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

Skip to page body

September 23, 1997

September 23, 1997B>

 

 

 

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

Tuesday, September 23, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level

  1. Call to Order

    President Lightner called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.

  2. Roll Call

    Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Lightner; Marshall; Moore; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.

    Commissioners not Present: Bierly.

    Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

    Commissioner Murphy went off the record at 9:30 p.m.

  3. Approval of the Minutes

    MSC: To approve the Minutes of September 16, 1997.

    (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)

  4. Remarks from the Public

    A tenant in the audience expressed his interest in the Board’s proposed legislation pertaining to "Master Tenants" since he is currently in the process of being evicted by a Master Tenant who he believed was only a roommate. He suggested that the Board define and codify this term and require that a Master Tenant disclose their status as such at the inception of any subtenant’s occupancy of the unit. His attorney, Olivia Paniagua, obtained clarification that Commissioner Lightner’s proposal regarding Master Tenants was just for discussion, and not draft language to be put out for Public Hearing.

  5. Consideration of Appeals

    1. 4163 - 23rd St. S001-04R
      (cont. from 9/16/97)

      The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, resulting in capital improvement passthroughs in excess of $400 to the tenants in four units. One tenant appeals the decision, asserting that: the two new decks added to the structure should be considered "luxury items", her deck is smaller than that of her neighbor’s, and the new decks are smaller than the original decks; she should not have to pay for energy conservation work because she was not provided with low-flow water devices and she purchased her own shower assembly; the costs of new carpet and mini-blinds should be allocated separately to each unit, and not equally to all units in the building; allocation of the costs of garden renovation should factor in use of the garden by tenants who reside in an adjacent building owned and occupied by the same landlord; the rebuilding of the rear stairs and decks was due to the landlord’s deferred maintenance and the costs were found to be excessive by the independent estimator; and she derives no benefit from work done in the basement area of the building. At the meeting on September 16, 1997, a motion to accept the appeal and remand on certain issues was made and seconded, but failed to pass. Consideration of this matter was therefore continued.

      MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the same hearing officer on the record to clarify her findings regarding the issue of whether the rebuilding of the rear stairs and decks was due to the landlord’s deferred maintenance; and to obtain information from the estimator as to whether costs attributable to profit and overhead were factored into her valuation of the subject work. A hearing will be held only if necessary. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

    2. 2844 Lyon St. R001-71A
      (cont. from 8/19/97)

      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 $7,745.00 due to serious habitability defects on the premises. The landlord failed to appear at the hearing and maintained on appeal that the Notice of Hearing was sent to an incorrect address. Additionally, the landlord claimed that a $100.00 per month rent reduction due to lack of heat was excessive because the heat is defective but operative; that the common area lighting problem was corrected immediately after notice; that the cracked and broken windows are the fault of the tenant; that the tenant painted the unit with the wrong paint, which created peeling; that there is mildew in the unit due to the tenant’s failure to ventilate; and that the tenant’s filing of the petition was not in good faith but was in retaliation for the landlord’s service of a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. As the landlord had informed the Director that she would be sending the Board a copy of her Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice, which she believed her attorney had already mailed to the Board, the Board continued consideration of this case from the meeting on August 5, 1997. The Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing was subsequently received.

      As there were several inconsistencies in the landlord’s communications regarding her correct address and notations in the file that she had been called twice regarding the hearing by staff, it was the consensus of the Board at the August 19th meeting for staff to write a letter requesting clarification under penalty of perjury. The matter was therefore further continued. Upon discussion of the landlord’s response to the Board’s queries at the meeting on August 19, 1997, the Commissioners in attendance made but failed to pass a motion due to the absence of a voting neutral, and the matter was again continued.

      MSC: To accept the landlord’s appeal and remand the case to the same hearing officer for a new hearing. (Wasserman/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)

  6. Old Business

    1. "Remarks from the Public" Portion of the Agenda

      Deputy City Attorneys Teresa Stricker-Croley and Amy Ackerman were present to discuss the question of whether the Board is required to take public comment before deciding on an appeal from a decision of hearing officer and, if so, what restrictions may be placed on public testimony. Historically, the Board has allowed public comment prior to and after consideration of the calendared appeals. The only limitation on remarks has been that, for due process reasons, parties were not allowed to comment on a case that would be coming before the Board until after the Commissioners had completed their consideration of that matter. However, stipulations of the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance had prompted the Board to re-consider that policy and allow the public to comment on any matter on or off the calendar at either of the "Remarks" portions of the calendar. The Commissioners explained their concerns regarding engaging in ex parte communication with either party to a case with the Deputy City Attorneys, who agreed to conduct further research on the tension between open meeting laws and the requirements of due process. Further discussion will be calendared for a future meeting.

    2. Discussion of Proposed Amendments and Additions to the Rules and Regulations

      1. Rent Paid by "Master Tenants"

        The Board discussed a proposal authored by Commissioner Lightner defining the term "Master Tenant"; requiring that a Master Tenant disclose, upon request from the landlord, the amount of rent being charged to any subtenant(s); and requiring that a Master Tenant pay a proportional share of the rent being paid to the landlord. Commissioner Marshall proposed requiring that a tenant holding him or herself out as a "Master Tenant" disclose that status and the right to evict without just cause pursuant to Ordinance Section 37.9(b) to any subtenant(s) at the inception of the tenancy, and precluding eviction without just cause to any Master Tenant who failed to do so.

      2. Changes in Roommates

        The Commissioners briefly discussed proposed Rule 6.15, authored by Commissioner Marshall, which would require that where it has been established that a tenancy includes more than one tenant, replacement of one or more tenants by an equal number of comparable tenants shall not constitute a breach of the lease or rental agreement. The Board’s discussion centered around how to define "comparable financial ability" and necessary fluctuations due to neighborhood, etc.; and the need for a landlord to look at the financial capability of a household as a whole.

      3. Material Changes in the Terms of a Tenancy (30-Day Notice Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 827)

        Lastly, the Board discussed new Section 12.20, authored by Commissioner Becker. This proposal specifies that a landlord may not evict a tenant for violation of a term of the tenancy which was unilaterally imposed by the landlord or not materially the same as the terms originally agreed to by the parties. The landlord Commissioners articulated their concerns that the changes in terms included must be material, and that the Board not legislate against reasonable health and safety measures.

        Due to the lateness of the hour, discussion of all of the above proposals was continued to the next meeting.

  7. Communications

    The Commissioners received the following communications:

    1. The monthly Summary of Mediation Agreements for August, 1997.

    2. The office workload statistics for the month of August, 1997.

    3. A letter from Attorney Robert DeVries concerning the proposed Rules changes on the Agenda.

  8. Remarks from the Public (cont.)

    Greg Stephens chastised the Board for discussing what he considered to be the most important portion of the Agenda last, so that he was the only remaining member of the public in attendance. He also felt that the master-tenant issue should be left alone. He also stated his beliefs that: there should be multiple opportunities for the public to comment throughout the meeting; the Commissioners, who represent vested interests, should not have dominated the meeting; landlords have a significant economic advantage in their dealings with tenants, especially in the context of the current housing crisis; the Commissioners should not be partisan, but should keep their mission in mind and remain neutral; and they should not "micro-manage" roommate situations. In additional remarks, Mr. Stephens thanked the Commissioners for their hard work and acknowledged that they play an "active civic role."

  9. New Business

    Commissioner Marshall requested that, when members of the media are present at a meeting and taping and/or videotaping the proceedings, staff ask that they identify themselves and their affiliations.

  10. Calendar Items

    September 30, 1997 - NO MEETING

    October 7, 1997

    8 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 9/2/97)

    1 Eviction Consideration

    Old Business: Continued Discussion of Proposed Amendments and Additions to the Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Material Changes in the Terms of a Tenancy; Rent Paid by "Master Tenants"; and Changes in Roommates

  11. Adjournment

    President Lightner adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:15 AM