{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-10-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY\nOCTOBER 1, 2018 - - 7:00 P.M.\nChair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Henneberry, Little, and Chair Dieter -\n3.\n[Note: Commissioner Little was present via teleconference from 321 17th Street,\nDenver, CO 80202]\nAbsent:\nCommissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair\nCommissioner Henneberry moved approval of Commissioner Little serving as Chair.\nChair Dieter seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioner Henneberry: Aye; Commissioner Little: Aye; Chair Dieter: Aye; Ayes: 3.\n[Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.]\nChair Dieter moved approval of Commissioner Henneberry serving as Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioner Henneberry: Aye; Commissioner Little: Aye; Chair Dieter: Aye; Ayes: 3.\n[Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.]\n3-B. Minutes of the February 5, 2018 and March 5, 2018 Meetings\nChair Dieter moved approval of the February 5, 2018 minutes.\nCommissioner Henneberry seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Commissioner Henneberry: Aye; Commissioner Little: Aye; Chair Dieter: Aye;\nAyes: 3. [Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.]\nChair Dieter moved approval of the March 5, 2018 minutes.\nCommissioner Henneberry seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Commissioner Henneberry: Aye; Commissioner Little: Aye; Chair Dieter: Aye;\nAyes: 3. [Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.]\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nOctober 1, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-10-01", "page": 2, "text": "3-C. Accept the Annual Report\nCommissioner Henneberry moved approval of accepting the annual report.\nCommissioner Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCommissioner Henneberry: Aye; Commissioner Little: Aye; Chair Dieter: Aye; Ayes: 3.\n[Absent: Commissioners Foreman and Schwartz - 2.]\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Dieter stated that she wanted to follow up on two items after rereading the\nminutes: 1) changing the City Council webpage to let the public know to copy the City\nClerk on meeting correspondence they want it published; 2) adding an asterisk for\ndeviating records retentions timeframes; she does not feel super strongly about it, but\nthought it might be helpful for items that are not clear; gave a report on the City Council\nadopting most of the Commission's suggestions on the Rules of Order; outlined\nchanges, including Council giving themselves nine minutes and cutting comment time to\ntwo minutes for matters with seven or more speakers; she and Commissioner Little sent\na letter to Council, which was included in the record; the Council also decided to end\nmeetings at 11:00 p.m.\nCommissioner Little expressed concern over Council reducing the time for speakers;\nstated that she disagrees with automatically reducing the time.\nChair Dieter stated that she was dissatisfied that matters in the letter were not included;\nusing Rosenberg's Rules of Order is turning out to be a really good thing.\nCommissioner Little inquired whether the recommendations seem to be working and\nwhether there has been training and education.\nThe City Clerk responded a nine minute timer for Council has been implemented; the\nMayor explains the time limit to the public when the speaker threshold is reached so\nthat they are aware before speaking; the Council has voted to suspend the rules and\nhear additional items past 11:00 p.m. a couple of times.\nChair Dieter stated the two things she has noticed is the Chair needs to ask for a motion\nright away once public comment is closed and three motions can be on the table at a\ntime.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated that he attended a meeting; most of the\nrecommendations were implemented and seemed to make the meeting run much\nsmoother; he does not like that Council increased their time to nine minutes; speakers\ncan fit a lot into two minutes, which could work for all public comment.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 1, 2018\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-10-01", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Little noted seven speakers with three minutes totals 21 minutes and\neight speakers with two minutes totals 16 minutes; two minutes should suffice when\nthere are many speakers, but it seems like a limitation on the public's ability to\ncomment.\nChair Dieter stated Councilmember Matarrese suggested trying it out and changes can\nbe made if needed; encouraged the Commission and members of the public to contact\nthe City Council or Commission if something should be changed.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n3\nOctober 1, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-10-01", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 1, 2018\nMinutes of a Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, October 1, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.\nPresent were:\nVice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah\nAbsent:\nChair Cambra\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Gregory Kats\nCity Attorney staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Program staff announced that changes would be shared with the Committee as\neach agenda item was called.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Program staff announced that the RRAC was looking to recruit a new member and\nencouraged the Committee members and public to contact staff for more\ninformation or send interested parties to staff to learn how to apply.\na. Following up on Chair Cambra's request at the August 6, 2018 meeting to provide\ninformation on the resolutions of cases that are published on meeting agendas but\nresolve prior to the Committee hearing them, Staff referenced the July 2018 report\nthat had been provided to the Committee at the September 6, 2018 hearing\n(attachment to Agenda Item 7-K). Staff informed the Committee that details of\nany cases that resolved prior to RRAC review could be found in the Rent\nStabilization Program's monthly reports, which are published monthly on the\nProgram's website, www.alamedarentprogram.org\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\na. Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC) member Eric Strimling commented that landlords\nshould adopt and implement good business plans to account for expenses, which\nwould help preclude their needing to request large, sudden rent increases.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. None.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\n6-A. CASE 1078 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 202\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present at the hearing. The rent increase will\ngo into effect as noticed.\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-10-01", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 1, 2018\n6-B. CASE 1084 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 204\nTenant: Yolande Perry\nLandlords: Randall Kessler, Andrew Fisher, Asia Hawkins\nProposed rent increase: $290.85 (20.4%), effective October 1, 2018\nMr. Kessler asked if there was a quorum of Committee members and how many votes\nwould be needed in order for a motion to carry. The Committee and City Attorney staff\ninformed the parties that three members made a quorum and that all three members\npresent would have to vote the same way for any motion to pass.\nMr. Fisher told the Committee that the landlords will have spent a total of $5.5 million\ndollars in work that went into fixing, maintaining, and improving the building, including\nfinancing and losses. He said that management came to the rent increase amounts they\ndid after evaluating how to fairly spread the costs out to the tenants without imposing\nfinancial hardships.\nMs. Perry said that the increase request posed a financial hardship for her. She said\nthat she was paying into a mandatory retirement plan at work, although she would\nnever be able to retire, and also had increased medical expenses. She said she could\nafford an increase of $75 to $85. She said there was a laundry room next door to her\nunit that made noise in her unit late into the night.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked her if she received a rent abatement during the\nconstruction and she said had not, but they gave her a $100 rent abatement for use of\na parking space that she did not use for four months. Ms. Perry said she would like a\nnew carpet and new kitchen appliances.\nMember Griffiths asked her what a $135 increase would mean for her, and Ms. Perry\nsaid she did not think she could afford her health plan if her rent were increased that\nmuch.\nVice Chair Murray asked what she did for work, and Ms. Perry said she was a case\nmanager working for the State of California. Vice Chair Murray asked if she received pay\nincreases at work, and Ms. Perry said she did, but the increases were already allocated\nto paying other increased expenses.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Hawkins how much this type of unit rents for at\nmarket rate and she said she had recently rented a comparable unit for $2,395 per\nmonth. Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Perry if she used the parking spot that came\nwith her unit and she said she did not.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked if management would be interested in asking for less of\nan increase if Ms. Perry gave up her parking spot so that management could rent it to\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-10-01", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 1, 2018\nanother tenant. The landlords discussed this and said they would consider it, but would\nhave to talk to the property managers at Berger Enterprises to ascertain the exact value\nof the parking space.\nThe parties returned to their seats and the Committee began deliberations.\nMember Griffiths made a motion for $75 increase, for which there was no second.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said he believed Ms. Perry had expressed a financial hardship.\nHe said he believed an $85 increase (parking space aside) was fair considering the\nlandlords had demonstrated that they put a significant amount of work into the\nproperty.\nMotion and second for an $80 monthly rent increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-\nCheah). Motion passed 3-0.\n6-C. CASE 1092 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 219\nNo Committee review. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement concerning\nthe amount of the rent increase. Details of the agreement can be found in the Rent\nStabilization Program's monthly report at www.alamedarentprograms.org\n6-D. CASE 1097 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 213\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present at the hearing. The rent increase will\ngo into effect as noticed.\n6-E. CASE 1103 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102\nTenant: Christopher Wooten\nLandlords: Randall Kessler, Andrew Fisher, Asia Hawkins\nProposed rent increase: $310.83 (24.0%), effective October 1, 2018\nMs. Hawkins said that management had been working on attending to the issues Mr.\nWooten raised in his submitted response to the Committee, such as remediating any\nmold in the unit, and repainting the walls. Mr. Fisher pointed out that although no\nimprovements were made to the inside of the unit, all tenants benefit from the work\nthat was done to the property, which is why the increases were being spread somewhat\nevenly to most or all of the tenants at the property. Ms. Hawkins passed around a\npicture of the work that had been done to improve Mr. Wooten's kitchen cabinets.\nMr. Wooten said that he had two kids in school in Alameda and if the rent increased too\nmuch they would have to relocate outside Alameda, uprooting their children, which\ncould be very hard on them. He said he works as a case manager in the mental health\nfield, and had experienced a decrease in income, which has made him look into\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-10-01", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 1, 2018\nchanging careers, which could come with its own increased costs (e.g., paying for\nadditional education). He said his wife was working full-time and was also in school.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Wooten what percentage of his income the rent,\nafter the requested increases, would represent. Mr. Wooten said that the requested\nincrease of $310 would make the rent payment come out to about 40% of their\nhousehold income. He said that he and his wife were paying for their education through\ntheir savings.\nVice Chair Murray asked what his wife did and he said she was an assistant teacher at a\nMontessori school. She asked the ages of his kids and he said they were 11 and 13\nyears old. Vice Chair Murray asked what he thought a reasonable rent increase would\nbe, and, referencing his paperwork, pointed out that he had indicated in his submission\nthat he thought an increase of $105 would be reasonable. Mr. Wooten confirmed he\nthought that amount was reasonable. Vice Chair Murray asked if he could afford the full\nincrease requested by landlords for one year, $123.03, and he said he would have to\nstart sacrificing things, like programs for his kids.\nThe parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said he thought the $105 offered by the tenant was reasonable.\nVice Chair Murray added that it represents more than the CAPX costs of $81.33, and so\nit included some increased operating costs.\nMotion and second for a $105 increase (Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths). Motion\npassed 3-0.\n6-F. CASE 1105 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 218\nNo Committee review. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement concerning\nthe amount of the rent increase. Details of the agreement can be found in the Rent\nStabilization Program's monthly report at www.alamedarentprograms.org\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. CASE 1136.1 - 3269 Central Ave.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement concerning\nthe amount of the rent increase. Details of the agreement can be found in the Rent\nStabilization Program's monthly report at www.alamedarentprograms.org,\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-10-01", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 1, 2018\n7-B. CASE 1103 - 1507 Lincoln Ave.\nTenant: Rosemary Esmedina, accompanied by ARC member Brad Hirn\nLandlords: Robert Rowe, Stacey Rowe\nProposed rent increase: $500.00 (50.0%), effective October 28, 2018\nMr. Rowe said that the subject property, a single family house, was originally owned by\nhis grandmother. He said the house was now held in trust to provide income for the\nbenefit of his sister, who had considerable medical needs. Ms. Rowe said that he and\nMs. Rowe had unsuccessfully tried to come to an agreement concerning the amount of\nthe increase with the tenants. Ms. Rowe said they offered to lower the increase to $300\nper month, bringing the monthly rent to $1,300. She said that if they had increased the\nrent by 5% per year in previous years, the tenant's current rent would be just a little\nless than this, but they did not know that more frequent incremental increases were\npreferable to fewer larger increases. She said that part of the reason they were\nincreasing the rent was to ensure they had money to keep up the unit.\nMs. Esmedina said that the requested increase would create a financial hardship and\ndisplace her. She said she was permanently disabled and receives SSI income of about\n$1,219 per month, and that about 82% of her income goes toward rent. She said the\nincreased amount would account for about 120% of her income. She said the lights in\npart of the house flicker sometimes and she uses candles and flashlights when this\nhappens. She proposed a $50 (5.0%) rent increase and said she believes she has been\na good tenant and has maintained the home to the best of her ability.\nVice Chair Murray asked the landlords what impact not getting an increase to $1,300\nwould have on them. Mr. Rowe said that they not be able to generate income from the\nproperty and Ms. Rowe added that the purpose of keeping the home was to generate\nmoney to support Mr. Rowe's sister, her sister-in-law, adding that selling the house was\nnot something they were considering. They said the house was held in trust by Mr.\nRowe for his sister's benefit and they were working on improving her health to get her\nback to work following an injury that caused her to stop working 10 months ago.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah went over the landlords' expenses in repairing and maintaining\nthe property and verified them.\nMember Griffiths asked Ms. Esmedina what would happen to her if future increases\ncame in the years to follow and she said she did not know what she would do. Vice\nChair Murray asked if she had family in the area and she said she did, but did not think\nthey would be able to help her.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked if Ms. Esmedina had considered obtaining a roommate\nfor the second bedroom in the home. She said it would not be ideal as she had lived\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-10-01", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 1, 2018\nalone for 20 years. The landlords responded that they would want a higher increase\namount for another person in the unit to compensate for additional wear and tear.\nVice Chair Murray mentioned that the possible repeal of Costa Hawkins in the\nNovember election was something the landlords may have to consider when setting the\nrent, as it may make raising the rent in the future more difficult.\nMs. Rowe responded that another reason they were requesting this increase now was\nbecause the possible appeal of Costa Hawkins may make raising the rent in the future\nmore difficult.\nMember Griffiths proposed a stepped increase, such as allowing a smaller increase for\n11 months and then having the rent increase another, larger amount in the 12th month\nso that the base rent for the next year and moving forward would be something that\nthe landlords could accept.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah opined that a roommate situation may be unavoidable to keep\nMs. Esmedina in her home and provide the income the landlords needed for their\nsister's needs and proper upkeep of the house.\nMember Griffiths said he believed the Committee should make a decision that would lay\nthe foundation for a more in-depth discussion among the parties following the hearing\nthat would consider a stepped increase, the addition of a roommate, and other possible\nsolutions.\nVice Chair Murray asked Program staff if they would be willing to mediate with the\nparties after the hearing. Staff confirmed they would be willing to work with the parties\nto explore options for an agreement.\nThe parties took their seats and the Committee deliberated.\nMember Griffiths proposed an increase of $50 (to $1,050) for the first 11 months that\nwould then increase an additional $700 (to $1,750) in the final month. Member\nSullivan-Cheah said he liked the idea of a stepped increase but thought that 11 months\nat $1,050 may provide the landlords insufficient income to cover any needed repairs at\nthe property. He proposed a rent of $1,050 for the first six months, and Vice Chair\nMurray agreed. Member Griffiths countered with nine months at $1,050, followed by\n$1,750 for the last three months.\nMotion and second to extend discussion for five minutes (Vice Chair Murray and\nMember Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said he thought nine months at $1,050 then three months at\n$1,650 would be preferable. Vice Chair Murray disagreed, pointing out that even $1,750\nfor a two-bedroom house was still under market rate.\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-10-01", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 1, 2018\nMotion and second for a rent increase to $1,050 for the first nine months following the\neffective date, followed by another increase to $1,750 for next three months (Member\nGriffiths and Vice Chair Murray). Motion failed 2-1. -\nMotion and second to extend discussion another five minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah\nand Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.\nMotion and second to increase the rent to $1,050 for first nine months, then to $1,700\nfor the next three months, effective October 28, 2018 (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Vice\nChair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\na. ARC member Gloria Rios said she had lived in Alameda since the 1990's and has\nnoticed that the rate of rent increases outpaces the rate of salary increases. She\nopined that smaller, incremental rent increases were easier for tenants to adapt\nto than less frequent, larger increases.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. The Committee asked staff for an update on changes to the Committee's rules and\nprocedures that were discussed at the September 19, 2018 special meeting. Staff\ninformed the Committee that staff had drafted the proposed changes and they\nwere currently under review by the City Attorney's Office.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\na. The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-10-01.pdf"}