October 28,2003
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, October 28, 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 6:07 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Justman; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Lightner; Mosser.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:15 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of October 14, 2003.
(Becker/Gruber: 4-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
James Millar, attorney for the landlord in the case at 1356 South Van Ness #202 (AL030313), informed the Commissioners that he and his client were in attendance.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1356 So. Van Ness Ave. #202 AL030313
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases in rent and decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $5,205.00 due to rent overpayments and $892.50 based on removal of access to the garage. The landlord appeals only as to the garage issue, claiming that: use of the garage was not a housing service included as part of the base rent at the inception of the tenancy; use of the garage was not promised to the tenant, and had only been allowed as a favor; and the rent reduction granted for loss of the garage was excessive.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 3-1; Gruber dissenting)
B. 1096 Pine St. #303
The tenant’s appeal was filed two months late because the tenant incorrectly received a Memorandum advising him that he could file a hardship appeal at any time, pursuant to the Ammiano amendments.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 4-0)
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 14 of 16 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
C. 150 Franklin #407 AT030312
The tenant’s appeal was filed 8-1/2 months late because the Minute Order he received did not have language informing him of his right to file a hardship appeal.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.
(Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted pursuant to a Minute Order. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
D. 1077 #C & 1081-D Ashbury AT030310 & -11
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted. Two tenants appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. The tenant in unit 1081-D also maintains that all of the roofs were painted/waterproofed but covered up with tile, for which there was no need.
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #1081-D and remand the case for a hearing on the financial hardship claim; to deny the appeal as to all other issues. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #1077-C and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
E. 935 Geary #603 AT030314
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 60 of 114 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
It was the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this appeal in order for staff to contact the tenant and obtain a more completely filled out Hardship Application.
F. 333 Garces Dr. AT030318
The tenant’s appeal was filed over one year late because the tenant did not realize the repercussions of the rent increase until receiving her lease renewal, when the operating and maintenance expense increase was first assessed.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Marshall/Justman: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses in this multi-unit complex was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
G. 1268 – 5th Ave. AL030309
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 4 of 5 units was granted, in part. On appeal, the landlords assert that: contrary to the statement of the Administrative Law Judge in the decision, the landlord did not withdraw two items from the petition; the cost of scaffolding should be allowed; the painting of windows on the east wall of the building and replacement of a bathroom window pane were capital improvements and not repairs; and interior painting of an apartment and replacement of window sashes and 2 of 5 flights of stairs and 3 of 5 landings should be considered capital improvements.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case on the record to certify the cost of the scaffolding; to deny the appeal as to all other issues without prejudice to the landlord’s filing a petition based on increased operating expenses, if appropriate.
(Murphy/Becker: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
H. 2361 Mission St. AT030315
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services due to the presence of bed bugs in this residential hotel was denied. On appeal, the tenant claims that: the Judge based her decision on hearsay evidence; the landlord’s witnesses perjured themselves at the hearing; he has evidence of a cover-up concerning the problem; he withdrew his petition at the hearing and no decision should have been issued; and the Administrative Law Judge exhibited bias against the tenants and is prejudiced against African-Americans.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Justman: 5-0)
I. 4650-54 – 18th St. AL030316
The landlords filed three petitions requesting an extension of time to complete capital improvement work on one unit in each of three separate adjoining buildings. The petitions were denied because the landlords did not file the petition for extension of time until after the notices to vacate were issued, although they knew that the work would take longer than three months well before that time. The landlords’ estimate of the time required to do the work was, however, found to be reasonable. The landlords appeal, maintaining that: the decision is unjust because the tenants were not prejudiced by the filing of the petitions after the notice to vacate had been served; Rules Section 1.215(e)(1) should be directory, and not mandatory; if mandatory, the requirement is unconstitutional because it impermissibly regulates procedural issues relating to eviction; the regulation only provides for a determination as to whether the extended time estimate is reasonable, and does not require that the petition be granted or denied; and landlords would have to file multiple petitions because they usually do not know how long the work will take prior to issuing the notice to vacate.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Gruber,
Murphy dissenting)
J. 830 Hyde St. #1 AL030317
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 $823.75 due to habitability problems on the premises. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the tenant agreed to forego having a heat source in the unit in exchange for the landlord partitioning the studio apartment; there are factual inaccuracies in the decision; the tenant would not have been able to pay the PG&E bills if a heater had been installed in the unit; the rent reduction for lack of heat does not take into account seasonal fluctuations; the landlord did not receive several of the notices the tenant claimed to have sent regarding the malfunctioning toilet; and the tenant was uncooperative in providing access to the unit in order for the landlord to repair the toilet.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
K. 825 Jones #6 AT030296
(cont. from 10/14/03)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 9 of 18 units was granted, in part, resulting in monthly passthroughs in the amount of $57.61. The tenant in unit #6 appeals on the grounds that: the landlord is attempting to turn the building into luxury apartments to appeal to a wealthier class of tenants, and thus overspent on the work; all of the improvements except for the seismic retrofit work were unnecessary; and the landlord lied to the Administrative Law Judge about the character of the alleged capital improvements. The tenant augmented his appeal with an additional claim of financial hardship. The appeal was continued from the meeting on October 14th in order for staff to contact the tenant and attempt to obtain more information regarding his financial circumstances.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship only. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the office workload statistics for the month of September and a final copy of the revised Visitor Policy for Residential Hotels.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that, in conjunction with the decreased workload, several of the Administrative Law Judges have been conducting hearings for other City agencies. The departments are billed for Rent Board staff’s services. These include litter abatement hearings for the Department of Public Works, a wage compliance hearing for the Office of the City Administrator, and Comcast hearings for the Office of Administrative Services. The new Alternative Dispute Resolution Program has generated five petitions thus far.
VIII. Old Business
List of Energy Conservation Improvements
Discussion of this issue was continued to the next meeting.
IX. Calendar Items
November 4 & 11, 2003 - NO MEETINGS
November 18, 2003
11 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 10/28/03)
Executive Session: Rossoff v. Rent Board (Sup. Ct. Case No. 401226)
6:30 Public Hearing:
Proposed Amendments to Rules Section 6.11 (Comparables)
Old Business: List of Energy Conservation Improvements
XI. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m.