{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY\nOCTOBER 2, 2017 - - - 7:00 P.M.\nVice Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Henneberry, Little, Schwartz, and\nVice Chair Dieter - 4.\nAbsent:\nChair Foreman - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Minutes of the February 6, 2017 Meeting\nVice Chair Dieter stated the minutes should reflect a minor change to correct her\nsuggested title to \"Accept the Annual Public Report on Alleged Violations of the\nSunshine Ordinance and the Number of Public Records Requests.\"\nThe Assistant City Clerk took note of Vice Chair Dieter's comments.\nCommissioner Schwartz moved approval of the February 6, 2017 Minutes.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n[Absent: Chair Foreman - 1.]\n3-B. Select Chair and Vice Chair\nCommissioner Little inquired what the discussion was at the February 6 meeting\nregarding the election of officers.\nThe Assistant City Clerk responded that in response to an inquiry by Chair Foreman\nabout when the election of officers took place, it was determined that the election takes\nplace in February, according to the by-laws; however, the last election was in October,\n2016; the Commission could do the election tonight or wait until February 2018.\nVice Chair Dieter stated that she recommends doing the election tonight since there are\nno other agenda items.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated that on most of the Boards and Commissions he has\nserved, the Vice Chair steps up to the Chair, and then another member, usually the\nmost senior person on the Board, fills the Vice Chair seat; stated he is prepared to\nmake a motion.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 2, 2017", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Henneberry nominated Vice Chair Dieter as Chair and Commissioner\nLittle as Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Schwartz seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Chair Foreman - 1.]\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Schwartz stated there was a recent California Supreme Court case that\ndirectly addresses the California Public Records Request Act; inquired whether the\nAssistant City Attorney could share more information on the case.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the California Supreme Court ruled on whether or not\nan email on a personal electronic device is considered public record; the California\nSupreme Court stated public records requests need to involve factual findings and\nmaterials from a personal device may be reviewed so long as it is relevant to the\ninquiry; further stated that Alameda has not had such a request since the Supreme\nCourt ruling.\nCommissioner Schwartz stated a balancing test would eventually be developed so\nrequests are not overly invasive, especially for public officials and volunteer\ncommissioners/board members.\nChair Dieter inquired the time frame of the annual report, to which the Assistant City\nAttorney responded the report will be provided at the next meeting.\nChair Dieter stated the City Council discussed bringing its Rules of Order to the Open\nGovernment Commission for feedback; inquired the status.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded a Council subcommittee will review the Rules of\nOrder and plans to do so in conjunction with the Open Government Commission; stated\nit has not happened due to the current Council workload; the City Manager placed the\nitem on the referral status spreadsheet; he will provide a status update to the\nCommission.\nIn response to Commissioner Schwartz inquiry on the time frame, the Assistant City\nAttorney stated he will have a better idea of the time frame once the Council is able to\nbegin addressing the items on the spreadsheet; hopefully, it will be reviewed and placed\non the next Open Government Commission meeting agenda in February.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. in\nhonor of the Las Vegas shooting victims.\nMeeting\nOpen Government Commission\nFebruary 6, 2017\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 3, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nAssistant City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 2, 2017", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2017-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 1, "text": "Draft Minutes\nOctober 2, 2017\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, October 2, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Members\nFriedman, Murray\nAbsent was:\nMember Griffiths\nCommittee Staff:\nJennifer Kauffman, Janice Heredia, Grant Eshoo\nCity Attorney staff:\nJohn Le, Michael Roush\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff informed the Committee that two cases on the agenda will not be heard. As\nthose cases are called, staff will provide more detail.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff explained where to find meeting minutes, agendas, and other materials\nrelating to the RRAC meeting and Rent Program, both printed and online.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem provided an overview of ECHO's housing services. She\nprovided flyers and business cards for the public.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. No items on the consent calendar.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. CASE 911 - 2904 Central Avenue\nTenant: Valerie Adams\nLandlord: Jack Sullivan\nCurrent Rent: $2,025 for a 3-bedroom single family residence.\nProposed Rent Increase: $1,556.26 (76.9%) for a total rent of $3,581.96, effective\nSeptember 1, 2017\nThird-party rent decision: Non-binding\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 2, "text": "Draft Minutes\nOctober 2, 2017\nMr. Sullivan stated the purpose of the rent increase is related to a need for additional\nincome because the landlords are retired and have a fixed income. Mr. Sullivan stated\nthat Ms. Adams has been a good tenant for 13 years. The landlords are requesting this\nincrease due to the property's operating costs and the landlord's interest in a return on\nthe investment. He stated that market rate for a comparable unit would be near $4,500\nand the rent increase is an effort to raise the rent closer to market value. Mr. Sullivan\nexplained that $7,500 has been spent to repair the roof. Additional expenses are\nanticipated for further repairs.\nMs. Adams stated that she had resided at the unit for 13 years and has completed many\nrepairs herself. She raised concerns over current maintenance issues and stated code\nenforcement is currently reviewing the property. She explained that there have not been\nrepairs or improvements that would justify the requested rent increase.\nCommittee members asked to review supporting documents related to the maintenance\nissues. The parties discussed issues the timeline and nature of roof repairs. Staff clarified\nthat the Building Department resolves concerns regarding code violations.\nMs. Adams stated she would be willing to pay a $250 increase if repairs were completed.\nMr. Sullivan was not willing to accept less than the proposed increase.\nMotion and second for 15 minute extension passed the 40 minute review (Cambra and\nFriedman).\nThe parties were unable to reach an agreement. Committee members concluded the\nconversation with tenant and landlord and opened deliberation between members to\nrender an advisory recommendation.\nMember Friedman identified three considerations for this case: 1). what is\nreasonable rent for this property; 2). what is the landlord's reasonable return; 3).\nhow does the housing services and condition of the maintenance issues impact the\nreasonable rent. Friedman noted that had the rent increased around 3% each year\nover the 13 years of tenancy, the rent would be around $2,850. This would have\nhelped create a reserve for repairs. He noted that he did not hear the tenant raise\nfinancial concerns regarding the rent. Friedman explained the landlord has the\noption to get a loan for the repairs. He recommended a $400 rent increase, noting\nthe landlord has the option to increase rent the next year.\nMember Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated he agrees the difficulty of the current situation\nappears to be stemming from the lack of previous rent increase over the tenancy.\nHe does not believe that the tenant should be punished for the landlord's business\ndecisions. The timeline of maintenance issues causes him concern that the tenant\nhas decreased housing services for an extended period of time. He acknowledged\nthat the option for a roommate is important to consider given the Bay Area housing\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 3, "text": "Draft Minutes\nOctober 2, 2017\ndynamic. He stated he would be inclined to agree with Member Friedman's\nrecommendation.\nMember Murray noted that it is clear the property is in need of repairs. It appears\nthe landlord will need a rent increase to afford the repairs and the tenant does not\nbelieve an increase is justified until the repairs are complete. She explained that\nthe rent would be at a reasonable place had the landlord raised the rent around\n5% over the tenancy. Murray stated that ultimately the $3,600 requested total\nrent is reasonable for the property. However, she does not believe it is reasonable\nto request the increase all at once. She also noted there is one tenant living in a\n3-bedroom house. She recommended a $600 rent increase with $300 delayed for\nsix months. She acknowledged she would support the $400 proposal if the amount\nbecame effective immediately.\nChair Cambra explained the landlord has control over the rent in an increasing\nmarket. Looking over the tenancy, it is necessary to acknowledge that rents when\nup and down. He is concerned with the burden on the tenant when a landlord is\nlooking to catch-up on rents when they did not raise rents annually. He explained\nmajor repairs, such as a roof, are often not expensed as they are amortized over\nthe useful life of the improvement. He noted that the landlord will have the\nopportunity for a rent increase every year. He also acknowledged roofs can be\ndifficult to repair and does not see negligence on the landlord. He stated he agrees\nwith Member Friedman's $400 recommendation.\nMotion and second for $400 rent increase to a total rent of $2,420, effective September\n1, 2017 (Friedman and Cambra). Motion passes with Murray approval; Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana\nopposed.\n7-B. CASE 929 - 877 Cedar Street\nProposed rent increase: $1,080.00 (45.6%), to total rent of $3,450.00\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenants gave the landlord a\nnotice to vacate.\n7-C. CASE 930 - 611 Santa Clara Ave., #D\nProposed rent increase: $685.00 (46.0%), to total rent of $2,175.00\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenants gave the landlord a\nnotice to vacate.\n7-D - CASE 932 - 2220 San Antonio Ave.\nTenant: Susan Ostlund\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 4, "text": "Draft Minutes\nOctober 2, 2017\nLandlord: Dave Petersen\nCurrent Rent: $1,701 for a 2-bedroom duplex\nProposed Rent Increase: $85.00 (5.0%), to total rent of $1,786.00, effective\nOctober, 2017\nRecommendation: Non-binding\nChair Cambra recused himself on a non-financial grounds.\nMs. Ostlund stated that she is an army veteran, 100 percent disabled, on a fixed\nincome of $2,900 a month and not likely to increase anytime soon. She believes the\nOrdinance was put into place to help people like her. She acknowledged her right to\nwithhold sensitive medical information, but nonetheless, stated she wanted to share\nthat she has metastatic breast cancer and her medical care providers are concerned\nabout her access to a stable living environment. The history of rent increases has\npushed her near the limits of her ability to pay based on her fixed income. She stated\nthe reasonable maximum monthly rent increase would be $32.32 (1.9%) due to\nfinancial burden.\nMr. Petersen stated that he believes requested rent increase is fair, not excessive, and\nthat necessary to keep up with maintenance costs. He considers the current rent\nbelow market rate and explained that the rent does not cover the property expenses.\nHe is concerned that without a rent increase it will be difficult to continue to make\nneeded repairs. He stated he was making a concession by only requesting a 5%\nincrease because he is sympathetic to her serious medical condition and understands\nshe has a fixed income. Mr. Petersen explained that Ms. Ostlund was not the original\ntenant and the rent was originally set low as a curtesy to the individual originally on\nthe lease. Committee members asked questions regarding income sources and\nflexibility with adding a roommate to the unit.\nMotion and second for 15 minute extension passed the 40 minute review (Sullivan-\nSari\u00f1ana and Murray).\nCommittee members facilitated dialogue between parties. The tenant and the\nlandlord agreed to a $50 rent increase effective October 1, 2017 with an additional\n$35 (which would bring the increase to 5%) delayed until January 1, 2018.\n7-E - Discussion of time-keeping mechanisms\nNo Committee review because the device under review was not at the meeting.\nThe item will be moved to the next available meeting agenda.\nMotion and second to hear 7-G next and call to 7-F if time permits (Cambra and Murray).\nMotion passes unanimously.\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-10-02", "page": 5, "text": "Draft Minutes\nOctober 2, 2017\n7-F. Discussion of policy input regarding the written letters and resources\nprovided to RRAC participants prior to a case\nNo Committee review as time did not permit for item discussion. The item will be\nmoved to the next available meeting agenda.\n7-G. Committee members to review CAO guidance on using just and\nreasonable rate of return and tenant's financial hardship as factors in the\nRRAC deliberation process\nMichael Roush, Assistant City Attorney, presented the memo concerning CAO\nguidance on just and reasonable rate of return and the tenant's financial hardship as\nfactors in the RRAC deliberation process. Mr. Roush answered Committee members'\nquestions to clarify their understanding of the memo.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 1.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Member Friedman requested clarity on the case review process.\nb. Cambra requested an agenda item for the following meeting to discuss the\nCommittee's procedures for facilitating dialogue relevant to Case 911. Motion and\nsecond with unanimous approval (Cambra and Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana).\nc. Member Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana requested staff follow-up to clarify the nature of the\ndiscussion for agenda item 7-F.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:56pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nDraft until approved\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-10-02.pdf"}