December 15, 1998B>
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION
BOARD,
Tuesday, December 15, 1998 at 6:00 p.m.
at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level
I. Call to Order
Vice-President Marshall called the meeting
to order at 6:06 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber;
Marshall; Moore.
Commissioners not Present: Bierly; Justman;
Lightner; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of November
19, 1998. (Becker/Gruber: 3-0)
MSC: To approve the Minutes of December
1, 1998.
(Becker/Gruber: 3-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
A tenant who resides at 1750 Vallejo
St. (T001-28R & -29R) asked questions concerning the application of
Rules and Regulations Section 6.10, which allows for rent increases based
on increased operating expenses. Tenant representative Eladio Ballestas
asked when the Board will start referring cases of retaliatory eviction
to the Office of the City Attorney.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1000 North Point St. #1103
T001-27R
The tenant filed a petition alleging
a substantial decrease in housing services, the landlord’s failure to repair
and an unlawful increase in rent. The petition was dismissed without hearing
due to lack of jurisdiction because the hearing officer determined that
the subject building is a non-profit cooperative owned, occupied and controlled
by a majority of the residents (Ordinance Section 37.2(r)(2). On appeal,
the tenant contends that: the building is subject to the jurisdiction of
the Rent Board because it is not under the direct control of a majority
of the cooperative residents; it is not occupied as required under the
Articles of Incorporation; the rent for the unit may not be directly controlled
or regulated by the corporation; and the landlord is not the corporation
but, rather, individual shareholders who use their non-profit status to
circumvent the Rent Ordinance.
Prior to the meeting, the tenant’s representative
had requested a 90-day extension in order to gather evidence to support
the tenant’s claim of Rent Board jurisdiction over the building. It was
the consensus of the Board members in attendance to continue consideration
of this case to the meeting of January 19, 1999, at which time it is expected
that the tenant’s appeal will be complete and no further extensions will
be granted.
B. 1750 Vallejo St. #201 & #406 T001-28
& -29R
The landlords’ petition seeking rent increases
based on increased operating expenses and certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, in part. Nineteen tenant appeals were granted and remanded
for 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 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. In her Decision on Remand, the hearing officer affirms that the
cost of the new windows shall be allocated to all units in the building,
because of the weatherproofing benefits provided; rejects the argument
that the amount of the passthrough for the new windows should be reduced
because the replacement vinyl windows are less expensive because no evidence
of such lower cost was provided; and finds that the notices of rent increase
based on increased operating expenses were issued subsequent to all code
violations having been remedied. The tenants in unit #406 appeal the remand
decision on the grounds that they failed to receive notice of the remand
hearing and the tape recording of the hearing provided to them was unintelligible.
They and the tenants in unit #201 again assert that the windows ultimately
received by the tenants cost less than the windows for which the passthrough
was certified.
A motion was made to remand this case to
adjust the amount of the window passthrough to reflect the lower cost of
the vinyl windows for all nineteen tenants who appealed the original Decision
of Hearing Officer. After discussion, it became clear that there was no
voting majority, and the matter was therefore continued to the meeting
on January 5, 1999.
C. 1337-1/2 Alabama St. T001-27A
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial
decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was
found liable to the tenants in the amount of $11,313.75 due to serious,
long-standing habitability problems on the subject premises. On appeal,
the landlord claims that there was insufficient evidence of extraordinary
circumstances or long-term notice to justify the rent reductions doing
back more than one year prior to the filing of the petition; and that the
hearing officer disregarded the substantial evidence provided to prove
that repairs to the unit were completed prior to the date of issuance of
the decision.
MSC: To remand the case for a hearing
on the issue of when rent reductions for conditions that were abated, if
any, should terminate. (Becker/Gruber: 3-0)
D. 405 - 18th Ave.
T001-28A
The tenant’s petition alleging substantially
decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found
liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,402.65 due to increased noise
from a commercial unit downstairs and $177.76 in reimbursement for increased
PG&E bills during a period of construction in the building. On appeal,
the landlord maintains that the tenant has failed to provide evidence that
the alleged disturbance constitutes a reduction in housing services, nor
a violation of relevant noise ordinances; and that the removal of the loft
that previously served as a sound barrier was required under the law and
removed a fire hazard.
MS: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall)
After discussion on the above motion, it became
clear that there was no voting majority and this case was continued to
the January 5, 1999 meeting.
E. 1091 Bush St. #314
T001-30R
The landlord’s petition for certification
of capital improvement costs to the tenants in twenty-one units was granted,
resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $33.68. The tenants
in one unit appeal the portion of the decision granting a passthrough for
the costs of interior painting of the units, claiming that only minimal,
sloppy patch painting over a part of the ceiling that had been re-sheet
rocked after seismic retrofitting was performed, and that they should not
be charged for a service that was not rendered.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Becker:
3-0)
F. 315 Parnassus (Lower) T001-29A
The tenants’ petition alleging a substantial
decrease in housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable
to the tenants in the amount of $1,624.00 due to the loss of storage space.
The tenants had already been given a $75.00 per month rent reduction by
the landlord for loss of use of the garage, which the hearing officer determined
to be sufficient compensation for this service. However, $112.00 per month
was granted for the additional loss of an adjacent room used for storage.
On appeal, the landlord contends that she relied on an estoppel certificate
filled out by the tenants and representations from the former owner that
only the garage, and not the storage area, were included in the tenant’s
lease; and, since the tenants had paid no additional rent for use of the
storage area, no rent reduction was warranted.
After discussion, due to the lack of a
voting majority, this matter was continued to the next meeting.
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning
cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A draft of proposed amendments to the
Rent Ordinance in order to conform it to Civil Code Section 1954.53 (Costa-Hawkins)
from Deputy City Attorney Marie Blits.
B. A letter from Ted Gullickson of the
Tenants’ Union concerning implementation issues surrounding the passage
of Proposition G on the November ballot.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Board
that Proposition G will take effect at 12:01 on Friday, December 18th.
The City Attorney does not have the final wording of Ordinance Section
37.9(a)(8) at this time, and has advised that, when providing copies of
the Rent Ordinance, staff should provide a copy of Proposition G to the
public at the same time .
VIII. Old Business
Costa-Hawkins (Civil Code Section
1954.53)
Discussion of this issue was continued to
the meeting on January 5th, which will be attended by Deputy City Attorney
Marie Blits. The Deputy Director referred the Board to an article in the
December issue of San Francisco Apartment Magazine concerning the
issue of "anniversary dates" for units that will otherwise be exempt pursuant
to Costa-Hawkins.
IX. Calendar Items
December 22 & 29, 1998 - NO
MEETINGS (Happy New Year!)
January 5, 1999
7 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 12/1;
3 cont. from 12/15)
Old Business: Costa-Hawkins
X. Adjournment
Vice-President Marshall adjourned the
meeting at 7:40 p.m.