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
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were withdrawn, and one of the consolidated petitions was severed and a separate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 All issues were withdrawn except the question of whether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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.