June 01, 1999B>
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION
BOARD,
Tuesday, June 1, 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 6:05 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Justman;
Lightner; Marshall; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Bierly; Mosser.
Staff Present: Gartzman; Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Marshall left the meeting at 7:40
p.m.
Prior to proceeding with the Agenda, President
Wasserman regretfully announced that Alternate Tenant Commissioner Everett
Moore passed away on Monday, May 31st, and asked Commissioner Becker to
say a few words about his many contributions on behalf of all residents
of the City. A moment of silence was observed by all in attendance.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of May 18, 1999.
(Lightner/Becker: 5-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
A member of the public commented on draft language
pertaining to new Rules and Regulations Section 1.17(i) that was distributed
prior to the Public Hearing on May 18th; he was informed that different
language had been adopted by the Board.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 2301 Broadway #101 T001-48R
(rescheduled from 3/30/99)
The landlord’s petition for certification of
capital improvement costs to nine of fourteen units was granted, resulting
in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $34.09. One tenant appeals the
decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
B. 181 Beaver St. T001-54A
(rescheduled from 4/20/99)
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing
services and unlawful rent increases was granted in part and denied in
part. The landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $9,320.00
due to excessive rent increases. The decrease in services claim was denied
because the hearing officer found that when the unit came under Rent Board
jurisdiction, after the death of the prior owner, use of the garage was
not an included housing service. On appeal, the landlord, who is the mother
of the prior owner, maintains that: there had been a temporary reduction
in the base rent and the rent increase was merely a restoration of the
prior base rent amount; as a co-owner of the property at the time of the
rent reduction, she can personally attest to the intent of the landlord
at the time the rent was reduced; the landlord was prejudiced by not having
counsel at the time of the hearing; and the definition of "base rent" pursuant
to Proposition I does not preclude temporary reductions in the amount.
MSC: To accept the landlord’s appeal and remand
the case for a new hearing to augment the record on the issues of the proper
base rent amount and whether or not there was a substantial decrease in
housing services. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
C. 1750 Hayes St. T001-74R
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent
increases was denied. The hearing officer found that were not increases
in rent but that the tenant, a former co-owner of the property, had agreed
to a phased-in schedule of rent payments to retire debts owing to the landlord
and gradually bring the rent up to the originally agreed-upon amount. On
appeal, the tenant asserts that no extenuating circumstances exist that
would render the rent increases lawful.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
D. 2135 California St. #3 T001-59A
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing
services because of the landlord’s failure to allow a replacement roommate
was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount
of $2,549.04. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: the rental agreement
for the premises prohibits subletting and, just because the landlord has
allowed it in the past, he has not permanently waived the prohibition;
the tenants have engaged in a fraud as to who has actually vacated the
premises; and, in accordance with Civil Code Section 1954.53 (Costa-Hawkins),
he should be allowed to raise the rent because the last original tenant
commenced occupancy after January 1, 1996.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall:
3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
E. 1140 Florida St. T001-78R
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent
increase and substantially decreased housing services was dismissed due
to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the
tenant provides proof that she was out of the country at the time of the
hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
for a new hearing. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
F. 827 - 22nd St. T001-79R
The landlord’s petition for certification of
capital improvement costs for two units was granted, resulting in a monthly
passthrough in the amount of $50.24. One tenant appeals on the grounds
that: neither she nor any of the other tenants resided on the premises
for at least six months prior to the installation of the back doors and
exterior painting; and the work performed does not meet the definition
of "capital improvement" because of existing damage prior to any of the
tenants moving into the building.
MSC: To accept the appeal on the question of the
date of inception of the tenancy for purposes of applying the "6-Month
Rule"; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Gruber/Marshall: 5-0)
G. 2471 Bryant St. T001-81R
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial
decreases in housing services was dismissed because the tenant failed to
appear at the properly noticed remand hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims
not to have received the Notice of Hearing, and attaches the requisite
Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
for a new hearing. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
H. 761 Treat Ave. T001-60A
The tenant’s petition was denied as to claims
of unlawful rent increase and the landlord’s failure to repair. A claim
of decreased housing services was granted, however, and the landlord was
found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,885.00. The landlord failed
to appear at the second hearing held in this case and, on appeal, claims
not to have received the Notice of Hearing nor copies of the "complaint."
After having been sent copies of the petition and Declaration of Non-Receipt
of Notice of Hearing, nothing further was received from the landlord.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the
Board to continue this matter in order for staff to attempt to contact
the landlord through certified mail
I. 3770 - 24th St. T001-61A
The landlord’s petition for certification of
capital improvement costs was granted. However, notices of rent increase
were found to have been issued prior to the filing of the petition and
therefore determined to be null and void. On appeal, the landlord claims
to have served the notices timely, and asserts that the date on the notices
was a typographical error.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to
the hearing officer to ascertain whether the notices of rent increase were
timely served; a hearing will be held only if necessary.
(Gruber/Lightner: 4-1; Becker dissenting)
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases
on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A new staff roster.
B. The office workload statistics for the month
of April.
C. A letter from landlord John Caldwell asking
that the Board revisit the case of Larsen v. Rent Board (Superior
Court Case No. 979777). In that case, it was held that a new owner was
not liable for rent reductions for a period where heat was not provided
by a prior owner of the property, because the new owner had not been given
notice of the condition. In Mr. Caldwell’s case, concerning a new owner’s
liability for rent overpayments, notice is not an issue and, therefore,
the Larsen case is not on point.
D. Two articles concerning rent control from
the S.F. Bay Guardian and May 25, 1999 issue of the Recorder.
E. A Memorandum from Senior Hearing Officer Sandy
Gartzman regarding proposed amendments to Ordinance Section 37.9A and Rules
and Regulations Section 12.18 pertaining to "Ellis" evictions.
VII. Director’s Report
A. Executive Director Grubb reported that legislation
increasing the rental unit fee passed out of Committee on a 3-0 vote and
will go before the full Board of Supervisors for first reading on Monday,
June 14th.
B. Mr. Grubb informed the Commissioners that
legislation introduced by Supervisor Leno pertaining to tenants’ right
to sublet even when there is an absolute prohibition against subletting
and assignment in the lease or rental agreement, if the landlord has unreasonably
withheld consent, was heard by the Housing and Land Use Committee today.
Approximately 55 individuals signed up to speak on this issue and the matter
was continued to July 6th in order for them all to have a chance to do
so.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
A. A gentleman objected to the fact that translation
services, specifically into Chinese, were not provided at the meeting.
He was informed that the Board will provide translation at Public Hearings
but, due to limited resources, a request must be made for translation in
order for it to be provided at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board.
He also remarked that the Board seems "pro-tenant" and that nobody protects
landlords who are poor.
B. The property manager involved in the case
at 3770 - 24th St. (T001-61A) explained the "clerical mix-up" that led
to the hearing officer’s conclusion that the notices of rent increase were
procedurally defective.
C. Sonia Ng stated that translation should be
provided at meetings.
D. A woman requested that Agendas of Board meetings
be provided in Chinese.
E. A member of the public asked why the "Accessible
Meeting Policy" attached to the Minutes provides that sign language interpreters
will be provided upon request, but makes no such representation regarding
translation into Chinese. She asked if the Board is more in favor of tenants,
since tenants pay the rental unit fee.
Commissioner Lightner raised certain concerns
voiced by members of the landlord community after today’s Committee hearing
on the Leno legislation. Apparently, landlords felt it inappropriate that
Tenant Commissioners Marshall and Becker got to speak without time limitations,
while no landlord representative was given the same opportunity. Commissioner
Lightner felt that the way the hearing was conducted led to an "appearance
of impropriety" and the impression that the legislation was sponsored or
supported by the Rent Board. She asked that this issue be put on the June
29th Agenda.
VIII. New Business
Ellis Act Amendments
The Commissioners received a Memorandum from
Senior Hearing Officer Sandy Gartzman outlining procedural irregularities
which Rent Board staff has been required to follow in order to implement
Rent Ordinance Section 37.9(A)(g) and Rules and Regulations Section 12.18.
The recent increase in the number of Ellis filings has resulted in staff
members having to spend a great deal of time explaining what are confusing
requirements for "Ellising Out" and processing Notices of Intent to Withdraw
the same rental units more than once. For these reasons, Ms. Gartzman presented
the Board with a package, including: proposed amendments to Ordinance Section
37.9A; new Rent Board forms and procedures; and a recommendation that Rules
and Regulations Section 12.18 be repealed in its entirety. After discussion
with Ms. Gartzman, the Board voted as follows:
MSC: To recommend the proposed amendments to Ordinance
Section 37.9A to the Board of Supervisors.
(Justman/Lightner: 4-0)
MSC: To schedule the recommended deletion of
Rules and Regulations Section 12.18 for Public Hearing on June 29, 1999.
(Lightner/Gruber: 4-0)
IX. Calendar Items
June 8, 1999 - NO MEETING
June 15, 1999
9 appeal considerations
June 22, 1999 - NO MEETING
June 29, 1999
6:00 Public Hearing: Ellis Act Amendments
Old Business:
A. Interest Rate When Capital Improvement Work
is Financed With a Variable Rate Mortgage
B. Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations
Section 6.15
C. Translation Services
D. Minute Order Program
New Business: Commissioner Protocols
July 6, 1999
8 appeal considerations
X. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at
8:15 p.m.