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

Skip to page body

June 04, 1996

June 04, 1996B>

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,


Tuesday, June 4, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level


I. Call to Order

President Becker called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly; Gruber; Mosser.
Commissioners not Present: Palma.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

Commissioner Moore appeared on the record at 5:45 p.m.;
Commissioner Marshall at 5:47 p.m.; Commissioner Wasserman at 5:50 p.m.; Commissioner Murphy at 5:55 p.m.; and Commissioner Lightner arrived at 7:00 p.m. and went off the record at approximately 7:30 p.m.

III. Approval of the Minutes

MSC: To approve the Minutes of May 21, 1996.
(Bierly/Mosser: 3-0)

IV. Remarks from the Public

Robert Pender of the Tenants’ Network informed the Commissioners that the supermarket located in the Parkmerced complex has recently shut down, creating a large inconvenience to the residents. He asked if there was anything that the Board could do to help.

V. Consideration of Appeals

A. 3848 Sacramento St. #3 Q001-63R

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs for the tenants in two units was certified, in part, by the hearing officer. The tenant in one unit appeals the decision, asserting that: there are numerical errors in the decision; replacement garbage cans should be considered an operating expense rather than a capital improvement; the water heater should be treated as a replacement appliance for which the tenant had already had the benefit; the roof work constituted a repair, the roof still leaks, the landlord failed to deduct a $4,000 payment that should be offset against the cost of the work, and the work benefited all the units in the building and should be allocated thusly; the deck work has resulted in a hazardous condition from which the tenant derives no benefit and to which he objected prior to the work being done; and the granting of imputed interest at the rate of 10% is excessive since the prior owner paid no interest costs.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record, if possible, on the following issues: to make any necessary technical corrections to the decision; to make a finding on the issue of deferred maintenance regarding the new roof; to make a finding regarding the $4,000.00 payment to the landlord; to disallow the passthrough for new garbage cans in that this item does not constitute a capital improvement; and to specify in the decision that if the new deck is removed, the passthrough for this item shall expire. (Marshall/Wasserman: 5-0)

B. 110 Noe St. Q001-65R

The landlords’ petition for certification of the cost of painting the exterior of the building was granted, resulting in a passthrough of approximately $43.00 per month to the tenants in three units. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship; additionally, the base rent amount for this unit was transposed with that of another unit in the building and needs to be corrected.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship and to make the necessary technical correction to the decision. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)

C. 2714 Webster St. #3 Q001-55A

The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on comparables was granted for one unit but denied as to the tenant in unit #3 in the building because the hearing officer found that the landlord failed to meet his burden of proof in justifying the amount of increase requested. The landlord was also found liable in the amount of $14,550.00 to the tenant in unit #3 due to unlawful rent increases. On appeal, the landlord maintains that: he is being penalized for an act of charity, in that the tenant’s occupancy was supposed to have been temporary, while the tenant was recovering from an illness, and the sums collected represented expense reimbursement rather than rent; the decision violates the Evidence Code in that the record is devoid of any evidence other than the testimony of the landlord’s expert witness, which was not countervailed by the tenant; and by disallowing the establishment of a near market rent for the unit, the decision denies the landlord of a reasonable return on his investment and constitutes an unlawful taking of his property in violation of the United States and California Constitutions.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing on the issue of a rent increase for unit #3 based on comparables. The appeal is also accepted for Board hearing on the issue of the rent overpayments. The Board hearing shall be stayed pending the issuance of a remand decision on the comparables claim. (Murphy/Gruber: 4-1; Becker dissenting)

VI. Old Business

A. Costa-Hawkins Bill: AB 1164

At their meeting on April 30, 1996, the Commissioners had voted to get an opinion from the City Attorney regarding whether the amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 6.14 suggested by prior Commissioner Jonathan Hayden, with certain modifications, would be sufficient to bring Rules Section 6.14 into conformity with the requirements of the Costa-Hawkins Bill. Prior to the meeting, the Board members received a privileged attorney/client memorandum on this issue. Deputy City Attorneys Mariam Morley and Mary Hurley were in attendance to answer questions, and were asked to provide a risk assessment should the Board adopt the Hayden proposal and wind up in litigation. After discussion, the Board passed the following motion:

MSC: To put the amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 6.14 drafted by prior Commissioner Jonathan Hayden, with certain modifications, out for Public Hearing on June 18, 1996. A "damage assessment" will be received from the Office of the City Attorney at that time. (Wasserman/Marshall: 4-1; Lightner dissenting)

B. Rules and Regulations Section 10.10

The Commissioners discussed an amendment to Rules Section 10.10 proposed by Commissioner Becker which would specify that notice to a landlord of decreased housing services can be actual or constructive. Constructive notice could come from a source other than the petitioning tenant and would be deemed to exist in situations where a landlord could have or should have known about a defect in the common areas of the building or interior of the tenant’s unit. The Board discussed the motivation for the proposed language, made minor modifications and passed the following motion:

MSC: To put proposed language adding the concept of constructive notice to Rules and Regulations Section 10.10 out for Public Hearing on July 2, 1996. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

V. Consideration of Appeals (cont.)

D. 1430 Francisco St. #5 Q001-64R

The tenant’s appeal was filed one day late without explanation.

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

The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part, by the hearing officer. On appeal, one tenant, who represented several other tenants in the building, maintains that the hearing officer had stated that an additional hearing would be scheduled to address the tenants’ objections to some of the work performed.

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

VlI. Communications

The Commissioners received the office workload statistics for the month of April, 1996.

VIlI. Director’s Report

Executive Director Grubb reported as follows:

A. The departmental budget, inclusive of an increase in temporary salaries for hearing officers, has been approved by the Mayor’s Office, except for the request for a new counselor position.

B. All decisions turned in by hearing officers in the month of April were submitted within 45 days of the close of record date. The department is hoping to be caught up on the decision backlog by September or October.

IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)

Robert Pender reiterated his comments about the closing of the supermarket in Parkmerced.

lX. New Business

A. Commissioner Marshall provided the Commissioners with a copy of a memorandum prepared by the Law Offices of Goldfarb and Lipman on the issue of lead-related notice and disclosure requirements in pre-1978 housing.

B. Commissioner Marshall distributed a proposed amendment to Section 7.12(c) of the Rules and Regulations establishing a 30-year amortization period for seismic renovation work and resulting major structural improvements. This issue will be discussed at the July 2, 1996 Board meeting.

X. Calendar Items

June 11, 1996 - NO MEETING

June 18, 1996 - 6:00 P.M.
3 appeal considerations
6:30 Public Hearing:
Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 6.14 in order to Conform that Section to the new Requirements of State Law (Costa- Hawkins Bill: AB 1164)
Old Business:
Amend Rules and Regulations Section 6.10 to Conform to the Order of the Court in the Case of Hislop v. Rent Board (Superior Court No. 972898)

June 25, 1996 - NO MEETING

Xl. Adjournment

President Becker adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.

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