{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Teague led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Mitchell, Rothenberg,\nSaheba, Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6A 2019-6579\nPLN19-0044 - Del Monte Warehouse Design Review Amendment - 1501\nBuena Vista Avenue - Applicant: TL Partners I L.P. Public hearing to\nconsider revisions to previously approved Design Review (PLN14-0059) to\nmodify the design of the monitors (rooftop structures) on Bays 1 and 4 as\npart of restoration of the historic Del Monte Warehouse. The proposal is\nlimited to architectural changes only and does not affect the previously\napproved land use, unit count, and parking. The site is zoned M-X, Mixed-\nUse with a Multi-Family Residential Overlay. The Environmental Impact\nReport for the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and\nSubsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Del Monte Warehouse\nProject satisfies environmental review requirements for this project under\nthe California Environmental Quality Act.\n*Note: Audio recording was not captured in the first minutes until the tail end of President\nSullivan's comments regarding choice of color for the item.*\nPresident Sullivan made a request that the colors more closely match what was approved.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the item with President\nSullivan's direction regarding the color. Board Member Curtis seconded the\nmotion. The motion passed 7-0.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 2, "text": "7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-6576\nPLN18-0533 - Use Permit Call for Review - 2400 Monarch Street (Alameda\nPoint, Bldg 44) - Applicant: Jeffrey Nibler on behalf of Wonky Kitchen, LLC.\nPublic hearing to consider a call for review of the Zoning Administrator's\napproval of an administrative use permit to allow the operation of food\ntrucks within the parking lot of Building 44 at Alameda Point (2400 Monarch\nStreet), and to allow extended hours of operation for the food trucks before\n7:00 AM, starting at 6:00 AM, and after 10:00 PM, staying open until\nmidnight. The applicant proposes having up to three food trucks operating\non the site at one time, seven days a week. The property is located within\nthe AP-AR (Alameda Point, Adaptive Reuse) Zoning District. The Alameda\nPoint Final Environmental Impact Report evaluated the environmental\nimpacts of redevelopment and reuse of the lands at Alameda Point, and no\nfurther review is required for this project. As a separate and independent\nbasis, this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing\nFacilities.\nStaff Member Thomas listed the options available to the board. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3862438&GUID=6355BEC4-\nC22C-451D-BF1D-1B53402471DF&FullText=1\nPresident Sullivan opened the public hearing.\nKelly Kearney said she operates a catering company on the Point. She said she is\nconcerned by the large number of food trucks being approved in the area. She said there\nwas a vehicle theft in the area recently. She said Matson's lease was not renewed because\nthe sight of shipping containers was not in the City's vision for the area. She said that now\nthe food trucks are using the lot, now leased by Natel Energy, for storage. She said there\nshould be security provided by all the new users of the area. She said she wants them to\nfollow the same rules as everyone else.\nThere were no other public speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.\nStaff Member Thomas said the City is working hard to redevelop Alameda Point. He said\nit is a work in progress and that they invest a significant amount of money in security,\nlighting, and infrastructure.\nBoard Member Curtis asked who owns the property where food trucks are storing items\nat the old Matson property and how can the issue be resolved.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said they can look into the issue, but that it is separate from the\npermit issue at hand.\nBoard Member Teague said the use permit is for two years and can be pulled for violations.\nHe said people should report issues to the City.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to confirm the approval of the permit.\nBoard Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7-C 2019-6582\nPLN19-0046 -Design Review for Alameda Marina Waterfront Park 1829\nClement Avenue. Applicant: Alameda Marina Development, LLC. The\nPlanning Board will hold a public hearing to consider a Design Review\napplication to construct approximately 3.5 acres of publically accessible\nwaterfront open space, parks, landscaping and roadway and sidewalk\nimprovements on the Alameda Marina property generally located between\nClement Avenue and the Oakland Estuary and between Alameda Marina\nDrive and Willow Street. The environmental effects of the proposed project\nwere considered and disclosed in the Alameda Marina Master Plan\nEnvironmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2016102064). No\nfurther environmental review is required under the California Environmental\nQuality Act for the proposed improvements.\nPresident Sullivan said she would like to handle the RFQ question first because of the\npublic speakers in attendance for that item.\nStaff Member Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3862441&GUID=CF26EE05-\n330D-42CD-987C-01AC5925F87B&FullText=1\nBoard Member Teague asked how boats would be pulled from the water to be worked\non in the boatyard.\nStaff Member Thomas said the existing rails could be retrofitted and used by a boatyard.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the boatyard operator would compete with the service\nships.\nStaff Member Thomas said they could be complimentary services, the operator could\nsay that they do not need service ships, and could be the same or separate operations.\nBoard Member Curtis said the RFP was not written in a clear way and did not explain the\nscope of work necessary for an operator. He said that they would have gotten more\nresponse if it was more clear.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said that they could change the RFQ now, at the halfway point, if\ndesired.\nBoard Member Teague asked if staff was involved in the RFQ and was satisfied with what\nit contained.\nStaff Member Thomas said they saw the first draft and felt it was written to look more for\na marina developer and less of a boatyard operator. He said the final version was sent to\nstaff but not reviewed before it went out.\nPresident Sullivan asked if any advertising was placed to promote the RFQ.\nSean Murphy, Bay West, listed the places they sent the RFQ. He said they did not spend\nmoney on advertising.\nPresident Sullivan said the boatyard operator may not want a dockyard and concierge\nservice to compete with them. She said the RFQ could do a better job at promoting the\nopportunity the project provides. She said it is unclear that the operator would be a tenant\nand not the party doing all the development work. She asked if the applicant would be\nopen to amending and extending the RFQ.\nMr. Murphy said they are invested in the success of the project and want as many qualified\nresponses as possible. He said they consulted experts and their legal team to write the\nRFQ.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if the RFQ process allowed for a period of questions and\nanswers that would be distributed to all parties.\nMr. Murphy said they do have that and have had a Q and A process. He said they have\nreceived activity on the RFQ to date.\nBoard Member Curtis said that it was not clear who would be responsible for the\ndevelopment costs and how the lease process would work.\nPresident Sullivan opened the public hearing.\nDorothy Freeman said that Bay West originally indicated that they had no interest in having\na full service boatyard. She listed agreements that SAWW worked on with the City. She\nsaid the RFQ is designed to discourage responses. She said a new RFQ should be\namended and resent and a the clock reset.\nJohn Platt said that when he read the RFQ is seemed to discourage development of a\nnew boatyard at Alameda Marina. He said he reached out to boatyard operators and major\nplayers in the marine industry in the Bay Area and none of them had seen the RFQ. He\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 5, "text": "said that when they did look at it, they all said it was designed to discourage the building\na boatyard at Alameda Marina.\nNancy Hird, SAWW, said a boatyard operator she knows says the RFQ makes clear the\ndeveloper does not want a boatyard operator. She distributed a letter outlining SAWW's\nrequests. She said the developer needs to provide the improvements and not place that\nburden on an operator.\nPeter Brand said reading the RFQ is painful and intimidating. He said it was not sent to\nthe most obvious candidates. He offered to help amend the RFQ and generate an\nappropriate distribution list.\nThere were no other public speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said the boatyard infrastructure should be conditioned and\nincorporated into the sequencing of the open space plan.\nStaff Member Thomas said that they will have that condition first in the open space plan.\nHe said they are trying to coordinate all the different agency approvals that the project will\nneed.\nBoard Member Teague said it seems like there could be changes to the current process.\nHe said that if the current process does not get results, when the applicant comes back\nhe would be looking at ideas to have them hire someone to design the boatyard for them\nand then they could directly seek an operator.\nPresident Sullivan made a motion to have the RFQ reissued with: a situation analysis,\nseparate the details about the next steps which would be required of finalists, the City\napproves the RFQ before it is issued, and that the distribution list be reviewed by\nstakeholders (suggesting Peter Brand), all documents be included in the packet rather\nthan just website links, and advertising in key publications be required.\nBoard Member Teague raised a point of order that the board can provide direction but that\nthe item is not agendized to have a formal motion made tonight.\nBoard Member Curtis said the board's role is to provide input but not to micromanage how\nthe developer implements the suggestions.\nStaff Member Thomas summarized the feedback he heard and outlined options to amend\nand reissue the RFQ while other pieces of the project continue through the regulatory\nprocess. He said he does not want people to get the message that the RFQ is discouraging\na boatyard. He said he would like to report back to the Planning Board at the next meeting\nafter meeting with the developer.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Teague asked who would maintain the plantings in the open space.\nStaff Member Thomas said the project would be responsible for the maintenance.\nSean Murphy and Cindy Ma gave a presentation on the open space plan.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what the minimum width is supposed to be for the Bay Trail.\nStaff Member Thomas said that they try to get 14-16', but that sometimes the do not get\nthat much in tight areas.\nMs. Ma said the Bay Trail guidelines state that 12' is their minimum.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked what the signage plans were for the Bay Trail and boat\ncrossing areas.\nClay Frye said that the signage for the Bay Trail and historic signage is in design at the\nmoment. He said BCDC has very specific signage guidelines. He said they got permission\nfrom BCDC to explore combining the Bay Trail and historic walk signage. He said there\nwould be very specific rules and procedures and signage regulating gate closures and\nsignage for that area.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked for more information explaining the changes bringing the\ntrail away from the water's edge in the Harbor View Park.\nMs. Ma said BCDC's feedback led to pulling the trail back and adding the view pockets.\nStaff Member Thomas said Alameda goes first in the process before BCDC and the board\ncan ask for changes in the proposed path alignment if it feels strongly.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if there were renderings of the project at night and of\nthe art in the plan.\nStaff Member Thomas said they could separate the lighting plan from this step and bring\nit back at a future date. He said the public art component is one of the last things to be\ncompleted.\nBoard Member Teague asked what the timing would be for the water taxi.\nStaff Member Thomas said there is no specific timeline. He said their approach has been\nto require the landings for water shuttles be built with every project. He said that once the\nprojects get built and occupied there would hopefully be enough demand to support\nservice with funding help from the TMA funds that the residents would pay into.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg asked for clarification regarding the ADA accessibility\nrequirements of the plan.\nStaff Member Thomas said the project would have to meet all the requirements of\nAlameda's Universal Design Ordinance.\nMs. Ma said that the civil engineers would figure out the final details related to sloping and\naccess, and that they have chosen materials that would be compatible with the state's\npath of travel requirements for accessibility.\nBoard Member Saheba asked what would be the timing of the lighting plan submittal.\nStaff Member Thomas said they will have a condition of approval that would require a\nlighting plan be submitted and approved prior to building permits.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if the Union St. paseo would have easements or other\nrequirements since they are not in the open space plan.\nStaff Member Thomas said the paseo would have an easement and has to meet specific\ndimensional requirements.\nBoard Member Saheba said the paseo needs to be design first in order to foster public\naccess and influence the building design.\nPresident Sullivan asked if OSHA has weighed in on the co-location of the hoist and the\ntrail.\nStaff Member Thomas said they have a very similar condition at the Grand Marina's\nboatyard. He said Alameda needs to be comfortable with these types of issues because\nof our maritime nature and said they feel it makes the Bay Trail more interesting.\nPresident Sullivan said decomposed granite is a constant maintenance problem and\nasked if that is accounted for in the budget.\nBill Smith, landscape architect, said they are mainly using it in the view pockets and would\nsee less intensive use. He said the owner has a maintenance plan.\nPresident Sullivan said the inclusion of the strawberry tree is a mess and should not be\nincluded in the plan.\nMr. Smith said they are only planning to use those trees in over planted areas. He said\ntheir plant list is based on BCDC's approved list.\nPresident Sullivan said that many of the choices do not do well in the wind and salt air of\nthe area. She expressed concern about the lack of appropriate shade trees.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Teague said he wants to see the water taxi dock built. He said the inclusion\nof BBQ grills is inconsistent with our greenhouse gas goals. He said the uplighting on the\npalm trees is not something we like in Alameda. He said that he does not like palm trees\nbecause the debris has to go in the trash.\nBoard Member Saheba said he believes there should be a trail that gets you to the water's\nedge in the park. He said it could be a secondary, minor trail, separate from the busier bay\ntrail. He also questioned the inclusion of the grills in the public realm. He said we need to\nbring clarity to the paseo.\nBoard Member Mitchell said the graving dock would be a very positive aspect of the\nproject. He agreed that the grills could be removed, and that the paseo should be part of\nthe open space plan. He suggested that the applicant listen to President Sullivan's\nbotanical recommendations. He said the master plan included two trails in Harbor View\nPark.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if there was a standard for the Bay Trail to have\nseparated areas for people walking and on bikes.\nStaff Member Thomas said they do different treatments for different areas and activities.\nBoard Member Curtis cautioned that removing the grills could impact residents that do not\nhave private open space for BBQs.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would take all of the feedback and be back with the plan.\n7-B 2019-6580\nPlanning Board Recommendation that the City Council Accept the City of\nAlameda 2018 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report and\nConsideration of the Transportation Choices Plan Annual Report. The\nreview of the annual reports is exempt from the California Environmental\nQuality Act\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at:\nIttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3862440&GUID=03E414B6\n84E6-4917-B052-D03EBEC22C29&FullText=1\nPresident Sullivan said she is concerned that the top priority is homeless individuals that\nare not income producing individuals. She said she thought workforce housing would be\na higher priority.\nStaff Member Thomas said that list is not in order of priority and will be handled together\nbecause they are part of the same equation.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 9, "text": "President Sullivan said she has a problem listing senior citizens next to homeless people.\nShe said she does not believe there are not any similarities. She asked if transportation\ndictates the number of parking spaces or if the Planning Board does.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Planning Board is responsible for applying the zoning\ncode.\nPresident Sullivan said that the report lists \"free bus passes\" when they are paid for by the\nhomeowners.\nBoard Member Teague said he appreciates the changes made. He suggested reordering\nthe six items on page 20 in priority order.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to endorse the housing element report with\nthe comments provided. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Curtis said homeless do not necessarily produce any income but if not\naddressed will cost the city a lot of money.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said there is new legislation being introduced at the state level\nto increase opportunities for live/work units.\nThe motion was approved 7-0.\nBoard Member Teague offered several edits, clarifications, and comments for\nconsideration for the Transportation Choices Plan report. He said he opposes charging\nfor parking at the ferry terminals until there is a transit option. He said carpool priority\nparking could dramatically reduce the number of cars going to the ferry. He said a water\nshuttle could make a bicycle and pedestrian crossing unnecessary. He said the lights on\nMain Street are not timed and do not work well.\nBoard Member Mitchell said carpool parking at the ferry could help.\nPresident Sullivan opened the public hearing.\nAnne McKereghan said that Alameda does have homeless individuals earning income\nwhile living in their cars or couch surfing and deserve inclusion in the Housing Element.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if it was possible to have a light rail system connecting\nFruitvale BART to the two ferry terminals to serve everyone in Alameda.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the development of Alameda Point has established the\nneed for a bus line that connects west Alameda to the rest of the island. He said the issue\nis getting dedicated lanes for buses crossing the estuary. He said the Miller Sweeney\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 10, "text": "bridge is the preferred option to become retrofitted as a Lifeline structure in the event of a\nmajor earthquake. He said light rail could not cross the Union Pacific line in Oakland. He\nsaid running bus rapid transit could roll right over the train tracks.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said the bus system runs into gridlock near the bridge,\nespecially in the mornings. He said having a dedicated right of way has to happen for it to\nbe effective.\nStaff Member Thomas said the planners agree that having a dedicated lane for buses is\nkey. He said they are even considering the idea of contra-flow peak hour bus lanes in the\ntubes, or congestion pricing to fund transportation.\n8. MINUTES\n*None*\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2019-6573\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and\nDecisions\nThe staff report can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3862436&GUID=DDB47C1A-\n6A08-459E-9887-499040498A3B&FullText=1\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n10-A 2019-6574\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and\nTransportation Department Projects\nStaff Member Thomas previewed upcoming meeting items.\nBoard Member Teague said the board members should read the City Attorney's direction\non what is and is not permitted regarding use permit actions.\nStaff Member Thomas said they are revising the RFQ.\nBoard Members Rothenberg, Curtis, and Sullivan volunteered to provide input on the\nrevised RFQ.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 11, "text": "President Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 9:39pm.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 11\nFebruary 25, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 25, 2019\nMinutes of a Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, February 25, 2019\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.\nPresent:\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah; Members Chiu and Johnson\nAbsent:\nChair Murray\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo; Bill Chapin\nCity Attorney staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nStaff called roll of case participants. The tenants for Agenda Items 7-A and 7-B were\nnot present and moved 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\n5-A. Approval of the minutes of the February 4, 2019 regular meeting\nMotion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and Member\nJohnson). Motion passed 3-0.\n6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-C. Case 1213 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A306\nTenant: Purereseren Tervee\nLandlord: Andy King", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 25, 2019\nProposed rent increase: $389.00 (24.7%), to a total rent of $1,964.00,\neffective March 1, 2019\nProgram staff explained that, while processing this case, they found that previous rent\nincreases for this unit were invalid, and directed the current landlord to lower the\ntenant's rent to $1,575, the last valid amount, and refund the overpayment. The\nlandlord's notice shows a $178 increase over the invalid amount the tenant had been\npaying, while staff's summary shows a $389 increase over the valid base rent. The total\nrent is the same in both cases.\nMr. King clarified that the invalid rent increases were issued by the previous owner, but\ncurrent ownership refunded the tenant as directed. He said that the current ownership\nhas spent $4 million in the last year and a half on renovations including seismic\nupgrades, roofing, painting, and improvements to the grounds. He submitted a 2018\nprofit-loss statement for the entire four-building complex, showing the property was not\nprofitable last year. The amount they are seeking from Mr. Tervee is still below what\nthey estimate they need to charge per unit to break even.\nMr. Tervee stated that he derives no benefit from the improvements to the outside of\nthe property, and there have been no improvements inside his unit. He said he has\ncomplained to both the previous owner and current owner about issues with his\nbathtub, refrigerator, carpet, and parking space, and neither addressed his concerns.\nHe said his income is the same as when he moved in six years ago.\nMember Chiu asked for clarification on the invalid rent increases and what Mr. Tervee\nhad paid in the last year. Mr. Tervee indicated that he continued to pay the invalid\namount on his most recent payment. Mr. King said that Mr. Tervee would be refunded\nany overpayment made in February 2019.\nMember Chiu asked Mr. Tervee what he would consider a fair increase. Mr. Tervee\nresponded he is happy with $1,575.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Tervee if, since his rent has been decreased and\nthe current owner paid for mistakes of previous ownership, it was reasonable for\nownership to seek a higher rent. Mr. Tervee said an increase would only be reasonable\nif improvements were made to his unit.\nMr. King said that he would notify property management about the issues that Mr.\nTervee raised in the hearing. He said the parking lot is scheduled to be resurfaced and\nrepainted, but it could not be done until after the seismic work was completed.\nMember Johnson asked for clarification about the ownership's income statement. She\nnoted that the balance would be positive if it expenses did not include mortgage\ninterest.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 25, 2019\nThe parties were not able to reach an agreement, and the Committee began\ndeliberations.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that the Committee does not consider mortgage\ninterest in evaluating operating expenses. He noted that the landlord is seeking a 10\npercent increase over what the tenant had been paying, which is consistent with other\nincreases at the property that have come before the Committee.\nMember Chiu noted that the unit has two bedrooms and $1,575 is low compared to\ncomparable units at this property and nearby. He said because the tenant had been\nable to pay $1,786, that amount should be a starting point for deliberations.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that it was not the tenant's fault that they received a\nrefund and rent decrease. He also noted that upgrades to roofs and seismic stability\nprovide benefit to tenants even if they do not notice.\nMember Chiu suggested a total rent of $1,836, which would be 2.8 percent more than\nwhat the tenant had been paying. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said that, while that would\nbe a large increase over $1,575, the tenant had demonstrated a financial ability to pay\n$1,786 since 2017.\nMember Johnson expressed concern about setting a precedent for what would appear\nto be such a large increase over the valid base rent. She said she would support an\nincrease over $1,786, but a small increase based on the tenant's stated difficulty in\ngetting building management to respond to complaints.\nMotion and second for an increase of $261 to a total rent of $1,836, effective March\n2019 (Member Chiu and Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-D. Case 1214 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A304\nTenant: Raza Jasarevic\nLandlord: Andy King\nProposed rent increase: $172.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,894.00,\neffective March 1, 2019\nMr. King said that the ownership had made offers to tenants who voluntarily accepted\nrent increases. Options included replacing carpeting, replacing appliances, and a $1,000\ngift card. Mr. King said this was an effort to reach agreements prior to a Committee\nhearing and also address concerns about the condition of the units that had been raised\nby residents in hearings.\nMs. Jasarevic noted issues she has had with building management. These including not\nhaving a number to call for emergency maintenance issues, damage to her ceiling that\noccurred during the roofing work, and windows that rattle when it is windy. Her rent", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 25, 2019\nincreased five percent last year. She shared photos of the ceiling damage with the\nCommittee. Mr. King said he would direct building management to address the issues\nraised by Ms. Jasarevic.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Jasarevic, if those issues were addressed, what\nrent increase would be reasonable and what she could afford. She responded $40 or\n$50. He asked her if she would have trouble paying for other necessities if a $189\nincrease was approved. She said that she would.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. King if not receiving the full increases the\nownership is seeking would have an effect on future projects and improvements. Mr.\nKing responded they do not want to postpone maintenance.\nThe parties were not able to reach an agreement, and the Committee began\ndeliberations.\nMember Johnson noted that a $50 increase would be 2.9 percent. Member Johnson and\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah both said they would support such an increase. Member\nJohnson said a smaller increase would signal to landlords that maintenance issues need\nto be addressed when tenants bring them up.\nMotion and second for an increase of $50, effective March 2019 (Vice Chair Sullivan-\nCheah and Member Johnson). Motion passed 3-0.\n7-A. Case 1207 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A103\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 1208 - 1825 Poggi St., Apt. A217\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. Continuation of discussion of memo from CAO to RRAC concerning\nconfidentiality of information on agenda materials provided to the\nCommittee and the public\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what action, if any, the Committee was being asked to\nconsider. City Attorney staff said the memo is an attempt to provide clarification on", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 25, 2019\nconcerns that had been raised by Committee members. Program staff summarized\nthree concerns raised at the February 4, 2019, meeting if the names of parties and unit\nnumbers are not disclosed on agendas: 1) how Committee members would address\nparties during a hearing, 2) how Committee members would know whether they have a\nconflict of interest that needs to be disclosed, and 3) how Committee members could\nreference prior, related cases to preparing for a hearing. Program staff recommended\nthat the first concern could be handled by asking the parties at the start of a hearing,\nwhile the other two concerns could be handled by giving the information directly to\nCommittee members prior to the meeting. City Attorney staff added that conflicts of\ninterest could be brought up at the beginning of a hearing if a Committee member\nrecognizes one of the parties.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that waiting until a meeting to determine whether\nCommittee members need to recuse themselves could cause problems with quorum. He\nsaid Committee members have had to recuse themselves three times in his time on the\nCommittee.\nCity Attorney staff noted that records provided ahead of time would be subject to public\nrecords requests.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah said he believes this is an issue the Committee should vote on\nbecause it would be a significant departure from what the City Council envisioned. City\nAttorney staff said that the Committee may vote on changes to its bylaws, but for\nchanges to Ordinance no. 3148 the Committee can only make recommendations to City\nCouncil.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah proposed tabling the item until a fifth Committee member has\nbeen appointed so that it can be discussed by a full board, and to give staff an\nopportunity to consider the Committee's initial feedback and report back.\nThe Committee tabled further consideration of the confidentiality memo to a future\nRRAC meeting.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2\nNone.\n9. MATTERS INTIATED\nNone.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-02-25", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nFebruary 25, 2019\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on May 1, 2019", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-02-25.pdf"}