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

Skip to page body

December 15, 1998

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.

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