MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION &
ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 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; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Yaros.
Commissioners
not Present: Hurley;
Mosser; Murphy.
Staff
Present: Lee;
Wolf.
III. Approval
of the Minutes
MSC: To
approve the Minutes of March 30, 2010.
(Marshall/Mosbrucker: 4-0)
IV. Remarks
from the Public
A. Tenant Ray Hartz read a statement
saying that the Tenant Commissioners try to consider his comments but are
consistently outvoted by the remaining Commissioners, which he said amounts to
“taxation without representation.”
Mr. Hartz claimed that the Rent Board’s process is not open or fair to
tenants in that landlords are given help at the Department’s office but tenants
are told “we can’t help you.”
B. Dave Wasserman, Attorney for the
landlord at 2240 Golden Gate Ave. #302 (AL100041 & -42), asked the Board
for clarification on the parol evidence rule, although he said that the
Memorandum from the Administrative Law Judge was helpful. Attorney Wasserman said that many
landlords are buying foreclosed properties and it is difficult to piece
together the rent history, agreements, and side agreements.
V. Consideration
of Appeals
A. 655 John Muir Dr. #E316 AT100034
& -35
The
tenant’s appeal of a decision approving utility passthroughs was filed two and
one-half months late because the elderly tenant did not realize she could
appeal on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC:
To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Marshall/Mosbrucker:
4-0)
The
landlord’s petitions for certification of capital improvement costs and
approval of utility passthroughs in this multi-unit complex were granted. One tenant appeals the decisions on the
grounds of financial hardship.
MSC:
To accept the appeals and remand the cases for a hearing on the tenant’s claims
of financial hardship.
(Marshall/Mosbrucker: 4-0)
B. 131
Hugo #1 AT100037
The
landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 5 of 12
units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of
$12.29. The tenants in one unit
appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of
financial hardship.
(Marshall/Mosbrucker: 4-0)
C. 1725
Taylor #2A AT100036
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services and the landlord’s
failure to repair was dismissed because the landlord and tenant entered into a
court-approved settlement in which the tenant agreed to dismiss his Rent Board
petition. On appeal, the tenant
claims that his lawsuit against the landlord is still active, a motion to
reconsider has been filed and a motion to set aside the settlement and writ of
mandate are being processed.
MSC:
To deny the tenant’s appeal without prejudice to re-filing if the court
settlement is set aside and the new petition shall be deemed filed as of the
date of the original petition.
(Beard/Mosbrucker: 4-0)
D. 3788 Mission St. AT100031
The
landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of two new roofs was granted
and the costs were allocated to the tenants in the units benefited by each
roof. The tenants in one unit
appeal the decision, arguing that the new roofs constitute common area
improvements and therefore should be allocated to all 11 units at the property.
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to
allow the landlord to file an amended petition allocating the costs of the
roofs to all residential units at the property. (Beard/Marshall:
4-0)
E. 734 Bush, Apt. 22 AT100032
The
tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was denied because the ALJ
found that the last original occupant of the unit had died and the tenant, his
son, had not established a direct landlord-tenant relationship with the owner
of the building. Therefore, the
rent increase from $356.26 to $1,600.00 per month was authorized by
Costa-Hawkins. The tenant appeals,
claiming that: the evidence he
submitted was not adequately considered and he has additional evidence not
available at the time of the hearing showing that he was living in the subject
unit; he did not have an attorney at the hearing; the third party payee
agreement that he signed was mis-represented to him; and the landlord committed
perjury at the hearing.
MSF:
To accept the appeal and remand the case to consider the additional evidence
provided by the tenant on appeal.
(Marshall/Mosbrucker: 2-2;
Beard, Gruber dissenting)
Due
to the lack of a second Landlord Commissioner, consideration of this appeal was
continued to the May 18th Board meeting.
F. 525 Greenwich St. AL100039
The
tenant filed a petition seeking a determination as to the proper base
rent. The ALJ found that the
tenant’s rent at the inception of the tenancy included garage parking and
therefore the landlord was liable to the tenant in the amount of $6,200.70 for
rent overcharges. The landlord
appeals, claiming that the garage was not part of the tenant’s housing services
because it was rented pursuant to a separate agreement.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Marshall/Mosbrucker: 4-0)
G. 1227 – 22nd Ave. AL100040
The
tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increase and decreased housing
services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the
tenant in the amount of $669.24 for rent overpayments and $1,774.60 due to lack
of access to their mailbox. On
appeal, the landlords claim that:
the decision is not supported by the evidence; and the tenants were not
denied access to the garage to retrieve their mail.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Mosbrucker/Marshall: 3-1;
Gruber dissenting)
H. 2240 Golden Gate Ave. #302 AL100041
& -42
The
landlord’s petition seeking a determination pursuant to Rules §1.21 was denied
because the ALJ found that the subject unit is the tenant’s principal place of
residence. The tenant also filed a
petition alleging unlawful rent increase and the tenant’s base rent was found
to have included parking at the inception of the tenancy, but not
PG&E. The landlord appeals the
decision, arguing that: the tenant
does not satisfy most of the criteria in §1.21 and therefore cannot be
considered a “Tenant in Occupancy;” and, since the tenant signed a lease
agreement that sets the amount of rent and specifically excludes parking as a
parking service, parol evidence cannot be introduced to vary the terms of the
agreement.
Due
to the lack of a second Landlord Commissioner, consideration of this appeal was
continued to the May 18th Board meeting.
VI. Communications
In
addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners
received the following communications:
A. The office workload statistics for the
month of February 2010.
B. An updated copy of the Rent Ordinance
and list of Ordinance amendments.
C. The Rent Board Annual Report on
Eviction Notices.
D. Articles from the S.F. Examiner,
BeyondChron, AOA News and Buyers Guide, the Bloomberg Report,
the S.F. Chronicle and the S.F. Apartment Magazine.
VII. Director’s
Report
Executive
Director Wolf informed the Board that an Ordinance sponsored by Supervisor Chiu
to curb Ellis Act evictions in North Beach by regulating parking garages was
finally passed by the Board of Supervisors on April 6, 2010 and an Ordinance
banning smoking in common areas of apartment buildings and other public spaces
goes into effect on April 25, 2010.
Ms. Wolf also told the Board that new Citizens Complaint Officer Tania
Chacon joined the Board’s staff on April 19th.
IV. Remarks
from the Public (cont.)
C. Ray Hartz told the Board that he feels
his rights were violated at his hearing because he was not allowed to question
the other side and the Board’s Senior Administrative Law Judges won’t go back
and see if his allegations are true.
Mr. Hartz alleged that the Executive Director failed to follow the
Sunshine Ordinance by not putting his verbatim statement in the Minutes. He also believes that there is a
“secret set of rules that are followed” which landlord representatives are
aware of because it is their business.
VIII. Calendar
Items
April
27th, May 4th & 11th, 2010 – NO
MEETINGS
May
18, 2010
8
appeals
New
Business: Ballot Initiative
Regarding Tenant Financial Hardship
IX. Adjournment
President
Gruber adjourned the meeting at 7:07 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.