October 19, 2004MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, October 19, 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 6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Henderson; Hurley; Justman; Mosbrucker; Mosser;
Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Gruber; Marshall.
Staff Present: Wolf.
Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:11 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Remarks from the Public
Attorney Steve Williams, representing the tenant at 2201 Pacific Ave. #602 (AT040114), apologized for his late brief but informed the Board that he didn't get the transcript of the hearing until recently. He asked that the Board review his submission or continue consideration of the appeal, as the Decision that the unit is not the tenant's principal place of residence presents a hardship for the tenant. Mr. Williams maintained that the landlord failed to provide evidence requested by the Administrative Law Judge and said that the Decision was not based on the elements in the Statute.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 710 Sacramento #2 AL040111
The tenant's petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted and the
landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $2,325.00. On appeal,
the landlord claims that there is a calculation error in the decision in that
he did not get credit for a period of allowable banking.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
B. 422 - 9th Ave. #103 AT040112
The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs was
granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $78.18 to the
tenants in 10 of 15 units. One tenant appeals the Decision on the grounds
of financial hardship.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Murphy from consideration of this appeal. (Murphy/Justman:
5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant's
claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Mosser: 5-0)
C. 1845 Franklin #303 AT040113
The landlords' petition for certification of capital improvement costs was
granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $36.25 to the
tenants in 16 of 30 units. 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/Mosser: 5-0)
D. 1809 California #103 AT040115
The landlord's petition for certification of capital
improvement costs was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount
of $3.03 for the tenants in 15 of 25 units. One tenant appeals the Minute
Order 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/Mosser: 5-0)
E. 2030 Vallejo St. AL040106
The petitions of nine tenants were granted with regard to claims of decreased
housing services due to the loss of full-time doorman service in this luxury
building, in the amount of $200.00 per month. Additionally, individual decrease
in services claims were granted for some tenants. Subsequently, the landlord
alleged that he had restored the doorman service and reinstated the rent reductions.
The instant petitions allege that the services have not been fully restored,
in addition to asserting new individual claims. Two tenants not involved in
the original case also filed petitions asserting the doorman claim, as well
as individual claims. The Administrative Law Judge granted the two new petitioners
the same relief as was granted in the original case for the period of time
until the landlord partially restored doorman services. For all petitioners,
from that point forward, the tenants were granted a continuing $50.00 per
month rent reduction due to the fact that the services provided by the doormen
have not been fully restored. On-going rent reductions for loss of general
maintenance and repair services were found not to be warranted, although several
individual claims were granted. The landlord appeals the ongoing $50.00 per
month rent reduction for reduced doorman service, and $75.00 rent reductions
granted for broken ovens in two units, arguing that: the Rent Board does not
have jurisdiction over the doorman dispute, because it is a breach of contract
action for damages and is not necessary to effectuate the Rent Board's regulatory
purposes; the landlord has been deprived of his right to have the dispute
heard by a jury; the landlord did not consent to have the issues heard before
the Rent Board, which violates the judicial powers clause; and the tenants
have failed to meet their burden of proving their ovens do not work.
As a decision on the landlord's Writ of the original decision in this case
is expected shortly, it was the consensus of the Board to further continue
consideration of this appeal until receipt of the court's order.
F. 2201 Pacific Ave. #602 AT040114
The landlord's petition for a determination pursuant
to Rules and Regulations Section 1.21 was granted, because the Administrative
Law Judge found that the tenant did not occupy the subject unit as his principal
place of residence. On appeal, the tenant maintains that: he resides at the
subject property at least half-time; he supplied sufficient evidence to meet
his burden of proof; the statute should be flexible enough to accommodate
alternative lifestyles; the landlord failed to provide evidence that was requested
by the Administrative Law Judge; and the statute is in violation of state,
federal and municipal laws.
Pursuant to the request of the tenant's attorney, and by consensus of the
Board, consideration of this appeal was continued to the next meeting with
the proviso that the landlord's response to the tenant's brief will be the
last submission accepted from either party.
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners
received the following communications:
A. A pending litigation status report prepared by Senior Administrative Law
Judge Tim Lee.
B. The Court of Appeal decision in the case of Action Apartment Association
v. City of Santa Monica (Second District Court of Appeal Case No. B165082).
The appellate decision upholds the original decision in the case, which struck
down the anti-harassment provisions of the Santa Monica Rent Ordinance and
found that eviction notices are protected by the litigation privilege.
VII. Director's Report
Acting Executive Director Delene Wolf informed the Board that she had been told
that there will be a Special Election in the spring, at which time an anti-demolition
ordinance will be going on the ballot. It does not appear that any proposal
for change in the way that Rent Board Commissioners are appointed will be on
the ballot at that time. Ms. Wolf also told the Board that the first meeting
of the SRO Hotel Visitor Policy Committee will be held at the Rent Board Office
on October 25th from 9:30 a.m. until noon. Lastly, the Commissioners
were reminded that they are invited to attend the Mayor's State of the City
address on October 21st at 1:00 p.m.
VIII. Calendar Items
October 26th & November 2nd, 2004 - NO MEETINGS
November 9, 2004
6 appeal considerations (2 cont. from 10/19/04)
IX. Adjournment