body,date,page,text,path
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY FEBRUARY 5, 2018 7:00 P.M.
Chair Dieter convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Foreman, Henneberry, Little, and
Chair Dieter - 4.
Absent:
Commissioner Schwartz - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Minutes of the October 2, 2017 Meeting
Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of the minutes with a comment; noted that
he made comments about his experience on the Planning Board prior to the nomination
of Chair and Vice Chair; requested the comment be included in the October 2, 2017
minutes.
Vice Chair Little seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Commissioners Henneberry, Little and Chair Dieter - 3. Abstention: Commissioner
Foreman - 1. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]
3-B. Presentation on Repairing Alameda's Aging Infrastructure and Related Survey
The Public Information Officer gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Vice Chair Little's inquiry regarding local funding options, the Public
Information Officer stated nothing has been proposed at this point; a question was
included in the telephone survey.
Vice Chair Little stated infrastructure improvements are dependent on development;
inquired whether there are alterative ideas if development, such as the Del Monte or
Alameda Point projects, are not able to acquire funding.
The Public Information Officer responded that she is not sure, but she would ask the
Public Works Director and provide a response.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether Alameda really has the third oldest park
system in the nation, to which the Public Information Officer responded that she is sure
it is true; stated the City should have more information about it online, which she would
add to the City's website.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
1
February 5, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,2,"Vice Chair Little noted Jean Sweeney Park will be one of the largest inner City Parks,
which should also be honored as part of the process.
Commissioner Dieter inquired why the survey is posted at two different online locations.
The Public Information Officer responded the survey is posted in a number of places;
stated there are several versions of the Survey Monkey survey and links to the main
survey have been posted on social media; outlined other users who have received
surveys, such as See Click Fix and Peak Democracy; stated a mailer was sent to
people across Alameda; the survey has also been publicized in the newspaper; the City
has tried to give access to as many people as possible and did not want to limit it to just
people who would take a survey on Survey Monkey; over 3,500 responses have been
received.
Commissioner Dieter inquired about the outreach online; stated the City's website
survey has been discussed verbally, but there have only been tweets about Peak
Democracy.
The Public Information Officer responded some people like Peak Democracy and others
do not; stated whether people want to fill out the survey on Survey Monkey, Peak
Democracy or via the mail is a personal choice; the data is being collected in the exact
same way for everyone who responds.
Commissioner Dieter stated there is also a telephone survey for an infrastructure parcel
tax that would cost $23 per month per $100,000 of assessed valuation; inquired
whether the surveys are related.
The Public Information Officer responded in the affirmative; stated the telephone survey
just started.
Commissioner Dieter inquired whether the City is doing the survey in order to move
forward in a campaign, to which the Public Information Officer responded not
necessarily; stated the City is trying to figure out options to pay for infrastructure needs;
once the City has collected the data from all of the surveys, the City will present the
results to Council for Council to decide if and how to move forward.
Commissioner Dieter stated thoughts on infrastructure immediately go to sidewalks and
streets; when she took the survey, there was an option for affordable housing; inquired
about affordable housing being included in an infrastructure survey.
The Public Information Officer responded that she would have to talk to the Public
Works Director to specifically answer the question; stated that she thinks it has to do
with the original phone survey, which included housing and traffic; she believes it was
included to see the public's priorities in total; she would want to provide a response after
asking the Public Works Director.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 5, 2018
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,3,"Chair Dieter stated that she would not recommend conflating affordable housing into an
infrastructure bond measure or future surveys; it dilutes the issues and is a little
confusing to the public.
3-C. Review the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Vice Chair Little inquired whether the Commission should go through the list of items
that was provided by the Council subcommittee; stated that she has questions and
comments throughout the list; going through the list one item at a time might be easiest.
Chair Dieter stated that she has a motion that she would like to make which might clarify
how the Commission moves forward.
In response to Chair Dieter's inquiry regarding the agenda title, the City Clerk stated the
Commission's feedback will be provided to the City Council; the review encompasses
the Commission's discussion, which will be passed onto the City Council.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the complete rules of order do not exist as one document,
to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the resolution has been
amended.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the rules are posted on the City's website, to which the
City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the resolutions are all posted separately.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the rules of order and order of business are two separate
things, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Chair Dieter stated the Commission is discussing the rules of order tonight, which is
how to conduct meetings; inquired whether the Commission could also provide input on
how the public could easily access the rules in the future.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Foreman stated said matter is the first thing that should be addressed.
Stated that he had not paid attention to the details of running meetings or heard of
Rosenberg's Rules of Order; discussed the two methods for counting an abstention;
stated one counts an abstention as a no; the other method, called present and voting,
does not count abstaining as a no vote; he reviewed the rules and did not see the
method used to count votes; custom has been an abstention is the same as a no vote; it
does not happen often; discussed a recent example: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
3
February 5, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,4,"Chair Dieter stated that she would like to make a motion to repeal the original resolution
and any resolution amending it altogether, introduce a new resolution that adopts
Rosenberg's Rules of Order, unless it conflicts with an express rule adopted by
resolution of the City Council, and where Rosenberg is silent, provisions would be
added to the resolution; in other words, standard parliamentary rules would be adopted
and special rules would be passed as needed; further stated to try to guide the
discussion, she would share a handout with follow Commissioners because it is in
writing and will be made part of the public record.
The City Clerk inquired whether the motion would be to make a recommendation to
have Council repeal the resolutions because Council has to repeal its resolutions, to
which Chair Dieter responded correct.
Chair Dieter stated what she has handed out includes her outline of Rosenberg's Rules
of Order, which is part of the staff report, and clauses needed in the new resolution; the
items Rosenberg's Rules is silent on and the City Council has taken a position on are in
the list of clauses; the first is counting votes, which the public speaker addressed; read
the proposed clauses; stated that she reviewed the daisy chain of resolutions and
included what she considered to be important or missing and came up with the list of
clauses that the Commission could consider adding to Rosenberg's Rules or Order;
stated that is her motion.
Commissioner Foreman requested the motion be read back.
Chair Dieter stated the motion is to consider suggesting that the City Council repeal the
original resolution and any resolutions amending it and introduce a new resolution
adopting Rosenberg's Rules of Order, unless it conflicts with an express rules adopted
by resolution of the City Council; where Rosenberg's Rules is silent, add provisions to
the resolution which she specifically named.
Commissioner Foreman stated the handout is simply an outline of how to attack the
matter and does not necessarily become part of the motion; leases and land sales are
covered under the Charter, which is kind of redundant; without going over everything
section by section, he does not know that everything has been covered; he is assuming
the motion is just how the Commission proceeds, not necessarily that the handout is
where the Commission will end up; inquired whether or not his understanding is fair.
Chair Dieter respond a little of both; stated that she would like the Commission to end
up here, but she thought maybe the Commission may have something to add if
members feel there is something important she may have missed; Rosenberg's Rules
of Order were part of the agenda packet; she decided to write an outline to help the
Commission focus because it is too hard to read quite a few pages.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he likes the list, but may have an issue with closing
debate; he thinks it should be very difficult to close debate, not just a majority vote; he
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 5, 2018
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,5,"might be able to support the general motion, which really does not include the outline;
however, if voting for the motion is for the limited outline, he would have troubles.
Chair Dieter stated that she envisions Rosenberg's Rules of Order as part of the new
resolution; the special rules would be at the bottom to add items which are applicable to
the City of Alameda; rather than reinvent the wheel, Rosenberg's entire text should be
adopted; then, the special rules should be added to the end; it would all be one
resolution.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether items which contradict Rosenberg's Rules
would be included, to which Chair Dieter responded correct.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the motion is Rosenberg's Rules, plus
whatever the Commission decides as a group, not necessarily the list, to which Chair
Dieter responded correct.
Vice Chair Little stated something in Rosenberg's Rules that might not be applicable to
what is happening could be scratched; she loves the spirit of Chair Dieter's proposal;
trying to figure out which version was the most current gave her a headache; she would
love to see a new version in one document; when she was doing her research,
Rosenberg's versus Robert's, she appreciates the more simplistic, user friendly
Rosenberg's Rules; however, the current City Council structure is run a little differently;
if the Commission is going to make a recommendation tonight, she is not comfortable
and would want to go through the finer points to ensure nothing is being missed; for
example, Rosenberg's Rules recommends that the presiding officer take a less active
role, defer to others and speak last, which is not necessarily how the City Council is
currently being managed; she would want to make sure that the Commission goes
through the provisions with a little more detail; her understanding was that the intent of
going through the Rules of Order was to ensure that City Council meetings do not go
until 3:19 a.m.; a wide gamut of recommendations could be proposed to the City
Council that should be put on the table to consider.
Commissioner Henneberry seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Chair Dieter stated when she read Rosenberg's Rules of Order, she
discovered it is basically how things are run now; the Chair usually does wait to speak
last; the only thing that she saw different was that the Chair invites a motion after public
comment, which she thinks would be wonderful; it would focus the debate, rather than
having an hour discussion with the public waiting for a motion; that is the only thing she
saw which was different.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he is in favor of repealing and staring all over; the
Commission should start with the current rules of order and go through item by item to
decide what should be kept; then, wherever the City is silent, Rosenberg's Rules would
be followed; it is being flipped to say the rules are Rosenberg's Rules, which is not what
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
5
February 5, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,6,"the Council asked the Commission to do; that he does not think he will be able to
support doing it the way proposed.
Chair Dieter inquired whether there is any special rule that she forgot to include, to
which Commissioner Foreman responded that he cannot answer that because he did
not have an opportunity to compare; stated that he is worried something will be missed;
history has to be respected; starting with the original document makes more sense; it
should be repealed and codified in one document.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired what was the genesis for the matter coming forward
and what the City Council wanted out of it.
The City Clerk responded the matter was raised via a referral; Councilmember
Matarrese brought it forward to have changes made.
Commissioner Henneberry questioned whether Councilmember Matarrese thought
meetings were going too long; stated the rules are not the problem.
Chair Dieter stated the impetus was there was a question about public comments non-
agenda.
The Assistant City Attorney outlined the public comment issue that lead to the referral.
Commissioner Henneberry stated the entire issue came out of a specific arcane item;
he has been dealing with Robert's Rules of Order for 30 years; the rules are not the
issue if there is concern about the length of meetings, which is due to the Chair and
meeting participants; he thinks Rosenberg's Rules look pretty good, clean and like a
nice breath of fresh air compared to Robert's Rules; he does not want to go through
every resolution because there was a non-agenda comment issue.
Chair Dieter stated when looking at the issue, Councilmember Matarrese noticed there
were other rules which are not being followed because they are not clear, such as
Councilmembers are only allotted three minutes to speak; there was a whole host of
things; it is great that the Council subcommittee looked to Rosenberg's Rules of Order;
the League of California Cities (LCC) recommends Rosenberg's Rules; the City is pretty
much following Rosenberg's Rules already and just needs to apply special rules; she
spent hours and hours going through all the resolutions trying to find things that were
not covered by Rosenberg's Rules, which are the ones she added to the end; she felt
everything else was covered.
Vice Chair Little stated going through her list, she is finding similarities between the
notes she took on the various resolution items and Chair Dieter's list; she just wants to
be cautious that the Commission is not missing something; she finds the City's rules
terribly confusing; the language is circular and not understandable; she appreciates
Rosenberg's Rules; she would consider moving forward and not going through
everything line by line as long as there is agreement that there is a comparison between
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 5, 2018
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,7,"what Rosenberg is recommending and the current rules to make sure nothing missing;
for meeting hours, Chair Dieter's list recommends midnight; she saw it was 11:00 p.m.,
then midnight and back to 11:00 p.m.; she thought the current time is 11:00 p.m. now.
The City Clerk stated midnight is not reflected as the time in the Sunshine Ordinance;
amending the ending time and the 10:30 p.m. vote to consider remaining items would
require an ordinance amendment.
Commissioner Foreman stated it does not matter if the Commission proceeds as he is
suggesting or as the motion is suggesting, except he does not see a way to not go
through article by article; he opposes adopting the proposal; the review needs to be
done as a group; he is willing to support the motion, but he is still going to want to go
through every item.
Chair Dieter stated the Commissioners all like Rosenberg's Rules of Order; the
Commission wants to make sure it has not missed anything for only the special rules;
she went line by line through it; suggested coming back again with the special rules to
give Commissioners an opportunity to study the resolutions to see if anything has been
missed.
Commissioner Foreman stated the suggestion makes sense; that he would be more
comfortable and the Commission might save time.
Chair Dieter stated there is a motion and a second; perhaps the Commission should
take a vote.
Commissioner Henneberry stated that he has a timing question; the Commission is
scheduled to meet twice per year; the next meeting is October; however, the
Commission can meet in the interim if there is a reason to meet; inquired whether a vote
of the Commission decides scheduling.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
The City Clerk stated the Commission's meetings are typically held the first Monday; in
the past, the Commission met the next month to continue review.
Commissioner Foreman moved approval of tabling the motion until the next meeting in
the next 30 days.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the meeting would be held the first Monday, to which
Commissioner Foreman responded that is fine with him.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that he will be gone the first Monday in March;
inquired whether the Commission would agree to the first Monday in April.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether other days are available.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
7
February 5, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,8,"The Assistant City Attorney responded perhaps later in February or mid-March.
Commissioner Foreman rephrased the motion; moved approval of the same motion with
the meeting date being the first Monday in April.
Vice Chair Little seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a subcommittee would
go over the matter prior to the next meeting.
Commissioner Foreman stated the Commissioners could all share their comments with
each other prior to the next meeting, which cannot be done.
The Assistant City Attorney stated each Commissioner can send comments to the City
Clerk for distribution, but the Commissioners cannot collectively discuss the matter until
the meeting.
Chair Dieter inquired whether she could have sent her list to the City Clerk after the
agenda was posted, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative;
stated communications should be sent to the City Clerk to be sent out to everyone at
the same time; after communications are sent out, three members cannot discuss the
matter outside of a meeting.
The City Clerk noted communications are posted and made public.
Chair Dieter stated that she will withdraw her motion.
Commissioner Foreman inquired why the motion is being withdrawn; stated that he is
tabling Chair Dieter's motion.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether it would be permissible to have a two
person subcommittee of Chair Dieter and Vice Chair Little, to which the Assistant City
Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Henneberry stated the subcommittee could put something together for
distribution to the rest of the Commission prior to the next meeting.
Vice Chair Little and Chair Dieter both expressed a willingness to do so.
Chair Dieter stated there is a motion to table the matter until the next meeting.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:
Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]
Chair Dieter inquired whether there is another motion to set up a subcommittee.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 5, 2018
8",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,9,"Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether a motion is needed, to which the Assistant
City Attorney responded a motion should be done to determine the subcommittee
membership and direction.
Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of having a subcommittee comprised of the
Chair and Vice Chair Little to put together a proposal, provide it to the City Clerk and
have it distributed to the Commission prior to the next meeting.
In response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the meeting
packet goes out seven days prior to the meeting, which would be March 26th.
Vice Chair Little stated that she thought the meeting would be in March.
Commissioner Foreman stated the Assistant City Attorney is not available.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if the Commission would rather meet in March,
someone else from the City Attorney's office could attend.
Commissioners Henneberry and Little stated that they would prefer to meet in March.
Commissioner Foreman noted the Commission already voted on the motion.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission is considering forming a
subcommittee and could direct the matter be brought back the first Monday in March.
Commissioner Henneberry clarified the motion is to form the subcommittee and meet
the first Monday in March.
Commissioner Foreman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
4. [Absent: Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]
3-D. Recommendation to Approve the Records Retention Schedule
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the retention schedule is considered the Public Records
Index (PRI).
The City Clerk responded the two were separated; stated the League of California Cities
(LCC) index, which provides a general guide of the documents that are open or closed,
was adopted by the City Council; the retention schedule informs when records, which
are listed by department, would be destroyed.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the City has two different retention schedules: the PRI
and one by each department.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
9
February 5, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,10,"The City Clerk responded the PRI is used to disclose whether documents are public or
partially public.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the PRI does not include when to destroy records, to
which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Chair Dieter inquired whether the schedule does not need to come before the Open
Government Commission, to which the City Clerk responded the schedule was
presented to the Commission in the past.
Chair Dieter stated the Sunshine Ordinance does not require the schedule to come
before the Commission; inquired where the standards come from and whether there are
different types of records; stated the Secretary of State, with the LCC, came up with
guidelines; the City Clerk's Association also has guidelines; inquired where the City's
standards for disposing of documents was formed.
The City Clerk responded the last column has the statutory reference and draws on
many different sources, such as the Government Code and Elections Code; stated each
department draws from different Codes; the citation of the statutory reference would be
very similar in the City's schedule versus the Secretary of State guidelines; the City tried
to whittle down its list to inform the public what documents the City has and retains.
Chair Dieter stated the schedule is not arbitrary; inquired whether the department heads
are not just deciding how long to keep something and actually turn to a statutory
reference.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the City exceeds statutory reference
in some instances, but it is never shorter.
Chair Dieter stated sidewalk repair requests would be deleted after five years, which
means the records could be destroyed before the repair is done.
The City Clerk stated the clock starts ticking after the issue is resolved.
The Assistant City Attorney stated citizens' complaints for Police Officers have a five
year retention period and start at the complaint date as opposed to resolved; the
general rule is what the City Clerk indicated, but there are some situations where the
clock might start at occurrence.
Vice Chair Little inquired how someone could figure out which is the case.
The Assistant City Attorney responded it is typically by statute; provided an example of
hiring.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 5, 2018
10",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,11,"The City Clerk stated there are retention codes at the bottom of the page; provided an
example of current year end, which is very specific.
Chair Dieter stated the main thing is for the public to understand; suggested adding
footnotes for some about when the time starts.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether the Commission needs to approve the
schedule.
The City Clerk responded the City Council will be informed if the Commission takes
action.
Commissioner Henneberry moved approval of approving the Records Retention
Schedule.
Commissioner Foreman seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Chair Dieter stated that she plans on voting no because she does not
think that technology should be driving public policy; if there were other reasons for
wanting to change five years to three years, it would make more sense to her; just
because the City does not have storage capacity is a bad precedent.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Commissioners Foreman, Henneberry and Little - 3. Noes: Chair Dieter - 1. [Absent:
Commissioner Schwartz - 1.]
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether Municipal Code amendments prior language
goes away and the Code reflects the current law, to which the City Clerk responded in
the affirmative.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether resolutions could be codified; stated the new
rules of order will be neat, but could end up with the same mess.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the way to handle the matter would be to repeal
the entirety and adopt a new resolution with all changes; stated discrete pieces of the
original resolution were changed by just amending the section; the point is well taken-it
makes it difficult to go to one document and figure out the rules.
Commissioner Foreman inquired whether that is the only way, to which the Assistant
City Attorney responded as a practical matter.
Chair Dieter stated the City Council current version could have a legislative history with
previous versions underneath.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
11
February 5, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-02-05,12,"The City Clerk stated the issue can be discussed when the matter returns to the
Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Dieter adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
February 5, 2018
12",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-02-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-02-05,1,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, February 5, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Murray and Friedman
Absent:
Member Griffiths
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Jennifer Kauffman
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed the Committee that several cases on the agenda would not be
heard, as they resolved prior to the hearing.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem spoke about ECHO Housing's fair housing, landlord-tenant,
and mediation services.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff welcomed the attendees and participants, and informed them of the process
for participating in meeting.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the January 10, 2018 Regular Meeting
Motion and second (Friedman and Cambra). Motion passed 3-0, with Member Murray
abstaining.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 931.2 - 840 Oak St., Apt. A
Tenant: Jessica Lorega
Landlord: Park Young
Proposed rent increase: $97.50 (5.0%) to a total rent of $2,047.50, effective
January 1, 2018
Prior to the review, Program Staff provided the Committee and public two photographs
of the front of the outside of the subject property that the landlord had submitted to
the Rent Program several days prior to the hearing.
Page 1 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-02-05,2,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
Mr. Young, referencing the Craigslist ads submitted by the tenants of units renting for
less than their rent, stated that the ""comparatives"" offered by the tenants were not
relevant since they signed a lease (in 2016) at the rate of $1,950.
Ms. Lorega informed the Committee that Program Staff had invalidated two previous
rent increase attempts. She said she believed her rent was above market-rate
considering the condition of the unit, lack of amenities, lack of maintenance and
repairs, and the fact that most utilities were not included. She said that the increased
rent would comprise about 36% of their current income.
Mr. Young responded that the apartment was in fine condition and the tenants did not
take good care of the property. He told the Committee that the tenants had two pet
rabbits when they told him they only had one, and that the unit smelled bad inside.
Referencing the photographs submitted by the landlord, Ms. Lorega replied that most of
the items depicted belonged to her downstairs neighbors. She added that both rabbits
were disclosed to the landlord when they moved in and were in fact mentioned in the
lease, and that she cleaned up after them as needed.
Mr. Young replied that the building was old and that he was not making money from it,
adding that repairs were expensive. He said that the tenants did not inform him of any
work that needed to be done.
Ms. Lorega replied that they did not often ask for repairs because the landlord does
repairs himself and they had concerns about him making repairs to their unit because
he was not mindful of their personal property when doing repair work.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked the tenant if her household was single-income. She
said that it was until her husband very recently found employment. She confirmed that
when he starts bringing in money, the rent will comprise less of their income than the
percentage she stated earlier.
Member Murray asked the tenant to describe the interior of the unit. The tenant said
that she, her husband, and her daughter were the occupants, and that the interior had
broken floor tiles, and multiple different kinds of flooring in various parts of the unit.
She said that caulking was excessively used throughout the apartment in place of
making needed repairs.
Mr. Young said that he was a general contractor and again stated that the tenants did
not ask him for repairs. He said he bought the property in 2013.
Member Friedman asked the tenant how the landlord could help improve her living
situation. Ms. Lorega replied that the landlord was very adversarial, adding that he
drove past the property twice a day. She said that when the Rent Program informed the
Page 2 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-02-05,3,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
landlord that an offer of a one-year lease was required along with the first rent increase
since enactment of the Ordinance, he came to her door at 8:45 p.m. (close to her
child's bed time) and tried to force her to sign a lease. She said that she did not want to
sign it and does not see herself living there a long time. Member Friedman asked if
improvements to the property would encourage her to stay, and she said they would
have to be substantial.
Chair Cambra asked the landlord if any costs to run the property had increased and Mr.
Young replied that some costs had increased, without specifying which costs.
Member Murray asked the landlord what it cost to pay the mortgage and insurance and
Mr. Young replied that it was about $3,100 per month. Mr. Young expressed that the
rent from both units at the property barely covered the costs of running the property.
Chair Cambra asked the parties if they learned anything new that they did not know
prior to the meeting. Mr. Young said that he did not know that the tiles needed repair.
Chair Cambra asked the tenant if she would be open to a rent increase if the landlord
did repairs. Ms. Lorega responded that the bedroom door would have to be repainted
and made to fit properly and the floors would need to be repaired. Mr. Young said he
was open to fixing the broken floor tiles.
Chair Cambra clarified that the Committee did not have the authority to require repairs
or maintenance in exchange for increased rent and that the parties would have to come
to an agreement between themselves for this. Chair Cambra further clarified that any
agreement is unenforceable by the City and that an agreement would waive the current
right to a hearing. Ms. Lorega said she did not feel comfortable making an agreement
with the landlord.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana asked the landlord how much rent the tenants in the other
unit paid, and Mr. Young replied that their rent was $2,586 per month.
Member Friedman asked if the tenant was concerned about her deposit being returned
and Ms. Lorega said she was. Member Friedman suggested she may seek outside
assistance, referencing Angie Hajjem-Watson's earlier public comment on ECHO's
housing services.
The parties took their seats and the Committee members began deliberations. Member
Murray said that she believed the rent to be high compared to comparable units in the
area, but not high in relation to the landlord's costs of operation. She echoed that now
that the tenants would have two incomes, the rent increase did not appear to cause a
financial hardship. She stated she believed the fundamental problem was a bad
relationship between the parties. She opined that a 5% increase was reasonable.
Page 3 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-02-05,4,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana echoed Member Murray's comments, adding that the best
solution may be for the tenants to move to a less expensive unit, as Ms. Lorega
expressed little desire to remain in that apartment.
Member Friedman stated that he did not believe the landlord's costs of operation have
likely increased 5%, but did not think that a lower increase would keep the tenant in
her home considering the reservations she expressed during the meeting.
Chair Cambra reiterated that the main issue was a lack of trust between the parties and
a 5% increase would not displace the tenants. He added that a landlord cannot always
expect a property to generate cash flow.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Murray) made for a $97.50 (5%) increase.
Passed 3-0, with Member Friedman abstaining.
7-B. CASE 977 - 2027 Encinal Ave., Apt. C
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $150.00, a 9.1% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,800.00, effective March 1, 2018.
7-C. CASE 958.1 - 2215 Central Ave., Apt. H
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $91.50, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,929.00, effective February 1, 2018.
Roberta Borglum, the tenant in this case, was present at the meeting and made a
public comment at this time. She said that she was thankful for the RRAC and the
Ordinance. She informed the Committee that several days prior to the meeting,
her landlord came to her home and told her he would not negotiate the amount
of the increase at the RRAC meeting and asked her to sign Form RP-05 agreeing
to the increased amount. He told her that if she did not like the increase, she could
move out. She said she felt intimidated by the landlord and signed the form. She
added that she had lived in the home for 20 years, and suggested the City of
Alameda consider adopting a stricter form of rent control where tenants did not
have to negotiate with their landlords to avoid situations where the tenant could
feel intimidated.
7-D. CASE 982 - 958 Park St., Apt. B
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $72.60, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,524.60, effective February 1, 2018.
Page 4 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-02-05,5,"Approved Minutes
February 5, 2018
7-E. CASE 983 - 958 Park St., Apt. 1
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed
to a rent increase of $75.63, a 5.0% increase, bringing the rent to a total of
$1,588.13, effective February 1, 2018.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. Referencing public comment in Agenda Item 7-C, Eric Strimling commented that
the current Ordinance's stipulations encouraging landlords and tenants to
negotiate the amount of rent increases leads to damaged relationships between
the parties. He opined that the City of Alameda should move toward adopting a
strict form of rent control in place of the current system to avoid situations where
a tenant could feel intimidated.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
a. Referencing public comment in Agenda Item 7-C, Member Friedman asked if
Program Staff could do anything to help tenants who feel intimidated. City Attorney
Staff commented that Committee members could ask Program Staff to agendize
items for future discussion, but suggested it may be better to communicate with
Staff directly on certain topics rather than agendizing them for discussion in public
forums. He added that while matters like intimidation and coercion may not be
appropriate topics for Committee discussion, Program Staff might provide
resources to tenants facing those issues, such as by adding resources and
information to the Rent Program's FAQ.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:36 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 5, 2018
Page 5 of 5",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-02-05.pdf