November 9, 2004MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, November 9, 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 6:09 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Marshall; Mosbrucker; Mosser.
Staff Present: Wolf.
Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:12 p.m. and Commissioner Justman arrived at the meeting at 6:14 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 3600 - 20th St. #105 & 112 AT040123 & -24
The landlords' petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 39 of 51 units was granted. Two tenants appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
B. 1233 Taylor #2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 AL040119
The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs for five of six units was granted, in part. However, the costs of new skylight glass were found to be in the nature of repair, rather than capital improvement. On appeal, the landlord claims that he incorrectly depicted the skylight work at the hearing, and that a new frame and wireglass were installed, in addition to new glass.
C. 1871 Green St. AL040117
The tenants' petition alleging an unlawful rent increase from $5,700.00 to $6,500.00 was granted because the Administrative Law Judge found that the subject premises is a two-unit building and not a single family dwelling, and therefore is not exempt pursuant to Costa-Hawkins. The landlord appeals, maintaining that: the Administrative Law Judge gave improper weight to property tax records and permit applications, which do not reflect the legal use of the premises; the building contains only a single dwelling unit, and a separate unit was removed by the landlord with permits; the actual use of the property, rather than the legal use, should determine jurisdiction; and the unit is separately alienable from any other dwelling unit.
D. 610 Shotwell St. #5 AT040118
The landlord's petition seeking a determination pursuant to Rules and Regulations Section 1.21 was granted and the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenants did not occupy the subject unit as their principal place of residence. The tenants failed to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, they claim that: the landlord's representatives provided false information at the hearing; the subject unit was provided by the landlord as an extension of unit 2 in the building, which is occupied by the tenant and his family; the subject unit is not used for storage, but as an extra bedroom; and the rent increase notice was served on the tenants prior to the petition being filed.
E. 2201 Pacific #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. This case was continued from the meeting on October 19th in order for the landlord to be able to respond to the tenant's brief.
F. 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. This
appeal was continued on two occasions in order to receive the court's Order
on the landlord's Writ of the original decision in this case.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)
V. Director's Report
Acting Executive Director Delene Wolf informed the Board that the first meeting of the SRO Hotel Visitor Policy Committee had been convened. Tenants represented by the SRO Collaboratives have put forth a list of amendments they would like to see to the Policy. Ms. Wolf will inform the Commissioners as to any areas where a consensus is reached between the landlord and tenant representatives to the Committee. The Committee will meet one additional time prior to the Public Hearing. In order not to have to wait until the New Year to schedule the Public Hearing, the Commissioners agreed to hold a Special Meeting for that purpose on Wednesday, December 8th at 6:00 p.m.
VI. Calendar Items
November 16, 2004 - NO MEETING
November 23, 2004
3 appeal considerations
Parkmerced:
O&M Remand: 2 hardship appeals & 3 substantive appeals
Repiping Case: 4 hardship appeals & 7 substantive appeals
VII. Adjournment