pages
344 rows where body = "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee" sorted by body
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: page
date (date) >30 ✖
- 2017-05-01 14
- 2017-03-06 11
- 2019-01-23 11
- 2018-08-29 9
- 2019-02-04 9
- 2017-02-06 8
- 2018-09-17 8
- 2019-05-15 8
- 2019-06-03 8
- 2019-07-01 8
- 2016-09-07 7
- 2016-12-05 7
- 2017-01-24 7
- 2017-04-03 7
- 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
- …
Link | body ▼ | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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/2018-09-17.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-17 | 1 | Approved Minutes September 17, 2018 Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday, September 17, 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 Murray; Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah Absent: Member Friedman Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: John Le (came at 7:05 p.m.) 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff informed the Committee that staff had approved a request of the tenant in case 1098.1 to be heard first and requested they hear this case first. The Committee assented to hear the case first. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. None. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. None. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. None. 7. NEW BUSINESS Staff called roll of the parties present and reordered those cases to be heard first where the parties were present at roll call; those where parties were not present were moved to the end of the New Business section of the agenda and would be heard if time allowed in their remaining order. If time ran out before the cases were called and/or heard, the remaining items would be heard on a future date. 7-K. Case 1098.1 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102 Tenant: Barbara Aschenbrener Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia Hawkins Proposed rent increase: $310.83 (24.0%), effective November 1, 2018 Page 1 of 8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-17 | 2 | Approved Minutes September 17, 2018 Mr. St. John said that the owners were requesting rent increases that would compensate them for the improvements they made to the property, while still being fair to the tenants by not creating too great a financial burden. He reminded the Committee that two options were provided to most of the tenants: a larger one-time increase, or a series of smaller phased-in increases over several years. He said that residents had already been compensated for the inconveniences caused by the construction by having no increases during the period of time when the work was being performed, the tenants' rents were abated if they could not use some or all of their units, and they were provided alternative accommodations if they needed to temporarily leave their units. Ms. Aschenbrener said that she wrote her landlords a letter explaining that they have narrowed her balcony making it less user-friendly. She said there were other repair or maintenance issues that she's currently working with management to address. She said she felt the proposed rent increases were too high for a studio apartment. She added that she is a senior citizen and has to work. She said she began living at the complex since 1983, minus a period of six years when she lived somewhere else. Vice Chair Murray asked staff if staff had received a copy of Ms. Aschenbrener's letter and staff replied that we did not a written response from the tenant for this submission. Vice Chair Murray read the letter into the record, providing Ms. Aschenbrener's perspective. The Committee members discussed several of Ms. Aschenbrener's repair and maintenance concerns with her and the landlords, including her the loss of space on her balcony. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if the repair of the balcony was done in the same way as the other balconies in the building. Ms. Hawkins said it was comparable to other studios' balconies. Ms. Hawkins added that she had just rented the unit above Ms. Aschenbrener's unit for $2,150 per month, adding that that o… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-17 | 3 | Approved Minutes September 17,2018 When asked if he learned anything new, Mr. St. John said he wasn't aware that the balconies got narrower by four inches. Chair Cambra asked if the parties might come to an agreement, and after some discussion, the parties did not come to an agreement. The parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations. Member Sullivan-Cheah said that this case was the first from the other cases heard at this property where a tenant informed the Committee that the redesigned balconies resulted in diminished use for the tenant. He said he felt what the landlords were asking for would cause a hardship for the tenant. Vice Chair Murray noted that the tenant had indicated that she could pay more than a 5% increase. She proposed a $90 (6.9%) increase. Member Griffiths proposed an increase of $81.33 to match the CAPX increase. Vice Chair Murray responded that CAPX doesn't include other costs landlords have that aren't included in this figure. Chair Cambra said he thought an increase between $90 and $100 would be fair. Members discussed their positions. Motion for a $90 rent increase (Chair Cambra and Vice Chair Murray). Motion failed 2-2. Motion and second for an $81.33 increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah). Motion failed 2-2. Motion and second for an $85.00 increase (Chair Cambra and Member Griffiths). Motion passed 4-0. 7-A. Case 1081 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 316 Tenant: William ("Will") Tsui Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia Hawkins Proposed rent increase: $293.95 (19.7%), effective October 1, 2018 Vice Chair Murray summarized the tenant's main points - that the proposed rent increase would cause a financial burden, that the improvements to the property did not improve his unit, that he had unaddressed maintenance concerns, as well as safety and security concerns. Page 3 of 8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-17 | 4 | Approved Minutes September 17, 2018 The landlords provided a letter during the hearing responding to Mr. Tsui's concerns and the Committee read it. Chair Cambra asked Mr. Tsui how much of an increase he thought was reasonable. Mr. Tsui responded that he believed an increase of $100 would be fair. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Tsui about his living and financial situation. He said he did not complain about most minor maintenance issues in the unit. He added that being relocated during maintenance work caused frequent inconveniences and added expenses that he would not have had to endure if he had lived in his unit. He said that in addition to his own expenses he had to provide financial assistance to his parents, who were separated and lived apart from each other. Vice Chair Murray asked Mr. Tsui his occupation. He said he works for a media company maintaining their online platform. She asked him for additional details on the maintenance concerns he raised and he responded. She asked if he received concessions on rent during construction and he said no. She asked if he'd received increases and he said no. He said that he only reaches out for maintenance assistance when there is a strong need and added that the manager, Ms. Hawkins, is good about responding. Vice Chair Murray said that it's a tenant's responsibility to notify the landlord of needed repairs. He clarified that his position was more centered on the fact that there have been no improvements to his unit. RRAC members discussed the purpose and amounts of the increase requests with the landlords. Member Griffiths asked the landlords if they are running at a loss and Mr. St. John said they were not, adding that the building was not losing money each year. The parties took a seat and the RRAC members deliberated. Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths voiced support for an increase between the $100 the tenant said he thought was fair with the one-year amount of $142.03 the landlords were requesting for this year. Vice Chair Murray said she thought the tenan… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-17 | 5 | Approved Minutes September 17,2018 came before the Committee again the following year, he would likely be less inclined to give another 9.5% increase. Chair Cambra agreed. Motion and second for $142.03 (Vice Chair Murray and Chair Cambra). Motion passed 3- 1, with Member Griffiths voting no. 7-B. Case 1104 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 210 Tenant: Victoria ("Vicki") Roman Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia Hawkins Proposed rent increase: $326.99 (23.5%), effective October 1, 2018 Ms. Roman said that she believed the repairs to the building were due to landlord neglect on the part of the landlords, the expenses for which should not be passed on to the tenants. She said she is a senior citizen working past retirement age. She said that she believes an $85 rent increase would be fair, which she had revised down from her written response where she said an increase of $112 would be reasonable. She provided the Committee with photographs of the interior of her apartment to review showing what she stated illustrated the neglected repair and maintenance concerns she had. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked why she changed her mind about the amount of increase she believes is reasonable. She said that three years ago she went from being employed as an instrument technician to a housekeeping position, which resulted in a large salary decrease. Mr. Kessler said management would address some of the concerns she's brought up such as the dishwasher and stove needing repair. The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations. Member Sullivan-Cheah said he thought that an increase of $112 would be reasonable, as she first proposed, and as it was more or less in-line with past increases she had received that were around $100. Vice Chair Murray said that she would consider an increase of $90-95 appropriate, near the CAPX amount provided by the landlords, and would consider a range between $85 and $112. She expressed concern for the tenant's loss of income. Member Griffiths … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-17 | 6 | Approved Minutes September 17, 2018 7-C. Case 1073 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 214 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of $162.42 (9.0%), bringing the rent to a total of $1,957.41 effective October 1, 2018. 7-D. Case 1075 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 305 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant(s) indicated that they had vacated the unit. 7-E. Case 1076 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 216 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant(s) indicated that they had vacated the unit. 7-G. Case 1082 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 103 Tenant: Jason Gonsalves and Shannon Landlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia Hawkins Proposed rent increase: $326.99 (23.5%), effective October 1, 2018 Mr. Gonsalves stated that he is under severe financial hardship, including $100,000 of student loans that are coming due soon, which would be a new bill coming into the household. Shannon said they were taking care of their mother. Mr. Gonsalves said his work is of a seasonal nature making a steady stream of income difficult. They also expressed security concerns and said they felt a $100 increase at the most would be fair. Shannon said she worked at a help desk and had very few pay increases, adding that without Mr. Gonsalves' income, she would not be able to afford to live in the unit. Mr. Gonsalves brought up the CIP resolution's restrictions on the landlords' ability to request an increase. City Attorney staff clarified that this rent increase was not being asked under the CIP resolution, but the Committee could still consider the landlords' expenses from their capital improvements under Ordinance 3148. The participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations. Member Griffiths said that he thought a $100 increase would be reasonable. Motion and second for a $100 increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0. 7-F. Case 1078 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 202 No Committee review. The Com… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf,7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-17 | 7 | Approved Minutes September 17, 2018 7-H. Case 1084 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 204 No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date. 7-I. Case 1092 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 219 No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date. 7-J. Case 1097 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 213 No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date. 7-L. Case 1103 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102 No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date. 7-M. Case 1105 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 218 No Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time constraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date. 7-N. Discuss and approve amendments to the Rent Review Committee's Rules and Procedures addressing various issues including, RRAC hearing time limits, participant's attendance or failure to appear under section 6-58.90, annual elections, and other appropriate amendments The Committee agreed to table this agenda item to a special meeting on September 19, 2018. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. None. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. None. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Page 7 of 8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf,8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-17 | 8 | Approved Minutes September 17, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018 Page 8 of 8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2016-05-02 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, May 2, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. Present were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Landess, and Schrader. Absent: None Vacancy: One RRAC staff: Jennifer Kauffman a. Election of new Chair The members concurred that it would be preferable to table the election of permanent officers until the current vacancy was filled and all members could vote. M/S (Griffiths/Landess) and unanimous to appoint Sullivan-Sariñana as Interim Chair and Schrader as Interim Vice Chair. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of the Minutes of the April 4, 2016 Regular Meeting Approved by unanimous consent. At this time, Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing was invited to address the meeting to explain ECHO's fair housing and tenant/landlord services. 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Cases governed by Ordinance No. 3143, which limits rent increases of 8% or more; no binding review process for a legal rent increase: i. Case 363 - 781 Central Avenue, Unit A Tenant/public speaker: Jeffrey Giordano Landlord representative/public speaker: Erik Johnson The landlord's original proposed increase was $90 (6.77%). Following general discussion, the parties agreed to a $66.50 (5.0%) increase, to be effective July 1, 2016. M/S (Schrader/Landess) and unanimous to uphold the agreement. Staff stated that confirmation letters would be sent to all parties. ii. Case 373 - 1850 Thau Way, Unit 12 Staff stated that prior to the meeting, the case had been withdrawn at the request of the tenant. The tenant was not required to disclose the terms of the settlement, as this case was not under the jurisdiction of Ordinance No. 3148. Page 1 of 3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2016-05-02 | 2 | Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC May 2, 2016 At this time, staff gave an overview of the process for cases under the jurisdiction of Ordinance No. 3148. b. Cases governed by Ordinance No. 3148; binding third-party decision required: i. Case 364 - 2465 Shoreline Drive, Unit 120 Staff reported that this case had been withdrawn, as the parties came to an agreement prior to the meeting. The agreed-upon increase was within the at-or-below 5% range. ii. Case 366 - 2465 Shoreline Drive, Unit 416 Staff reported that this case had been withdrawn, as the parties came to an agreement prior to the meeting. The agreed-upon increase was within the 5.1 - 10.0% range. iii. Case 370 - 1721 St. Charles Street Staff reported that this case would be rescheduled to the next regular meeting, as the paperwork was not yet complete. iv. Case 372 - 1812 Willow Street, Unit B Tenant/public speaker: Fernando Cabrera Landlord representative/public speaker: Nancy Takamura Staff recapped the highlights of the case. The landlord's original proposed increase was $305 (13.90%). The tenant stated his objections to the increase including his opinion that he was subsidizing the other tenants in the building who were relatives of the landlord. The landlord stated her opinion that the increase was justified as she did not impose any increase during the year following the agreement converting from a one-year lease to a month-to-month agreement. General discussion followed and the parties negotiated a rent increase of $205 (9.3%). Both parties verbally acknowledged the agreement and went into the adjacent office to finalize the terms. M/S (Schrader/Griffiths) and unanimous to uphold the agreement. c. Determine date and location of June RRAC Meeting (Note: Independence Plaza is not available on Monday, June 6.) M/S (Griffiths/Landess) to keep the June 6 date and change the venue to the City Council Chambers. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT (none) 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Staff reported that an active recruitment was underway for the neutral homeowner vacancy on the R… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2016-05-02 | 3 | Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC May 2, 2016 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Kauffman RRAC Secretary Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 6, 2016. Page 3 of 3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-12.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-01-12 | 1 | Approved Minutes January 12, 2017 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, January 12, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:39 p.m. Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Friedman, and Schrader. Absent: Member Vice-Chair Landess, Member Griffiths Vacancy: None RRAC Staff: Claudia Young 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Member Friedman proposes canceling the RRAC meeting. Discussion: Member Friedman stated that input from three of the Committee members is less valuable than input from four or five of the members. Member Schrader stated that if the purpose of the meeting is to provide Committee input, the entire Committee should be present to discuss. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed concern that not all Committee members were present. However, he suggested continuing the meeting in order to meet the deadline of providing input for the City Council to review. He believed that providing some input is better than canceling the meeting and possibly providing no input. He also suggested that the absent members hold a separate meeting to discuss their input. He noted that the three present members represent the tenant, landlord, and homeowner perspectives, which may not happen again with a rescheduled meeting. Staff clarified that City Council will consider input at the March 7, 2017 meeting and will then give direction to staff. Staff also noted that the Committee meeting would need to be rescheduled before the end of January in order to provide input. Motion and second to cancel the RRAC meeting and reschedule for a time when a quorum of members can attend (Friedman and Schrader). Motion passes with Members Friedman and Schrader voting yes, Chair Sullivan- Sariñana voting no. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Page 1 of 2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-12.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-12.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-01-12 | 2 | Approved Minutes January 12, 2017 a. Staff announced that there will be informational workshops explaining the City of Alameda's Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 on January 19th and January 26th More details can be found online at www.alamedarentprogram.org. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1 a. Speaker: Maria Dominguez Speaker commended staff efforts to make forms available online and hoped there would be further automation in the future. She is concerned that tenants and landlords are not asked the same questions by the Committee. She also suggested that there be a way for the public to contact the Committee members with feedback and input. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. None. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A Committee members to discuss Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the Rent Review Advisory Committee The meeting was postponed to a later date. Staff will reschedule the meeting. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2. a. No public comment. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. Member Schrader asked how the public can contact Committee members. Staff stated that the personal contact information of Committee members is not disclosed. However, the public can send feedback to staff who will forward it to the Committee member. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, RRAC Secretary Claudia Young Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 6, 2017. Page 2 of 2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-12.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/2016-07-06.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2016-07-06 | 1 | Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday, July 6, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. Present were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and Schrader. Absent: Landess Vacancy: None RRAC staff: Jennifer Kauffman The Chair announced that any business not concluded before 9:30 p.m. was subject to being continued at a Special Meeting. The Committee discussed the order of agenda items. Griffiths made a motion to move ORAL COMMUNICATIONS to the second item on the agenda. Schrader made a second to the motion and all members were in agreement. The Committee allowed for ORAL COMMUNICATIONS at this time. The Chair invited Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing to speak about ECHO's fair housing and tenant/landlord mediation services. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of the Minutes of the June 6, 2016 Regular Meeting. Approved by unanimous consent. 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Case 386 - 2220 San Antonio Avenue. Tenant/public speaker: Susi Ostlund Landlord/public speaker: David Petersen Ms. Ostlund stated that she receives a fixed disability income from the U.S. government and also has a serious illness that requires frequent medical appointments. She stated that the maximum increase that she believed to be reasonable was 1.9% ($31). Mr. Petersen stated that the reason he had issued the 60.5% ($980) rent increase notice in May 2016 was at the advice of his attorney in order to maximize his negotiating position. The tenant's current rent is $1,620 and Mr. Peterson had determined that the market value of the unit was $2,600. He stated that he would accept a 15.7% ($255) increase. A rent increase had been served in October 2015; Page 1 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2016-07-06 | 2 | Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC July 6, 2016 however, it was determined to be invalid under the Moratorium then in effect (a 9.5% increase had already been issued in April 2015). Mr. Petersen provided documentation of maintenance expenses (sewer, paint, roof, gutters, and dry rot) totaling over $50,000 over the past three years. Ms. Ostlund stated that there was a difference between capital expenses and cost-of-business expenses. Parties were unable to reach agreement. The Committee discussed a recommendation for the rent increase. Motion and second (Griffiths and Sullivan- Sariñana) for a 5% ($81) increase. Friedman stated that a lower rent increase would be more reasonable considering the circumstances, however, Mr. Friedman agreed to the 5% rent increase and passed the motion. Schrader was in disagreement with the motion due to the high capital improvement costs. Staff explained that the parties had 15 days to: 1) submit written acknowledgement of an agreement; or 2) request an arbitration hearing. If no action is taken by either party, the Committee's recommendation would be binding. b. Case 387 - 2611 Central Avenue Tenant/public speaker: Allen Nakamura Landlord/public speaker: Tommy Wong Mr. Nakamura stated that he did not believe that the 10% ($140) increase was justified, as he has not seen any improvements to his unit during the three-plus years he has been living there. The Wong provided documentation of a new roof installation in December 2015 that cost $10,700, and he wanted to recoup the cost of the roof. It was also explained that this would be the first rent increase since the tenant has occupied the unit. Following discussion, Mr. Nakamura did not want to accept an increase over 5% and Mr. Wong did not want to accept an increase less than 8%. The parties could not reach agreement and the Committee made a recommendation for the rent increase. Motion and second (Friedman and Shrader) for a 6.5% ($91) increase. Motion passed unanimously. Staff re-stated the options for tenant and landlord and the… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2016-07-06 | 3 | Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC July 6, 2016 The Committee discussed a recommendation for the rent increase. There have been two rent increases over the six-plus years that Ms. Hamza and her husband have been living in the unit. Member Friedman stated that in view of the rent increase history with this unit, an increase of 5.8% ($75) would be appropriate. Motion and second (Griffiths and Schrader) and unanimous to recommend an increase of 5.8% ($75). Staff re-stated the options for tenant and landlord and the 15-day deadline. d. Case 389 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #126 The case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior to the meeting for an increase in an amount greater than 10%. e. Case 390 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #104 The case was canceled, as the tenant decided to move. f. Case 395 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #323 The case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior to the meeting for an increase in an amount between 5.1 and 10%. g. Case 404 - 1107 Broadway The case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior to the meeting for an increase in an amount between 5.1 and 10%. h. Case 405 - 3271 Central Avenue Tenant/public speaker: Frances Hayden Landlord/public speaker: Barbara Jolliffe Ms. Hayden stated that she did not believe the 7.5% ($98) increase was justified for maintenance reasons. The Chair stated that maintenance issues were beyond the RRAC's scope and that there were other alternatives for pursuing maintenance complaints that could be discussed with staff. The tenant stated that the maximum increase that she believed to be reasonable was 4% ($64.50). Ms. Jolliffe cited costs of $31,000 last year for sewer, sidewalk and roof work plus increased costs for taxes, utilities, insurance, and maintenance labor. She also noted increased administrative costs and time demands as a result of complying with Ordinance No. 3148. (At approximately 9:30 p.m., the Committee voted to extend the meeting time to 9:45 p.m.) Following discussi… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2016-07-06 | 4 | Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC July 6, 2016 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing made an announcement at the beginning of the meeting. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none) 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Kauffman RRAC Secretary Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 1, 2016. Page 4 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-11-27 | 1 | Approved Minutes November 27, 2018 Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, November 27, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:56 p.m. Present were: Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah Absent: None Program staff: Jennifer Kauffman, Samantha Columbus City Attorney staff: None 2. AGENDA CHANGES None. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS None. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. CASE 1063 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A311 Tenants: Yosief Philipos Landlords: Andy King Proposed rent increase: $119.00 (10.0%), effective September 1, 2018 Mr. King said that Vue Alameda was purchased by new ownership in October 2017. He said the new ownership intended to address the deferred maintenance concerns of the residents to make the property safer, as well as provide new amenities. He said the new owners have spent $3 million on improvements and expect the improvements to be completed by 2019. He explained that the owners are requesting a rent increase above 5% to compensate for the additional services that are being provided to residents and to help cover some of the renovation expenses. Some examples of improvements include new pedestrian and vehicle gates, additional storage space, a fitness center, a child center, propane barbeque equipment, a new roof, a new pool, new roofing, and new Page 1 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-11-27 | 2 | Approved Minutes November 27,2018 landscaping. Additionally, safety upgrades were made to the units with balconies, including seismic retrofitting for earthquake safety. Vice Chair Murray asked about a discrepancy in the rent increase history provided at the unit and asked if he had any information on when the rent increases occurred and what the circumstances for the rent increases were. Mr. King replied that when they took over the property in 2017 there were a number of lease files that were incomplete. Mr. Philipos stated that he has seen changes to the outside of apartments but no changes inside. He said his carpet was more than 15 years old and when he asked his previous landlord to fix it they just covered up the parts that needed fixing. He also stated that there are water leaks in the bathroom that has caused the floor to bubble up. He stated the requested increase of 10% would pose a financial hardship, explaining that he is the only person working in his family and has to take care of his mother. Mr. King responded that tenants were encouraged to come to management with maintenance issues, and that things like water leaks were considered a priority to fix. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King if there were procedures in-place for maintenance requests. Mr. King stated that there were several ways to request a maintenance work, including an online submission form. Mr. Philipos stated that he did not know about the online submission form but would use it to request maintenance work. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Philipos about the rent increase history details at the unit and Mr. Philipos said he could not recall. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked if Mr. Philipos' wife was able to work, and Mr. Philipos stated that she is able to but has not found work yet. He asked if Mr. Philipos is the sole caretaker for his mother and Mr. Philipos said that he supports her financially. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Philipos what percentage of his income would go towards his rent if the 10% increase went into effect. Mr.… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-11-27 | 3 | Approved Minutes November 27, 2018 7-B. CASE 1107 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A309 Tenants: Brandon Isaacson Landlords: Andy King Proposed rent increase: $175.00 (10.0%), effective October 1, 2018 Mr. Isaacson said that this is the 2nd rent increase at his apartment in the past three years, adding the improvements were more cosmetic than structural. He stated that there have been no changes made to the inside of the apartment, and voiced concern over a possible safety hazard with a gap in between cement floors and railing in his unit. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked about the tenant's prior rent increases, and Mr. Isaacson said the rent had been raised 5% every year that he has been a resident. Vice Chair Murray asked what effect the increase would have on Mr. Isaacson, and he stated that it would strain their finances; for example, that they were already putting off having car repairs done due to shortage of money. Member Griffiths asked how much of an increase he could afford and Mr. Isaacson replied he could afford an increase of about $52, which coincided with the 2-3% increase in his salary. The parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated. Motion and second for a $0 increase from October 1, 2018 through November 30, 2018, followed by an increase of $100.00 from December 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0. At 8:10 p.m. the Committee agreed to take a five-minute break. At 8:14 p.m., Vice Chair Murray made an announcement that given the time remained they could only hear two more cases for the night, so they are going to defer two cases - Agenda Items 7-G and 7-I - to the next meeting. 7-C. CASE 1108 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A310 No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties. 7-D. CASE 1109 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A313 Tenant: Naza Hojic Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi Proposed rent increase: $126.00 (9.9%), effective October 1, 2018 Page 3 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-11-27 | 4 | Approved Minutes November 27,2018 Mr. Hojic stated he has lived in the unit for about ten years, and there have been no changes made to the inside of his apartment during that time. He presented to the Committee a picture of his bathtub, which he believed was in need of repair. He shared that he had been without work for two months, and his wife was disabled and worked part-time, as they tried to raise a 10 year old daughter. He noted that the landlords had made improvements to the outside of the property, but reiterated that no improvements have been made to his unit. Mr. King withdrew the rent increase, stating that he was not aware of the tenants' circumstances. 7-E. CASE 1110 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B101 No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties. 7-F. CASE 1111 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B103 No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties. 7-G. CASE 1112 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B202 No Committee review. Review of this case was postponed to a future meeting due to time constraints. 7-H. CASE 1115 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B301 No Committee review. The tenant presented evidence that she had received a rent increase within the last twelve months and the landlord withdrew the rent increase request. 7-I. CASE 1116 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B304 No Committee review. Review of this case was postponed to a future meeting due to time constraints. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. 9. MATTERS INITIATED Page 4 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-11-27 | 5 | Approved Minutes November 27,2018 Member Sullivan-Cheah asked staff why City Attorney staff had been absent for several meetings. Staff replied that the absences were due to the fact that the increased and irregularly-scheduled RRAC meetings sometimes ran concurrently with other meetings that City Attorney staff had to attend, such as City Council meetings. 10.ADJOURNMENT a. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on January 23, 2019 Page 5 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-27.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/2018-07-23.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/2018-07-02.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/2018-08-30.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/2018-09-19.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-19 | 1 | Approved Minutes September 19, 2018 Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday, September 19, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M. Present were: Chair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray (arrived at 7:11 p.m.); Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah Absent: None Program staff: Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: None 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. None. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff announced that the Committee's homeowner member, Milton Friedman, had tendered his resignation the day before and would no longer be on the Committee. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 a. None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. None. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. None. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-N. Discuss and approve amendments to the Rent Review Committee's Rules and Procedures addressing various issues, including, RRAC hearing time limits, participant's attendance or failure to appear under section 6-58.90, annual elections, and other appropriate amendments Staff suggested the following items as a starting point for the discussion: Making a 45-minute time limit for each individual case scheduled to be heard, which would be inclusive, applying to the entirety of the case including testimony, procedural action, and deliberation. Adopting rules regarding a party's failure to appear: Staff would call roll immediately before the cases set to be heard. No new cases would be initiated after 9:30PM. Page 1 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-19 | 2 | Approved Minutes September 19,2018 Cases where participants were not present for initial roll call would be moved to the end of the agenda. To ensure both parties did not fail to appear they would be asked to wait until their name was called again. Prior to adjourning the meeting staff would call roll again for all agenized but unheard cases. If both parties were present at that time, the case would be heard if commenced prior to 9:30pm. However, if both parties were there and the case could not be commenced before 9:30pm, the case would be moved to the next hearing. If either party were absent at second roll call, the RRAC would make a finding as to the parties' failure to appear pursuant to section 6-58.90. Adjournment: Meetings should adjourn no later than 9:30 p.m. The Committee could vote to extend a hearing past this cutoff time. Vice Chair Murray arrived and the foregoing suggestions were restated for her. Member Griffiths said he liked most of the suggestions. He posited changing the ending time to 10:00 p.m., while not allowing the Committee to begin hearing any new cases after 9:30 p.m. He stressed the importance of adhering to a time limit for purposes of equity between cases, as well as to allow participants to know what to expect. Members discussed how to proceed and decided that they would review staff suggestions first and then add their own suggestions. Member Sullivan-Cheah stated that with the cases that had been heard lately an end time of 9:30 p.m. could be difficult, while under normal circumstances it could work. He suggested staff could change the bylaws to state that no new cases can be heard after 9:00 p.m. so the members could adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m., unless a motion was passed to extend. The Committee members discussed the timing of agenda items. They surmised that it takes about 10-15 minutes to get through roll call and preliminary agenda items before case reviews began. In discussing the question of a 45 minute time limit per case, Vice Chair Murray expressed concern that 45… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-19 | 3 | Approved Minutes September 19, 2018 Staff raised the possibility of the Committee adopting different procedures for bulk versus non-bulk submissions. Staff reminded the Committee that staff provided parties with ample time to share their perspectives and mediate prior to a RRAC hearing. Chair Cambra suggested outlining a breakdown of how a standard case typically proceeds: five minutes for each side to present their opening statement, three minutes for opposing parties to reply, 10 minutes for questions from the Committee to the parties, five minutes to respond to the parties' presentations, and 20 minutes for deliberations among the members themselves, totaling 61 minutes. Members discussed ways of shortening the process. Additional benefits of adopting time limits were discussed, e.g., to ensure that parties on the agenda did not have to wait all night or multiple nights for their case to be heard. Member Sullivan-Cheah suggested adopting a time limit of one hour per case. Staff and Committee members discussed the administrative process of receiving submissions and scheduling them for hearings. They also discussed prioritizing the agenda in different ways. Member Griffiths stated that he thinks that an hour per case is too long. Vice Chair Murray suggested and the members discussed that the Committee could ask the parties if they had statements in addition to what had already been submitted to try to save time. She also suggested that a Committee member summarize the main points of each side's arguments and ask if they missed anything rather than having each side present their position as if the Committee had not already read their submissions. Other members suggested that the parties' opening statements allowed them to feel they can fully express their position and was an important part of the process. Member Griffiths suggested and the members discussed whether more time should be used for cases involving non-binding versus binding decisions. The members outlined a new ideal breakdown of time per case. The fi… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-09-19 | 4 | Approved Minutes September 19,2018 The members suggested that these time limits be flexible. They questioned whether instead of allowing 10 minutes for Segment 2 and 20 minutes for Segment 3, they might want to allocate 15 minutes to each. A second proposal was discussed wherein parties would also be given about two minutes to reply to the opening statements of the other party. This would result in each of the three segments allotted 15 minutes, or 45 minutes per case. Member Griffiths requested that staff call roll of all parties present at beginning of each hearing, and if the parties were not present, the item be moved to the end of the agenda. He suggested that if the parties were still not present during second roll call their case would not be heard by the Committee. He requested the roll call and time limit rules discussed be presented to the Committee as two separate agenda items for a future hearing wherein the Committee could consider and vote on amending the bylaws to incorporate them. Vice Chair Murray stated she will not be at the next hearing and is comfortable with the Committee voting on the new suggestions without her being present. Staff and Committee members affirmed that nothing would be changed in the by-laws until staff presented the proposals discussed for a Committee vote. Chair Cambra proposed and the Committee discussed the possibility of conferencing in a member or participant via video if they were unable to attend the hearing. Two members stated that they were uncomfortable with this suggestion. Staff informed the Committee that generally, unless parties requested disability-based reasonable accommodations, they had to attend the hearings in-person. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2. a. None. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. None. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018 Page 4 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-19.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/2017-10-02.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/2019-05-01.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-05-01 | 1 | Approved Minutes May 1, 2019 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday, May 1, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Present: Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu, Johnson, and Sidelnikov Absent: Chair Murray Program staff: Grant Eshoo; Gregory Kats City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES Staff informed the Committee that Agenda Items 7-C and 7-F had resolved prior to the meeting. Staff called roll of case participants. The tenants for Agenda Item 7-D were not present and the item was moved to the end of the agenda. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Staff confirmed with the members that they would be available for a training on the evening of Friday, June 21, 2019. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5-A. Approval of the minutes of the February 25, 2019 regular meeting Motion and second to approve the minutes (Member Chiu and Vice Chair Sullivan Cheah). Motion passed 3-0, with Member Sidelnikov abstaining. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6-A. Continuation of discussion of memo from CAO to RRAC concerning confidentiality of information on agenda materials provided to the Committee and the public Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah re-introduced the item and confirmed the Committee was not required to take action. He asked if anyone had anything further they wanted to | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-05-01 | 2 | Approved Minutes May 1, 2019 discuss. Other members indicated they did not have anything further to discuss. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked staff when the confidentiality procedures would be implemented. Staff replied that an implementation date had not yet been considered. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about how the Committee would be able to reference previous cases under the proposed confidentiality rules. Staff replied that staff would call each RRAC member prior to the meeting to inform them if they had heard a submission dealing with the same parties and subject property before so they could go back to review the minutes or audio to refresh their recollection prior to the meeting. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about the Committee's concerns regarding knowing who the parties were so they could recuse themselves if there were a conflict of interest. Staff replied that staff would provide the names and addresses of the parties during the aforementioned phone calls so that Committee members would know in advance who the parties were and if they might need to recuse themselves from reviewing a case. City Attorney staff spoke on the importance of balancing the tenant's privacy concerns with their ability to present enough information to demonstrate their perspective on the increase, such as if the requested increase would pose a financial hardship. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah commented that parties are not required to disclose information and City Attorney staff replied that the new confidentiality rules may allow tenants to feel more comfortable disclosing a larger amount of information, especially sensitive information. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. Case 1207 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A103 Tenant: Clark Parker Landlord: Andy King Proposed rent increase: $189.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $2,079.00, effective March 1, 2019 Mr. King said the owner purchased the property in 2017 with the intention of upgrading it. To date, he said, the owner had invested more than $3 million in improvements, which include an improved roof… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-05-01 | 3 | Approved Minutes May 1, 2019 He shared that there were ongoing problems in the unit relating to mold. He said his income was stagnating and the requested increase amount presented a hardship as it outpaced increases in his pay. He said a smaller increase around 3% might be reasonable, but the 10% requested was not. Mr. King said he would like to have the management take care of the mold problem, and added that a new kids' play area would be available for residents in the next few weeks. Member Johnson asked Mr. Parker if this was his first rent increase and he said it was. She asked how he took care of the mold and he said he painted over it but it came back. Member Chiu asked if he lived with anyone and Mr. Parker said he lived in the unit with his three sons, who were all in school. Member Johnson asked if Mr. King was able to rent the other two-bedroom units for the asking rate of $2,600 and he said he was able to rent them for that much or more. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Parker how long he had been living in the unit and he said since 2014 with another person's name on the lease, and since 2017 with his name on the lease. Member Johnson asked Mr. King how the landlord remedies mold in the units. Mr. King shared that another tenant experiencing mold was transferred to another unit during the duration of the mold remediation, and they replaced his windows to ensure they were waterproof. Member Johnson asked how many units were assessed for mold problems and Mr. King said he did not know as he was not part of the team involved in that. He said the management did periodic, usually annual, inspections. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King how tenant could report maintenance issues and Mr. King explained the process. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Parker what dollar amount he thought a reasonable increase would be, and Mr. Parker replied that he thought $80-$90 would be reasonable, but he would have to stretch his budget to pay it. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah explained that an increase of 5% is a t… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-05-01 | 4 | Approved Minutes May 1, 2019 Tenant: Abeba Woldermariam Landlord: Andy King Proposed rent increase: $127.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,402.00, effective June 1, 2019 Mr. King noted that this unit was one-bedroom and said that one-bedroom units were renting at market rate between $2,100 and $2,300. Ms. Woldenmariam said the requested increase would cause a hardship for her family. She said they only spent money on necessities and an increase would mean cutting essential costs like food. She told the Committee that nothing had been changed in her unit in her 17 years of tenancy - the carpet was damaged, there were nails sticking out of the floor, the closet door did not shut correctly, the walls needed to be repainted as the paint was peeling off, and the balcony screen was torn. She said she could not work a second job to pay high rent increases because she has two small children to look after. She added that the location of her apartment was good for her. Member Chiu confirmed the unit's occupants included Ms. Woldenmariam, her husband, and their two children, and that both parents work. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if she had photos of the unit to share and she passed photos on her phone around to the members and Mr. King. Member Sidelnikov asked Mr. King about the landlord's offering of incentives including carpet replacements, repainting, or new appliances in exchange for agreeing to rent increases outside of the RRAC review process. Member Sidelnikov pointed out that there had been two tenants at this meeting with nails sticking out of carpets, which seemed to be a health and safety concern. Mr. King replied that the landlord complies with applicable habitability laws. Member Johnson clarified that the mentioned incentives were only offered to tenants who waived their right to RRAC review of a rent increase, and Mr. King confirmed that was correct. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about Ms. Woldenmariam's husband's job and she said that his job was full-time, 40 hours per week, that he was paid hourly, … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-05-01 | 5 | Approved Minutes May 1, 2019 because he would have to check with management. She said she would be happy if it were repaired. She also asked if she could have a fridge that did not make noise and he said he would get them a replacement fridge that did not make noise. She said she thinks she is making reasonable requests as her tenancy was long-term. She added that there was a gap or hole in the balcony that she did not feel was safe and shared another photo on her phone. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah explained the RRAC did not have the authority to enforce promises relating to repairs and maintenance. The parties agreed to a rent increase of $50 to a total rent of $1,325 (effective June 1, 2019). The parties also agreed that the tenant's fridge would be replaced, and several other maintenance concerns would be looked into or addressed. 7-E. Case 1265.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D220 Tenant: Amarjit Kaur Landlord: Andy King Proposed rent increase: $153.02 (9.9%), to a total rent of $1,691.00, effective June 1, 2019 Ms. Kaur said her husband had signed an agreement form without realizing what he was signing, but they could not afford to pay the requested increase. She said she had been living in the unit since 2013, some of her windows were old and shake, the paint was peeling, and the stove was replaced in the past but still did not work. She said there was rust around the sink and toilet, and the bathtub had mold in it. She said she would have to cut back on expenses relating to their children's education if the increase went into effect. Member Johnson confirmed that the unit was one-bedroom, and that Ms. Kaur, her husband, and their two small children all lived in the apartment. Ms. Kaur said that she and her husband worked. Member Sidelnikov noted the rent increased 4.9% in 2018 and the landlord was now requesting an additional 9.9% increase, and Mr. King confirmed that was accurate. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what additional hardship the increase would have and Ms. Kaur said they would have to cut back on cloth… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-05-01 | 6 | Approved Minutes May 1, 2019 No Committee review. The parties reached an agreement prior to the hearing. 7-G. Case RI1274.1 - 1415 Broadway, Apt. 311 No Committee review. The case was removed from the agenda for further administrative review. 7-D. Case RI1261.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D119 No Committee review. The tenant was not present after a second roll call. The landlord may impose the rent increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2 None. 9. MATTERS INTIATED None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 3, 2019 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-01.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-12-05 | 1 | Approved Minutes December 5, 2018 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday, December 5, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. Present were: Members Sullivan-Cheah, Johnson, and Chiu Absent: Vice Chair Murray and Member Griffiths Program staff: Greg Kats, Grant Eshoo City Attorney staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES Staff informed the Committee that the parties in Agenda Item 7-D came to an agreement prior to the meeting. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Staff announced it would call roll of the parties present at the beginning of New Business. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 Catherine from the Alameda Renters Coalition announced that free legal services for tenants were now being provided by Centro Legal de la Raza. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5-A. Approval of the minutes of the November 7, 2018 regular meeting The Committee agreed to table consideration of this item to a future meeting. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS Staff called roll of the parties present. All parties were present except the tenant in Agenda Item 7-C. Staff informed the Committee it would call roll again at the end of new business to see if the missing tenant had arrived. 7-A. Case 1149 - 3268 Briggs Ave., Apt. B Tenants: Stella Park Landlords: Calvin and Serena Wong Proposed rent increase: $300.00 (25.0%) to a total rent of $1,455.00, effective January 1, 2019 Page 1 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-12-05 | 2 | Approved Minutes December 5, 2018 Ms. Wong informed the Committee that they had recently purchased the property. She said they wanted to improve the driveway, and obtained an estimate that it would cost $35,000. She said they were requesting the increase to help pay for improvements to the property. She said they were currently making about $180 income per year. Mr. Wong added that they would like to have a reserve fund for future expenses. Ms. Park stated that she understands why the landlords want to raise the rent, but her income had not increased by 25%, the amount they were asking for, or as fast as rents have gone up. She said she was hoping to discuss and negotiate the amount of the rent increase with the landlords and proposed a 10% increase, acknowledging that the landlords did not raise the rent the previous year. Member Johnson asked the landlords about the amount requested at this and other units on the property. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked the parties about the layout of unit and property as a whole. Ms. Park said no upgrades have been made to her property since she moved in but the unit was in good condition. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked the landlords what they thought of Ms. Park's offer of a 10% ($115.50) increase. The landlords countered with a $195 offer. Ms. Park said that her health insurance had gone up a lot and had substantial student loan payments. Ms. Park asked the landlords if they would accept a rent of $1,300. The parties could not reach an agreement and took their seats and the Committee began deliberations. Member Johnson said she thought the 10% increase offered by the tenant seemed fair, and also understood the landlords' income concerns. Member Chiu discussed each sides' perspectives and said he thought the tenant's last offer of $1,300 was reasonable. Member Sullivan-Cheah said that he understood $1,300 to be Ms. Park's upper limit of what she would be able to pay, and noted that Ms. Park's unit did not have some of the amenities that other units on the property had, such as balc… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-12-05 | 3 | Approved Minutes December 5, 2018 Landlords: David Chui Proposed Rent Increase: $87.10 (4.9%), to a total rent of $1,849, effective November 16, 2018 Mr. Marcelin said he had lived in the unit for eight years. He discussed the history of rent increases at the unit, at least one of which had been reversed following staff review. Mr. Marcelin said he would agree to the requested increase if the landlord committed to adhering to Ordinance 3148 and improved the unit with utility efficiency upgrades. Mr. Chui said that they intend to comply with the Ordinance, and had remedied past errors. He said that they had AMP audit the property and AMP determined that some of the upgrades suggested by the Mr. Marcelin were unfeasible, but they would implement some improvements that they could. Some upgrades were already in-place, Mr. Chui said, such as dual-flush toilets to help save water. He said although the rent increase did not go into effect until November 16, 2018, the rent is always due on the first of the month, and therefore had the tenant pay a prorated increase for November on November 1, 2018, even though the effective date of the increase did not start until November 16, 2018. Mr. Marcelin said that he did not have a dual-flush or water-saving toilet, and he had an old refrigerator that used a lot of electricity. He said he hoped to have a long-term tenancy and establish a good relationship with the new landlord, as he had with his previous landlord. The parties agreed to the proposed increase of $87.10. 7-C. CASE 1183 - 442 1/2 Pacific Ave Tenants: Rasheed Shahbazz Landlord: Truyen Dang Proposed Rent Increase: $76.00 (5.0%) Effective date December 1, 2018 Staff called role a second time and Mr. Shabazz was still not present. The rent increase will therefore go into effect as noticed, or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2 Eric Strimling from the Alameda Renters Coalition welcomed and thanked the new RRAC members, Chiu and Johnson, as this was their first RRAC meeting.… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-12-05 | 4 | Approved Minutes December 5, 2018 10. ADJOURNMENT a. The meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Grant Eshoo Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on January 23, 2019 Page 4 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-05.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-06 | 1 | Approved Minutes February 6, 2017 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, February 6, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Vice-Chair Landess; Members Griffiths, Friedman Absent: None Vacancy: One Landlord member RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman City Attorney Staff: Michael Roush 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. None. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. The next Committee meeting will be Wednesday, February 22, 2017. More information is available at www.alamedarentprogram.org. b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and explaining procedures for public comment. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1 a. No public comment. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of the Minutes of the January 11, 2016 Regular Meeting. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess). Unanimously approved. b. Approval of the January 12, 2016 Regular Meeting. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Friedman). Unanimously approved. 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. Case 582 - 2007 Lincoln Ave., Unit C Tenant: Heather Reed and Eric Strimling as designated representatives for tenant, Sia Sellu Landlord: John Galleto Proposed rent increase: $55.00/month increase, effective December 1, , 2016 Page 1 of 8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-06 | 2 | Approved Minutes February 6, 2017 Committee members asked for clarification concerning the role of the tenant advocates. They verified they were authorized on behalf of Ms. Sellu to agree to a rent increase of $25.00/month and do not have authority beyond that. Mr. Roush stated that the representatives' participation on behalf of the tenant satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance that the tenant appear at the RRAC meeting. Mr. Strimling explained that Ms. Sellu was interested in resolving this matter privately with the landlord but the landlord was not open to that suggestion. Ms. Reed explained that Ms. Sellu can only accept a small increase due to her disability and her fixed income. Ms. Sellu does not consider the quality of the unit to warrant a $55.00/month increase. She noted that Ms. Sellu likes living in Alameda and considers it her home. Ms. Reed also explained that the stress of the rent review process has negatively affected Ms. Sellus health. The landlord, Mr. Galleto, explained that the building is operating at a loss and that the unit's rent is below market rate. He said he is willing to reconsider the amount of the rent increase if the tenant provides documentation to demonstrate her claim that she us unable to pay the $55.00 increase. He clarified that he would need to see the type of documentation associated with a typical rental application. The tenant advocates stated Ms. Sellu would be willing to complete a rental application form but wanted to ensure that her medical information would not be used against her and that her tenancy would not be terminated. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana emphasized that the goal of the Committee is to facilitate discussions between a tenant and a landlord in order to reach an agreement between the tenant and landlord. When parties are unable to reach an agreement, the Committee shifts from facilitators to making a recommendation regarding the amount of the rent increase. Mr. Roush added that the tenant and landlord may still negotiate an agreement after the Committe… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-06 | 3 | Approved Minutes February 6, 2017 increase. Taking in good faith the comments of the tenant, he asserted that it appears the 5% increase poses a financial burden on the tenant. He recommended a $33 (3.0%) increase. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana noted that he is taking the comments of the landlord and tenant in good faith. He summarized that the tenant expressed she is unable to pay the 5% increase and the landlord stated he would reconsider the amount of the rent increase if the tenant provides documentation of her inability to pay the higher rent. In addition, the tenant representatives stated the tenant would be willing to provide the requested documentation. Therefore, he stated that it appears both parties may be able to work out an agreement of a $25 increase when the requested documentation is provided by the tenant. Thus, he recommended a $25 (2.3%) increase. Member Griffiths stated that he recognizes the tenant is facing a hardship with this rent increase. He also noted that he appreciates that the landlord has a history of reasonable rent increases. While he agrees with Member Landess that 5% is a reasonable increase for the landlord, he also acknowledged the tenant is a difficult situation. He recommended an increase of $25.00 (2.3%) and encouraged parties to meet privately so that the landlord's requested documentation could be provided by the tenant. Motion and second for Committee to recommend an increase of $25.00 (2.3%) effective March 1st, 2017 (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Passed with Sullivan-Sariñana, Griffiths, and Friedman voting yes and Landess voting no. Motion and second for 5 minute recess (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess). Unanimously approved. 7-B. Case 653 - 43 Sandpiper Pl. Proposed Rent Increase: $480.00 (15.1%), effective March 1, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-C. Case 683 - 871 Oak St. Proposed Rent Increase: $1,000.00 (50.0%), effective March 15, 2017 Review was postponed to the February 22, 2017 … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-06 | 4 | Approved Minutes February 6, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit. 7-E. CASE 656 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A102 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $60.00 (2.0%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $785.00 (25.7%); Under review Effective date: 3/1/17 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit. 7-F. CASE 657 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A112 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $101.00 (4.8%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $538.00 (25.8%); Under review Effective date: 2/6/2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-G. CASE 659 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B207 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $82.00 (2.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $771.00 (27.2%); Under review Effective date: 2/17/17 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit. 7-H. CASE 660 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B213 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $73.00 (2.0%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $959.00 (26.1%); Under review Effective date: Delayed until RRAC review. No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit. 7-I. CASE 661 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B315 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $64.00 (2.0%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $842.00 (26.1%); Under review Effective date: Delayed until RRAC review. No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. Page 4 of 8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-06 | 5 | Approved Minutes February 6, 2017 7-J. CASE 663 - 330 Westline Dr., Unit B329 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $105.00 (4.7%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $552.00 (25.0%); Under review Effective date: 2/5/2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-K. CASE 664 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C115 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $101.00 (4.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $538.00 (26.4%); Under review Effective date: 2/21/2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer. 7-L. CASE 665 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C119 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $43.00 (2.0%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $497.00 (22.6%); Under review Effective date: 2/20/2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer. 7-M. CASE 666 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C223 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $44.00 (2.0%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $502.00 (22.6%); Under review Effective date: 2/9/2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase of 15.0%. 7-N. CASE 668 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D214 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $39.00 (1.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $657.00 (33.0%); Under review Effective date: 2/18/2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. Page 5 of 8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-06 | 6 | Approved Minutes February 6, 2017 7-O. CASE 669 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D216 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $46.00 (2.0%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $355.00 (15.2%); Under review Effective date: Delayed until RRAC review. No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-P. CASE 670 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D316 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $112.00 (5.0%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $406.00 (18.1%); Under review Effective date: Delayed until RRAC review. No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit. 7-Q. CASE 672 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Unit E230 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $122.00 (4.8%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $732.00 (28.5%); Under review Effective date: 2/10/2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-R. CASE 673 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Unit E309 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $54.00 (1.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $713.00 (26.7%); Under review Effective date: 2/19/2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-S. CASE 675 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F203 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $102.00 (5.0%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $541.00 (26.3%); Under review Effective date: 2/17/2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer. 7-T.CASE 676 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F303 Page 6 of 8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf,7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-06 | 7 | Approved Minutes February 6, 2017 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $46.00 (1.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $517.00 (21.6%); Under review Effective date: 2/23/2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer. 7-U. CASE 677 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F328 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $117.00 (4.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $701.00 (29.2%); Under review Effective date: Delayed until RRAC review. No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit. 7-V. CASE 679 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Unit G201 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $57.00 (2.0%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $756.00 (26.1%); Under review Effective date: 2/22/2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit. 7-W. CASE 680 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Unit G308 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $124.00 (5.0%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $741.00 (29.9%); Under review Effective date: 2/12/2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to choose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer. 7-X. CASE 681 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Unit G314 Proposed rent increases: 12-month lease - $66.00 (4.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $441.00 (32.9%); Under review Effective date: 2/10/2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-Y Discuss Committee members' attendance at the March 7, 2017 City Council meeting to represent recommendations passed at the January 24, 2017 RRA… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf,8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-06 | 8 | Approved Minutes February 6, 2017 Staff shared an update that the City Council meeting to review the Ordinance will not be held in March. Staff will update the Committee when the exact date is known. City Attorney staff confirmed that he will forward the Committee recommendations, approved January 24, 2017, to all Committee members for review prior to the City Council meeting. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana confirmed that he will attend the meeting to present the Committee's recommendations. He encouraged other Committee members to attend the meeting as well. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2. a. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and tenant- landlord mediation services. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana suggested setting aside time at an upcoming meeting to discuss the criteria the Committee uses in determining a reasonable rent increase. He requested that the City Attorney's Office provide guidance for that discussion. Staff confirmed that this matter will be agendized in a future Committee meeting. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, RRAC Secretary Jennifer Kauffman Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 6, 2017. Page 8 of 8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-04-03 | 1 | Approved Minutes April 3, 2017 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Monday, April 3, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. Present were: Chair: Sullivan-Sarinana; Vice-Chair: Landess; Members Cambra and Griffiths Absent: Member Friedman RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman City Attorney Staff: John Le 2. AGENDA CHANGES a. Staff recommended addressing item 7-P first, as only the tenant for this unit was present. Motion and second (Landess and Griffiths) Unanimous approval. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Staff welcomed newly appointed Committee member Jeff Cambra. b. Staff stated that City Council will meet April 4, 2017 to review Rent Program staff's annual report and consider amendments to Ordinance no. 3148. c. 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 of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's fair housing and tenant- landlord mediation services. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of the Minutes from the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting. Motion and second to continue this item to a future Committee meeting when three Committee members who attended the January 24th meeting are present. (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess) Unanimous approval. b. Approval of the Minutes from the February 22, 2017 Regular Meeting. Motion and second (Griffiths and Sullivan-Sariñana) Unanimous approval. c. Approval of the Minutes from the March 6, 2017 Regular Meeting. Motion and second to continue this item to a future Committee meeting when three Committee members who attended the March 6th meeting are present. (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess) Unanimous approval. Page 1 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-04-03 | 2 | Approved Minutes April 3, 2017 6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS a. No unfinished business. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-P. CASE 762.1 - 1940 Franciscan Way, Unit 319 Tenant: Rhonda Jones and Shallen SoBrian (daughter) Landlord: Judith Murray Proposed Rent Increase: $75.00 (4.5%), effective June 1, 2017 Ms. Murray explained that she is raising rent to cover expenses such as property taxes, loan payments, and renovations. She stated that $36.00 of the $75.00 will cover increased property taxes and she is spending about $100 per month on property improvements. Ms. Murray also explained that she expects to repair the parking lot in the coming year and the estimated costs are $80,000-$100,000. She emphasized that she wants to treat tenants fairly by giving everyone the same increase. Ms. Jones stated that she has lived in the unit for over 10 years and has always paid her rent on time. She explained that this rent increase poses a financial burden for her and she is asking for the landlord to recognize her situation. Her daughter, Shallen Jones, expressed concerns that the rent increase is retaliatory given their maintenance requests. Ms. Murray clarified that the City had shut off water to repair pipes and that this rent increase was not in retaliation, stating every tenant receives the same rent increase. She restated her need to treat everyone at the property the same, though recognized the tenant is in a difficult situation. She offered an immediate return of the tenant's security deposit to accommodate the tenant's current financial difficulty. The tenants agreed to accept the rent increase and a full and immediate return of the security deposit. The Committee made the following non-binding recommendation to recognize the tenant/landlord's oral agreement: $75.00 (4.5%) rent increase from $1,595 to $1,670, effective June 1, 2017. The Committee also encouraged parties to discuss the oral agreement reached at the meeting for the landlord to make a full return and immediate return of the security deposit. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñ… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-04-03 | 3 | Approved Minutes April 3, 2017 Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $72.00 (3.1%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $620.00 (26.9%); Under review Effective date: April 15, 2017 Ms. Edwards explained that often tenants with rent increases scheduled for the Committee's review do not attend the Committee meeting because the plan to accept the less than 5%, 12-month option, but have not yet signed the lease. She stated that many tenants choose to negotiate privately with property managers closer to their renewal date. No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent increase notice. 7-B. CASE 769 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D110 Tenant: Absent Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $96.00 (4.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $618.00 (31.9%); Under review Effective date: April 29, 2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent increase notice. 7-C. CASE 771 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D210 Tenant: Absent Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $98.00 (4.5%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $598.00 (30.5%); Under review Effective date: April 8, 2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent increase notice. 7-D. CASE 772 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D226 Tenant: Absent Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. Page 3 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-04-03 | 4 | Approved Minutes April 3, 2017 Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $22.00 (1.1%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $688.00 (33.0%); Under review Effective date: April 30, 2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent increase notice. 7-E. CASE 774 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D303 Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $68.00 (1.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $677.00 (19.2.0%); Under review Effective date: April 14, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-F. CASE 779 - 941 Shorepoint Court, Unit F214 Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $54.00 (1.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $627.00 (22.2%); Under review Effective date: April 20, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-G. CASE 780 - 941 Shorepoint Court, Unit F321 Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $92.00 (4.7%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $602.00 (30.8%); Under review Effective date: April 28, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit. 7-H. CASE 781 - 941 Shorepoint Court, Unit F323 Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $46.00 (1.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $594.00 (25.0%); Under review Effective date: April 26, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-I. CASE 788 - 1921 Willow St. Page 4 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-04-03 | 5 | Approved Minutes April 3, 2017 Proposed Rent Increase: $1, 100.00 (84.6%), effective May 1, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase above 10%. 7-J. CASE 790 - 937 Shorepoint Court, Unit G313 Tenant: Absent Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $80.00 (4.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $586.00 (36.5%); Under review Effective date: April 16, 2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent increase notice. 7-K. CASE 792 - 915 Shorepoint Court, Unit E135 Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $132.00 (4.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $758.00 (28.7%); Under review Effective date: May 1,2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-L. CASE 794 - 915 Shorepoint Court, Unit E117 Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $83.00 (4.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $526.00 (31.4%); Under review Effective date: May 1, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-M. CASE 796 - 310 Shorepoint Court, Unit B110 Tenant: Absent Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $91.00 (4.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $607.00 (32.9%); Under review Effective date: April 29, 2017 Page 5 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-04-03 | 6 | Approved Minutes April 3, 2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent increase notice. 7-N. CASE 789 - 300 Westline Drive, Unit A110 Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $86.00 (4.9%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $561.00 (32.4.0%); Under review Effective date: May 1, 2017 No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. 7-O. CASE 799 - 937 Shorepoint Court, Unit G309 Tenant: Absent Landlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. Proposed Rent Increases: 12-month lease - $89.00 (4.7%); No review Month-to-month agreement - $620.00 (32.8%); Under review Effective date: May 1, 2017 No Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent increase notice. 7-Q. CASE 804 - 215 Hudson Bay a. Case postponed one month to the May 1, 2017 Committee meeting. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2. a. Speaker Robert Schrader explained his experience as a Committee Member and his reasons for resigning from the Committee. 9. MATTERS INITIATED a. Vice-Chair Landess requested a discussion at the meeting of non-binding case reviews and tenant absences for agenized rent increase. b. Chair Sullivan-Sarinana requested input from other Committee members for the Committee's recommendations to City Council at the April 4, 2017 meeting. Staff clarified that input must be limited to clarifying items and not a full discussion of the matters as the matter was not agendized. Per the Chair's request, staff provided information on the schedule for Ordinance amendments to be approved by the City Council. Page 6 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf,7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-04-03 | 7 | Approved Minutes April 3, 2017 c. Chair Sullivan-Sariñana requested a discussion of the coming vacancies on the Committee for the next agenda. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, RRAC Secretary Jennifer Kauffman Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017. Page 7 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf,1 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-04-17 | 1 | Approved Minutes April 17, 2019 Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee Wednesday, April 17, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. Present: Chair Murray; Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu and Sidelnikov Absent: Member Johnson Program staff: Grant Eshoo; Bill Chapin City Attorney staff: None 2. AGENDA CHANGES Staff called roll of case participants. The tenants for Agenda Items 7-C, 7-D, and 7-F were not present and moved to the end of the agenda. 3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Staff requested Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah provide dates between June 10 and June 22, 2019, for upcoming training. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1 None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. Case 1236 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D214 Tenant: Bashir, last name unknown Landlord: Andy King Proposed rent increase: $198.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $2,182.00, effective March 1, 2019 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf,2 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-04-17 | 2 | Approved Minutes April 17, 2019 Mr. King said the current ownership purchased the property in October 2017, and the property had extensive deferred maintenance. The ownership has spent more than $3 million in the last year and a half on renovations including seismic upgrades, roofing, painting, and improvements to the grounds. The rent increase is intended to recoup some of this investment. The request is also based on market rates; Mr. King submitted information showing the ownership currently asks $2,524 for a slightly smaller 2- bedroom unit at a nearby property. Bashir said the four tenants are all students attending a nearby university. He said they accepted two previous rent increases without question but now are having trouble making ends meet. He said they have been good tenants and requested consideration for the fact that all tenants will be graduating within the next year and a half. The tenants have no complaints about the management; the only issue is their financial situation. Mr. King declined to respond. Committee members asked for additional information about the tenants' financial situation. Bashir said that some tenants work part-time and some receive scholarships. Their parents occasionally help with bills when they request help. He said they would have to consider moving if the 10 percent increase became effective. Committee members asked for more information about the unit. Mr. King said a new tenant would be charged $2,660 per month for an identical two-bedroom unit at this property. Bashir said there have been no significant improvements made to the interior of the unit, and noted the windows rattle during strong winds. In response to statements made by Bashir, Mr. King explained that the ownership has begun offering incentives to tenants who agree to proposed rent increases. These include upgraded appliances or carpeting or a $1,000 gift card. Member Sidelnikov noted that Bashir mentioned multiple rent increases, but records provided to the Committee showed just one previous increase. Bas… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf,3 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-04-17 | 3 | Approved Minutes April proposed a lesser rent increase to a total of $2,025. Staff said such an agreement could constitute the tenant waiving his rights, which is not allowed under Ordinance no. 3148. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah expressed concern that the Committee was mediating a private agreement based on assumptions. Motion and second to table this item until staff can verify rent history and present any updated facts to the Committee (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 4-0. 7-B. Case 1237 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D307 Tenant: Moyende Kamali Landlord: Andy King Proposed rent increase: $170.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,878.00, effective March 1, 2019 Mr. King submitted online rental postings showing the current asking rates for three comparable one-bedroom units at this property and a neighboring property owned by the same group, ranging from $2,271 to $2,341. Mr. Kamali said he works as a self-employed general contractor, so his income can vary based on his current clientele. He said he does not believe the requested rental rate reflects the quality of the unit, and he specifically cited damaged windows where the frame does not close correctly, leaving a gap that lets in air. Following questions about the incentives program, Mr. King said the ownership would be willing to replace windows in the unit if Mr. Kamali agreed to the rent increase. Mr. Kamali proposed an 8 percent increase. The parties agreed on an increase of $136 to a total rent of $1,844, effective May 1, 2019. 7-E. Case 1250.1 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A202 Tenants: Jason Schabert and Tammy Cordero-Schabert Landlord: Andy King Proposed rent increase: $127.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,402.00, effective June 1, 2019 Mr. King had no specific statements unique to this case. Mr. Schabert said he is a blue-collar worker and his wife is a homemaker. He said he receives an annual salary increase, but it is not large enough to keep pace with regular rent increases of more than 5 percent. He said the apartment currently has … | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf,4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-04-17 | 4 | Approved Minutes April 17, 2019 percent rent increase, but any more than that seems excessive to him. Member Sidelnikov noted that the form the tenants filed said a total rent of $1,350 would be acceptable, which is a 5.88 percent increase. Mr. Schabert said he would accept a 5 percent increase. Ms. Cordero-Schabert said they were trying to compromise by meeting in the middle. Chair Murray noted the filed paperwork had conflicting dates that the increase would become effective. Staff confirmed an effective date of June 1, 2019. Committee members asked for additional information on the tenants' financial situation. Mr. Schabert said the full rent increase would strain their ability to pay for medical care, prescriptions, groceries, and gasoline. He said he has come to rely on substantial overtime at his warehouse job. Medical issues prevent Ms. Cordero-Schabert from working. This is a recent development, and she currently receives no income. The parties were not able to reach an agreement, and the Committee began deliberations. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said this is a case where the rent increase is reasonable, but the full increase would create financial hardship for the tenant. Members Chiu and Sidelnikov agreed the tenant had demonstrated hardship. Chair Murray suggested an increase to a total rent of $1,350 because the tenants had indicated in paperwork that they were comfortable with that amount, even if the percentage came out to greater than 5 percent. Motion and second for an increase of $75 to a total rent of $1,350, effective June 1, 2019 (Member Chiu and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0. 7-F. Case 1249.1 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A210 Tenants: Desiree Ann Shaver Landlord: Andy King Proposed rent increase: $120.50 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,328.00, effective June 1, 2019 Mr. King had no specific statements unique to this case. Ms. Shaver shares the 1-bedroom apartment with her mother and 22-year-old daughter. Ms. Shaver's salary is the primary source of income for the household, although he… | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf,5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-04-17 | 5 | Approved Minutes April 17,2019 Mr. King declined to respond. Member Chiu noted that the paperwork Ms. Shaver filed stated a total rent of $1,267.87 would be acceptable, which would be a 5 percent increase. Ms. Shaver said she could even afford a 6 percent increase to a total rent of $1,280. Committee members asked for additional information on the family's financial situation. Ms. Shaver said her daughter currently works three days a week and helps pay the cell phone and cable bills. She is not currently attending school. Ms. Shaver works for an accounting firm. Committee members asked about any maintenance issues with the apartment. Ms. Shaver said the stove and the bathroom fan do not work, the cold water sometimes comes out hot, the bathtub does not drain, and the bathroom floor is discolored. The parties were not able to reach an agreement, and the Committee began deliberations. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said that, while the proposed rent increase is significant, he was inclined to approve it based on the idea that Ms. Shaver's daughter is capable of working full time and contributing to the rent. Member Sidelnikov and Chair Murray expressed agreement. Chair Murray added that the Committee should encourage and recognize landlords who make investments in seismic upgrades. Motion and second for an increase of $120.50 to a total rent of $1,328, effective June 1, 2019 (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member Sidelnikov). Motion passed 4-0. 7-C. Case 1256 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C104 No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties. 7-D. Case 1264 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D216 No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties. 7-G. Continuation of discussion of memo from CAO to RRAC concerning confidentiality of information on agenda materials provided to the Committee and the public | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf |
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.pdf,6 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-04-17 | 6 | Approved Minutes April 17, 2019 Chair Murray said the Committee wants all five members present to consider this item. Staff noted that, based on Committee members' stated conflicts, the next three meetings will not have the full committee present. Chair Murray and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah summarized some of the Committee's previously stated concerns with the policy. Chair Murray said the City Attorney's Office was to consider those concerns and present alternatives. The Committee has not seen alternatives, and the memo remains unchanged. She asked that the item be added to the agenda for the next meeting when all five Committee members and a representative of the City Attorney's Office will be present so there can be a discussion. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2 None. 9. MATTERS INTIATED None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, RRAC Secretary Bill Chapin Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 15, 2019 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-04-17.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]) );