October 01, 2002
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION
BOARD,
Tuesday, October 1, 2002 at 6:00 p.m.
at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level
I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Aung; Becker; Mosser; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Gruber; Hobson; Lightner; Mosser; Murphy.
Staff Present: Wolf.
Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:15 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Eugene Chan, the landlord at 1310 Turk St. #406 (AL020211), informed the Board that a frequent complaint he hears about the Rent Board concerns the lack of due process protections. Mr. Chan encouraged the Commissioners to demonstrate that parties before the Board have the same rights that they would have in court.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 402 Haight St. L020210
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. However, the Administrative Law Judge found that claimed costs for new carpet and water heaters were not proved, and only those costs that were sufficiently documented were therefore certified. On appeal, the landlord asserts that proof of cost and proof of payment were submitted and verified by the landlord under oath; and that the Administrative Law Judge failed to request further documentation, testimony or declarations subsequent to the hearing.
B. 1310 Turk St. #406 AL020211
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $2,500.00 due to leaks resulting in moist living room walls. Additionally, the landlord was found not to have performed requested repairs required by law, and an annual increase was ordered deferred. On appeal, the landlord’s property manager claims not to have received the notice of hearing, because the notice was sent to the wrong address and to the wrong name. Additionally, the landlord told the property manager that the hearing was to be held on a different date.
C. 902 Divisadero #202 AL020212
The landlord’s appeal was filed three months late because the landlord sold his business, and did not receive a copy of the decision at the time it was issued.
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $6,280.00 due to serious habitability defects on the premises. The landlord had failed to appear at the hearing, and claimed that he had not received notice of the hearing upon appeal. His appeal was accepted and remanded for another hearing. In the remand decision, the Administrative Law Judge reduced the landlord’s liability to the amount of $5,360.00. The landlord again appeals, claiming that the tenant filed his complaints out of revenge for the landlord having had him arrested on Halloween; and that the apartment was in good condition when the tenant moved in.
D. 218 Union St. #3 AL020213
The landlord’s petition seeking a determination as to whether the tenant is a "Tenant in Occupancy" pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 was denied. Although the tenant has a homeowner’s exemption on a property in Sacramento, he is separated from his wife and does not commute from Sacramento to his job in Silicone Valley. Rather, he stays as a "guest" several nights a week at a friend’s house in Los Altos. The Administrative Law Judge therefore found that the San Francisco unit is the tenant’s principal place of residence and usual place of return. The landlord appeals, maintaining that: all the indices of residency contained in Section 1.21 point to Sacramento as the tenant’s principal place of residence; the landlord resides in the building and knows from personal knowledge that the tenant is only on the premises 1-2 nights per week; and the San Francisco unit is the tenant’s pied a terre which he uses for business and personal purposes.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this appeal to the meeting on October 15th, when there will be more Commissioners in attendance.
E. 3610 Taraval AL020214 & AT020223
The tenant’s appeal was filed nine days late because the tenant was traveling at the time the decision was issued.
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $1,380.00 due to an inoperable window and lack of heat in the unit. The tenants’ failure to repair claim was denied because the landlord had abated the conditions prior to the effective date of the annual rent increase. The landlord appeals, asserting that: it was the tenants’ responsibility to contact PG&E and have the gas to the heater turned on; the landlord had no way of knowing that the heater was not working; the tenants failed to request that the window be repaired when a repair person was in the unit attending to another problem, and failed to provide notice to the landlord of the conditions complained of in the petition; the repairs were effectuated within one month after receipt of the Notice of Violation; it is the tenants’ testimony that lacks credibility, rather than the landlord’s; and the tenants have failed to meet their burden of proof. The tenant also appeals as to the claims that were denied, maintaining that: the decision is incorrect as to the date the tenant notified the landlord regarding the problem with the defective toilet; the tenant was not provided with a safe and accessible place to store garbage receptacles; and the landlord had constructive notice of the condition of the back yard, which was unsafe and unsightly.
F. 307 - 30th Ave. AT020216
The tenant’s appeal was filed three days late because the tenant was in New York visiting family over the holiday weekend.
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $439.00 due to a defective bathroom sink and the presence of mildew in the unit. On appeal, the tenant claims that: the base rent amount in the decision is incorrect; work done in the unit was shoddy, incomplete and not up to code; and there is remaining work that needs to be done in the unit.
G. 1050 Post St. #44 AT020215
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 19 of 40 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
H. 1693 Market St. AT020217
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due to their failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenants claim not to have received notice of the hearing, and attach the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.
VII. Old Business
The Blaine Family Trust v. Rent Board (Perlstadt)
(Superior Court Case No. 500854)
Rules and Regulations Section 1.21
The Board voted to pursue an appeal of the court’s decision granting the landlord’s Writ at their meeting on September 3rd. At that time, Deputy City Attorney Randy Riddle informed the Commissioners that it might be beneficial to the appeal if the Board clarified Rules Section 1.21 to make it clear that tenants can occupy more than one unit in a building as their principal place of residence. President Wasserman asked that staff draft such language, but that it also be made clear that the units had to have been rented to the tenant(s) in good faith and with the landlord’s knowledge. Deputy Director Wolf advised the Board that Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee has drafted such language. Additionally, Deputy City Attorney Scott Dickey has proposed additional language to make it clear that tenants must really live in the units, and that a tenant could meet the indicia of residency outlined in the regulation, but still not reside in the unit as their principal place of residence. This issue was continued to the meeting on October 15th. Both versions of the proposed language will be distributed to the Commissioners prior to that meeting.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
B. Jamie Ho, the tenant in the case at 3610 Taraval (AT020223), expressed confusion regarding the disposition of her appeal.
C. Mary Kwan, the landlord’s representative in the case at 3610 Taraval (AL020214), told the Commissioners that she hoped they’d consider her appeal.
VIII. Calendar Items
October 8, 2002 - NO MEETING
October 15, 2002
10 appeal considerations (2 cont. from 9/17/02; 1 cont. from 10/1/02)
Old Business:
A. Rules & Regulations Section 1.21 (Perlstadt)
B. Proposed Amendments to Rules Section 1.18
New Business:
October 22, 2002 - NO MEETING
October 29, 2002
12 appeal considerations
November 5, 2002 - NO MEETING (Election Day)
Additional meetings in November will be on the 12th and 19th; both meetings will begin at 6:30 p.m.
IX. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.