body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2018-07-23,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JULY 23, 2018
1. CONVENE
President Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:00pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Burton led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Mitchell, Board Members Burton, Cavanaugh, Curtis, Sullivan,
Teague.
Absent: None.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
2018-5814
PLN16-0314 -Design Review Approval - Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Temporary
Landside Improvements. Applicant: City of Alameda. Public Hearing to consider Design
Review approval pursuant to AMC 30-37 for temporary landside improvements for a new
ferry terminal located at the Seaplane Lagoon in the NAS Alameda historic district. The
environmental effects of the proposed project were considered and disclosed in the
Seaplane Lagoon Addendum to the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report. No
further environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act
Board Member Teague asked to pull the item for review. He asked for an explanation of
the differences between what was in the packet VS. what they have online.
Staff Member Giles said they added an image of the perforated panel. She said they also
added a page to show the terminal when it was not light out.
Board Member Teague asked for more detail on the perforated panels.
Staff Member Giles said that they would be 42 inches high and would provide a barrier.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 7
July 23, 2018
Planning Board",PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2018-07-23,2,"Board Member Teague asked if a guardrail would be less expensive. He said the panel
would be a target for graffiti and impact the views around the site. He said he would prefer
a guardrail or bench.
Board Member Sullivan recommend the gray plants be replaced with green plants
because of the lack of trees in the area.
President Mitchell opened and closed the public hearing. There were no speakers.
Board Member Burton said he was open to the idea of a more open railing.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the item with the condition that
the perforated panels at the storm drain outfalls be replaced with a railing. Board
Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 201-5815
Public Hearing to consider a Planning Board recommendation to approve a Master Plan
and Density Bonus application for the Encinal Terminals property at 1521 Buena Vista
Avenue. Applicant: North Waterfront Cove, LLC. An addendum to a previously certified
Focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project has been prepared,
in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act
Board Member Burton recused himself because his firm is working on a project for the
developer in Sacramento.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3554214&GUID=047A2A27-
D6EB-456D-A93C-C1EEB8F7301E
Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave a presentation on the application.
Board Member Curtis asked the applicant to resend the county housing graph because
the labeling of the data was missing.
President Mitchell asked if this project would have any impact on whether the adjacent
Del Monte project would move forward or not.
Mr. O'Hara said they are separate entities and will move forward or not on their own. He
said that whichever project begins first would complete the Clement Ave. extension.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 7
July 23, 2018
Planning Board",PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2018-07-23,3,"Board Member Teague asked why the road cannot come in at Entrance Rd and turn at
the edge of the Tidelands property.
Mr. O'Hara said that it is possible but could present some design problems.
Board Member Teague asked whether they considered using trees other than palms.
Mr. O'Hara said they are considering many different species and acknowledged that the
fronds are not compostable.
Board Member Teague asked for a review of the memorandum about California housing
laws and how the unit calculations were formed.
Staff Attorney Chen gave a brief update on the memo. She said the project meets all the
zoning and code requirements and the city cannot reduce the size or density of the project.
Board Member Teague asked what flexibility there was for conditions such as the
placement of the entrance road in order to be compliant with the General Plan.
Staff Attorney Chen said that the road placement idea Board Member Teague had could
be feasible, may require further study, and is not an objective standard. She said that as
long as it does not make the project infeasible, it could be okay.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked if the road could be placed on the eastern edge of the
property.
Staff Member Thomas said the Fortmann Marina road is really a parking lot, but a road
could possibly go along the eastern edge of the applicant's property if it crossed the
tidelands property.
President Mitchell asked how the Northern Waterfront's requirements regarding phasing
plans can coexist with a master plan that does not have a plan for the tidelands property.
Staff Member Thomas said that the short time left on the tidelands' lease makes it difficult
to expect a full plan for that portion of the site. He said the city does not yet know what it
wants to have on that property.
Board Member Sullivan asked who paid for the revenue neutral study.
Staff Member Thomas said that EPS did the study and that they city has used them on
many occasions.
Board Member Sullivan asked for clarification on who is in charge of the height limits
because she felt the master plan gives conflicting information.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
July 23, 2018
Planning Board",PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2018-07-23,4,"Staff Member Thomas said that the applicant will require an exemption from the height
limit in order to meet their density bonus units.
Board Member Curtis asked if the shoreline improvements would be scheduled before
construction of units.
Staff Member Thomas said the phasing plan requires that, in addition to the practical fact
that they need the geotechnical improvements to be present before the housing is built.
President Mitchell opened the public hearing.
Ken Petersen said he was concerned about the quality of the revenue study and with the
legal underpinnings of the unit calculations.
Paul Foreman, ACT, said the proposal falls short. He said only the residential acreage
should be considered for calculating the allowable units. He said street acreage should be
subtracted from the residential calculations.
Vince Sugrue, Sheetmetal Workers Union, shared concerns that the developer has not
agreed to a labor agreement.
Rochelle Trigueros, Bay Area Council, said we are not building enough housing and that
delays increase housing costs and homelessness.
Gretchen Lipow said all the new housing will make traffic much worse. She said there is
not enough money for schools and no location for a school to be sited.
Daniel Gregg, Carpenter's Union, said there are no labor standards on the project and
asked the board to not approve the plan in its current form.
Pat Lamborn said that the realistic capacity of the project were set in the housing element.
She said the plan needs to be in absolute conformance with the General Plan, not just
""substantial conformance."" She urged the board to not rubber stamp a 589 unit project.
David Ross said this is a fantastic project. He said the project should not be able to move
forward without a labor agreement so that tradespeople might be able to afford a home in
Alameda.
Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope, said the delays are causing further displacement. She
welcomes the affordable housing that the project will provide and said Renewed Hope
would not support senior only affordable housing at this site.
William Smith said he supports the project. He said the road should be placed in the middle
of the site.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 7
July 23, 2018
Planning Board",PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2018-07-23,5,"Nancy Hird, Save Alameda's Working Waterfront, said dry boat storage should be
included as a possible use for the tidelands property in the Master Plan.
President Mitchell closed the public hearing.
Board Member Cavanaugh said the road is his only sticking point. He said it should be on
the right (east) side of the property.
Board Member Curtis said he has concerns about the density bonus calculations. He said
we do not have a lot of choice in the matter due to state law. He said further delays would
increase the cost of the project and that he believes he needs to support the project
tonight.
Board Member Sullivan said she is concerned that there is not a total plan as required.
She expressed concern about whether the road space was subtracted from the
calculations.
Board Member Teague said the objective standards are what is becoming important in the
planning process due to state law. He said we do not have enough objective standards.
He said the entrance road absolutely needs to go through the four way intersection. He
said we need to include the dog leg alternative to illustrate what the option are for Council.
He said he is against using Palm trees because the waste is not compostable.
President Mitchell said he feels the plan is not ready to move forward and that he needs
more information. He said he would like to treat the meeting like a study session and
continue working on the plan. He said he would need to see what the potential road
designs would look like.
Board Member Curtis said further delays would increase the costs of the project and get
passed on to the consumer. He said the project is going to get built and we should focus
on conditions we would like to see instead of creating further delay.
Board Member Teague said that they could recommend the road up the middle and ask
the road design to come back in the next phase if council does not approve the easement.
Board Member Teague moved approval of the project with the condition that the
road be through the center, that the dog leg road design be considered as an
alternative if City Council does not approve the road down the middle, and that the
design address the Fortman Marina General Plan item. Board Member Curtis
seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-0-2 (Mitchell and Sullivan abstained.)
Board Member Curtis asked for a re-vote with a show of hands.
Board Member Sullivan said she would change her vote to a yes.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 7
July 23, 2018
Planning Board",PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2018-07-23,6,"Board Member Teague made a new motion to include the previous motion and
include the demolition and grading timing of the tidelands parcel in the plan. Board
Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-1 (Mitchell abstained.)
President Mitchell called a five minute recess.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2018-5804
Draft Meeting Minutes - March 26th, 2018
Board Member Curtis offered a correction from ""are"" to ""is"" on page three.
Board Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board
Member Cavanaugh seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2018-5805
Community Development Department Recent Actions and Decisions
The staff report can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3554212&GUID=7D78B128-
C9F-4389-9A83-8A1D49F5160E&FullText=1
Staff Member Tai said that everything on the list was approved except the use permit for
extended hours for Habanas.
9-B 2018-5816
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development Department Projects
Staff Member Tai gave a preview of upcoming meeting items. The schedule can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3554215&GUID=7160FD8E-
F67-4F36-A690-F8CA2292252B
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Teague said he would appreciate more than seven days to review the
complicated design packets that will be coming forward.
President Mitchell asked if they would need a subcommittee for Encinal Terminals.
Staff Member Thomas said that he will wait to see what happens at Council and then ask
the developer for an anticipated schedule, at which point the board could decide whether
to appoint a subcommittee.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 7
July 23, 2018
Planning Board",PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2018-07-23,7,"Board Member Teague shared that a proposed state law proposing jurisdictions allocate
125% of their RHNA has been scrubbed.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 10:02pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 7
July 23, 2018
Planning Board",PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,1,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday July 23, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 P.M.
Present were:
Chair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members
Friedman and Griffiths
Absent:
Member Murray
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Gregory Kats, Jennifer Kauffman, Janice
Heredia
City Attorney staff: John Le
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. None.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
a. None.
4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff announced that several trainings for RRAC members would be given
periodically throughout the next year, and that several other presenters had
already been identified. Staff informed the Committee that additional details would
be provided closer to the training dates.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. None.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. A special meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee is being
convened to allow a quorum of its members to participate in a meeting
facilitation training.
Staff introduced the speaker, Stewart Levine, and the topic for the day's training:
Meeting Management Skills.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Levine began the training by asking the RRAC
members to introduce themselves, say something about why they chose to be on this
Committee, and provide their desired outcome for the day.
Page 1 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,2,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
Each member introduced themselves and provided their answers. Member Griffiths
mentioned wanting to improve RRAC meetings by making them more regular. Vice
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed a desire to help his community. Member Friedman
provided that he feels like he makes a worthwhile contribution to the Committee and
community by serving on the RRAC. He also said he hopes to learn new things by
serving.
Chair Cambra said that he has been described as having an almost religious zeal for
mediation and hopes to bring parties together. He said his desired outcome for the day
was to receive affirmations for things the Committee does well and constructive
criticism for areas where they could improve.
Mr. Levine introduced himself, informing the Committee that he has been a practicing
attorney before pursuing work in mediation and divorce mediation. He said he had
written two books: The Book of Agreement and Collaboration 2.0. He said he was
providing the presentation on behalf of The Consulting Team, is an Alameda resident,
and a concerned citizen about the housing situation in the region.
Mr. Levine asked the Committee members to rate their last meeting on a scale from
one to ten, and include why they choose the number they did. He shared a quote with
the members to consider, ""Use your thinking speed wisely.""
Member Friedman commented that he found the respectfulness of the Committee
members to be a positive. He opined that a RRAC hearing was not a good forum for
mediation because the meeting is very public, which can inhibit participants from fully
participating.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said he would rate the last meeting a 7/10, commenting
that the Committee did a good job facilitating communication between landlord and
tenant. He said that RRAC meetings often run long because members tend to be wordy,
but that the reason for that was to share their thinking processes.
Member Griffiths gave last meeting a 6/10, noting both positives and areas for
improvement. Mr. Levine asked the members if they thought it was good for parties to
know how they came to a decision. Member Griffiths said that he thought it was a good
thing, so that participants did not think the decisions were arbitrary.
Chair Cambra added that discussion of one's thought processes also served to allow
members to understand what other members were thinking. He said he would rate
three components of the last meeting: efficiency 5-7 out of 10; the mediation phase a
8-9 out of 10, and the recommendation phase an 8 out of 10. He said he would give
the meeting a 7 out of 10 overall.
The members discussed their different perspectives.
Page 2 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,3,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
Mr. Levine presented how listening, focusing, using agreements, problem solving and
decision-making are important considerations for improving efficiency and
complemented the Committee for their problem solving skills. He added that when it
comes to efficiency, ""Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough.""
Mr. Levine provided the members with the acronym ""ROAR: Roles, Outcome, Agenda,
Rules"" and suggested members focus on the agenda for each case that comes before
them. He acknowledged that the rules are pretty clearly set out, and how to get to an
outcome is the challenge.
Mr. Levine brought up the importance of agreements and suggested the members
make a commitment to agree to stay on time and keep focused on agenda. Member
Friedman responded that there were problems with rigidly adhering to time limits as
each case was different, and that there were no formal rules limiting the amount of
time the Committee could spend on any given matter. He stated that staff occasionally
attempted to impose time limits on the Committee.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said that he understood the reasons for adhering to a time
limit, as it would ensure fairness that each set of parties would get equal time.
Chair Cambra said he agreed with the principle of equity, but sometimes members need
extra time to get information out of the parties.
Member Griffiths said he would not mind codifying a 45-minute per case rule in the
Committee's bylaws, if it allowed the possibility of extensions.
Program staff added that equity was one issue, but time was also a valuable tool the
Committee can use to move the hearings forward.
City Attorney staff added that while the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is silent on the
issue of time limits, it was worth noting that the City Council recognized the importance
of time management and imposed time limits on themselves. He said he believes
Member Griffith's proposal to add a time limit to the bylaws should be considered.
Member Friedman responded that he believes the Committee should have a non-rigid
time limit and have a discussion and on it before voting it into the bylaws.
Chair Cambra said the Committee could agendize a time for discussion on a time limit
for the next meeting.
City Attorney staff added that the Committee could include a ""suspension of the rules""
option along with the rule for cases where additional time may be needed.
Page 3 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,4,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
Mr. Levine presented the importance of separating rolls and duties to improve meeting
efficiency, such as by designating a timekeeper to track time limits. He said the roll of
the timekeeper should be to monitor the meeting time, time each agenda item, and
givers periodic alerts when approaching time limits.
Chair Cambra replied that he was the timekeeper as well as Chair and he uses cards to
notify parties of impending time limits.
Mr. Levine suggested that the roll be designated to someone other than the Chair, to
ensure that one person was not taking on too much. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana said
that he could take on the role of timekeeper.
Member Friedman expressed a desire to discuss whether time was a problem the
Committee needed to address. Member Griffiths replied that staff had already brought
up reasons, e.g., for purposes of equity. Mr. Levine added that timekeeping also
functioned to ensure all the cases scheduled at any given meeting could be addressed.
Member Griffiths opined that the problem the Committee runs into with time
management lies in the middle of the discussions during a case, which seem to often go
overtime. He recognized that the Committee did not treat all cases the same, as when
there were multiple cases on an agenda, the Committee moved them along faster than
when there were fewer cases.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana acknowledged that one of the inherent weaknesses of the
City's rent review process was the uncertainty that comes with each case, as every case
was different and had to be treated on a case-by-case basis. He said he believes having
a time limit would be fine as long as they had the ability to extend it.
Mr. Levine emphasized the importance of urgency, saying that there had to be a certain
amount of urgency to keep the hearing moving along. He asked each member to write
a personal, measurable goal that will improve meeting efficiency.
Chair Cambra shared that if the Committee were able to better perceive when parties
are not likely to come to an agreement, it could improve speed and efficiency. Member
Friedman and Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana suggested various ways of informing the
parties they had a limited amount of time to come to an agreement to encourage them
to try to resolve matters faster.
Chair Griffiths suggested reducing repetitive comments, and Vice Chair Sullivan-
Sariñana responded that restating comments have value. Member Griffiths replied that
the Committee could work on finding a middle ground.
Mr. Levine asked if the training stopped right now, what would be the take away for
each member.
Page 4 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,5,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
Member Griffiths replied that the Committee's process has a lot of room for
improvement and the members should not be resistant to improving it. Member
Friedman said he would like to improve listening and focusing skills.
Me. Levine presented a sample RRAC case timeline with time limits on each part of the
review process and the members discussed. Mr. Levine suggested having a pre-printed
list of questions that Committee members could use to move case discussions along
more efficiently. Member Friedman replied that having a pre-printed list of questions
was interesting but was not something that the Committee had considered before. He
expressed frustration that mediation was part of the RRAC review process, as the
parties had an opportunity to mediate prior to the hearing with program staff.
Member Griffiths replied that the mediation format of the RRAC hearing process had
value as it produced many mutual agreements between the parties. He added that
Committee members sometimes treated binding and nonbinding cases differently, and
were quicker to come to a conclusion when the case was binding. He said they may
want to try to encourage parties to come to agreements themselves especially where
the Committee's decision is nonbinding.
Mr. Levine brought the discussion back to the importance of agreements and
consequences for not sticking to agreements. As an example of a consequence of not
adhering to time limits, he posited that the consequence could be, ""having to hire me
again."" He praised the Committee for approaching the cases from a place of inquiry
rather than judgment. He discussed listening strategies and praised the Committee for
their listening skills. He reflected on the importance of approaching each case from an
unbiased perspective.
Member Friedman replied that there were some instances when he found it difficult to
be neutral, e.g., when landlords say they need additional rental income for retirement.
He asked if it was permissible for members to express their values.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana responded that everyone needs to feel they are getting a
fair hearing. He acknowledged that everyone brings some biases, but what was of
paramount importance was for attendees to feel they are heard.
Member Cambra expressed the importance of recognizing the concerns of the parties
regardless of the any subjective biases. He added that the perspectives each Committee
member brings was important, as long as they didn't act as advocates for either party.
Mr. Levine recapped that recognizing biases allows one to reduce their impact on
decision-making.
Page 5 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,6,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
In discussing additional efficiency strategies, Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana expressed
a
need for Committee members to interrupt more, especially when parties bring up
matters not directly related to the rent increase. Chair Cambra acknowledged that
interrupting could be difficult in general, he would personally find it difficult, and
sometimes venting can be a valuable part of the process.
Mr. Levine asked if Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana, as timekeeper, could be the one who
interrupts, and the Committee discussed. Mr. Levine pointed out the importance of
being mindful of the way one interrupts: tone of voice, phrasing, etc. He summarized
the process of hearing a case: 1. Getting the facts out on the table, 2. Allowing parties
to discuss their concerns and frustrations, 3. Seeing if a mutually-agreeable resolution
seems likely, and 4. If such a resolution seems unlikely, making a decision.
Mr. Levine summarized the training: members embraced the importance of
timekeeping, efficiency, and urgency, and will have a discussion about codifying it into
the Committee's bylaws.
Member Friedman said he thought the Committee members should have been
consulted about what the training covered.
Chair Cambra said the training made him recognize how well Committee members
discussed issues among themselves, and said he found the presentation helpful.
7-B. Discuss content for letter from RRAC to City Council to be submitted
with annual report.
Program staff introduced background for this agenda item: during a previous RRAC
meeting, Committee members asked to submit feedback to City Council in a letter that
may be submitted to the City Council at the same time as the annual program report.
Member Friedman asked staff if the Committee could form a sub-committee to draft
a
letter. Program staff replied that suggestions and draft letters may be sent to staff over
email and staff could combine members' letters into a single letter and send it back to
Committee members for approval.
Member Friedman said he believes staff is doing a good job managing the program.
City Attorney staff stated that the requirement for the program's annual report is built
into Ordinance 3148 and the purpose of the report is to advise the City Council on how
the Ordinance is working.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Sariñana requested that the Committee needed to clarify if they in
fact wanted to write a letter, and requested Committee members recognize that the
Committee's charge is narrow, i.e., reviewing and rendering decisions on rent increases.
Page 6 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2018-07-23,7,"Approved Minutes
July 23, 2018
City Attorney staff notified members that a letter from RRAC members may be more
effective next year, as the City Council was not hearing substantive changes to
Ordinance 3148 this year, but may be next year.
Committee members discussed options about what they might want to write, such as
inviting City Council members to attend a RRAC meeting, and expressed options about
what they might want to include.
Chair Cambra stated that he would want the letter to include both qualitative feedback
and quantitative feedback.
City Attorney staff suggested that one member should draft something for the others to
review, add to, and sign.
Member Griffiths said that he would not sign a letter that did more than invite to City
Council members to attend a RRAC hearing and complement staff.
Chair Cambra said that each member should submit their own letter if they wanted.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.
a. None.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Program staff informed the Committee that there were a large number of cases scheduled
for review in August and that two RRAC hearings had been scheduled to review them,
one on August 6 and the second on August 20.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 29, 2018
Page 7 of 7",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf