To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

October 20, 2009



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level



    I.    Call to Order

    President Gruber called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

    II.    Roll Call

    Commissioners Present:    Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Mosbrucker; Mosser; Yaros.
    Commissioners not Present:    Beard; Crow; Marshall; Murphy.
    Staff Present:    Lee; Wolf.

    III.    Approval of the Minutes

    MSC:    To approve the Minutes of September 22, 2009.  (Mosbrucker/Hurley:  5-0)

    IV.    Remarks from the Public

Dave Wasserman, Attorney for the landlord at 1360 Jones #902 (AT090210), told the Board that the landlord has received a Notice to Vacate from the tenants and they are in the process of moving out of the unit.

    V.    Consideration of Appeals

    A.    1900 Vallejo #405            AT090219   

The landlord’s petition seeking certification of capital improvement costs to 14 of 30 units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $33.13.  One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

    MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.    (Henderson/Mosbrucker:  5-0)

    B.    640 Mason #303            AT090218 & -20

The tenant’s hardship appeals of decisions granting utility and capital improvement passthroughs were accepted and remanded for hearing.  In the Decision on Remand, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the appeals, finding insufficient hardship to warrant deferral of the passthroughs.  On further appeal, the tenant asks that the Board remand the case to the ALJ in order to make the settlement agreement of the parties the decision in the case.

    MSC: To accept the appeals and remand the cases to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing pursuant to the alleged settlement agreement of the parties.  (Mosbrucker/Hurley:  5-0)

    C.    465 Ellis #312            AT090213

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services and unlawful rent increase was dismissed because he arrived for the properly noticed hearing forty minutes late.  On appeal, the tenant maintains that he misunderstood and thought that the hearing would commence at 3:00 p.m. rather than 2:00 p.m.
   
    MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing; should the tenant again fail to appear, absent extraordinary circumstances, no further hearings will be scheduled.  (Henderson/Mosbrucker:  5-0)

    D.    929 Broderick #5            AT090211 & -12

The tenant filed a petition requesting a determination of the proper base rent and an appeal of a decision granting rent increases based on operating expenses, claiming that the base rent used for calculation of the increase was unlawful.  The Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant failed to prove any wrongful rent increases.  On appeal, the tenant claims that a rent increase in 1982 came only ten months after the prior rent increase and was therefore null and void.

    MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Hurley/Gruber:  5-0)

    E.    10 Sharon St.            AL090209

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services and the landlord’s failure to repair and seeking a determination as to the lawful base rent was granted, in part.  The landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $4,440.00 due to the faulty condition of windows in the unit, which also warranted deferral of an annual rent increase.  However, the rent was determined to be lawful because a $100 increase for the right to have a roommate was negotiated prior to the inception of the tenancy.  The landlord appeals, arguing that:  the decision is in error regarding attempts that were made to alleviate the problem; there is no justification for the $300 monthly rent reduction for the windows; the tenant failed to prove that the condition of the windows declined during the tenancy and therefore, there was no reduction in services; and the rent reduction was granted for months when the weather is not cold or damp in San Francisco.

    MSC: To recuse Commissioner Henderson from consideration of this appeal.  (Mosbrucker/Gruber:  5-0)

    MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Mosbrucker/Hurley:  4-0)

        F.  2172 – 15th St. #2                    AL090208

The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increases and failure to discontinue a capital improvement passthrough was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,722.73.  On appeal, the landlord argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s calculations are incorrect.

    MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Mosbrucker/Henderson:  5-0)

        G.  1360 Jones #902                    AT090210

The landlord’s petition seeking a determination pursuant to Rules §1.21 was granted as the Administrative Law Judge found that the subject unit was the tenants’ vacation home, rather than their principal place of residence.  On appeal, the tenants argue that:  all of their personal possessions are kept in the unit; the unit is the place to which they normally return exclusive of the extensive travel necessitated by their employment; when away from the subject unit, the tenants stay in temporary housing; and the Decision does not comport with the standards set out in Rules §1.21 and should be overturned.

    MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Hurley/Gruber:  5-0)

        H.  85-1/2 Richland Ave.                    AT090214

The landlord filed a petition seeking a determination as to the proper base rent for the unit, which the ALJ found to be $1,800.00 per month with the tenant being responsible for PG&E costs.  On appeal, the tenant claims that he now has documentation proving that he had an oral agreement with the prior landlord that he could deduct the amount of the PG&E bill from the rent; and that the new owner falsely stated at the hearing that he was working on the problem of a shared utilities meter in the building.

    MSC:  To deny the appeal.  (Gruber/Hurley:  5-0)

        I.  2021 California #303                    AL090215

The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $4,952.50 for numerous habitability defects on the premises.  On appeal, the landlord claims that:  the Conclusions of Law regarding the kitchen window conflict with State law; the Conclusions concerning the kitchen window and the dryer vent are factually contradictory; and the rent reductions granted are excessive.

    MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Mosbrucker/Henderson:  5-0)

        J.  81 Minerva St.                        AL090216 & -17

The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services and an unlawful rent increase was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $1,517.25 for reduced housing services and $1,200.00 for a rent increase based on an additional occupant in the unit.  On appeal, the landlord argues that:  the $150.00 monthly rent reduction for lack of heat is unfair because the utility bills for the building often did not exceed that amount and the tenants should not be reimbursed more than their share of the utility bills; he was not obligated to provide a clothes dryer on the premises and the tenants preferred to disconnect the washer and dryer to save on utility costs; the tenants were moved into another room immediately after the toilet in their room broke; the tenants constituted a nuisance and disturbed other tenants; and the decision presents him with a financial hardship.

    MSC: To deny both the landlord’s substantive and hardship appeals.  (Mosbrucker/Henderson:  5-0)

    VI.    Communications

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:

        A.  Articles from the S.F. Examiner, the S.F. Chronicle and BeyondChron.

        B.  A copy of Senate Bill 290.

        C.  A copy of the case of Guggenheim v. City of Goleta.

    VII.    Director’s Report

Executive Director Wolf informed the Board that the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 290 into law, which makes the 60-day notice requirement for evictions permanent.  Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee told the Board about the case of Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, a Ninth Circuit case which departed from established takings jurisprudence to find that the vacancy control provision of a rent control ordinance for mobile home parks caused a taking for which just compensation must be paid, despite the fact that the ordinance did not interfere with the property owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations for the property.

    VIII.    Calendar Items

        October 27th, November 3rd and 10th, 2009 – NO MEETINGS

        November 17, 2009
        13 appeal considerations

    IX.    Adjournment

    President Gruber adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.

NOTE: If any materials related to an item on this agenda have been distributed to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet, those materials are available for public inspection at the office of the Rent Board during normal office hours.



Last updated: 11/12/2009 12:18:53 PM