retrofitting that the landlords did at this property. Member Sul… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-20 | 4 | Approved Minutes August 20, 2018 Vice Chair Murray proposed a $127.12 (7.5%) increase, stating that would best balance the interests of the landlords with the financial hardship of the tenants. Member Griffiths said he was open to either a $100 or $127.12 increase. Chair Cambra suggested a $120 increase. Member Friedman suggested a $112 increase. Motion and second for an increase of $125 (7.4%) (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 4-1, with Member Friedman voting against it. 7-B. CASE 1083 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 311 Tenants: Timothy Larson & Mengxia (Judy) Zhu Landlords: Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Johanna Leonard Proposed rent increase: $309.06, effective October 1, 2018 Mr. Larson said that they disagreed with the rent increases offered and did not believe any increase was warranted, as the tenants were still recovering from their losses during the preceding years of construction. He said that during construction the roof leaked large amounts of water into their unit, destroyed their property, and created mold in the unit. He said that the landlords temporarily housed them off-site, into an unsanitary motel infested with fleas, for three months while work was being done to restore the unit. He went on to add that upon moving back into the unit, the movers broke some of their property and they were not reimbursed for all of it, and the mold in the unit was not remedied. He stated that additional repairs were not effective at remedying a myriad of problems at the property. Ms. Leonard explained the temporary move to a motel from the perspective of the management. She said tenants who did not have access to their balconies were given a rent credit during the construction on the property. She took the position that management had already reimbursed tenants or gave them rent credits during the inconveniences caused by the construction. Chair Cambra asked if the landlords learned anything new. Mr. St. John said he did not as he had read the tenant's response. He said … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-20 | 5 | Approved Minutes August 20, 2018 Member Murray asked if tenants submitted losses and expenses to the landlord and Mr. Larson said he did. Ms. Zhu said she thought it was unfair that the landlords seemed to want to retrieve the rent credits they had been paid as compensation for the construction and related mishaps. Mr. St. John denied that this was the reason for the present increases, and said the current increases were for work that was yet to be done on the property. Vice Chair Murray asked the landlords what the tenant complaint process looked like. Ms. Leonard described the process. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked the tenants how much of their household income goes toward rent and the tenants declined to answer. The parties took a seat and the members deliberated. Member Griffiths suggested a $100.17 increase for the phase-in CAPX. Motion and second for a $100 (6.3%) increase starting October 1, 2018 (Member Griffiths and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 5-0. 7-C. CASE 1086 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 222 The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date. 7-D. CASE 1087 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 111 The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date. 7-E. CASE 1089 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 306 The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date. 7-F. CASE 1095 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 215 The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date. 7-G. CASE 1099 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 313 The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date. 7-H. CASE 1100 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 109 The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date. 7-I. CASE 1101 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 209 Page 5 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-20 | 6 | Approved Minutes August 20, 2018 The Committee voted to postpone this agenda item to a future date. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. None. 9. MATTERS INITIATED Member Sullivan-Cheah stated that he found being timekeeper to be distracting from concentrating on the cases. He asked if another Committee member or staff could take on the role of timekeeper. Staff replied that staff could be timekeeper again, and reminded the Committee that staff had previously been timekeeper and each time staff would inform the Committee that a time limit had passed, the Committee members would give themselves extensions. Vice Chair Murray suggested that, at the beginning of each meeting the members choose a timekeeper, and the members share the responsibility. Member Friedman requested a discussion item be placed on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting for the members to discuss amending the bylaws to include a per-case time limit. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018 Page 6 of 6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-20.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-29 | 1 | Approved Minutes August 29, 2018 Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday August 29, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray; Members Friedman and Sullivan-Cheah Absent: Member Griffiths Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: Michael Roush 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. The Committee agreed to move the Consent Calendar item (Agenda Item 5-A) to the end of the agenda. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. None. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of the minutes of the July 23, 2018 Special Meeting - moved to end of the agenda. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS Chair Cambra asked for the Committee to discuss a letter the landlords had sent since the last (August 20, 2018) meeting providing feedback on the Committee's rent review process. Member Sullivan-Cheah said that the RRAC is not a legislative body, is bound by the requirements of the Ordinance, and members do their best to be fair. Vice Chair Murray said she appreciated the letter and the concerns it expressed. Regarding mediation, she said, the Housing Authority offered it prior to Committee hearings, as the Alameda community desired that parties try to reach agreements to housing issues voluntarily. She added that there's an inherent tension in the Ordinance's attempt to shift the balance of the common law's bias toward the landlord to make it fairer to the tenant, and the Committee's role is also to try to do this. She said if parties had concerns regarding the operation of law, they should bring up their concerns to the relevant legislative body that makes those laws. Page 1 of 9 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-29 | 2 | Approved Minutes August 29, 2018 Member Friedman said that he requested the landlords provide additional information on how they calculated fair rate of return at the last meeting, but the landlords' letter did not provide this. Chair Cambra noted that the RRAC process is different than most other cities' process for holding hearings and evaluating rent increases. 6-A. CASE 1086 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 222 Tenant: Jamila Harakat Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher Proposed rent increase: $310.64, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of $1,395.00 to a total rent of $1,705.64. Ms. Harakat said she and her husband moved to Tropic Sands in 2011 and received increases in 2012 and 2013. She said her husband was injured at that time and could not work. She said that when construction on the apartments started her husband got sick and discovered he was allergic to dust. To aid his healing, they left the country during the construction that began in 2015 so he would not be exposed to the construction dust. She said he works part-time now, and their income is limited. She said she works full- time in a shoe store in Alameda, and the proposed increase posed a financial hardship. She added that their apartment required maintenance, and their maintenance concerns have not been addressed. She said there is mold in the unit which she believes is causing a reaction in her eyes. She said that Darren, former maintenance staff, had come into their unit without permission twice. She said they could afford an increase of $50. Vice Chair Murray reflected back Ms. Harakat's concerns and clarified that the tenants paid six months' rent up front while they were out of the country during the construction. The landlords stated that the construction ended in 2017 and lasted about 1.5 years. Mr. St. John passed out notes to the RRAC members responding to Ms. Harakat's Form RP- 01, clarifying that the carpet was new when she moved in, even though she said there was a stain on it. Member Sulliv… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-29 | 3 | Approved Minutes August 29, 2018 Member Friedman asked the landlords what portion of the proposed increases could have been recovered through the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Mr. St. John stated that he believes most of it could have been included. He spoke about what increase he thinks the landlords could be entitled to under a fair rate of return analysis. Member Friedman asked the landlords how much the total operating expenses for running the building were. St. John provided a response. Vice Chair Murray asked Ms. Harakat what effect the increase would have on her. Ms. Harakat replied that she would have to find another job to pay for it, because she did not want to leave Alameda. Ms. Harakat asked if the increase they're being asked to pay also included costs of repairing or upgrading other units. Mr. St. John said that the CIP expenses were being divided equally among the units at the property. Ms. Harakat continued to express concern that she would be paying for part of the work done to make units nicer than hers nicer still. Mr. St. John replied that it's not feasible to allocate costs different for each unit, even when for example, some units may benefit more from the seismic upgrades than others, and each unit was being asked to pay an equal share. Chair Cambra asked if it was correct that the landlords did not want to negotiate on the amounts of the increase. Mr. St. John said that said their increase requests already took hardship on the tenants into account. The parties took their seats and the Committee deliberated. Member Sullivan-Cheah stated he did not think it was reasonable to have an increase that would require the tenants to have to get a second job. Vice Chair Murray said that the amount of money the tenants would have to make to pay the increase did not seem excessive to her. She said she thought $50 was too small an amount to increase the rent considering the expenditures made by the landlords, and that the $132.53 increase proposed by the landlords seemed reasonable. Chair Cambr… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-29 | 4 | Approved Minutes August 29, 2018 for his family, as they are considered low-income in this community. He said that part of the purpose of the Ordinance was meant to keep low-income people in the community. He said $100 would be the maximum amount of increase he would support, acknowledging that the landlords could come back next year and request another increase. Vice Chair Murray responded that she did not mean to say that amount was an insubstantial amount of money, and added that the landlords also had expenses. She said, for example, that as a landlord she has heavy debts to keep her properties running that constrain her income. She said the Ordinance also asks the Committee to balance both sides' interests. She proposed a $100 per month increase. Chair Cambra said he was a little uncomfortable with a $100 increase, and would want it to be a little less to give the tenants time to adjust. Motion and second for a $100 increase (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion failed 2-2. Motion and second for a $90 (6.5%) increase (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Chair Cambra). Motion passed 4-0. 6-B. CASE 1087 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 111 Tenant: Karen Walters Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher Proposed rent increase: $337.06, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of $1,495.00 to a total rent of $1,832.06. Ms. Walters said she paid rent throughout the construction project, although for a couple months she paid $200 less as compensation for the inconveniences caused by the work. She said she works part-time, in the evening, and does not get home until 10:00 p.m. or midnight and the construction workers would start working as early as 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and would wake her up when she needed sleep. She added that the workers would "gawk" into her apartment and she doesn't feel any increase is warranted. She said she's lived in Alameda most of her life and moving out of the city would be a hardship for her. She said she's on a fixed income combined of social secu… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-29 | 5 | Approved Minutes August 29, 2018 Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Murray reflected back Ms. Walters' points. She added that during a time when she was healing from a car accident a neighbor above her made a lot of noise that disturbed her as she was medicated and trying to heal. Mr. Kessler confirmed that the owners had obtained a loan for the property on which they were paying interest. He said his family acquired the property in the late 1970's. Mr. St. John stated that Ms. Walters had rent credits in the amount of about $10,000 during the construction to alleviate the burdens the construction caused. Ms. Walters said she thought the rent she was paying was still excessive given how hard it was to live in her apartment. Mr. St. John gave the Committee members a document rebutting the concerns the tenant raised in her Form RP-01. Ms. Leonard summarized the document. Ms. Walters said she thought an increase of about 5%, to about $1,575 from $1,495, would be reasonable. She said she would love to have some things in her apartment attended to, such as on her balcony and in her bathtub. Chair Cambra again asked Mr. St. John if he was willing to compromise on the amount of the increase and Mr. St. John again said no. Mr. St. John reiterated that the landlords already made compromises in coming to the increase amounts that they did. Member Sullivan-Cheah said that he looks at cases individually, and does not set out to make compromises uniformly across all cases. Chair Cambra said the Committee makes efforts to express a rationale for their decisions to ensure that parties do not think the decisions are arbitrary. The parties took their seats and the Committee members deliberated. Member Sullivan-Cheah requested clarity from the other members about how landlords calculate increases and compensation during renovations. He said that he acknowledged that Ms. Walters said she would be able to afford a modest increase if she took on additional shifts at her work. Chair Cambra said he thought the CAPX amount ($93.89) pr… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-29 | 6 | Approved Minutes August 29, 2018 Member Friedman said that the landlords did their best to come up with amounts that work for them, and that the Committee should try to keep the tenants happy with their housing, given the history of poor service expressed by many tenants. He said he would support a motion in the range being discussed. Motion and second for an increase of $95 (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Member Friedman). Motion passed 3-1, with Chair Cambra opposed. Chair Cambra expressed confusion of the amount being voted on. Motion and second to reconsider previous motion (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 4-0. Motion and second for a $95 (6.4%) increase (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 4-0. 6-C. CASE 1089 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 306 Tenant: Elizabeth Anderman and Alan Anderman Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher Proposed rent increase: $327.84, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of $1,395.00 to a total rent of $1,722.84. Ms. Anderman stated that she misread Form RP-01 and thought the form was asking for the median rent, not that maximum amount that she can pay personally. She said that $1,450 is the most rent she can afford. She said she lived at the property since 2012 and said she is a single mother with multiple emotional or psychological disabilities. She said she felt sexually harassed when a management worker entered her apartment without authorization. She said the same worker made inappropriate comments about her breasts and about her minor son's sexual orientation. She said she made complaints to management many times starting in 2015 about his behavior and they did nothing to address her complaints and concerns. She said the construction workers woke her up frequently, as early as 6:00am, working on the roof. She said management had her car towed the day before Christmas Eve one year, and it cost her $800 to retrieve it. She concluded that management's lack of respect has made her disinclined to w… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf,7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-29 | 7 | Approved Minutes August 29, 2018 Ms. Leonard said she investigated Ms. Anderman's claim of harassment and the employee denied the allegation. She said they obtained another maintenance person to attend to maintenance in Ms. Anderman's unit which helped take care of the problem until recently. Ms. Leonard said that employee, Darren, resigned recently. She said they changed Ms. Anderman's lock immediately after he illegally entered her apartment. Ms. Anderman said she has an income of $1,200 per month from a new job as an office manager of a startup in Alameda, and pays her parents between $500-$700 for rent when she can, and her father writes the rent checks to management each month. She said in addition to developing Alzheimer's, her mom recently had a stroke. She said her father said the increase was excessive but her current rent was below the market average, although they have not had an in-depth discussion about the increase. She said her parents are both retired and on a fixed income from social security and a pension. She said they had to sell their house and are renting an apartment, and are looking for assisted living options. The parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated. Member Friedman said he was ready to approve a $75 increase. Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah acknowledged that having a cosigner on the lease should be considered, although having limited information on their ability to pay makes it a tricky matter to deliberate. Vice Chair Murray suggested an increase between $90 and $110. Chair Cambra acknowledged the stress having a management employee harassing her, and agreed that having a cosigner on the lease was relevant in the deliberation and wondered how much of a hardship an increase would affect the parents. Member Sullivan-Cheah said his range would be between $75 and $90. He said the letter the tenant wrote was difficult for him to review, but wasn't sure how to factor it into the rent increase. Member Friedman said the condition of the apartment in the past and manage… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf,8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-29 | 8 | Approved Minutes August 29, 2018 Members deliberated again. Motion and second for an increase of $90 (Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 4-0. 6-D. CASE 1095 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 215 Tenant: Revik Dillon Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher Proposed rent increase: $320.19, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of $1,350.00 to a total rent of $1,670.19. Ms. Dillon said she is a fourth generation Bay Area native who has lived in this apartment since 2009. She said she felt the increase was too large. She said she is going through a divorce, and used to own her own home and rent an in-law unit so understood being a landlord as well as a tenant. She said she has no problem with her unit or the management, but felt she could only afford an increase of $50 at this point in time. She said she would probably be able to afford a larger increase next year. Mr. St. John said he thinks the Committee's focus on CAPX only while leaving out cost of living increases is unfair to the landlords. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked what percentage of her income the rent was, and she declined to answer. Vice Chair Murray asked what she did for a living, and she said she is a behavioral consultant, and works part-time for Amazon. The parties took a seat and the Committee began deliberations. Motion and second for a $90 increase (Member Friedman and Chair Cambra). Motion passed 4-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS No new business. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. None. 9. MATTERS INITIATED None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Page 8 of 9 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf,9 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-29 | 9 | Approved Minutes August 29, 2018 a. Motion and second to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2018 Special Meeting (Member Friedman and Chair Cambra). Motion passed 4-0. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018 Page 9 of 9 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-29.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-30 | 1 | Approved Minutes August 30, 2018 Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday August 30, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray; Members Friedman, Griffiths, and Sullivan-Cheah Absent: None Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: Michael Roush 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. None. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. None. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. None. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS 6-A. CASE 1099 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 313 Tenant: Joseph Moran Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher Proposed rent increase: $354.19, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of $1,550.00 to a total rent of $1,904.19. Mr. St. John opened by commenting that the word "hardship" was being used during the Committee hearings in two senses - first in the sense that Ordinance 3148 discusses financial hardship, and second, some tenants are claiming that the construction at the property has imposed a hardship. City Attorney staff said that the Committee may take into consideration a number of factors, noting that "including, but not limited to" are the words in the Ordinance. He added that the Ordinance states that an increase or decrease in housing services may be considered specifically. Page 1 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-30 | 2 | Approved Minutes August 30, 2018 Mr. St. John said that documents on the Rent Program website indicate RRAC cases result in an average increase of 9.32%, and in the cases involving Tropic Sands, the Committee is allowing increases of just above 6% on each case decided. He reiterated (from previous meetings) that management had already taken into account tenant hardship in the increase amounts requested. Chair Cambra replied that each unit, tenant, landlord and case is unique and the Committee takes each case on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Moran stated that because his unit is on the top floor his apartment gets really hot, and that following construction on the property, the temperature has been 10-15 degrees hotter in his apartment than before because the construction has resulted in less of a breeze that comes inside the unit. Specifically, Mr. Moran pointed to the replacing of spoke wrapping around the balcony with panels that were higher, did not let the breeze through, as well as blocked the view of the Bay from a sitting position. He added that there is no insulation to keep the temperature steady, and the lack of insulation also fails to insulate the unit from noise. His biggest concern, he said, was that the new panel wrapping around the balcony resulted in about a 75% loss of the Bay view he had with the spoke wrapping. The view, he said, was the most valuable amenity the apartment offered. Mr. Kessler replied that the work done was up to code, was inspected by the city, and there were code changes on wrapping heights, adding that they put in panels on the balcony instead of spokes because they thought they looked good. Vice Chair Murray asked if he's considering moving out and Mr. Moran said he may consider it now, whereas prior to this change he was not considering moving. Member Friedman asked him what he thought was a fair increase for the next year and Mr. Moran said he thought about $100 was fair for this year. He said he would pay additional increase if the view had not been taken away. Vice Chair M… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-30 | 3 | Approved Minutes August 30, 2018 Mr. St. John offered a one-time increase to $1,695, not part of the phase-in. Mr. Moran accepted and the Committee dismissed the case without having to come to a decision. 6-B. CASE 1100 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 109 Tenant: Michael Scalisi Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher Proposed rent increase: $310.83, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of $1,295.00 to a total rent of $1,605.83. Michael Scalisi said that he reviewed the management's increase offers but found them unsatisfactory. He said he had a health limitation that has limited his ability to earn income that he did not want to discuss in a public forum. He said the construction at the property resulted in a partial obstruction of his view of San Francisco and his unit was noticeably warmer. He said he's had a difficult time financially this year and had just stabilized a couple weeks ago. The Committee members helped clarify their role and limitations regarding multi-year lease agreements, and assured the parties that the tenant would have to be noticed each year and each year would have the right to RRAC review, automatically for increases over 5%, and optionally for increases of 5% or less. Member Griffiths told Mr. Scalisi it may be more helpful for him to think of the increases not as a phase-in option and a one-time option, but simply as a single increase of some amount for 2018. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked what impact the landlord's requested increase would have on him, and what percentage of his income it would be. Mr. Scalisi said it was substantial considering the financial hardship he just experienced. Mr. Roush clarified that following a binding RRAC decision the parties may appeal for a hearing officer, and a RRAC decision only becomes binding after 15 days where no party has appealed. Mr. Scalisi requested that the Committee make a decision and reiterated his opinion that a $65 increase was reasonable. Mr. St. John reminded Mr. Scalisi that the options they pr… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-30 | 4 | Approved Minutes August 30, 2018 he had difficulty answering the question as it was a complex matter and saw his financial future as uncertain. The parties took a seat and the Committee began deliberations. Member Sullivan-Cheah said he thought the tenant could afford more than $65 and still stay in his home. Member Griffiths proposed a $123.03 increase, the 9.5% increase the landlords proposed in their first year of the phased-in option. Vice Chair Murray agreed that the tenant could pay that amount, and did not think the landlords should get less than that without a compelling hardship shared by the tenant. Member Friedman said he did not think the tenant had demonstrated a financial hardship, and said that the landlord's phase-ir amount was reasonable. Chair Cambra said he also supported the $123.03 amount as the tenant had considered paying the $310 one-time offer. Motion and second for an increase of 123.03 (Vice Chair Murray and Chair Cambra). Motion passed 5-0. 6-C. CASE 1101 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 209 Tenant: Carrie & Mounaim Bouderka Landlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher Proposed rent increase: $344.84, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of $1,495.00 to a total rent of $1,839.84. Ms. Bouderka said she and her husband have lived at this property for 11 years. She said they used to have a good view of the Bay, but after the construction, they lost most of their view. She said paint stains remained on the balcony following the painting of it. She presented a number of repair and maintenance issues they had at the property that went unaddressed, including potential asbestos problems, black mold, and water leakage, as well as security issues, as they believe someone moved some of their property, and a gold ring went missing. They said they felt management did not take their concerns seriously. Ms. Leonard admitted that the paint coating on the balcony did not perform well, so they plan to recoat all of the balconies. She said she would take care of the pendin… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-30 | 5 | Approved Minutes August 30, 2018 Mr. Kessler said he would be talking with Ms. Leonard to address their health and security concerns. The landlords and tenants discussed how to make proper work order requests, e.g., through email to management. Vice Chair Murray asked Mr. and Ms. Bouderka about their income. Mr. Bouderka said he is studying music at Laney College and does not plan on having income for at least the next year. Ms. Bouderka said she is gainfully employed. Vice Chair Murray asked if the increase would be a financial hardship and Ms. Bouderka said the $142.03 being proposed by the landlord's would be a hardship and she would have to cut back on groceries. Member Friedman asked the tenants how much of an increase they could afford, and how much they think is fair considering the issues they've raised. Ms. Bouderka said she believes a $50 increase for this year would be reasonable. She said she wrote in her response that an increase of $100 was what she thought was fair, but clarified she only thought that would be fair if the rent stayed at that rate for a period of three years, as previously the landlords would raise their rents only once every three years. Vice Chair Murray asked the landlords if asbestos was present at the property. Ms. Leonard said she did not think there was because they've passed the City's inspections. Ms. Bouderka said there was an asbestos warning posted in the unit. Ms. Leonard said there were popcorn ceilings in the building, which were removed by Synergy Environmental, a professional, certified environmental contractor that is qualified to remove asbestos. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked about the tenants' financial situation. The tenants replied they had new expenses, such as a car payment, and had concerns about keeping up with the cost of living in the area. Ms. Bouderka said living at the property had been stressful, as the apartments were having so many issues with mold, asbestos, security, loss of view, and abrasive letters from the landlords. Vice Chair Murray asked what… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-30 | 6 | Approved Minutes August 30, 2018 Vice Chair Murray said she believes the management will take care of the tenants' maintenance issues. She said she felt the tenants' distress and concerns, and mentioned that many upgrades and improvements may not be visible to the tenants, yet tenants benefit from them nonetheless. She acknowledged a potential financial hardship with only one income, the loss of a view, and other concerns. She acknowledged increased costs for the tenants and stated that landlords also have increased costs. She said she would not support an increase less than $100. Member Friedman agreed that the tenants did not present a clear financial need, but they did present a substantial loss of service, such as the view, and need for living in a safe, sanitary environment, while the situation they had found themselves in may not have been ideal. He said he believes the loss of services experienced by the tenants would continue. He said Ordinance 3148 excluded capital improvements costs from "costs of operation". He said he would support an increase of about $75, about 5%. Vice Chair Murray replied that because the capital improvements started prior to the City's CIP, the landlords had to come through the RRAC to try to get increases for them. She said that this makes these cases a special circumstance. Member Friedman explained why he found the issues raised by the tenants especially concerning. He said he believed landlords should be setting aside money from rent every year to pay for capital improvements rather than expect to raise the rents more to pay for them. Member Sullivan-Cheah said he felt that the owners were owed increases so they could get a fair rate of return in their property. Chair Cambra explained the issues he was considering in concluding that an increase amount of at least $93.89 was warranted. Member Griffiths made a motion for an increase of $93.89. No second. Motion and second for an increase of $75 (Member Friedman and Member Griffiths). Motion failed 2-3. Motion and second for an … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf,7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-08-30 | 7 | Approved Minutes August 30, 2018 9. MATTERS INITIATED Member Griffiths said that the Committee spent 40 minutes deliberating on the last cases, which he found unacceptable time management. He said he would like to set a time for discussion about time limits. Staff informed the Committee that a discussion regarding amending the Committee bylaws would be on the agenda at an upcoming meeting. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018 Page 7 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-05.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-05 | 1 | Approved Minutes September 5, 2018 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday, September 5, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Present were: Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Friedman Absent: Chair Cambra and Member Sullivan-Cheah Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff informed the Committee that the agenda had substantial changes and they would be shared prior to the commencement of the first case being called. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. None. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Motion and second to approve the minutes from the August 6, 2018 regular meeting (Members Griffiths and Friedman). Motion passed 3-0. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. None. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. Case 1059 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D226 Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for administrative reasons. 7-B. Case 1061 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B305 Program staff informed the Committee that the case was being rescheduled for administrative reasons. 7-C. Case 1062 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C301 Page 1 of 3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-05.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );