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

Skip to page body

February 17, 2004

February 17, 2004                          

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

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 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 6:12 p.m.

 II. Roll Call

 Commissioners Present: Becker; Henderson; Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Mosser; Wasserman.
 Commissioners not Present: Gruber.
 Staff Present: Grubb; Lee; Wolf.

 Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:27 p.m.

 III. Approval of the Minutes

 MSC: To approve the Minutes of February 3, 2004.
  (Mosser/Becker:  5-0)

 IV. Consideration of Appeals

 A. 66 Hazelwood Ave. #2  AT030360
    (cont. from 2/3/04)

 The landlords’ petitions for certification of capital improvement costs were granted; a passthrough in the amount of $303.08 was approved in 1998 and a passthrough in the amount of $19.69 was approved in 2003.  The tenant filed a timely appeal of the recent passthrough and an untimely appeal of the 1998 passthrough on the grounds of financial hardship.  The Board remanded the appeal on the 2003 passthrough for a hearing on the hardship claim, and remanded the appeal regarding the 1998 passthrough for a hearing to determine whether there was good cause for the late filing of the appeal.  The Administrative Law Judge found sufficient financial hardship to defer the recent passthrough, but found no good cause for the late filing of the appeal regarding the 1998 passthrough, as she did not find credible the tenant’s assertions that he failed to receive either of two copies of the Decision mailed to him.  The tenant appeals the remand decision, maintaining that:  there is no Proof of Service or receipt proving that the tenant received a copy of the Decision from the landlord; the tenant failed to pay the requested rent increase on time, indicating that he did not receive the Decision; the landlord has provided false and misleading statements in this and a prior eviction case before the Board; and the landlord provided the Board with an incorrect mailing address for the tenant.

 MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Lightner/Justman:  4-1; Marshall dissenting)
 B. 618 – 25th Ave.   AT040004

 The tenants’ petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was denied.  The Administrative Law Judge found that although one of the tenants had lived in the subject unit as a child, he had relinquished his tenancy rights upon temporarily moving out of the unit.  On appeal, the tenants claim that:  the Decision was improperly based on the tenants’ credibility, rather than the applicable law; an individual can be a tenant at more than one location; and the tenant never relinquished his tenancy rights at the subject unit.

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

 C. 438 Castro St.   AT040005

 The subtenant filed a petition alleging that he was being charged more than the lawful and proportional shares of the rent.  The Administrative Law Judge denied both the petitions.  The subtenant appeals, claiming that:  the Administrative Law Judge did not ask for copies of police reports or photos of damage to the unit; the Master Tenant is running an illegal business out of the unit; and the Master Tenant lied under oath.

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

 D. 1550 Bay St., B126   AL040006

 The landlord’s appeal was filed eleven days late because the landlord’s attorney had been out of town, and was taken ill upon her return.

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

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

 The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services due to the loss of the privilege of barbecuing his meals on his patio was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $25.00 per month, based on the facts of this case.  The landlord appeals, maintaining that the ability to barbecue on a deck is not a housing service under the Ordinance and the Decision fails to take into consideration safety concerns at the subject premises.

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

 V. Public Hearing

Proposed Amendments to Rules Section 6.11 Regarding Comparables Rent Increases
  

From 6:51 to 6:56 p.m., the Board held a Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 6.11(a) which would make it clear that comparables increases are only warranted in cases where the initial rent was set low due to extraordinary circumstances unrelated to market conditions.  Landlord Michael Rossoff
spoke regarding his concerns that retroactive application of any new language would be unfair, since a landlord could have relied on the existing language upon purchase.  Mr. Rossoff also expressed his belief that some of the language of the regulation is still ambiguous, for example, he feels that the term “special relationship” is unclear and asked that the Board provide some examples.  Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Board passed the following motion:

 MSC: To adopt the proposed amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 6.11(a), which shall apply to existing cases, if any, except where the court has ordered otherwise.  (Becker/Marshall:  3-2; Lightner, Mosser dissenting)

The Section now reads as follows below:

6.11(a) Petition Based on Extraordinary Circumstances

   (1) The provisions of this Section 6.11(a) shall apply only in the following situations:

      (A) where, because of a special relationship between the landlord and tenant, or due to fraud, mental incompetency, or other extraordinary circumstances unrelated to market conditions, the initial rent on a unit was set very low or the rent was not increased or was increased only negligible amounts during the tenancy; or       
      (B) where the landlord became owner of record of a Proposition I Affected Unit between September 1, 1993 and December 22, 1994, or where the landlord entered into an agreement to purchase a Proposition I Affected Unit which agreement became non-contingent on or after September 1, 1993 and before November 9, 1994, and, in becoming owner of record or entering into the purchase agreement, the landlord relied on the ability to increase rents without limitation from the Rent Ordinance.

     Passage of Proposition I at the November 1994 election does not in and of itself satisfy this Section 6.11(a)(1), though it may be considered.

 VI. Communications

 In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:

  A.  The office workload statistics for the month of January, 2004.

  B.  A letter from landlord Bill Quan regarding proposed amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 4.11.

  C.  A letter from landlord Michael Rossoff regarding proposed amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 6.11(a).

 VII. Director’s Report

 Executive Director Grubb reported as follows:

  A.  The departmental budget will be going to the Mayor and Controller at the end of the month.  The proposed budget is not much different from the current budget, except for a reduction in City Attorney hours.  This should reduce the amount of the fee by a dollar or two.  A 5% reserve fund will be set up because it is difficult for the Department to predict the workload or prospective litigation.  Services being provided to other departments by the ALJ staff are paid for by those departments, who are told to set aside funds for this purpose.

  B.  Supervisor Gonzalez’ legislation allowing tenants to obtain roommates as long as they do not exceed the occupancy standards in the Housing Code was going to be introduced on February 23rd, but has been pulled back.

  C.  Supervisor Peskin will be holding a hearing to establish the new interest rate for security deposits.

 VIII. Old Business

Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 4.11 Regarding PG&E Passthroughs

 Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee and the Commissioners continued discussing proposed amendments to the utility passthrough provisions of the Rules and Regulations.  Mr. Lee informed the Board that, in the current draft, commercial fee use areas other than laundry facilities that are not separately metered, such as parking and storage spaces, are counted as separate rooms.  Commissioner Marshall expressed a concern regarding the specification that only user fees actually paid to the landlord for laundry facilities need to be deducted from the total utility costs for the building, rather than the total user fees.  After discussion, the Board asked that this provision be changed so that the net income received by the landlord shall be deducted.  Additionally, it was the consensus of the Board that a petition could be filed for one or more than one unit in the building on the same petition form.  The Commissioners also received an example of the effect of indexing on a capital improvement passthrough.  This led to a discussion between Commissioners Marshall and Murphy on the appropriateness of indexing the PG&E passthrough calculation. 

 A new draft of proposed amendments to the regulations will be provided by Senior Staff, which will be reviewed at the next meeting.

 IX. Calendar Items

  February 24, 2004 - NO MEETING

  March 2, 2004 – NO MEETING, ELECTION DAY

  March 9, 2004
  5 appeal considerations
  Old Business:  Proposed Amendments to Rules Section 4.11
  New Business:  Proposed Amendments to Rules Sections 2.13 & 2.15

 X. Adjournment

 President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m.

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