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

Skip to page body

April 20, 1999

April 20, 1999p> 

 

 

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

Tuesday, April 20, 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 6:04 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly; Gruber; Justman; Lightner; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Justman; Lightner.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Marshall appeared on the record at 6:08 p.m.; Commissioner Moore arrived at the meeting at 6:36 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of April 6, 1999.
(Becker/Murphy: 5-0)
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1912 McAllister St. T001-50A
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $10.00 per month due to the failure to provide a secure mailbox on the premises, nor to continue to allow the tenant to pay for a private, off-site mailbox and deduct the amount from her rent. On appeal, the landlord alleges that: the property is exempt from Rent Board jurisdiction; the agreement regarding the mailbox was intended to be temporary, and the problem that necessitated an off-site mailbox no longer exists; the tenant’s correct base rent is the amount established in her lease, rather than the amount that she has been paying for two years; and the hearing officer erred in seeming to allow the tenant to choose roommates in this social services program wherein it is incumbent for the landlord to select tenants pursuant to regulatory agreements governing rent at the property.

MSC: To accept the landlord’s appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record to vacate the decision and dismiss the tenant’s petition due to lack of jurisdiction.
(Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)


B. 890 Page St. T001-51A
 

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. Additionally, the landlord was found liable to the tenant in one unit for rent overpayments in the amount of $1,531.26. The landlord appeals, asserting that: the hearing officer erred in failing to include a $25 charge for parking when calculating the tenant’s base rent; a rent increase given for a garage space is not subject to Rent Ordinance limitations; the tenant in unit #4 should not be subject to the "6-Month Rule" because the tenant was a roommate in a continuing tenancy, and not a new tenant in November, 1996; and costs for federal taxes, Workers’ Compensation, Social Security and other benefits provided to workers he employed for the paint jobs should be certified.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer to include the $25 parking charge in the tenant’s base rent and correct the rent overpayments owing from the landlord to the tenant as appropriate; and to determine the applicability of Rules and Regulations Section 7.12(b) ("The 6-Month Rule") to the tenant in unit #4 -- a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
 

C. 272 Downey St. T001-52A  
The landlord’s appeal was filed 25 days late because she claims not to have received the Decision of Hearing Officer.

MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Wasserman/Murphy: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)

The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $9,500.40 due to serious habitability problems on the premises. The landlord did not appear at the hearing and alleges, on appeal, not to have received the Notice of Hearing.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer for a new hearing. (Wasserman/Gruber: 5-0)
 

D. 1530 Gough St. T001-62R thru -67R  
The appeal of the tenant in unit #706 was filed one day late without explanation.

MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Gruber/Murphy: 4-1; Wasserman dissenting)
The landlord’s petition for certification of the cost of an exterior paint job to twenty-five of thirty-eight units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $12.29. Six tenants appeal, claiming that: the work was the result of the landlord’s deferred maintenance; painting of the building is a necessary maintenance item, and not a capital improvement; and documentation other than the contract for the work and canceled checks should be required. The tenant in unit #205 also appeals on the basis of financial hardship.

MSC: To deny the tenants’ appeals. (Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)

MSC: To deny the hardship appeal filed by the tenant in unit #205. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)


E. 3943 Mission St. #1 T001-53A
 

The landlords’ petition for certification of the costs of new windows and a low flow toilet to the tenants in one unit was denied because the work was done within six months of the tenants’ taking occupancy of the unit {Rules and Regulations Section 7.12(b)}. On appeal, the landlord asks that the 6-Month Rule be waived because the improvements were not planned, and therefore the costs were not factored into the initial rent, but were initiated at the tenants’ request.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer to waive the 6-Month Rule because the improvements were made at the request of the tenants; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Wasserman/Gruber: 5-0)
 

F. 3718 - 24th St. T001-69R The tenant’s petition alleging the landlord’s failure to make requested repairs required by law was denied. On appeal, the tenant claims that: the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Decision of Hearing Officer are not supported by the evidence on record; and the hearing officer exhibited bias against the tenant and in favor of the landlord.

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


G. 1842 Clement St. T001-68R
 

The tenant’s petitions alleging an unlawful increase in rent and substantial decrease in housing services were dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant maintains that he failed to receive notice of the hearing, and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing. The tenant has vacated the unit.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing only upon the request of the tenant. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)

V. Communications In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:

A. A Memorandum from the Deputy Director regarding the issue of determining initial rent for non-comparable replacement units pursuant to Ordinance Section 37.9(A)(8)(iv) {Proposition G}.

B. A letter from tenant attorney Randy Shaw regarding proposed Rules and Regulations Section 1.17(i) contending that the phrase "consistent residential use" is "so vague that a reasonable person cannot decipher its meaning."

C. A letter from landlord Bill Quan regarding the proposed increase in the rental unit fee, contending that: the Rent Board should have to demonstrate increased efficiency before increasing the fee; banking and retroactive collection should be permitted; and failure by a tenant to reimburse the landlord the amount of the fee should be a just cause reason for eviction.

D. A letter from Michele Sutton, Special Investigator for the State Bar of California, to former Board President Becker stating that their investigation of attorney David Partridge Dawson has been completed and no provable professional misconduct has been found to have occurred.

VI. Director’s Report Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that legislation increasing the rental unit fee to $16 for residential units and $8 for residential hotel rooms will be introduced in mid-May and then be referred to either the Housing and Land Use or Finance Committees. VII. Remarks from the Public A. Anastasia Yovanopolous, the tenant in the case at 3718 - 24th Street (T001-69R), expressed her belief that the fee increase will be good because the Rent Board needs more staff; she also alleged that the hearing officer in her case disregarded her documentary evidence and stated that she will cease filing petitions because the Rent Board doesn’t "pay attention" to her.

B. Landlord Eric Kref inquired as to how the Board will deal with the issue of rent for non-comparable replacement units when there is an eviction for owner-occupancy; he is currently involved in a case where the market value for the unit is significantly higher than the tenant is willing to pay.

C. One of the tenants involved in the appeal concerning 890 Page Street (T001-51A) inquired as to the result of the Board’s consideration of the landlord’s appeal.

D. Landlord Mitchell Tannenbaum expressed his frustration that he was not informed as to the result of his request for a Technical Correction until he had already filed his appeal.

VIII. New Business
Determinations of Initial Rent for Non-Comparable Replacement Units Pursuant to Ordinance Section 37.9(A)(8)(iv) {Proposition G}
The Board discussed a Memorandum from the Deputy Director regarding the fact that staff is receiving inquiries from tenants and landlords who are involved in owner-occupancy evictions where a non-comparable unit in the building has become available, but the parties cannot agree on an appropriate amount of rent. Pending the enactment of Rules and Regulations on this and other issues surrounding Proposition G, which passed on the November ballot, Senior Staff has proposed a process by which such rent determinations could be made, including necessary forms. Commissioner Murphy wanted it noted for the record that, since he believes Proposition G to be unconstitutional, and thinks that setting an initial rent for a unit conflicts with the provisions of Costa-Hawkins, he does not think that the Board has the authority to enact Rules and Regulations to implement such provisions. The Board will continue discussion of this issue at the next meeting with Deputy City Attorney Marie Blits. IX. Calendar Items April 27, 1999 - NO MEETING

May 4, 1999

Old Business:

A. Costa-Hawkins (Civil Code Section 1954.53)

B. Rent for Non-Comparable Replacement Units

C. Interest Rate When Capital Improvement Work is Financed With a Variable Rate Mortgage

X. Adjournment President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.

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