{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JULY 23, 2018\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:00pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Burton led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Mitchell, Board Members Burton, Cavanaugh, Curtis, Sullivan,\nTeague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n2018-5814\nPLN16-0314 -Design Review Approval - Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Temporary\nLandside Improvements. Applicant: City of Alameda. Public Hearing to consider Design\nReview approval pursuant to AMC 30-37 for temporary landside improvements for a new\nferry terminal located at the Seaplane Lagoon in the NAS Alameda historic district. The\nenvironmental effects of the proposed project were considered and disclosed in the\nSeaplane Lagoon Addendum to the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report. No\nfurther environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act\nBoard Member Teague asked to pull the item for review. He asked for an explanation of\nthe differences between what was in the packet VS. what they have online.\nStaff Member Giles said they added an image of the perforated panel. She said they also\nadded a page to show the terminal when it was not light out.\nBoard Member Teague asked for more detail on the perforated panels.\nStaff Member Giles said that they would be 42 inches high and would provide a barrier.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 7\nJuly 23, 2018\nPlanning Board", "path": "PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Teague asked if a guardrail would be less expensive. He said the panel\nwould be a target for graffiti and impact the views around the site. He said he would prefer\na guardrail or bench.\nBoard Member Sullivan recommend the gray plants be replaced with green plants\nbecause of the lack of trees in the area.\nPresident Mitchell opened and closed the public hearing. There were no speakers.\nBoard Member Burton said he was open to the idea of a more open railing.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the item with the condition that\nthe perforated panels at the storm drain outfalls be replaced with a railing. Board\nMember Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 201-5815\nPublic Hearing to consider a Planning Board recommendation to approve a Master Plan\nand Density Bonus application for the Encinal Terminals property at 1521 Buena Vista\nAvenue. Applicant: North Waterfront Cove, LLC. An addendum to a previously certified\nFocused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project has been prepared,\nin conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act\nBoard Member Burton recused himself because his firm is working on a project for the\ndeveloper in Sacramento.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:\ntps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3554214&GUID=047A2A27-\nD6EB-456D-A93C-C1EEB8F7301E\nMike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave a presentation on the application.\nBoard Member Curtis asked the applicant to resend the county housing graph because\nthe labeling of the data was missing.\nPresident Mitchell asked if this project would have any impact on whether the adjacent\nDel Monte project would move forward or not.\nMr. O'Hara said they are separate entities and will move forward or not on their own. He\nsaid that whichever project begins first would complete the Clement Ave. extension.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 7\nJuly 23, 2018\nPlanning Board", "path": "PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Teague asked why the road cannot come in at Entrance Rd and turn at\nthe edge of the Tidelands property.\nMr. O'Hara said that it is possible but could present some design problems.\nBoard Member Teague asked whether they considered using trees other than palms.\nMr. O'Hara said they are considering many different species and acknowledged that the\nfronds are not compostable.\nBoard Member Teague asked for a review of the memorandum about California housing\nlaws and how the unit calculations were formed.\nStaff Attorney Chen gave a brief update on the memo. She said the project meets all the\nzoning and code requirements and the city cannot reduce the size or density of the project.\nBoard Member Teague asked what flexibility there was for conditions such as the\nplacement of the entrance road in order to be compliant with the General Plan.\nStaff Attorney Chen said that the road placement idea Board Member Teague had could\nbe feasible, may require further study, and is not an objective standard. She said that as\nlong as it does not make the project infeasible, it could be okay.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked if the road could be placed on the eastern edge of the\nproperty.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Fortmann Marina road is really a parking lot, but a road\ncould possibly go along the eastern edge of the applicant's property if it crossed the\ntidelands property.\nPresident Mitchell asked how the Northern Waterfront's requirements regarding phasing\nplans can coexist with a master plan that does not have a plan for the tidelands property.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the short time left on the tidelands' lease makes it difficult\nto expect a full plan for that portion of the site. He said the city does not yet know what it\nwants to have on that property.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked who paid for the revenue neutral study.\nStaff Member Thomas said that EPS did the study and that they city has used them on\nmany occasions.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked for clarification on who is in charge of the height limits\nbecause she felt the master plan gives conflicting information.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 7\nJuly 23, 2018\nPlanning Board", "path": "PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said that the applicant will require an exemption from the height\nlimit in order to meet their density bonus units.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the shoreline improvements would be scheduled before\nconstruction of units.\nStaff Member Thomas said the phasing plan requires that, in addition to the practical fact\nthat they need the geotechnical improvements to be present before the housing is built.\nPresident Mitchell opened the public hearing.\nKen Petersen said he was concerned about the quality of the revenue study and with the\nlegal underpinnings of the unit calculations.\nPaul Foreman, ACT, said the proposal falls short. He said only the residential acreage\nshould be considered for calculating the allowable units. He said street acreage should be\nsubtracted from the residential calculations.\nVince Sugrue, Sheetmetal Workers Union, shared concerns that the developer has not\nagreed to a labor agreement.\nRochelle Trigueros, Bay Area Council, said we are not building enough housing and that\ndelays increase housing costs and homelessness.\nGretchen Lipow said all the new housing will make traffic much worse. She said there is\nnot enough money for schools and no location for a school to be sited.\nDaniel Gregg, Carpenter's Union, said there are no labor standards on the project and\nasked the board to not approve the plan in its current form.\nPat Lamborn said that the realistic capacity of the project were set in the housing element.\nShe said the plan needs to be in absolute conformance with the General Plan, not just\n\"substantial conformance.\" She urged the board to not rubber stamp a 589 unit project.\nDavid Ross said this is a fantastic project. He said the project should not be able to move\nforward without a labor agreement so that tradespeople might be able to afford a home in\nAlameda.\nLaura Thomas, Renewed Hope, said the delays are causing further displacement. She\nwelcomes the affordable housing that the project will provide and said Renewed Hope\nwould not support senior only affordable housing at this site.\nWilliam Smith said he supports the project. He said the road should be placed in the middle\nof the site.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 7\nJuly 23, 2018\nPlanning Board", "path": "PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 5, "text": "Nancy Hird, Save Alameda's Working Waterfront, said dry boat storage should be\nincluded as a possible use for the tidelands property in the Master Plan.\nPresident Mitchell closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said the road is his only sticking point. He said it should be on\nthe right (east) side of the property.\nBoard Member Curtis said he has concerns about the density bonus calculations. He said\nwe do not have a lot of choice in the matter due to state law. He said further delays would\nincrease the cost of the project and that he believes he needs to support the project\ntonight.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she is concerned that there is not a total plan as required.\nShe expressed concern about whether the road space was subtracted from the\ncalculations.\nBoard Member Teague said the objective standards are what is becoming important in the\nplanning process due to state law. He said we do not have enough objective standards.\nHe said the entrance road absolutely needs to go through the four way intersection. He\nsaid we need to include the dog leg alternative to illustrate what the option are for Council.\nHe said he is against using Palm trees because the waste is not compostable.\nPresident Mitchell said he feels the plan is not ready to move forward and that he needs\nmore information. He said he would like to treat the meeting like a study session and\ncontinue working on the plan. He said he would need to see what the potential road\ndesigns would look like.\nBoard Member Curtis said further delays would increase the costs of the project and get\npassed on to the consumer. He said the project is going to get built and we should focus\non conditions we would like to see instead of creating further delay.\nBoard Member Teague said that they could recommend the road up the middle and ask\nthe road design to come back in the next phase if council does not approve the easement.\nBoard Member Teague moved approval of the project with the condition that the\nroad be through the center, that the dog leg road design be considered as an\nalternative if City Council does not approve the road down the middle, and that the\ndesign address the Fortman Marina General Plan item. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion. The motion failed 3-0-2 (Mitchell and Sullivan abstained.)\nBoard Member Curtis asked for a re-vote with a show of hands.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would change her vote to a yes.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 7\nJuly 23, 2018\nPlanning Board", "path": "PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Teague made a new motion to include the previous motion and\ninclude the demolition and grading timing of the tidelands parcel in the plan. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-1 (Mitchell abstained.)\nPresident Mitchell called a five minute recess.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2018-5804\nDraft Meeting Minutes - March 26th, 2018\nBoard Member Curtis offered a correction from \"are\" to \"is\" on page three.\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board\nMember Cavanaugh seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2018-5805\nCommunity Development Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nThe staff report can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3554212&GUID=7D78B128-\nC9F-4389-9A83-8A1D49F5160E&FullText=1\nStaff Member Tai said that everything on the list was approved except the use permit for\nextended hours for Habanas.\n9-B 2018-5816\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development Department Projects\nStaff Member Tai gave a preview of upcoming meeting items. The schedule can be found\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3554215&GUID=7160FD8E-\nF67-4F36-A690-F8CA2292252B\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Teague said he would appreciate more than seven days to review the\ncomplicated design packets that will be coming forward.\nPresident Mitchell asked if they would need a subcommittee for Encinal Terminals.\nStaff Member Thomas said that he will wait to see what happens at Council and then ask\nthe developer for an anticipated schedule, at which point the board could decide whether\nto appoint a subcommittee.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 7\nJuly 23, 2018\nPlanning Board", "path": "PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Teague shared that a proposed state law proposing jurisdictions allocate\n125% of their RHNA has been scrubbed.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 10:02pm.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 7\nJuly 23, 2018\nPlanning Board", "path": "PlanningBoard/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 23, 2018\nMinutes of the Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday July 23, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:02 P.M.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra; Vice-Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Members\nFriedman and Griffiths\nAbsent:\nMember Murray\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Gregory Kats, Jennifer Kauffman, Janice\nHeredia\nCity Attorney staff: John Le\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. None.\n3. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\na. None.\n4. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. Staff announced that several trainings for RRAC members would be given\nperiodically throughout the next year, and that several other presenters had\nalready been identified. Staff informed the Committee that additional details would\nbe provided closer to the training dates.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. None.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. None.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. A special meeting of the Rent Review Advisory Committee is being\nconvened to allow a quorum of its members to participate in a meeting\nfacilitation training.\nStaff introduced the speaker, Stewart Levine, and the topic for the day's training:\nMeeting Management Skills.\nUsing a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Levine began the training by asking the RRAC\nmembers to introduce themselves, say something about why they chose to be on this\nCommittee, and provide their desired outcome for the day.\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 23, 2018\nEach member introduced themselves and provided their answers. Member Griffiths\nmentioned wanting to improve RRAC meetings by making them more regular. Vice\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana expressed a desire to help his community. Member Friedman\nprovided that he feels like he makes a worthwhile contribution to the Committee and\ncommunity by serving on the RRAC. He also said he hopes to learn new things by\nserving.\nChair Cambra said that he has been described as having an almost religious zeal for\nmediation and hopes to bring parties together. He said his desired outcome for the day\nwas to receive affirmations for things the Committee does well and constructive\ncriticism for areas where they could improve.\nMr. Levine introduced himself, informing the Committee that he has been a practicing\nattorney before pursuing work in mediation and divorce mediation. He said he had\nwritten two books: The Book of Agreement and Collaboration 2.0. He said he was\nproviding the presentation on behalf of The Consulting Team, is an Alameda resident,\nand a concerned citizen about the housing situation in the region.\nMr. Levine asked the Committee members to rate their last meeting on a scale from\none to ten, and include why they choose the number they did. He shared a quote with\nthe members to consider, \"Use your thinking speed wisely.\"\nMember Friedman commented that he found the respectfulness of the Committee\nmembers to be a positive. He opined that a RRAC hearing was not a good forum for\nmediation because the meeting is very public, which can inhibit participants from fully\nparticipating.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana said he would rate the last meeting a 7/10, commenting\nthat the Committee did a good job facilitating communication between landlord and\ntenant. He said that RRAC meetings often run long because members tend to be wordy,\nbut that the reason for that was to share their thinking processes.\nMember Griffiths gave last meeting a 6/10, noting both positives and areas for\nimprovement. Mr. Levine asked the members if they thought it was good for parties to\nknow how they came to a decision. Member Griffiths said that he thought it was a good\nthing, so that participants did not think the decisions were arbitrary.\nChair Cambra added that discussion of one's thought processes also served to allow\nmembers to understand what other members were thinking. He said he would rate\nthree components of the last meeting: efficiency 5-7 out of 10; the mediation phase a\n8-9 out of 10, and the recommendation phase an 8 out of 10. He said he would give\nthe meeting a 7 out of 10 overall.\nThe members discussed their different perspectives.\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 23, 2018\nMr. Levine presented how listening, focusing, using agreements, problem solving and\ndecision-making are important considerations for improving efficiency and\ncomplemented the Committee for their problem solving skills. He added that when it\ncomes to efficiency, \"Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough.\"\nMr. Levine provided the members with the acronym \"ROAR: Roles, Outcome, Agenda,\nRules\" and suggested members focus on the agenda for each case that comes before\nthem. He acknowledged that the rules are pretty clearly set out, and how to get to an\noutcome is the challenge.\nMr. Levine brought up the importance of agreements and suggested the members\nmake a commitment to agree to stay on time and keep focused on agenda. Member\nFriedman responded that there were problems with rigidly adhering to time limits as\neach case was different, and that there were no formal rules limiting the amount of\ntime the Committee could spend on any given matter. He stated that staff occasionally\nattempted to impose time limits on the Committee.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana said that he understood the reasons for adhering to a time\nlimit, as it would ensure fairness that each set of parties would get equal time.\nChair Cambra said he agreed with the principle of equity, but sometimes members need\nextra time to get information out of the parties.\nMember Griffiths said he would not mind codifying a 45-minute per case rule in the\nCommittee's bylaws, if it allowed the possibility of extensions.\nProgram staff added that equity was one issue, but time was also a valuable tool the\nCommittee can use to move the hearings forward.\nCity Attorney staff added that while the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is silent on the\nissue of time limits, it was worth noting that the City Council recognized the importance\nof time management and imposed time limits on themselves. He said he believes\nMember Griffith's proposal to add a time limit to the bylaws should be considered.\nMember Friedman responded that he believes the Committee should have a non-rigid\ntime limit and have a discussion and on it before voting it into the bylaws.\nChair Cambra said the Committee could agendize a time for discussion on a time limit\nfor the next meeting.\nCity Attorney staff added that the Committee could include a \"suspension of the rules\"\noption along with the rule for cases where additional time may be needed.\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 23, 2018\nMr. Levine presented the importance of separating rolls and duties to improve meeting\nefficiency, such as by designating a timekeeper to track time limits. He said the roll of\nthe timekeeper should be to monitor the meeting time, time each agenda item, and\ngivers periodic alerts when approaching time limits.\nChair Cambra replied that he was the timekeeper as well as Chair and he uses cards to\nnotify parties of impending time limits.\nMr. Levine suggested that the roll be designated to someone other than the Chair, to\nensure that one person was not taking on too much. Vice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana said\nthat he could take on the role of timekeeper.\nMember Friedman expressed a desire to discuss whether time was a problem the\nCommittee needed to address. Member Griffiths replied that staff had already brought\nup reasons, e.g., for purposes of equity. Mr. Levine added that timekeeping also\nfunctioned to ensure all the cases scheduled at any given meeting could be addressed.\nMember Griffiths opined that the problem the Committee runs into with time\nmanagement lies in the middle of the discussions during a case, which seem to often go\novertime. He recognized that the Committee did not treat all cases the same, as when\nthere were multiple cases on an agenda, the Committee moved them along faster than\nwhen there were fewer cases.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana acknowledged that one of the inherent weaknesses of the\nCity's rent review process was the uncertainty that comes with each case, as every case\nwas different and had to be treated on a case-by-case basis. He said he believes having\na time limit would be fine as long as they had the ability to extend it.\nMr. Levine emphasized the importance of urgency, saying that there had to be a certain\namount of urgency to keep the hearing moving along. He asked each member to write\na personal, measurable goal that will improve meeting efficiency.\nChair Cambra shared that if the Committee were able to better perceive when parties\nare not likely to come to an agreement, it could improve speed and efficiency. Member\nFriedman and Vice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana suggested various ways of informing the\nparties they had a limited amount of time to come to an agreement to encourage them\nto try to resolve matters faster.\nChair Griffiths suggested reducing repetitive comments, and Vice Chair Sullivan-\nSari\u00f1ana responded that restating comments have value. Member Griffiths replied that\nthe Committee could work on finding a middle ground.\nMr. Levine asked if the training stopped right now, what would be the take away for\neach member.\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 23, 2018\nMember Griffiths replied that the Committee's process has a lot of room for\nimprovement and the members should not be resistant to improving it. Member\nFriedman said he would like to improve listening and focusing skills.\nMe. Levine presented a sample RRAC case timeline with time limits on each part of the\nreview process and the members discussed. Mr. Levine suggested having a pre-printed\nlist of questions that Committee members could use to move case discussions along\nmore efficiently. Member Friedman replied that having a pre-printed list of questions\nwas interesting but was not something that the Committee had considered before. He\nexpressed frustration that mediation was part of the RRAC review process, as the\nparties had an opportunity to mediate prior to the hearing with program staff.\nMember Griffiths replied that the mediation format of the RRAC hearing process had\nvalue as it produced many mutual agreements between the parties. He added that\nCommittee members sometimes treated binding and nonbinding cases differently, and\nwere quicker to come to a conclusion when the case was binding. He said they may\nwant to try to encourage parties to come to agreements themselves especially where\nthe Committee's decision is nonbinding.\nMr. Levine brought the discussion back to the importance of agreements and\nconsequences for not sticking to agreements. As an example of a consequence of not\nadhering to time limits, he posited that the consequence could be, \"having to hire me\nagain.\" He praised the Committee for approaching the cases from a place of inquiry\nrather than judgment. He discussed listening strategies and praised the Committee for\ntheir listening skills. He reflected on the importance of approaching each case from an\nunbiased perspective.\nMember Friedman replied that there were some instances when he found it difficult to\nbe neutral, e.g., when landlords say they need additional rental income for retirement.\nHe asked if it was permissible for members to express their values.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana responded that everyone needs to feel they are getting a\nfair hearing. He acknowledged that everyone brings some biases, but what was of\nparamount importance was for attendees to feel they are heard.\nMember Cambra expressed the importance of recognizing the concerns of the parties\nregardless of the any subjective biases. He added that the perspectives each Committee\nmember brings was important, as long as they didn't act as advocates for either party.\nMr. Levine recapped that recognizing biases allows one to reduce their impact on\ndecision-making.\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 23, 2018\nIn discussing additional efficiency strategies, Vice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana expressed\na\nneed for Committee members to interrupt more, especially when parties bring up\nmatters not directly related to the rent increase. Chair Cambra acknowledged that\ninterrupting could be difficult in general, he would personally find it difficult, and\nsometimes venting can be a valuable part of the process.\nMr. Levine asked if Vice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana, as timekeeper, could be the one who\ninterrupts, and the Committee discussed. Mr. Levine pointed out the importance of\nbeing mindful of the way one interrupts: tone of voice, phrasing, etc. He summarized\nthe process of hearing a case: 1. Getting the facts out on the table, 2. Allowing parties\nto discuss their concerns and frustrations, 3. Seeing if a mutually-agreeable resolution\nseems likely, and 4. If such a resolution seems unlikely, making a decision.\nMr. Levine summarized the training: members embraced the importance of\ntimekeeping, efficiency, and urgency, and will have a discussion about codifying it into\nthe Committee's bylaws.\nMember Friedman said he thought the Committee members should have been\nconsulted about what the training covered.\nChair Cambra said the training made him recognize how well Committee members\ndiscussed issues among themselves, and said he found the presentation helpful.\n7-B. Discuss content for letter from RRAC to City Council to be submitted\nwith annual report.\nProgram staff introduced background for this agenda item: during a previous RRAC\nmeeting, Committee members asked to submit feedback to City Council in a letter that\nmay be submitted to the City Council at the same time as the annual program report.\nMember Friedman asked staff if the Committee could form a sub-committee to draft\na\nletter. Program staff replied that suggestions and draft letters may be sent to staff over\nemail and staff could combine members' letters into a single letter and send it back to\nCommittee members for approval.\nMember Friedman said he believes staff is doing a good job managing the program.\nCity Attorney staff stated that the requirement for the program's annual report is built\ninto Ordinance 3148 and the purpose of the report is to advise the City Council on how\nthe Ordinance is working.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana requested that the Committee needed to clarify if they in\nfact wanted to write a letter, and requested Committee members recognize that the\nCommittee's charge is narrow, i.e., reviewing and rendering decisions on rent increases.\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-07-23", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJuly 23, 2018\nCity Attorney staff notified members that a letter from RRAC members may be more\neffective next year, as the City Council was not hearing substantive changes to\nOrdinance 3148 this year, but may be next year.\nCommittee members discussed options about what they might want to write, such as\ninviting City Council members to attend a RRAC meeting, and expressed options about\nwhat they might want to include.\nChair Cambra stated that he would want the letter to include both qualitative feedback\nand quantitative feedback.\nCity Attorney staff suggested that one member should draft something for the others to\nreview, add to, and sign.\nMember Griffiths said that he would not sign a letter that did more than invite to City\nCouncil members to attend a RRAC hearing and complement staff.\nChair Cambra said that each member should submit their own letter if they wanted.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\na. None.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nProgram staff informed the Committee that there were a large number of cases scheduled\nfor review in August and that two RRAC hearings had been scheduled to review them,\none on August 6 and the second on August 20.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on August 29, 2018\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf"}