October 30, 2001p>
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, October 30, 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 6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Aung; Becker; Gruber; Hobson; Lightner; Marshall; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Justman; Mosser; Murphy.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Loren Porter of St. Peter’s Housing Committee, the representative for the tenant involved in the hardship appeal at 1487 Guerrero (AL010164), told the Board that the tenant is an elderly, deaf widow who meets all of the hardship requirements; Ms. Porter asked that the Board deny the landlord’s appeal and grant the tenant a permanent deferral of the passthrough.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 3330 Pierce St. #103 AL010145
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 13 of 21 units was granted, in part. The tenant in unit #103 appealed, alleging, among other things, that the shower work in her unit was necessitated by deferred maintenance. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to exclude the parts of the shower remodeling work that were attributable to deferred maintenance. The landlord appeals the remand decision, asserting that: the replacement of the shower constituted capital improvement work, and not repair; the Administrative Law Judge misapplied the Board’s policy regarding dry rot, and should only have deducted the cost of replacing the framework where the bottom step was mounted; the parties were not on notice as to the scope of the remand hearing, which went beyond the Board’s motion; and the landlord did not have an opportunity to refute post-hearing evidence submitted by the tenant, which formed the basis for the decision. The landlord offers to pay for the services of an independent estimator to determine the reasonable cost of replacing the wooden framework where the bottom step was mounted.
B. 1935 Franklin St. #503 AT010153
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparable rents was granted, and a rent increase from $930.00 to $1,650.00 was granted. Additionally, the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $59.52 due to a one-month overpayment in rent. The Administrative Law Judge found that the prior resident manager of the building had approved the tenants’ exchanging units in the building at the same rent, but lacked the authority to do so, which constituted fraud or "some other reason" for the tenants’ rent having been set low. The tenants appeal, claiming that: they had express permission from the building manager to switch units and the new landlord as successor should be bound by the terms; the tenants should not be prejudiced by the new owner’s failure to exercise due diligence regarding the rent levels in the building; the "extraordinary circumstances" and "some other reason" criteria for comparables rent increases are overly broad; they did not have a special relationship with the former owner, nor is their rent set lower than other units in the building; if the tenants had known there was a problem with the prior manager’s authority, they would not have switched units; and the retroactive amounts owed present them with a financial hardship.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration of this appeal. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record with the sense of the Board that there is insufficient evidence that these constitute extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Rules and Regulations Section 6/11(a)(1). (Marshall/Hobson: 3-1; Gruber dissenting)
C. 587-591 Vermont St. AL010154
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to three units was granted, in part. The landlord appeals the disallowance of $14, 800 in framing and siding replacement costs, asserting that the work was preparatory for the exterior painting, and therefore should be certified as "incidental" to a capital improvement pursuant to Rules and Regulations Section 1.13. The landlord also provides a new invoice, breaking down the labor and material costs for each item.
D.707 Stockton #508, 204, 105 & 307 AL010155;
The tenant in unit #307 filed her appeal 8 days late, alleging illness and the necessity of making an appointment with a housing counselor.
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 40 of 46 units was granted. The tenants in 2 units (#204 & 307) appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. The tenant in unit #105 claims that consideration should have been given to the fact that the landlord had to make the improvements in order to conform the building to habitability standards. The landlord appeals the determination that the 6-Month Rule (Rules and Regulations Section 7.12{b}) precludes imposition of the passthrough to the tenant in unit #508 because the landlord accommodated the tenant by allowing him to change units in the building at the same rent, and the tenant had lived in the building for more than 6 months prior to the improvements having been made.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal of the tenant in unit #105. (Gruber/Lightner: 4-1; Hobson dissenting)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit number 307 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Hobson: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the landlord’s appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to allow imposition of the passthrough for exterior painting if the move to another unit in the building was done as an accommodation to the tenant; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Gruber/Marshall: 5-0)
E. 1053 Oak St., Apt. 203 AT010158
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted, resulting in 7% base rent increases to 11 of 13 units. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
F. 532 Linden St. AL010159
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increases and asking for a determination as to the proper base rent was granted, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,645.87. On appeal, the landlords claim that they relied on an estoppel executed by the tenants at the time they purchased the property; that banked increases available to them were in excess of the amount charged; and that a $75 reduction for timely payment of rent had been discontinued.
Upon a question from Commissioner Lightner as to whether the landlord should have received credit for a banked increase in 1998, this case was continued to the next meeting in order to receive further information from the Administrative Law Judge.
G. 121 Scott St. AT010160
The tenant’s appeal was filed 3 days late due to the disruption of mail service after the September 11th attacks and a death in his family.
The landlords’ petition for certification of the costs of exterior painting and window replacement was granted to the tenants in 4 units. One tenant appeals, claiming that: the old windows were not in need of replacement; the cost of the new windows was not reasonable; the new windows do not provide additional insulation and do not function as efficiently as the old windows; and the landlords have a history of neglecting to make repairs on the building.
H. 1031A & 1033 Stanyan St. AT010161 & -62
The landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of a new roof was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $73.19 to the tenants in 2 units. The tenants in unit #1033 appeal on the grounds that: the roof was in a dire state of disrepair prior to its replacement; the tenants were affected by flooding for months; and the roof replacement constitutes maintenance and repair, and not capital improvement. The tenant in unit #1031A claims that the roof was not paid for with the landlord’s personal funds.
I. 1933 Oak St. AT010163
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 8 of 12 units was granted, in part. The tenants in one unit appeal the decision, asserting that: the first contractor had been pulled off the job, which was never explained; scaffolding that was left up for 5-6 weeks adversely affected the quality of life for tenants in the building; the contractors were cited for numerous code violations while the work was being done; and the allocation of costs was done unfairly.
J. 1487 Guerrero St. AL010164
The tenant’s hardship appeal of a decision certifying a capital improvement passthrough was granted. The landlord appealed the decision, and the case was remanded with instructions to defer implementation of the passthrough for 90 days in order for the tenant to find a roommate. Upon further appeal by the tenant, the Board again remanded the case to "examine the tenant’s expressed language and hearing difficulties and determine whether she can safely obtain a roommate." In the second remand decision, the Administrative Law Judge permanently deferred the passthrough due to the tenant’s language and hearing difficulties. On further appeal, the landlord maintains that the tenant ought to avail herself of state, federal or local funds for assistance, including her family; that the tenant could have obtained a roommate, since she resides in a 5-room flat; and that the tenant should be required to pay a portion of the passthrough.
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the corrected office workload statistics for the month of September 2001, and a new Commissioners’ Roster.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb updated the Board on the office’s current petition backlog due to the Temporary Moratorium on the processing of capital improvement petitions. It is anticipated that the Moratorium cases will be processed by the end of the year. Petitions being filed now will probably be heard within 3-4 months. Additionally, several Administrative Law Judges have been pulled off of their regular schedules because they are hearing large cases (Lombard and Bay Streets, Parkmerced, etc.), which is also contributing to the backlog. Mr. Grubb also informed the Board that the Rent Board’s new website is being rolled out next week, which will make it possible to download forms. The new website will also have a Search Engine; the information will be more readily accessible; and the site will be more aesthetically pleasing.
VIII. Old Business
Proposed Amendment to Rules and Regulations Section 6.10(e)
Goodwin v. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 317339)
At the request of Commissioner Lightner, this issue was continued to the December 4th Board meeting.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
B. Mr. and Mrs. Quigg, the landlords involved in the hardship appeal concerning 1487 Guererro (AL010164), suggested that it would be better for the tenant to have someone live with her, and thanked the Board for leaving the door open should the circumstances change.
IX. Calendar Items
November 6, 2001 - NO MEETING (Election Day)
November 13, 2001
3 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 10/2/01; 1 cont. from 10/30/01)
6:00 Appeal Hearing:
1320, 1340, 1360 Lombard (AT010052 thu -89) (acpt. 10/02/01)
X. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.