MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION
BOARD,
Tuesday, August 17, 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 6:03 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Lightner; Marshall;
Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Bierly, Justman.
Staff Present: Grubb, Gartzman, Lee
Commissioner Gruber appeared on the record at
6:07 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of August 3, 1999
with a correction to the vote on 1935 Franklin to reflect that Commissioner
Marshall was the dissenting member in that matter.
(Marshall/Lightner: 5-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
A woman indicated that sensitive personal documents
submitted to the Rent Board should be kept confidential at all times.
V. Executive Session
The Commission went into Executive Session
to discussion litigation in the matter of Golden Gateway v. S.F. Rent Board,
Superior Court Case No. 982216 and Court of Appeal Case No. A083297. After
deliberation with Deputy City Attorney Marie Blits, the Commission voted
to divulge the contents of their discussion in the following motion:
MSC: To divulge the nature of their deliberation,
which was whether or not the City should take any action with respect to
the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in this matter. The Board decided
not to recommend any action, since the Board was split in its opinion as
to whether or not any action should be taken. The Tenant Commissioners
felt that there should either be a request for re-hearing and/or action
taken to have the decision de-published. The Landlord Commissioners felt
that the decision should be left as is. The Neutral Commissioner did not
feel that it was her responsibility to make the decision, but rather defer
to the decision to the City Attorney on this matter.
(Lightner/Becker: 5-0)
VI. Consideration of Appeals
A. 3751 Cesar Chavez (Army) St. T001-71A
(Cont. from 7/20/99)
The matter was continued to the September 7th
meeting as the parties are still attempting to settle.
B. 3414 - 25th St. #1 T001-95R
(Cont. from 8/3/99)
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing
services was dismissed because the tenant, who does not speak English,
appeared for two mediations unaccompanied by a translator after having
been informed it would be necessary for her to procure one. On appeal,
the tenant asserts that the first mediation session did not proceed because
the landlord was unprepared; that the Rent Board was obligated to procure
the services of a translator for the tenant; and that the grounds for dismissal
contained in Rules and Regulations Section 11.16 are not present in this
case.
At the July 20, 1999 Board meeting, the Commissioners
continued consideration of the tenant’s appeal to the August 3, 1999 meeting
so that the Department could ascertain from staff exactly what the tenant
was told concerning translation issues and her hearing. After discussion
of the August 3, 1999 meeting, consideration of this case was continued
to the August 17th meeting, when a voting quorum would be present.
Staff was asked to contact St. Peter’s Housing
Committee, which assisted the tenant prior to the hearing. The Director
of St. Peter’s represented to the department that all their clients are
repeatedly advised that they must bring an interpreter to the Rent Board.
MSC: To deny the tenant’s appeal.
(Wasserman/Gruber: 3-2, Becker and Marshall dissenting)
C. 1853 Scott St. T001-77A
The landlord’s petition for certification of
the cost of a new foundation to one unit was granted, resulting in a passthrough
in the amount of $98.02 per month. However, the landlord was found liable
in the amount of $2,970.00 due to an unlawful rent increase in 1998. On
appeal, the landlord maintains that the prohibition on compounding of banked
increases is unconstitutional and does not promote a legitimate government
purpose because it punishes a landlord who refrains from raising the rent
regularly; that the hearing officer represented that the increase was correct,
and is therefore estopped from declaring it to be null and void; that the
overcharge was de minimus and, therefore, the penalty results in a forfeiture;
and that the tenant agrees that the decision is unfair.
MSC: To deny the appeal, with a technical correction
to clarify the wording in paragraph 14.
(Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
D. 647 Grandview Ave. #4 T001-78A
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing
services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in
the amount of $1,200.50 due to the loss of storage space in the building
and loss of quiet enjoyment of the rental unit due to noise and disturbances
caused by the landlord. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the tenants’
petition is retaliatory and stems from the landlord’s refusal to rent a
garage space to the tenants; storage space in the building was never offered
to the tenants; the hearing officer exhibited bias toward the tenants and
deprived the landlord of his due process rights at the hearing; the landlord
was not present in his unit when the tenants claimed he was making excessive
noise; and the evidence offered by the tenants is self-serving and without
corroboration.
MSC: To deny the landlord’s appeal.
(Becker/Marshall: 3-2, Gruber and Lightner dissenting.
E. 1150 Valencia St. T001-79A
The tenants’ petition alleging decreases in
housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the
tenants in the amount of $1,282.50 due to noise and intrusions from a construction
project in the commercial unit below the tenant’s unit. The landlord appeals,
claiming that: the hearing officer was biased in favor of the tenants and
gave no weight to testimony and evidence entered by the landlords; the
fact that no other tenants in the building filed petitions proves that
the tenants’ claims are exaggerated; the tenant unlawfully entered the
construction zone and harassed the workers; and there is no economic benefit
to the landlord as a result of the construction.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand to the
hearing officer on the record only for clarification as to why the value
for the decreased service was $250 instead of $190. This is to be done
as either a memorandum to the Commission or as a technical correction on
the record.
(Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
F. 1900 Vallejo St. #405 T002-10R
The landlords’ petition for certification of
capital improvement costs for 4 out of 14 units was granted, resulting
in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $38.04. One tenant appeals the
decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand for a
hearing on the tenant’s financial hardship, with consideration being given
to the tenant’s use of her savings for living expenses.
(Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
G. 221 Noe St. #3, 8 & 9 T001-80A; T002-11R
The landlords’ petition for certification of
capital improvement costs to five units was granted, in part. One tenant
appeals the passthrough of the costs of a new deck, alleging that the work
was necessitated by the landlords’ deferred maintenance. The landlord appeals
the hearing officer’s discontinuation of a prior passthrough for interior
painting on the grounds that it no longer benefits the tenants, because
the landlord had not imposed the total amount that was approved. Instead,
the landlord banked a portion of the passthrough. The landlord argues that,
in circumstances such as this, discontinuation of the prior passthrough
will force landlords to impose the total amount approved right away, for
fear of losing the remainder.
MSC: To accept the landlord’s appeal and remand
to the hearing officer on the record to re-consider the issue of the discontinued
banked passthrough for interior painting.
(Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the tenant’s appeal and remand
to the hearing officer for clarification as to whether or not the dry rot
was a result of deferred maintenance. A hearing will be held only if necessary.
(Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
H. 629 Post St. T001-82A
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful
increase in rent and decreased housing services was granted, in part. The
landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $120.00 due to
the loss of maid services in his residential hotel. Additionally, the landlord
was found liable for rent overpayments in the amount of $1,466.99 because
the tenant’s move to a new unit was found not to warrant a rent increase,
because the tenant was forced to move because the landlord took no action
against another tenant in the building who was endangering the tenant’s
health. The landlord, who did not appear at the hearing, appeals, asserting
that: he did not receive the Notice of Hearing until after the hearing
was completed because he lives out of town, and the Notice was sent to
his part-time residence in San Francisco, nor did he receive a phone call
from Rent Board staff on the day of the hearing; the Decision of Hearing
Officer is void because it was not issued in a timely manner; the tenant
chose this particular unit, knowing that it had amenities justifying a
higher rent; and the decision imposes a severe penalty without due process
of law.
MSC: To accept the landlord’s appeal and remand
for a new hearing.
(Lightner/Gruber: 4-1, Marshall dissenting)
I. 1498 Noe St. T002-09R
The tenants’ appeal was filed three days late
because the tenants had vacated the unit and experienced delay in getting
their mail forwarded.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing
of the appeal.
(Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for a 7% rent increase for
one unit based on increased operating expenses was granted. The tenants
appeal the decision, claiming that one of the tenants should not be subject
to the increase because she did not reside in the unit during the landlord’s
Year One comparison period; that the landlord’s petition should have been
administratively dismissed as lacking in documentation; that the additional
time granted the landlord to perfect his petition caused the tenants to
be liable for a large retroactive amount; and that the landlord has failed
to refund the tenants’ security deposits after their having vacated the
unit.
MSC: To deny the tenant’s appeal.
(Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
J. 555 Pierce St. #203, 301 & 304 T002-12R through
-14R
The landlord’s petition for certification of
capital improvement costs and rent increases based on increased operating
expenses was granted. The tenants in three units appeal the decision on
the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To have staff inquire of the tenant in
unit #203 (T002-12R) as to his reference to a roommate in the hardship
appeal form and whether or not there is a roommate now and what the circumstances
were regarding the tenant’s right to have a roommate. If there is a roommate,
the roommate must submit a hardship application prior the September 7th
meeting. If it is determined that there is no roommate or no permission
to have a roommate, then the appeal is accepted for hearing on the hardship
issue.
(Becker/Marshall: 4-1, Lightner dissenting)
MSC: To accept the tenant’s appeal for unit #301
and remand for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.
(Lightner/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal as to the tenant in unit
#304.
(Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
VII. Communications
A letter from Ms. Sandra Musser concerning
her case.
A copy of a Civil Service report on Commission
compensation.
VIII. Director’s Report
Director Grubb reported that the Agenda information
about department services is now translated into Spanish and Chinese. He
also noted that the Leno legislation passed second reading on August 16th.
It will be signed in 10 days by the Mayor and becomes law 30 days thereafter.
IX. Old Business
A. Interest Rate When Capital Improvement
Work is Financed With a Variable Rate Mortgage
The Commission’s discussion of the matter focused
on the draft language provided by Commissioners Lightner and Marshall.
A combination of sections from each of the two versions was considered,
but no final decision on the matter was reached. The matter was continued
to a special legislative session, which will be held Thursday September
9, 1999 at 6 p.m.
B. Rules and Regulations Section 6.14
The Commission reviewed the draft proposal as
submitted by Commissioner Lightner. The Commission discussed 6.14 with
deputy City Attorney Blits and asked what might be needed to conform it
with the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Ms. Blits was asked to review
the proposed legislation, to attend the special legislative session on
September 9, 1999 and provide a written response to the Commission prior
the September 9th meeting.
C. Commissioners’ Compensation
Executive Director Grubb pointed out that there
has been no increase in the Commissioners’ compensation since the early
1980s. However, the amount of work has increased since then. The complexity
and length of decisions has grown over the years and the amount of legislation
requiring consideration has increased as well. The compensation received
should reflect this time investment as well as the actual time spent in
the Commission meeting itself. Executive Director Grubb proposed the following
compensation schedule: $25 for the first hour, $50 dollars for the first
two hours and $75 dollars for any time in excess of the first two hours.
The Commissioners voted unanimously to adopt the Executive Director’s proposal.
X. Calendar Items
August 24 & 31, 1999 - NO MEETINGS
September 7, 1999
10 appeal considerations
1 appeal hearing: T001-81A (2850 23rd
St./2490 Bryant St.)
September 9, 1999
Legislative session: Sections 6.14 and 7.14 of
the Rules and Regulations
XI. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at
10.10 p.m.
|