body,date,page,text,path
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-10-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY OCTOBER 3, 2016 - - 7:00 P.M.
p
Chair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and Chair
Aguilar - 4.
Absent:
Commissioner Henneberry - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair
Commissioner Dieter moved approval of nominating Commissioner Foreman as Chair.
Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]
Chair Foreman moved approval of nominating Commissioner Dieter as Vice Chair.
Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]
3-B. Minutes of the February 1, 2016 Meeting
Commissioner Dieter noted that she provided some corrections to the February 1
minutes to the Assistant City Clerk.
Commissioner Aguilar moved approval of the minutes with the corrections.
Commissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]
3-C. City Attorney Semi-Annual Reports to the City Council
The City Attorney stated her office complied with the Sunshine Ordinance requirement
and is showing evidence of the same in the staff report.
Vice Chair Dieter inquired whether the discussion about the closed session minutes
remaining exempt from disclosure is included under the background or discussion
section of the staff report.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 3, 2016
1",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-10-03,2,"The City Attorney responded the Sunshine Ordinance requires a semi-annual report to
determine whether items that were not previously disclosed publicly could be made
available for public disclosure or should remain exempt from public disclosure; stated
items that are determined not to be disclosed could be made available later.
Vice Chair Dieter stated the determination of the items should be placed under the
discussion section of the staff report so as not to confuse the public; placing it under the
background section implies that items previously not disclosed publicly are forever more
undisclosable.
The City Attorney stated her office will comply with Vice Chair Dieter's request to place
items under the Discussion section.
Vice Chair Dieter suggested different language for the title of the semi-annual report:
""Recommendation to Accept a List of Documents Which Have been Determined to be
made public after being determined not being made available to the public"" instead of
""
Litigation and Liability Claim Settlements.
""
The City Attorney stated that she is willing to modify language to satisfy the
Commission's concerns; it is not necessarily that items are being disclosed that were
not previously disclosed, but even before the Sunshine Ordinance, the City Attorney's
office was required to submit a semi-annual report on litigation and liability claim
settlements; the report also includes settlements; the report has two parts.
Commissioner Aguilar stated it may be easier for the public to understand if the report
title distinguishes the two parts; suggested the title include numeration i.e., 1) the
settlements, and 2) documents disclosable to the public.
Vice Chair Dieter concurred with Commissioner Aguilar's suggestion; inquired whether
the word ""declassified"" could be used instead of ""disclosed"" in terms of the documents.
The City Attorney responded the City does not have secret, classified documents, so
the term does not apply.
Vice Chair Dieter stated that she is concerned that when did an online search of the
City's website using the general search bar, no results would come up; inquired whether
there is an easier way to find documents using the search feature.
The Assistant City Clerk responded documents are not housed on the main website;
suggested searching under Key Documents.
Commissioner Aguilar inquired whether Vice Chair Dieter was searching for the reports
stating which documents were disclosable, instead of for the documents themselves, to
which Vice Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 3, 2016
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-10-03,3,"Vice Chair Dieter stated that she could not find the report online on the City's website;
part of the Commission's responsibility is to peruse the database; if she could not find
the document, the public would not be able to find it; the report is routinely prepared
every six months; she would like to be able to search to find past documents.
The Assistant City Clerk stated that whenever a meeting packet is distributed, it is also
published online, archived, and should be searchable; stated she would find out how
Vice Chair Dieter was conducting her search and help her with the search feature.
Commissioner Tuazon stated that he has not had any problems finding documents he
searches for on the City website.
In response to Vice Chair Dieter's inquiry regarding how to address a complaint from
the public regarding why documents are not disclosable to the public, the City Attorney
stated a Commissioner making a judgment on legal judgments would be going beyond
what the Commission is impaneled to do; the City Attorney's office gives legal advice to
the City Council and the Council makes the determination; it is not the charge of the
Commission to be second-guessing the legal advice.
In response to Chair Foreman's inquiry, the City Attorney stated it is not this
Commission's role to be a substitute for legal judgment.
In response to Vice Chair Dieter's inquiry, the City Attorney stated if someone wants to
complain about why documents are not being disclosed, there is no known avenue for
recourse, short of filing a lawsuit where they felt they have the right to see documents
were pertinent to their case.
Vice Chair Dieter inquired what is the recourse if a Councilmember wants to have a
document disclosed to the public, to which the City Attorney responded the
Councilmember would have to make the request in Closed Session and the issue would
be voted on; a single Councilmember cannot decide to waive attorney-client privilege, it
has to be approved by the Council as a whole.
The City Attorney inquired whether there is a specific reason why the matter has
become a concern for the Commission, or if there is an issue the Commission feels the
City is not addressing appropriately.
Vice Chair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the issue has been discussed on a
few blogs; she wanted to hear the information and provide background to anyone
listening.
Commissioner Aguilar stated, in her experience, closed session minutes are not
disclosed.
The City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Aguilar; stated there has never been a
process of disclosing closed session minutes in her experience with three different
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
October 3, 2016
3",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2016-10-03,4,"cities, including Alameda; the Council does, however, report on claim settlements
previously discussed in closed session after an agreement has been signed; there are
many other issues discussed in closed session, including personnel issues, legal
strategies, legal advice, etc., which would be detrimental to the City if disclosed to the
public.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chair Dieter stated it is that time again for the Commission to provide their annual
report; recommended combining two issues into one report, including policy problems
and alleged violations.
The City Attorney inquired whether the Commission's annual report would be presented
to the Council, or just fulfilling a requirement of the Commission.
Vice Chair Dieter responded the annual report is a requirement the Commission needs
to fulfill under Section 2-93.6, the section also states that the Commission could
request, with advanced notice, a tally of the number of records requests made of the
City Clerk's office; stated she thinks the public would find it fascinating to know how
many public records requests the clerk's office has to process.
Chair Foreman stated the items should be included on the agenda for the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
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 3, 2016
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-10-03,1,"Approved Minutes
October 3, 2016
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, October 3, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
Present were: Chair Sullivan-Sariñana, Vice-Chair Landess; and Members Griffiths and
Schrader.
Absent: Member Friedman
Vacancy: None
RRAC Staff: Jennifer Kaufman
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff recommended that items 7-E (Case 528), 7-B (Case 463), 7-C (Case 524), 7-D (Case
525), and 7-F (Case 529) be addressed next because tenants for the listed cases were not
present.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a.
The Program Administrator and ECHO Housing are co-hosting Fair Housing trainings in
the coming months. Registration for trainings can be found on the Rent Program's website
www.alamedarentprogram.org.
b. Staff has developed an information brochure for tenants and landlords regarding new
regulations and protections under Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148. Landlords must
provide the brochure to tenants by October 15th
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and
tenant/landlord mediation services.
b. No additional public comment.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.
Approval of the Minutes of the September 7, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Approved by unanimous consent. Motion and second (Griffiths and Schrader).
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS (None)
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-B. Case 463 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D322
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit.
7-C. Case 524 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D323
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-10-03,2,"Approved Minutes
October 3, 2016
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
7-D. Case 525 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D325
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
7-E. Case 528 - 941 Shorepoint Ct. #F225
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the landlord and some, but not all, of the tenants
agreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. The landlord attended the meeting, however, the
tenant who had not yet signed an agreement was not in attendance. Hence, the Committee
took no action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid.
7-F. Case 529 - 941 Shorepoint Ct #F313
No review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase
between 0-5%.
7-A. Case 499 - 1429 Bay Street #A
Tenant/public speaker: Ryan B. Fanene
Landlord/public speaker: Daniel Barber
Proposed rent increase: $307 (15%), effective date delayed until RRAC review
Mr. Fanene explained that the rent increase review was postponed one month due to
personal health circumstances. He stated that he pays separate additional bills for utilities
and this rent increase would be a financial hardship because his income increases around
2 - 3% annually. Therefore, at most he would be able to pay an increase between 5 - 6%.
Mr. Barber clarified that he pays for exterior lights, gas, and water for all the units and the
tenant pays for the unit's electricity and gas. He stated that he is nervous about not being
able to increase the rent under future City regulations. Moreover, he is near retirement and
will be relying more directly on the income. Additionally, he is anticipating costly repairs
because the building is aging. He also noted that the current rent is below market value.
Member Schrader noted the unit has 3-bedrooms and two occupants. Schrader asked about
the possibility of adding another tenant to the unit to share rent costs. Mr. Barber responded
that he would want to raise rent if there are more tenants. A representative from ECHO
Housing explained there are fair housing guidelines around occupancy standards. Mr.
Fanene explained that he is open to finding another tenant to share costs. Regardless if
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-10-03,3,"Approved Minutes
October 3, 2016
there is an additional roommate, Mr. Fanene stated he believes an increase of 5% is
reasonable for the unit.
Member Griffiths acknowledged the frequency of previous rent increases, noting there was
an 8% rent increase in October 2015. Mr. Barber explained there have been improvements
on the property and future repairs are still needed. Mr. Barber also expressed concern that
future local regulations may make it difficult for him to raise rent. Moreover, he does not
intend to raise the rent by a large amount next year.
After some discussion, the parties reached an agreement of $150 (7.3%) rent increase,
effective November 1st, 2016. The Committee confirmed that Mr. Barber and Mr. Fanene
were agreeable to the arrangement. The Committee unanimously passed a recommendation
upholding the parties' agreement. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths).
7-G. Case 535 - 867 Oak St
Tenant/public speaker: Kelli Martin
Landlord/public speaker: Carl Babcock
Proposed rent increase: $400 (33.3%) effective on November 1st, 2016
Ms. Martin stated the proposed rent increase felt excessive. In addition to the large amount
proposed this year, the tenant explained that she received two rent increases last year in
2015. She noted that for 7 years she has lived in the unit, paying rent on time or early each
month and believes she is a good tenant. Ms. Martin also explained that her fiancé now
lives in the unit, though his income is irregular. She shared that her goal is to eventually
move-out and live in a larger space. In addition, Ms. Martin stated she did not believe many
of the units the landlord researched to estimate market-rent are comparable to hers.
Mr. Babcock stated that he is retired and the unit accounts for a large portion of his income.
He explained that he feels he should have a fair return on the unit and the market rate for a
comparable unit averages about $400 above the current rent. In addition, Mr. Babock noted
that in previous years he did not raise the rent because the tenant informed him that she
planned to move-out soon.
Member Schrader acknowledged that an increase of 33% is significant. He also noted that
the landlord did not raise the rent for around five years, prior to 2015. Vice-chair Landess
asked Mr. Babcock and Ms. Martin about options for the tenant to pay utilities and lowering
the amount of the rent increase.
There was discussion around costs associated with a new tenant and clarification on the
difference between market rent for new tenants and current tenants. Mr. Babcock proposed
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-10-03,4,"Approved Minutes
October 3, 2016
that he would continue paying utilities and offered a rent increase of $200. Ms. Martin
agreed with the arrangement.
The Committee unanimously passed a recommendation upholding the parties' agreement
of a rent increase of $200 (16.7%) effective November 1st. Motion and second (Griffiths,
Schrader).
7-H. Case 536 - 725 Santa Clara
Tenant/public speaker: Michael Jak
Landlord/public speaker: Alice Descovich
Proposed rent increase: $236.50 (10.0%), effective on October 7, 2016
Mr. Jak stated the proposed rent increase would be a financial burden for his family. He
explained that the previous year the rent was raised 10%. Consequently, a 10% rent
increase again in 2016 would be unsustainable. In addition, the tenant stated his family's
income may decrease while living expenses continue to rise. He feels 0% rent increase is
appropriate after the 10% increase last year, though he already made an offer to the landlord
of 5%, which the landlord refused.
Ms. Descovich explained that she is retired and relies on rent from this unit for her income.
She explained she is responsive to maintenance issues and believes the downtown location
adds value to the unit. She also explained she spent significant amount of money to repair
the unit before the current tenants moved-in.
Mr. Jak responded to Ms. Descovich that the previous tenants' damages and costs to repair
the unit before he moved-in are not his responsibility. Moreover, he did not believe repairs
to the unit were major capital improvements. Mr. Jak stated that the most he could afford
would be a 5% increase.
Parties discussed various rent increase options between 5% and 8.8%. Ms. Descovich and
Mr. Jak reached an agreement of a rent increase of $175 (7.4%) on a month to month basis
effective November 7th. The Committee unanimously passed a recommendation upholding
the parties' agreement. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana, Landess).
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2
No additional public comment.
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2016-10-03,5,"Approved Minutes
October 3, 2016
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Staff clarified the purpose of this item.
b. Member Schrader commended the efforts of staff.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 9, 2016.
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf