{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-05-02", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, May 2, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.\nPresent were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; and Members Griffiths, Landess, and\nSchrader.\nAbsent: None\nVacancy: One\nRRAC staff: Jennifer Kauffman\na. Election of new Chair\nThe members concurred that it would be preferable to table the election of\npermanent officers until the current vacancy was filled and all members could vote. M/S\n(Griffiths/Landess) and unanimous to appoint Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana as Interim Chair and\nSchrader as Interim Vice Chair.\n2. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes of the April 4, 2016 Regular Meeting\nApproved by unanimous consent.\nAt this time, Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing was invited to address the\nmeeting to explain ECHO's fair housing and tenant/landlord services.\n3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)\n4. NEW BUSINESS\na. Cases governed by Ordinance No. 3143, which limits rent increases of 8% or more; no\nbinding review process for a legal rent increase:\ni. Case 363 - 781 Central Avenue, Unit A\nTenant/public speaker: Jeffrey Giordano\nLandlord representative/public speaker: Erik Johnson\nThe landlord's original proposed increase was $90 (6.77%). Following general\ndiscussion, the parties agreed to a $66.50 (5.0%) increase, to be effective July 1, 2016.\nM/S (Schrader/Landess) and unanimous to uphold the agreement. Staff stated that\nconfirmation letters would be sent to all parties.\nii. Case 373 - 1850 Thau Way, Unit 12\nStaff stated that prior to the meeting, the case had been withdrawn at the request\nof the tenant. The tenant was not required to disclose the terms of the settlement, as this\ncase was not under the jurisdiction of Ordinance No. 3148.\nPage 1 of 3", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-05-02", "page": 2, "text": "Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nMay 2, 2016\nAt this time, staff gave an overview of the process for cases under the jurisdiction of\nOrdinance No. 3148.\nb. Cases governed by Ordinance No. 3148; binding third-party decision required:\ni. Case 364 - 2465 Shoreline Drive, Unit 120\nStaff reported that this case had been withdrawn, as the parties came to an\nagreement prior to the meeting. The agreed-upon increase was within the at-or-below 5%\nrange.\nii. Case 366 - 2465 Shoreline Drive, Unit 416\nStaff reported that this case had been withdrawn, as the parties came to an\nagreement prior to the meeting. The agreed-upon increase was within the 5.1 - 10.0%\nrange.\niii. Case 370 - 1721 St. Charles Street\nStaff reported that this case would be rescheduled to the next regular meeting, as\nthe paperwork was not yet complete.\niv. Case 372 - 1812 Willow Street, Unit B\nTenant/public speaker: Fernando Cabrera\nLandlord representative/public speaker: Nancy Takamura\nStaff recapped the highlights of the case. The landlord's original proposed\nincrease was $305 (13.90%). The tenant stated his objections to the increase including his\nopinion that he was subsidizing the other tenants in the building who were relatives of the\nlandlord. The landlord stated her opinion that the increase was justified as she did not\nimpose any increase during the year following the agreement converting from a one-year\nlease to a month-to-month agreement. General discussion followed and the parties\nnegotiated a rent increase of $205 (9.3%). Both parties verbally acknowledged the\nagreement and went into the adjacent office to finalize the terms. M/S\n(Schrader/Griffiths) and unanimous to uphold the agreement.\nc.\nDetermine date and location of June RRAC Meeting (Note: Independence Plaza is not\navailable on Monday, June 6.)\nM/S (Griffiths/Landess) to keep the June 6 date and change the venue to the City\nCouncil Chambers.\n5. PUBLIC COMMENT (none)\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff reported that an active recruitment was underway for the neutral homeowner\nvacancy on the RRAC. Future RRAC packets will be posted on the City's online Legistar\nsystem. A website dedicated to provide information regarding the new rent ordinance has\nbeen established. The address is www.alamededarentprogram.org\n7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none)\nPage 2 of 3", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-05-02", "page": 3, "text": "Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nMay 2, 2016\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:18 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJennifer Kauffman\nRRAC Secretary\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 6, 2016.\nPage 3 of 3", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-05-02.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-06-06", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, June 6, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.\nPresent were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sarinana; and Members Griffiths, Landess, and\nSchrader.\nAbsent: None\nVacancy: One\nRRAC staff: Jennifer Kauffman\n2. CONSENT CALENDAR\na.\nApproval of the Minutes of the May 2, 2016 Regular Meeting. Approved by\nunanimous consent.\n3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)\n4. NEW BUSINESS\na. RRAC Case Summary (for information only)\nb. Case 378 - 2445Shoreline Drive #219. This item was resolved and withdrawn prior\nto the meeting.\nc. Case 380 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #318\nTenant/public speaker: Bengt Mattson\nLandlord/public speaker: Spencer Tam\nStaff recapped the materials submitted by the landlord and the tenant that were\nincluded in the agenda packet. The tenant was disputing the $150 per month increase\n($1,550 to $1,700) for the 12-month option. Based on the tenant's ten-year tenancy with\nregular rent increases, the tenant stated that $80 per month would be the maximum\nreasonable increase. The landlord stated that the complex had undergone an extensive\n$3 million, four-year construction effort and that $1,700 should be the lowest rent for\nan existing tenant. Following general discussion in the attempt to achieve a compromise,\nthe tenant and landlord agreed upon a $100 per month increase. Motion and second\n(Landess/Schrader) and unanimous to support this agreement.\nd.\nCase 382 - 2119 Central Avenue Apt. B. The landlord canceled the rent increase\nand this item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.\ne.\nCase 383 - 1305 Webster Street #C-209. This item was resolved and withdrawn\nprior to the meeting.\nPage 1 of2", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-06-06", "page": 2, "text": "Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nJune 6, 2016\nf.\nCase 384 - 1254 Pearl Street. This item was resolved and withdrawn prior to the\nmeeting.\n5. PUBLIC COMMENT (none)\nAngie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO' S fair housing and\ntenant/landlord mediation services.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff reported that at the June 7 City Council meeting, the City Council was scheduled\nto consider the Mayor's nominations for appointments to several boards and commissions,\nincluding the vacant homeowner seat on the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Staff will keep\nthe RRAC informed of these developments.\n7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none)\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:27 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJennifer Kauffman\nRRAC Secretary\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on July 6, 2016.\nPage 2of2", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-07-06", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, July 6, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.\nPresent were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and\nSchrader.\nAbsent: Landess\nVacancy: None\nRRAC staff: Jennifer Kauffman\nThe Chair announced that any business not concluded before 9:30 p.m. was subject to being\ncontinued at a Special Meeting.\nThe Committee discussed the order of agenda items. Griffiths made a motion to move\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS to the second item on the agenda. Schrader made a second\nto the motion and all members were in agreement.\nThe Committee allowed for ORAL COMMUNICATIONS at this time. The Chair invited\nAngie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing to speak about ECHO's fair housing and\ntenant/landlord mediation services.\n2. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes of the June 6, 2016 Regular Meeting.\nApproved by unanimous consent.\n3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)\n4. NEW BUSINESS\na. Case 386 - 2220 San Antonio Avenue.\nTenant/public speaker: Susi Ostlund\nLandlord/public speaker: David Petersen\nMs. Ostlund stated that she receives a fixed disability income from the U.S.\ngovernment and also has a serious illness that requires frequent medical\nappointments. She stated that the maximum increase that she believed to be\nreasonable was 1.9% ($31).\nMr. Petersen stated that the reason he had issued the 60.5% ($980) rent increase\nnotice in May 2016 was at the advice of his attorney in order to maximize his\nnegotiating position. The tenant's current rent is $1,620 and Mr. Peterson had\ndetermined that the market value of the unit was $2,600. He stated that he would\naccept a 15.7% ($255) increase. A rent increase had been served in October 2015;\nPage 1 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-07-06", "page": 2, "text": "Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nJuly 6, 2016\nhowever, it was determined to be invalid under the Moratorium then in effect (a\n9.5% increase had already been issued in April 2015).\nMr. Petersen provided documentation of maintenance expenses (sewer, paint, roof,\ngutters, and dry rot) totaling over $50,000 over the past three years. Ms. Ostlund\nstated that there was a difference between capital expenses and cost-of-business\nexpenses.\nParties were unable to reach agreement. The Committee discussed a\nrecommendation for the rent increase. Motion and second (Griffiths and Sullivan-\nSari\u00f1ana) for a 5% ($81) increase. Friedman stated that a lower rent increase would\nbe more reasonable considering the circumstances, however, Mr. Friedman agreed\nto the 5% rent increase and passed the motion. Schrader was in disagreement with\nthe motion due to the high capital improvement costs.\nStaff explained that the parties had 15 days to: 1) submit written acknowledgement\nof an agreement; or 2) request an arbitration hearing. If no action is taken by either\nparty, the Committee's recommendation would be binding.\nb. Case 387 - 2611 Central Avenue\nTenant/public speaker: Allen Nakamura\nLandlord/public speaker: Tommy Wong\nMr. Nakamura stated that he did not believe that the 10% ($140) increase was\njustified, as he has not seen any improvements to his unit during the three-plus years\nhe has been living there. The Wong provided documentation of a new roof\ninstallation in December 2015 that cost $10,700, and he wanted to recoup the cost\nof the roof. It was also explained that this would be the first rent increase since the\ntenant has occupied the unit.\nFollowing discussion, Mr. Nakamura did not want to accept an increase over 5%\nand Mr. Wong did not want to accept an increase less than 8%. The parties could\nnot reach agreement and the Committee made a recommendation for the rent\nincrease. Motion and second (Friedman and Shrader) for a 6.5% ($91) increase.\nMotion passed unanimously. Staff re-stated the options for tenant and landlord and\nthe 15-day deadline.\nc. Case 388 - 2609 Central Avenue\nTenant/public speaker: An-Nisaa Hamza\nLandlord/public speaker: Tommy Wong\nMs. Hamza stated that the cost of improvements, such as the new roof, should not\nbe the total responsibility of the tenants, as the landlord can write off these expenses\non his taxes. Ms. Hamza stated that the maximum increase that she believed to be\nreasonable was 4% ($52). Mr. Wong stated that he would reduce the increase from\n10% ($130) to 6.5% ($84.50) in order to be fair with his other tenant. Following\ndiscussion, Ms. Hamza did not want to accept an increase over 4% and Mr. Wong\ndid not want to accept an increase less than 6.5%.\nPage 2 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-07-06", "page": 3, "text": "Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nJuly 6, 2016\nThe Committee discussed a recommendation for the rent increase. There have been\ntwo rent increases over the six-plus years that Ms. Hamza and her husband have\nbeen living in the unit. Member Friedman stated that in view of the rent increase\nhistory with this unit, an increase of 5.8% ($75) would be appropriate. Motion and\nsecond (Griffiths and Schrader) and unanimous to recommend an increase of 5.8%\n($75). Staff re-stated the options for tenant and landlord and the 15-day deadline.\nd. Case 389 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #126\nThe case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior\nto the meeting for an increase in an amount greater than 10%.\ne. Case 390 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #104\nThe case was canceled, as the tenant decided to move.\nf.\nCase 395 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #323\nThe case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior\nto the meeting for an increase in an amount between 5.1 and 10%.\ng. Case 404 - 1107 Broadway\nThe case was canceled, as the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement prior\nto the meeting for an increase in an amount between 5.1 and 10%.\nh. Case 405 - 3271 Central Avenue\nTenant/public speaker: Frances Hayden\nLandlord/public speaker: Barbara Jolliffe\nMs. Hayden stated that she did not believe the 7.5% ($98) increase was justified for\nmaintenance reasons. The Chair stated that maintenance issues were beyond the\nRRAC's scope and that there were other alternatives for pursuing maintenance\ncomplaints that could be discussed with staff. The tenant stated that the maximum\nincrease that she believed to be reasonable was 4% ($64.50).\nMs. Jolliffe cited costs of $31,000 last year for sewer, sidewalk and roof work plus\nincreased costs for taxes, utilities, insurance, and maintenance labor. She also noted\nincreased administrative costs and time demands as a result of complying with\nOrdinance No. 3148.\n(At approximately 9:30 p.m., the Committee voted to extend the meeting time to\n9:45 p.m.)\nFollowing discussion, Ms. Jolliffe offered a phased rent increase, delaying payment\nof a portion of the rent increase for several months. Ms. Hayden was not agreeable\nto this offer. The parties did not reach agreement and the Committee discussed a\nrecommendation for the rent increase. Motion and Second (Griffiths and Schrader)\nand unanimous for a phased $98 increase ($52 for the first six months plus an\nadditional $46 thereafter). Staff re-stated the 15-day policy.\n5. PUBLIC COMMENT\nNo additional public comment.\nPage 3 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-07-06", "page": 4, "text": "Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nJuly 6, 2016\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nAngie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing made an announcement at the beginning of\nthe meeting.\n7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (none)\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJennifer Kauffman\nRRAC Secretary\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 1, 2016.\nPage 4 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-08-01", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, August 1, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.\nPresent were: Acting Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, Landess, and\nSchrader.\nAbsent: None\nVacancy: None\nRRAC staff: Jonathan Standifer\n2. AGENDA CHANGES (None)\n3. ANNOUNCEMENTS\na.\nThe Chair invited Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing to speak about ECHO's fair\nhousing and tenant/landlord mediation services.\n4. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes of the July 6, 2016 Meeting\nApproved by unanimous consent.\n5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)\n6. NEW BUSINESS\na.\nCase 409 - 132 Keil Bay.\nThe case was canceled because the tenant and landlord reached an agreement prior to the\nRRAC meeting for an increase in an amount greater than 10%.\nb. Case 417 - 1219 Central Avenue #B\nTenant/public speaker: Cynthia Cooper\nLandlord/public speaker: Karin Mesterhazy\nMs. Cooper stated that an increase of 10% is excessive. She explained that since 2007 the\nrent has been increase by 36.3%. Ms. Cooper also explained that there are maintenance\nconcerns in the common areas. Ms. Mesterhazy stated that the rent increase is justified due\nto increases in expenses including mortgage payments, property taxes, utilities, liability\nexpenses and building management fees since she now lives out of state.\nFollowing discussion, Ms. Cooper and Ms. Mesterhazy came to an agreement of a rent\nincrease of $61.25 (4.9%), effective August 1, 2016 and an additional deferred increase of\n$61.25 (4.9%) effective January 1, 2017 for a total rent of $1,349. The Committee made a\nrecommendation to uphold the agreement. Motion and second (Friedman and Griffiths)\nand unanimous for the tenant and landlord agreement.\nPage 1 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-08-01", "page": 2, "text": "Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nAugust 1, 2016\nc.\nCase 421 - 2445 Shoreline Drive #206\nThe case was canceled because the tenant and landlord reached an agreement prior to the\nRRAC meeting for an increase in an amount between 0-5%.\nd. Case 425 - 564 Central Avenue #117\nTenant/public speaker: None\nLandlord/public speaker: Joe Vargo\nThe tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, no action was taken and the rent increase\nremains effective as stated in the rent increase notice. Mr. Vargo provided comment,\nexpressing concern about the length of the text that is required to be included in rent\nincrease notices.\ne. Review and approve proposed amendments to the Rent Review Advisory Committee's\nRules and Procedures\nThe Secretary summarized comments from the Members in response to the proposed\namendments:\n1) Item B.3., Maintenance of Membership. Clarify who has authority to remove a\nmember.\n2) Item C.1.2., Officers. Require all members to be present for the vote for Chair and\nVice Chair. Revisit the wording for the election date.\n3) Item D., Duties. Add wording stating that the Committee will render a decision\nregarding rent increases. Ms. Young stated that the City Attorney's Office was in\nagreement with the wording stated.\n4) Item E.1., Regular Meetings. Change the meeting time to 6:30 p.m. It was noted\nthat there have not been any complaints since the Committee started meeting at\n6:30 p.m. Ms. Young stated that a Reasonable Accommodation request could\nalways be made.\n5) Item E.2., Special Meetings. When a Regular Meeting is rescheduled due to a\nholiday, the special meeting should be noticed the same as a regular meeting.\n6) Item E.4., Adjournment. Change the official adjournment time to 9:30 p.m., with\nthe understanding that the Committee can vote to extend the meeting time.\n7) Item F., Agenda. Public Hearing:\nAdditional wording to be added stating that the Chair shall be responsible for\nthe agenda in consultation with the Secretary. Ms. Young stated that the City\nAttorney's Office was in agreement with the addition.\nPublic Comment for Non-Agenda Items will be moved higher up on the agenda.\nMs. Young stated that according to the City Attorney's Office, public comment\nregarding a specific agenda item must be heard before a motion is made. There\nPage 2 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-08-01", "page": 3, "text": "Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nAugust 1, 2016\nwas some dispute among the Members whether or not public comment should\nbe heard before or after the case summary is read. The Chair stated that he was\nconcerned about disrupting the mediation process. Ms. Young stated that she\nwould discuss this with the City Attorney's Office.\nThere was general discussion regarding applying Rosenberg's Rules of Order\nto RRAC meetings. Clarification was given that the City Attorney's Office has\nstated that even though the City Council has not formally adopted Rosenberg's\nRules, it can be used as a guideline; however, the City's Sunshine Ordinance is\nwhere the Committee should look for procedures.\n8) Item H.2, Rules of Order. Prior to each deliberation, the Secretary will read aloud\na prepared statement clarifying the deliberation process.\nMember Schrader noted some editing corrections that needed to be made.\nThe Committee Members concurred that this item should be continued to a meeting at\nwhich staff can present an updated draft.\nf.\nCommittee will consider and vote on Chair and Vice Chair to replace Interim Chair and\nInterim Vice Chair.\nAt the Committee meeting on May 2, 2016, Committee Members requested that a new vote\nfor Chair and Vice Chair be held when there were no longer any vacancies on the\nCommittee. All Committee positions are now filled.\nMember Griffiths nominated and the Committee Members unanimously voted for\nSullivan-Sari\u00f1ana as Chair. Member Griffiths nominated and the Committee\nMembers unanimously voted for Landess as Vice Chair.\ng. SEEDS mediation training for the Committee Members to be held at the Special Meeting\non August 15\n7. PUBLIC COMMENT\nNo additional public comment.\n8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nMember Friedman requested that at the next meeting there be a discussion of \"what we\nare all about as members and what we are trying to achieve.\" Ms. Young stated that\nthis discussion could be incorporated into the August 15 mediation training.\nMember Friedman requested that Assistant City Attorney Roush meet with the\nCommittee regarding meeting procedures. Ms. Young stated that she would request\nthat Mr. Roush attend the September 7 meeting with the intention that the updated\nRules and Procedures document would be ready for resubmittal to the Committee.\nThe Chair requested that staff provide emailed copies of the Rent Program monthly\nreport to the Members on submittal to the City.\n9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (None)\nPage 3 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-08-01", "page": 4, "text": "Regular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nAugust 1, 2016\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJonathan Standifer\nRRAC Secretary\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 7, 2016.\nPage 4 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-09-07", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, September 7, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana, Vice-Chair Landess; and Members Griffiths,\nFriedman, and Schrader.\nAbsent: None\nVacancy: None\nRRAC staff: Jennifer Kaufman\n2. AGENDA CHANGES (None)\n3. ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. The Chair invited Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing to speak about ECHO's Fair\nHousing and tenant/landlord mediation services.\nb.\nStaff is developing an information brochure for tenants and landlords regarding new\nregulations and protections under Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148.\n4. CONSENT CALENDAR\na.\nApproval of the Minutes of the August 1, 2016 Regular Meeting\nApproved by unanimous consent with the provision that staff confirm the exact\npercentage of the agreed rent increase in Case 417. Motion and second (Schrader and\nFriedman).\n5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)\n6. NEW BUSINESS\na.\nCase 434 -941 - Shorepoint Ct. #F318\nTenant/public speaker: Ralph Medina\nLandlord/public speaker: Darren Carrington, Katie Edwards\nMr. Medina stated that his family has lived at the property since 2010 and they would\nlike to continue living there. Mr. Medina noted that the rent has increased significantly\neach of the previous three years, which he finds excessive. The tenant did not feel that\nthe month-to-month offer was an option due to its high rate, and he preferred a 12-month\nlease. Mr. Medina proposed a 2.0% rent increase for a 12-month lease. As an alternative\noption, he also proposed a 12-month lease with one month of free rent based an offer he\nsaw in an online advertisement to prospective tenants at the property.\nMs. Edwards and Mr. Carrington stated that the tenant's rent is $400 below the current\nmarket rate. They explained that it was in the interest of the landlord to have long-term\ntenants and leases. They believed it was important to comply with the Ordinance and\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-09-07", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nRegular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nSeptember 7, 2016\nconsidered the 4.9% increase reasonable, given that it was still below the market rate. To\napproximate market rates, they observed rents at Ballena Village, Summer House\nApartments, and Tower Apartment Homes. Ms. Edwards and Mr. Carrington proposed\nexploring options to transfer the tenant to another available unit on the property within\nthe tenant's price range.\nMr. Medina did not have interest in relocating to a different unit on the property. He did\nnot agree that his unit was $400 below market rent. He stated that the rent increase was\ncausing him to consider leaving the property to move into a more affordable unit\nelsewhere.\nParties were unable to reach agreement. The Committee discussed a recommendation for\nthe rent increase.\nSchrader commented there is a difference between the market rent for a new tenant\nand the market rent for a long-term tenant. Additionally, he stated it is difficult to\ncompare unit rents as there is often variation on floor plan, location on the property,\netc. Due to the fact there have been significant rent increases in the past, he stated\nthere should be comprise on the rent increase and determined a reasonable rent\nincrease for a 12-month lease would be $90 (3.6%).\nSullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated he finds the multiple rent increases over the recent years\nexcessive, especially because salaries do not increase quickly enough to match. He\nemphasized that the financial burden on the tenant gets to the core of the Ordinance\nand its purpose. He stated he was not in dispute of the landlord's concerns, however,\nhe believed the Committee should consider the intent of the Ordinance.\nLandess stated that she understood the landlord's perspective. Nevertheless, she also\nobserved an apparent conflict between the landlord's statement that long-term tenants\nare valued, yet, long-term tenants receive frequent, high rent increases. She agreed\nwith the $90 (3.6%) rent increase recommendation.\nGriffiths agreed with statements by Schrader and Landess. He noted that the\nCommittee should find the most equitable solution that is possible in each situation.\nGriffiths expressed the hope that this recommendation will lead to more discussion\nbetween the landlord and the tenant.\nFriedman stated that his main concern is the rent increase's financial impact on the\ntenant as the factor gets to the purpose of the Ordinance. He noted that the tenant did\nnot emphasize a concern regarding financial impact. Friedman commented that it\nseems the Alameda community has come together and determined that rent increases\nof 5% are reasonable. However, he understood the perspective of other Committee\nmembers and was in agreement with their recommendation.\nThe Committee recommended a rent increase of $90 (3.6%) effective September 12,\n2016. Motion and second (Schrader and Landess) and unanimous consent.\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-09-07", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nRegular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nSeptember 7, 2016\nb. Case 435 - 941 Shorepoint Ct. #F314\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\nc. Case 441 - 941 Shorepoint Ct. #F111\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nd. Case 442 - 941 Shorepoint Ct. #F106\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\ne. Case 444 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E323\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nf.\nCase 446 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E317\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the\nunit.\ng. Case 448 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E306\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\nh. Case 450 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E304\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\ni.\nCase 455 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E226\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-09-07", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nRegular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nSeptember 7, 2016\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nj.\nCase 461 - 915 Shorepoint Ct. #E113\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\nk. Case 463-909 - Shorepoint Ct. #D322\nThe case was postponed to the RRAC meeting on October 3, 2016.\n1.\nCase 472 - 344 Westline Dr. #C305\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\nm. Case 475 - 300 Westline Dr. #B229\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\nn. Case 476 - 330 Westline Dr. #B427\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nO. Case 478 - 344 Westline Dr. #C202\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\np. Case 480 - 344 Westline Dr. #C209\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\nq. Case 487 - 300 Westline Dr. #A313\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-09-07", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nRegular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nSeptember 7, 2016\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nr.\nCase 488 - 310 Westline Dr. #B 101\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nS.\nCase 490 - 310 Westline Dr. #B 103\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nt.\nCase 497 - 300 Westline Dr. #A216\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nu. Review and approve proposed amendments to the Rent Review Advisory Committee's\nRules and Procedures\nStaff summarized amendments in Rules & Procedures based on Committee comments\nand feedback from the August 1, 2016 RRAC Regular Meeting.\nMembers requested additional amendments:\n1) Item B.3., Maintenance of Membership. Amended to strike the phrase \"whether\nexcused or not unexcused.\" Motion and second (Schrader and Friedman), passed\nunanimously.\n2) Item C.3.b., Officers. Concern about who is responsible for archiving and\nretaining audio recordings. Staff clarified and the concern was withdrawn.\n3) Item D, Duties of the Committee. Concerns about the using the term \"mediation\"\nas that word does not appear in the Ordinance or Alameda Municipal Code.\nMembers agreed it is important that their Rules & Procedures match the\nOrdinance verbiage exactly.\nMotion and second (Schrader and Landess) to strike \"The purpose of the\nhearing is to endeavor to settle rent increase disputes through mediation\nbetween parties.\" and \"when the parties have not reached an agreement\nthrough mediation\".\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-09-07", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nRegular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nSeptember 7, 2016\nMotion and second (Schrader and Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana) to strike \"If an\nagreement by mediation does not occur,\"\nBoth motions passed by Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana, Friedman, Landess, and Schrader\nin favor, Griffiths abstain.\n4) Item E., Meetings\nMotion and second (Friedman and Schrader) to amend \"the Chair may\ngrant such a request\" to \"the Chair shall grant such a request.' Sullivan-\nSari\u00f1ana, Friedman, Landess, and Schrader in favor, Griffiths abstain.\n5) Item H., Rules of Order\nMembers requested clarification for the reason \"Motion to table\" was\nremoved from the Rules & Procedures. Staff explained removing the\nparagraph did not limit the conduct of the Committee. Members withdrew\nconcern.\nSullivan-Sari\u00f1ana, Friedman, Landess, and Schrader in favor, Griffiths abstain, to\napprove the Rent Review Advisory Committee's Rules and Procedures with amendments\nfrom September 7, 2016.\n7. PUBLIC COMMENT\nNo additional public comment.\n8. MATTERS INITIATED\na.\nSullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated he would like to invite City Council members to future\nRRAC meetings.\nb. Staff confirmed the Rent Program's monthly report will be emailed Committee\nmembers.\n9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (None)\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:03 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on October 3, 2016.\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-09-07", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nRegular Meeting Minutes of the RRAC\nSeptember 7, 2016\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 3, 2016\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, October 3, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana, Vice-Chair Landess; and Members Griffiths and\nSchrader.\nAbsent: Member Friedman\nVacancy: None\nRRAC Staff: Jennifer Kaufman\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff recommended that items 7-E (Case 528), 7-B (Case 463), 7-C (Case 524), 7-D (Case\n525), and 7-F (Case 529) be addressed next because tenants for the listed cases were not\npresent.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na.\nThe Program Administrator and ECHO Housing are co-hosting Fair Housing trainings in\nthe coming months. Registration for trainings can be found on the Rent Program's website\nwww.alamedarentprogram.org.\nb. Staff has developed an information brochure for tenants and landlords regarding new\nregulations and protections under Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148. Landlords must\nprovide the brochure to tenants by October 15th\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and\ntenant/landlord mediation services.\nb. No additional public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na.\nApproval of the Minutes of the September 7, 2016 Regular Meeting.\nApproved by unanimous consent. Motion and second (Griffiths and Schrader).\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS (None)\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-B. Case 463 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D322\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit.\n7-C. Case 524 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D323\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 3, 2016\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\n7-D. Case 525 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D325\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\n7-E. Case 528 - 941 Shorepoint Ct. #F225\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the landlord and some, but not all, of the tenants\nagreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. The landlord attended the meeting, however, the\ntenant who had not yet signed an agreement was not in attendance. Hence, the Committee\ntook no action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid.\n7-F. Case 529 - 941 Shorepoint Ct #F313\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\n7-A. Case 499 - 1429 Bay Street #A\nTenant/public speaker: Ryan B. Fanene\nLandlord/public speaker: Daniel Barber\nProposed rent increase: $307 (15%), effective date delayed until RRAC review\nMr. Fanene explained that the rent increase review was postponed one month due to\npersonal health circumstances. He stated that he pays separate additional bills for utilities\nand this rent increase would be a financial hardship because his income increases around\n2 - 3% annually. Therefore, at most he would be able to pay an increase between 5 - 6%.\nMr. Barber clarified that he pays for exterior lights, gas, and water for all the units and the\ntenant pays for the unit's electricity and gas. He stated that he is nervous about not being\nable to increase the rent under future City regulations. Moreover, he is near retirement and\nwill be relying more directly on the income. Additionally, he is anticipating costly repairs\nbecause the building is aging. He also noted that the current rent is below market value.\nMember Schrader noted the unit has 3-bedrooms and two occupants. Schrader asked about\nthe possibility of adding another tenant to the unit to share rent costs. Mr. Barber responded\nthat he would want to raise rent if there are more tenants. A representative from ECHO\nHousing explained there are fair housing guidelines around occupancy standards. Mr.\nFanene explained that he is open to finding another tenant to share costs. Regardless if\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 3, 2016\nthere is an additional roommate, Mr. Fanene stated he believes an increase of 5% is\nreasonable for the unit.\nMember Griffiths acknowledged the frequency of previous rent increases, noting there was\nan 8% rent increase in October 2015. Mr. Barber explained there have been improvements\non the property and future repairs are still needed. Mr. Barber also expressed concern that\nfuture local regulations may make it difficult for him to raise rent. Moreover, he does not\nintend to raise the rent by a large amount next year.\nAfter some discussion, the parties reached an agreement of $150 (7.3%) rent increase,\neffective November 1st, 2016. The Committee confirmed that Mr. Barber and Mr. Fanene\nwere agreeable to the arrangement. The Committee unanimously passed a recommendation\nupholding the parties' agreement. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Griffiths).\n7-G. Case 535 - 867 Oak St\nTenant/public speaker: Kelli Martin\nLandlord/public speaker: Carl Babcock\nProposed rent increase: $400 (33.3%) effective on November 1st, 2016\nMs. Martin stated the proposed rent increase felt excessive. In addition to the large amount\nproposed this year, the tenant explained that she received two rent increases last year in\n2015. She noted that for 7 years she has lived in the unit, paying rent on time or early each\nmonth and believes she is a good tenant. Ms. Martin also explained that her fianc\u00e9 now\nlives in the unit, though his income is irregular. She shared that her goal is to eventually\nmove-out and live in a larger space. In addition, Ms. Martin stated she did not believe many\nof the units the landlord researched to estimate market-rent are comparable to hers.\nMr. Babcock stated that he is retired and the unit accounts for a large portion of his income.\nHe explained that he feels he should have a fair return on the unit and the market rate for a\ncomparable unit averages about $400 above the current rent. In addition, Mr. Babock noted\nthat in previous years he did not raise the rent because the tenant informed him that she\nplanned to move-out soon.\nMember Schrader acknowledged that an increase of 33% is significant. He also noted that\nthe landlord did not raise the rent for around five years, prior to 2015. Vice-chair Landess\nasked Mr. Babcock and Ms. Martin about options for the tenant to pay utilities and lowering\nthe amount of the rent increase.\nThere was discussion around costs associated with a new tenant and clarification on the\ndifference between market rent for new tenants and current tenants. Mr. Babcock proposed\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 3, 2016\nthat he would continue paying utilities and offered a rent increase of $200. Ms. Martin\nagreed with the arrangement.\nThe Committee unanimously passed a recommendation upholding the parties' agreement\nof a rent increase of $200 (16.7%) effective November 1st. Motion and second (Griffiths,\nSchrader).\n7-H. Case 536 - 725 Santa Clara\nTenant/public speaker: Michael Jak\nLandlord/public speaker: Alice Descovich\nProposed rent increase: $236.50 (10.0%), effective on October 7, 2016\nMr. Jak stated the proposed rent increase would be a financial burden for his family. He\nexplained that the previous year the rent was raised 10%. Consequently, a 10% rent\nincrease again in 2016 would be unsustainable. In addition, the tenant stated his family's\nincome may decrease while living expenses continue to rise. He feels 0% rent increase is\nappropriate after the 10% increase last year, though he already made an offer to the landlord\nof 5%, which the landlord refused.\nMs. Descovich explained that she is retired and relies on rent from this unit for her income.\nShe explained she is responsive to maintenance issues and believes the downtown location\nadds value to the unit. She also explained she spent significant amount of money to repair\nthe unit before the current tenants moved-in.\nMr. Jak responded to Ms. Descovich that the previous tenants' damages and costs to repair\nthe unit before he moved-in are not his responsibility. Moreover, he did not believe repairs\nto the unit were major capital improvements. Mr. Jak stated that the most he could afford\nwould be a 5% increase.\nParties discussed various rent increase options between 5% and 8.8%. Ms. Descovich and\nMr. Jak reached an agreement of a rent increase of $175 (7.4%) on a month to month basis\neffective November 7th. The Committee unanimously passed a recommendation upholding\nthe parties' agreement. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana, Landess).\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2\nNo additional public comment.\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 3, 2016\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Staff clarified the purpose of this item.\nb. Member Schrader commended the efforts of staff.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 9, 2016.\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-11-09", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 9, 2016\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, November 9, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.\nPresent were: Vice-Chair Landess; and Members Friedman, Griffiths, and Schrader.\nAbsent: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana\nVacancy: None\nRRAC Staff: Jennifer Kaufman\n2. AGENDA CHANGES (None)\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na.\nStaff announced that based on information from the Registrar of Voters Office, unofficially\nMeasure L1, a City Council sponsored measure concerning rent review, rent stabilization\nand limitations on evictions has been approved by the voters. The Registrar, however, is\ncontinuing to count votes and the results concerning Measure L1 will not be certified until\nearly December. More information can be found on www.alamedarentprogram.org\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. No public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes of the October 3, 2016 Regular Meeting. Approved by unanimous\nconsent. Motion and second (Schrader and Griffiths).\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS (None)\n7. NEW BUSINESS\na.\nCase 544 - 310 Westline Dr #B313\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $135 (5.0%) effective 11/11/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $817 (30.1%) effective 11/11/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-11-09", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 9, 2016\nb. Case 555-915 - Shorepoint Dr #E106\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $135 (4.7%) effective 11/22/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $286 (9.9%) effective 11/22/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nc. Case 559 - 941 Shorepoint Ct #F231\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $32 (1.6%) effective 11/19/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $136 (6.6%) effective 11/19/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nd. Case 561 - 941 Shorepoint Ct #232\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $60 (2.5%) effective 11/30/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $174 (7.3%) effective 11/30/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\ne. Case 565 - 941 Shorepoint Ct #F221\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $92 (5.0%) effective 11/19/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $1845 (43.8%) effective 11/19/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nf. Case 567 - 442 1/2 Pacific Ave\nTenant/public speaker: Rasheed Shabazz\nLandlord/public speaker: Truyen Dang\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-11-09", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 9, 2016\nProposed rent increase: $500 (35.8%) effective 12/1/16\nNote: Staff received information that the delivery of the rent increase notice may not be in\naccordance with State law. Both parties were notified of this concern and referred to seek legal\nadvice. The City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance does not stipulate requirements on delivery of\nnotices. The Program Administrator does not have authority to enforce deficiencies under certain\nState law requirements.\nThe tenant, Mr. Shabazz, stated the maximum rent increase he would be able to pay is\n$69.00 (4.9%). Mr. Shabazz explained the proposed rent increase would be a substantial\nfinancial burden because currently he spends around 45% of his income on rent. He\nestimated that he would likely have to move if the rent was raised to the proposed\namount. He noted that he has not received additional services or amenities with this rent\nincrease. The tenant explained that he has lived in the unit for 11 years and emphasized\nthe value of long-term tenancy. Mr. Shabazz also stated that this increase is a retaliatory\nresponse to an invalid termination notice served in December 2015.\nThe landlord estimated that the fair market value for a 2-bedroom unit with a separate\nsingle car garage is around $2,200. Hence, he stated the proposed rent remains under fair\nmarket value. Mr. Dang explained that he has worked very hard over his lifetime and is\nlooking for a fair return on his property. He is retired and relies on this income to provide\nfor his family. He stated that he does not want the tenant to move. Mr. Dang emphasized\nthat he has a great deal of respect for Mr. Shabazz and this increase is not retaliatory.\nMember Schrader noted that rents for long-term tenants are often lower than those for a\nnew tenant. Member Friedman asked Mr. Dang if there are any large costs of operation\ncausing him to request such a large rent increase. Mr. Dang said he considers his operating\ncosts to be normal.\nMr. Dang explained that while his proposed rent increase is below the market rate, he\nwould consider lowering the increase to $400 (28.6%). He stated that this is the lowest\nincrease he could consider.\nMember Griffiths asked about the possibility of adding a roommate to the unit, noting there\nis currently one tenant residing in a 2-bedroom unit. Mr. Shabazz stated that he is open to\nadding a roommate. Mr. Dang stated adding a roommate would not be possible. Member\nFriedman emphasized that adding a roommate could allow the landlord to receive higher\nrent while also reducing the financial burden on the tenant.\nStaff clarified that the tenant and landlord have the option to pause the meeting and speak\nprivately.\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-11-09", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 9, 2016\nPublic Comment, Agenda Item 7-F:\nName: Caitlin Grey\nThe speaker stated she is a tenant in Alameda. She stated that Mr. Shabazz shared a great\ndeal of personal financial information. She stated that she had wanted the landlord to share\nmore budgetary information such as the number of units owned, overall income, and\noverall costs.\nName: Maria D. Dominguez\nThe speaker stated she is from the Alameda Renter's Coalition. She emphasized that the\nrights of low income people of color are at risk. The speaker stated that landlords consider\nmortgages, repairs, and profit in determining rent. She stated that transparency from both\nparties is needed. The speaker expressed her support for Mr. Shabazz.\nName: Lester Dixon\nThe speaker said he has known Mr. Shabazz for many years. The speaker stated that Mr.\nShabazz is an integral part of the community. He emphasized the importance of keeping\ncommunities together and that the consequences of a tenant leaving Alameda are\nirreversible. He explained that the proposed rent increase is a large shock.\nThe parties were unable to reach an agreement. The Committee discussed a binding\nrecommendation for the rent increase.\nMember Griffiths stated that the tenant is a valuable member of the community. He\nalso emphasized the landlord's refusal to consider allowing another roommate in\nthe unit. Griffiths recommended an increase of $69.00 (near 5%).\nMember Friedman thanked the public speakers for their participation. He stated that\nit is hard to understand such a large rent increase without more financial\ninformation from the landlord. He emphasized the landlord's refusal to consider\nallowing another roommate in the unit and the tenant's inability to pay a higher\nrent. Friedman recommended an increase of 3%.\nMember Schrader explained that it is difficult for the unit to be so far below the\nmarket rate. He also noted the proposed rent is a significant increase. Referencing\nthe intent of the Ordinance and the financial burden on the tenant, Schrader\nrecommended an increase of 5%.\nVice-Chair Landess stated that the proposed increase is difficult to absorb. She\nnoted that while landlords face many expenses, it is important to address these\nthrough gradual rent increases. Landess recommended an increase of 5%.\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-11-09", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 9, 2016\nThe Committee recommended a rent increase of $69.00 (4.9%) effective December 1, ,\n2016. Motion and second (Griffiths and Schrader) and unanimous consent.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and\ntenant/landlord mediation services.\nb. No additional public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED (None)\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on December 5, 2016.\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-11-09.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, December 5, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.\nAbsent: Member Vice-Chair Landess\nVacancy: None\nRRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na.\nStaff recommended that items 7-B (Case 583), 7-C (Case 584), 7-D (Case 590), 7-E (Case\n591), 7-F (Case 593), and 7-G (Case 595) be addressed first because tenants for the listed\ncases were not present. Approved by unanimous consent. Motion and second (Schrader\nand Griffiths).\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff announced that there will be an event open to the public at the Alameda City Council\nMeeting on December 6, 2016 from 5pm to 8pm. Alameda residents will have the\nopportunity to speak with staff about specific issues relating to terminations and rent\nincreases.\nb. The next Committee meeting will be Wednesday, January 11, 2017. More information is\navailable at www.alamedarentprogram.org.\nc.\nThis meeting has a new room arrangement with a private area for parties interested in\ndiscussing an agreement.\nd. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and\nprocedures for public comment.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. No public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes of the November 9, 2016 Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second (Friedman and Schrader). Approved by Members Friedman, Griffiths, and\nSchrader. Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana abstained.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\n7-B. Case 583 - 330 Westline Dr., Unit B425\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $50.00 (2.0%) effective 12/16/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $359.00 (14.2%) effective 12/16/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\n7-C. Case 584 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C111\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $50.00 (2.6%) effective 12/16/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $353.00 (17.4%) effective 12/16/16; Under review\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\n7-D. Case 590 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A204\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $140.00 (5.0%) effective 12/26/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $924.00 (32.8%) effective 12/26/16; Under review\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit.\n7-E. Case 591 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D207\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $142.00 (4.9%) effective 12/29/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $925.00 (32.0%) effective 12/29/16; Under review\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\n7-F. Case 593 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F102\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $125.00 (5.0%) effective 12/16/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $831.00 (33.0%) effective 12/16/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\n7-G. Case 595 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F310\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $123.00 (5.0%) effective 12/28/16; No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $819.00 (33.1%) effective 12/28/16; Under review\nNo review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no action\nand both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\n7-A. Case 576 - 1226 Broadway, Unit A\nTenant/public speakers: Blanca Alberts, Ann Petitjean, Michael Bracamontes\nLandlord/public speakers: Joseph Cervelli Sr., Joe Cervelli Jr.\nProposed rent increase: $2000.00 (200.0%), effective date January 1, 2017\nThis rent increase request was originally scheduled for the November 9, 2016 Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee meeting. The review was postponed one month to the December Rent\nReview Advisory Committee meeting.\nMr. Bracamontes stated the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase the tenant, Ms.\nAlberts, would be able to pay is $50.00 (5.0%). He explained that Ms. Alberts is 74 years\nold and has lived in the unit for 36 years. He explained Ms. Alberts is on a fixed-income\nand that the proposed rent increase would have a significant financial impact. He noted\nthere have been long standing habitability issues in the unit that have affected Ms. Alberts'\nhealth. He explained there was an understanding that in exchange for Ms. Alberts not\nasking for repairs, Mr. Cervelli would not increase rent. He noted that Ms. Alberts has paid\nfor many repairs herself. Mr. Bracamontes stated that the current rent increase is in\nretaliation for the tenant's requests to make repairs to the property and her successful\ndefense against a previous termination of tenancy.\nMr. Cervelli Jr. stated that the landlord, Mr. Cervelli Sr., had offered to meet privately\nbefore the Committee meeting. However, the tenant was only willing to meet at the\nattorney's office in San Francisco, which as a burden for his elderly father. He stated there\nwas never an understanding that Mr. Cervelli Sr. would not increase rent if Ms. Alberts did\nnot ask for repairs. He stated that his father was unaware of habitability concerns in the\napartment and would have repaired them if he had known. He also explained that within\nthe last five years, when habitability issues were brought to his attention, repairs and\nimprovements were made such as a new refrigerator, new carpeting, and a remodeled\nbathroom. Mr. Cervelli Jr. estimated the median rent for a comparable unit to be $3,600.00.\nHe stated that a there have been increases in overall costs, such property taxes, utilities,\nand building insurance. He stated that his father is asking for a fair and equitable return on\ninvestment. He emphasized that this increase is not retaliation. Rather, this increase is a\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\nconsequence of Mr. Cervelli Sr. avoiding conflict and not increasing rent for a long period\nof time, noting eighteen years have passed since the previous increase.\nParties also discussed maintenance issues and a 2015 notice of termination of tenancy that\nwas dismissed in April 2016.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated that $2,000.00 is a very large increase for the tenant, but\nthat the return on investment to the landlord is likely non-existent. Member Griffiths asked\nMr. Cervelli what return on investment he needs to keep the apartment habitable and\nprovide a fair return. Mr. Cervelli responded that an increase of $1,000.00 is close to what\nis needed.\nMember Schrader asked Ms. Alberts what she can afford to pay. Ms. Alberts responded\nthat she receives fixed social security income and works a part time job. She said she could\nafford an increase of 5%. Member Friedman emphasized wanting to maintain Alameda's\ncommunity. He also asked the tenant to consider if her income had increased over the 36\nyears she has resided in the unit.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana noted that there is one tenant in a three-bedroom unit. He asked\nMs. Alberts if she had considered subletting the available rooms. She responded that she\nhad not considered this option, except for family who previously lived in the unit. She\nnoted that she feels her health issues limit her ability to handle the stress of subletting the\nrooms.\nStaff clarified that the case was nearly at its time limit. Staff reminded parties of their option to\ndiscuss privately in another room and parties agreed to discuss privately. The Committee motioned\nto table the item, approved by unanimous consent. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana\nGriffiths).\nAfter private discussion, parties were unable to reach an agreement. Staff summarized the tenant\nand landlord's conversation to provide information for the Committee's binding recommendation:\nTenant increased the amount she would be able to afford, ultimately stating that\n$1,200 is the maximum monthly increase the tenant could pay. The tenant\nemphasized this is the most that she could afford based on her fixed income. She\nalso restated that subletting would not be an option based on her current health\nsituation.\nLandlord stated he was open to allowing rooms in the apartment to be sublet. The\nlandlord expressed that it would be possible to increase the rent from $1,000 to\n$1,500 as opposed to his original request of $3,000.\nMember Friedman noted that this case was an anomaly in that such a long period has passed\nwithout a rent increase. He also addressed that social security payments have consistently\nincreased around 2-3% for the last few decades and stated that $1,000 eighteen (18) years\nago is equal to about $1,500 today. Based on these figures, he expressed that a $1,500 rent\nseemed reasonable.\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\nMember Schrader noted that CPI since 1980 has increased 3.3% per year. He stated that\nraising the rent to $1,500 calculates to around a 2.2% annual rent increase or 2/3 of the CPI\nincrease. Based on these numbers, Schrader also stated that $1,500 rent appeared\nreasonable. He noted that it appeared that the landlord was willing to be flexible to resolve\nthis issue. He also stated that the people with the best understanding of what is reasonable\nrent are the tenant and the landlord.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana expressed concern for situations like this one where there is a long\nhistory of no rent increase and then a significant increase at once. He also noted concern\nthat $500 may be an unaffordable monthly increase for someone on a fixed income and the\nCommittee's role is to reduce harm to tenants and keep people in their homes.\nMember Griffiths brought up the subletting option, noting the difficulty that the tenant\nstated this was not a realistic option based on her health circumstances. He expressed the\nconsideration and flexibility the landlord had with offering this option. Member Griffiths\nsupported the rent increase to $1,500 with the option remaining open for the tenant to sublet\nrooms when her health improves.\nStaff noted the Committee members have the option of phasing a rent increase. Member\nSchrader suggested the Committee could use this option by raising the rent to what the\ntenant said was affordable and phasing a second rent increase later, allowing the tenant\ntime to adjust to the increase.\nMember Friedman stated that there is an option for either party to appeal the decision of\nthe Committee.\nThe Committee recommended a rent increase of $200.00 to a monthly rent of $1,200.00, effective\nJanuary 1, 2017 followed by a $300.00 increase to a monthly rent of $1,500.00, effective June 1,\n2017. The Committee also strongly encouraged the landlord to allow the tenant the option to sublet\navailable rooms in the apartment. Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Approved by\nMembers Friedman, Griffiths, and Schrader. Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana voted no.\n7-H. Case 581 - 1909 Cambridge Dr.\nProposed Rent Increase: $508.00 (22.0%), effective January 1, 2017\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit.\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\n7-I. Case 596 - 1334 Fernside Blvd.\nProposed Rent Increase: $880.00 (28.4%), effective February 1, 2017\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit\nand the landlord submitted paperwork that the rent increase had been rescinded.\n7-J. Case 598 - 1537 Schiller St., Unit C\nProposed Rent Increase: $120.00 (10.0%), effective January 1, 2017\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 5-10%.\n7-K. Case 599 - 2224 Encinal Ave.\nTenant/public speaker: Rachael Bigelow, Emily Casey, Rose Wantugu\nLandlord/public speaker: Elisabeth Middelberg\nProposed rent increase: $194.00 (9.2%), effective date delayed until RRAC review\nStaff noted that a rent increase in December 2015 was not in compliance with the City's Urgency\nOrdinance no. 3140 (later amended with Ordinance no. 3143), which imposed a temporary\nmoratorium on rent increases of 8% or more from November 5, 2016 to March 30, 2016. This\nlimited the December 2015 rent increase to $156.00. As such, the current base rent cannot exceed\n$2,106.00. Documentation was submitted to the Program Administrator that the additional\ncollected rent has been credited to the tenant.\nThe tenants, Rachael Bigelow, Emily Casey, Rose Wantugu, stated that the maximum\nreasonable rent increase would be $39.00 (1.9%). Tenants stated that they received a rent\nincrease of 10.0% (corrected to 8%) in December 2015 and the landlord's proposal to again\nraise rent near 10% poses a financial burden to them. Tenants also emphasized that\ncomparing their rent to market rate missed the fact that their unit was not comparable in\namenities to many other units. They stated that aside from window and refrigerator\nreplacement, there have not been improvements to the unit warranting a rent increase. They\nstated that the landlord's upkeep on the ground floor unit does not benefit their unit.\nTenants also noted that property taxes for Ms. Middelberg have decreased.\nElisabeth Middelberg, the landlord, stated she offered a rent increase of 7.5% earlier that\nday. She stated that she considers the current rent to be below the market rate, especially\nwith parking and garbage included in the rent. She explained that the tenants' unit benefits\nfrom improvements to the unit below, such plumbing maintenance, pest control and\nupgraded parking availability. She also explained that overall costs have increased,\nincluding property taxes, maintenance costs, and repairs needed on the ground floor unit.\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-12-05", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 5, 2016\nAdditionally, Ms. Middelberg stated that she is a renter and is experiencing rent increases\nthat have a financial burden on her.\nThe tenants noted that communicating to Ms. Middelberg about maintenance issues had\nbeen difficult. They stated that more transparency from Ms. Middelberg about operating\ncosts would help them better understand the reasoning behind rent increases.\nParties discussed various rent increase options between 2.0% and 7.5%. Tenants stated the\nhighest increase they could afford would be $105.00 (5.0%). Landlord stated the lowest\nincrease she could afford was $120.00 (5.7%). Committee members emphasized how close\nthe two parties were to an agreement.\nGriffiths proposed the option to phase the increase with a portion effective this month and another\nportion effective six months later. Parties discussed the amount and effective date of the option of\nphased rent increases. Parties reached an agreement of a rent increase equal to $105.00 to a\nmonthly rent of $2,211.00, effective December 1, 2016 followed by an increase of $15.00 to a\nmonthly rent of $2,226.00, effective May 1, 2017. Motion and second (Schrader, Griffiths),\nunanimously approved.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na.\nMember Friedman requested that the Committee hold a special meeting to discuss Rent\nStabilization Ordinance no. 3148. Staff confirmed that a special meeting would be\nscheduled.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:17 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nthing\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on January 11, 2017.\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 11, 2017\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, January 11, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Member Vice-Chair Landess; and Members\nGriffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.\nAbsent: None\nVacancy: None\nRRAC Staff: Claudia Young\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. None.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na.\nStaff announced that there will be a special meeting of the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee on January 12, 2017 at 6:30pm. Staff clarified that the Committee will not\nreview cases at this meeting. Rather, the special meeting will be held to discuss Ordinance\nno. 3148 as it relates to the Rent Review Advisory Committee,\nb. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and\nexplaining procedures for public comment.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. No public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes of the December 5, 2016 Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second (Schrader and Landess). Approved by unanimous consent.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. Case 582 - 2007 Lincoln Ave., Unit C\nProposed rent increase: $55.00 (5.0%), effective December 1, 2016\nNo Committee review. Case postponed one month to the February 6, 2017 RRAC meeting.\nPage 1 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 11, 2017\n7-B. Case 624-344 - Westline Dr., Unit C205\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $124.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $676.00 (26.7%); Under review\nEffective date delayed until Committee Review\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-C. Case 629- - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Unit E319\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $43.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $350.00 (16.2%); Under review\nEffective date delayed until Committee Review.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-D. Case 640.1 - 1537 Schiller St., Unit D\nProposed rent increase: $110.00 (10.0%), effective February 1, 2017.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a\nrent increase between 5.1-10%. -\n7-E. Case 651 - 1721 St. Charles St.\nTenant/public speakers: Monica Vehryzka\nLandlord/public speakers: Harold Nelson\nProposed rent increase: $ 150.00 (12%) effective March 1, 2017\nStaff noted that the landlord filed a request to raise the rent in 2016. The rent increase was found\ninvalid as it did not comply with regulations. The landlord rescinded the rent increase. The current\nOrdinance provides that after a rent increase is found invalid, a landlord may proceed with a rent\nincrease request if a new notice, in compliance with regulations, is served on the tenant.\nThe tenant, Ms. Vehryzka, stated the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase would be $62.50\n(5.0%). The tenant explained that she has limited income that is not increasing as fast as her rent.\nShe also stated that the landlord did not provide her with documents required by Ordinance\nno. .3148. She explained that she has been a good, long-term tenant and considers Alameda her\nhome.\nThe landlord, Mr. Nelson, stated that there have only been two rent increases in the past six years\nand the current rent does not cover maintenance and mortgage costs. The landlord explained that\nhe considers the market rent for comparable units to be $1,700.00 to $1,800.00. Mr. Nelson\nexpressed concern about his income as he nears retirement. He explained that the unit was re-\npainted, and received upgraded the flooring as well as new appliances when the tenant moved in.\nPage 2 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 11, 2017\nHe explained that the procedures for rent increases were difficult to follow. He stated that the\nBay Area is an expensive place to live and that he should not be responsible for the tenant's\nincome. Member Friedman noted that the Committee is concerned about affordability. The\nlandlord stated he did not want to raise the rent by less than 10.0%.\nStaff clarified that there is currently no hard cap on rent increases in the City of Alameda.\nThe Committee unanimously passed a motion to extend time on the case by 10 minutes. Motion\nand Second (Griffiths and Landess).\nPublic Comment:\nErick Strimling: Mr. Stimling noted that a rent of $1,150 in 2014 gave the landlord an\nadequate rate of return. He questioned the landlord's consideration that an additional\n$3,000.00 of rent per year was a reasonable rate of return.\nThe parties were unable to reach an agreement. The Committee discussed a binding\nrecommendation for the rent increase.\nMember Griffiths recommended an increase of $62.50 immediately followed by an\nincrease of $62.50 in six months. He explained that he generally prefers stepped increases\nsince they give the tenant time to adjust to an increase and place only a temporary burden\non the landlord. He also noted that the Committee should make a recommendation that has\nthe best chance of being accepted by both parties.\nMember Friedman noted that both sides have valid perspectives. He emphasized the\ntenant's financial constraints and the landlord's cost constraints after years of not raising\nrent. He favored a 5.0% increase now, followed by a 5.0% increase in six months. He noted\nthat this has the best chance of being accepted.\nVice-Chair Landess emphasized that she thought the tenant raised important concerns. She\nnoted that the landlord did not take the opportunity to show more empathy for the tenant's\nsituation. In addition, she noted that the landlord lacked transparency in his documented\ncosts. She stated that a 5.0% increase is fair.\nMember Schrader stated that a 10.0% increase would be reasonable since it averages out\nto an increase of less than 3.0% per year since the last rent increase. However, he stated he\nwould support a 5.0% increase now, followed by a 5.0% increase in six months.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana noted that both parties have reasonable positions. He emphasized\nthat the intent of the Ordinance is to keep Alamedans in their homes. He explained that\nstepped increases can cause confusion. Thus, he favored an 8.5% increase.\nThe Committee unanimously recommended a rent increase of $62.50 to a monthly rent of\n$1,312.50, effective March 1, 2017 followed by a $62.50 increase to a monthly rent of $1,375.00,\neffective September 1, 2017. Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman).\nPage 3 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 11, 2017\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Member Friedman noted that he will submit a discussion outline to Staff for the\nCommittee's January 12th Special Meeting.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:12 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nand\nRRAC Secretary\nClaudia Young\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 6, 2017.\nPage 4 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-12", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 12, 2017\nMinutes of the Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, January 12, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:39 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; and Members Friedman, and Schrader.\nAbsent: Member Vice-Chair Landess, Member Griffiths\nVacancy: None\nRRAC Staff: Claudia Young\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Member Friedman proposes canceling the RRAC meeting.\nDiscussion:\nMember Friedman stated that input from three of the Committee members is less valuable\nthan input from four or five of the members.\nMember Schrader stated that if the purpose of the meeting is to provide Committee input,\nthe entire Committee should be present to discuss.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana expressed concern that not all Committee members were present.\nHowever, he suggested continuing the meeting in order to meet the deadline of providing\ninput for the City Council to review. He believed that providing some input is better than\ncanceling the meeting and possibly providing no input. He also suggested that the absent\nmembers hold a separate meeting to discuss their input. He noted that the three present\nmembers represent the tenant, landlord, and homeowner perspectives, which may not\nhappen again with a rescheduled meeting.\nStaff clarified that City Council will consider input at the March 7, 2017 meeting and will\nthen give direction to staff. Staff also noted that the Committee meeting would need to be\nrescheduled before the end of January in order to provide input.\nMotion and second to cancel the RRAC meeting and reschedule for a time when a quorum of\nmembers can attend (Friedman and Schrader). Motion passes with Members Friedman and\nSchrader voting yes, Chair Sullivan- Sari\u00f1ana voting no.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\nPage 1 of 2", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-12", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 12, 2017\na. Staff announced that there will be informational workshops explaining the City of\nAlameda's Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 on January 19th and January 26th More\ndetails can be found online at www.alamedarentprogram.org.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. Speaker: Maria Dominguez\nSpeaker commended staff efforts to make forms available online and hoped there would\nbe further automation in the future. She is concerned that tenants and landlords are not\nasked the same questions by the Committee. She also suggested that there be a way for the\npublic to contact the Committee members with feedback and input.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. None.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A Committee members to discuss Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nThe meeting was postponed to a later date. Staff will reschedule the meeting.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Member Schrader asked how the public can contact Committee members. Staff stated that\nthe personal contact information of Committee members is not disclosed. However, the\npublic can send feedback to staff who will forward it to the Committee member.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 6:58 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nClaudia Young\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 6, 2017.\nPage 2 of 2", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-24", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\nMinutes of the Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, January 24, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:24 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.\nAbsent: Vice-Chair Landess\nVacancy: None\nRRAC Staff: Claudia Young\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Motion and second to add public comment as item 7-B (Schrader and Griffiths). Approved\nby unanimous consent.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na.\nStaff clarified that the Committee will not review cases at this meeting. Rather, this special\nmeeting is held for Committee members to discuss Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the\nRent Review Advisory Committee.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS\na. No public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. None.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\na. Committee members to discuss Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nVice-Chair Landess had submitted questions prior to the meeting. The City Attorney responded\nto these inquiries and staff shared the input.\nQ: Why is Base Rent Year defined as 2015?\nA: Base Rent Year becomes relevant and important when calculating Net Operating Income\nbecause a Landlord's Net Operating Income in any particular year is compared to the\nLandlord's Net Operating Income in the Base Rent Year-2015--which was the year before\nrent control went into effect. That is, there is a presumption that if a Landlord's NOI say, in\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-24", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\n2017, is the same as the NOI in 2015, then the Landlord is receiving a fair return on\ninvestment and no rent increase is necessary in order to receive a fair return on investment.\nQ: Please explain the discussion of Debt Service?\nA: Debt Service is referred to in 'Costs of Operation' and is excluded from a Landlord's\nCosts of Operation. Costs of Operation is part of the Net Operating Income formula, i.e.,\ngross revenues less the Cost of Operation.\nQ: Please provide more clarify that Notices and Materials to be Provided to Current and\nProspective Tenants, (section 6-58.20) is a one-time requirement for existing tenants.\nA: There is nothing in Section 6-58.20 to indicate or suggest that providing these materials to\na\ncurrent tenant must occur other than with the Landlord's first receipt of rent following\nMarch 31, 2016. Since presumably Landlords have now received rent from the tenants who\nwere in the units at the end of March 2016, I am proposing to revise subsection B of Section\n6-58-20 so that subsection A is applicable only for prospective tenants.\"\nCommittee members discussed the Ordinance following Member Friedman's suggested outline:\n1. Should mediation remain part of the Rent Review Advisory Committee meeting?\nMember Friedman stated that he does not consider the RRAC process to be mediation.\nParticularly, the Committee members are not professional mediators and the meetings are not\nprivate. He raised concern that the process may place pressure on a tenant to sign an\nunfavorable agreement. Friedman suggested that an advocate be present at meetings to inform\ntenants there is no obligation to sign agreements. He suggested that an option for mediation\nbe offered prior to the Committee meeting.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana acknowledged that the Committee's dual role as mediator and\ndecision-maker is challenging. He noted that the Program Administrator is already offering\nprivate mediation and this service is helpful. He also expressed the difficulty that often parties\nattend the Committee meetings prepared to argue before a third-party decision maker and this\ndynamic can make compromise difficult. Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana also addressed that there is an\nuneven balance of power in a tenant and landlord relationship. He suggested that requiring\nmediation prior to the Committee meeting may provide the tenant more support in the\nsituation.\nMember Griffiths stated he believes the Committee's mediation role is useful. He expressed\nconcern that a mandatory mediation may place an unwarranted burden on one of the parties.\nHe recommended that private mediation prior to the Committee meeting remain optional.\nMember Schrader stated that the Ordinance does not explicitly include the term \"mediation.'\nSchrader considers mediation during the RRAC meeting useful because the parties are often\nmotivated to reach an agreement. He suggested that optional, professional mediation be\noffered prior to the Committee meeting. Additionally, the Committee should reduce the time\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-24", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\nspent on mediation and focus more time on questions and determining the Committee's\ndecision. He reiterated that Committee members are not professional mediators.\nStaff explained the Program Administrator's role in processing rent increase submission\nthrough the scheduling of the rent increase review before the RRAC.\nThe Committee recommended that mediation and the RRAC process be defined in the\nOrdinance. Additionally, the Committee recommended that optional mediation prior to the\nRRAC meeting be encouraged.\n2. Should rent increase criterion from Section 6-58.125 be included in the Committee's criteria\nwhen deciding a rent increase?\nMember Friedman listed the criteria in Section 6-58.85 (B) under consideration by the\nCommittee in determining rent increases. He stated that \"just and reasonable rate of return\"\nshould be more clearly defined and that market rate should not be included in the\nCommittee's consideration. He suggested adding \"maintenance of Net Operating Income\nfor the Base Year as adjusted by inflation over time provides a Landlord with a just and\nreasonable rate of return on property\" to the Committee's criteria.\nMember Schrader noted that the flexibility of the Committee's criteria is important;\nespecially in cases when a landlord had not raised rent for many years. Member Griffiths\nagreed that more flexibility is better. Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated that the Committee\nand the Hearing Officer play different roles. Hence, different criteria should be considered.\nNo recommendation from the Committee.\n3. Should 5% remain the threshold for a Landlord Request for Rent Review? Should increases of\n5% or less receive a binding decision from the Committee?\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated that 5% is an arbitrary threshold and has a significant impact\non the negotiation. He expressed concern that this threshold limits discussion because many\nlandlords expect at least a 5% increase.\nStaff clarified that tenants can contest rent increases of 5% or less by contacting the\nProgram Administrator.\nMember Griffiths noted that many cities relate rent control to inflation. Member Schrader\nstated that the Bay Area's housing cost inflation is 4.8%. Member Schrader also noted that\nthe 5% threshold affects what data is collected more than it affects whether or not a case\ncomes before the Committee.\nMember Griffiths noted 5% is a good threshold because it captures large rent increases,\nrather than every increase. However, he expressed concern that the Committee has not seen\na tenant-initiated case for several months. He raised concern that the tenant may not believe\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-24", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\nthey have power to challenge increases of 5% or less because the Committee's decision is\nnon-binding. He recommended that the Committee have binding authority for all non-\nexempt unit cases.\nMember Schrader agreed and clarified that state law prevents municipalities from making\nbinding decisions for certain units. He agreed it would be positive for the Committee to\nhave binding authority on all non-exempt units, rather than being seen as a procedural\nprocess for increases of 5% or less.\nMember Friedman agreed with the previous statements. He added that currently he believes\na landlord can work around a Committee recommendation of less than 5%. He explained\nthat if a landlord disagrees with a Committee recommendation of less than 5%, the landlord\ncould rescind the current notice and serve a new notice equal to 5%, which would not\nreceive a binding decision by the Committee.\nStaff stated that removing the rent increase percentage threshold for binding decisions may\nincrease the Committee's caseload and additional staffing may be necessary.\nMember Schrader stated he would prefer to review those cases, even if it meant an\nincreased caseload. Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana agreed.\nThe Committee recommended that the Committee have binding authority for any non-\nexempt unit initiated by a tenant.\n4. In some situations, two rent increases are offered simultaneously. This requires review if at\nleast one offer is above 5%. Should lease options be limited?\nMember Schrader stated that the RRAC should not limit lease options. Chair Sullivan-\nSari\u00f1ana noted that offering a large month-to-month rent increase option is a way to\npressure tenants into accepting a 5% rent increase.\nStaff clarified that multiple lease options are generally only seen at one property and month\nto month options are directed towards corporate leases. Staff explained that tenants\nreceiving more than one rent increase offer are contacted by the Program Administrator.\nHowever, staff has found that most of these tenants do not contact staff back and usually\naccept one of the rent increase offers or chose to vacate the unit.\nNo recommendation from the Committee.\nMotion and second to take a five minute break (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Schrader). Unanimously\napproved.\n5. Should the Ordinance allow short-term rentals without the offer of a one year lease option?\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-24", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\nMember Schrader stated that this is not related to the Committee's role. Staff clarified that\nany Committee member can email their recommendations as a private citizen to the City\nAttorney's Office.\nNo recommendation from the Committee.\n6. The Rent Review process and the Hearing Officer can be used to delay a rent increase as long\nas possible. Should we recommend changes?\nStaff clarified that no case has been appealed and reviewed by the Hearing Officer.\nNo recommendation from the Committee.\n7. Should language be added to clarify when a case is withdrawn from the RRAC process?\nMember Schrader recommended that the Ordinance clarify there is no RRAC review of\nrent increase submissions when an agreement between tenant and landlord is reached prior\nto the RRAC meeting.\nMember Griffiths and Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana agreed it should be clear that the Committee\ndoes not make decisions on rent increases when the tenant and landlord have already\nreached an agreement.\nThe Committee recommended to add language to section 6.58-75 (D) that states a rent\nincrease request is considered closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process when the\nProgram Administrator receives an agreement between a tenant and landlord concerning\nthe amount of the rent increase.\n8. Should language be added to require all data on rent increase submissions to be shared\npublicly?\nMember Friedman stated that the phrase \"terms of agreement\" in section 6.58-75 (D)\nindicates that the exact terms of an agreement must be reported to the Program\nAdministrator. Member Schrader added that data collection is an important part of the\nOrdinance.\nStaff clarified that currently any private agreement between tenant and landlord must\nstate the terms of agreement by indicating a percentage range: 0-5%; 5.1-10%; or above\n10%. Staff reports of all rent increase submissions are available on\nwww.alamedarentprogram.org\nNo recommendation from the Committee.\nStaff summarized the Committee's recommendations:\nProfessional mediation be offered and encouraged prior to the RRAC meeting\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-24", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\nRRAC decisions to be binding for tenant-initiated non-exempt unit cases\nAdd language to Section 6.58-75 (D) that states a rent increase request is considered\nclosed and withdrawn from the RRAC process when the Program Administrator\nreceives an agreement between a tenant and landlord concerning the amount of the rent\nincrease.\n7.b. PUBLIC COMMENT\nErick Strimling: Speaker stated that he has never seen the mediation process work at a\nCommittee meeting. He noted that many tenants and landlords are exhausted by the\nprocess. He explained that mediation is a well-defined term and should be facilitated\nby a professional prior to the Committee meeting. He stated many tenants feel\npressure to sign rent increase agreements. He noted that tenants are often hesitant to\nsubmit requests for rent increase reviews before RRAC because they do not want to\nrisk the relationship with their landlord. He suggested that staff always explain\noptions to each tenant and landlord in separate meetings prior to any mediation. He\nstated that tenants should not be penalized for selecting a month-to-month option.\nAdditionally, he emphasized that data is needed and the terms of agreements for all\ncases submitted to the Program Administrator should be public information.\nToni Grimm: Speaker stated that she appreciates the time and thoughtfulness of the\nCommittee. She expressed disappointment that the Hearing Officer's criteria was\nnot added to the Committee's criteria. She stated that the same criteria should be\napplied to each case.\nEd Paul: Speaker thanked the Committee for their work. He stated that the Committee\nprocess appears to be working. He noted that the process seems to be addressing\nthe situation when an excessive rent increase is reported.\nMotion and second for the following recommendations (Schrader and Griffiths). Approved by\nunanimous consent.\nMediation be offered and encouraged prior to the RRAC meeting\nRRAC decisions to be binding for tenant-initiated cases with non-exempt units\nAdd language to Section 5.58-75 (D) that if the Program Administrator receives an\nagreement between a tenant and landlord regarding a rent increase, then the case is\nconsidered closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process.\nStaff clarified that these recommendations will be sent to the City Attorney and will be\npresented to City Council.\nMotion and second for Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana to present the Committee's recommendations\nat the City Council meeting. (Griffiths and Schrader). Approved by unanimous consent.\n8. MATTERS INITIATED\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-24", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\na. None\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:47 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nClaudia Young\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-06", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 6, 2017\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, February 6, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Vice-Chair Landess; Members Griffiths, Friedman\nAbsent: None\nVacancy: One Landlord member\nRRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman\nCity Attorney Staff: Michael Roush\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. None.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na.\nThe next Committee meeting will be Wednesday, February 22, 2017. More information is\navailable at www.alamedarentprogram.org.\nb. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and\nexplaining procedures for public comment.\n4.\nPUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. No public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na.\nApproval of the Minutes of the January 11, 2016 Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Landess). Unanimously approved.\nb. Approval of the January 12, 2016 Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Friedman). Unanimously approved.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. Case 582 - 2007 Lincoln Ave., Unit C\nTenant: Heather Reed and Eric Strimling as designated representatives for tenant, Sia Sellu\nLandlord: John Galleto\nProposed rent increase: $55.00/month increase, effective December 1, , 2016\nPage 1 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-06", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 6, 2017\nCommittee members asked for clarification concerning the role of the tenant advocates. They\nverified they were authorized on behalf of Ms. Sellu to agree to a rent increase of $25.00/month\nand do not have authority beyond that. Mr. Roush stated that the representatives' participation on\nbehalf of the tenant satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance that the tenant appear at the RRAC\nmeeting.\nMr. Strimling explained that Ms. Sellu was interested in resolving this matter privately with the\nlandlord but the landlord was not open to that suggestion. Ms. Reed explained that Ms. Sellu can\nonly accept a small increase due to her disability and her fixed income. Ms. Sellu does not consider\nthe quality of the unit to warrant a $55.00/month increase. She noted that Ms. Sellu likes living in\nAlameda and considers it her home. Ms. Reed also explained that the stress of the rent review\nprocess has negatively affected Ms. Sellus health.\nThe landlord, Mr. Galleto, explained that the building is operating at a loss and that the unit's rent\nis\nbelow market rate. He said he is willing to reconsider the amount of the rent increase if the\ntenant provides documentation to demonstrate her claim that she us unable to pay the $55.00\nincrease. He clarified that he would need to see the type of documentation associated with a typical\nrental application.\nThe tenant advocates stated Ms. Sellu would be willing to complete a rental application form but\nwanted to ensure that her medical information would not be used against her and that her tenancy\nwould not be terminated.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana emphasized that the goal of the Committee is to facilitate discussions\nbetween a tenant and a landlord in order to reach an agreement between the tenant and landlord.\nWhen parties are unable to reach an agreement, the Committee shifts from facilitators to making\na recommendation regarding the amount of the rent increase. Mr. Roush added that the tenant and\nlandlord may still negotiate an agreement after the Committee recommendation.\nMember Friedman recommended postponing the case to allow both parties an opportunity to\nnegotiate. The tenant advocates stated that Ms. Sellu would like a decision this evening. The\nCommittee agreed to make a recommendation.\nVice-Chair Landess expressed concern for both parties. She acknowledged that it appeared\nthis rent increase and review process have been stressful for the tenant. She also stated that\nthe landlord expenses have increased. She recommended that a $55.00 (5%) is reasonable.\nMember Friedman noted that landlord included in the rent increase calculation costs related\nto a reserve fund to be used when a termination requires relocation assistance fees. While\nhe noted this is a real cost, he did not agree that the landlord's calculation of these costs\nwere reasonable and did not agree that the costs justify a 5% increase. In addition, he noted\nthat he does not believe the landlord's mortgage costs are valid factors in calculating a rent\nPage 2 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-06", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 6, 2017\nincrease. Taking in good faith the comments of the tenant, he asserted that it appears the\n5% increase poses a financial burden on the tenant. He recommended a $33 (3.0%)\nincrease.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana noted that he is taking the comments of the landlord and tenant in\ngood faith. He summarized that the tenant expressed she is unable to pay the 5% increase\nand the landlord stated he would reconsider the amount of the rent increase if the tenant\nprovides documentation of her inability to pay the higher rent. In addition, the tenant\nrepresentatives stated the tenant would be willing to provide the requested documentation.\nTherefore, he stated that it appears both parties may be able to work out an agreement of a\n$25 increase when the requested documentation is provided by the tenant. Thus, he\nrecommended a $25 (2.3%) increase.\nMember Griffiths stated that he recognizes the tenant is facing a hardship with this rent\nincrease. He also noted that he appreciates that the landlord has a history of reasonable\nrent increases. While he agrees with Member Landess that 5% is a reasonable increase for\nthe landlord, he also acknowledged the tenant is a difficult situation. He recommended an\nincrease of $25.00 (2.3%) and encouraged parties to meet privately so that the landlord's\nrequested documentation could be provided by the tenant.\nMotion and second for Committee to recommend an increase of $25.00 (2.3%) effective March\n1st, 2017 (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Griffiths). Passed with Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana, Griffiths, and Friedman\nvoting yes and Landess voting no.\nMotion and second for 5 minute recess (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Landess). Unanimously approved.\n7-B. Case 653 - 43 Sandpiper Pl.\nProposed Rent Increase: $480.00 (15.1%), effective March 1, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-C. Case 683 - 871 Oak St.\nProposed Rent Increase: $1,000.00 (50.0%), effective March 15, 2017\nReview was postponed to the February 22, 2017 Committee meeting.\n7-D. CASE 655 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A101\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $60.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $785.00 (25.7%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/16/2017\nPage 3 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-06", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 6, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation\nto the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-E. CASE 656 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A102\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $60.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $785.00 (25.7%); Under review\nEffective date: 3/1/17\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation\nto the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-F. CASE 657 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A112\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $101.00 (4.8%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $538.00 (25.8%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/6/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-G. CASE 659 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B207\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $82.00 (2.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $771.00 (27.2%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/17/17\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation\nto the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-H. CASE 660 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B213\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $73.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $959.00 (26.1%); Under review\nEffective date: Delayed until RRAC review.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation\nto the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-I. CASE 661 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B315\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $64.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $842.00 (26.1%); Under review\nEffective date: Delayed until RRAC review.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\nPage 4 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-06", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 6, 2017\n7-J. CASE 663 - 330 Westline Dr., Unit B329\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $105.00 (4.7%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $552.00 (25.0%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/5/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-K. CASE 664 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C115\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $101.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $538.00 (26.4%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/21/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\n7-L. CASE 665 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C119\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $43.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $497.00 (22.6%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/20/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\n7-M. CASE 666 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C223\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $44.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $502.00 (22.6%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/9/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease of 15.0%.\n7-N. CASE 668 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D214\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $39.00 (1.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $657.00 (33.0%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/18/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\nPage 5 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-06", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 6, 2017\n7-O. CASE 669 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D216\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $46.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $355.00 (15.2%); Under review\nEffective date: Delayed until RRAC review.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-P. CASE 670 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., Unit D316\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $112.00 (5.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $406.00 (18.1%); Under review\nEffective date: Delayed until RRAC review.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation\nto the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-Q. CASE 672 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Unit E230\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $122.00 (4.8%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $732.00 (28.5%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/10/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-R. CASE 673 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Unit E309\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $54.00 (1.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $713.00 (26.7%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/19/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-S. CASE 675 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F203\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $102.00 (5.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $541.00 (26.3%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/17/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\n7-T.CASE 676 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F303\nPage 6 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-06", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 6, 2017\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $46.00 (1.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $517.00 (21.6%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/23/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\n7-U. CASE 677 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., Unit F328\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $117.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $701.00 (29.2%); Under review\nEffective date: Delayed until RRAC review.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation\nto the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-V. CASE 679 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Unit G201\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $57.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $756.00 (26.1%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/22/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation\nto the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-W. CASE 680 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Unit G308\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $124.00 (5.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $741.00 (29.9%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/12/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and both options on the rent increase notice are valid. The tenant retains the option to\nchoose the 12-month lease offer or the month-to-month rental agreement offer.\n7-X. CASE 681 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., Unit G314\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $66.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $441.00 (32.9%); Under review\nEffective date: 2/10/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-Y Discuss Committee members' attendance at the March 7, 2017 City Council meeting to\nrepresent recommendations passed at the January 24, 2017 RRAC special meeting\nPage 7 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-06", "page": 8, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 6, 2017\nStaff shared an update that the City Council meeting to review the Ordinance will not be held in\nMarch. Staff will update the Committee when the exact date is known. City Attorney staff\nconfirmed that he will forward the Committee recommendations, approved January 24, 2017, to\nall Committee members for review prior to the City Council meeting.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana confirmed that he will attend the meeting to present the Committee's\nrecommendations. He encouraged other Committee members to attend the meeting as well.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and tenant-\nlandlord mediation services.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana suggested setting aside time at an upcoming meeting to discuss\nthe criteria the Committee uses in determining a reasonable rent increase. He requested that\nthe City Attorney's Office provide guidance for that discussion. Staff confirmed that this\nmatter will be agendized in a future Committee meeting.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:14 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 6, 2017.\nPage 8 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-22", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 22, 2017\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, February 22, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Vice-Chair Landess; Member Griffiths\nAbsent: Member Friedman\nVacancy: Housing Provider member\nProgram Administrator staff: Jennifer Kauffman\nCity Attorney staff: Michael Roush\nTranslation staff: Haiyan Chen\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. None.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. The next Committee meeting will be Monday, March 6, 2017. More information is\navailable at www.alamedarentprogram.org.\nb. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and\nprocedures for public comment. Staff noted there is translation at tonight's meeting and the\nCommittee will adjust as needed.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. No public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes of the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting.\nVice-Chair Landess noted that she will abstain from this vote as she was not in attendance at\nthe January 24, 2017 meeting. Staff recommends continuing this item to the next meeting until\nthree members are able to vote on the item. Motion and second to continue this item to a future\nCommittee meeting (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Griffiths). Approved by unanimous consent.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. CASE 683 - 871 Oak St.\nTenant: Merin Lund\nLandlord: Lori Hanson, Daniel Cheung\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-22", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 22, 2017\nProposed Rent Increase: $1,000.00 (50.0%), effective March 15, 2017\nThis rent increase review was originally scheduled for the February 6, 2017 Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee meeting. The review was postponed two weeks to the February 22, 2017 meeting. Staff\nresearched the number of housing units on the property and determined that there is only one\nhousing unit; therefore the rent increase is exempt from a binding decision.\nThe tenant, Merin Lund, stated that there should be no rent increase. Ms. Lund stated that the rent\nincrease is not warranted given the property's current condition. She also noted that the rent was\nraised $500.00 in March 2016 and $100.00 the previous fall. These previous increases have been\na financial burden on her and she is not in a position to pay for an additional increase in the amount\nrequested by the landlord. Additionally, Ms. Lund has several concerns regarding maintenance of\nthe property. In July 2016, she said mold had been discovered in the unit and she remains\nconcerned that the efforts to eliminate the mold have not been successful. Ms. Lund stated that she\nbelieves the large rent increase is in retaliation of her raising concerns about the mold to the\nlandlord. She noted that she would prefer to live in a unit that was healthy for her family and that\nshe does not have full use of the property because the landlord uses some space for storage and\noccasionally stays in a shed in the back of the property. Ms. Lund said that she has been a good\ntenant for the eight years she has resided at the property.\nThe landlord, Ms. Hanson, stated that the rent increase will raise rent to comparable rates for\nsimilar units. The landlord noted that she considers rent of similar units to range between $3,000\nand $3,200. She explained that the increase is also related to her interest in seeking a reasonable\nreturn on the property; currently, she noted that she has not yet made a profit on the property. In\naddition, Ms. Hanson explained the rent increase was necessary for recent and projected capital\nexpenses for the property including foundation work, window repair, gutter repair, mold removal,\nand yardwork. She said there had been a temporary reduction in rent of $200 for several months\nin 2016. She stated that she is a diligent landlord and follows up on maintenance and code\nenforcement issues.\nMr. Cheung, the attorney for Ms. Hanson, explained that the rent increase is necessary to cover\nmaintenance costs. He suggested postponing the increase to give the tenant a chance to search for\na new unit.\nMs. Lund stated she was open to this option but would need at least 4 or 5 months to search for\nnew housing.\nMr. Cheung stated that postponing the rent 4 months while the tenant searched for a new unit\nwould be acceptable to the landlord. He suggested that the rent increase to $3,000.00 become\neffective March 15th, but not be enforced for 4 months. If the tenant does not vacate the unit at the\nend of the 4 months, the tenant would owe the amount of the rent increase ($1,000) for the 4\nmonths it was delayed. Mr. Cheung explained that he could draft an agreement to ensure those\nconditions enforceable.\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-22", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 22, 2017\nStaff clarified the current base rent is $2,000.00.\nMs. Lund explained that while it is possible for her to vacate in four months, she is concerned\nabout owing back rent if she cannot vacate in time.\nMr. Cheung suggested a full and early return of Ms. Lund's security deposit to facilitate the moving\nprocess.\nThe parties were unable to reach an agreement.\nThe Committee made the following non-binding decision:\nThe $1,000 (50.0%) rent increase from $2,000 to $3,000, effective March 15, 2017, is\ndelayed four months to provide the tenant the opportunity to search for new housing.\nMotion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Griffiths). Unanimous approval.\n7-B Case 648.1 - 1715 Sherman St., Unit B\nTenant/Public speakers: Ernest Yip and Cai Hong Zhang\nLandlord/Public speakers: Wai Cheung [with representative for translation]\nTranslation staff: Haiyan Chen\nProposed Rent Increase: $450.00 (32.1%)\nThe tenants stated the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase should be $100.00 (7.1%). Mr.\nYip explained that they have been willing to negotiate and offered the landlord a $120.00 (8.6%)\nrent increase. He explained that the proposed $450.00 increase would be a financial burden. He\nexpressed concerns regarding his current job security and provided earnings statements to\ndemonstrate only a small raise last year. The tenants noted that they currently pay for water and\nelectricity in addition to rent. In addition, the tenants stated they do not believe it is fair to average\nthe increases over the previous 10 years. The tenants also noted several maintenance issues, such\nas peeling exterior paint and mold concerns.\nThe landlord, Mr. Cheung, explained that the rent had not been raised for 7 years. He explained\nthat when all the increases are averaged over the entire tenancy, there is about a 2% increase per\nyear. Mr. Cheung indicated that the rent increase is related to keeping up with costs of operation\nand inflation, such as utilities, maintenance bills, and property taxes. He explained that the\nproperty was poorly managed in its early years and he now seeks to manage it better and raise\nthe rent closer to market rate. Mr. Cheung indicated that a 2 bedroom unit payment standard for\nthe Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is equal to $2,390. Mr. Cheung noted that he\nquoted this rate for reference and was not asking for the rent to be $2,390.00.\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-22", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 22, 2017\nMr. Cheung offered to reduce his increase request to $300.00 (21.0%), for a total rent of\n$1,700.00.\nThe tenants offered to pay $140.00 (10.0%) rent increase, for a total rent of $1,540.00. The tenants\nexpressed concern about maintenance issues such as a leaking roof.\nThe landlord clarified that he had fixed the roof but will re-inspect it immediately. The landlord\nexplained that he is very invested in maintaining the property.\nMr. Cheung explained that he does not have more room to negotiate because another unit in the\nbuilding agreed to a rent increase. He expressed that he wants to be fair to all tenants and charge\nthe same rent for all units.\nThe tenants explained that they pay for water while the other tenants do not. Therefore, charging\nthe same rent is not treating each tenant equally.\nStaff clarified that each unit has a separate rental history and a separate agreement around\namenities. Therefore, reasonable rent is determined for each unit separately.\nThe parties were unable to reach an agreement.\nMember Griffiths acknowledged that the current rent appears less than market rates. However, he\nnoted that this rent increase is not consistent with the landlord's previous rent increase requests.\nWhile the landlord reduced his request from $450 to $300, Member Griffiths noted that $300 is\nstill a significant jump to absorb at one time. Member Griffiths also stated that even though the\ntenant offered to pay a $140.00 (10%) increase, this amount of an increase is still very significant\nto absorb at one time. Therefore, he stated he would be most comfortable with a rent increase of\n$120.00 (8.6%).\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated that this is a difficult situation with a very large rent increase\nfollowing a long period of no increases. He noted that the original $450.00 increase request is not\nin line with the landlord's previous increases of $50.00 and $100.00. He explained that he believes\nthe reduced offer to a $300 increase is also unreasonable. He explained that the purpose of the\nOrdinance is to keep Alameda renters in their homes. He recommended a $140.00 (10.0%) rent\nincrease.\nVice Chair Landess asked City Attorney staff to clarify the purpose of the Ordinance.\nMr. Roush explained that the Ordinance may not specifically indicate its purpose as keeping\nAlameda renters in their homes. Rather, the Ordinance looks to keep rents in a posture to be\naffordable for individuals to continue to live in Alameda. He noted that there is an inherent tension\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-02-22", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 22, 2017\nin keeping rents affordable for Alameda residents and providing property owners a fair return on\ninvestment. The Committee's task is to find some balance between those tensions.\nVice Chair Landess acknowledged that prior property management set an unsustainable precedent\nof not increasing rent. However, an increase of 32% ($450) is excessive. She stated that having\nmore information on capital improvements would have helped justify such an increase. Without\nthis information, she recommended an increase of $140.00 (10.0%).\nThe Committee recommended a rent increase of $140.00 (10.0%) from $1,400.00 to $1,540.00,\neffective March 1, 2017. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Landess). Unanimous\napproval.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. None.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\na.\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:52 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on April 3, 2017.\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, March 6, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m.\nPresent: Vice-Chair Landess, Members Griffiths and Friedman\nAbsent: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana\nVacancy: Housing Provider member\nProgram Administrator staff: Jennifer Kauffman\nCity Attorney staff: Michael Roush\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na.\nStaff requested that the Committee address item 7-Z first to allow for translation services.\nMotion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Approved by unanimous consent.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and\nprocedures for public comment. Staff noted there is translation at tonight's meeting and the\nCommittee will modify logistics, as needed.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and tenant-\nlandlord counseling services.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes of the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting.\nMotion and second to continue this item to a future Committee meeting when three\nmembers who attended the January 24, 2017 meeting are present. (Griffiths and Friedman).\nApproved by unanimous consent.\nb. Approval of the Minutes of the February 6, 2017 Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second (Friedman and Griffiths). Approved by unanimous consent.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS (None)\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-Z. Case 691.1 - 1526 Verdi St., Unit E\nTenant: Khurelbaatar Janchivdorj, Enkhlen Khurelbaatar (Providing translating)\nLandlord: Robert Cliff, Cathy Cliff\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\nProposed rent increase: $300 (23%), effective date delayed until RRAC review\nStaff announced that the landlord submitted additional documents after the agenda was published.\nThese documents are available in the agenda packet at the back of the room. Staff also stated that\nthe tenant's daughter is providing translation for the evening and professional phone translation\nwill be available, if needed.\nThe tenant, Khurelbaatar Janchivdorj, explained that this increase would pose a significant\nfinancial burden on his family. He stated that he had recently lost his job and does not have a stable\nincome. He acknowledged there had been seismic improvements to the building and that there had\nnot been a rent increase for four years. He proposed a rent increase of $200.00 (15.4%), explaining\nthat he is searching for employment and he has always paid rent on time.\nStaff asked if Mr. Khurelbaatar preferred to continue translation with his daughter, Ms.\nKhurelbaatar, or if he would prefer to use a professional translator via phone. Mr. Khurelbaatar\nconfirmed he preferred translation with his daughter and staff ended the phone call with the\nprofessional translator.\nThe landlord, Mr. Cliff, stated that the unit's rent is below market rate. He believed that market\nrate for a comparable unit is near $1,800. He explained that there had been costly capital\nimprovements and repairs to the unit, such as seismic upgrades, securing walls, and repairing leaks.\nMr. Cliff also noted that the business is currently operating at a loss. He explained that the income\nfrom this unit is an essential part of his retirement income. Mr. Cliff stated that $1,600.00 was that\nlowest rent increase he could accept.\nVice Chair Landess noted that the parties may not have had the chance to discuss the rent increase\nin person since they live in different cities. She emphasized that this meeting is an opportunity for\nthe parties find an arrangement that works for both of them.\nMember Friedman noted that the tenant has been very transparent about what his family can afford.\nMember Griffiths proposed a stepped rent increase.\nMember Friedman suggested a stepped rent increase of $200.00, followed by a $100.00 increase\nsome months later.\nThe parties discussed the timing of the rent increase and a potential stepped increase the following\nyear. The landlord stated that if the rent increased $300 this year, he expected to raise rent no more\nthan 5% the following year.\nThe parties agreed to a $300 rent increase with $100 delay for 10 months. The landlord stated he\nintends to raise the rent no more than 5% the following year.\nMember Griffiths recommended that the Committee take action to confirm the parties' agreement\nof a rent increase of $300.00 (base rent $1,300 to $1,600) effective April 1, 2017, with $100 of the\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\n$300 deferred until January 1, 2018, i.e., effective April 1, 2017 the rent would be increased from\n$1300 to $1500 and on February 1, 2017, the rent would increase to the full $1600. Motion and\nsecond (Griffiths, Friedman). Approved by unanimous consent.\n7-A. Case 684.1 - 1815 Broadway, Unit B\nTenant: Latricia Amadeo\nLandlord: Karry Kelley-Cahill, Sean Kelley-Cahill\nProposed rent increase: $100 (4.9%), effective date February 1, 2017\nThe tenant, Ms. Amadeo, stated that she does not believe a rent increase is warranted because there\nare maintenance issues at the property. Specifically, she noted that she did not have a working\nheater for much of the year. She explained that she would be open to a rent increase if the landlord\nwas responsive to outstanding maintenance issues.\nThe landlord, Mr. Kelley-Cahill, stated that the unit's rent is below the market rent for comparable\nunits. The landlord explained that this increase is related to covering the costs of taxes and recent\nmajor repairs at the property. He expressed that he is good landlord and involved in the Alameda\ncommunity. Additionally, the landlord explained that he was responsive to maintenance issues\nwhen he was notified of the issue.\nAfter discussion between the parties, they were unable to reach an agreement as to the amount of\nthe rent increase.\nThere was public comment on the agenda item.\nPublic Comment\nSpeaker: Heather Reed\nThe speaker stated that community participation is crucial to the City's Rent\nStabilization Ordinance. She emphasized the importance for landlords and tenants to\nlisten to each other and to avoid having the review become an adversarial meeting.\nThe Committee began its deliberations. :\nMember Friedman stated that he does not support any increase because the landlord was\nnot willing to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way.\nVice-Chair Landess stated that the tenant is within her right to request a review of the rent\nincrease and she also believes that the $100 rent increase is reasonable. She recommended\nan increase of $100.\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\nMember Griffiths acknowledged that the landlord has the authority to impose the $100 rent\nincrease because the percentage is below 5%. He recommended that the rent increase be\n$100.\nMotion and second to approve a rent increase of $100.00 (Griffiths and Landess). Vice-Chair\nLandess and Member Griffiths voted to approve the motion. Member Friedman voted against the\nmotion and therefore the motion did not pass.\nThe Committee did not reach a decision as to the amount of the rent increase but because the rent\nincrease was below 5%, any decision the Committee would have made is non-binding.\n7-B. Case 741 - 1220 Park Ave., Unit C\nTenant: Barbara Maerz, Eric Strimling\nLandlord: Harold R. Vanderlaan\nProposed rent increase: $700 (43.9%), effective April 1, 2017\nThe tenant, Ms. Maerz, stated that the maximum reasonable monthly increase would be $79.75\n(5.0%). She stated that she has lived at the property for over 26 years and is member of the Alameda\ncommunity. Ms. Maerz expressed that she has been a good tenant by paying rent on time and\nquickly notifying the landlord about maintenance issues. She stated that the rent increase process\nhas been stressful and intimidating. She explained that the $700.00 increase is a financial burden\nfor her. She also explained that the quality of the unit has not been upgraded to the quality of\nmarket rate units; as such, she does not believe such a large increase is warranted.\nThe landlord, Mr. Vandelann, stated that his father purchased the property as an investment. He\nexplained that the property's income is primarily used to cover his mother's costly medical\nexpenses. He expressed that he is not profiting from this rent increase, rather he is looking to\nsupport his mother with her medical payments. Additionally, the rent increase will help to cover\nthe costs of maintenance, such as carpet replacement and plumbing repairs. He stated that while\nhis parents managed the property, the unit's rent was not increased for many years. He noted that\nthe property manager commented that the unit's rent was below market rate. Mr. Vandelann\nexpressed that even with the rent increase, the unit's rent would remain below market rate. He\nsuggested implementing a stepped increase of 14.6% over three years. As another option, the\nlandlord offered that the tenant could sublease the two available bedrooms in the apartment.\nMs. Maerz stated that she would not feel comfortable adding a stranger as a subtenant, but might\nbe open to adding a friend or family member in the future, though does not currently know a friend\nor family member looking for housing. She also explained that she is not open to a stepped\nincrease.\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\nEric Strimling, tenant representative, referenced the landlord's submitted documents and noted\nthat the landlord states his expenses have increased 5% and his rental income has increased 30%.\nMr. Strimling commented that this data demonstrates the landlord is already receiving sufficient\nprofit from his property; hence, the proposed $700 increase is not warranted. He urged the\nCommittee to consider the tenant's perspective and not recommend an increase that is halfway\nbetween the tenant's and landlord's offers.\nThe tenant offered to pay a $127.60 (8%) rent increase.\nThe landlord noted that the moratorium last year limited the amount he could raise the rent. He\nexpressed his concern with keeping ahead of his mother's medical bills and upcoming repairs. He\nrestated that the tenant has the option to have a roommate. With that said, he agreed he would\naccept an 8% rent increase.\nThere was public comment on the agenda item.\nPublic Comment\nSpeaker: Pamela Jordan\nThe speaker stated that she is a resident of Alameda and is speaking to address several concerns\nthat have arisen for her while listening to the conversation between the landlord and tenant.\nShe noted that the tenant's rent has increased about 27.6% over the previous three years, which\nis greater than 5% each year. Additionally, she noted that it is a best practice to replace carpets\nevery 10 years and it is reasonable for the tenant to request carpet repairs after 25 years of\nresidency. She requested the Committee consider the guidelines of the Ordinance and limit the\nrent increase to 5%.\nSpeaker: Heather Reed\nThe speaker stressed that long-term tenants are integral to the community. Additionally, she\nnoted that she questions if offering the tenant an option to have roommate is reasonable for the\ncurrent situation.\nThe Committee moved to confirm the parties' agreement of a $127.60 (8.0%) rent increase,\neffective April 1, 2017. Motion and second (Griffiths and Landess). Approved by unanimous\nconsent.\n7-C. Case 699 - 300 Westline Dr., Unit A105\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $305.00 (16.0%); Under review\n12 month offer - $90.00 (4.7%): No review\nEffective date: 4/1/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\n7-D. Case 702 - 310 Westline Dr., Unit B112\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $284.00 (16.3%): Under review\n12 month offer - $84.00 (4.8%); No review\nEffective date: 4/1/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-E. Case 705 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C124\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $365.00 (11.9%); Under review\n12 month offer - $59.00 (1.9%); No review\nEffective date: 3/21/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-F. Case 704 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C117\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $302.00 (17.8%); Under review\n12 month offer - $82.00 (4.8%); No review\nEffective date: 4/1/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-G. Case 708 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C219\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $330.00 (16.8%); Under review\n12 month offer - $98.00 (5.0%); No review\nEffective date: 3/23/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation\nto the landlord that the tenant will vacate the unit.\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\n7-H. Case 709 - 344 Westline Dr., Unit C327\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $358.00 (16.2%); Under review\n12 month offer - $90.00 (4.7%): No review\nEffective date: 4/1/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-I. Case 714 - 909 Shoreline Court, Unit D314\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $284.00 (13.9%); Under review\n12 month offer - $39.00 (1.9%); No review\nEffective date: 3/2/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-J. Case 718 - 915 Shoreline Court, Unit E201\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $352.00 (16.3%); Under review\n12 month offer - $104.00 (4.8%); No review\nEffective date: 3/17/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-K. Case 719 - 915 Shoreline Court, Unit E204\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $358.00 (16.5%); Under review\n12 month offer - $106.00 (4.9%); No review\nEffective date: 3/12/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-L. Case 720 - 915 Shoreline Court, Unit E209\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $409.00 (15.7%); Under review\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 8, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\n12 month offer - $130.00 (5.0%); No review\nEffective date: 3/30/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation\nto the landlord that the tenant will vacate the unit.\n7-M. Case 721 - 915 Shoreline Court, Unit E215\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $330.00 (16.0%); Under review\n12 month offer - $98.00 (4.8%); No review\nEffective date: 3/24/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-N. Case 722-915 Shoreline Court, Unit E335\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $334.00 (15.0%); Under review\n12 month offer - $108.00 (4.9%); No review\nEffective date: 3/14/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-O. Case 724 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F202\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $404.00 (15.3%); Under review\n12 month offer - $129.00 (4.9%); No review\nEffective date: 3/7/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-P. Case 725 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F211\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $301.00 (13.6%); Under review\n12 month offer - $44.00 (2.0%); No review\nEffective date: 3/13/2017\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 9, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-Q. Case 726 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F307\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $355.00 (16.2%); Under review\n12 month offer - $107.00 (4.9%); No review\nEffective date: 3/21/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-R. Case 727 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F329\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $292.00 (14.8%); Under review\n12 month offer - $39.00 (2.0%); No review\nEffective date: 3/25/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-S. Case 728 - 937 Shoreline Court, Unit G110\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $292.00 (18.4%); Under review\n12 month offer - $79.00 (5.0%); No review\nEffective date: 4/1/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-T. Case 731 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F213\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $342.00 (16.4%); Under review\n12 month offer - $101.00 (4.9%); No review\nEffective date: 3/26/2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 10, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\n7-U. Case 732 - 941 Shoreline Court, Unit F218\nProposed Rent Increases:\nMonth to month offer - $396.00 (15.3%); Under review\n12 month offer - $126.00 (4.9%); No review\nEffective date: 3/26/2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-V. Case 742 - 2031 Eagle Ave., Unit B\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 5.1-10%.\n7-W. Case 752 - 1725 Eagle Ave., Unit B\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease above 10%.\n7-X. Case 754 - 1907 Union Street\nCommittee review was postponed two weeks to the March 20, 2017 Committee meeting.\n7-Y. Case 755 - 1729 Eagle Ave., Unit A\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 5. 1-10%. -\n7-AA. Case 758 - 114 Keil Bay\nCommittee review was postponed two weeks to the March 20, 2017 Committee meeting.\n7-AB. Case 760 - 2152 Alameda Ave.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 5.1-10%.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2\nNo additional public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-06", "page": 11, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 6, 2017\na. Staff announced that the next Committee meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2017. Staff\nnoted that the Committee typically schedules an additional meeting for the third Monday\nof the month when there is a high volume of submissions.\nb. The Committee asked when the new landlord Committee member will be nominated. City\nAttorney staff confirmed that the new member will likely be nominated and attend\nCommittee meetings starting in April.\nc.\nMember Friedman expressed appreciation for the night's public speakers.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-20", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 20, 2017\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, March 20, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.\nPresent were: Vice-Chair Landess; Member Griffiths and Friedman\nAbsent: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana\nVacancy: Housing provider member\nRRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman\nCity Attorney Staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na.\nStaff noted that the tenant and landlord at 111 Crolls Garden Ct. (7-D) reached an\nagreement regarding the rent increase.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and\nprocedures for public comment.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. No public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. None.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. CASE 758 - 114 Keil Bay\nTenant: Ifthar Awawda\nLandlord: Elena Chan, Nelson Cheung\nProposed Rent Increase: $200.00 (6.9%) effective March 1, 2017\nThis case was postponed two weeks from the March 6, 2017 RRAC meeting. The tenant was\nalso approved for a reasonable accommodation and attended the RRAC meeting via phone.\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-20", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 20, 2017\nThe tenant, Ms. Awawda, stated she did not consider any rent increase reasonable because the\nrent was raised significantly the previous two years. However, she recognized the landlord has\nexpenses and she proposed a rent increase of $90.00 (3.1%) for a two-year lease. The tenant\nnoted that she pays for all utilities in the unit and has completed repairs and maintenance to\nthe property. The tenant acknowledged that she owes the landlord over $1,800 and that she\nplans to reimburse the landlord in the next few months. The tenant stated that the proposed\nrent increase would be a financial burden because her family has limited income as result of a\ndisability and underemployment. Ms. Awawda explained that she would like to move, but\ncannot afford to. The tenant also noted she has trouble paying rent by the 5th as she does not\nreceive certain income by that time. In addition, it has been difficult to by the rent by cashiers'\ncheck.\nThe landlord, Ms. Chan, proposed a reduced rent increase of $145.00 (5.0%). She explained\nthat she has worked with the tenant for the last few years, accepting late rent and noted the\ntenant owes the landlord around $1,800. The landlord stated the rent increase is in effort to\nhave a reasonable rate of return and that the unit's rent is below the market rate. Ms. Chan\nconsidered market rate for a comparable unit to be about $3,600. She also noted that the unit\nis in good condition and that she is responsive to maintenance requests. She stated that the\nincrease will help to cover rising expenses related to taxes, insurance, interest rates, and\nhomeowner association fees. She noted that she would keep the rent due on the 8th rather than\nthe 5th to allow more time for the tenant to pay the rent. In addition, the landlord would create\na way for the tenant to pay rent by direct deposit.\nThe parties were unable to reach an agreement.\nMember Friedman stated that the situation is difficult. He acknowledged that he heard the\ntenant wished to move out and proposed that the landlord raise the rent less for six months\nto allow the tenant time to search for housing, with the ability to raise the rent at the end of\nthe six months if the tenant did not vacate. The landlord did not feel comfortable with this\noption.\nMember Griffiths noted that the tenant was in a difficult situation and that the landlord had\nput a great deal of effort to accommodate the tenant. He explained that he supports a 5.0%\nincrease to encourage negation between parties. He recommended that this reduced rent\nincrease become effective on March 1, 2017.\nVice Chair Landess acknowledged the efforts of parties to work with each other. She noted\nthat the landlord appears to recognize the tenant's hardship and seems to be\naccommodating by allowing near $1,800 to remain as owed rent. She supported a 5.0%\nincrease effective March 1, 2017.\nThe Committee made the following non-binding decision:\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-20", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 20, 2017\n$145.00 (5.0%) rent increase from $2,900.00 to $3,045.00, effective March 1, 2017. The\nCommittee also recommended that rent be due on the 8th of each month and that the tenant\nhave the option to pay by direct deposit.\nMotion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Unanimous approval.\n7-B. Case 692.1 - 101 Crolls Garden Ct.\nTenant: Steve Devaney\nLandlord: Kumari Judge and Steve Hofer (property manager)\nProposed Rent Increase: $82.00 (4.9%), effective March 7, 2017\nMs. Judge expressed concern that the tenant had damaged property while searching for\ntermites. She explained that other tenants pay $2,600 for comparable units and the rent for this\nunit has not been raised for over a year. She stated that she considers an increase of 5% is\nreasonable and noted that she relies on the property's income for her retirement.\nMr. Hofer explained that he has only begun working for the property in the last year and a half.\nHe is currently working on taking care of the maintenance issues raised by the tenant. He stated\nthat all health and safety issues have been addressed. He explained that the property's security\ngate was updated recently. He agreed to inspect the unit and address maintenance concerns\nraised by the tenant.\nThe tenant, Mr. Devaney, explained that he did not damage property to investigate termite and\ndry rot issues. He explained that there are several outstanding maintenance and safety concerns\non the property. He stated that the landlord had committed to address these maintenance issues\nat a 2015 Committee meeting and many of the issues remain unresolved. He expressed concern\nfor other tenants on the property who are also receiving rent increases without improvement to\nthe property. Mr. Devaney also stated that this increase is a financial burden for his family.\nVice-Chair Landess clarified that the Committee cannot inspect a unit to address\nmaintenance issues. If there the tenant would like to request an inspection, a request must\nbe sent to Code Enforcement, Building Department.\nMember Friedman suggested that Mr. Hofer and Mr. Devaney make a schedule to address\nmaintenance issues.\nMr. Hofer stated that it would take six to eight months to address all concerns raised by the\ntenant. However, the issues related to dry rot could be addressed in about two weekends. The\ntenant stated that if the maintenance issues are addressed on the agreed schedule, he would\naccept the rent increase. Both parties agreed they would work out a schedule for the repairs.\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-20", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 20, 2017\nThe\nCommittee made the following non-binding recommendation to recognize the\ntenant/landlord's oral agreement:\n-\n$81.50 (4.8%) rent increase from $1,688.50 to $1,770.00, effective April 1, 2017 (three-\nweek delay). The Committee also encouraged both parties to communicate and address the\nmaintenance concerns.\nMotion and second (Griffiths and Landess). Unanimous approval.\n7-C. CASE 696.1 - 107 Crolls Garden Ct.\nTenant: Michael Pacheco\nLandlord: Kumari Judge and Steve Hofer (property manager)\nProposed Rent Increase: $82.00 (4.9%), effective March 7, 2017\nMs. Judge explained that other tenants are paying $2,500 for comparable units and she believes\na 5% is reasonable. She stated that she relies on the property's income for retirement. Mr.\nHofer noted that he is committed to the upkeep of the property.\nMr. Pacheco explained that the current state of the property causes him concern for his health\nand safety as well as health and safety of the tenants. Mr. Pacheco also acknowledged he is\naware he can make a complaint to Code Enforcement, but hoped he could resolve the matter\nwithout having to go that route. He noted that he has paid for many repairs in the unit. He\nstated that he has worked with Mr. Hofer to establish a maintenance request system and to\ndiffuse tensions between other tenants and management. Mr. Pacheco noted that there is a price\nand quality difference between his unit and a unit for a new tenant. He also stated that this\nincrease is a financial burden for his family since he is recently unemployed and much of his\ntime is spent caring for a relative.\nMs. Judge stated that if the tenant has receipts for his repairs in the unit, she would reimburse\nhim the expenses. Mr. Hofer noted that he intends to work with the tenant to address the\nmaintenance concerns. The landlord also agreed to delay the rent increase until April 1, 2017.\nThe tenant confirmed that he would be accept the increase if maintenance issues are addressed.\nThe Committee made the following non-binding recommendation to recognize the\ntenant/landlord's oral agreement:\n-\n$81.50 (4.8%) rent increase from $1,688.50 to $1,770.00, effective April 1, 2017. The\nCommittee also recommended that the landlord address the maintenance concerns raised\nby the tenant.\nMotion and second (Griffiths and Friedman). Unanimous approval.\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-03-20", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMarch 20, 2017\n7-D. Case 697.1 - 111 Crolls Garden Ct.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Member Friedman noted that he will be absent at the April 4th Committee meeting.\nb. Staff stated that Jeff Cambra was nominated on March 7th by the Mayor to fill the vacant\nHousing Provider position on the Committee. City Council will decide whether to confirm\nMr. Cambra at City Council's March 21st meeting.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\na.\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-04-03", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nApril 3, 2017\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, April 3, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair: Sullivan-Sarinana; Vice-Chair: Landess; Members Cambra and Griffiths\nAbsent: Member Friedman\nRRAC Staff: Jennifer Kauffman\nCity Attorney Staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff recommended addressing item 7-P first, as only the tenant for this unit was present.\nMotion and second (Landess and Griffiths) Unanimous approval.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff welcomed newly appointed Committee member Jeff Cambra.\nb. Staff stated that City Council will meet April 4, 2017 to review Rent Program staff's annual\nreport and consider amendments to Ordinance no. 3148.\nc. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and\nprocedures for public comment.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's fair housing and tenant-\nlandlord mediation services.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes from the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting.\nMotion and second to continue this item to a future Committee meeting when three Committee\nmembers who attended the January 24th meeting are present. (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Landess)\nUnanimous approval.\nb. Approval of the Minutes from the February 22, 2017 Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second (Griffiths and Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana) Unanimous approval.\nc.\nApproval of the Minutes from the March 6, 2017 Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second to continue this item to a future Committee meeting when three Committee\nmembers who attended the March 6th meeting are present. (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Landess)\nUnanimous approval.\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-04-03", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nApril 3, 2017\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-P. CASE 762.1 - 1940 Franciscan Way, Unit 319\nTenant: Rhonda Jones and Shallen SoBrian (daughter)\nLandlord: Judith Murray\nProposed Rent Increase: $75.00 (4.5%), effective June 1, 2017\nMs. Murray explained that she is raising rent to cover expenses such as property taxes, loan payments,\nand renovations. She stated that $36.00 of the $75.00 will cover increased property taxes and she is\nspending about $100 per month on property improvements. Ms. Murray also explained that she\nexpects to repair the parking lot in the coming year and the estimated costs are $80,000-$100,000. She\nemphasized that she wants to treat tenants fairly by giving everyone the same increase.\nMs. Jones stated that she has lived in the unit for over 10 years and has always paid her rent on time.\nShe explained that this rent increase poses a financial burden for her and she is asking for the landlord\nto recognize her situation. Her daughter, Shallen Jones, expressed concerns that the rent increase is\nretaliatory given their maintenance requests.\nMs. Murray clarified that the City had shut off water to repair pipes and that this rent increase was not\nin retaliation, stating every tenant receives the same rent increase. She restated her need to treat\neveryone at the property the same, though recognized the tenant is in a difficult situation. She offered\nan immediate return of the tenant's security deposit to accommodate the tenant's current financial\ndifficulty.\nThe tenants agreed to accept the rent increase and a full and immediate return of the security deposit.\nThe Committee made the following non-binding recommendation to recognize the tenant/landlord's\noral agreement:\n$75.00 (4.5%) rent increase from $1,595 to $1,670, effective June 1, 2017. The Committee also\nencouraged parties to discuss the oral agreement reached at the meeting for the landlord to make\na full return and immediate return of the security deposit.\nMotion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1an: and Cambra). Unanimous approval.\n7-A. CASE 764 - 310 Westline Drive, Unit B304\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-04-03", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nApril 3, 2017\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $72.00 (3.1%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $620.00 (26.9%); Under review\nEffective date: April 15, 2017\nMs. Edwards explained that often tenants with rent increases scheduled for the Committee's review\ndo not attend the Committee meeting because the plan to accept the less than 5%, 12-month option,\nbut have not yet signed the lease. She stated that many tenants choose to negotiate privately with\nproperty managers closer to their renewal date.\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent\nincrease notice.\n7-B. CASE 769 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D110\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $96.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $618.00 (31.9%); Under review\nEffective date: April 29, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent\nincrease notice.\n7-C. CASE 771 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D210\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $98.00 (4.5%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $598.00 (30.5%); Under review\nEffective date: April 8, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent\nincrease notice.\n7-D. CASE 772 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D226\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-04-03", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nApril 3, 2017\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $22.00 (1.1%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $688.00 (33.0%); Under review\nEffective date: April 30, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent\nincrease notice.\n7-E. CASE 774 - 909 Shorepoint Court, Unit D303\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $68.00 (1.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $677.00 (19.2.0%); Under review\nEffective date: April 14, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-F. CASE 779 - 941 Shorepoint Court, Unit F214\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $54.00 (1.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $627.00 (22.2%); Under review\nEffective date: April 20, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-G. CASE 780 - 941 Shorepoint Court, Unit F321\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $92.00 (4.7%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $602.00 (30.8%); Under review\nEffective date: April 28, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written documentation\nto the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-H. CASE 781 - 941 Shorepoint Court, Unit F323\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $46.00 (1.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $594.00 (25.0%); Under review\nEffective date: April 26, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-I. CASE 788 - 1921 Willow St.\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-04-03", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nApril 3, 2017\nProposed Rent Increase: $1, 100.00 (84.6%), effective May 1, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease above 10%.\n7-J. CASE 790 - 937 Shorepoint Court, Unit G313\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $80.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $586.00 (36.5%); Under review\nEffective date: April 16, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent\nincrease notice.\n7-K. CASE 792 - 915 Shorepoint Court, Unit E135\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $132.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $758.00 (28.7%); Under review\nEffective date: May 1,2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-L. CASE 794 - 915 Shorepoint Court, Unit E117\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $83.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $526.00 (31.4%); Under review\nEffective date: May 1, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-M. CASE 796 - 310 Shorepoint Court, Unit B110\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $91.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $607.00 (32.9%); Under review\nEffective date: April 29, 2017\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-04-03", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nApril 3, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent\nincrease notice.\n7-N. CASE 789 - 300 Westline Drive, Unit A110\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $86.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $561.00 (32.4.0%); Under review\nEffective date: May 1, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-O. CASE 799 - 937 Shorepoint Court, Unit G309\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $89.00 (4.7%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $620.00 (32.8%); Under review\nEffective date: May 1, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took no\naction and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the rent\nincrease notice.\n7-Q. CASE 804 - 215 Hudson Bay\na.\nCase postponed one month to the May 1, 2017 Committee meeting.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. Speaker Robert Schrader explained his experience as a Committee Member and his reasons\nfor resigning from the Committee.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Vice-Chair Landess requested a discussion at the meeting of non-binding case reviews and\ntenant absences for agenized rent increase.\nb. Chair Sullivan-Sarinana requested input from other Committee members for the Committee's\nrecommendations to City Council at the April 4, 2017 meeting. Staff clarified that input must\nbe limited to clarifying items and not a full discussion of the matters as the matter was not\nagendized. Per the Chair's request, staff provided information on the schedule for Ordinance\namendments to be approved by the City Council.\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-04-03", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nApril 3, 2017\nc. Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana requested a discussion of the coming vacancies on the Committee for\nthe next agenda.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:48 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, May 1, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Vice-Chair Landess; Members Cambra and\nFriedman\nAbsent: Member Griffiths\nCommittee Staff: Jennifer Kauffman\nCity Attorney Staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff noted that the only tenant present at the meeting was the tenant for the agenda item\n7-AF. Motion and second (Sullivan Sari\u00f1ana and Landess) to hear agenda item 7-AF first.\nUnanimous approval.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na.\nStaff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and\nprocedures for public comment.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's fair housing and tenant-\nlandlord mediation services.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na.\nApproval of the Minutes from the January 24, 2017 Special Meeting.\nAgenda item continued to a future Committee meeting when three Committee members\nare present who attended or listened to the audio of the January 24th Committee meeting.\nb. Approval of the Minutes from the March 6, 2017 Regular Meeting.\n6. Agenda item continued to a future Committee meeting when three Committee members are\npresent who attended or listened to the audio of the March 6th Committee meeting.\n7. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n8. NEW BUSINESS\nPage 1 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\n7-AF. CASE 805.1 - 2006 Santa Clara Ave.\nTenant: Roberto De La Torre\nLandlord: Mortimer Howard and Felicia Howard\nProposed Rent Increase: $350.00 (12.5%) effective June 1, 2017.\nMr. Howard explained that the rent increase is an effort to earn a fair return on investment and that\nthe unit's rent is below the market rate. He considered market rate for a comparable unit to be\n$3,400 based on his online research and conversations with real estate agents. He stated that the\nquality and location of the unit contributes to its value. Mr. Howard noted that he made costly\nimprovements to the kitchen, floors, backyard, and roof when he purchased the property. Both Mr.\nHoward and his daughter expressed a desire to reach an agreement with the tenant.\nMr. De La Torre explained there was a miscommunication with his landlord during the initial\nconversation of the rent increase. He was not informed of his rights in the notice and therefore the\nlandlord was required to re-notice the rent increase. Mr. De La Torre stated this rent increase\nrequest poses a financial burden for his family. He also noted that he felt pressure from his landlord\nto accept the increase or move. Mr. De La Torre raised some concerns about the maintenance of\nthe back fence and explained that he works hard to maintain the property to the best of his ability.\nHe stated that an increase of $200.00 is more reasonable and affordable.\nCommittee members asked about the number of tenants and bedrooms. Mr. De La Torre clarified\nthat there are three adults and six children in the unit. He also clarified that they use two bedrooms,\na converted living room, and a finished basement as a total of four sleeping rooms. Committee\nmembers requested that staff explain the fair housing occupancy standards. Staff described the two\npeople per bedroom, plus one, guidelines.\nMembers asked several questions of both parties to facilitate dialogue. The parties were unable to\nreach an agreement.\nCommittee members concluded the conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation\nbetween members to render a recommendation.\nMember Friedman noted the history of rent increases: four years of 5% increases, and more\nrecently, two years of higher increases. He explained that the rent increase request is high,\nbut also that the number of occupants is also high. He stated that he would support\nrecommending a 10% increase.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana expressed concern for the tenant's ability to afford the requested\nincrease. He explained that the requested 12% increase was very large. He added that the\nCommittee does not consider market rent into their recommendation. He recommended an\nincrease of 10%.\nPage 2 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\nMember Cambra expressed concern that the return on investment calculation may be\nmisrepresented depending on the actual number of bedrooms in the unit. He noted that the\nCommittee does not consider the market rent in their recommendation. He agreed that the\nhigh number of tenants in the unit creates a burden on the property. He stated that an\nincrease above 5% is justified, but expressed concern about the tenant's ability to pay. He\nsupported an increase 10%.\nVice-Chair Landess noted that both the tenant and the landlord take pride in the property.\nShe agreed that the number of tenants in the unit adds to wear and tear. She supported a\n10% increase with the stipulation that all the tenant's maintenance concerns are addressed.\nThe Committee made the following non-binding recommendation:\n-\n$280.00 (10.0%) rent increase from $2,800 to $3,080.00, effective June 1, 2017.\nMotion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Cambra). Unanimous approval.\n7-A. CASE 804 - 215 Hudson Bay\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Absent\nProposed Rent Increase: $1,525.00 (51.2%) effective March 7, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the landlord withdrew the rent increase\nrequest. The tenant is purchasing the property.\n7-B. CASE 818 - 2701 San Jose Ave.\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Absent\nProposed Rent Increase: $150.00 (7.5%) effective May 1, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-C. CASE 820 - 300 Westline Dr., A205\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $49.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $673.00 (27.3%); Under review\nPage 3 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\nEffective date: May 31, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-D. CASE 821 - 300 Westline Dr., A301\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $135.00 (5.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $680.00 (25.2%); Under review\nEffective date: May 2, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-E. CASE 823 - 310 Westline Dr., B206\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $84.00 (4.7%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $592.00 (33.0%); Under review\nEffective date: May 25, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-F. CASE 824 - 330 Westline Dr., B225\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $103.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $597.00 (28.8%); Under review\nEffective date: May 28, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\nPage 4 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\n7-G. CASE 825 - 344 Westline Dr., C112\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $89.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $543.00 (30.5%); Under review\nEffective date: June 1, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-H. CASE 826 - 344 Westline Dr., C114\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $56.00 (1.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $646.00 (22.7%); Under review\nEffective date: May 10, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-I. CASE 827 - 344 Westline Dr., C211\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $94.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $588.00 (31.0%); Under review\nEffective date: May 24, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-J. CASE 828 - 344 Westline Dr., C215\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\nPage 5 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\n12-month lease - $82.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $512.00 (31.0%); Under review\nEffective date: May 17, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-K. CASE 829 - 344 Westline Dr., C227\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $82.00 (3.6%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $656.00 (28.8%); Under review\nEffective date: May 23, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-L. CASE 830 - 344 Westline Dr., C228\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $105.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $642.00 (30.5%); Under review\nEffective date: May 28, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-M. CASE 831 - 344 Westline Dr., C311\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $81.00 (3.6%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $655.00 (28.8%); Under review\nEffective date: May 21, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written\ndocumentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\nPage 6 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\n7-N. CASE 832 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., D205\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $73.00 (2.6%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $677.00 (24.4%); Under review\nEffective date: June 1, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written\ndocumentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-O. CASE 833 - 909 Shorepoint Ct., D312\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $43.00 (1.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $611.00 (28.1%); Under review\nEffective date: May 6, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written\ndocumentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-P. CASE 834 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E101\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $78.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $466.00 (29.6%); Under review\nEffective date: May 15, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-Q. CASE 835 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E107\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nPage 7 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 8, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $109.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $576.00 (26.2%); Under review\nEffective date: May 18, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-R. CASE 836 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E111\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $112.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $600.00 (26.6%); Under review\nEffective date: May 24, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-S. CASE 837 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E119\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $81.00 (3.6%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $652.00 (29.1%); Under review\nEffective date: May 29, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-T. CASE 838 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E206\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $115.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $615.00 (26.5%); Under review\nEffective date: May 24, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\nPage 8 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 9, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\n7-U. CASE 839 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E214\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $113.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $604.00 (26.6%); Under review\nEffective date: May 26, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-V. CASE 840 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E228\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $71.00 (3.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $594.00 (32.9%); Under review\nEffective date: May 10, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant provided written\ndocumentation to the landlord that they will vacate the unit.\n7-W. CASE 841 - 915 Shorepoint Ct., E324\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $57.00 (1.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $657.00 (22.9%); Under review\nEffective date: May 26, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-X. CASE 842 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F107\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nPage 9 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 10, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $88.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $550.00 (31.0%); Under review\nEffective date: May 15, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-Y. CASE 843 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F117\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $69.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $461.00 (33.0%); Under review\nEffective date: May 18, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-Z. CASE 844 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F129\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $37.00 (1.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $564.00 (30.4%); Under review\nEffective date: May 25, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-AA. CASE 845 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F133\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $67.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $444.00 (32.9%); Under review\nEffective date: May 24, 2017\nPage 10 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 11, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-AB. CASE 846 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F233\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $37.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $560.00 (30.4%); Under review\nEffective date: May 20, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-AC. CASE 847 - 941 Shorepoint Ct., F315\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $46.00 (2.4%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $571.00 (30.3%); Under review\nEffective date: May 22, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-AD. CASE 848 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., G116\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $110.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $649.00 (29.3%); Under review\nEffective date: May 2, 2017\nNo Committee review. The tenant did not attend the meeting. Hence, the Committee took\nno action and the rent increase for either option is effective as of the effective date in the\nrent increase notice.\n7-AE. CASE 849 - 937 Shorepoint Ct., G217\nPage 11 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 12, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\nTenant: Absent\nLandlord: Katie Edwards, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.\nProposed Rent Increases:\n12-month lease - $76.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $502.00 (33.0%); Under review\nEffective date: May 24, 2017\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-AG. Committee members will discuss the role of maintenance concerns as it applies to\nthe rent review process.\nMember Cambra explained that previous Committees had used maintenance concerns as a\nnegotiating tool, but did not enforce maintenance agreements. He noted that maintenance\ncontributes to the value of the property and is relevant to the tenant-landlord discussion. Vice-chair\nLandess asked staff for clarification regarding the ability of the Committee to consider\nmaintenance. Member Friedman noted that maintenance is relevant to the tenant-landlord\nrelationship.\nStaff clarified that the Committee has the authority to render recommendations concerning the\namount the rent increase. In determining the reasonable amount of a rent increase, the Committee\nmay take into consideration maintenance concerns that result in a decrease in housing services.\nHowever, it is not within the Committee's authority to require maintenance as a stipulation of a\nrent increase.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana expressed concern that the public may not be informed of the Committee's\nscope. Member Friedman suggested that parties access mediation services or the courts to address\nmaintenance concerns. Vice-Chair Landess emphasized that the Committee's involvement in the\ncase ends when a recommendation is given.\nStaff clarified that parties are given the option of free, private mediation before the Committee\nmeeting. Staff explained that parties can come to an agreement on their own terms and that staff\nacknowledges this agreement. Staff also noted that in addition to any written documents,\nagreements reached at the Committee meeting are captured in audio recording.\nVice-Chair Landess requested that staff provide additional training on the matter.\nPublic comment:\nSpeaker Toni Grimm stated that parties always run out of time during the meeting. She\nexplained that if tenants know maintenance issues will not be considered, they can spend\nmore time talking about financial burden and other important factors. She also explained\nPage 12 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 13, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\nthat outside parties should not contact Committee members directly. She stated that these\nparties should attend the Committee meetings and give public comment.\n7-AG. Discussion of trends and concerns with rent increases from large properties.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana clarified that he intended this item allow for a discussion of the\nCommittee's non-binding decisions for rent increases equal to or less than 5%. He noted that there\nare very few tenants that bring cases to the Committee for rent increases equal to or less than 5%.\nHe expressed concern that tenants may be unaware of the option to request reviews and asked if\nthere are opportunities to communicate the RRAC process to the public. Member Friedman\nsuggested that the Chair write a letter to the newspaper to inform tenants of the review process.\nStaff explained that the program administrator is responsible for outreach and education. Staff\nsummarized some of the most recent outreach efforts and the City Attorney staff identified that\nthe Committee's scope is specific to rent increase reviews.\nPublic comment:\nSpeaker Toni Grimm stated that she believes many tenants with increases equal to or less\nthan 5% do not request rent increase reviews because the Committee's decision is non-\nbinding. Moreover, tenants are concerned with creating a confrontational dynamic with\ntheir landlord.\nSpeaker Trish Spencer stated that Committee members are welcome to attend City Council\nmeetings and give public comment in an effort to educate the public. She also noted that\nthe City Council can share information about the RRAC process.\n7-AG. Upcoming opportunities to become a RRAC member.\nStaff announced that two Committee member terms expire on June 30, 2017. There is currently\nan open call for applications to fill one tenant and one landlord seat. More information can be\nfound on www.alamedarentprogram.org and by contacting the City Clerk's office. Chair Sullivan-\nSari\u00f1ana expressed appreciation for the current members' service and encouraged current\nmembers to re-apply.\n9. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n10. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Staff announced that the next Committee meeting is scheduled for June 5, 2017.\nb. Staff announced that City Council will meet on May 16, 2017 to consider amendments to\nOrdinance no. 3148. Vice-Chair Landess requested that staff forward the meeting agenda\nto the Committee.\nPage 13 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-05-01", "page": 14, "text": "Approved Minutes\nMay 1, 2017\nc. Staff announced that Program Administrator and City Attorney staff are looking to\nschedule a training for Committee members.\nd. Member Friedman asked for clarification on the procedures if a member is familiar with\nan individual scheduled on the agenda. Staff explained that when a Committee member is\nfamiliar with a party, the member must notify staff prior to the RRAC meeting and staff\nwill give further direction.\n11. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCommittee Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on July 5, 2017.\nPage 14 of 14", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-05-01.pdf"}