MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION &
ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, November 17, 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: Beard;
Crow; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Mosbrucker; Mosser; Yaros.
Commissioners
not Present: Marshall.
Staff
Present: Lee;
Wolf.
Commissioner
Murphy appeared on the record at 6:14 p.m.
III. Approval
of the Minutes
MSC: To
approve the Minutes of October 20, 2009.
(Henderson/Hurley: 5-0)
IV. Remarks
from the Public
A. Cal Broomhead, Energy and Climate
Programs Manager for the Department of the Environment, told the Board that the
Department is exploring the use of stimulus money to encourage the replacement
of old refrigerators with energy efficient appliances, which could have a big
impact on utility bills. Once the
program is established, Mr. Broomhead will return to discuss the capital
improvement passthrough provisions of the Ordinance and Rules with the
Commissioners.
B. Viliam Dugovic, the tenant at 554
Broadway (AT090233), said that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) didn’t
consider his evidence, that the manager failed to appear and testified by phone
and that the “whole case is messed up.”
C. Nora Corrasco, representative for
tenant Carlo Torrone of 525 Greenwich (AT090224), told the Board that the
tenant has good and bad days, and couldn’t get out of bed on the day of the
hearing.
D. Rod Hinkle, Attorney for the landlord
in the case at 6841 Geary Blvd. (AL090226), said that the Decision rested on
the assumption that the landlord had notice of the conditions because of a
letter that was found in the landlord’s file during the hearing. However, Mr. Hinkle explained that the
letter was in the file due to pending court actions and there was no
corroborating evidence that it had been seen earlier. Mr. Hinkle told the Board that the outcome of this appeal
could affect a pending court case.
E. The tenant at 6841 Geary, Genrietta
Lerner, said that the ALJ made the right decision because the owner was lying
about the problems in the unit and never came to fix the gate.
F. Andrew Hawkins, representing the
landlord in the case at 1108 Lake Street (AL090223), told the Board that the
landlord is absentee and her agent has no command of the English language. Mr. Hawkins said that the $100
reduction for laundry for 14 months was unreasonable and that only one side in
the case was heard. Mr. Hawkins
asked for a new hearing so that he could cross-examine the tenant.
G. Tenant Symeo Streeter of 1337 Page
(AT090221) said that key evidence from a prior Extension of Time case was not
considered by the ALJ. Mr.
Streeter contended that the landlord had admitted that he had access to storage
and parking in the building, but later denied it because there was no written
documentation.
V. Consideration
of Appeals
A. 2715 Franklin #2 AT090232
The landlord’s petition seeking
certification of capital improvement costs to 3 of 4 units in the building was
granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $63.23. 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. 525 Greenwich St. AT090224
The
tenant’s petition seeking a determination of the lawful base rent was dismissed
due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims to have
been ill on the day of the hearing.
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 granted.
(Henderson/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
C. 1900
Vallejo #203 AT090229
& -0234
The
landlord’s petitions seeking certification of capital costs were granted,
resulting in monthly passthroughs in the amount of $33.13 and $14.31. One tenant appeals the decisions on the
grounds of financial hardship.
MSC:
To accept the appeals the remand the cases for a hearing on the tenant’s claims
of financial hardship.
(Gruber/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
D. 1115
Taylor #4 AL090228
The
subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportionate share of the rent
was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the
amount of $10,800.00. The Master
Tenant’s hardship appeal was granted and remanded for hearing. In the remand decision, the ALJ finds
sufficient hardship to order a repayment plan in the amount of $150.00 per
month. The Master Tenant again
appeals, claiming that even the reduced amount will cause him severe hardship
and possibly result in both tenants’ eviction from the premises.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Mosbrucker/Gruber: 5-0)
E. 1108
Lake St. AL090223
The
landlord’s appeal of a decision granting a claim of decreased housing services
was filed three days late because the landlord was allegedly out of the country
at the time the decision was mailed and the property manager has limited
English skills.
MSC:
To find no good cause for the untimely filing of the appeal. The Decision is therefore final. (Henderson/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
F. 44
Crestline Dr. #3 AT090227
The
landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was
granted. The tenant in one unit
elected to have 100% of the certified costs passed through to her, with a cap
of 15% of her base rent, rather than 50% of the costs. As this election has proved to be
disadvantageous to her and she is experiencing financial hardship, the tenant
asks that the Board allow her to rescind the election of the 100% alternative.
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge with
instructions to waive the Regulations pursuant to Rules Section 2.18 and allow
the tenant to rescind the Addendum electing the 100% passthrough option. (Gruber/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
G. 1337
Page #4 AT090221
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services due to loss of parking
and storage spaces in the building was denied as the ALJ found that the tenant
failed to meet his burden of proving that the services were part of the base
rent at the inception of the tenancy.
On appeal, the tenant maintains that: the landlord gave contradictory testimony during two recent
Rent Board hearings and committed perjury; the landlord admitted that the
tenant had rights to garage parking and storage, but later denied it; and
relevant testimony was omitted from the decision.
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Mosbrucker from consideration of this appeal. (Henderson/Crow: 5-0)
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Murphy/Gruber: 3-2; Crow,
Henderson dissenting)
H. 16
Salmon #2 AT090222
The
tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increases and decreased housing
services was denied because the ALJ found that laundry and storage services
were added after the commencement of the tenancy for no additional charge. The tenant appeals the decision, arguing
that: storage and laundry
privileges were promised to him by the prior landlord and were factored in to
his base rent, as evidenced by the Estoppel Certificate he filed with the
petition; the prior landlord increased his rent upon his installation of a
washer/dryer; the landlord provided inaccurate information, which was relied on
by the ALJ; there had never been an extra charge for use of the storage shelves
outside of the unit; and a Small Claims Court decision finding that he is
entitled to laundry and storage in the building at no cost should be binding on
the Rent Board.
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to
evaluate and determine the status of the Small Claims Court ruling and its
effect on the tenant’s decreased services claim; to deny the appeal as to the
alleged unlawful rent increase. A
supplemental hearing will be held if necessary. (Beard/Mosbrucker:
5-0)
I. 1755 Van Ness #302 AL090225
The
landlord filed a petition seeking a determination pursuant to Rules Sections
1.21 and 6.14 and Costa-Hawkins.
The ALJ found that the subject unit is not the tenant’s principal place
of residence but her subtenant is a Tenant in Occupancy and, because the tenant
still permanently resides part-time in the subject unit, no rent increase is
warranted. On appeal, the landlord
maintains that: the tenant no
longer permanently resides in the unit; the ALJ exhibited bias in denying the
landlord’s petition for rent increase; and the subtenant does not meet the
definition of a Tenant in Occupancy.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Mosbrucker/Henderson: 5-0)
J. 6841 Geary Blvd. #6 AL090226
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and
the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,280.00 due to
habitability defects on the premises.
On appeal, the landlords claim that: the landlords were not on notice of the defective security
gate system until April 24, 2009; and the rent reduction for the defective
entry system is disproportionately high, as is the rent reduction for the worn
carpet.
` MSC:
To deny the appeal; no determination is made as to the merits of any other
claims.
(Mosbrucker/Henderson: 5-0)
K. 68 Albion St. AL090230
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the
landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $4,485.00 due to lack
of heat and $495.99 for broken window cranks and closers. On appeal, the landlord claims
that: the landlord was not on
notice of the problems until the tenant contacted the Department of Building
Inspection after being given a 3-day notice for non-payment of rent; the
problems were immediately remedied; and the window cranks were removed by the
tenant.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Henderson/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
L. 1435 – 7th Ave. #2 AL090231
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was
granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the
amount of $6,157.50 due to habitability defects on the premises. The landlords appeal, claiming
that: the tenant was granted a
rent reduction for loss of use of the deck, which she did not use; the bathroom
window is not defective and the landlords were not on notice of this issue until
November 2008; a rent reduction was granted for a period of time after the
bathroom had been painted and the landlords were not on notice of the
recurrence of the problem; the amount of the rent reduction granted for the
linoleum is in error; several of the problems were merely cosmetic; and the
rent reductions granted are excessive.
MSC:
To deny the appeal except to remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge
for a necessary Technical Correction.
(Mosbrucker/Henderson: 5-0)
M. 554 Broadway #33 AT090233
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services and harassment by the
landlord was denied. On appeal,
the tenant claims that: the rent
is not a lawful amount; the evidence he provided was not considered in the
decision; and he proved that the landlord failed to perform necessary repair
and maintenance as required by state and local law.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Murphy/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
VI. Communications
In
addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners
received the following communications:
A. A copy of the Rules and Regulations
amended September 8, 2009.
B. A letter from Aaron Goodman, President
of the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization (PRO), regarding recent statements
made by the landlord’s representatives at a Rent Board hearing.
C. Articles from the S.F. Bay Guardian,
S.F. Appeal, S.F. Gate, and the S.F. Chronicle.
IV. Remarks
from the Public (cont.)
H. Tenant Symeo Streeter of 1337 Page said
that the second page of the Estoppel Agreement verified that he had parking and
storage, but it wasn’t submitted.
Mr. Streeter told the Board he was unable to lodge an objection over the
removal of these services because he wasn’t medically able to do so at the
time. Mr. Streeter maintained that
everyone agrees he had the space, but his petition was denied anyway.
VII. Calendar
Items
November
24th, December 1st & December 8th – NO
MEETINGS
December
15, 2009
11
appeal considerations
VIII. Adjournment
President
Gruber adjourned the meeting at 7:15 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.