{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- NOVEMBER 7, 2018- 5:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:05 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment:\nGaby Dolphin, Alameda, stated hiring a new City Manager and City Attorney is not\nbusiness as usual; suggested holding Town Hall meeting meet and greets to allow\ncandidates to answer questions.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(18-595) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7 54957;\nTitle/description of positions to be filled: City Manager\n(18-596) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7 54957;\nTitle/description of positions to be filled: Acting/Interim City Attorney and City Attorney\n(18-597) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code section 54957.6);\nCITY Negotiators: David L. Rudat, Interim City Manager, Elizabeth D. Warmerdam,\nAssistant City Manager and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee\nOrganizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW),\nElectric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees\nAssociation (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and\nAlameda Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Under\nNegotiation: Salaries and Terms of Employment\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the City Manager, City Attorney, and Labor, direction was\ngiven to staff.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 7:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:36 p.m.\n***\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Labor, direction was given to staff.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 2, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:52 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 18, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY--NOVEMBER 7, - 2018- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Boy Scout Troop 2 led the Pledge\nof Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,\nVella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(18-598) The City Clerk announced the National Native American Heritage Month\nProclamation [paragraph no. 18-601], Physio contract [paragraph no. 18-607 and the\nResolution Site A/Eden [paragraph no. 18-613 would not be heard.\nMayor Spencer stated the proclamation was moved to November 27th at the request of\nthose accepting.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(18-599) Proclamation Declaring November 7, 2018 as Extra Mile Day.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Joanne Robinson, Michael\nChen, John Jacobs, Jerry and Linda Juhala, John Knox White, Jacqueline Mitchell, Kari\nThompson, Mark Sorensen, and the family of the late Kent Rosenblum.\n(18-600) Proclamation Declaring November 15, 2018 as America Recycles Day.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Janet Magleby, Downtown\nAlameda Business Association; Linda Asbury, West Alameda Business Association;\nJanet Davis, Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter; and Chris Valbusa and Carrie\nWright, Alameda County Industries.\nMs. Magleby and Ms. Asbury made brief comments.\n(18-601) Proclamation Declaring November 2018 as National Native American Heritage\nMonth. Not heard.\n(18-602) Proclamation Declaring November 2018 as National Veterans and Military\nFamilies Month.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Andy Huntoon, Vietnam\nVeteran; Jonathan Minton United States Navy Veteran; Petty Officer Colton Lane\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 4, "text": "Tokanada, Commander Jackie Leverich, and Eladia Minton, United States Coast\nGuard; and John Kuhlenkamp and Larry Fukuba, American Legion Post 9.\nMr. Huntoon and Ms. Leverich made brief comments.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(18-603) Keith Nealy, Alameda, submitted information expressed concern over flyers\nbeing stapled to utility poles.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe City Clerk announced the United Against Hate resolution [paragraph no. 18-614\nand the cannabis ordinances [paragraph nos. 18-615 and 18-616 were removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*18-604) Minutes of the Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting Held on September 18, 2018 and the Special and\nRegular City Council Meetings Held on October 2, 2018. Approved.\n(*18-605) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,268,058.98.\n(*18-606) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and\nExecute an Agreement for the Purchase of One Horton F-550 Type I Ambulance in an\nAmount Not to Exceed $385,178 Accepted.\n(18-607) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Three\nYear Contract, in an Amount Not to Exceed $30,000 Annually for a Total Three-Year\nExpenditure Amount Not to Exceed $90,000, with Physio Control for Warranty and\nMaintenance of Fire Department Advanced Life Support (ALS) Medical Monitors and\nEquipment. Not heard.\n(*18-608) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Accept the Work of\nLennar Homes, for Tract 8118, Marina Shores. Accepted.\n(*18-609) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a One-\nYear Contract Amendment, with the Option of Three One-Year Extensions, for an\nAmount not to Exceed $150,000 Each, for a Total Five Year Expenditure not to Exceed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 5, "text": "$750,000 Each, to the Following: BKF, HEI, and Schaaf & Wheeler for On-Call Civil\nEngineering Consulting Services. Accepted.\n(*18-610) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a One-\nYear Contract Amendment, with the Option of Three One-Year Extensions, for an\nAmount not to Exceed $150,000 Each, for a Total Five Year Expenditure not to Exceed\n$750,000 Each, to the Following: Baseline Designs, Inc., Habitat Engineering &\nForensics, Inc., JMEC Engineering, and Oakley & Oakley for On-Call Structural\nEngineering Consulting Services. Accepted.\n(*18-611) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a\nContract in the Amount Not to Exceed $5,299,614, Including Contingency, to McGuire\nand Hester for the Cross Alameda Trail -Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway\nImprovements, No. P.W.03-18-11. Accepted; and\n(*18-611A) Resolution No. 15452, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Capital Projects\nFund Budget for the Cross Alameda Trail (Main to Constitution) Project by $1,794,060\nfrom Various Funding Sources.\" Adopted.\n(*18-612) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Three-\nYear Agreement in an Amount Not to Exceed $500,000 with Centro Legal de la Raza\nfor Tenant Legal Services. Accepted; and\n(*18-612A) Resolution No. 15453, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2018-19 General Fund\nBudget of the City Attorney's Office to Appropriate the Remaining $400,000 for Tenant\nLegal Services. Adopted.\n(18-613) Adoption of Resolution Amending Previous Authorization of a Portion of the\nCity Base Allocation and Required Match Amount for Site A/Eden Affordable Senior\nProject and Affordable Family Project for Application to County Rental Housing\nDevelopment Fund. Not heard.\n(18-614) Resolution No. 15454, \"Declaring November 11 through 17 United Against\nHate Week in the City of Alameda, in Conjunction with the Alameda Unified School\nBoard and other Bay Area Cities.\" Adopted.\nExpressed gratitude to staff for the consideration of the item; stated the proposed\nmaterial would benefit from alternate language being considered: Rasheed Shabazz,\nAlameda.\nMayor Spencer requested the first line be struck; stated the proposed language comes\nfrom other cities; the intent is to focus on being a nation of immigrants.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the first line is worth striking.\nMayor Spencer outlined the new text.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the new text; requested Mr. Shabazz's\npresentation be included as correspondence.\nVice Mayor Vella moved adoption of the resolution [with striking the first line]; stated the\nCity is working on the goals and trying to achieve better acceptance of diversity and\neveryone in the community.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(18-615) Ordinance No. 3227, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nSection 30-10 (Cannabis) to (1) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally\nPermitted Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-\nManufacturing Zoning Districts, (2) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to\nEnable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-Medicinal or \"Adult Use\"\nCannabis, and (3) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Remove the\nDispersion Requirement.\" Finally passed.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a complaint was filed related to the item.\nThe Acting City Attorney responded a complaint has been filed contending the Council's\ndeviation from the specifics of the agenda title violates the Sunshine Ordinance; stated\nthe City Attorney's office has already opined that the agenda was clear and specific\nenough to embrace the action Council took; the Council may continue with final\npassage.\nExpressed concern over the ordinance being amended and proximity to children: Don\nSherratt, Alameda.\nRead a letter he submitted: Mark Hersman, Portman Enterprises.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired if the buffer zone near public or\nprivate schools was kept at the 1,000 foot distance.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative, stated there is a two-tier\nsystem.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director stated the 1,000 foot buffer\napplies to both private and public schools.\nMayor Spencer inquired the distance for day care centers.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded the buffer zone is 600\nfeet; stated all other sensitive uses are included in the 600 foot buffer zone.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the 600 foot buffer zone is consistent with State law.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 7, "text": "The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded the ordinance\nestablishes a two tier buffer zone; stated staff believes there is some ambiguity with\nsensitive uses; a robust discussion related to defining the uses would come back to\nCouncil November 27th; Council can proceed with the item presented.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry if the City Attorney's office believes the Council\ncan proceed with the item, the Acting City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft and Matarrese - 2.\n(18-616) Ordinance No. 3228, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nArticle XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and\nIndustry) to (1) Eliminate the Cap on Testing Laboratories, (2) Allow for Two Additional\nCannabis Businesses to Operate as \"Dispensary/Delivery' (Delivery Required) Within\nthe Zoning Districts for Cannabis Retail, (3) Amend the Dispersion Requirement to\nRequire No More Than Two Cannabis Retail Businesses to Operate on Either Side of\nGrand Street, (4) Create a Two-Tier Buffer Zone from Sensitive Uses for Cannabis\nBusinesses, (5) Amend Certain Portions of the Regulatory Ordinance to Enable\nCannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-medicinal or \"Adult Use\" Cannabis, (6)\nModify Requirements for Off-Island Delivery, and (7) Make Other Clarifying or\nConforming Amendments Thereto.' Finally passed.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the City Attorney's office finds it appropriate to proceed with\nthe item, to which the Acting City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nStated public health issues related to tobacco should be applied to cannabis, expressed\nconcern over delivery-only options versus full service recreational dispensaries; stated\nthe two delivery-only options presented at a previous Council meeting changed without\nher prior knowledge: Serena Chen, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the language not being clear and staff members' potential\neconomic conflicts; stated that he opposes the ordinance: Don Sherratt, Alameda.\nStated the Council's intent to have four dispensaries was clear from the July meeting;\nurged Council to pass the ordinance: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda.\nStated dispensaries are the safest way to keep cannabis out of the hands of children;\ndiscussed cannabis benefits and youth centers: Ryan Agabao, Alameda.\nExpressed support for having dispensaries: Phillip Redd, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over having too many restrictions: Andrew Huntoon, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 8, "text": "Stated that she opposes having dispensaries instead of deliveries: Rosalyn Moya,\nAlameda.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would vote to oppose\nthe ordinance because more time is needed to regulate enforcement; expressed\nconcern that a significant change was made to the ordinance by adding adult use\ndispensaries not noted.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she has read the correspondence; the Council's intent is to\naddress the questions raised related to defining a youth center; the Council is working\ntoward best practices and has limited where cannabis businesses can locate; she does\nnot want to limit the distances such that there is no place for cannabis businesses to\nlocate; the changes are intended to help accommodate businesses having difficulty\nlocating in Alameda; delivery only businesses have to adhere to the same standards as\ndispensaries; security provisions are taken very seriously; the State has made cannabis\none of the most regulated substances available; the robust conversation defining a\nyouth center is needed; Council should follow staff's recommendation, which she plans\nto support.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the conversation defining youth centers is needed due to\ncorrespondence received that questions how staff would interpret sensitive use and\nyouth centers; inquired if staff members have to complete Form 700's allowing people\nwho have special interest in the cannabis business to disclose it on public documents.\nThe Acting City Attorney responded if a staff member has an ownership interest, or a\nsignificant investment in a local cannabis business, it would have to be publicly\ndisclosed on the Form 700; stated a member of a body would have to recuse\nthemselves.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the Forms are available only for high-level staff that\nwould be making these types of decisions, to which the Acting City Attorney responded\nhe does not know if they are available on the City's website; stated the public can look\nat all reportable filings.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council has been extremely responsible in trying to come up\nwith a policy that is as safe as possible; speakers have expressed concern that\ncannabis is not available in Alameda; two years is not moving fast; many cities develop\npolicy in less than two years; the intent is to have lab tested items available for\nconsumption in a safe environment; expressed concern over prescribed opiate drugs;\nstated the fastest growing demographic for cannabis use is senior citizens; expressed\nsupport.\nVice Mayor Vella stated San Francisco's Good Neighbor Policy refers to not smoking\noutside businesses, posting signs that say no smoking and no loitering, ensuring\nvehicles are not double parked, and other things related to the business being safe and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 9, "text": "operational; if Council gives staff direction for the November 27th meeting discussion,\nitems that ensure businesses are following best practices should be included.\nMayor Spencer stated some dispensaries look like art galleries; there is a way to have\ndispensary businesses in the community that do not stand out.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved final passage of the ordinance, with direction to staff to\ncome back with a discussion on how youth centers will be interpreted.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft and Matarrese - 2.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 8:31 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m.\n***\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(18-617) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease Amendment with a Maximum\nThree-Year Extension of the Lease with CSI Mini-Storage, LLC, a California Limited\nLiability Company, for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A-C Located at 50 and 51 West\nHornet Avenue at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Base Reuse and Economic Development Assistant Director gave a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(18-618) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nArticle XVII (Tobacco Retailers) to Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industries)\nto Require Licensing of Tobacco Retailers in the City and to Prohibit the Sale of\nFlavored Tobacco Products. Introduced.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be interested in reducing speaker time.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of reducing the time to one minute.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired how many speakers are in favor versus not\nin favor, to which the City Clerk responded more speakers are in favor.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Spencer expressed concern over having less people on one side.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she received a lot of correspondence related to the item\nprior to the meeting; inquired if other members of the Council received correspondence\nas well, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she met with retailers\nand received correspondence.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry of how much time the public comment would be\nreduced to, Vice Mayor Vella stated one minute.\nMayor Spencer made a substitute motion to approve giving speakers 90 seconds, which\nfailed for a lack of second.\nOn the call for the question on the original motion, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4.\nNoes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\nThe Assistant City Attorney gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the rationale is of allowing a new tobacco\nretailer to keep operating within 300 feet of a sensitive use if the business is bought\nwithin three years of the ordinance passage.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded staff held two meetings with tobacco retail\norganizations; stated the draft ordinance presented to the groups would have not\npermitted tobacco sales if the business was sold, which would provide an extreme\neconomic hardship; the re-drafted ordinance placed a three year window allowing for\nsale of the business to address the economic hardship.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the State will not disclose how many State\nlicensed tobacco retailers operate in Alameda.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded his understanding is the State considers the\ninformation confidential; stated based off information gathered, there are roughly fifty\nsuch businesses in the community.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what percentage of the tobacco retailers are\nstores that only sell tobacco products.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he does not know.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired if a business within the buffer zone sells within a year of the\npassed ordinance then sells again would the second new owner keep the license, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the window for\nany sale of the business is three years; after the three year window, any businesses\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 11, "text": "sold within the buffer zone would be precluded from selling tobacco products; continued\nthe presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if only San Francisco has an outright ban on all\nflavored tobacco; and why some jurisdictions decided to only allow menthol.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded he is not sure the rationale and assumes it\nrelates to menthol being a significant portion of tobacco sales.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if menthol is thought to be a greater selling\nflavor of tobacco product, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative; stated the tobacco retailers' response is consistent with said thought;\ncontinued the presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding who determines\nwhether the retailers' license is suspended or if a fine is imposed, the Assistant City\nAttorney stated the Department Head would make a determination about which penalty\nto impose.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the Department Head would be the City\nManager, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the ordinance is currently\ndrafted listing the Community Development Director.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding suspensions, fines or\nrevocation the Assistant City Attorney stated if a retailer's tobacco license is suspended,\nthe other profitable, collateral product purchases cease; the intent is to fine the business\nto allow operation to continue.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the violations might be better adhered to if the\npenalty is suspension, rather than a fine.\nVice Mayor Vella requested clarification that collateral sales means the purchase of\ngroceries in addition to tobacco products, to which the Assistant City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired if additional staff would be hired related to the grant\naward or if existing staff would be adding to their workload.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded hiring additional staff to enforce the program is\nnot anticipated at this time; stated time spent by Police and Code Enforcement will be\ntracked to ensure the cost can be calculated.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the revenue from the fines will go, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded the General Fund; continued the\npresentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired if the presentation addresses issues and concerns\nrelated to public health.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the issue of public health is discussed in the staff\nreport and the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the tobacco retailers raised any concerns about\nputting a product into the market that essentially kills people; and if there is any\ndifference between menthol and regular tobacco products.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded menthol is shown to be more harmful than non-\nmenthol products; stated ads for menthol products are primarily targeted at youth and\nminority groups.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated retailers are requesting an exemption for a more harmful\nproduct that is targeted at youth and minority groups.\nThe Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the staff report includes an option to keep menthol tobacco\nproducts behind the counter at tobacco retail locations; inquired if tobacco could\nproducts be kept behind the counter at all retail stores.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella stated some of the exemptions raised at meetings are already\nrequired of tobacco retailers; inquired if current practices were considered, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the public health concerns\nare addressed in the ordinance; completed the presentation.\nProvided smoking statistics and reviewed advertising tactics: Irene Nikkah, American\nCancer Society - Cancer Action Network.\nSuggested the buffer zone be to the front door of business; expressed concern over\nbroken leases and adults not having access to flavored tobacco products to quit\nsmoking: Marilyn Pepper.\nStated the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) opposes the ordinance as\nproposed: Jaime Rojas, NATO.\nStated that he supports the ordinance: Don Sherratt, Alameda\nStated most kids start with flavored or menthol cigarettes; San Francisco, Beverly Hills,\nRichmond, San Pablo, and Marin County have bans: Phillip Gardiner, African American\nTobacco Control Leadership Council (AATCLC).\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 13, "text": "Urged the Council to consider the ban: Alexis Kuchi, Alameda Girl Scout Troup 31901.\nStated kids are curious and want to try flavors; the ban will help children grow up\ntobacco free: Malia Zachariah, Alameda.\nStated the products are running rampant through schools and are creating a new\ngeneration of smokers; submitted 735 signed statement cards: Seamus McGuinness,\nEncinal High School.\nStated the ordinance will make Alameda a healthier place for all residents: Arabis\nO'Brien, Lincoln Middle School.\nExpressed support for the ordinance; stated tobacco companies are targeting youth:\nDenise Zachariah, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the ordinance; discussed the quantity of students smoking:\nMarina Rodrigues, Encinal High School.\nStated tobacco is bad for all living things: Zachary and Nora Lazarus, Alameda.\nUrged Council to end the sale of flavored tobacco that appeals to youth: Michael Chen,\nEncinal High School.\nUrged Council to end the sale of flavored tobacco products that hooks kids before they\ncan legally purchase it: Max Palmer, Encinal High School\nStated packaging and names are similar to candy and appeals to kids: Amanda\nMcGowan, Lincoln Middle School.\nStated candy flavored tobacco products should not be sold in Alameda; the ordinance\nwill help keep kids from trying tobacco: Turner Brotze, Lincoln Middle School.\nStated students are addicted to nicotine products; action needs to be taken: Nick\nLindell-Wright, Encinal High School.\nStated students thought images of favored tobacco products were candy or snacks for\nkids: Kimberly McGowan, Lincoln Middle School.\nExpressed support for the ban; stated the products are a gateway: Sven S., Encinal\nHigh School.\nStated flavored tobacco products are designed to appeal and attract a younger\ndemographic: Jackson Ade, Encinal High School.\nExpressed concern over youth getting quickly addicted to the products and support for\nthe ban: Annina Jordan, Encinal High School.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 14, "text": "Expressed concern over children having easy access to vaping: Matt Brotze, Lincoln\nMiddle School.\nStated friends and classmates use the products, which they can purchase at local drug\nstores: Anisya Lustig-Ellison, Encinal High School.\nStated that she has seen students use products in classroom because they are easy to\nconceal: Darla Kahl, Encinal High School.\nUrged the Council to ban the sale of flavored tobacco projects, which are accessible\nand affordable: Kevin Gorham, Alameda.\nRead a portion of a poem; stated the matter is a public health issue: Rasheed Shabazz,\nAlameda.\nUrged Council to approve the ban to promote youth health; stated products can be\neasily concealed and used in class: Maaz Khan.\nUrged Council to approve the ban to save the lives of children: Sydney Williams,\nEncinal High School.\nUrged Council to approve the ban; discussed how smoking affected the health of his\nfather and grandmother: Nick Brodnicki, Alameda.\nStated flavored tobacco products should be removed from the community: Jill\nDiGaicomo, Alameda.\nStated children purchase tobacco products online or from family members: Antonio\nNeumann, Alameda Valero.\nDiscussed research regarding flavored tobacco products being marketed as quitting\ndevices; stated having the products in stores gives youth access: Craig Wingate,\nAlameda.\nRequested menthol products be separated from flavored tobacco products; discussed\ncollateral sales: Linda Asbury, West Alameda Business Association.\nExpressed concern over menthol being a social justice issue; stated tobacco is targeting\nyouth: Rachael Gratz-Lazarus, Alameda.\nSuggested increasing the cost of packs of cigarillos: Brian Davis, Alameda County\nTobacco Control Coalition (ACTCC).\nStated youth smoking rates go down when prices go up: Stefan Wooding, ACTCC.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 15, "text": "Stated four out of five kids started with flavored tobacco; discussed health risks; urged\nmenthol be included in the ban: Amanda Gutzwiller, Alameda Lung Association.\nExpressed concern over the products looking like candy and youth using the products:\nShea Overstreet, Alameda.\nStated banning menthol is illegal; discussed fines and online sales: Paul Sekhon,\nAlameda.\nSuggested having restrictions similar to Hayward, discussed statistics of approvals in\nother cities and penalties being too harsh: Bob Sekhon, Alameda.\nSubmitted information; stated letters of support and a resolution are included in the\nmaterial: Rosalyn Moya, ACTCC.\nProvided statistics on youth using tobacco products; stated youth favor flavored tobacco\nproducts: Karen Butter, Alameda.\nStated the matter is a social justice, adult and youth issue; encouraged approval of the\nban: Kwesi Wilkerson, AATCLC.\nStated menthol should be an exception; he opposes the three year window and\npenalties: Matt Hussain, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the ordinance; stated one in four students are using some form of\ne-cigarette: Page Tomblin, Alameda Parent Teacher Association Council.\nStated menthol is not the problem and should be exempted; the start date should be\nJuly 2020: Teresa.\nStated the ban would be detrimental to store owners; urged menthol not be banned:\nBrian Lee, UC Liquor.\nDiscussed JUUL products; stated students are asking for help to stop smoking: Serena\nChen, Alameda.\nStated Alameda retailers have a 98% compliance rate; youth purchase flavored tobacco\nproducts online: Raed Abdallah, Alameda.\nStated the problem is the internet; stated the retail compliance rate is commendable:\nFrank George, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has reservations about the three year\n300 foot ban and does not understand the rationale of having businesses near sensitive\nuses; she thinks menthol should be included in the ban based on comments and does\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 16, "text": "not agree with pharmacies selling tobacco products; she wants to be sensitive to the\nneeds of local businesses.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the issue is not only targeted to youth, it also involves people of\ncolor and women; increasing the price for little cigars should be considered; expressed\nconcern over the three year portion of the item; stated the intent is to lower the amount\nof tobacco retail business over time; expressed disappointment in San Leandro for not\nbanning menthol; stated banning online sales of tobacco products should be considered\nat the State level.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry about Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's\nsuggested alternative to the three year-300 foot regulation, Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft stated the license should not run with the land if the business is sold.\nCouncilmember Oddie discussed San Francisco's menthol ban; stated that he stands\nwith social justice activists who value stopping tools of death from being perpetuated in\ncommunities of color and Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) communities.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with amendments to\nremove the three year window to sell a business and have the license carry with it, to\ninclude cigarillos into the pricing that is comparable to cigars, and to remove the option\nto have an in lieu fine versus suspension on the second and third offense to ensure\npeople are not cost of businessing violations out.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she is disturbed by the notion that\nstudents are not aware of the harm cigarettes cause; students smoking in bathrooms\nand classrooms is unacceptable; schools should ensure students are not smoking in\nbathrooms or classrooms; Council banning the sale of flavored tobacco products does\nnot stop products from being accessible online; encouraged all to take responsibility for\nsmoking; stated the State regulations to increase fees and the purchase age to 21 is\nhelpful; she agrees with banning flavored tobacco products but not menthol; it is\nimportant to teach youth to not smoke; she would not support the item.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote:\nCouncilmembers Ayes - 4, Mayor Spencer Noes - 1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 17, "text": "COUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(18-619) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Library Board and\nRent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC).\nMayor Spencer nominated Joyce McConeghey to the Library Board and Simon Chiu\nand Carolyn Johnson to the RRAC.\n(18-620) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated on October 22nd she attended the\nCalifornia Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) forum for elected officials\nthat addressed pension cost liabilities strategies; suggested City staff attend CalPERS\nboard meetings.\n(18-621) Vice Mayor Vella stated that she was appointed by the League of Cities Asian\nPacific Islander Caucus to serve on the Housing and Economic Development\nCommittee.\nADJOURNMENT\n(18-622) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting in\nmemory of Jerry Robbins, Charles \"Charlie\" Wolfe and Mary Blackshere at 10:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nNovember 7, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 7, 2018\nMinutes of a Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, November 7, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m.\nPresent were:\nVice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah\nAbsent:\nNone\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Gregory Kats\nCity Attorney staff: None\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nMotion and second to move Agenda Item 7-H to the beginning of New Business\n(Vice Chair Murray and Member Griffiths). Motion passed 3-0.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\nProgram staff requested Committee members provide their availability for future\nspecial meetings to hear additional cases. Members indicated their availability for\nspecial meetings on November 19, November 27, December 12, and December\n17, 2018.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\nAlameda resident Regis Paul Marcelin expressed thanks to program staff for their\nassistance and services. He mentioned that he had previously made a public\ncomment regarding his positive relationship with his previous landlord and is\nlooking to developing a positive relationship with his new landlord.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the August 20, 2018 Special Meeting.\nMotion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and\nGriffiths). Motion passed 3-0.\n5-B. Approval of the Minutes of the August 29, 2018 Special Meeting.\nVice Chair Murray requested staff add additional comments she made during the\nmeeting to Agenda Item 6 of the minutes. Motion and second to approve of the\nminutes after amendment is made (Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths). Motion\npassed 3-0.\n5-C. Approval of the Minutes of the August 30, 2018 Special Meeting.\nMotion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and\nGriffiths). Motion passed 3-0.\n5-D. Approval of the Minutes of the September 5, 2018 Regular Meeting.\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 7, 2018\nMotion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and\nGriffiths). Motion passed 3-0.\n5-E. Approval of the Minutes of the September 17, 2018 Special Meeting.\nMotion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and\nGriffiths). Motion passed 3-0.\n5-F. Approval of the Minutes of the September 19, 2018 Special Meeting.\nMotion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and\nGriffiths). Motion passed 3-0.\n5-G. Approval of the Minutes of the October 1, 2018 Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second to approve of the minutes (Members Sullivan-Cheah and\nGriffiths). Motion passed 3-0.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-H. Review and approve amendments to the Rent Review Committee's\nRules and Procedures addressing various issues including, RRAC\nhearing time limits, participant's attendance or failure to appear under\nsection 6-58.90, annual elections, and other appropriate amendments\nMotion and second to adopt amended Rules and Procedures (Members Griffiths and\nSullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.\nProgram staff called roll of the participants present. The tenants in Agenda Items 7-C and\n7-F were not present. The Committee approved moving these agenda items to the end\nof New Business.\n7-A. CASE 1145 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. E\nTenant: Victor Rodriguez, assisted by staff-provided translator\nLandlords: Heidi Hausauer, Cassie Hausauer, owners, and Albert Pena, manager\nProposed rent increase: $100.00 (8.3%), effective November 1, 2018\nThe landlords stated that they were requesting an increase to keep up with the property's\nexpenses and improvements, including new fences, yard work, and earthquake\npreparedness improvements. They said that they paid for gas, water, electric, and\ngardening, and had put new carpets and fridges in some units.\nMr. Rodriguez said he has lived there 18 years and his carpeting was only changed once.\nHe added that his kitchen needed repainting and his unit needed a new front door\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 7, 2018\nbecause the current one is drafty. He said the gardener came infrequently and the\ngrounds were always dirty. He said that the landlords gave him paint to repaint his unit\nhimself. He added that the windows do not open or close, and the tenants are not allowed\nto use the outside hose.\nMr. Pena responded that the owner pays the water and did not want the tenants using\nthe hose irresponsibly. He added that Mr. Rodriguez has unauthorized persons living in\nhis unit.\nMember Griffiths asked staff to clarify the prior increases. Staff informed the Committee\nthat the base rent was currently $1,200 because a prior increase from $1,200 to $1300\nwas found to be invalid and the landlords were required to reimburse the tenants amounts\ncollected under that increase, which they did. Staff clarified that the landlords were\ncurrently requesting a $100 increase from $1,200 to $1,300.\nCommittee members asked clarifying questions as to what the landlords were willing to\ndo to address the tenant's stated needs.\nThe parties came to an agreement for a $100 increase effective December 1, 2018 and\nthe landlords made a commitment to address a number of the concerns the tenant raised.\n7-B. CASE 1147 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. B\nTenant: Florencio Reyna & Catherine Reyna, assisted by staff-provided translator\nLandlords: Heidi Hausauer, Cassie Hausauer, owners, and Albert Pena, manager\nProposed rent increase: $100.00 (8.3%), effective November 1, 2018\nMr. Pena said the tenants were wonderful tenants, and he and his daughter Catherine\nwere the sole occupants.\nThe tenants expressed concern that they are not able to use the hose, should they need\nit in an emergency, such as a fire. They said some of the windows on the property are\nbroken, their front door is drafty, and they have a hole in their bathroom wall. They said\nthat they have always had to paint their own unit and their carpet had never been\nreplaced in their 14 years of tenancy. They said they've informed the landlord about the\nneeded repairs, but the landlord had not addressed them.\nThe parties came to an agreement for a $100 increase effective December 1, 2018, and\nthe landlords made a commitment to address a number of the concerns the tenants\nraised.\n7-D. CASE 1143 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. F\nTenant: Kimberly Perez\nLandlords: Heidi Hausauer, Cassie Hausauer, owners, and Albert Pena, manager\nProposed rent increase: $100.00 (8.3%), effective November 1, 2018\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 7, 2018\nMr. Pena said the tenant has lived in the unit for seven years. He said that he wanted to\nclean the tenant's carpets but the tenant's dog would relieve itself on the carpet making\nthat difficult, so the tenant replaced the carpet with flooring, and the owner offered to\npay for the flooring materials, but not the labor. Mr. Pena said he would like Ms. Perez to\nkeep the apartment cleaner. He added that her oven is out of order, and he's planning\nto get it fixed.\nMs. Perez stated that her front door is drafty, her bathtub faucet leaks water and won't\nshut off completely. She said she is currently recovering from an operation and it takes\nher longer to clean right now, but she does clean. She said only two burners on her stove\nare working and mentioned a dispute over a parking space. She said she was amenable\nto the $100 increase from $1,200 to $1,300 as long as her repair concerns are addressed.\nThe parties came to an agreement for a $100 increase effective December 1, 2018 and\nthe landlords made a commitment to address a number of the concerns the tenant raised.\n7-E. CASE 1144 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. G\nTenant: Samuel Johnson\nLandlords: Heidi Hausauer, Cassie Hausauer, owners, and Albert Pena, manager\nProposed rent increase: $100.00 (8.3%), effective November 1, 2018\nMr. Pena said Mr. Johnson moved in about nine years ago, and lives by himself, although\nhis family moved in at one point but are not currently there. He said Mr. Johnson\nrequested laminated wood floors instead of carpet, which the owners have agreed to\nprovide. He said there's an ongoing issue with parking with all of the residents.\nMr. Johnson said he didn't mind an increase to $1,300 if the landlords would address\nsome of his concerns. He said there are stray dogs that defecate on the property, and his\nneighbors cause vandalism and nuisance problems. He said he has had to call the police\non his neighbors and fears he may have to use physical force to defend himself from\nthem. He said he would like more security at the property and would like the tenants\nbelow him to not make so much noise. He added that he would like to be able to use the\noutside hose again, and he has had things stolen from his car, which is parked in the\ncarport. He said that this evening was the first time he had heard that the landlords were\nwilling to replace his carpet with flooring, and he was even willing to pay part of the cost\nto install it. He said that his neighbor's friend's car is parked on the property but the\nmanager won't get it towed. He said he would like more lighting on the property because\nit's very dark.\nThe parties came to an agreement for a $100 increase effective December 1, 2018 and\nthe landlords made a commitment to address a number of the concerns the tenant raised.\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 7, 2018\nMotion and second to hear one additional case after 9:00 p.m. (Members Griffiths and\nSullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-G. CASE 1152 - 467 Santa Clara Ave.\nTenants: Michele Santorio and Heidi Ohrtman\nLandlords: Greta Jenkins and Gary Jenkins\nProposed rent increase: $1,400.00 (93.3%), effective November 23, 2018\nMs. Jenkins said the property is owned by a trust that is set up to provide income to Mr.\nJenkins' mother, Sarah Moll, and as a trustee of the trust, she has a fiduciary duty to\nobtain as much money from the trust assets as possible. She said the current income is\ninsufficient to provide Ms. Moll the income she needs, which is why they are asking for a\nrent increase.\nMr. Santoro said that the tenants have had to take care of everything on the property.\nHe said that the house leaks water and the heater is ineffective because the house is so\ndrafty. He and Ms. Ohrtman said they believe the current rent of $1,500 is a fair market\nrate considering the poor condition of the property. They said they would not be able to\nafford to stay in the home if the rent were raised to the $2,900 as the landlords are\nrequesting. Mr. Santorio said he has run a deli in the community for nine years and if the\nrent were greatly increased, he would have to move out of Alameda and close his\nbusiness.\nMr. Jenkins said that the work the tenants put into the property was part of the agreement\nthey had when they moved in, in exchange for rent credits. He said that he has informed\nthe tenants at various times that he would have to raise the rent to market rate at some\npoint as it was his mother's only source of income.\nChair Murray asked what the tenants thought was a reasonable amount of an increase\nand the tenants said they thought that a 5% increase was reasonable because of the\ncondition of the house.\nMotion and second to extend the time of the agenda item an extra 15 minutes (Member\nGriffiths and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah clarified that the subject unit, a single family residence, was\nexempt from a binding decision under state law. He discussed how this impacted the\nCommittee's decision-making authority - that the Committee can only make a nonbinding\ndecision regarding the increase amount. He also explained the appeals process that was\navailable to either party if they were not satisfied with the Committee's decision.\nVice Chair Murray impressed upon the parties the value of coming to a mutual agreement.\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 7, 2018\nThe landlords said they could lower their requested rent from $2,900 to $2,700. Mr.\nSantorio said he was willing to pay a 10% increase but they would not be able to afford\n$2,700, saying they could pay $1,800 at most. The landlords stated that that was\ninsufficient.\nMotion and second to extend the time of the agenda item an additional 10 minutes\n(Member Griffiths and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.\nMember Griffiths asked the landlords if they would consider a smaller increase this year,\nand stretch out the requested increase over multiple years, or alternately, give the\ntenants a stepped increase with a lower amount for the first part of the year, followed by\na larger amount later in the year.\nMr. Santorio said that he was not amenable to large incremental increases and would\nfight any increase.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah stated that the home is exempt from a binding decision and the\nowners have made clear they're going to raise the rent beyond what the tenants can\nafford. Therefore, the Committee was trying to buy Mr. Santorio and his family time to\nmake arrangements for other housing options.\nMotion and second to extend the time of the agenda item an additional 10 minutes (Vice\nChair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.\nMotion and second for an increase to $1,800 for the first nine months of the next year,\nfollowed by an increase to $2,700 for the remaining three months of the year, effective\n11/23/18 (Member Griffiths and Vice Chair Murray). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-C. CASE 1148 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. A\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present at the hearing. The rent increase will\ngo into effect as noticed.\n7-F. CASE 1146 - 755 Lincoln Ave., Apt. C\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present at the hearing. The rent increase will\ngo into effect as noticed.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\nNone.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nNone.\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-11-07", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nNovember 7, 2018\n10. ADJOURNMENT\na. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 4, 2019\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-11-07.pdf"}