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

Skip to page body

September. 2, 2003

September. 2, 2003

 

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

 

Tuesday, September 2, 2003 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 6:05 p.m.

 

      II.       Roll Call

 

               Commissioners Present:            Becker; Gruber; Lightner; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Mosser; Wasserman.

               Commissioners not Present:            Murphy.

               Staff Present:            Grubb; Wolf.

 

               Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:07 p.m.

 

      III.      Approval of the Minutes

 

                        MSC:            To approve the Minutes of August 5, 2003.

                                    (Gruber/Lightner:  5-0)

 

      IV.      Remarks from the Public

 

               A.  Linda Martinez told the Board that senior citizens could be adversely affected by Rules and Regulations Section 6.15C(3), which requires that master tenants pay a proportionate share of the rent.  Ms. Martinez suggested that the Board change the regulation.

 

      V.      Consideration of Appeals

 

               A.  246 Cole St.                                AT030269

 

      The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part.  The tenants in one unit appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

 

                        MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Lightner/Gruber:  3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)

 

               B.               322 – 14th St. #11 & #8                      AT030152 & AT030263

 

      The tenant in unit #8 filed his appeal 13 days late because he is a working single parent and did not have time to file the appeal earlier.

 

                        MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal.  (Marshall/Lightner:  5-0)

                        MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.  (Marshall/Justman:  5-0)

 

      The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 9 of 17 units was granted.  Two tenants appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

 

                        MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #8 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.

 

                        MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #11 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.

 

               C.               123 – 12th Ave., Apt. #1                  AT030146

 

      The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing.  On appeal, the tenant claims not to have received notice of the hearing, and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.

 

                        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing.  (Lightner/Justman:  5-0)

 

               D.               635 Ellis St. #101, 102 & 1                AT030264 thru -66

 

      The tenant in unit #1 filed his appeal 5 days late because the tenant believed that the deadline was 15 business days after the mailing of the decision, rather than calendar days.

 

                        MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.  (Becker/Lightner:  5-0)

 

      The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 7 of 18 units was granted.  The tenants in three units appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

 

                        MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #101 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Marshall/Becker:  5-0)

 

                        MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #102 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Lightner/Gruber:  5-0)

 

                        MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #1 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Becker/Marshall:  5-0)

 

               E.  1253 Bush St. #302 & 503                       AT030267 & -68

 

               The tenant in unit #503 filed her hardship appeal one day late.

 

                        MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.  (Lightner/Gruber:  5-0)

 

      The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 14 of 33 units was granted.  Two tenants appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

 

                        MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #302 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 tenant in unit #503 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Becker/Marshall:  5-0)

 

               F.               39 Day St.                 AL030150

 

      The master tenant’s appeal was filed thirteen days late because the master tenant is temporarily living in Turkey and experienced delays with the mail.

 

                        MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.  (Becker/Marshall:  4-1; Lightner dissenting)

 

      The tenants’ petition alleging that the master tenant has unlawfully charged them more rent than the master tenant is paying to the landlord was granted, and the master tenant was found liable to the subtenants in the amount of $2,800.00.  On appeal, the master tenant claims that:  repayment of the amount granted to the subtenants would present him with a financial hardship; he was unaware of the applicable law; he sublet the unit in the event of his return because it is close to his son’s school; and he rented the apartment to the subtenants fully furnished.

 

                        MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Gruber/Justman:  5-0)

 

               G.               757 Green St.                    AT030147 & -48

 

      The landlord filed a petition for rent increases based on rents for comparable units.  A decision was issued on the threshold question of jurisdiction, because this is a family dispute and the tenants maintained that the Rent Board did not have jurisdiction over this matter.  The Administrative Law Judge found that the Board has jurisdiction to decide the landlord’s petition, which was upheld by the Board upon appeal by the tenants.  In the remand decision, the Administrative Law Judge grants the landlord’s petition, and sets the base rents for the two units at $805.00 per month.  The tenants appeal, averring that:  there are factual errors in the decision; their father, the landlord, promised that they could live rent-free in the building forever; the units are in need of repair, and are not in good condition; parking was included with the unit; the Rent Board does not have jurisdiction to create a tenancy, and there is no landlord-tenant relationship here; the Rent Board cannot increase rent when there was no obligation that rent be paid; and Rules Section 6.11(a)(1)(A) is inapplicable.

 

                        MSC: To deny the appeals.  (Lightner/Gruber:  5-0)

 

               H.  1439 Ocean Ave. #2                 AL030149

 

      The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant’s unit is separately alienable from the title to any other dwelling unit and is therefore exempt pursuant to Costa-Hawkins.  The Board accepted the tenant’s appeal and remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge to vacate the decision and find that the premises are not exempt from rent control for this tenant under the facts of this case because the landlord combined a residential with a commercial unit, which changed the property into a single family dwelling.  The landlord appeals the remand decision, asserting that:  the decision is based on misinformation; the building was always classified as a single-family dwelling in the 3-R Report; the second residential unit was illegally created four years after the tenant moved in to the building and was occupied as a residence for less than a year; and the second illegal unit has been reclaimed for commercial and storage use, which is its original and legal purpose.

 

                        MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Marshall/Becker:  3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

 

               I.  830 Hyde St. #7                          AL030151

 

      The landlord’s petition for a rent increase from $1,066.00 to $1,900.00 based on Rules and Regulations Section 6.14 was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the landlord failed to prove that the original tenant vacated or no longer permanently resided in the unit.  On appeal, the landlord maintains that:  the Administrative Law Judge used too high a standard of proof for a civil case; the Administrative Law Judge exhibited bias against the landlord; the tenant contradicted herself at the hearing and was not credible in her assertions or behavior; and the landlord did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the original tenant at the hearing, since he did not attend.

 

                        MSC: To recuse Commissioner Mosser from consideration of this appeal.  (Lightner/Gruber:  5-0)

 

                        MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Marshall/Becker:  5-0)

 

               J.  1615 Jones St. #3                    AL030153 & AT030272

 

      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 $337.50 due to a leaking kitchen sink and faulty electrical service.  On appeal, the landlord claims:  that the rent reduction for the electrical service was granted for a period of time when the problem had been abated; and that the tenant gave perjured testimony.  The tenant also appeals, claiming that the landlord had notice regarding the electrical problem since October of 2001, and the rent reduction should be granted back to that date.

 

                        MSC: To accept the appeals and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge only on the issue of the commencement date and duration of the rent reduction granted for the electrical work; a hearing will be held only if necessary.  (Gruber/Lightner:  5-0)

 

               K.  1541 California St. #25                       AT030140

                                                                     (cont. from 8/5/03)

 

      The landlord’s petition asking for a determination under Rules Section 1.21 was granted as the Administrative Law Judge found that the subject unit is not the tenant’s principal place of residence.  On appeal, the tenant claims that:  her rent checks show her parents’ address in Los Angeles, which she uses for mailing purposes; she does not make loud noises while on the premises, which is why no one hears her; she does not receive mail at the unit, but uses a post office box; her possessions are still in the unit, establishing residency; and she has returned to the subject premises after family emergencies and travel necessitated by education and employment.  At the meeting on August 5th, the Board decided by consensus to continue this case in order for staff to contact the tenant and provide her with the opportunity to furnish a Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing under penalty of perjury, if appropriate, which was furnished by the tenant.

 

                        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a new hearing.  (Becker/Marshall:  5-0)

 

      VI.      Communications

 

The Commissioners received the following communications:

 

A.     The office workload statistics for the month of July 2003, which need to be corrected.

 

B.     The Notice of the Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Uniform Visitor Policy for Residential Hotels, which will be held on September 16, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.

 

      VII.      Director’s Report

 

Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that the Committee he convened to suggest possible amendments to the Uniform Visitor Policy for residential hotels has completed their work and their proposals will be considered at a September 16th Public Hearing.  The Committee met four times and consisted of four landlord representatives, four tenant representatives, one neutral and Mr. Grubb.  Consensus was reached on all issues that were raised by the public at the three Public Hearings held by the Board on this issue.  The Executive Director also gave the Board members a copy of the Landlord Survey Report that was done by Bay Area Economics as the third and final installment of the Housing Study.  Mr. Grubb will now contact members of the Board of Supervisors to let them know that the Housing Study has been concluded and to see if there is any interest in holding a Public Hearing on the issues raised.

 

      IV.      Remarks from the Public (cont.)

 

B.     Tenant Anita Barnes of 1439 Ocean Ave. #2 (AL030149) asked several questions regarding the disposition of her landlord’s appeal.  She told the Board that she had been “inspired” by them, so much so that she had registered for the LSAT that morning.

 

      VIII.      Calendar Items

 

               September 9, 2003 - NO MEETING

 

               September 16, 2003

               3 appeals & Golden Gateway tenant appeals (108)

7:30      Public Hearing: 

                 Proposed Amendments to the Uniform Visitor Policy for Residential Hotels

 

      IX.      Adjournment

 

      President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:16 AM