May 21, 2002
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, May 21, 2002 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 6:20 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Aung; Becker; Gruber; Hobson; Justman;
Marshall; Mosser.
Commissioners not Present: Lightner; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:22 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Remarks from the Public
Robert Pender of the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization (PRO) told the Commissioners
that twenty tenants wanted to testify at a hearing on the morning of May 10th,
but they were unable to do so; and that the Administrative Law Judge said
that they could not submit written statements. Executive Director Grubb said
that he would look into these allegations, respond in writing to Mr. Pender,
and report back to the Board.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 3330 Pierce St. #103 AT020102
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was
granted. A portion of the passthrough to the tenant in unit #103 was for the
costs of a new shower, in the amount of $77.61 per month. The tenant’s appeal
claiming that the shower replacement was necessitated by deferred maintenance
was accepted, and the case was remanded to exclude the parts of the shower
remodeling work attributable to deferred maintenance. This reduced the passthrough
to $3.23 per month. The landlord appealed, claiming that he had unable to
respond to a post-hearing submission from the tenant, and the case was remanded
in order for him to be able to do so. In the second remand decision, the Administrative
Law Judge found the deferred maintenance objection to be inapplicable because
the current landlord is a new owner. The tenant appeals this decision on the
grounds that: the Administrative Law Judge did not adhere to the Board’s motion
on remand; the work has been shown to be attributable to deferred maintenance,
and it therefore cannot be certified pursuant to Rules Section 7.15(a); the
Ordinance provides for successor liability, which is consistent with the California
Civil Code; and the landlord failed to respond to the contractor’s evidence
that the work was attributable to dry rot.
MSC: To vacate the Decision on Remand and remand the case for a hearing to
determine the scope of the work that was attributable to deferred maintenance.
(Becker/Murphy: 5-0)
B. 3590 Sacramento St. #1 AL020103
The landlords filed a petition seeking a determination as to whether the
tenant is a "Tenant in Occupancy" as defined in Rules Section 1.21,
and whether a rent increase is warranted pursuant to Rules Section 6.14. The
Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant’s principal place of residence
is in Petaluma, but that there are subtenants on the premises, so no rent
increase is warranted pursuant to Section 1.21. Although the subtenants had
been served with a 6.14 notice within a reasonable period of time of the landlords’
learning of their occupancy, the original tenant has never formally vacated
the unit, and the landlords waited 10 years from the original tenant’s having
moved to Petaluma to impose the increase. Therefore, no rent increase was
found to be warranted pursuant to Section 6.14. On appeal, the landlords maintain
that: a rent increase pursuant to Section 1.21 is not contingent upon a 6.14
increase being warranted to the subtenants; once there has been a showing
that the tenant is not a "Tenant in Occupancy", the Administrative
Law Judge is required to grant a rent increase; the decision runs afoul of
the spirit and intent of Rules Section 1.21; and the landlords did not know
that the original tenant was not residing in the subject unit at all until
the day of the hearing.
C. 365 Bay St. #3 AT020104
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due
to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. The tenant’s appeal
was accepted and the case was remanded for another hearing. The tenant also
failed to appear at the remand hearing, and her petition was again dismissed.
The tenant was hospitalized on the day of the remand hearing and asks on further
appeal that her petition be dismissed without prejudice to her pursuing her
claims in another forum.
D. 685 Geary St. #303, 501, 201, 603 & 206 AT020109 thru -13
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to
32 of 42 units was granted. The tenants in five units appeal the decision
on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #201 and remand the
case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenants in unit #206 and remand the
case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenants in unit #303 and remand the
case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenants in unit #501 and remand the
case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #603 and remand the
case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
E. 725 Van Ness Ave. #404 AT020105
The landlord filed a petition requesting a determination as to whether the
tenant is a "Tenant in Occupancy" pursuant to Rules and Regulations
Section 1.21, and whether there are any original occupants residing in the
unit as defined under Costa-Hawkins. The Administrative Law Judge found that
the tenant does not reside in the subject unit as his principal place of residence
and that there are no subtenants residing on the premises. However, a notice
of rent increase from $383 to $1,050.00 was declared invalid because it was
issued prior to the filing of the landlord’s petition. The tenant appeals,
claiming that: he always has been the original tenant in the unit; he is allowed
to have a guest for up to seven days pursuant to his agreement with the landlord;
and he spends the majority of his time in the subject unit but he also needs
to spend time with his children, who live in Pittsburgh, California.
F. 1520 Gough St. #705 AT020107
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to
30 of 38 units was granted. One tenant appeals on the grounds that the work
is of no benefit to him since he resides in the southwest corner of the building,
and the work was performed on the east exterior wall of the building.
G. 1371 Jackson St. #302 AT020106
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs for
9 of 15 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds
of financial hardship.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
Greg Blaine, the landlord in the case at 3330 Pierce St. #103 (AT020102),
told the Commissioners that he believes there is a "disconnect"
between the Administrative Law Judges and the Senior Administrative Law Judges
regarding the Board’s "dry rot policy." He also informed the Board
that all relevant evidence has already been introduced at the two previous
hearings.
VI. Communications
In addition to a communication regarding a case on the calendar, the Commissioners
received a Pending Litigation Status Report from Senior Administrative Law
Judge Tim Lee.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that the Department’s Fee Ordinance
will be going to the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors on May 22nd,
but it will be continued and heard in conjunction with the departmental budget
next month. The amount of the fee has increased from $23 in February, to $27
currently. The increase is attributable to the passage of two pieces of legislation
sponsored by Supervisor Daly, one which will require the recordation of OMI
eviction notices, and the other which will require that the Rent Board adjudicate
disputes concerning residential hotel visitor policies. The increased rental
unit fee will allow the department to hire three Administrative Law Judges and
reduce the petition backlog within two years; in addition to hiring one recording
secretary. Mr. Grubb informed the Board that Supervisor Ammiano has introduced
legislation representing a compromise between the landlord and tenant communities
on the passthrough of capital improvement costs which is currently on 30-day
hold, after which time it will be assigned to Committee. Mr. Grubb also told
the Commissioners that he would be on vacation next week.
VIII. Calendar Items
May 28, 2002 - NO MEETING
June 4, 2002
6 appeal considerations
IX. Adjournment
Vice-President Marshall adjourned the meeting at 7:44 p.m.