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

Skip to page body

April 24, 2001

April 24, 2001

 

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

Tuesday, April 24, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at

25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level

    I. Call to Order

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

    II. Roll Call

                  Commissioners Present: Aung; Becker; Gruber; Hobson; Lightner; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.

                  Commissioners not Present: Justman; Marshall.

                  Staff Present: Wolf.

    III. Approval of the Minutes

          MSC: To approve the Minutes of April 3, 2001.

                  (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)

    IV. Remarks from the Public

      A. James Driscoll, the tenant’s attorney in the case at 11 Naglee Ave. #3 (AL010035), told the Board that his legal arguments on appeal were before them, and explained the circumstances behind the tenant’s not having returned to the unit from her residence in Las Vegas.

      B. Tenant Alma Morris of Lombard Place Apartments told the Board that she could not afford to pay thousands of dollars in passthroughs, and that she "didn’t get rich, but did get old." Ms. Morris said that she "thought the battle was over with the passage of Proposition H."

      C. Helen Fellows, a tenant at Lombard Place, told the Board that the landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs did not include subcontractor invoices and the petition should therefore be reconsidered and dismissed.

      D. Tenant Lorraine Calcagni of Lombard Place took issue with the effective date of the Moratorium on processing capital improvement petitions. Ms. Calcagni told the Board the Ordinance passed Second Reading before the Board of Supervisors on February 20th and she believes it became law 30 days later, or March 22nd. Ms. Calcagni stated her belief that the 10 extra days for the Mayor to decide what to do has no effect on the effective date of the legislation.

      E. Landlord Karen Crommie asked that the Board look favorably on and pass the two amendments proposed by Commissioner Lightner on this evening’s Agenda to "plug loopholes and abuses" of the rent control law.

      F. Tenant Bill Shockley of Lombard Place Apartments stated his opinion that the Decision in their case was rushed out to beat the Moratorium. Mr. Shockley told the Board that this forced the tenants to file appeals to preserve their rights, and that the briefing schedule agreed to by the attorneys for the two sides constituted "continued processing" of the appeals. Mr. Shockley asked that the Board hold the appeal deadlines in abeyance so that the parties are not forced to pay attorney’s fees to make arguments that may be mooted by the disposition of Proposition H in the courts.

    V. Consideration of Appeals

    A. 11 Naglee Ave. #3 AL010035

    The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent from $349.90 to $1,200.00 was granted and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $5,155.44. Although the original tenant had not resided on the premises for several years, the subtenant moved in to the unit in 1995 and, therefore, no Costa-Hawkins increase was warranted. The Administrative Law Judge found that the landlords could not rely on their 6.14 notice, because the tenant had not "vacated" the premises and the landlords had waived their right to a market rent increase by their conduct. On appeal, the landlords argue that: the Rent Ordinance was promulgated to protect "tenants in residence", and the instant tenant resides out of State; the doctrine of estoppel should be applied to petitioner’s conduct, since she represented that she was moving out of the unit only temporarily, and her immediate family members continued to assert that this was the case; and waiver does not apply to the facts of this case, since the landlord did not "intentionally relinquish a known right after full knowledge of the facts" because the tenant and her family members misrepresented the facts.

          MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to vacate the Decision and find that, based on the facts in this case, the tenant has vacated the unit, having demonstrated no real indicia of an intent to return. (Wasserman/Gruber: 5-0)

    B. 887 Bush St. #509 AL010034

    The landlord’s appeal was filed one day late because the landlord’s attorney was in court for the two-week period prior to the appeal deadline.

          MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Gruber/Becker: 5-0)

    The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services due to the loss of interior parking for his motorcycles was granted and the landlord was found liable in the amount of $81.03 per month. On appeal, the landlord argues that: the Decision does not promote the policies and purposes of the Ordinance; because of questionable facts asserted by the petitioner, the case should have been evaluated in light of the written agreement regarding parking, and a subsequent agreement is invalid; the tenant failed to prove that parking was included in his rent at the inception of the tenancy; the tenant’s self-serving statements at the hearing constitute hearsay, and should not be the basis for the decision; and the prior management company is engaged in litigation against the owner of the property, and therefore should not be considered credible.

          MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Aung: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

    C. 863 - 41st Ave. AL010039

    The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, and the new landlords were found liable in the amount of $1,900.00 due to the tenants’ inability to use their kitchen for a six and one-half month period. On appeal, the new owners claim that: they had no notice as to the petition that had already been filed by the tenants against the prior owner; and the tenants showed a lack of good faith by filing the instant claim.

          MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Aung: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

    D. 1769 Page St. AL010038

    The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent from $1,627.89 to $3,250.00 was granted because the Administrative Law Judge found that the petitioner was a tenant in the unit, rather than a subtenant, so that no increase was justified pursuant to Costa-Hawkins. Additionally, a 6.14 notice was not timely served. On appeal, the landlords claim that: the petitioner is a subtenant, who commenced occupancy of the unit pursuant to an agreement with the original tenants, and whose name is not on the lease; the prior landlord had no choice but to consent to petitioner’s occupancy of the unit pursuant to the Board’s Rules governing subletting and assignment; the landlord’s acceptance of rent from petitioner was an accommodation, and did not alter his status as a subtenant in the unit; the Administrative Law Judge mischaracterized testimony at the hearing and misconstrued applicable law; alternatively, the petitioner is an assignee whose rent may be increased pursuant to Costa-Hawkins and the new owners did not waive this right; Rules Section 6.14 is inapplicable to the facts in this case because the petitioner did not have a rental agreement with the owners; and the prior and new owners did not have knowledge of petitioner’s occupancy of the unit until the last of the original tenants vacated.

          MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to vacate the Decision and find, based on the facts of this case, that no original tenants are currently occupying the premises, and the rent increase pursuant to Costa-Hawkins is authorized. (Lightner/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Aung dissenting)

    E. 286 Sagamore St. AL010036

    The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services due to serious habitability defects on the premises was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $12,206.25. On appeal, the landlord maintains that: at least four different attempts were made to repair the leaks, which were temporarily abated; the roof was repaired in March of 2,000, but rent reductions were granted through June; and the Administrative Law Judge failed to determine when rainfall occurred during the time period for which rent reductions were granted.

          MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Aung: 5-0)

    VI. Communications

    In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received a letter from Ted Gullickson of the Tenants’ Union requesting that the Board refer the landlord of the building at 15 Rico Way to the City Attorney for investigation of a possible wrongful eviction.

    VII. Director’s Report

    Deputy Director Wolf informed the Board that the City Attorney had received a 10 day extension to file opposition papers in the case of Quigg vs. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (Superior Court Case No. 316928). The hearing on the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction has been continued to May 24, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 302 of the Superior Court. The plaintiffs’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment will be heard at the same time.

    President Wasserman asked that the Minutes reflect the Board’s deep sorrow at the death of Peter Bellinger, and conveyed condolences to Executive Director Joe Grubb and Mr. Bellinger’s family.

    VIII. New Business

      Effective Date of Moratorium

    The Commissioners received a Memorandum from Deputy City Attorney Marie Blits confirming that, in accordance with Charter Sections 2.105 and 3.103, the effective date of the Moratorium on processing capital improvement petitions is April 1, 2001. In conjunction with the request of tenant Bill Shockley of Lombard Place Apartments earlier in the meeting, the Board decided to hold the briefing schedule previously agreed on by the attorneys for the parties in abeyance as long as the Moratorium is in effect.

    Commissioner Lightner told the other Board members that, as a landlord with a pending capital improvement case, she was extremely impressed with the communications she had received from Rent Board staff concerning implementation of the Moratorium. President Wasserman expressed kudos to staff, especially Senior Administrative Law Judge Sandy Gartzman, for the enormous amount of thought and work that went into organizing and implementing the Moratorium.

    IX. Old Business

      Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Sections 1.21 and 6.15©(3) of the Rules and Regulations

    Consideration of this issue was continued to the meeting on May 1, 2001.

    IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)

      G. John McCartlett said that it is difficult for members of the public to follow the Board’s discussions since they do not have copies of appeal materials.

      H. Mario Luchetti, the landlord in the case at 11 Naglee Ave. (AL010035), asked about the disposition of his appeal.

    X. Calendar Items

      May 1, 2001

                      2 appeal considerations

6:30 Public Hearing: Ellis Rescission

    Old Business:

      A. Ellis Rescission

      B. Proposed Amendments to Rules Sections 1.21 & 6.15C(3)

      May 8, 2001 - NO MEETING

    XI. Adjournment

    President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m.

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:12 AM