{"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"}