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

Skip to page body

December 18, 2001

December 18, 2001p>

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

Tuesday, December 18, 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 6:21 p.m.

    II. Roll Call

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

                  Commissioners not Present: Marshall; Murphy.

                  Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

                  Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:24 p.m.

    III. Approval of the Minutes

          MSC: To approve the Minutes of December 4, 2001.

                  (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)

    IV. Remarks from the Public

      A. Tenant Natividad Hernandez of 550 Leavenworth #2 (AT010180) said that the Memorandum from the Administrative Law Judge is based on the landlord’s lies. She told the Board that the landlord has sued the tenants three times, and that they are the aggrieved parties. She claims not to have received compensation for moving expenses when the Memorandum says that she did.

    V. Consideration of Appeals

    A. 1775-1777 Yosemite/1760-70 Armstrong AL010182

    Twelve petitions were originally filed alleging, in part or in whole, unlawful rent increase, decreased housing services, and improper calculation of a utility passthrough. Subsequently, five petitions were withdrawn, and one of the consolidated petitions was severed and a separate decision was issued. All issues were withdrawn except the question of whether the subject live-work units are residential rental units within the jurisdiction of the Rent Board. The Administrative Law Judge found that the landlord or their agents rented the subject units with knowledge of residential use and consented to such use and, therefore, the units are subject to the Rent Ordinance. The landlord appeals, claiming that: it constituted error and abuse of discretion for the petitions to be heard solely on the issue of jurisdiction without any pending claims and actual controversies; and the units were not "made available by agreement for residential occupancy", and therefore they are exempt.

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

    B. 735 Geary St., Apt. 504 AT010179

    The tenant’s appeal was filed one year late because the elderly tenant avers that she did not receive a copy of the decision or notification of the rent increase.

          MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.

                  (Becker/Aung: 5-0)

    The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 17 of 21 units was granted. 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. (Marshall/Aung: 5-0)

    C. 1959 Oak St. #2 AL010181

    Rent increases based on increased operating expenses to the tenants in six units were granted but deferred due to the landlord’s failure to repair, except as to the tenants in unit #2, who were the only tenants in the building to have received notice of the rent increase to take effect in September of 1999. The tenants’ appeal alleging that their increase should also be deferred was accepted and remanded to determine whether code violations existed at the premises at the time these tenants’ rent increase notice was to go into effect. The Administrative Law Judge found that the tenants had provided notice to the landlords of a window having been painted shut on October 12, 1999, and the increase was ordered deferred until October 1, 2001, when code violations in the building were ordered abated by the Department of Building Inspection. The landlords appeal the remand decision, asserting that: there were no outstanding Notices of Violation on the property in 1999; and repairs to the bedroom window were made effective October 15, 1999, with no subsequent notice to the owners as to a problem with a second window in the unit.

          MSC: To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration of this appeal. (Gruber/Justman: 5-0)

          MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing to determine whether code violations existed at the premises at the time the rent increase notice was to go into effect; all available evidence shall be accepted. (Gruber/Justman: 3-1; Aung dissenting)

    D. 550 Leavenworth #2 AT010180

    The tenants’ petition alleging the landlord’s failure to repair and substantial decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $303.33. On appeal, the tenants maintain that: they should not have to pay rent for the period October 16, 200 to February 8, 2001 because there was construction in the building and the apartment was in a state of disrepair; the Administrative Law Judge did not consider their pictures or other documentary evidence; the landlord owes them interest on their security deposit; and the landlord has subjected them to lawsuits and other forms of harassment.

    Commissioner Aung noted for the record that many of the tenants’ claims are outside of Rent Board jurisdiction.

          MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)

    E. 857 Clay St. #217 & 305

    The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on comparable rents was granted because it was found that the tenants’ rents were set low due to maintenance services they provided on the premises. On appeal, the tenants explain that they failed to attend the hearing because they are Chinese speakers, and could not read the Notice of Hearing. Additionally, the tenants assert that the landlord was not truthful in providing evidence and testimony at the hearing.

          MSC: To accept the appeals and remand the case for a new hearing. (Becker/Aung: 5-0)

    F. 1411 Golden Gate AL010183

    The tenants’ petition alleging an unlawful rent increase and decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $1,300.00 due to the temporary removal of a back staircase. Additionally, a proposed rent increase from $1,597.94 to $3,800.00 was not found to be warranted under Costa-Hawkins because the landlord had established a direct landlord-tenant relationship with the tenants and had not timely served notices pursuant to Rules Section 6.14. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the removal of the stairway occurred prior to three of the four tenants’ residency on the premises, and therefore was not included as a housing service associated with their tenancy; the amount granted for the rent reduction should have corresponded with the amount of rent for the unit, which was unknown to the Administrative Law Judge; the trigger for a Costa-Hawkins increase should be whether the occupants were subtenants rather than co-tenants at the time they entered into possession of the unit, rather than at the time of the rent increase; acceptance of rent does not waive the owner’s right to a Costa-Hawkins increase, and the landlord in this case did not receive written notice and thereafter accept rent; the occupants all moved in to the unit after January 1, 1996 pursuant to an agreement with the last remaining original tenant, and not the landlord; the landlord corresponded only with the last original tenant until after 6.14 notices had been served on the other occupants of the unit; and actions attributed to the prior landlord’s agents were not sufficient to create a landlord-tenant relationship.

          MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing to determine the proportional share of the rent reduction that is owed only to the tenant(s) who actually suffered the decrease in services; the appeal is denied as to all other issues. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-1; Becker dissenting)

    IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)

      B. Tenant Natividad Hernandez of 550 Leavenworth #2 (AT010180) inquired as to the significance of the Memorandum from the Administrative Law Judge and queried the Board as to her recourse now that her appeal had been denied.

      C. Tenant Tiffany Moore of 1411 Golden Gate (AL010183 told the Board that other tenants in the unit had also been affected by the disrepair of the back stairs; and her roommate, Allan Kelly, inquired as to the disposition of the Costa-Hawkins aspects of their case.

VI. Communications

    The Board received a copy of the appeal decision concerning the case at 1320, 1340, 1360 Lombard Street (AT010052 thru -89), for possible approval at the January 8, 2002 Board meeting.

    VII. Director’s Report

    Deputy Director Wolf informed the Board that, regarding the case of Nantucket Ventures v. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 303-891), Judge Robertson denied the landlord’s writ regarding a rent reduction for loss of storage space and granted the landlord’s writ regarding the determination of the lawful rent and refund of rent overpayments. The Rent Board Commissioners had granted the landlord’s appeal and remanded for a new hearing "only on the issue of the value of the storage space." However, after the landlord’s provision of the rent history, rent overpayments in the amount of $5,000.00 were determined to be owing. The court found that the decision on remand improperly exceeded the scope of the remand order, but did not reach any of the other legal arguments raised by the landlord in his writ.

    VIII. New Business

    Commissioner Mosser informed the Board that Ordinance No. 135-01 took effect on Thursday, December 13th. This legislation prohibits operators of residential hotels from charging visitor fees and provides that visitors to residential hotels may not be restricted except in accordance with a visitors’ policy approved by the Single Room Occupancy Safety and Stabilization Task Force. The Rent Board will be charged with holding hearings to determine whether hotel policies are in compliance with the Task Force guidelines, but enabling legislation must be passed before the Board will be able to promulgate regulations. In the interim, landlords may file petitions, but they will not be acted upon.

    IX. Calendar Items

      December 25, 2001 & January 1, 2002 - NO MEETINGS

      January 8, 2002

      10 appeal considerations

      Old Business:

        A. Proposed Amendment to Rules and Regulations Section 6.10(e)

        (Goodwin v. Rent Board {Superior Court Case No. 317339})

      B. Petition for Rules & Regulations Section 1.21 Determinations

    X. Adjournment

    President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.

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