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

Skip to page body

May 19, 1998

May 19, 1998B>

 

 

 

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

Tuesday, May 19, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level

  1. Call to Order

    President Wasserman called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

  2. Roll Call

    Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Lightner; Marshall; Moore; Mosser; Wasserman.
    Commissioners not Present: Bierly; Justman; Murphy.
    Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

    Commissioner Marshall went off the record at 8:40 p.m.

  3. Approval of the Minutes

    MSC: To approve the Minutes of May 5, 1998.
    (Becker/Gruber: )

  4. Consideration of Appeals

    1. 1280 Pine St. #401 S001-60R
      (cont. from 5/5/98)

      The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted. One tenant appealed the decision on the basis of financial hardship. Because the tenant is working less than full-time, and the ratio between his income and rent appears to have remained somewhat constant throughout his tenancy, it was the consensus of the Commissioners to continue this matter in order for staff to obtain additional information from the tenant. Upon review of the tenant’s response, the Board voted as follows:

      MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

    2. 1750 Vallejo St. S001-42A; S001-61R - 80R

      The landlords’ petition for rent increases to the tenants in thirty-two units based on increased operating expenses and certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. Since retroactive amounts owing from the tenants to the landlords were quite large, the hearing officer ordered that repayment be made in five monthly installments. On appeal, the landlord alleges that the tenants should have to pay the sums owing in full, since they have been on notice regarding the proposed increases since November of 1996. Nineteen tenants appeal the decision on the grounds that: many of the items certified as capital improvements constituted routine repair and maintenance; the repairs were necessitated by the current landlords’ deferred maintenance; certain of the capital improvement work is still incomplete; the landlord has been reimbursed for the cost of the energy conservation work in the form of a credit at the time of sale of the building; the independent estimator’s report is suspect because her estimates of reasonable costs are suspiciously close to the landlords’ actual costs; the landlords should only be compensated for an increase in their costs, and should not be allowed to use the prior owner’s costs as a basis for comparison; debt service should not be the basis for a rent increase, in that tenants should not have to subsidize "under-capitalized" landlords; the amounts granted are greater than those petitioned for; and the costs should be apportioned based on the size of the units, because the benefits received are not commensurate.

      MSC: To accept the appeals filed by the tenants in nineteen units and remand the case for a new hearing on the following issues: to determine whether there were code violations in existence at the time of the noticed increase based on operating expenses; to clarify that Rules and Regulations Section 6.12 does not require that notice to the landlord be in writing; and to give any tenants not originally allocated the costs of the new windows an opportunity to raise pertinent objections, if any, to the passthrough of costs for this item. To deny the appeals on all other issues raised. (Wasserman/Lightner: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

      MSC: To deny the individual appeal filed by tenants Hespe in unit #403. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)

      MSC: To deny the individual appeal filed by tenants Gold and Brandes in unit #406. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-1; Becker dissenting)

      MSC: To deny the individual appeal filed by tenant Kendall in unit #A. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-1; Marshall dissenting)

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

    3. 2400 Van Ness Ave. #10 S001-43A

      The tenants’ petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was granted, and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount of $911.68. On appeal, the landlords allege that they did not impose a $10 rent increase prior to twelve months having elapsed, there is no documentary evidence to prove that the rent was increased; and one of the tenants changed the amount of rent that he was tendering to the landlords.

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

    4. 1435 - 47th Ave. S001-81R

      The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services and an unlawful increase in rent was denied. The hearing officer found that a rent increase imposed less than twelve months after this tenant moved into the unit was the result of an on-going tenancy that preceded this tenant’s move-in date; and that any diminution of services was the result of an acrimonious relationship between the subject tenant and a co-tenant in the unit, and were not the result of any actions taken by the landlord. On appeal, the tenant claims that the hearing officer failed to hold the landlord to the legal requirements of the Ordinance with regard to rent increases

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

    5. 150 Franklin St. #1A & 1B S001-82R

      The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $840.00. The tenant appeals, asserting that: the rent reductions granted by the hearing officer are not commensurate with the value of the reduced housing services; the hearing officer erred as to the periods of time during which the substandard conditions existed; and that the lack of a rug in one room seriously impacted the use of other areas of the unit, which then had to be used for storage, as well.

      MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer to re-examine the period of time for which a rent reduction was granted due to the problem with the nails in the hallway carpet; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)

    6. 235 Greenwich St. #C S001-44A

      The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services and the landlord’s failure to repair was granted. The landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,900.00 due to numerous habitability problems on the premises and the landlord’s noticed rent increase was ordered deferred pending abatement of the cited violations of the housing code. The landlord appeals the remand decision on the grounds that there were tacit agreements between the tenant and the landlord that repairs would be kept to a minimum in exchange for extremely low rent; and the reduced base rent amount is lower than what would be charged for one room in an undesirable neighborhood.

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

    7. 2030 Vallejo St. S001-45A

      The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $38.58 to the tenants in twelve units. However, the landlord was found liable for rent overpayments of approximately $130,000 due to capital improvements and PG&E passthroughs having been improperly included in base rents; capital improvement passthroughs not having been discontinued after expiration of the amortization periods; and PG&E passthroughs having been carried forward without recalculation since 1987. The landlord appeals on the grounds that: 1) the hearing officer granted relief to tenants that was not requested; 2) the hearing officer ignored the Rent Ordinance and Rules and Regulations; 3) the hearing officer decided issues and claims that were not properly before her; and 4) the decision is unfair and confers free utility services that the tenants were obligated to pay.

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

    8. 171 Divisadero St. #2 S001-83R

      The landlord’s petition for a 15.2% rent increase based on the Past Rent History of a Proposition I Affected Unit was granted. The tenant appeals, claiming that a letter from the landlord stating her intent not to raise the rent unless it became necessary to hire a property management firm constitutes a contract; and that there is a reduction in housing services pertaining to use of the garage.

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

  5. Communications

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

    1. A copy of the Order Granting Writ of Mandate in the case of Marquez and Vaughn v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco (Superior Court Case No. 994256). The Rent Board had filed an Amicus Brief in this case in support of its policy interpretation that a landlord cannot evict tenants in two physically distinct units for owner-occupancy, which Judge Garcia held to be correct as a question of law. A better copy of the Judge’s Order will be provided to the Commissioners.

    2. A copy of the Order denying the landlord’s Writ and Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of Golden Gateway Center v. S.F. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 982216). The landlord had challenged the lawfulness of granting rent reductions to tenants for decreased housing services due to the effectuation of necessary repairs.

    3. The office workload statistics for the month of March, 1998.

  6. Director’s Report

    Executive Director Grubb informed the Commissioners that he will try and re-schedule a Giants game in the Mayor’s Box since the game the Board had planned to attend was rained out.

  7. Remarks from the Public

    The tenant involved in the case at 150 Franklin St. #1A & 1B (S001-82R) expressed his disagreement with the hearing officer and Board’s valuation of rent reductions due to decreased housing services.

  8. New Business

    Commissioner Becker expressed his dismay at the "rampant" number of evictions, as quantified in the Board’s Annual Report to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Lightner voiced her support for a study that would supply data as to the extent of the problem and who it is that is being displaced.

  9. Calendar Items

    May 26 and June 2, 1998 - NO MEETINGS

    June 9, 1998
    7 appeal considerations Old Business:

    1. Brown Act & Sunshine Ordinance Requirements Pertaining to "Remarks from the Public" Portion of the Agenda
    2. Section 8

  10. Adjournment

    President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:14 AM