body,date,page,text,path
OpenGovernmentCommission,2017-10-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY
OCTOBER 2, 2017 - - - 7:00 P.M.
Vice Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Henneberry, Little, Schwartz, and
Vice Chair Dieter - 4.
Absent:
Chair Foreman - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Minutes of the February 6, 2017 Meeting
Vice Chair Dieter stated the minutes should reflect a minor change to correct her
suggested title to ""Accept the Annual Public Report on Alleged Violations of the
Sunshine Ordinance and the Number of Public Records Requests.""
The Assistant City Clerk took note of Vice Chair Dieter's comments.
Commissioner Schwartz moved approval of the February 6, 2017 Minutes.
Commissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
[Absent: Chair Foreman - 1.]
3-B. Select Chair and Vice Chair
Commissioner Little inquired what the discussion was at the February 6 meeting
regarding the election of officers.
The Assistant City Clerk responded that in response to an inquiry by Chair Foreman
about when the election of officers took place, it was determined that the election takes
place in February, according to the by-laws; however, the last election was in October,
2016; the Commission could do the election tonight or wait until February 2018.
Vice Chair Dieter stated that she recommends doing the election tonight since there are
no other agenda items.
Commissioner Henneberry stated that on most of the Boards and Commissions he has
served, the Vice Chair steps up to the Chair, and then another member, usually the
most senior person on the Board, fills the Vice Chair seat; stated he is prepared to
make a motion.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 2, 2017",OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2017-10-02,2,"Commissioner Henneberry nominated Vice Chair Dieter as Chair and Commissioner
Little as Vice Chair.
Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
4. [Absent: Chair Foreman - 1.]
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Schwartz stated there was a recent California Supreme Court case that
directly addresses the California Public Records Request Act; inquired whether the
Assistant City Attorney could share more information on the case.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the California Supreme Court ruled on whether or not
an email on a personal electronic device is considered public record; the California
Supreme Court stated public records requests need to involve factual findings and
materials from a personal device may be reviewed so long as it is relevant to the
inquiry; further stated that Alameda has not had such a request since the Supreme
Court ruling.
Commissioner Schwartz stated a balancing test would eventually be developed so
requests are not overly invasive, especially for public officials and volunteer
commissioners/board members.
Chair Dieter inquired the time frame of the annual report, to which the Assistant City
Attorney responded the report will be provided at the next meeting.
Chair Dieter stated the City Council discussed bringing its Rules of Order to the Open
Government Commission for feedback; inquired the status.
The Assistant City Attorney responded a Council subcommittee will review the Rules of
Order and plans to do so in conjunction with the Open Government Commission; stated
it has not happened due to the current Council workload; the City Manager placed the
item on the referral status spreadsheet; he will provide a status update to the
Commission.
In response to Commissioner Schwartz inquiry on the time frame, the Assistant City
Attorney stated he will have a better idea of the time frame once the Council is able to
begin addressing the items on the spreadsheet; hopefully, it will be reviewed and placed
on the next Open Government Commission meeting agenda in February.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. in
honor of the Las Vegas shooting victims.
Meeting
Open Government Commission
February 6, 2017
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2017-10-02,3,"Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
Assistant City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 2, 2017",OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-10-02,1,"Draft Minutes
October 2, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, October 2, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Friedman, Murray
Absent was:
Member Griffiths
Committee Staff:
Jennifer Kauffman, Janice Heredia, Grant Eshoo
City Attorney staff:
John Le, Michael Roush
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that two cases on the agenda will not be heard. As
those cases are called, staff will provide more detail.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff explained where to find meeting minutes, agendas, and other materials
relating to the RRAC meeting and Rent Program, both printed and online.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem provided an overview of ECHO's housing services. She
provided flyers and business cards for the public.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. No items on the consent calendar.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 911 - 2904 Central Avenue
Tenant: Valerie Adams
Landlord: Jack Sullivan
Current Rent: $2,025 for a 3-bedroom single family residence.
Proposed Rent Increase: $1,556.26 (76.9%) for a total rent of $3,581.96, effective
September 1, 2017
Third-party rent decision: Non-binding
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-10-02,2,"Draft Minutes
October 2, 2017
Mr. Sullivan stated the purpose of the rent increase is related to a need for additional
income because the landlords are retired and have a fixed income. Mr. Sullivan stated
that Ms. Adams has been a good tenant for 13 years. The landlords are requesting this
increase due to the property's operating costs and the landlord's interest in a return on
the investment. He stated that market rate for a comparable unit would be near $4,500
and the rent increase is an effort to raise the rent closer to market value. Mr. Sullivan
explained that $7,500 has been spent to repair the roof. Additional expenses are
anticipated for further repairs.
Ms. Adams stated that she had resided at the unit for 13 years and has completed many
repairs herself. She raised concerns over current maintenance issues and stated code
enforcement is currently reviewing the property. She explained that there have not been
repairs or improvements that would justify the requested rent increase.
Committee members asked to review supporting documents related to the maintenance
issues. The parties discussed issues the timeline and nature of roof repairs. Staff clarified
that the Building Department resolves concerns regarding code violations.
Ms. Adams stated she would be willing to pay a $250 increase if repairs were completed.
Mr. Sullivan was not willing to accept less than the proposed increase.
Motion and second for 15 minute extension passed the 40 minute review (Cambra and
Friedman).
The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the
conversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to
render an advisory recommendation.
Member Friedman identified three considerations for this case: 1). what is
reasonable rent for this property; 2). what is the landlord's reasonable return; 3).
how does the housing services and condition of the maintenance issues impact the
reasonable rent. Friedman noted that had the rent increased around 3% each year
over the 13 years of tenancy, the rent would be around $2,850. This would have
helped create a reserve for repairs. He noted that he did not hear the tenant raise
financial concerns regarding the rent. Friedman explained the landlord has the
option to get a loan for the repairs. He recommended a $400 rent increase, noting
the landlord has the option to increase rent the next year.
Member Sullivan-Sariñana stated he agrees the difficulty of the current situation
appears to be stemming from the lack of previous rent increase over the tenancy.
He does not believe that the tenant should be punished for the landlord's business
decisions. The timeline of maintenance issues causes him concern that the tenant
has decreased housing services for an extended period of time. He acknowledged
that the option for a roommate is important to consider given the Bay Area housing
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-10-02,3,"Draft Minutes
October 2, 2017
dynamic. He stated he would be inclined to agree with Member Friedman's
recommendation.
Member Murray noted that it is clear the property is in need of repairs. It appears
the landlord will need a rent increase to afford the repairs and the tenant does not
believe an increase is justified until the repairs are complete. She explained that
the rent would be at a reasonable place had the landlord raised the rent around
5% over the tenancy. Murray stated that ultimately the $3,600 requested total
rent is reasonable for the property. However, she does not believe it is reasonable
to request the increase all at once. She also noted there is one tenant living in a
3-bedroom house. She recommended a $600 rent increase with $300 delayed for
six months. She acknowledged she would support the $400 proposal if the amount
became effective immediately.
Chair Cambra explained the landlord has control over the rent in an increasing
market. Looking over the tenancy, it is necessary to acknowledge that rents when
up and down. He is concerned with the burden on the tenant when a landlord is
looking to catch-up on rents when they did not raise rents annually. He explained
major repairs, such as a roof, are often not expensed as they are amortized over
the useful life of the improvement. He noted that the landlord will have the
opportunity for a rent increase every year. He also acknowledged roofs can be
difficult to repair and does not see negligence on the landlord. He stated he agrees
with Member Friedman's $400 recommendation.
Motion and second for $400 rent increase to a total rent of $2,420, effective September
1, 2017 (Friedman and Cambra). Motion passes with Murray approval; Sullivan-Sariñana
opposed.
7-B. CASE 929 - 877 Cedar Street
Proposed rent increase: $1,080.00 (45.6%), to total rent of $3,450.00
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenants gave the landlord a
notice to vacate.
7-C. CASE 930 - 611 Santa Clara Ave., #D
Proposed rent increase: $685.00 (46.0%), to total rent of $2,175.00
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenants gave the landlord a
notice to vacate.
7-D - CASE 932 - 2220 San Antonio Ave.
Tenant: Susan Ostlund
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-10-02,4,"Draft Minutes
October 2, 2017
Landlord: Dave Petersen
Current Rent: $1,701 for a 2-bedroom duplex
Proposed Rent Increase: $85.00 (5.0%), to total rent of $1,786.00, effective
October, 2017
Recommendation: Non-binding
Chair Cambra recused himself on a non-financial grounds.
Ms. Ostlund stated that she is an army veteran, 100 percent disabled, on a fixed
income of $2,900 a month and not likely to increase anytime soon. She believes the
Ordinance was put into place to help people like her. She acknowledged her right to
withhold sensitive medical information, but nonetheless, stated she wanted to share
that she has metastatic breast cancer and her medical care providers are concerned
about her access to a stable living environment. The history of rent increases has
pushed her near the limits of her ability to pay based on her fixed income. She stated
the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase would be $32.32 (1.9%) due to
financial burden.
Mr. Petersen stated that he believes requested rent increase is fair, not excessive, and
that necessary to keep up with maintenance costs. He considers the current rent
below market rate and explained that the rent does not cover the property expenses.
He is concerned that without a rent increase it will be difficult to continue to make
needed repairs. He stated he was making a concession by only requesting a 5%
increase because he is sympathetic to her serious medical condition and understands
she has a fixed income. Mr. Petersen explained that Ms. Ostlund was not the original
tenant and the rent was originally set low as a curtesy to the individual originally on
the lease. Committee members asked questions regarding income sources and
flexibility with adding a roommate to the unit.
Motion and second for 15 minute extension passed the 40 minute review (Sullivan-
Sariñana and Murray).
Committee members facilitated dialogue between parties. The tenant and the
landlord agreed to a $50 rent increase effective October 1, 2017 with an additional
$35 (which would bring the increase to 5%) delayed until January 1, 2018.
7-E - Discussion of time-keeping mechanisms
No Committee review because the device under review was not at the meeting.
The item will be moved to the next available meeting agenda.
Motion and second to hear 7-G next and call to 7-F if time permits (Cambra and Murray).
Motion passes unanimously.
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-10-02,5,"Draft Minutes
October 2, 2017
7-F. Discussion of policy input regarding the written letters and resources
provided to RRAC participants prior to a case
No Committee review as time did not permit for item discussion. The item will be
moved to the next available meeting agenda.
7-G. Committee members to review CAO guidance on using just and
reasonable rate of return and tenant's financial hardship as factors in the
RRAC deliberation process
Michael Roush, Assistant City Attorney, presented the memo concerning CAO
guidance on just and reasonable rate of return and the tenant's financial hardship as
factors in the RRAC deliberation process. Mr. Roush answered Committee members'
questions to clarify their understanding of the memo.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 1.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Member Friedman requested clarity on the case review process.
b. Cambra requested an agenda item for the following meeting to discuss the
Committee's procedures for facilitating dialogue relevant to Case 911. Motion and
second with unanimous approval (Cambra and Sullivan-Sariñana).
c. Member Sullivan-Sariñana requested staff follow-up to clarify the nature of the
discussion for agenda item 7-F.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:56pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Draft until approved
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf