{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-30", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 30, 2018\nMinutes of a Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday August 30, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray; Members Friedman,\nGriffiths, and Sullivan-Cheah\nAbsent:\nNone\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Gregory Kats\nCity Attorney staff: Michael Roush\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. None.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. None.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\na. None.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. None.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\n6-A. CASE 1099 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 313\nTenant: Joseph Moran\nLandlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher\nProposed rent increase: $354.19, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of\n$1,550.00 to a total rent of $1,904.19.\nMr. St. John opened by commenting that the word \"hardship\" was being used during the\nCommittee hearings in two senses - first in the sense that Ordinance 3148 discusses\nfinancial hardship, and second, some tenants are claiming that the construction at the\nproperty has imposed a hardship.\nCity Attorney staff said that the Committee may take into consideration a number of\nfactors, noting that \"including, but not limited to\" are the words in the Ordinance. He\nadded that the Ordinance states that an increase or decrease in housing services may be\nconsidered specifically.\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-30", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 30, 2018\nMr. St. John said that documents on the Rent Program website indicate RRAC cases result\nin an average increase of 9.32%, and in the cases involving Tropic Sands, the Committee\nis allowing increases of just above 6% on each case decided. He reiterated (from previous\nmeetings) that management had already taken into account tenant hardship in the\nincrease amounts requested.\nChair Cambra replied that each unit, tenant, landlord and case is unique and the\nCommittee takes each case on a case-by-case basis.\nMr. Moran stated that because his unit is on the top floor his apartment gets really hot,\nand that following construction on the property, the temperature has been 10-15 degrees\nhotter in his apartment than before because the construction has resulted in less of a\nbreeze that comes inside the unit. Specifically, Mr. Moran pointed to the replacing of\nspoke wrapping around the balcony with panels that were higher, did not let the breeze\nthrough, as well as blocked the view of the Bay from a sitting position. He added that\nthere is no insulation to keep the temperature steady, and the lack of insulation also fails\nto insulate the unit from noise. His biggest concern, he said, was that the new panel\nwrapping around the balcony resulted in about a 75% loss of the Bay view he had with\nthe spoke wrapping. The view, he said, was the most valuable amenity the apartment\noffered.\nMr. Kessler replied that the work done was up to code, was inspected by the city, and\nthere were code changes on wrapping heights, adding that they put in panels on the\nbalcony instead of spokes because they thought they looked good.\nVice Chair Murray asked if he's considering moving out and Mr. Moran said he may\nconsider it now, whereas prior to this change he was not considering moving.\nMember Friedman asked him what he thought was a fair increase for the next year and\nMr. Moran said he thought about $100 was fair for this year. He said he would pay\nadditional increase if the view had not been taken away.\nVice Chair Murray clarified that according to his Form RP-01 response Mr. Moran indicated\nhe thought a reasonable amount of rent to pay is $1,750.\nMr. St. John said he understands Mr. Moran feels the loss of view is a service reduction,\nwhich is the first time he's heard a tenant bring up a true service reduction, rather than\nexpress complaints about the temporary inconveniences cause by the construction.\nVice Chair Murray asked Mr. Moran to clarify his statement that $1,750 would be what he\nwas willing to pay. Mr. Moran said that he had meant that he thought an increase to\n$1,750 would be a reasonable one-time increase, not part of any expected multi-year\nphase-ins.\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-30", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 30, 2018\nMr. St. John offered a one-time increase to $1,695, not part of the phase-in. Mr. Moran\naccepted and the Committee dismissed the case without having to come to a decision.\n6-B. CASE 1100 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 109\nTenant: Michael Scalisi\nLandlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher\nProposed rent increase: $310.83, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of\n$1,295.00 to a total rent of $1,605.83.\nMichael Scalisi said that he reviewed the management's increase offers but found them\nunsatisfactory. He said he had a health limitation that has limited his ability to earn income\nthat he did not want to discuss in a public forum. He said the construction at the property\nresulted in a partial obstruction of his view of San Francisco and his unit was noticeably\nwarmer. He said he's had a difficult time financially this year and had just stabilized a\ncouple weeks ago.\nThe Committee members helped clarify their role and limitations regarding multi-year\nlease agreements, and assured the parties that the tenant would have to be noticed each\nyear and each year would have the right to RRAC review, automatically for increases over\n5%, and optionally for increases of 5% or less.\nMember Griffiths told Mr. Scalisi it may be more helpful for him to think of the increases\nnot as a phase-in option and a one-time option, but simply as a single increase of some\namount for 2018.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked what impact the landlord's requested increase would have\non him, and what percentage of his income it would be. Mr. Scalisi said it was substantial\nconsidering the financial hardship he just experienced.\nMr. Roush clarified that following a binding RRAC decision the parties may appeal for a\nhearing officer, and a RRAC decision only becomes binding after 15 days where no party\nhas appealed.\nMr. Scalisi requested that the Committee make a decision and reiterated his opinion that\na $65 increase was reasonable. Mr. St. John reminded Mr. Scalisi that the options they\npresented are still on the table. Mr. Scalisi said he would like the Committee to make a\ndecision.\nMember Friedman asked if the tenant can pay the one-time $310 increase. Mr. Scalisi\nsaid that his financial security is ambiguous and thought the question was difficult to\nanswer. Member Friedman asked if he could pay $150. Chair Cambra interjected that Mr.\nScalisi had said he thought a $65 increase was reasonable, and Member Friedman replied\nthat he wanted to get a better sense of the tenant's ability to pay. Mr. Scalisi repeated\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-30", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 30, 2018\nhe had difficulty answering the question as it was a complex matter and saw his financial\nfuture as uncertain.\nThe parties took a seat and the Committee began deliberations.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said he thought the tenant could afford more than $65 and still\nstay in his home.\nMember Griffiths proposed a $123.03 increase, the 9.5% increase the landlords proposed\nin their first year of the phased-in option.\nVice Chair Murray agreed that the tenant could pay that amount, and did not think the\nlandlords should get less than that without a compelling hardship shared by the tenant.\nMember Friedman said he did not think the tenant had demonstrated a financial hardship,\nand said that the landlord's phase-ir amount was reasonable.\nChair Cambra said he also supported the $123.03 amount as the tenant had considered\npaying the $310 one-time offer.\nMotion and second for an increase of 123.03 (Vice Chair Murray and Chair Cambra).\nMotion passed 5-0.\n6-C. CASE 1101 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 209\nTenant: Carrie & Mounaim Bouderka\nLandlords: Joanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher\nProposed rent increase: $344.84, effective October 1, 2018, from a base rent of\n$1,495.00 to a total rent of $1,839.84.\nMs. Bouderka said she and her husband have lived at this property for 11 years. She said\nthey used to have a good view of the Bay, but after the construction, they lost most of\ntheir view. She said paint stains remained on the balcony following the painting of it. She\npresented a number of repair and maintenance issues they had at the property that went\nunaddressed, including potential asbestos problems, black mold, and water leakage, as\nwell as security issues, as they believe someone moved some of their property, and a\ngold ring went missing. They said they felt management did not take their concerns\nseriously.\nMs. Leonard admitted that the paint coating on the balcony did not perform well, so they\nplan to recoat all of the balconies. She said she would take care of the pending\nmaintenance concerns.\nMs. Bouderka said the repeated letters and materials sent by St. John & Associates felt\ncondescending and offensive.\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-30", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 30, 2018\nMr. Kessler said he would be talking with Ms. Leonard to address their health and security\nconcerns. The landlords and tenants discussed how to make proper work order requests,\ne.g., through email to management.\nVice Chair Murray asked Mr. and Ms. Bouderka about their income. Mr. Bouderka said he\nis studying music at Laney College and does not plan on having income for at least the\nnext year. Ms. Bouderka said she is gainfully employed. Vice Chair Murray asked if the\nincrease would be a financial hardship and Ms. Bouderka said the $142.03 being proposed\nby the landlord's would be a hardship and she would have to cut back on groceries.\nMember Friedman asked the tenants how much of an increase they could afford, and\nhow much they think is fair considering the issues they've raised. Ms. Bouderka said she\nbelieves a $50 increase for this year would be reasonable. She said she wrote in her\nresponse that an increase of $100 was what she thought was fair, but clarified she only\nthought that would be fair if the rent stayed at that rate for a period of three years, as\npreviously the landlords would raise their rents only once every three years.\nVice Chair Murray asked the landlords if asbestos was present at the property. Ms.\nLeonard said she did not think there was because they've passed the City's inspections.\nMs. Bouderka said there was an asbestos warning posted in the unit.\nMs. Leonard said there were popcorn ceilings in the building, which were removed by\nSynergy Environmental, a professional, certified environmental contractor that is qualified\nto remove asbestos.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked about the tenants' financial situation. The tenants replied\nthey had new expenses, such as a car payment, and had concerns about keeping up with\nthe cost of living in the area. Ms. Bouderka said living at the property had been stressful,\nas the apartments were having so many issues with mold, asbestos, security, loss of view,\nand abrasive letters from the landlords.\nVice Chair Murray asked what percentage of the tenants' income the rent would be if it\nwas increased to what the landlords were requesting, and the tenants declined to answer.\nThe parties took a seat and the Committee deliberated.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said he thought an increase of $50 was low considering the\nlandlords had committed to addressing the ongoing maintenance, and health and safety\nconcerns.\nMember Griffiths proposed an increase of $93.89, the CAPX cost.\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-30", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 30, 2018\nVice Chair Murray said she believes the management will take care of the tenants'\nmaintenance issues. She said she felt the tenants' distress and concerns, and mentioned\nthat many upgrades and improvements may not be visible to the tenants, yet tenants\nbenefit from them nonetheless. She acknowledged a potential financial hardship with only\none income, the loss of a view, and other concerns. She acknowledged increased costs\nfor the tenants and stated that landlords also have increased costs. She said she would\nnot support an increase less than $100.\nMember Friedman agreed that the tenants did not present a clear financial need, but they\ndid present a substantial loss of service, such as the view, and need for living in a safe,\nsanitary environment, while the situation they had found themselves in may not have\nbeen ideal. He said he believes the loss of services experienced by the tenants would\ncontinue. He said Ordinance 3148 excluded capital improvements costs from \"costs of\noperation\". He said he would support an increase of about $75, about 5%.\nVice Chair Murray replied that because the capital improvements started prior to the City's\nCIP, the landlords had to come through the RRAC to try to get increases for them. She\nsaid that this makes these cases a special circumstance.\nMember Friedman explained why he found the issues raised by the tenants especially\nconcerning. He said he believed landlords should be setting aside money from rent every\nyear to pay for capital improvements rather than expect to raise the rents more to pay\nfor them.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said he felt that the owners were owed increases so they could\nget a fair rate of return in their property.\nChair Cambra explained the issues he was considering in concluding that an increase\namount of at least $93.89 was warranted.\nMember Griffiths made a motion for an increase of $93.89. No second.\nMotion and second for an increase of $75 (Member Friedman and Member Griffiths).\nMotion failed 2-3.\nMotion and second for an increase of $100 (Member Sullivan-Cheah and Member\nGriffiths). Motion passed 4-1, with Chair Cambra voting against it.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\nNo new business.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\na. None.\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-08-30", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nAugust 30, 2018\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\nMember Griffiths said that the Committee spent 40 minutes deliberating on the last cases,\nwhich he found unacceptable time management. He said he would like to set a time for\ndiscussion about time limits. Staff informed the Committee that a discussion regarding\namending the Committee bylaws would be on the agenda at an upcoming meeting.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-08-30.pdf"}