{"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": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-02-22", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes\nWednesday February 22,2017\nCommissioner Michele Bellows called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nMichele Bellows (Chair)\nJesus Vargas\nGregory Morgado\nThomas G. Bertken\nSamantha Soules\nMembers Absent:\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nMichael Hans\nStaff Present:\nJennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nVictoria Williams, Paratransit Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said he subscribed to the Transportation Commission mailing\nlist and receives notifications ahead of time. He explained that he received an email notification\nthat the January meeting was cancelled, but he did not receive an email notification for February.\nRegarding the Posey Tube, he said he's been riding through it during the rainy weather and he\ndoes not like the new paneling design along the roadway because it is solid paneling and now has\ngraffiti on it. He said he has yet to see if Caltrans cleaned it up because he hasn't been through\nthe tube in the past couple of weeks, so maybe they cleaned it up. He thanked Public Works for\nthe Clement Street striping project because the road contains plenty of space for him to bicycle.\nCommissioner Bertken said the panels are up to protect the bicyclists.\nJim Strehlow replied that he used to easily pass another bicyclist coming the opposite direction\nPage 1 of 4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-02-22", "page": 2, "text": "by leaning the bicycle over the railing.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4.A. Approve Meeting Minutes - November 16, 2016\nCommissioner Soules moved to approve the November 16, 2016 minutes. Commissioner\nMorgado seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.\n5.\nNew Business\n5.A. Approve City of Alameda Paratransit Program Plan for Fiscal Year 2017/2018\nStaff Payne presented the report and introduced Victoria Williams, Alameda Paratransit\nCoordinator, who was formerly the Paratransit Coordinator for the city of Hayward.\nStaff Williams stated that the program is wonderful and exciting and she has worked with seniors\nand people with disabilities for over 30 years. She explained that she was ready to learn what is\ngoing on in Alameda and make it even more exciting for people to get around.\nStaff Payne replied that Victoria Williams will be located at the Mastick Senior Center and she\nfelt that it was a perfect location because there are a number of seniors who are part of the\nprogram and she would be able to interact with stakeholders and non-profits. She noted that the\nprogram is funded by Measure B and Measure BB administrated by the Alameda County\nTransportation Commission and staff is required to produce an annual application for this\nprogram, which is due March 2017.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if the expenditures that are planned are sustainable for several\nyears under Measures B and BB funding.\nStaff Payne replied yes.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if they will always receive that amount from Measures B and\nBB.\nStaff Payne replied that it depends on the economy because currently they're experiencing an\neconomic boom. However, staff does not expect it to always remain this high and sales tax can\nvary, so they budgeted very conservatively. She went on to say they have the ability to reduce\nthe amount of subsidy with the taxi program and they just increased it to reduce the reserves.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if the stops are marked.\nStaff Payne replied most stops are marked others are not. She explained that some shopping\ncenters did not want a physical shuttle stop sign located on their property. Staff works with the\nriders to let them know where they would be picked up and dropped off.\nPage 2 of 4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-02-22", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the routes and days/times of service are located on the City\nwebsite.\nStaff Payne replied yes and they are going to improve the map and schedule as well.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff if the $200,000 capital funding is a one-time need for this year\nand what does that include.\nStaff Payne replied the $200,000 includes several different expenditures and the most important\nones were changing out the shuttle flags and rebranding the system to say \"Alameda Loop\" and\nthat's a one-time deal. She stated that changing out the poles and bus benches are one-time\nexpenditures that relate to seniors and people with disabilities.\nCommissioner Bertken said the presentation was conducted in a good and clear manner.\nCommissioner Soules moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Morgado\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.\n5.B. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans\nJennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse and Transportation Planning, presented the report.\nStaff Payne presented an update on the Public Works projects.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.\nJim Strehlow said regarding the Line 19, when he was driving he became stuck behind the\nwestbound bus on February 3. He exclaimed that the bus was running ahead of schedule and\nwaited at the stop for 3-4 minutes causing many cars to be stuck behind it. He said there is a left-\nhand turn only lane for vehicles to get into their private driveways and nearby is a double yellow\nline going to Arbor Street and you don't want to go around a bus when there is a double yellow\nline and left hand only turn lane. He stated that the cars eventually went around the bus, but\nwhen the bus is stopped, even if the stop is brief, causes cars to line up behind it. Consequently,\nthis action blocks the street. He said all other City bus stops have parking removed and are on the\nside away from on-coming vehicular traffic, yet when the bus is stopped at the location just past\nStanton Street and before Arbor Street it blocks the street. Therefore, he asked if it's legal for\nthis to take place and he wondered if the bus stop should have been moved further away off the\nstreet or if there needs to be restriping to accommodate the bus stop. Additionally, he said the\nbuses don't stop there and they now stop at Challenger Drive and Atlantic Avenue where he\nworks. He went on to say that Challenger Drive goes into the Marina Shopping Center and he\nsaw Public Works remove the cement barrier for a left hand turn lane, so that eastbound\nmotorists can turn onto Challenger Drive. He said they removed all of that knowing that there\nwould be a bus stop placed. Now, he noted there is only so much room for a car to go around.\nStaff Payne replied AC Transit was looking into their bus run times and the fact that they are\ntaking too long. She explained that AC Transit will be modifying the run times in March, so\nthere shouldn't be anymore buses stopping at time points and bus operators will be better trained.\nPage 3 of 4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-02-22", "page": 4, "text": "However for the interim, between now and March, the buses should not be blocking traffic. She\nsaid she will check with AC Transit to make sure they are not blocking traffic.\nSergeant Derespini, Alameda Police Traffic, stated that Jim Strehlow's comments were valid. He\nexplained that if striping were modified for that section, that would take away from motorists\ntrying to get into their driveways and access the side streets.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n1. Annual Report on the Alameda Landing TDM Program\n2. Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Avenue Gap Closure\n2. I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation Project\n3. Draft Transit/Transportation Demand Management Plan\n4. Transportation Component of FY 17-19 CIP\n7.\nAnnouncements/Public Comments\n8.\nAdjournment\n7:51pm\nPage 4 of 4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-02-22.pdf"}