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

Skip to page body

March 02, 1999

March 02, 1999B>

 

 

 

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

Tuesday, March 2, 1999 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 6:15 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly; Lightner; Marshall; Moore; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

Commissioner Gruber appeared on the record at 6:19 p.m.; Commissioner Justman arrived at the meeting at 7:25 p.m.; Commissioners Lightner and Murphy went off the record at 7:50 p.m.

III. Approval of the Minutes

MSC: To approve the Minutes of February 16, 1999.
(Marshall/Lightner: 5-0)

IV. Consideration of Appeals

A. 647 Capp St. T001-39A

The landlords’ petition for certification of the costs of a central hearing system was granted, resulting in a monthly capital improvement passthrough in the amount of $59.11. The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services for the period of time they were without heat was also granted, and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount of $3,850.00. On appeal, the landlords allege that: the landlord did not have constructive notice of the heat deficiency because the landlords themselves had resided in the unit and found the heat to be sufficient; the tenants did not provide long-term oral notice of the problem; and, since the central heating system was installed 7 months after the tenants’ first complaint, the landlords responded in a timely manner.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record to commence the rent reduction from the time of the first actual notice to the landlord, in April, 1995. (Wasserman/Marshall: 3-2; Mosser, Lightner dissenting)

B. 226 Irving St. #2 T001-38A

The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services and the landlord’s failure to repair was granted. The landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $3,200.00 and an annual rent increase was deferred due to code violations on the premises. The landlord had not appeared at the original hearing and, on appeal, alleged that she had not received notice. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded for a new hearing. In the Decision on Remand, the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $4,315.00 and the rent increase continued to be deferred. The landlord appeals the remand decision on the grounds that: there is insufficient evidence to support the decision; and that the conditions have all been abated.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

C. 260 Carl St. #1 T001-37A

The tenants’ petition alleging unlawful increases in rent and claiming that the landlord was attempting a reduction in housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants for rent overpayments in the amount of $564.40. Additionally, if basement storage space were taken away, a rent reduction in the amount of $216.00 was ordered. The landlord’s appeal of the decision was granted and the case was remanded only on the value of the storage space. Due to additional information regarding the tenants’ rent history furnished by the landlord, in the Decision on Remand, the landlord was found liable for rent overpayments in the amount of $4,753.16; the value of the storage space was determined to be $106.40 per month. The landlord appeals the remand decision, asserting that: at the remand hearing, the hearing officer improperly refused to consider evidence regarding the tenants’ alleged unilateral improper alteration of the use of the storage space; the hearing officer abused her discretion by reopening the issue of the tenants’ rent history, which was not part of the Board’s motion on appeal, and which violated the due process rights of the landlord; the tenants failed to disclose their rent history on an estoppel certificate requested by the landlord and should, therefore, be estopped from recovery now; and the penalty is disproportionate to the errors made by a prior landlord.

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

D. 2210 Jackson St. #703 T001-40A

The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services due to long-term, serious leaks into the dining area of their apartment was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $7,750.00 ($250.00 per month). On appeal, the landlord maintains that, rather than the twenty-two month period determined in the Decision of Hearing Officer, the water infiltration problems existed for only eight months at most; the monthly rent reduction should be reduced for the period when the unit experienced mold and mildew problems, but not water infiltration; there were periods after the unit had been repainted and before the next rainy season when there were no problems; and the landlord responded in a timely fashion, but it was difficult to locate the source of the problem.

Two voluminous submissions were received from the landlord’s attorney on the Friday preceding and on the day of the Board meeting. Since the tenants had not had a chance to respond, the Board passed the following motion:

MSC: To continue this matter to the meeting on April 6, 1999 in order to give the tenants a chance to respond to the landlord’s late submissions. (Wasserman/Gruber: 5-0)

E. 125 Buckingham Way #201 T001-44R

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was denied. The hearing officer found that, although the tenant had resided in a unit at the Stonestown apartment complex since 1996, she did not do so with the landlord’s express or implied consent. On appeal, the tenant claims that the management at Stonestown knew or should have known that she was living in the subject unit, as evidenced by many maintenance requests she had made and the fact that she sometimes paid rent to the landlord with her own check. The tenant asserts that, since the landlord failed to give her a notice pursuant to the provisions of Rules and Regulations Section 6.14 within 60 days of becoming aware of her presence on the premises, they waived the absolute prohibition against subletting and assignment in the lease and acquiesced to her tenancy.

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

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-1; Becker dissenting)

F. 858 Greenwich St. T001-36A

The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparable rents was denied because the hearing officer found that the landlord had failed to prove that the rent was set and kept low due to a “special relationship” between the landlord and the tenant; and that the two-bedroom units used for comparison by the landlord were not comparable to the tenant’s one-bedroom unit. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the Decision of Hearing Officer contains numerous errors of fact and mischaracterizations of testimony and evidence; the hearing officer exhibited bias toward the tenant; the tenant committed perjury at the hearing and, therefore, should not be considered credible; the subject unit contains six, rather than five, rooms; and the Board does not provide nor apply consistent standards and/or guidelines regarding what constitutes “comparable” units.

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

G. 120 Langton St. T001-47R

The tenants’ petition for rent reductions due to decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount of $300.00 for a 6-month period during which their use of the garden area was severely curtailed. As to the loss of a storage room behind the garage, the hearing officer found that the tenants had been sufficiently compensated by the $125.00 per month rent reduction proffered by the landlords, which was the amount the tenants had been paying for use of the space since 1990. On appeal, the tenants appear to allege that the hearing officer took unsubstantiated statements by the landlords as fact; and that the landlords did not re-claim the storage space for their own use, since the building was in the process of being sold.

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

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

H. 3250 Market St. #3 T001-46R

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses to the tenants in three units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds that the landlord has failed to perform requested repair required by law, and provides a Notice of Violation from the Department of Building Inspection in support of his appeal.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing only on the issue of whether the landlord had failed to perform requested repairs pursuant to Rules and Regulations Section 6.12(a). (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)

V. Communications

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received a copy of an article in The Independent newspaper concerning legislation introduced at the Board of Supervisors that would require an owner to obtain a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission before removing housing from the rental market.

VI. Old Business

Interest Rate When Capital Improvement Work is Financed with a Variable Rate Mortgage

The Board continued their discussion of the above topic. Senior Hearing Officer Sandra Gartzman appeared, and provided the Commissioners with material from several cases in which landlords had paid for capital improvement work with several different credit cards; and discussed situations where a landlord pays off the outstanding balance before the amortization period has expired or refinances at a lower rate of interest than that which is approved pursuant to the petition. Discussion of these issues will be continued to the meeting on March 30, 1999.

VII. Remarks from the Public

The landlord in the case at 3250 Market Street #3 (T001-46R) went over the history of the tenancy and explained the nature of the terraced roof work performed. The landlord in the case concerning 647 Capp Street (T001-39A) expressed his belief that the heater in the unit was sufficient, and maintained that the tenant’s petition was only filed in response to the landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of the new heater.

VIII. Calendar Items

March 9, 1999 - NO MEETING

March 16, 1999
Old Business: Costa-Hawkins (Civil Code Section 1954.53)

IX. Adjournment

President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:13 AM