body,date,page,text,path
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-22,1,"Approved Minutes
February 22, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Vice-Chair Landess; Member Griffiths
Absent: Member Friedman
Vacancy: Housing Provider member
Program Administrator staff: Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney staff: Michael Roush
Translation staff: Haiyan Chen
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. None.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. The next Committee meeting will be Monday, March 6, 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
procedures for public comment. Staff noted there is translation at tonight's meeting and the
Committee will adjust as needed.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. No public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes of the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting.
Vice-Chair Landess noted that she will abstain from this vote as she was not in attendance at
the January 24, 2017 meeting. Staff recommends continuing this item to the next meeting until
three members are able to vote on the item. Motion and second to continue this item to a future
Committee meeting (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Approved by unanimous consent.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 683 - 871 Oak St.
Tenant: Merin Lund
Landlord: Lori Hanson, Daniel Cheung
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-22,2,"Approved Minutes
February 22, 2017
Proposed Rent Increase: $1,000.00 (50.0%), effective March 15, 2017
This rent increase review was originally scheduled for the February 6, 2017 Rent Review Advisory
Committee meeting. The review was postponed two weeks to the February 22, 2017 meeting. Staff
researched the number of housing units on the property and determined that there is only one
housing unit; therefore the rent increase is exempt from a binding decision.
The tenant, Merin Lund, stated that there should be no rent increase. Ms. Lund stated that the rent
increase is not warranted given the property's current condition. She also noted that the rent was
raised $500.00 in March 2016 and $100.00 the previous fall. These previous increases have been
a financial burden on her and she is not in a position to pay for an additional increase in the amount
requested by the landlord. Additionally, Ms. Lund has several concerns regarding maintenance of
the property. In July 2016, she said mold had been discovered in the unit and she remains
concerned that the efforts to eliminate the mold have not been successful. Ms. Lund stated that she
believes the large rent increase is in retaliation of her raising concerns about the mold to the
landlord. She noted that she would prefer to live in a unit that was healthy for her family and that
she does not have full use of the property because the landlord uses some space for storage and
occasionally stays in a shed in the back of the property. Ms. Lund said that she has been a good
tenant for the eight years she has resided at the property.
The landlord, Ms. Hanson, stated that the rent increase will raise rent to comparable rates for
similar units. The landlord noted that she considers rent of similar units to range between $3,000
and $3,200. She explained that the increase is also related to her interest in seeking a reasonable
return on the property; currently, she noted that she has not yet made a profit on the property. In
addition, Ms. Hanson explained the rent increase was necessary for recent and projected capital
expenses for the property including foundation work, window repair, gutter repair, mold removal,
and yardwork. She said there had been a temporary reduction in rent of $200 for several months
in 2016. She stated that she is a diligent landlord and follows up on maintenance and code
enforcement issues.
Mr. Cheung, the attorney for Ms. Hanson, explained that the rent increase is necessary to cover
maintenance costs. He suggested postponing the increase to give the tenant a chance to search for
a new unit.
Ms. Lund stated she was open to this option but would need at least 4 or 5 months to search for
new housing.
Mr. Cheung stated that postponing the rent 4 months while the tenant searched for a new unit
would be acceptable to the landlord. He suggested that the rent increase to $3,000.00 become
effective March 15th, but not be enforced for 4 months. If the tenant does not vacate the unit at the
end of the 4 months, the tenant would owe the amount of the rent increase ($1,000) for the 4
months it was delayed. Mr. Cheung explained that he could draft an agreement to ensure those
conditions enforceable.
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-22,3,"Approved Minutes
February 22, 2017
Staff clarified the current base rent is $2,000.00.
Ms. Lund explained that while it is possible for her to vacate in four months, she is concerned
about owing back rent if she cannot vacate in time.
Mr. Cheung suggested a full and early return of Ms. Lund's security deposit to facilitate the moving
process.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement.
The Committee made the following non-binding decision:
The $1,000 (50.0%) rent increase from $2,000 to $3,000, effective March 15, 2017, is
delayed four months to provide the tenant the opportunity to search for new housing.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Unanimous approval.
7-B Case 648.1 - 1715 Sherman St., Unit B
Tenant/Public speakers: Ernest Yip and Cai Hong Zhang
Landlord/Public speakers: Wai Cheung [with representative for translation]
Translation staff: Haiyan Chen
Proposed Rent Increase: $450.00 (32.1%)
The tenants stated the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase should be $100.00 (7.1%). Mr.
Yip explained that they have been willing to negotiate and offered the landlord a $120.00 (8.6%)
rent increase. He explained that the proposed $450.00 increase would be a financial burden. He
expressed concerns regarding his current job security and provided earnings statements to
demonstrate only a small raise last year. The tenants noted that they currently pay for water and
electricity in addition to rent. In addition, the tenants stated they do not believe it is fair to average
the increases over the previous 10 years. The tenants also noted several maintenance issues, such
as peeling exterior paint and mold concerns.
The landlord, Mr. Cheung, explained that the rent had not been raised for 7 years. He explained
that when all the increases are averaged over the entire tenancy, there is about a 2% increase per
year. Mr. Cheung indicated that the rent increase is related to keeping up with costs of operation
and inflation, such as utilities, maintenance bills, and property taxes. He explained that the
property was poorly managed in its early years and he now seeks to manage it better and raise
the rent closer to market rate. Mr. Cheung indicated that a 2 bedroom unit payment standard for
the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is equal to $2,390. Mr. Cheung noted that he
quoted this rate for reference and was not asking for the rent to be $2,390.00.
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-22,4,"Approved Minutes
February 22, 2017
Mr. Cheung offered to reduce his increase request to $300.00 (21.0%), for a total rent of
$1,700.00.
The tenants offered to pay $140.00 (10.0%) rent increase, for a total rent of $1,540.00. The tenants
expressed concern about maintenance issues such as a leaking roof.
The landlord clarified that he had fixed the roof but will re-inspect it immediately. The landlord
explained that he is very invested in maintaining the property.
Mr. Cheung explained that he does not have more room to negotiate because another unit in the
building agreed to a rent increase. He expressed that he wants to be fair to all tenants and charge
the same rent for all units.
The tenants explained that they pay for water while the other tenants do not. Therefore, charging
the same rent is not treating each tenant equally.
Staff clarified that each unit has a separate rental history and a separate agreement around
amenities. Therefore, reasonable rent is determined for each unit separately.
The parties were unable to reach an agreement.
Member Griffiths acknowledged that the current rent appears less than market rates. However, he
noted that this rent increase is not consistent with the landlord's previous rent increase requests.
While the landlord reduced his request from $450 to $300, Member Griffiths noted that $300 is
still a significant jump to absorb at one time. Member Griffiths also stated that even though the
tenant offered to pay a $140.00 (10%) increase, this amount of an increase is still very significant
to absorb at one time. Therefore, he stated he would be most comfortable with a rent increase of
$120.00 (8.6%).
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana stated that this is a difficult situation with a very large rent increase
following a long period of no increases. He noted that the original $450.00 increase request is not
in line with the landlord's previous increases of $50.00 and $100.00. He explained that he believes
the reduced offer to a $300 increase is also unreasonable. He explained that the purpose of the
Ordinance is to keep Alameda renters in their homes. He recommended a $140.00 (10.0%) rent
increase.
Vice Chair Landess asked City Attorney staff to clarify the purpose of the Ordinance.
Mr. Roush explained that the Ordinance may not specifically indicate its purpose as keeping
Alameda renters in their homes. Rather, the Ordinance looks to keep rents in a posture to be
affordable for individuals to continue to live in Alameda. He noted that there is an inherent tension
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-02-22,5,"Approved Minutes
February 22, 2017
in keeping rents affordable for Alameda residents and providing property owners a fair return on
investment. The Committee's task is to find some balance between those tensions.
Vice Chair Landess acknowledged that prior property management set an unsustainable precedent
of not increasing rent. However, an increase of 32% ($450) is excessive. She stated that having
more information on capital improvements would have helped justify such an increase. Without
this information, she recommended an increase of $140.00 (10.0%).
The Committee recommended a rent increase of $140.00 (10.0%) from $1,400.00 to $1,540.00,
effective March 1, 2017. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Landess). Unanimous
approval.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
a.
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on April 3, 2017.
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-02-22,1,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday February 22,2017
Commissioner Michele Bellows called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Michele Bellows (Chair)
Jesus Vargas
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Samantha Soules
Members Absent:
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michael Hans
Staff Present:
Jennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Victoria Williams, Paratransit Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said he subscribed to the Transportation Commission mailing
list and receives notifications ahead of time. He explained that he received an email notification
that the January meeting was cancelled, but he did not receive an email notification for February.
Regarding the Posey Tube, he said he's been riding through it during the rainy weather and he
does not like the new paneling design along the roadway because it is solid paneling and now has
graffiti on it. He said he has yet to see if Caltrans cleaned it up because he hasn't been through
the tube in the past couple of weeks, so maybe they cleaned it up. He thanked Public Works for
the Clement Street striping project because the road contains plenty of space for him to bicycle.
Commissioner Bertken said the panels are up to protect the bicyclists.
Jim Strehlow replied that he used to easily pass another bicyclist coming the opposite direction
Page 1 of 4",TransportationCommission/2017-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-02-22,2,"by leaning the bicycle over the railing.
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Approve Meeting Minutes - November 16, 2016
Commissioner Soules moved to approve the November 16, 2016 minutes. Commissioner
Morgado seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Approve City of Alameda Paratransit Program Plan for Fiscal Year 2017/2018
Staff Payne presented the report and introduced Victoria Williams, Alameda Paratransit
Coordinator, who was formerly the Paratransit Coordinator for the city of Hayward.
Staff Williams stated that the program is wonderful and exciting and she has worked with seniors
and people with disabilities for over 30 years. She explained that she was ready to learn what is
going on in Alameda and make it even more exciting for people to get around.
Staff Payne replied that Victoria Williams will be located at the Mastick Senior Center and she
felt that it was a perfect location because there are a number of seniors who are part of the
program and she would be able to interact with stakeholders and non-profits. She noted that the
program is funded by Measure B and Measure BB administrated by the Alameda County
Transportation Commission and staff is required to produce an annual application for this
program, which is due March 2017.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the expenditures that are planned are sustainable for several
years under Measures B and BB funding.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if they will always receive that amount from Measures B and
BB.
Staff Payne replied that it depends on the economy because currently they're experiencing an
economic boom. However, staff does not expect it to always remain this high and sales tax can
vary, so they budgeted very conservatively. She went on to say they have the ability to reduce
the amount of subsidy with the taxi program and they just increased it to reduce the reserves.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the stops are marked.
Staff Payne replied most stops are marked others are not. She explained that some shopping
centers did not want a physical shuttle stop sign located on their property. Staff works with the
riders to let them know where they would be picked up and dropped off.
Page 2 of 4",TransportationCommission/2017-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-02-22,3,"Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the routes and days/times of service are located on the City
website.
Staff Payne replied yes and they are going to improve the map and schedule as well.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if the $200,000 capital funding is a one-time need for this year
and what does that include.
Staff Payne replied the $200,000 includes several different expenditures and the most important
ones were changing out the shuttle flags and rebranding the system to say ""Alameda Loop"" and
that's a one-time deal. She stated that changing out the poles and bus benches are one-time
expenditures that relate to seniors and people with disabilities.
Commissioner Bertken said the presentation was conducted in a good and clear manner.
Commissioner Soules moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Morgado
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5.B. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse and Transportation Planning, presented the report.
Staff Payne presented an update on the Public Works projects.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow said regarding the Line 19, when he was driving he became stuck behind the
westbound bus on February 3. He exclaimed that the bus was running ahead of schedule and
waited at the stop for 3-4 minutes causing many cars to be stuck behind it. He said there is a left-
hand turn only lane for vehicles to get into their private driveways and nearby is a double yellow
line going to Arbor Street and you don't want to go around a bus when there is a double yellow
line and left hand only turn lane. He stated that the cars eventually went around the bus, but
when the bus is stopped, even if the stop is brief, causes cars to line up behind it. Consequently,
this action blocks the street. He said all other City bus stops have parking removed and are on the
side away from on-coming vehicular traffic, yet when the bus is stopped at the location just past
Stanton Street and before Arbor Street it blocks the street. Therefore, he asked if it's legal for
this to take place and he wondered if the bus stop should have been moved further away off the
street or if there needs to be restriping to accommodate the bus stop. Additionally, he said the
buses don't stop there and they now stop at Challenger Drive and Atlantic Avenue where he
works. He went on to say that Challenger Drive goes into the Marina Shopping Center and he
saw Public Works remove the cement barrier for a left hand turn lane, so that eastbound
motorists can turn onto Challenger Drive. He said they removed all of that knowing that there
would be a bus stop placed. Now, he noted there is only so much room for a car to go around.
Staff Payne replied AC Transit was looking into their bus run times and the fact that they are
taking too long. She explained that AC Transit will be modifying the run times in March, so
there shouldn't be anymore buses stopping at time points and bus operators will be better trained.
Page 3 of 4",TransportationCommission/2017-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-02-22,4,"However for the interim, between now and March, the buses should not be blocking traffic. She
said she will check with AC Transit to make sure they are not blocking traffic.
Sergeant Derespini, Alameda Police Traffic, stated that Jim Strehlow's comments were valid. He
explained that if striping were modified for that section, that would take away from motorists
trying to get into their driveways and access the side streets.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Annual Report on the Alameda Landing TDM Program
2. Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Avenue Gap Closure
2. I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation Project
3. Draft Transit/Transportation Demand Management Plan
4. Transportation Component of FY 17-19 CIP
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
8.
Adjournment
7:51pm
Page 4 of 4",TransportationCommission/2017-02-22.pdf