{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY OCTOBER 3, 2016 - - 7:00 P.M.\np\nChair Aguilar convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Dieter, Foreman, Tuazon, and Chair\nAguilar - 4.\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Henneberry - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Select Chair and Vice Chair\nCommissioner Dieter moved approval of nominating Commissioner Foreman as Chair.\nCommissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]\nChair Foreman moved approval of nominating Commissioner Dieter as Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]\n3-B. Minutes of the February 1, 2016 Meeting\nCommissioner Dieter noted that she provided some corrections to the February 1\nminutes to the Assistant City Clerk.\nCommissioner Aguilar moved approval of the minutes with the corrections.\nCommissioner Tuazon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Commissioner Henneberry - 1.]\n3-C. City Attorney Semi-Annual Reports to the City Council\nThe City Attorney stated her office complied with the Sunshine Ordinance requirement\nand is showing evidence of the same in the staff report.\nVice Chair Dieter inquired whether the discussion about the closed session minutes\nremaining exempt from disclosure is included under the background or discussion\nsection of the staff report.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 3, 2016\n1", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 2, "text": "The City Attorney responded the Sunshine Ordinance requires a semi-annual report to\ndetermine whether items that were not previously disclosed publicly could be made\navailable for public disclosure or should remain exempt from public disclosure; stated\nitems that are determined not to be disclosed could be made available later.\nVice Chair Dieter stated the determination of the items should be placed under the\ndiscussion section of the staff report so as not to confuse the public; placing it under the\nbackground section implies that items previously not disclosed publicly are forever more\nundisclosable.\nThe City Attorney stated her office will comply with Vice Chair Dieter's request to place\nitems under the Discussion section.\nVice Chair Dieter suggested different language for the title of the semi-annual report:\n\"Recommendation to Accept a List of Documents Which Have been Determined to be\nmade public after being determined not being made available to the public\" instead of\n\"\nLitigation and Liability Claim Settlements.\n\"\nThe City Attorney stated that she is willing to modify language to satisfy the\nCommission's concerns; it is not necessarily that items are being disclosed that were\nnot previously disclosed, but even before the Sunshine Ordinance, the City Attorney's\noffice was required to submit a semi-annual report on litigation and liability claim\nsettlements; the report also includes settlements; the report has two parts.\nCommissioner Aguilar stated it may be easier for the public to understand if the report\ntitle distinguishes the two parts; suggested the title include numeration i.e., 1) the\nsettlements, and 2) documents disclosable to the public.\nVice Chair Dieter concurred with Commissioner Aguilar's suggestion; inquired whether\nthe word \"declassified\" could be used instead of \"disclosed\" in terms of the documents.\nThe City Attorney responded the City does not have secret, classified documents, so\nthe term does not apply.\nVice Chair Dieter stated that she is concerned that when did an online search of the\nCity's website using the general search bar, no results would come up; inquired whether\nthere is an easier way to find documents using the search feature.\nThe Assistant City Clerk responded documents are not housed on the main website;\nsuggested searching under Key Documents.\nCommissioner Aguilar inquired whether Vice Chair Dieter was searching for the reports\nstating which documents were disclosable, instead of for the documents themselves, to\nwhich Vice Chair Dieter responded in the affirmative.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 3, 2016\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 3, "text": "Vice Chair Dieter stated that she could not find the report online on the City's website;\npart of the Commission's responsibility is to peruse the database; if she could not find\nthe document, the public would not be able to find it; the report is routinely prepared\nevery six months; she would like to be able to search to find past documents.\nThe Assistant City Clerk stated that whenever a meeting packet is distributed, it is also\npublished online, archived, and should be searchable; stated she would find out how\nVice Chair Dieter was conducting her search and help her with the search feature.\nCommissioner Tuazon stated that he has not had any problems finding documents he\nsearches for on the City website.\nIn response to Vice Chair Dieter's inquiry regarding how to address a complaint from\nthe public regarding why documents are not disclosable to the public, the City Attorney\nstated a Commissioner making a judgment on legal judgments would be going beyond\nwhat the Commission is impaneled to do; the City Attorney's office gives legal advice to\nthe City Council and the Council makes the determination; it is not the charge of the\nCommission to be second-guessing the legal advice.\nIn response to Chair Foreman's inquiry, the City Attorney stated it is not this\nCommission's role to be a substitute for legal judgment.\nIn response to Vice Chair Dieter's inquiry, the City Attorney stated if someone wants to\ncomplain about why documents are not being disclosed, there is no known avenue for\nrecourse, short of filing a lawsuit where they felt they have the right to see documents\nwere pertinent to their case.\nVice Chair Dieter inquired what is the recourse if a Councilmember wants to have a\ndocument disclosed to the public, to which the City Attorney responded the\nCouncilmember would have to make the request in Closed Session and the issue would\nbe voted on; a single Councilmember cannot decide to waive attorney-client privilege, it\nhas to be approved by the Council as a whole.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether there is a specific reason why the matter has\nbecome a concern for the Commission, or if there is an issue the Commission feels the\nCity is not addressing appropriately.\nVice Chair Dieter responded in the negative; stated the issue has been discussed on a\nfew blogs; she wanted to hear the information and provide background to anyone\nlistening.\nCommissioner Aguilar stated, in her experience, closed session minutes are not\ndisclosed.\nThe City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Aguilar; stated there has never been a\nprocess of disclosing closed session minutes in her experience with three different\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 3, 2016\n3", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 4, "text": "cities, including Alameda; the Council does, however, report on claim settlements\npreviously discussed in closed session after an agreement has been signed; there are\nmany other issues discussed in closed session, including personnel issues, legal\nstrategies, legal advice, etc., which would be detrimental to the City if disclosed to the\npublic.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nVice Chair Dieter stated it is that time again for the Commission to provide their annual\nreport; recommended combining two issues into one report, including policy problems\nand alleged violations.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether the Commission's annual report would be presented\nto the Council, or just fulfilling a requirement of the Commission.\nVice Chair Dieter responded the annual report is a requirement the Commission needs\nto fulfill under Section 2-93.6, the section also states that the Commission could\nrequest, with advanced notice, a tally of the number of records requests made of the\nCity Clerk's office; stated she thinks the public would find it fascinating to know how\nmany public records requests the clerk's office has to process.\nChair Foreman stated the items should be included on the agenda for the next meeting.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Foreman adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.\nRespectfully 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 3, 2016\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 3, 2016\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, October 3, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana, Vice-Chair Landess; and Members Griffiths and\nSchrader.\nAbsent: Member Friedman\nVacancy: None\nRRAC Staff: Jennifer Kaufman\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff recommended that items 7-E (Case 528), 7-B (Case 463), 7-C (Case 524), 7-D (Case\n525), and 7-F (Case 529) be addressed next because tenants for the listed cases were not\npresent.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na.\nThe Program Administrator and ECHO Housing are co-hosting Fair Housing trainings in\nthe coming months. Registration for trainings can be found on the Rent Program's website\nwww.alamedarentprogram.org.\nb. Staff has developed an information brochure for tenants and landlords regarding new\nregulations and protections under Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148. Landlords must\nprovide the brochure to tenants by October 15th\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. Angie Watson-Hajjem of ECHO Housing spoke about ECHO's Fair Housing and\ntenant/landlord mediation services.\nb. No additional public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na.\nApproval of the Minutes of the September 7, 2016 Regular Meeting.\nApproved by unanimous consent. Motion and second (Griffiths and Schrader).\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS (None)\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-B. Case 463 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D322\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant submitted paperwork to vacate the unit.\n7-C. Case 524 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D323\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 3, 2016\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\n7-D. Case 525 - 909 Shorepoint Ct #D325\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\n7-E. Case 528 - 941 Shorepoint Ct. #F225\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the landlord and some, but not all, of the tenants\nagreed to a rent increase between 0-5%. The landlord attended the meeting, however, the\ntenant who had not yet signed an agreement was not in attendance. Hence, the Committee\ntook no action and both options on the rent increase notice are valid.\n7-F. Case 529 - 941 Shorepoint Ct #F313\nNo review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent increase\nbetween 0-5%.\n7-A. Case 499 - 1429 Bay Street #A\nTenant/public speaker: Ryan B. Fanene\nLandlord/public speaker: Daniel Barber\nProposed rent increase: $307 (15%), effective date delayed until RRAC review\nMr. Fanene explained that the rent increase review was postponed one month due to\npersonal health circumstances. He stated that he pays separate additional bills for utilities\nand this rent increase would be a financial hardship because his income increases around\n2 - 3% annually. Therefore, at most he would be able to pay an increase between 5 - 6%.\nMr. Barber clarified that he pays for exterior lights, gas, and water for all the units and the\ntenant pays for the unit's electricity and gas. He stated that he is nervous about not being\nable to increase the rent under future City regulations. Moreover, he is near retirement and\nwill be relying more directly on the income. Additionally, he is anticipating costly repairs\nbecause the building is aging. He also noted that the current rent is below market value.\nMember Schrader noted the unit has 3-bedrooms and two occupants. Schrader asked about\nthe possibility of adding another tenant to the unit to share rent costs. Mr. Barber responded\nthat he would want to raise rent if there are more tenants. A representative from ECHO\nHousing explained there are fair housing guidelines around occupancy standards. Mr.\nFanene explained that he is open to finding another tenant to share costs. Regardless if\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 3, 2016\nthere is an additional roommate, Mr. Fanene stated he believes an increase of 5% is\nreasonable for the unit.\nMember Griffiths acknowledged the frequency of previous rent increases, noting there was\nan 8% rent increase in October 2015. Mr. Barber explained there have been improvements\non the property and future repairs are still needed. Mr. Barber also expressed concern that\nfuture local regulations may make it difficult for him to raise rent. Moreover, he does not\nintend to raise the rent by a large amount next year.\nAfter some discussion, the parties reached an agreement of $150 (7.3%) rent increase,\neffective November 1st, 2016. The Committee confirmed that Mr. Barber and Mr. Fanene\nwere agreeable to the arrangement. The Committee unanimously passed a recommendation\nupholding the parties' agreement. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Griffiths).\n7-G. Case 535 - 867 Oak St\nTenant/public speaker: Kelli Martin\nLandlord/public speaker: Carl Babcock\nProposed rent increase: $400 (33.3%) effective on November 1st, 2016\nMs. Martin stated the proposed rent increase felt excessive. In addition to the large amount\nproposed this year, the tenant explained that she received two rent increases last year in\n2015. She noted that for 7 years she has lived in the unit, paying rent on time or early each\nmonth and believes she is a good tenant. Ms. Martin also explained that her fianc\u00e9 now\nlives in the unit, though his income is irregular. She shared that her goal is to eventually\nmove-out and live in a larger space. In addition, Ms. Martin stated she did not believe many\nof the units the landlord researched to estimate market-rent are comparable to hers.\nMr. Babcock stated that he is retired and the unit accounts for a large portion of his income.\nHe explained that he feels he should have a fair return on the unit and the market rate for a\ncomparable unit averages about $400 above the current rent. In addition, Mr. Babock noted\nthat in previous years he did not raise the rent because the tenant informed him that she\nplanned to move-out soon.\nMember Schrader acknowledged that an increase of 33% is significant. He also noted that\nthe landlord did not raise the rent for around five years, prior to 2015. Vice-chair Landess\nasked Mr. Babcock and Ms. Martin about options for the tenant to pay utilities and lowering\nthe amount of the rent increase.\nThere was discussion around costs associated with a new tenant and clarification on the\ndifference between market rent for new tenants and current tenants. Mr. Babcock proposed\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 3, 2016\nthat he would continue paying utilities and offered a rent increase of $200. Ms. Martin\nagreed with the arrangement.\nThe Committee unanimously passed a recommendation upholding the parties' agreement\nof a rent increase of $200 (16.7%) effective November 1st. Motion and second (Griffiths,\nSchrader).\n7-H. Case 536 - 725 Santa Clara\nTenant/public speaker: Michael Jak\nLandlord/public speaker: Alice Descovich\nProposed rent increase: $236.50 (10.0%), effective on October 7, 2016\nMr. Jak stated the proposed rent increase would be a financial burden for his family. He\nexplained that the previous year the rent was raised 10%. Consequently, a 10% rent\nincrease again in 2016 would be unsustainable. In addition, the tenant stated his family's\nincome may decrease while living expenses continue to rise. He feels 0% rent increase is\nappropriate after the 10% increase last year, though he already made an offer to the landlord\nof 5%, which the landlord refused.\nMs. Descovich explained that she is retired and relies on rent from this unit for her income.\nShe explained she is responsive to maintenance issues and believes the downtown location\nadds value to the unit. She also explained she spent significant amount of money to repair\nthe unit before the current tenants moved-in.\nMr. Jak responded to Ms. Descovich that the previous tenants' damages and costs to repair\nthe unit before he moved-in are not his responsibility. Moreover, he did not believe repairs\nto the unit were major capital improvements. Mr. Jak stated that the most he could afford\nwould be a 5% increase.\nParties discussed various rent increase options between 5% and 8.8%. Ms. Descovich and\nMr. Jak reached an agreement of a rent increase of $175 (7.4%) on a month to month basis\neffective November 7th. The Committee unanimously passed a recommendation upholding\nthe parties' agreement. Motion and second (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana, Landess).\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2\nNo additional public comment.\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2016-10-03", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nOctober 3, 2016\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Staff clarified the purpose of this item.\nb. Member Schrader commended the efforts of staff.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nJennifer Kauffman\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 9, 2016.\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-10-03.pdf"}