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

Skip to page body

November 9, 2004

November 9, 2004

MINUTES 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

      MSC: To approve the Minutes of October 19, 2004.

          (Hurley/Gruber: 5-0)

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.

      MSC: To accept the appeals and remand the cases to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing on the tenants' claims of financial hardship. (Becker/Henderson: 5-0)

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.

      MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record to consider the new evidence submitted by the landlord on appeal; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)

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.

      MSC: To deny the appeal without prejudice to a future rent increase should the second unit be legally removed.

          (Becker/Henderson: 5-0)

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.

      MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Murphy: 4-1;

          Becker dissenting)

E. 2201 Pacific #602 AT040114

        (cont. from 10/19/04)

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.

        MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)

    F. 2030 Vallejo St. AL040106

          (cont. from 10/19/04)

    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

    President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

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