body,date,page,text,path
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-12-17,1,"MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY DECEMBER 17, 2018 - - - 7:00 P.M.
Chair Little convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Commissioners Dieter, Foreman, Henneberry,
Schwartz and Chair Little - 5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEM
Before addressing the agenda item, Chair Little stated that she does not think the
Commission's role as oversight on the Council and City Attorney's actions is appropriately
addressed to the Open Government Commission (OGC); if the City Attorney would like
to address inadequacies that were written into the law and presented at the last meeting,
the issues would be better discussed by the City Council; she would like to propose a
motion to table the conversation until after the City Council has been engaged on how the
City would like to address the oversight and transparency implications of staff's request.
Commissioner Foreman called a point of order on whether or not it is appropriate for the
Commission to consider the matter; stated that he believes it is out of order; the Sunshine
Ordinance states the Commission had to make a decision within 30 days of the filing of
the complaint; the decision was rendered on November 14th; the fact that the City Attorney
has not prepared a written confirmation of that decision does not change the fact that the
decision was made; the decision was made two days before the cannabis ordinance
would have become effective; thus, the ordinance is null and void; there is no basis to
proceed; as a consequence, the only thing left to do is write the written report required by
law which should have been done by November 28th; what needs to be done tonight is to
ask the City Attorney to assist the Commission with writing the opinion which confirms
what has already been done; the matter should be done tonight because he and
Commissioner Dieter will be termed out by tomorrow.
Commissioner Foreman moved approval of dismissing the reconsideration on the basis
that it is out of order and requesting the City Attorney to assist the Commission in writing
an order tonight confirming the November 14th decision.
In response to Commissioner Henneberry's inquiry, Chair Little stated that she would like
to table the issue until the City Council decides about the OGC's authority; she believes
that the Commission's decision made last month was under the purview of the
Commission, but counsel is saying it is not; she believes the City Council needs to make
the decision.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
1
December 17, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-12-17,2,"Commissioner Henneberry seconded Commissioner Foreman's motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Dieter stated that she is uncomfortable with ignoring the
people who showed up tonight to speak; the Commission should at least hear speakers;
she is also uncomfortable with tabling the item because the implication is it will come back
under the same conditions; she would like to continue with the agenda item and allow the
citizens to speak; the outcome may be the same, but at least a motion would be made
after public comment.
Commissioner Foreman stated the vote on the motion could be done after public
comment.
Commissioner Dieter concurred.
In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry, Commissioner Foreman stated that he
does not want to hear the staff report because it is out of order; he is not opposed to
public comment and is adamantly opposed to tabling the matter because it would mean
surrendering the Commission's authority.
Commissioner Henneberry stated that he does not see a point in public comment if the
staff report is not going to be heard; if the issue has to go back to Council, there will be
many opportunities for public comment and there was public comment at the last meeting.
Commissioner Foreman stated if the motion passes, it does not remove the possibility
that the City Attorney's office may advise City Council that the Commission did not have
the authority and City Council may agree with the determination; while the issue may end
tonight at the Commission level, it may not be over.
Chair Little stated as the Sunshine Ordinance is written, she interprets that the
Commission had every right to make the November 14th decision; the Commission was
advised by the City Attorney that the decision was one the Commission could make; she
was surprised to have to the issue return for another meeting; she is unclear why the
Commission was told they could make a decision, then three weeks later, the authority is
rescinded.
Commissioner Foreman concurred with Commissioner Henneberry; stated as much as
he would like to hear public comment, it is out of order; the Commission could move
forward after the vote if it does not carry.
Commissioner Henneberry called the question.
Commissioner Dieter requested Commissioner Foreman to restate his motion.
The City Clerk restated Commissioner Foreman's motion to have the City Attorney write
an order confirming the Commission's November 14th decision.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 17, 2018
2",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-12-17,3,"Commissioner Foreman stated his motion included dismissing the reconsideration of the
matter.
Chair Little inquired whether the motion should also include having the item re-noticed by
City Council, to which Commissioner Foreman responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he thinks staff report Attachment B would suffice with
some changes.
The Interim City Attorney stated Attachment B could be easily word-smithed to carry out
what the Commission would like with respect to the matter; further stated that he is not
going to agree with Commissioner Foreman's position that the ordinances in question are
null and void; the decision will have the effect of providing direction to the Council to have
said result come about; as indicated in his memo to the Commission, he does not think
the Commission has the legal authority to render a legally adopted ordinance null and
void.
Chair Little stated the Commission was told that the timing of their deliberations and
delaying the second reading of the ordinances in order for the Commission hearing to
take place first did not matter; inquired whether the issue came about because the
Commission deliberated on the issue after the second reading of the ordinances.
The Interim City Attorney responded the matter proceeded on November 7th; at the
October 16th meeting, the City Attorney advised the City Council that it was appropriate
to introduce the ordinance with the amendment in question and that it did comply with the
Sunshine Ordinance; Council relied on said advice and made the decision to proceed on
November 7th notwithstanding the fact that a complaint had been filed on October 30th
Council adopted the ordinances on November 7th which went into effect on December 6th.
it is his understanding that the Commission would like to have the ordinances re-noticed,
and the two ordinances would be repealed.
Commissioner Dieter made a friendly amendment to the motion that the Commission
affirm its November 7th decision.
Commissioner Foreman stated that is basically his motion; Commissioner Dieter may just
be objecting to the first sentence regarding dismissing the matter as out of order; he thinks
it is important for the Commission to make the assertion; he is not present to argue
whether or not the City Attorney's position of delegation of power is correct; he is here to
argue that the Commission's jurisdiction on the matter ended on November 14th
Commissioner Dieter stated that she is ready to move forward with the vote because she
is not persuaded by the City's legal analysis that no grounds exist to revisit the matter;
she also believes the Commission does not have the authority to determine whether the
ordinance is valid.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
3
December 17, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-12-17,4,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Commissioners Little, Foreman, Dieter, Henneberry - 4. Absent - 1 (Commissioner
Schwartz).
In response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry about drafting the report, the Interim City
Attorney stated amending Attachment B of his analysis would be the easiest.
Commissioner Dieter stated that she has two amendments to propose; inquired whether
it was important to treat the decision like a legal opinion.
The Interim City Attorney responded he followed the format the Commission has used
before; stated the Commission could do something different.
Commissioner Dieter stated if the format is maintained, the entire paragraph on page
8
that starts with ""Turning now to the question.. through the three provisions, should be
deleted.
In response to the Interim City Attorney's inquiry about what to do on the next page if the
paragraph is deleted, Commissioner Dieter stated the third sentence stating ""In order to
carry out the decision could be deleted.
Chair Little clarified that if the paragraph and three provisions on page 8 are deleted,
along with the third sentence on page 9, the Commission would end up with the same
decision made on November 14th
Commissioner Dieter concurred with Chair Little.
Commissioner Foreman stated the Commission has to state the direction; suggested the
sentence to read, ""In order to carry out the decision, the Commission directs that the
ordinances passed on October 16, 2018 are hereby null and void and that ""the City
Council may re-introduce the two ordinances following a properly noticed public hearing..
""
Commissioner Henneberry suggested allowing the City Council to do whatever they need
to do; the complaint was sustained, the Council should re-notice and re-hear the
ordinances.
Chair Little stated that she does not want to allow room for the Council to make the
decision; the Commission should make it clear that the Council must to re-notice and re-
introduce the ordinances.
Commissioner Henneberry inquired whether that direction was already in the original
message to Council, to which Chair Little responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Henneberry stated instead of rewriting the language, the Commission
should just append what the decision was to the end of the report.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 17, 2018
4",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-12-17,5,"Chair Little concurred with Commissioner Henneberry; stated that is what the
Commission is trying to do.
The Interim City Attorney stated without waiving his previous arguments, suggested
including the amendments as the three provisions rather than deleting them altogether.
Chair Little stated that she would like the language to read, ""the Council must re-notice
""
and delete the word ""consider"" as she does not want Council to be able to consider the
decision, and rather just be directed to do it.
The Interim City Attorney stated the Commission does not have the authority to direct the
Council's action.
Commissioner Foreman stated the Commission has made the ordinances null and void;
the Council can choose to re-notice the ordinances if desired; he does not think the
Commission should force Council to reconsider.
Commissioner Henneberry stated the Commission's job is done upon Council being
informed of the mistake.
The Interim City Attorney reiterated the language revisions to include deleting the word
""circumscribed"" in the fourth sentence, and having the Commission ""directing"" rather than
""recommending"" the following: 1) Ordinances 3227 and 3228 are null and void; and 2) the
City Council may consider re-introducing the two ordinances in question following a
properly noticed public hearing.
Commissioner Foreman stated the provision regarding the agenda title is not needed and
can be deleted.
The Interim City Attorney affirmed Commissioner Foreman's statement.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he would like to make a change to a paragraph on
page 8; the last sentence should just read: ""the Commission finds that there was a
violation of Section 2-91.5, and the complaint is thereby sustained.'
Commissioner Dieter stated that she does not think a full legal opinion is necessary in the
future because it could be biased since it promotes a certain viewpoint.
The Interim City Attorney read the amended language and the Commission concurred
with the changes.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he was concerned about the Commission being
represented by the City Attorney's office in the enforcement proceedings; especially with
the particular issue; on October 16th, the Acting City Attorney rendered the opinion that
the notice on the agenda was appropriate; then, on November 14th. the Assistant City
Attorney argued before the Commission in support of the Acting City Attorney; the Interim
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
5
December 17, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-12-17,6,"City Attorney is in the middle, should be advising the Commission and has a conflict;
further stated the City should consider hiring independent, private counsel to represent
the Commission when a complaint is heard.
In response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry regarding who has authority to request a
re-hearing, the Interim City Attorney stated the request could come from a number of
different sources; in this case, because the City Attorney's office did not do an accurate
job of laying out what the Commission could do, it was incumbent upon the City to provide
the information to the Commission and the Council so that the issue could be fully vetted
and addressed.
The Commission agreed to hear the public comments.
3-A. Hearing on the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed October 30, 2018 and the
November 14, 2018 Open Government Commission Hearing and Decision, Including
Scope of Legal Authority of the Open Government Commission to Impose Certain
Penalties under the Sunshine Ordinance and Potential Next Steps.
Stated he is satisfied with the outcome of tonight's meeting and does not feel the
Commission's decision encroaches on the Council's legislative authority: Richard Bangert,
Alameda.
Read the League's letter supporting the Commission's decision: Karen Butter, League of
Women Voters.
Thanked the Commission for reaffirming his faith in government: Bill Smith, Alameda.
Commissioner Foreman stated what the Commission did tonight is not an exercise or
delegation of legislative power; it is a quasi-judicial function and the same penalty that
would have been suffered under the Brown Act.
In response to Chair Little's inquiry regarding calling the question, the City Clerk stated
she already called the question and the previous decision was upheld: 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Schwartz absent.
3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed December 4, 2018. [Withdrawn
without prejudice]
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Little thanked Commissioners Foreman and Dieter for their service; stated having
them participate in tonight's meeting was important.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Little adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.
Meeting of the
Open Government Commission
December 17, 2018
6",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf
OpenGovernmentCommission,2018-12-17,7,"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
7
December 17, 2018",OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,1,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, December 17, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present were:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Johnson and Sullivan-Cheah
Absent:
Member Chiu
Program staff:
Greg Kats, Grant Eshoo
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff informed the Committee that the tenant in Agenda Item 7-C requires
translation services and recommended that it be heard first.
Staff informed the Committee that Agenda Item 7-E had informed staff that he
would have to take time off work to attend the meeting and recommended the
Committee hear this item second.
Motion and second to reorder the agenda to accommodate these recommendations
(Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
Staff called roll to ascertain which parties were present. The tenants for Agenda
Items 7-A, 7-B, 7-E, 7-H, 7-I, 7-J, 7-K, 7-L, 7-M, and 7-N were not present and were
moved to the end of the agenda.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
Angie Watson-Hajjem from ECHO Housing provided information on ECHO's fair
housing and landlord-tenant services.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
6-A. CASE 1123 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D204
No Committee review. Prior to the hearing the parties reached an agreement concerning
the amount of the rent increase.
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,2,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-C. CASE 1173 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B217
Tenant: Oyunjargal Tsedendash
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $179.00 (10%), to a total rent of $1,974, effective
December 1, 2018
Using a speaker phone Staff called a translation service to obtain a Mongolian translator
for Ms. Tsedendash. Ms. Tsedendash stated that she lives at the unit with her husband
and child. She said the rent increase would pose a hardship because she does not work
and her husband brings in a limited income.
Vice Chair Murray explained the meeting procedure and Member Sullivan-Cheah
reflected back the tenant's opening statements.
Mr. King stated that his company purchased the property over a year ago and has
made $3 million in improvements, as the prior owners had neglected maintaining and
improving the property. Mr. King detailed the improvements made to the property,
which included seismic retrofitting, security improvements, and the addition of
amenities. He added that the property tax bill was approximately half a million dollars
more than the previous owner.
Ms. Tsedendash responded that an increase up to $80 would be acceptable to her and
the suddenness and amount being requested was not something that her family could
accommodate.
Vice Chair Murray asked if Mr. King would like to revise the requested increase amount
and Mr. King proposed an increase of $100 in light of the difficulties presented by the
tenant.
Ms. Tsedendash replied that she and her family had just moved to this country and they
were trying to adapt to life here. She added that they had a car loan and had just
received a $500 auto-related fine. She said that a $100 increase would be acceptable,
but $80 would be much easier for them.
Mr. King said that he would be agreeable to an $80 increase in light of the tenants'
situation.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Tsedendash about a broken window she had
mentioned earlier. She replied that water was dripping from the window. Mr. King
informed her how to request a repair.
The parties agreed to an increase of $0 for December 2018, followed by an $80
increase from January-November 2019.
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,3,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
7-D. CASE 1179 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D223
Tenant: Tam Trung Nguyen
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $169.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,864, effective
December 1, 2018
Using a speaker phone Staff called a translation service to obtain a Vietnamese
translator for Mr. Nguyen. Vice Chair Murray explained the meeting procedure to Mr.
Nguyen.
Mr. King stated that his company purchased the property over a year ago and have
made $3 million in improvements, as the prior owners had neglected maintaining and
improving the property. Mr. King detailed the improvements made to the property,
which included seismic retrofitting, security improvements, and the addition of
amenities. He said the property tax bill was approximately half a million dollars more
than the previous owner.
Mr. Nguyen said he had lived in the unit for two years, and is paying more than many
current residents. He said that he could afford a 5% increase but not the 10% the
landlord was requesting. He said that there have been improvements to the property
but not the inside of his unit.
Member Johnson asked Mr. King how many units were currently vacant and he
provided an approximate number. She asked how much current units were renting for
and Mr. King provided a range of current market rate rents.
Mr. Nguyen said he was a baker for Sugar Bowl Bakery and his son attended a high
school in the City of Alameda. He said his wife worked part-time in a local spa as a nail
technician.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Nguyen how much of a rent increase he could afford.
Mr. Nguyen said he could afford a maximum increase of $80. He said an increase above
that would make their budget very tight considering their other expenses.
The parties were not able to make an agreement and the Committee began
deliberations.
Member Johnson said she thought an increase of about 5% was reasonable as the
landlord acquired the property knowing the improvements that needed to be done and
how much the current tenants' rents were.
Member Sullivan-Cheah said he found the previous increases significant considering the
tenants' short tenancy, and that the rent was generally close to market rate. He said he
was thinking that a rent of $1,784 would be reasonable.
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,4,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
Vice Chair Murray said she agreed a 5% increase was reasonable, and thought a rate of
$1,780 (increase of $85) was reasonable, and on the high side for comparable units.
Motion and second for an increase of $0 for December 2018, followed by an increase of
$85 effective January 2019 through November 2019 (Members Sullivan Cheah and
Johnson). Motion passed 3-0.
7-F. CASE 1158 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A318
Tenant: Jason Bey, accompanied by Jeff Cambra
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed Rent Increase: $179.00 (10.0%) to a total rent of $1,984, effective
December, 1 2018
Mr. Cambra submitted a document that provided a summary of market rate one-
bedroom apartments. He stated that landlords should not expect to be able to recoup
all of the costs for improvements immediately, as the landlord should amortize the costs
of the improvements over the life of the improvements and use those amortized
amounts as the basis on which to request gradual rent increases.
Mr. Bey said he was a single parent caring for his daughter, who attends Encinal High
School. He said he works as a security guard and makes approximately $1,000 per
week and had increasing expenses for his family. He said that if the rent increased to
the amount the landlord was requesting he would be paying half of his income toward
rent.
Mr. King responded that the improvements made to the unit should increase the market
value of the unit. He provided alternative comparable units, including a one-bedroom
renting for $2,500, adding that new tenants at Vue Alameda paid about $2,300 for a
similar unit.
Member Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Bey if he had received any improvements to the
inside of his unit and Mr. Bey replied that the balcony was remodeled, but nothing was
improved on the inside of the unit.
Vice Chair Murray asked Mr. Bey if he thought he would continue to be a security guard
for the foreseeable future and he said yes. He added that his daughter was currently
applying for college. She asked what effect the full increase would have on his family
and he said it would be difficult for them to make it fit into their budget.
Member Johnson clarified with Mr. King how he capitalizes expenses at the property.
Mr. King proposed an increase of $80 from January 2019 to November 2019, and Mr.
Bey accepted.
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,5,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
7-G. CASE 1159 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C106
Tenant: Cecilia Maldonado
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $179.00 (10.0%) to a total rent of $1,974, effective
December 1, 2018
Mr. King opened with an offer of an increase of $80 per month.
Ms. Maldonado said that she thought the improvements done by the landlord made the
property more secure and look better. She said she was a single parent of a disabled
child, which has brought extra expenses and challenges for her. She said that she had
reported the window and sliding door in her unit needed fixing, but was told they would
be taken care of later, after the other renovations were finished. She said her daughter
is on a respirator and it was important that her daughter did not breathe cold, wet air.
She said the bathroom plumbing had needed repair, as it had leaked and discolored the
hardwood floor around the toilet. She said there was something that falls from their
bathroom ceiling into her tub, but she was not sure what it was. She added that she
moved to Alameda because she was able to get her daughter into a special education
program to help with her disability-related needs.
She said that she was accustomed to an increase of around 3% every three years, and
could currently afford an increase of $55.
Mr. King said he would like to correct whatever was wrong with her toilet even though
it did not seem like an old one that was slated to be replaced.
Member Sullivan-Cheah explained the City of Alameda's rent review and rent
stabilization process. He asked Ms. Maldonado what she does for work and she said she
does clerical work for the County of Alameda. She said she and her daughter were the
only occupants of the unit and no one else helped her pay rent. He asked how much of
her income would go toward rent if the landlord's proposed increase of $80 went into
effect and she said about half.
Vice Chair Murray asked if Ms. Maldonado received extra assistance to help with the
expenses related to her daughter's needs and she said she does not. She confirmed she
has health insurance that covers some of her daughter's medical needs.
The parties were not able to reach an agreement and the Committee began
deliberations.
Member Sullivan-Cheah commented that the rent was on the high end for one-bedroom
units and expressed concerns about the tenant's ability to remain in the City if she was
paying up to half of her income toward rent. He said he favored an increase of $55 as
proposed by the tenant.
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,6,"Approved Minutes
December 17,2018
Member Johnson agreed and added that Ms. Maldonado's daughter, being very young
(4 years old), needed to stay in the community in order to keep the special needs
education that she's able to obtain here.
Vice Chair Murray said that she thought an increase of $40 would be a reasonable
amount considering the needs presented by the tenant.
Motion and second for an increase of $0 for December 2018, followed by an increase of
$55 effective January 2019 through November 2019 (Members Sullivan-Cheah and
Johnson). Motion passed 3-0.
7-A. CASE 1126 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D312
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-B. CASE 1127 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D321
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-E. CASE 1156 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A302
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-H. CASE 1172 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B210
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-I. CASE 1166 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D322
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-J. CASE 1170 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B207
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-12-17,7,"Approved Minutes
December 17, 2018
7-K. CASE 1177 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D120
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-L. CASE 1164.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D222
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-M. CASE 1162.1 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C302
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
7-N. CASE 1176 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B315
No Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent
increase as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Vice Chair Murray asked to place two items on the agenda for January 9, 2019: a
discussion regarding and a vote for Chair and Vice Chair.
10.ADJOURNMENT
a. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Grant Eshoo
RRAC Secretary
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 4, 2019
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf