From: Susan Eisenberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: General Public Comment Non-Agenda
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 6:30:45 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Mayor Bosse and Members of the City Council,
My apartment building on South Reeves Drive was
recently bought, and the new landlord has informed the
tenants that construction to convert our parking garages into apartments will begin soon. I have a parking space in a driveway, onsite, not a garage, but because of the impending construction, I was told I will not be able to park there, and instead, will have to park offsite. I was also informed that I, along with my fellow tenants, will be required to apply for overnight and daytime permits.
I don’t understand how a fixture of my lease, such as my parking space, can suddenly be taken away. And it’s
uncertain if after the conversion my parking space will even still exist. The inconvenience of having to park
offsite during and after construction in a neighborhood where parking spaces are already in short supply cannot be overstated.
It is my understanding that this conversion is happening because of a recent Development Incentive from the
State. I’m curious why the City didn’t inform its
residents, specifically its renters, about this development and what we stand to lose because of it. What, if
anything, is the city prepared to do to help us keep our parking spaces? Because right now, our landlord is
giving us plans that were unilaterally made, and we, the tenants, are without recourse or protections.
Thank you.
Susan Eisenberg
From: Mark Elliot
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Item F1 public comment: RSO remodeling
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:34:28 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark Elliot <[email protected]>
Subject: Item F1 public comment: RSO remodeling
Date: December 13, 2022 at 8:01:22 PM PST
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Good evening Mayor Bosse and members of the City Council:
I’m not sure why this issue is before you tonight. Wouldn’t a discussion about relocation fees be more germane to the afternoon discussion about tenant protections? Regardless, now is as good a time as any to remove this provision from the Rent Stabilization Office.
First, the provision is reportedly not used, or is uncommonly used, despite the outdated and low expenditure thresholds that are established in the ordinance.
This provision might provide a tempting opportunity to terminate two households in certain cases. But it is complicated and unlikely to become standard practice.
Nor shouldn’t be.
Second, it is difficult or impossible to identify industry figures for representative apartment remodeling costs. I have consulted the Assessor’s Handbook and numerous contractor and industry organization websites. I can’t find any solid data on what remodeling expenditures should be.
However if you are looking for reference values I can provide some figures from Building & Safety. During the council RSO study sessions in 2019 I looked at reported remodeling expenditures as cited on city permits. For the first half of the 2018-2019 fiscal year I found the median remodeling value to be $24,000 and the average value was $30,000. These permits include only RSO units and I filtered for the term ‘remodeling' in the description.
Those values are far higher than what is on the books.
To conclude, after striking this provision I suggest you consider looking more closely at the means and method plan requirement which is often implicated in major remodeling. Are tenants really protected during this work? Is there an opportunity for Building & Safety to more effectively inspect and enforce during major remodeling? Tenants are often affected by the work but feel they have no recourse.
Thank you for your service.
Mark Elliot
Mark Elliot