body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2019
1. CONVENE
President Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Teague led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Mitchell, Rothenberg,
Saheba, Teague.
Absent: None.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6A 2019-6579
PLN19-0044 - Del Monte Warehouse Design Review Amendment - 1501
Buena Vista Avenue - Applicant: TL Partners I L.P. Public hearing to
consider revisions to previously approved Design Review (PLN14-0059) to
modify the design of the monitors (rooftop structures) on Bays 1 and 4 as
part of restoration of the historic Del Monte Warehouse. The proposal is
limited to architectural changes only and does not affect the previously
approved land use, unit count, and parking. The site is zoned M-X, Mixed-
Use with a Multi-Family Residential Overlay. The Environmental Impact
Report for the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Del Monte Warehouse
Project satisfies environmental review requirements for this project under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
*Note: Audio recording was not captured in the first minutes until the tail end of President
Sullivan's comments regarding choice of color for the item.*
President Sullivan made a request that the colors more closely match what was approved.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the item with President
Sullivan's direction regarding the color. Board Member Curtis seconded the
motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,2,"7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-6576
PLN18-0533 - Use Permit Call for Review - 2400 Monarch Street (Alameda
Point, Bldg 44) - Applicant: Jeffrey Nibler on behalf of Wonky Kitchen, LLC.
Public hearing to consider a call for review of the Zoning Administrator's
approval of an administrative use permit to allow the operation of food
trucks within the parking lot of Building 44 at Alameda Point (2400 Monarch
Street), and to allow extended hours of operation for the food trucks before
7:00 AM, starting at 6:00 AM, and after 10:00 PM, staying open until
midnight. The applicant proposes having up to three food trucks operating
on the site at one time, seven days a week. The property is located within
the AP-AR (Alameda Point, Adaptive Reuse) Zoning District. The Alameda
Point Final Environmental Impact Report evaluated the environmental
impacts of redevelopment and reuse of the lands at Alameda Point, and no
further review is required for this project. As a separate and independent
basis, this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing
Facilities.
Staff Member Thomas listed the options available to the board. The staff report and
attachments can be found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3862438&GUID=6355BEC4-
C22C-451D-BF1D-1B53402471DF&FullText=1
President Sullivan opened the public hearing.
Kelly Kearney said she operates a catering company on the Point. She said she is
concerned by the large number of food trucks being approved in the area. She said there
was a vehicle theft in the area recently. She said Matson's lease was not renewed because
the sight of shipping containers was not in the City's vision for the area. She said that now
the food trucks are using the lot, now leased by Natel Energy, for storage. She said there
should be security provided by all the new users of the area. She said she wants them to
follow the same rules as everyone else.
There were no other public speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.
Staff Member Thomas said the City is working hard to redevelop Alameda Point. He said
it is a work in progress and that they invest a significant amount of money in security,
lighting, and infrastructure.
Board Member Curtis asked who owns the property where food trucks are storing items
at the old Matson property and how can the issue be resolved.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,3,"Staff Member Thomas said they can look into the issue, but that it is separate from the
permit issue at hand.
Board Member Teague said the use permit is for two years and can be pulled for violations.
He said people should report issues to the City.
Board Member Teague made a motion to confirm the approval of the permit.
Board Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
7-C 2019-6582
PLN19-0046 -Design Review for Alameda Marina Waterfront Park 1829
Clement Avenue. Applicant: Alameda Marina Development, LLC. The
Planning Board will hold a public hearing to consider a Design Review
application to construct approximately 3.5 acres of publically accessible
waterfront open space, parks, landscaping and roadway and sidewalk
improvements on the Alameda Marina property generally located between
Clement Avenue and the Oakland Estuary and between Alameda Marina
Drive and Willow Street. The environmental effects of the proposed project
were considered and disclosed in the Alameda Marina Master Plan
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2016102064). No
further environmental review is required under the California Environmental
Quality Act for the proposed improvements.
President Sullivan said she would like to handle the RFQ question first because of the
public speakers in attendance for that item.
Staff Member Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3862441&GUID=CF26EE05-
330D-42CD-987C-01AC5925F87B&FullText=1
Board Member Teague asked how boats would be pulled from the water to be worked
on in the boatyard.
Staff Member Thomas said the existing rails could be retrofitted and used by a boatyard.
Board Member Teague asked if the boatyard operator would compete with the service
ships.
Staff Member Thomas said they could be complimentary services, the operator could
say that they do not need service ships, and could be the same or separate operations.
Board Member Curtis said the RFP was not written in a clear way and did not explain the
scope of work necessary for an operator. He said that they would have gotten more
response if it was more clear.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,4,"Staff Member Thomas said that they could change the RFQ now, at the halfway point, if
desired.
Board Member Teague asked if staff was involved in the RFQ and was satisfied with what
it contained.
Staff Member Thomas said they saw the first draft and felt it was written to look more for
a marina developer and less of a boatyard operator. He said the final version was sent to
staff but not reviewed before it went out.
President Sullivan asked if any advertising was placed to promote the RFQ.
Sean Murphy, Bay West, listed the places they sent the RFQ. He said they did not spend
money on advertising.
President Sullivan said the boatyard operator may not want a dockyard and concierge
service to compete with them. She said the RFQ could do a better job at promoting the
opportunity the project provides. She said it is unclear that the operator would be a tenant
and not the party doing all the development work. She asked if the applicant would be
open to amending and extending the RFQ.
Mr. Murphy said they are invested in the success of the project and want as many qualified
responses as possible. He said they consulted experts and their legal team to write the
RFQ.
Board Member Saheba asked if the RFQ process allowed for a period of questions and
answers that would be distributed to all parties.
Mr. Murphy said they do have that and have had a Q and A process. He said they have
received activity on the RFQ to date.
Board Member Curtis said that it was not clear who would be responsible for the
development costs and how the lease process would work.
President Sullivan opened the public hearing.
Dorothy Freeman said that Bay West originally indicated that they had no interest in having
a full service boatyard. She listed agreements that SAWW worked on with the City. She
said the RFQ is designed to discourage responses. She said a new RFQ should be
amended and resent and a the clock reset.
John Platt said that when he read the RFQ is seemed to discourage development of a
new boatyard at Alameda Marina. He said he reached out to boatyard operators and major
players in the marine industry in the Bay Area and none of them had seen the RFQ. He
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,5,"said that when they did look at it, they all said it was designed to discourage the building
a boatyard at Alameda Marina.
Nancy Hird, SAWW, said a boatyard operator she knows says the RFQ makes clear the
developer does not want a boatyard operator. She distributed a letter outlining SAWW's
requests. She said the developer needs to provide the improvements and not place that
burden on an operator.
Peter Brand said reading the RFQ is painful and intimidating. He said it was not sent to
the most obvious candidates. He offered to help amend the RFQ and generate an
appropriate distribution list.
There were no other public speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.
Board Member Rothenberg said the boatyard infrastructure should be conditioned and
incorporated into the sequencing of the open space plan.
Staff Member Thomas said that they will have that condition first in the open space plan.
He said they are trying to coordinate all the different agency approvals that the project will
need.
Board Member Teague said it seems like there could be changes to the current process.
He said that if the current process does not get results, when the applicant comes back
he would be looking at ideas to have them hire someone to design the boatyard for them
and then they could directly seek an operator.
President Sullivan made a motion to have the RFQ reissued with: a situation analysis,
separate the details about the next steps which would be required of finalists, the City
approves the RFQ before it is issued, and that the distribution list be reviewed by
stakeholders (suggesting Peter Brand), all documents be included in the packet rather
than just website links, and advertising in key publications be required.
Board Member Teague raised a point of order that the board can provide direction but that
the item is not agendized to have a formal motion made tonight.
Board Member Curtis said the board's role is to provide input but not to micromanage how
the developer implements the suggestions.
Staff Member Thomas summarized the feedback he heard and outlined options to amend
and reissue the RFQ while other pieces of the project continue through the regulatory
process. He said he does not want people to get the message that the RFQ is discouraging
a boatyard. He said he would like to report back to the Planning Board at the next meeting
after meeting with the developer.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,6,"Board Member Teague asked who would maintain the plantings in the open space.
Staff Member Thomas said the project would be responsible for the maintenance.
Sean Murphy and Cindy Ma gave a presentation on the open space plan.
Board Member Mitchell asked what the minimum width is supposed to be for the Bay Trail.
Staff Member Thomas said that they try to get 14-16', but that sometimes the do not get
that much in tight areas.
Ms. Ma said the Bay Trail guidelines state that 12' is their minimum.
Board Member Mitchell asked what the signage plans were for the Bay Trail and boat
crossing areas.
Clay Frye said that the signage for the Bay Trail and historic signage is in design at the
moment. He said BCDC has very specific signage guidelines. He said they got permission
from BCDC to explore combining the Bay Trail and historic walk signage. He said there
would be very specific rules and procedures and signage regulating gate closures and
signage for that area.
Board Member Mitchell asked for more information explaining the changes bringing the
trail away from the water's edge in the Harbor View Park.
Ms. Ma said BCDC's feedback led to pulling the trail back and adding the view pockets.
Staff Member Thomas said Alameda goes first in the process before BCDC and the board
can ask for changes in the proposed path alignment if it feels strongly.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked if there were renderings of the project at night and of
the art in the plan.
Staff Member Thomas said they could separate the lighting plan from this step and bring
it back at a future date. He said the public art component is one of the last things to be
completed.
Board Member Teague asked what the timing would be for the water taxi.
Staff Member Thomas said there is no specific timeline. He said their approach has been
to require the landings for water shuttles be built with every project. He said that once the
projects get built and occupied there would hopefully be enough demand to support
service with funding help from the TMA funds that the residents would pay into.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 6 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,7,"Board Member Rothenberg asked for clarification regarding the ADA accessibility
requirements of the plan.
Staff Member Thomas said the project would have to meet all the requirements of
Alameda's Universal Design Ordinance.
Ms. Ma said that the civil engineers would figure out the final details related to sloping and
access, and that they have chosen materials that would be compatible with the state's
path of travel requirements for accessibility.
Board Member Saheba asked what would be the timing of the lighting plan submittal.
Staff Member Thomas said they will have a condition of approval that would require a
lighting plan be submitted and approved prior to building permits.
Board Member Saheba asked if the Union St. paseo would have easements or other
requirements since they are not in the open space plan.
Staff Member Thomas said the paseo would have an easement and has to meet specific
dimensional requirements.
Board Member Saheba said the paseo needs to be design first in order to foster public
access and influence the building design.
President Sullivan asked if OSHA has weighed in on the co-location of the hoist and the
trail.
Staff Member Thomas said they have a very similar condition at the Grand Marina's
boatyard. He said Alameda needs to be comfortable with these types of issues because
of our maritime nature and said they feel it makes the Bay Trail more interesting.
President Sullivan said decomposed granite is a constant maintenance problem and
asked if that is accounted for in the budget.
Bill Smith, landscape architect, said they are mainly using it in the view pockets and would
see less intensive use. He said the owner has a maintenance plan.
President Sullivan said the inclusion of the strawberry tree is a mess and should not be
included in the plan.
Mr. Smith said they are only planning to use those trees in over planted areas. He said
their plant list is based on BCDC's approved list.
President Sullivan said that many of the choices do not do well in the wind and salt air of
the area. She expressed concern about the lack of appropriate shade trees.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 7 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,8,"Board Member Teague said he wants to see the water taxi dock built. He said the inclusion
of BBQ grills is inconsistent with our greenhouse gas goals. He said the uplighting on the
palm trees is not something we like in Alameda. He said that he does not like palm trees
because the debris has to go in the trash.
Board Member Saheba said he believes there should be a trail that gets you to the water's
edge in the park. He said it could be a secondary, minor trail, separate from the busier bay
trail. He also questioned the inclusion of the grills in the public realm. He said we need to
bring clarity to the paseo.
Board Member Mitchell said the graving dock would be a very positive aspect of the
project. He agreed that the grills could be removed, and that the paseo should be part of
the open space plan. He suggested that the applicant listen to President Sullivan's
botanical recommendations. He said the master plan included two trails in Harbor View
Park.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked if there was a standard for the Bay Trail to have
separated areas for people walking and on bikes.
Staff Member Thomas said they do different treatments for different areas and activities.
Board Member Curtis cautioned that removing the grills could impact residents that do not
have private open space for BBQs.
Staff Member Thomas said they would take all of the feedback and be back with the plan.
7-B 2019-6580
Planning Board Recommendation that the City Council Accept the City of
Alameda 2018 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report and
Consideration of the Transportation Choices Plan Annual Report. The
review of the annual reports is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
Ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3862440&GUID=03E414B6
84E6-4917-B052-D03EBEC22C29&FullText=1
President Sullivan said she is concerned that the top priority is homeless individuals that
are not income producing individuals. She said she thought workforce housing would be
a higher priority.
Staff Member Thomas said that list is not in order of priority and will be handled together
because they are part of the same equation.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 8 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,9,"President Sullivan said she has a problem listing senior citizens next to homeless people.
She said she does not believe there are not any similarities. She asked if transportation
dictates the number of parking spaces or if the Planning Board does.
Staff Member Thomas said the Planning Board is responsible for applying the zoning
code.
President Sullivan said that the report lists ""free bus passes"" when they are paid for by the
homeowners.
Board Member Teague said he appreciates the changes made. He suggested reordering
the six items on page 20 in priority order.
Board Member Teague made a motion to endorse the housing element report with
the comments provided. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion.
Board Member Curtis said homeless do not necessarily produce any income but if not
addressed will cost the city a lot of money.
Board Member Rothenberg said there is new legislation being introduced at the state level
to increase opportunities for live/work units.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Board Member Teague offered several edits, clarifications, and comments for
consideration for the Transportation Choices Plan report. He said he opposes charging
for parking at the ferry terminals until there is a transit option. He said carpool priority
parking could dramatically reduce the number of cars going to the ferry. He said a water
shuttle could make a bicycle and pedestrian crossing unnecessary. He said the lights on
Main Street are not timed and do not work well.
Board Member Mitchell said carpool parking at the ferry could help.
President Sullivan opened the public hearing.
Anne McKereghan said that Alameda does have homeless individuals earning income
while living in their cars or couch surfing and deserve inclusion in the Housing Element.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked if it was possible to have a light rail system connecting
Fruitvale BART to the two ferry terminals to serve everyone in Alameda.
Staff Member Thomas said that the development of Alameda Point has established the
need for a bus line that connects west Alameda to the rest of the island. He said the issue
is getting dedicated lanes for buses crossing the estuary. He said the Miller Sweeney
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 9 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,10,"bridge is the preferred option to become retrofitted as a Lifeline structure in the event of a
major earthquake. He said light rail could not cross the Union Pacific line in Oakland. He
said running bus rapid transit could roll right over the train tracks.
Board Member Cavanaugh said the bus system runs into gridlock near the bridge,
especially in the mornings. He said having a dedicated right of way has to happen for it to
be effective.
Staff Member Thomas said the planners agree that having a dedicated lane for buses is
key. He said they are even considering the idea of contra-flow peak hour bus lanes in the
tubes, or congestion pricing to fund transportation.
8. MINUTES
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2019-6573
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and
Decisions
The staff report can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3862436&GUID=DDB47C1A-
6A08-459E-9887-499040498A3B&FullText=1
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
10-A 2019-6574
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and
Transportation Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas previewed upcoming meeting items.
Board Member Teague said the board members should read the City Attorney's direction
on what is and is not permitted regarding use permit actions.
Staff Member Thomas said they are revising the RFQ.
Board Members Rothenberg, Curtis, and Sullivan volunteered to provide input on the
revised RFQ.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 10 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-02-25,11,"President Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 9:39pm.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 11 of 11
February 25, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,1,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, February 25, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Present:
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu and Johnson
Absent:
Chair Murray
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo; Bill Chapin
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Staff called roll of case participants. The tenants for Agenda Items 7-A and 7-B were
not present and 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
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the February 4, 2019 regular meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member
Johnson). Motion passed 3-0.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-C. Case 1213 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A306
Tenant: Purereseren Tervee
Landlord: Andy King",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,2,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
Proposed rent increase: $389.00 (24.7%), to a total rent of $1,964.00,
effective March 1, 2019
Program staff explained that, while processing this case, they found that previous rent
increases for this unit were invalid, and directed the current landlord to lower the
tenant's rent to $1,575, the last valid amount, and refund the overpayment. The
landlord's notice shows a $178 increase over the invalid amount the tenant had been
paying, while staff's summary shows a $389 increase over the valid base rent. The total
rent is the same in both cases.
Mr. King clarified that the invalid rent increases were issued by the previous owner, but
current ownership refunded the tenant as directed. He said that the current ownership
has spent $4 million in the last year and a half on renovations including seismic
upgrades, roofing, painting, and improvements to the grounds. He submitted a 2018
profit-loss statement for the entire four-building complex, showing the property was not
profitable last year. The amount they are seeking from Mr. Tervee is still below what
they estimate they need to charge per unit to break even.
Mr. Tervee stated that he derives no benefit from the improvements to the outside of
the property, and there have been no improvements inside his unit. He said he has
complained to both the previous owner and current owner about issues with his
bathtub, refrigerator, carpet, and parking space, and neither addressed his concerns.
He said his income is the same as when he moved in six years ago.
Member Chiu asked for clarification on the invalid rent increases and what Mr. Tervee
had paid in the last year. Mr. Tervee indicated that he continued to pay the invalid
amount on his most recent payment. Mr. King said that Mr. Tervee would be refunded
any overpayment made in February 2019.
Member Chiu asked Mr. Tervee what he would consider a fair increase. Mr. Tervee
responded he is happy with $1,575.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Tervee if, since his rent has been decreased and
the current owner paid for mistakes of previous ownership, it was reasonable for
ownership to seek a higher rent. Mr. Tervee said an increase would only be reasonable
if improvements were made to his unit.
Mr. King said that he would notify property management about the issues that Mr.
Tervee raised in the hearing. He said the parking lot is scheduled to be resurfaced and
repainted, but it could not be done until after the seismic work was completed.
Member Johnson asked for clarification about the ownership's income statement. She
noted that the balance would be positive if it expenses did not include mortgage
interest.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,3,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
The parties were not able to reach an agreement, and the Committee began
deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the Committee does not consider mortgage
interest in evaluating operating expenses. He noted that the landlord is seeking a 10
percent increase over what the tenant had been paying, which is consistent with other
increases at the property that have come before the Committee.
Member Chiu noted that the unit has two bedrooms and $1,575 is low compared to
comparable units at this property and nearby. He said because the tenant had been
able to pay $1,786, that amount should be a starting point for deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that it was not the tenant's fault that they received a
refund and rent decrease. He also noted that upgrades to roofs and seismic stability
provide benefit to tenants even if they do not notice.
Member Chiu suggested a total rent of $1,836, which would be 2.8 percent more than
what the tenant had been paying. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said that, while that would
be a large increase over $1,575, the tenant had demonstrated a financial ability to pay
$1,786 since 2017.
Member Johnson expressed concern about setting a precedent for what would appear
to be such a large increase over the valid base rent. She said she would support an
increase over $1,786, but a small increase based on the tenant's stated difficulty in
getting building management to respond to complaints.
Motion and second for an increase of $261 to a total rent of $1,836, effective March
2019 (Member Chiu and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.
7-D. Case 1214 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A304
Tenant: Raza Jasarevic
Landlord: Andy King
Proposed rent increase: $172.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,894.00,
effective March 1, 2019
Mr. King said that the ownership had made offers to tenants who voluntarily accepted
rent increases. Options included replacing carpeting, replacing appliances, and a $1,000
gift card. Mr. King said this was an effort to reach agreements prior to a Committee
hearing and also address concerns about the condition of the units that had been raised
by residents in hearings.
Ms. Jasarevic noted issues she has had with building management. These including not
having a number to call for emergency maintenance issues, damage to her ceiling that
occurred during the roofing work, and windows that rattle when it is windy. Her rent",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,4,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
increased five percent last year. She shared photos of the ceiling damage with the
Committee. Mr. King said he would direct building management to address the issues
raised by Ms. Jasarevic.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Jasarevic, if those issues were addressed, what
rent increase would be reasonable and what she could afford. She responded $40 or
$50. He asked her if she would have trouble paying for other necessities if a $189
increase was approved. She said that she would.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King if not receiving the full increases the
ownership is seeking would have an effect on future projects and improvements. Mr.
King responded they do not want to postpone maintenance.
The parties were not able to reach an agreement, and the Committee began
deliberations.
Member Johnson noted that a $50 increase would be 2.9 percent. Member Johnson and
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah both said they would support such an increase. Member
Johnson said a smaller increase would signal to landlords that maintenance issues need
to be addressed when tenants bring them up.
Motion and second for an increase of $50, effective March 2019 (Vice Chair Sullivan-
Cheah and Member Johnson). Motion passed 3-0.
7-A. Case 1207 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A103
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 1208 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A217
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. Continuation of discussion of memo from CAO to RRAC concerning
confidentiality of information on agenda materials provided to the
Committee and the public
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what action, if any, the Committee was being asked to
consider. City Attorney staff said the memo is an attempt to provide clarification on",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,5,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
concerns that had been raised by Committee members. Program staff summarized
three concerns raised at the February 4, 2019, meeting if the names of parties and unit
numbers are not disclosed on agendas: 1) how Committee members would address
parties during a hearing, 2) how Committee members would know whether they have a
conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed, and 3) how Committee members could
reference prior, related cases to preparing for a hearing. Program staff recommended
that the first concern could be handled by asking the parties at the start of a hearing,
while the other two concerns could be handled by giving the information directly to
Committee members prior to the meeting. City Attorney staff added that conflicts of
interest could be brought up at the beginning of a hearing if a Committee member
recognizes one of the parties.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that waiting until a meeting to determine whether
Committee members need to recuse themselves could cause problems with quorum. He
said Committee members have had to recuse themselves three times in his time on the
Committee.
City Attorney staff noted that records provided ahead of time would be subject to public
records requests.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he believes this is an issue the Committee should vote on
because it would be a significant departure from what the City Council envisioned. City
Attorney staff said that the Committee may vote on changes to its bylaws, but for
changes to Ordinance no. 3148 the Committee can only make recommendations to City
Council.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah proposed tabling the item until a fifth Committee member has
been appointed so that it can be discussed by a full board, and to give staff an
opportunity to consider the Committee's initial feedback and report back.
The Committee tabled further consideration of the confidentiality memo to a future
RRAC meeting.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
None.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-02-25,6,"Approved Minutes
February 25, 2019
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 1, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf