July 07, 1998
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION &
ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, June 19, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level
I. Call
to Order
Vice-President Marshall called the meeting to
order at 6:16 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners
Present: Aung;
Gruber; Hobson; Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Murphy.
Commissioners
not Present: Becker;
Mosser; Wasserman.
Staff
Present: Grubb;
Lee; Wolf.
III. Approval
of the Minutes
MSC: To
approve the Minutes of June 5, 2001 with the following addition: to add to Commissioner Hobson’s remarks
upon the conclusion of the Public Hearing that he recommended exempting
reasonable absences caused by education, an ill family member, or employment.
(Gruber/Justman: 5-0)
IV. Vote
on Whether to Go Into Closed Session Regarding the Case of Larsen v.
Rent
Board (Superior Court Case No. 319390) Pursuant to S.F.
Administrative
Code Section 67.11{a}
MSC: To go into Closed Session. (Hobson/Justman: 5-0)
V. Closed
Session re Larsen, supra, Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9{a}
The
Board went into Closed Session from 6:20 to 6:55 p.m. with Deputy City Attorney
Marty Greenman to discuss the case of Larsen v. Rent Board (Superior
Court Case No. 319390).
VI. Vote
on Whether or Not to Disclose and Possible Disclosure of Any/All
Conversations
Held in Closed Session Regarding Larsen, supra.
MSC:
To disclose that the Board has entered into a settlement of the Larsen
litigation, and to inform the public as to amended administrative procedures
that will be followed pursuant to Ellis filings. (Lightner/Gruber:
5-0)
VII. Report
on Any Actions Taken in Closed Session Regarding Larsen, supra,
Pursuant
to Government Code Section 54957.1{a}{2} and S.F. Administrative
Code
Section 67.14{b}{2}
Vice-President
Marshall reported that the Board held a Closed Session to discuss the Larsen
case with its attorney, and approved a settlement of that litigation. Additionally, the Board’s administrative
procedures pertaining to Ellis filings were amended so that Step 7 now reads as
follows: “Prior to the effective
date of withdrawal, owner records the Memorandum summarizing Notice of Intent
with County Recorder. A tenant may
assert the owner’s failure to record a memorandum as a defense to an eviction
action. The Rent Board will record
a Notice of Constraints (Step 10) notwithstanding the owner’s failure to record
the Memorandum.”
VIII. Consideration
of Appeals
A. 110
Portola Dr. #2 AL010103
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services due to removal of the
right to have an extra front door key was granted, and the landlord was found
liable in the amount of $315.00, or $70.00 per month. On appeal, the landlord claims that: there was no decrease in housing
services, since security is not defined as a housing service; increased
security constitutes an increase in housing services, rather than a decrease;
the tenant failed to prove the need for an extra key; there is no authority for
granting a rent reduction larger than the amount requested by the tenant; the
amount granted was arbitrary and capricious; the Administrative Law Judge
exhibited bias against the landlord; and the landlord has a right to establish
security criteria for the building, which is of more importance than one
tenant’s convenience.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Gruber from consideration
of this appeal.
(Lightner/Justman: 5-0)
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the
record to adjust the amount of the rent reduction granted to an amount no
greater than that requested in the tenant’s petition; the appeal is denied as
to all other issues.
(Hobson/Marshall: 3-1;
Lightner dissenting)
B. 145 Central Ave. AL010104
The
tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the
landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $725.00 due to the
condition of a closet ceiling and leaking refrigerator. On appeal, the landlord claims that the
tenants failed to provide him access in order to inspect the unit and
effectuate any necessary repairs; and that the tenants have exhibited racial
bias against him.
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the
record to: disallow the rent reduction for the refrigerator because it was not
reported by the tenants to the Department of Building Inspection and therefore
was not substantial; disallow any other rent reductions during the period the
landlord’s access to the unit was only allowed with a police escort; and
re-visit the issue of the closet and determine if the condition constituted a
substantial decrease in housing services.
(Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
C. 3340
– 18th St. AT010106
The
landlords’ petition for a rent increase based on comparable rents was granted,
and a rent increase from $650.00 to $1,023.44 was approved. On appeal, the tenants assert
that: the rent for the unit was
not as high in 1996 as the appraiser estimated it to be at the hearing; the apartment
is not a two-bedroom unit, rather, the dining room is being used as a bedroom;
the tenants’ evidence was not given sufficient weight; and the subject unit is
not in good condition.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Lightner: 4-1; Hobson dissenting)
D. 2440
Bayshore Blvd. #2 AL010107
The
tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services due to the loss of use of
a parking space was granted and the landlords were found liable in the amount
of $562.50, or $75.00 per month.
On appeal, the landlords claim that the tenants had not parked their car
at the building but, rather, in a space belonging to a neighboring building.
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Aung from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Lightner: 5-0)
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Hobson/Marshall: 4-1;
Lightner dissenting)
E. 478
Warren Dr. #720 AT010108
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services due to noise from a
downstairs neighbor’s dog was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found
that the landlord made numerous, reasonable, timely and ultimately successful
efforts to resolve the tenant’s complaint. The tenant appeals, claiming that: the Administrative Law Judge exhibited bias against the
tenant; the conclusion that the landlord made reasonable attempts to resolve
the problem contradicts sworn, taped testimony at the hearing; the tenant was
ill on the day of the hearing, and not functioning at a high level; there are
numerous dangerous dogs on the premises; and there are many factual errors in
the decision.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Gruber/Hobson: 5-0)
F. 278A Golden Gate AL010109
The
landlords’ appeal was filed one day late because the landlords’ attorney
alleges that instructions he gave to his staff were not carried out.
MSC:
To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Gruber/Hobson:
5-0)
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services and unlawful rent
increase was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the
tenant in the amount of $5,330.79 due to unlawful rent increases and $50.00 per
month due to a non-working fireplace.
The landlords appeal, asserting that: the unlawful rent increases were only minimally excessive;
the tenant was advised to seek advice from the Rent Board concerning the
increases and this claim should therefore be barred by the doctrines of laches
and estoppel; the alleged increase in February, 1999 actually took effect in
March, 1999 and was lawful; the tenant’s initial base rent did not include a
working fireplace; and the amount granted for the fireplace is excessive,
especially considering the fact that the tenant did not even attempt to use the
fireplace for six months after moving in to the unit.
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the rent history and
to make findings as to whether the fireplace was offered as a housing service
at the commencement of the tenancy.
(Justman/Marshall: 5-0)
IX. Communications
The
Commissioners received communications concerning cases on the calendar.
X. Old
Business
Proposed New Section 6.15C(3),
Requiring that a Master Tenant Pay a Pro-Rata Share of the Rent
This
proposal will be discussed at the meeting on July 10th. The Executive Director will explore the
possibility of obtaining a room in City Hall for a Public Hearing on August 21st.
XI. Remarks
from the Public
Karen
Crommie expressed her disappointment that proposed Rules Section 6.15C(3) was
not going to be discussed at the meeting, and asked that the Board “take the
profit motive out of subletting.”
Len Pink said that he also came to hear the discussion of 6.15C(3) and
supports passage.
XII. New
Business
A. Commissioner Lightner brought up a
request by Supervisor Gonzales that the Office of the City Attorney draft
legislation that would restrict the Board’s rule-making powers, and asked that
the Commissioners unanimously oppose such a proposal. This issue will be put on the calendar for discussion at the
next meeting.
B. Commissioner Hobson distributed letters
to Supervisor Chris Daly objecting to a proposal that would take away the
permitting of late night clubs from the Police Department, and asked for the
Board’s support.
XIII. Calendar
Items
June 26 &
July 3, 2001 - NO MEETINGS
July 10, 2001
3 appeal considerations
Old Business:
Proposed New
Section 6.15C(3), Requiring that a Master Tenant Pay
a Pro-Rata Share
of the Rent
New Business:
A. Litigation Update
B. Rule-Making Authority of the Rent Board
Commissioners
XIV. Adjournment
Vice-President
Marshall adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m.