Monterey Pines tenants urge immediate repeal of exemption rules as Rent Board reviews Regulation 204

Tenants from Monterey Pines told the Richmond Rent Board on March 12 that they are living in unsafe and unsanitary conditions and called on the board to repeal Regulations 202 and 204, which they say allow owners to claim exemptions from rent control and shift costs to residents.

At a staff presentation, General Counsel Charles Shenuga explained that Regulation 204 gives the board authority to remove an exemption if a subsidized property fails to "substantially comply" with applicable provisions of the rent ordinance, orders, resolutions, regulations or Richmond inspection program orders. Shenuga said staff has seen an "uptick" in exemption petitions and that, as a result, the program lost roughly 430 fully controlled units to partial control through granted exemptions.

Executive Director Fred Tran and staff said the program is actively investigating complaints from Monterey Pines residents, including site inspections and outreach to property management and the city's community development, code & building, and housing authority departments. Tran told the board staff had contacted tenants who testified at the prior meeting and that the property manager had provided records to the owner and counsel; staff was drafting a letter pending board direction.

Residents gave detailed testimony about living conditions. Teresa Robinson said: "I'm rent $300 extra a month," and Tamia Millhouse told the board she lives with "mold, rats" and had been issued a "notice to comply or quit" after a rent increase. Jessica Lopez described repeated failed inspections and what she said was the owner's consolidation of utility bills into rent without adequate service: "I have been waiting now for a week to come and fix my bathtub where black water is spilling out from it." Tenant advocates and legal services representatives urged faster, citywide action and argued the exemptions should be repealed immediately.

Board members asked staff detailed procedural questions. Shenuga explained the required steps: staff must send a written notice of noncompliance, give the landlord 60 days to cure; if unremedied, staff will agendize a public hearing where staff presents its investigatory report and a recommendation to remove the exemption. Shenuga estimated a general timeline of roughly 90 days "—30 for the investigation, 60 for the compliance letter—" but also noted that timing depends on city inspections and potential litigation; if a court challenge is filed a rescission could be stayed for months or years.

After public comment the board voted to agendize the matter for its next scheduled meeting, directing staff to allow that study session to include possible action items on repealing Regulations 202 and 204 and to permit a vote on repeal at that meeting if the board so chooses. The motion passed on roll call; general counsel warned that legal risks and external coordination (housing authority, city inspections) will shape staff recommendations and timing.

The rent program did not announce a final schedule for inspections or the exact date staff expects to complete its Monterey Pines investigation; Shenuga said staff could be "shocked" if it takes longer than 30 days in straightforward cases but acknowledged complexity in large complexes and dependence on city reinspection timing. If the board votes to rescind an exemption and no lawsuit is filed, Shenuga said the rescission generally becomes effective about 30 days after the vote.

The board will consider next procedural steps at its next regular meeting; staff indicated it will prepare the legal memorandum and additional materials residents and members requested.