March 23, 2004MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, March 23, 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; Gruber; Henderson; Justman; Lightner; Marshall;
Mosbrucker; Mosser; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Gartzman; Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:27 p.m.
President Wasserman convened the meeting by noting that it was Executive
Director Grubb's last meeting prior to retirement. Ms. Wasserman extolled
Mr. Grubb's virtues, stating that "there is no better executive anywhere,"
and noting what a great loss this is to the agency, the Commission, and the
public. Her fellow Commissioners concurred.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of March 9, 2004.
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Robert Pender of the Parkmerced Residents' Organization (PRO) told the
Board that he supports the proposed amendments to Rules Section 2.13, but
opposes the changes to Sections 2.15 and 4.11 because he feels that it will
"worsen the relationship between tenants and landlords." Mr. Pender
suggested that a Task Force be convened.
B. John B. F. Smith told the Commissioners that wife-beaters have impunity
to beat their wives and the police don't do anything.
C. Tenant Beatrice Wahlbeck spoke regarding Rules and Regulations Section
4.11 as follows: the methodology doesn't take into account that the passthrough
can be based on erroneous figures, such as when additional washers and dryers
are installed in the comparison year; the landlord's income from laundry facilities
on the premises needs to be verified; utility bills for work on vacant apartments
should be deducted; the size of a unit should be immaterial; and a passthrough
that is disallowed for one tenant should be disallowed for all tenants in
the building.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 72 Gough St. #8 AT040017 & -18
The landlord filed two petitions seeking certification of capital improvement
costs, which were granted. The tenant in one unit appeals both decisions
on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeals and remand the cases for a hearing on the tenant's
claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
B. 851 Brussels St. #1 AT040015
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
$1,457.50 due to lack of heat and loss of a storage shed. The landlord appeals
the portion of the decision pertaining to the storage shed, alleging that:
the tenant's rental includes use of a subterranean storage unit, rather
than the first floor storage unit that belongs to the upstairs tenant; the
water leak affected only the ground level storage shed, and not the tenant's
storage space; and, since the usable area in both spaces is the same, the
amount of the rent reduction should be reduced by half.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
C. 163 San Carlos St. #A AL040016
The tenant's petition alleging unlawful rent increases and decreased housing
services was granted, in part. The landlord was found liable to the tenant
in the amount of $16,800.00 for rent overpayments
and $210 due to a leaking toilet. On appeal, the landlord maintains that:
upon remodeling of the tenant's kitchen and bathroom, a new tenancy was
created at a higher rent, as reflected in a renegotiated lease; Ordinance
Section 37.3(a)(1) does not prohibit a tenant from waiving their rights
under the Ordinance and all parties may enter into agreements freely and
voluntarily; and any overpayments should be recalculated on an adjusted
base rent of $990.00, the amount agreed to by the tenant for the new tenancy.
MSC: To deny the appeal except to remand the case to the Administrative
Law Judge for necessary Technical Corrections to the Decision. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
D. 29 B Camellia Ave. AL040019
The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was granted,
in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount
of $5,500.00 due to lack of heat in the unit. On appeal, the landlords claim
that a judgment after trial by court was entered against the tenant on December
15, 2003, almost two months before the Decision of Administrative Law Judge
was issued.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
E. 289 Connecticut AL040020
The landlord's petition for a rent increase based on increased operating
expenses was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the
increase was based only on repairs that were extraordinary, rather than
routine, which created exaggerated results. On appeal, the landlord argues
that: the calculation periods were not selected to create exaggerated results;
the repairs were routine, and not extraordinary; and the burden of proof
was met with regard to electrical repair work performed in December, 2002.
After discussion, this case was continued in order to obtain a Memorandum
from the Administrative Law Judge regarding her reasons for finding exaggerated
results.
F. 640 Clay St. #336 AL040021
The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was denied
except as to a $9.00 rent reduction for twice monthly disruptions in water
service to the building, a residential hotel. On appeal, the landlord
asserts that: the Order in the case is vague, overbroad and contrary to
the Golden Gateway decision; and the landlord should not be penalized
for making emergency repairs or for slight service interruptions which
do not affect the tenant.
MSC: To recuse Commissioners Mosser and Mosbrucker from consideration
of this appeal. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law
Judge on the record to clarify that the rent reduction only applies to
days when the service is not provided; and to attach reasonable parameters
to when the rent reduction will be granted, e.g., when there has been
no notice of an anticipated disruption in water service, when the disruption
is of some duration, and/or when the disruptions have been occurring with
some frequency. (Marshall/Justman: 5-0)
The tenants' petition alleging a decrease in services due to the conversion
from landlord-paid steam heat to tenant-paid electric heat was granted.
However, the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenants were being
over-compensated by deducting an amount authorized in a prior mediated
agreement, and the tenants were ordered to make the appropriate adjustment
to the landlord. The tenants appeal, claiming that the Administrative
Law Judge erred in his calculations in the following ways: the kilowatt
hours per month was based on the tenant's presently discounted rate, which
could change at any time; and the calculation should be based on the kilowatt
hours used by the heater that was actually installed, rather than the
wattage that is required under the Housing Code.
MSF: To accept the appeal and remand the case to provide that the tenants
can re-open the case at any time if they no longer qualify for the CARE
rate; and to base the rent reduction on the kilowatt-hours used by the
heater that was provided, rather than what was required. (Marshall/Becker:
2-3; Gruber, Lightner, Justman dissenting)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law
Judge on the record only to provide that the tenants can re-open the case
at any time if they no longer qualify for the CARE rate. (Lightner/Gruber:
4-1; Marshall dissenting)
(cont. from 3/9/04)
The landlords' petition for rent increases based on increased operating
expenses was granted, resulting in 7% rent increases for 11 out of 21
units. The tenant in unit #403 appealed the decision on the grounds of
financial hardship. However,
on her Hardship Application, the tenant indicated that she had been unemployed,
but would be starting a new job in February. Since no current income information
was provided, the Commissioners continued consideration of this appeal
in order for staff to contact the tenant and obtain additional information
regarding her financial status.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law
Judge to allow the tenant to pay the retroactive amounts owed in installments;
a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
VI. Public Hearing
Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Sections 2.13 and 2.15
A Public Hearing commenced at 7:24 p.m. and concluded at 7:26 p.m. Only
Robert Pender of PRO spoke, and he reiterated his support for the changes
to Section 2.13, and his opposition to the amendment of Sections 2.15
and 4.11.
MSC: To adopt the proposed changes to Rules and Regulations Sections
2.13 and 2.15. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
With the amendments, the sections now read as follows below:
Section 2.13 Board Meetings
(a) The Board shall meet on the first Tuesday of each month at 5:30
6:00 p.m. at Room 70, Lower Level, 25 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco,
California, 94102 or as otherwise designated by the Board; except (i)
when that day falls on a legal holiday or election day, the meeting shall
be held on the next Tuesday which is neither a legal holiday nor an election
day, or (ii) when the Board designates an alternate date or place for
the meeting, the meeting shall be held on the designated date and at the
designated place.
(b) The Board shall meet at such other times as necessary to stay current
with the workload or tend to administrative matters.
(c) Special meetings may be held any time, upon compliance with Charter
provision 3.500.
(d) Meetings shall be open to the public, except that any member may
require that matters for which meetings in executive session are allowed
by law be discussed and considered in executive session, provided all
votes of the members shall be matters of public record.
(e) For purposes of testimony at Public Hearings before the Board, members
of the public shall be limited to testimony of three minutes duration.
The Board shall have the authority to waive this limitation at its discretion.
Section 2.15 Per Diem Compensation
Each member shall receive $100.00 for each Board meeting attended if
the meeting lasts for three hours or more in a single twenty-four hour
period; $75.00 if the meeting lasts from one to three hours in a single
twenty-four hour period; and $50.00 if the meeting lasts one hour or less
in a single twenty-four hour period. If a member or the alternate is not
in attendance for an entire meeting, compensation shall be determined
by reference to the actual aggregate time the member was in attendance.
VII. Communications
VIII. Director's Report
Deputy Director Wolf informed the Board that the case of Rossoff v. Rent Board has been settled.
Executive Director Grubb reported as follows:
A. The agency is close to having the Decisions of its Administrative
Law Judges available on the kiosk at the front counter.
B. Robert Collins has been the Acting Rent Board Supervisor since Pedro
Ruiz retired. Robert's counselor position will be left vacant until
the Rent Board Supervisor position is permanently filled.
C. Opinions requested from the Office of the City Attorney on the issues
of the applicability of the Cwyner Decision and AB 647 are in
the works.
Mr. Grubb then said farewell to the Commission, remarking on what a great experience it had been working with them. He commended them on their professionalism, especially considering the adversarial nature built in to the composition of the Rent Board. Mr. Grubb's comments were heart-felt, and there wasn't a dry eye in the house.
IX. Old Business
Proposed Amendments to Rules & Regulations Section 4.11 Regarding
PG&E Passthroughs
With Senior Administrative Law Judge Sandy Gartzman, the Board continued
their discussion of additional changes to proposed amendments to Rules
and Regulations Section 4.11. Ms. Gartzman explained that the requirement
that passthroughs in effect on the effective date of the amendments
be discontinued after twelve months has been put in the introductory
paragraph, so that the text of Section 4.11 could remain unchanged.
Pursuant to a question from Commissioner Marshall, Ms. Gartzman said
that she believes that the proposed regs. provide sufficient "wiggle
room" in the event that additional laundry appliances are added
at a later date. Lastly, Ms. Gartzman informed the Board that storage
spaces have been deleted from the building's room count for purposes
of calculation of the passthrough. The Board then voted as follows below:
MSC: To put out for Public Hearing proposed changes to Rules and Regulations
Section 4.11: both Version 1, without indexing, and Version 2, which
includes indexing, shall be put out. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Gruber,
Lightner dissenting)
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
D. Laura Traveler, President of PRO, thanked Mr. Grubb for his many kindnesses
and the leadership and patience he has demonstrated over the years.
E. Robert Pender of PRO once again stated his support for the changes
to Rules Section 2.13, and opposition to the changes to Section 2.15 and
proposed changes to Section 4.11. Mr. Pender told the Board that Parkmerced
didn't list the laundry room on his block on their inventory; that there
are other "errors of omission and commission"; and that "something
needs to be done to correct the record."
X. Calendar Items
March 30th, April 6th, & April 13th, 2004 - NO MEETINGS
April 20, 2004
6 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 3/23/04)
6:30 Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to Rules Section 4.11
Old Business: Applicability of Cwynar Decision
XI. Adjournment