July 11, 2000p>
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION
BOARD,
Tuesday, July 11, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level
I. Call to Order
Commissioner Becker called the meeting to
order at 6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Hobson;
Lightner; Mosser.
Commissioners not Present: Justman; Marshall;
Murphy; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Wolf.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of June 20, 2000.
(Gruber/Lightner: 3-0)
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1060 Cole St. #4 AT2K0088
The landlord's petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 7 of 9 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision
on the grounds that the Decision says that the tenant said that the roof was
replaced in 1988, when it was really the landlord who said so.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 3-0)
B. 1140 Masonic Ave. AT2K0094
The tenant's appeal was filed 6 weeks late because
the tenant was on vacation when the Decision was issued and was consulting with
counsel regarding available legal options.
MSF: To find no good cause for the late filing of
the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 2-1; Becker dissenting)
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the
appeal. (Becker/Lightner: 3-0)
The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing
services based on loss of use of the back yard, and invasions of privacy, harassment
and breach of quiet enjoyment by an agent of the landlord was denied. Rent overcharges
in the amount of $80.09 were, however, determined to be owing from the landlord
to the tenant. The tenant appeals, claiming that: statements in the decision
regarding the petitioner's appearance and education indicate bias on the part
of the Administrative Law Judge; contradictory statements made by the landlord
were not taken into account, nor were oral agreements between the parties; and
sufficient weight was not given to attempted entry into the unit by the landlord
without the consent of the tenants.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 3-0)
C. 2395 - 34th Ave., Apt. 7 AT2K0095
The landlords' petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 8 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on
the grounds of financial hardship and the allegations that: the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) was biased in favor of the landlord; the landlord failed to
provide proof of payment for replacement of the roof; the landlord broke the
law by doing the work without permits; the ALJ accepted the landlords' statements
at the hearing as proof without substantiation; the 6-Month Rule should apply
to bar the passthrough as it was known that the building needed painting when
she moved in and estimates for costs of the work were obtained within 6 months
of her move-in date; if the building had been painted sooner, the cost would
have been less; the costs of the painting should be pro-rated over the period
of time she has lived in the building; the window replacement was necessitated
by faulty installation and constituted repair and maintenance, and not capital
improvement; the landlord should not have been given the opportunity to augment
the record after the hearing; there are errors as to this tenant's rent history
in the decision; and the costs of the work are excessive and the result of deferred
maintenance.
MSC: To deny the appeal as to the substantive objections
to the capital improvement passthrough. (Gruber/Lightner: 3-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for
a hearing on the tenant's claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Lightner: 3-0)
D. 1819 Golden Gate Ave. #12 AT2K0097
The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing
services was dismissed because the tenant was 40 minutes late to the hearing.
On appeal, the tenant claims to have thought that the hearing was scheduled
for 3:00 p.m. instead of 1:30.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for
a new hearing. (Becker/Gruber: 3-0)
E. 614 Lake St. AL2K0096
The tenants' petition alleging substantial decreases
in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable
to the tenants in the amount of $550.00 due to loss of the privilege of parking
in the driveway. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: permitting the tenants
to use the driveway to park their car only when they were unable to find parking
on the street does not constitute a housing service and any such contract between
the parties would have been illegal and unenforceable; the finding that use
of the driveway was included in the initial base rent for the unit was based
solely on hearsay; and the tenants failed to prove the value of the limited
use of the driveway as a housing service.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to
consider the width of the garage and whether it is possible to legally park
in the driveway in front of the garage; if it would be illegal to do so, then
no decrease in housing services has occurred. If such parking would be legal,
then the Administrative Law Judge shall re-evaluate the value of such parking.
The parties are encouraged to provide evidence as to the value of parking in
the neighborhood. A hearing will be held only if necessary. (Lightner/Gruber:
3-0)
F. 360 Hyde St. AT2K0100 thru -07
The landlord's petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 28 of 41 units was granted, in part. Seven tenants appeal
the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeals of the tenants in unit
numbers 407, 103, 304, 302, 406, 403, 201 and 306 and remand the cases for hearing
on the tenants' financial hardship claims. (Becker/Lightner: 3-0)
G. 161 & 165 Jordan Ave. AL2K0099
The tenants in five of the 8 units in the building
filed petitions alleging decreased housing services and unlawful rent increases,
which claims were partially granted. Within 15 days after the Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge was issued, the landlord's son wrote the Board a letter
requesting an extension of the appeal deadline because of his father's having
been bedridden due to ill health at that time. Now, two months later, the son
reports that his father has been hospitalized, and requests that his father
be allowed to file an untimely appeal at such time as he is released from the
hospital.
MSC: To accept the landlord's request and allow
him 6 months from the date of tonight's meeting, or until no later than January
11, 2001, to pursue his appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 3-0)
H. 1278 - 26th Ave. AT2K0098
The landlord's petition for certification of capital
improvement costs and a rent increase based on the Past Rent History of this
Newly Covered Unit under Proposition I was granted. The tenant appeals, claiming
that: he received notice of the rent increases prior to the petitions having
been filed; the allocation of costs for the new roof and exterior paint is unfair
because his unit is significantly smaller than the other unit in the building,
in which the landlord resides; the skylights were not incidental to the roof
replacement and those costs should not have been certified; and the cost of
the new heater should not be certified since it does not add value to the building.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to
the Administrative Law Judge to disallow the cost of the skylight replacement,
but to allow an amount commensurate with the cost of re-roofing that area; the
appeal is denied as to all other issues. A hearing will be held only if necessary.
(Lightner/Gruber: 3-0)
V. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on
the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A copy of the Request for Proposal and Housing
Study Protocol Documents.
B. A current list of amendments to the Rent
Ordinance.
C. The office workload statistics for the month
of May, 2000.
D. An Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate
from Judge David Garcia in the case of Danekas v. Rent Board (Superior
Court Case No. 310104), which challenged Rules and Regulations Section 6.15,
pursuant to amendments to the Rent Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Leno.
VI. Remarks from the Public
- Bernard Kibbe, the tenant at 1060 Cole #4 (AT2K0088),
informed the Board that the roof on his building was replaced while he was
on Section 8, and he also received a rent increase at that time. He therefore
feels like he is paying for this improvement twice.
- Lillian Brumley asked what constituted landlord
hardship.
- Jeff Woo of the Tenants' Union inquired as to who
would be responsible for the cost of a new skylight if the roof on the building
was not replaced at the same time.
VII. New Business
Commission Hobson asked that he not received any
further letters from one specific tenant at Parkmerced who is objecting to the
landlord's petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses
in a scurrilous manner. The Deputy Director suggested that any Commissioners
who shared Commissioner Hobson's feelings just not open the letters.
VIII. Calendar Items
July 18 & 25, 2000- NO MEETINGS
August 1, 2000
8 appeal considerations
6:30 Appeal Hearing: 123 Sanchez St. #8 AT2K0083
(acpt. 6/20/00)
IX. Adjournment
Commissioner Becker adjourned the meeting at 7:25
p.m.