{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-09-17", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nSeptember 17, 2018\nMinutes of a Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, September 17, 2018\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.\nPresent were:\nChair Cambra; Vice Chair Murray; Members Griffiths and\nSullivan-Cheah\nAbsent:\nMember Friedman\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Gregory Kats\nCity Attorney staff: John Le (came at 7:05 p.m.)\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Staff informed the Committee that staff had approved a request of the tenant in\ncase 1098.1 to be heard first and requested they hear this case first. The\nCommittee assented to hear the case first.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na. None.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\na. None.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. None.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. None.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\nStaff called roll of the parties present and reordered those cases to be heard first where\nthe parties were present at roll call; those where parties were not present were moved\nto the end of the New Business section of the agenda and would be heard if time allowed\nin their remaining order. If time ran out before the cases were called and/or heard, the\nremaining items would be heard on a future date.\n7-K. Case 1098.1 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102\nTenant: Barbara Aschenbrener\nLandlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia\nHawkins\nProposed rent increase: $310.83 (24.0%), effective November 1, 2018\nPage 1 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-09-17", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nSeptember 17, 2018\nMr. St. John said that the owners were requesting rent increases that would compensate\nthem for the improvements they made to the property, while still being fair to the tenants\nby not creating too great a financial burden. He reminded the Committee that two options\nwere provided to most of the tenants: a larger one-time increase, or a series of smaller\nphased-in increases over several years. He said that residents had already been\ncompensated for the inconveniences caused by the construction by having no increases\nduring the period of time when the work was being performed, the tenants' rents were\nabated if they could not use some or all of their units, and they were provided alternative\naccommodations if they needed to temporarily leave their units.\nMs. Aschenbrener said that she wrote her landlords a letter explaining that they have\nnarrowed her balcony making it less user-friendly. She said there were other repair or\nmaintenance issues that she's currently working with management to address. She said\nshe felt the proposed rent increases were too high for a studio apartment. She added\nthat she is a senior citizen and has to work. She said she began living at the complex\nsince 1983, minus a period of six years when she lived somewhere else.\nVice Chair Murray asked staff if staff had received a copy of Ms. Aschenbrener's letter\nand staff replied that we did not a written response from the tenant for this submission.\nVice Chair Murray read the letter into the record, providing Ms. Aschenbrener's\nperspective.\nThe Committee members discussed several of Ms. Aschenbrener's repair and\nmaintenance concerns with her and the landlords, including her the loss of space on her\nbalcony.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked if the repair of the balcony was done in the same way as\nthe other balconies in the building. Ms. Hawkins said it was comparable to other studios'\nbalconies. Ms. Hawkins added that she had just rented the unit above Ms. Aschenbrener's\nunit for $2,150 per month, adding that that other unit was fully renovated.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Aschenbrener what impact a $123 (year one of the\nproposed phase-in increase) or $310 (the proposed one-time rent increase) increase\nwould have on her. She said she would probably have to move out of her home. He asked\nher what percentage of her income goes toward her housing costs. She said that her\nsocial security check pays for her rent, and her income from her job pays for everything\nelse. She said she believed a 5% or $65 rent increase would be fair.\nChair Cambra clarified that the RRAC can only make a decision for an increase of one\nyear, and tenants could come back each year to have future increases reviewed.\nVice Chair Murray asked what other expenses Ms. Aschenbrener had and she said she\nhad a car payment, insurance payment, and other basic expenses of daily life.\nPage 2 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-09-17", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nSeptember 17,2018\nWhen asked if he learned anything new, Mr. St. John said he wasn't aware that the\nbalconies got narrower by four inches.\nChair Cambra asked if the parties might come to an agreement, and after some\ndiscussion, the parties did not come to an agreement.\nThe parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah said that this case was the first from the other cases heard at\nthis property where a tenant informed the Committee that the redesigned balconies\nresulted in diminished use for the tenant. He said he felt what the landlords were asking\nfor would cause a hardship for the tenant.\nVice Chair Murray noted that the tenant had indicated that she could pay more than a\n5% increase. She proposed a $90 (6.9%) increase.\nMember Griffiths proposed an increase of $81.33 to match the CAPX increase.\nVice Chair Murray responded that CAPX doesn't include other costs landlords have that\naren't included in this figure.\nChair Cambra said he thought an increase between $90 and $100 would be fair.\nMembers discussed their positions. Motion for a $90 rent increase (Chair Cambra and\nVice Chair Murray). Motion failed 2-2.\nMotion and second for an $81.33 increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah). Motion\nfailed 2-2.\nMotion and second for an $85.00 increase (Chair Cambra and Member Griffiths). Motion\npassed 4-0.\n7-A. Case 1081 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 316\nTenant: William (\"Will\") Tsui\nLandlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia\nHawkins\nProposed rent increase: $293.95 (19.7%), effective October 1, 2018\nVice Chair Murray summarized the tenant's main points - that the proposed rent increase\nwould cause a financial burden, that the improvements to the property did not improve\nhis unit, that he had unaddressed maintenance concerns, as well as safety and security\nconcerns.\nPage 3 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-09-17", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nSeptember 17, 2018\nThe landlords provided a letter during the hearing responding to Mr. Tsui's concerns and\nthe Committee read it.\nChair Cambra asked Mr. Tsui how much of an increase he thought was reasonable. Mr.\nTsui responded that he believed an increase of $100 would be fair.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Tsui about his living and financial situation. He said he\ndid not complain about most minor maintenance issues in the unit. He added that being\nrelocated during maintenance work caused frequent inconveniences and added expenses\nthat he would not have had to endure if he had lived in his unit. He said that in addition\nto his own expenses he had to provide financial assistance to his parents, who were\nseparated and lived apart from each other.\nVice Chair Murray asked Mr. Tsui his occupation. He said he works for a media company\nmaintaining their online platform. She asked him for additional details on the maintenance\nconcerns he raised and he responded. She asked if he received concessions on rent during\nconstruction and he said no. She asked if he'd received increases and he said no. He said\nthat he only reaches out for maintenance assistance when there is a strong need and\nadded that the manager, Ms. Hawkins, is good about responding. Vice Chair Murray said\nthat it's a tenant's responsibility to notify the landlord of needed repairs. He clarified that\nhis position was more centered on the fact that there have been no improvements to his\nunit.\nRRAC members discussed the purpose and amounts of the increase requests with the\nlandlords.\nMember Griffiths asked the landlords if they are running at a loss and Mr. St. John said\nthey were not, adding that the building was not losing money each year.\nThe parties took a seat and the RRAC members deliberated.\nMembers Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths voiced support for an increase between the $100\nthe tenant said he thought was fair with the one-year amount of $142.03 the landlords\nwere requesting for this year. Vice Chair Murray said she thought the tenant did not show\na financial hardship and that they Committee should give the landlords the amount they\nwere requesting.\nChair Cambra said he thought an increase of $130-142 would be reasonable. He said he's\nconcerned about the fact that the tenant had to support his parents but did not think it\ncould be taken into consideration by the Committee. He added that the CPI does not\nreflect on the expenses of a landlord.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah responded that he would be in favor of a $142 increase to\ncompensate the landlords for the work they put into the unit. He said that if the parties\nPage 4 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-09-17", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nSeptember 17,2018\ncame before the Committee again the following year, he would likely be less inclined to\ngive another 9.5% increase. Chair Cambra agreed.\nMotion and second for $142.03 (Vice Chair Murray and Chair Cambra). Motion passed 3-\n1, with Member Griffiths voting no.\n7-B. Case 1104 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 210\nTenant: Victoria (\"Vicki\") Roman\nLandlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia\nHawkins\nProposed rent increase: $326.99 (23.5%), effective October 1, 2018\nMs. Roman said that she believed the repairs to the building were due to landlord neglect\non the part of the landlords, the expenses for which should not be passed on to the\ntenants. She said she is a senior citizen working past retirement age. She said that she\nbelieves an $85 rent increase would be fair, which she had revised down from her written\nresponse where she said an increase of $112 would be reasonable. She provided the\nCommittee with photographs of the interior of her apartment to review showing what she\nstated illustrated the neglected repair and maintenance concerns she had.\nMember Sullivan-Cheah asked why she changed her mind about the amount of increase\nshe believes is reasonable. She said that three years ago she went from being employed\nas an instrument technician to a housekeeping position, which resulted in a large salary\ndecrease.\nMr. Kessler said management would address some of the concerns she's brought up such\nas the dishwasher and stove needing repair.\nThe participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations. Member\nSullivan-Cheah said he thought that an increase of $112 would be reasonable, as she first\nproposed, and as it was more or less in-line with past increases she had received that\nwere around $100.\nVice Chair Murray said that she would consider an increase of $90-95 appropriate, near\nthe CAPX amount provided by the landlords, and would consider a range between $85\nand $112. She expressed concern for the tenant's loss of income.\nMember Griffiths said he believed $112 was too high, and should not be considered, as\nit was rescinded by the tenant. He said he thought a range of $90-$95 would be\nreasonable.\nMotion and second for a $95 increase (Members Sullivan-Cheah and Griffiths). Motion\npassed 4-0.\nPage 5 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-09-17", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nSeptember 17, 2018\n7-C. Case 1073 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 214\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant and landlord agreed to a\nrent increase of $162.42 (9.0%), bringing the rent to a total of $1,957.41 effective\nOctober 1, 2018.\n7-D. Case 1075 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 305\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant(s) indicated that they had\nvacated the unit.\n7-E. Case 1076 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 216\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC hearing, the tenant(s) indicated that they had\nvacated the unit.\n7-G. Case 1082 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 103\nTenant: Jason Gonsalves and Shannon\nLandlords: Johanna Leonard, Randall Kessler, Michael St. John, Andrew Fisher, Asia\nHawkins\nProposed rent increase: $326.99 (23.5%), effective October 1, 2018\nMr. Gonsalves stated that he is under severe financial hardship, including $100,000 of\nstudent loans that are coming due soon, which would be a new bill coming into the\nhousehold. Shannon said they were taking care of their mother. Mr. Gonsalves said his\nwork is of a seasonal nature making a steady stream of income difficult. They also\nexpressed security concerns and said they felt a $100 increase at the most would be fair.\nShannon said she worked at a help desk and had very few pay increases, adding that\nwithout Mr. Gonsalves' income, she would not be able to afford to live in the unit.\nMr. Gonsalves brought up the CIP resolution's restrictions on the landlords' ability to\nrequest an increase. City Attorney staff clarified that this rent increase was not being\nasked under the CIP resolution, but the Committee could still consider the landlords'\nexpenses from their capital improvements under Ordinance 3148.\nThe participants took their seats and the Committee began deliberations.\nMember Griffiths said that he thought a $100 increase would be reasonable. Motion and\nsecond for a $100 increase (Members Griffiths and Sullivan-Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.\n7-F. Case 1078 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 202\nNo Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time\nconstraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.\nPage 6 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-09-17", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nSeptember 17, 2018\n7-H. Case 1084 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 204\nNo Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time\nconstraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.\n7-I. Case 1092 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 219\nNo Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time\nconstraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.\n7-J. Case 1097 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 213\nNo Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time\nconstraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.\n7-L. Case 1103 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 102\nNo Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time\nconstraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.\n7-M. Case 1105 - 2485 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 218\nNo Committee review. The Committee was unable to hear this case due to time\nconstraints. The case will be heard by the Committee at a later date.\n7-N. Discuss and approve amendments to the Rent Review Committee's\nRules and Procedures addressing various issues including, RRAC hearing\ntime limits, participant's attendance or failure to appear under section\n6-58.90, annual elections, and other appropriate amendments\nThe Committee agreed to table this agenda item to a special meeting on September 19,\n2018.\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO. 2.\na. None.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. None.\n10.ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.\nPage 7 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2018-09-17", "page": 8, "text": "Approved Minutes\nSeptember 17, 2018\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on November 7, 2018\nPage 8 of 8", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-09-17.pdf"}