{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nMONDAY DECEMBER 17, 2018 - - - 7:00 P.M.\nChair Little convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Dieter, Foreman, Henneberry,\nSchwartz and Chair Little - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\nBefore addressing the agenda item, Chair Little stated that she does not think the\nCommission's role as oversight on the Council and City Attorney's actions is appropriately\naddressed to the Open Government Commission (OGC); if the City Attorney would like\nto address inadequacies that were written into the law and presented at the last meeting,\nthe issues would be better discussed by the City Council; she would like to propose a\nmotion to table the conversation until after the City Council has been engaged on how the\nCity would like to address the oversight and transparency implications of staff's request.\nCommissioner Foreman called a point of order on whether or not it is appropriate for the\nCommission to consider the matter; stated that he believes it is out of order; the Sunshine\nOrdinance states the Commission had to make a decision within 30 days of the filing of\nthe complaint; the decision was rendered on November 14th; the fact that the City Attorney\nhas not prepared a written confirmation of that decision does not change the fact that the\ndecision was made; the decision was made two days before the cannabis ordinance\nwould have become effective; thus, the ordinance is null and void; there is no basis to\nproceed; as a consequence, the only thing left to do is write the written report required by\nlaw which should have been done by November 28th; what needs to be done tonight is to\nask the City Attorney to assist the Commission with writing the opinion which confirms\nwhat has already been done; the matter should be done tonight because he and\nCommissioner Dieter will be termed out by tomorrow.\nCommissioner Foreman moved approval of dismissing the reconsideration on the basis\nthat it is out of order and requesting the City Attorney to assist the Commission in writing\nan order tonight confirming the November 14th decision.\nIn response to Commissioner Henneberry's inquiry, Chair Little stated that she would like\nto table the issue until the City Council decides about the OGC's authority; she believes\nthat the Commission's decision made last month was under the purview of the\nCommission, but counsel is saying it is not; she believes the City Council needs to make\nthe decision.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nDecember 17, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Henneberry seconded Commissioner Foreman's motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Dieter stated that she is uncomfortable with ignoring the\npeople who showed up tonight to speak; the Commission should at least hear speakers;\nshe is also uncomfortable with tabling the item because the implication is it will come back\nunder the same conditions; she would like to continue with the agenda item and allow the\ncitizens to speak; the outcome may be the same, but at least a motion would be made\nafter public comment.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the vote on the motion could be done after public\ncomment.\nCommissioner Dieter concurred.\nIn response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry, Commissioner Foreman stated that he\ndoes not want to hear the staff report because it is out of order; he is not opposed to\npublic comment and is adamantly opposed to tabling the matter because it would mean\nsurrendering the Commission's authority.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated that he does not see a point in public comment if the\nstaff report is not going to be heard; if the issue has to go back to Council, there will be\nmany opportunities for public comment and there was public comment at the last meeting.\nCommissioner Foreman stated if the motion passes, it does not remove the possibility\nthat the City Attorney's office may advise City Council that the Commission did not have\nthe authority and City Council may agree with the determination; while the issue may end\ntonight at the Commission level, it may not be over.\nChair Little stated as the Sunshine Ordinance is written, she interprets that the\nCommission had every right to make the November 14th decision; the Commission was\nadvised by the City Attorney that the decision was one the Commission could make; she\nwas surprised to have to the issue return for another meeting; she is unclear why the\nCommission was told they could make a decision, then three weeks later, the authority is\nrescinded.\nCommissioner Foreman concurred with Commissioner Henneberry; stated as much as\nhe would like to hear public comment, it is out of order; the Commission could move\nforward after the vote if it does not carry.\nCommissioner Henneberry called the question.\nCommissioner Dieter requested Commissioner Foreman to restate his motion.\nThe City Clerk restated Commissioner Foreman's motion to have the City Attorney write\nan order confirming the Commission's November 14th decision.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nDecember 17, 2018\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Foreman stated his motion included dismissing the reconsideration of the\nmatter.\nChair Little inquired whether the motion should also include having the item re-noticed by\nCity Council, to which Commissioner Foreman responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he thinks staff report Attachment B would suffice with\nsome changes.\nThe Interim City Attorney stated Attachment B could be easily word-smithed to carry out\nwhat the Commission would like with respect to the matter; further stated that he is not\ngoing to agree with Commissioner Foreman's position that the ordinances in question are\nnull and void; the decision will have the effect of providing direction to the Council to have\nsaid result come about; as indicated in his memo to the Commission, he does not think\nthe Commission has the legal authority to render a legally adopted ordinance null and\nvoid.\nChair Little stated the Commission was told that the timing of their deliberations and\ndelaying the second reading of the ordinances in order for the Commission hearing to\ntake place first did not matter; inquired whether the issue came about because the\nCommission deliberated on the issue after the second reading of the ordinances.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded the matter proceeded on November 7th; at the\nOctober 16th meeting, the City Attorney advised the City Council that it was appropriate\nto introduce the ordinance with the amendment in question and that it did comply with the\nSunshine Ordinance; Council relied on said advice and made the decision to proceed on\nNovember 7th notwithstanding the fact that a complaint had been filed on October 30th\nCouncil adopted the ordinances on November 7th which went into effect on December 6th.\nit is his understanding that the Commission would like to have the ordinances re-noticed,\nand the two ordinances would be repealed.\nCommissioner Dieter made a friendly amendment to the motion that the Commission\naffirm its November 7th decision.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that is basically his motion; Commissioner Dieter may just\nbe objecting to the first sentence regarding dismissing the matter as out of order; he thinks\nit is important for the Commission to make the assertion; he is not present to argue\nwhether or not the City Attorney's position of delegation of power is correct; he is here to\nargue that the Commission's jurisdiction on the matter ended on November 14th\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she is ready to move forward with the vote because she\nis not persuaded by the City's legal analysis that no grounds exist to revisit the matter;\nshe also believes the Commission does not have the authority to determine whether the\nordinance is valid.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n3\nDecember 17, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 4, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCommissioners Little, Foreman, Dieter, Henneberry - 4. Absent - 1 (Commissioner\nSchwartz).\nIn response to Commissioner Foreman's inquiry about drafting the report, the Interim City\nAttorney stated amending Attachment B of his analysis would be the easiest.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she has two amendments to propose; inquired whether\nit was important to treat the decision like a legal opinion.\nThe Interim City Attorney responded he followed the format the Commission has used\nbefore; stated the Commission could do something different.\nCommissioner Dieter stated if the format is maintained, the entire paragraph on page\n8\nthat starts with \"Turning now to the question.. through the three provisions, should be\ndeleted.\nIn response to the Interim City Attorney's inquiry about what to do on the next page if the\nparagraph is deleted, Commissioner Dieter stated the third sentence stating \"In order to\ncarry out the decision could be deleted.\nChair Little clarified that if the paragraph and three provisions on page 8 are deleted,\nalong with the third sentence on page 9, the Commission would end up with the same\ndecision made on November 14th\nCommissioner Dieter concurred with Chair Little.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the Commission has to state the direction; suggested the\nsentence to read, \"In order to carry out the decision, the Commission directs that the\nordinances passed on October 16, 2018 are hereby null and void and that \"the City\nCouncil may re-introduce the two ordinances following a properly noticed public hearing..\n\"\nCommissioner Henneberry suggested allowing the City Council to do whatever they need\nto do; the complaint was sustained, the Council should re-notice and re-hear the\nordinances.\nChair Little stated that she does not want to allow room for the Council to make the\ndecision; the Commission should make it clear that the Council must to re-notice and re-\nintroduce the ordinances.\nCommissioner Henneberry inquired whether that direction was already in the original\nmessage to Council, to which Chair Little responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated instead of rewriting the language, the Commission\nshould just append what the decision was to the end of the report.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nDecember 17, 2018\n4", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 5, "text": "Chair Little concurred with Commissioner Henneberry; stated that is what the\nCommission is trying to do.\nThe Interim City Attorney stated without waiving his previous arguments, suggested\nincluding the amendments as the three provisions rather than deleting them altogether.\nChair Little stated that she would like the language to read, \"the Council must re-notice\n\"\nand delete the word \"consider\" as she does not want Council to be able to consider the\ndecision, and rather just be directed to do it.\nThe Interim City Attorney stated the Commission does not have the authority to direct the\nCouncil's action.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the Commission has made the ordinances null and void;\nthe Council can choose to re-notice the ordinances if desired; he does not think the\nCommission should force Council to reconsider.\nCommissioner Henneberry stated the Commission's job is done upon Council being\ninformed of the mistake.\nThe Interim City Attorney reiterated the language revisions to include deleting the word\n\"circumscribed\" in the fourth sentence, and having the Commission \"directing\" rather than\n\"recommending\" the following: 1) Ordinances 3227 and 3228 are null and void; and 2) the\nCity Council may consider re-introducing the two ordinances in question following a\nproperly noticed public hearing.\nCommissioner Foreman stated the provision regarding the agenda title is not needed and\ncan be deleted.\nThe Interim City Attorney affirmed Commissioner Foreman's statement.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he would like to make a change to a paragraph on\npage 8; the last sentence should just read: \"the Commission finds that there was a\nviolation of Section 2-91.5, and the complaint is thereby sustained.'\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she does not think a full legal opinion is necessary in the\nfuture because it could be biased since it promotes a certain viewpoint.\nThe Interim City Attorney read the amended language and the Commission concurred\nwith the changes.\nCommissioner Foreman stated that he was concerned about the Commission being\nrepresented by the City Attorney's office in the enforcement proceedings; especially with\nthe particular issue; on October 16th, the Acting City Attorney rendered the opinion that\nthe notice on the agenda was appropriate; then, on November 14th. the Assistant City\nAttorney argued before the Commission in support of the Acting City Attorney; the Interim\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n5\nDecember 17, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 6, "text": "City Attorney is in the middle, should be advising the Commission and has a conflict;\nfurther stated the City should consider hiring independent, private counsel to represent\nthe Commission when a complaint is heard.\nIn response to Commissioner Dieter's inquiry regarding who has authority to request a\nre-hearing, the Interim City Attorney stated the request could come from a number of\ndifferent sources; in this case, because the City Attorney's office did not do an accurate\njob of laying out what the Commission could do, it was incumbent upon the City to provide\nthe information to the Commission and the Council so that the issue could be fully vetted\nand addressed.\nThe Commission agreed to hear the public comments.\n3-A. Hearing on the Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed October 30, 2018 and the\nNovember 14, 2018 Open Government Commission Hearing and Decision, Including\nScope of Legal Authority of the Open Government Commission to Impose Certain\nPenalties under the Sunshine Ordinance and Potential Next Steps.\nStated he is satisfied with the outcome of tonight's meeting and does not feel the\nCommission's decision encroaches on the Council's legislative authority: Richard Bangert,\nAlameda.\nRead the League's letter supporting the Commission's decision: Karen Butter, League of\nWomen Voters.\nThanked the Commission for reaffirming his faith in government: Bill Smith, Alameda.\nCommissioner Foreman stated what the Commission did tonight is not an exercise or\ndelegation of legislative power; it is a quasi-judicial function and the same penalty that\nwould have been suffered under the Brown Act.\nIn response to Chair Little's inquiry regarding calling the question, the City Clerk stated\nshe already called the question and the previous decision was upheld: 4 to 1 with\nCommissioner Schwartz absent.\n3-B. Hearing on Sunshine Ordinance Complaint Filed December 4, 2018. [Withdrawn\nwithout prejudice]\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Little thanked Commissioners Foreman and Dieter for their service; stated having\nthem participate in tonight's meeting was important.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Little adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nDecember 17, 2018\n6", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 7, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n7\nDecember 17, 2018", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 17, 2018\nMinutes of a Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, December 17, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.\nPresent were:\nVice Chair Murray; Members Johnson and Sullivan-Cheah\nAbsent:\nMember Chiu\nProgram staff:\nGreg Kats, Grant Eshoo\nCity Attorney staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nStaff informed the Committee that the tenant in Agenda Item 7-C requires\ntranslation services and recommended that it be heard first.\nStaff informed the Committee that Agenda Item 7-E had informed staff that he\nwould have to take time off work to attend the meeting and recommended the\nCommittee hear this item second.\nMotion and second to reorder the agenda to accommodate these recommendations\n(Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.\nStaff called roll to ascertain which parties were present. The tenants for Agenda\nItems 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\nmoved to the end of the agenda.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\nAngie Watson-Hajjem from ECHO Housing provided information on ECHO's fair\nhousing and landlord-tenant services.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\n6-A. CASE 1123 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D204\nNo Committee review. Prior to the hearing the parties reached an agreement concerning\nthe amount of the rent increase.\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 17, 2018\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-C. CASE 1173 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B217\nTenant: Oyunjargal Tsedendash\nLandlord: Andy King\nProposed rent increase: $179.00 (10%), to a total rent of $1,974, effective\nDecember 1, 2018\nUsing a speaker phone Staff called a translation service to obtain a Mongolian translator\nfor Ms. Tsedendash. Ms. Tsedendash stated that she lives at the unit with her husband\nand child. She said the rent increase would pose a hardship because she does not work\nand her husband brings in a limited income.\nVice Chair Murray explained the meeting procedure and Member Sullivan-Cheah\nreflected back the tenant's opening statements.\nMr. King stated that his company purchased the property over a year ago and has\nmade $3 million in improvements, as the prior owners had neglected maintaining and\nimproving the property. Mr. King detailed the improvements made to the property,\nwhich included seismic retrofitting, security improvements, and the addition of\namenities. He added that the property tax bill was approximately half a million dollars\nmore than the previous owner.\nMs. Tsedendash responded that an increase up to $80 would be acceptable to her and\nthe suddenness and amount being requested was not something that her family could\naccommodate.\nVice Chair Murray asked if Mr. King would like to revise the requested increase amount\nand Mr. King proposed an increase of $100 in light of the difficulties presented by the\ntenant.\nMs. Tsedendash replied that she and her family had just moved to this country and they\nwere trying to adapt to life here. She added that they had a car loan and had just\nreceived a $500 auto-related fine. She said that a $100 increase would be acceptable,\nbut $80 would be much easier for them.\nMr. King said that he would be agreeable to an $80 increase in light of the tenants'\nsituation.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Tsedendash about a broken window she had\nmentioned earlier. She replied that water was dripping from the window. Mr. King\ninformed her how to request a repair.\nThe parties agreed to an increase of $0 for December 2018, followed by an $80\nincrease from January-November 2019.\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 17, 2018\n7-D. CASE 1179 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D223\nTenant: Tam Trung Nguyen\nLandlord: Andy King\nProposed rent increase: $169.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,864, effective\nDecember 1, 2018\nUsing a speaker phone Staff called a translation service to obtain a Vietnamese\ntranslator for Mr. Nguyen. Vice Chair Murray explained the meeting procedure to Mr.\nNguyen.\nMr. King stated that his company purchased the property over a year ago and have\nmade $3 million in improvements, as the prior owners had neglected maintaining and\nimproving the property. Mr. King detailed the improvements made to the property,\nwhich included seismic retrofitting, security improvements, and the addition of\namenities. He said the property tax bill was approximately half a million dollars more\nthan the previous owner.\nMr. Nguyen said he had lived in the unit for two years, and is paying more than many\ncurrent residents. He said that he could afford a 5% increase but not the 10% the\nlandlord was requesting. He said that there have been improvements to the property\nbut not the inside of his unit.\nMember Johnson asked Mr. King how many units were currently vacant and he\nprovided an approximate number. She asked how much current units were renting for\nand Mr. King provided a range of current market rate rents.\nMr. Nguyen said he was a baker for Sugar Bowl Bakery and his son attended a high\nschool in the City of Alameda. He said his wife worked part-time in a local spa as a nail\ntechnician.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Nguyen how much of a rent increase he could afford.\nMr. Nguyen said he could afford a maximum increase of $80. He said an increase above\nthat would make their budget very tight considering their other expenses.\nThe parties were not able to make an agreement and the Committee began\ndeliberations.\nMember Johnson said she thought an increase of about 5% was reasonable as the\nlandlord acquired the property knowing the improvements that needed to be done and\nhow much the current tenants' rents were.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said he found the previous increases significant considering the\ntenants' short tenancy, and that the rent was generally close to market rate. He said he\nwas thinking that a rent of $1,784 would be reasonable.\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 17, 2018\nVice Chair Murray said she agreed a 5% increase was reasonable, and thought a rate of\n$1,780 (increase of $85) was reasonable, and on the high side for comparable units.\nMotion and second for an increase of $0 for December 2018, followed by an increase of\n$85 effective January 2019 through November 2019 (Members Sullivan Cheah and\nJohnson). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-F. CASE 1158 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A318\nTenant: Jason Bey, accompanied by Jeff Cambra\nLandlord: Andy King\nProposed Rent Increase: $179.00 (10.0%) to a total rent of $1,984, effective\nDecember, 1 2018\nMr. Cambra submitted a document that provided a summary of market rate one-\nbedroom apartments. He stated that landlords should not expect to be able to recoup\nall of the costs for improvements immediately, as the landlord should amortize the costs\nof the improvements over the life of the improvements and use those amortized\namounts as the basis on which to request gradual rent increases.\nMr. Bey said he was a single parent caring for his daughter, who attends Encinal High\nSchool. He said he works as a security guard and makes approximately $1,000 per\nweek and had increasing expenses for his family. He said that if the rent increased to\nthe amount the landlord was requesting he would be paying half of his income toward\nrent.\nMr. King responded that the improvements made to the unit should increase the market\nvalue of the unit. He provided alternative comparable units, including a one-bedroom\nrenting for $2,500, adding that new tenants at Vue Alameda paid about $2,300 for a\nsimilar unit.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Bey if he had received any improvements to the\ninside of his unit and Mr. Bey replied that the balcony was remodeled, but nothing was\nimproved on the inside of the unit.\nVice Chair Murray asked Mr. Bey if he thought he would continue to be a security guard\nfor the foreseeable future and he said yes. He added that his daughter was currently\napplying for college. She asked what effect the full increase would have on his family\nand he said it would be difficult for them to make it fit into their budget.\nMember Johnson clarified with Mr. King how he capitalizes expenses at the property.\nMr. King proposed an increase of $80 from January 2019 to November 2019, and Mr.\nBey accepted.\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 17, 2018\n7-G. CASE 1159 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C106\nTenant: Cecilia Maldonado\nLandlord: Andy King\nProposed rent increase: $179.00 (10.0%) to a total rent of $1,974, effective\nDecember 1, 2018\nMr. King opened with an offer of an increase of $80 per month.\nMs. Maldonado said that she thought the improvements done by the landlord made the\nproperty more secure and look better. She said she was a single parent of a disabled\nchild, which has brought extra expenses and challenges for her. She said that she had\nreported the window and sliding door in her unit needed fixing, but was told they would\nbe taken care of later, after the other renovations were finished. She said her daughter\nis on a respirator and it was important that her daughter did not breathe cold, wet air.\nShe said the bathroom plumbing had needed repair, as it had leaked and discolored the\nhardwood floor around the toilet. She said there was something that falls from their\nbathroom ceiling into her tub, but she was not sure what it was. She added that she\nmoved to Alameda because she was able to get her daughter into a special education\nprogram to help with her disability-related needs.\nShe said that she was accustomed to an increase of around 3% every three years, and\ncould currently afford an increase of $55.\nMr. King said he would like to correct whatever was wrong with her toilet even though\nit did not seem like an old one that was slated to be replaced.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah explained the City of Alameda's rent review and rent\nstabilization process. He asked Ms. Maldonado what she does for work and she said she\ndoes clerical work for the County of Alameda. She said she and her daughter were the\nonly occupants of the unit and no one else helped her pay rent. He asked how much of\nher income would go toward rent if the landlord's proposed increase of $80 went into\neffect and she said about half.\nVice Chair Murray asked if Ms. Maldonado received extra assistance to help with the\nexpenses related to her daughter's needs and she said she does not. She confirmed she\nhas health insurance that covers some of her daughter's medical needs.\nThe parties were not able to reach an agreement and the Committee began\ndeliberations.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah commented that the rent was on the high end for one-bedroom\nunits and expressed concerns about the tenant's ability to remain in the City if she was\npaying up to half of her income toward rent. He said he favored an increase of $55 as\nproposed by the tenant.\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 17,2018\nMember Johnson agreed and added that Ms. Maldonado's daughter, being very young\n(4 years old), needed to stay in the community in order to keep the special needs\neducation that she's able to obtain here.\nVice Chair Murray said that she thought an increase of $40 would be a reasonable\namount considering the needs presented by the tenant.\nMotion and second for an increase of $0 for December 2018, followed by an increase of\n$55 effective January 2019 through November 2019 (Members Sullivan-Cheah and\nJohnson). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-A. CASE 1126 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D312\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-B. CASE 1127 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D321\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-E. CASE 1156 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A302\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-H. CASE 1172 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B210\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-I. CASE 1166 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D322\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-J. CASE 1170 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B207\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-12-17", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nDecember 17, 2018\n7-K. CASE 1177 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D120\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-L. CASE 1164.1 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D222\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-M. CASE 1162.1 - 1843 Poggi St., Apt. C302\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n7-N. CASE 1176 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B315\nNo Committee review. The tenant was not present. The landlord may impose the rent\nincrease as noticed or as otherwise agreed-upon by the parties.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\nNone.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nVice Chair Murray asked to place two items on the agenda for January 9, 2019: a\ndiscussion regarding and a vote for Chair and Vice Chair.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\na. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nGrant Eshoo\nRRAC Secretary\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 4, 2019\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-12-17.pdf"}