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

Skip to page body

November 23, 2004

November 23, 2004

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

Tuesday, November 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 6:09 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley Marshall; Wasserman.

Commissioners not Present: Mosbrucker; Mosser; Murphy.

Staff Present: Gartzman; Wolf.

Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:14 p.m. Commissioner Becker left the meeting at 6:31 p.m.

III. Approval of the Minutes

      MSC: To approve the Minutes of November 9, 2004.

          (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)

IV. Remarks from the Public

A. Robert Pender, Vice-President of the Parkmerced Residents' Organization (PRO), told the Board that Carmel Development and Management Corporation bought the property in July of 1999, and immediately began filing petitions for rent increases. PRO has been providing representation to the affected tenants, but they're "amateurs." Mr. Pender is proud that PRO has done so.

B. Tenant Julian Lagos filed an appeal of the remand decision in the Parkmerced operating and maintenance expense increase case (AT010145). Mr. Lagos told the Board that he has never seen a landlord as bad as Carmel Properties, who are filing innumerable petitions to force tenants out and sell the property. Mr. Lagos said that newer tenants have privileges that older tenants do not have, and that he has had to call the Department of Building Inspection to get repairs made.

C. Tenant Norma Hall filed appeals of the remand decision in the Parkmerced operating and maintenance expense increase case (AT010139 & -40). Ms. Hall said that she is in "shock and disbelief" that the Administrative Law Judge granted the full 7% that the landlord had requested, especially since she is being "bombarded" with other prospective increases. Ms. Hall's rent was $1,000 seven years ago; now it is in excess of $1,300.

D. Tenant Carol Fields filed an appeal of the 1.21/Costa-Hawkins case at 3250 Market St., Apt. 5 (AT040116). Ms. Fields told the Board that she has been a roommate at the property for five years. The Master Tenant, Rhesa Jenkins, has been on the road a lot, but "San Francisco is her home." Ms. Fields said that the tenants would have to move if the rent increase is approved and she wonders if the 50% increase is retaliatory.

E. Tenant Cliff Hoffman filed an appeal of the repiping case concerning Parkmerced (AT040135). Mr. Hoffman said that the cost of the capital improvements should have been negotiated in the purchase price for the property; that the rent increase will force him out; and that "the Rules and Regulations don't make it right."

F. Master Tenant Rhesa Jenkins of 3250 Market St. (AT040116) told the Board that San Francisco has been her home for all of her adult life. Ms. Jenkins said that she took a demanding assignment away from San Francisco to improve her financial situation, but made it a condition of the assignment not to compromise her residency. She said that the people she works with in Atlanta know that she lives here.

G. Marilyn Young spoke for tenant Rowland Eggerton regarding the O&M remand decision at Parkmerced (AT040142). Ms. Young explained that Mr. Eggerton is ninety years old and said that the rent increases are hard on him.

V. Consideration of Appeals

A. 520 So. Van Ness #265 AT040137

The tenant's appeal was filed 18 days late because the tenant appears not to have understood the deadline for filing.

      MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims not to have received notice of the hearing, and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.

      MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

B. 1321 Montgomery #A AL040120

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services due to a leaking window and moldy walls was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,400.00. The landlord failed to appear at the original hearing due to a calendaring mistake. Her appeal was accepted and remanded for another hearing. The Decision on Remand upheld the original decision. The landlord appeals the remand decision, arguing that: the tenants failed to notify the landlord that mold had recurred after amelioration efforts in February, 2003; photographs were presented which showed that there wasn't mold in the unit in October, 2003; a DBI Notice of Violation issued in August of 2003 did not cite the landlord for the presence of mold; the condition did not rise to the level of a substantial decrease in housing services; there was no impact on the tenant between April and August 2003; the amount granted is excessive; and the tenant had a retaliatory motive.

Pursuant to a request from the landlord prior to the meeting, consideration of this appeal was rescheduled for the January 4th Board meeting.

C. 3250 Market St., Apt. 5 AT040116

        (rescheduled from 11/9/04)

The landlord filed a petition seeking a determination pursuant to Rules Sections 1.21 and 6.14 and the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. The Administrative Law Judge found that as the tenant no longer permanently resides at the premises, and a subtenant moved in after January 1, 1996, a market rent increase is warranted pursuant to Costa-Hawkins. The tenants appeal, asserting that: the decision was not based on established criteria for residency and the tenant's home is in San Francisco; the tenant's flight records show that she returns to San Francisco as often as she travels to Atlanta for work; the tenant's work-related travel commenced prior to the subtenant's occupancy of the unit; the tenant was financially qualified to rent the unit on her own; the tenant never indicated that she was giving up or subletting the apartment; the unit that the tenant owns in Atlanta is for investment purposes only; the notice of rent increase and 1.21 petition were served within 24 hours of each other; the landlord made false claims and hearsay statements were admitted at the hearing; and repair requests have been unattended to by the landlords.

      MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Hurley: 3-2; Henderson,

          Marshall dissenting)

IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)

G. Allison Lum of the Mission SRO Collaborative distributed a copy of a Report on SRO Visitor Rights: the first section of the Report details violations of the Visitor Policy; the second outlines recommendations. Ms. Lum explained that members of the SRO Tenant Congress conducted this survey in preparation for the Rent Board's annual review of the Visitor Policy. 133 tenants were interviewed in the Mission, South of Market and the Tenderloin. Surveys were taken of 5 randomly selected tenants in each hotel. Interested tenants were invited to the Tenant Congress, where the Report's recommendations were formulated.

V. Consideration of Appeals (cont.)

D. 122 Cardenas Ave. AT040139 & AT040140

    The landlord's petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted, resulting in 7% increases in tenants' base rents in this multi-unit complex. The joint appeal of 144 tenants was accepted and remanded in order to allocate the expenses between the residential and commercial units on a square footage basis, rather than by using a percentage of income formula. In the Decision on Remand, the costs are allocated between the residential and commercial spaces based on square footage using a "usable area measurement standard" and 7% base rent increases were still found to be warranted for almost all tenant appellants. The tenant at 122 Cardenas Ave. appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship and also alleges that: the costs were not fairly allocated between the residential and commercial units; the ALJ erred in assuming that the square footage of the laundry rooms and storage areas were similar in different blocks; the landlord should have been required to obtain actual measurements of all commercial areas in the complex; and carports and parking areas are not available to all tenants and should properly be considered commercial areas.

        MSC: To accept the tenant's financial hardship appeal and remand the case for a hearing. (Gruber/Marshall: 5-0)

        MSC: To accept the tenant's substantive appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge only to require the landlord to provide the actual square footage for the laundry rooms and storage areas in blocks 1, 2, 5 and 6 within three weeks of the mailing of the Notice of Action on Appeal. If this information is not timely provided, the petition will be denied as to this tenant. The tenant's appeal is denied as to all else. (Justman/Marshall: 4-1; Henderson dissenting)

    E. 125 Cambon Dr. #12H AT040141

    The tenant at 125 Cambon Dr. #12H appeals the remand decision allowing operating and maintenance expense increases on the grounds that the allocation of costs between residential and commercial areas was not adequately considered, and that tenants who have been paying the noticed increase are entitled to a refund.

        MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Justman: 3-2; Henderson, Marshall dissenting)

    F. 150 Font Blvd. #7B AT010142

    The tenant at 150 Font Blvd. #7B appeals the remand decision allowing operating and maintenance expense increases 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. (Gruber/Justman: 5-0)

    G. 128 Garces Dr. AT040145

    The tenant at 128 Garces Dr. appeals the remand decision allowing operating and maintenance expense increases on the grounds that: the landlord waived the right to any retroactive amounts owed by the tenants; the landlord failed to meet its burden of proof regarding measurements of residential and commercial space; the landlord submitted untimely post-hearing submissions which were not served on the tenant appellants; the landlord's measurements are unsupported and without documentation; corporate rentals should be categorized as commercial space; the landlord's witness was not qualified to take such measurements; certain commercial measurements were omitted; and the landlord failed to provide evidence of relevant debt service encumbrances and other operating and maintenance expenses.

        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to require the landlord to provide the actual square footage for the laundry rooms and storage areas in blocks 1, 2, 5 and 6 and measurements of the administrative offices, conference center, athletic gym and maintenance storage complex within three weeks of the mailing of the Notice of Action on Appeal. If this information is not timely provided, the petition will be denied as to this tenant. A hearing will be held only if necessary. The tenant's appeal is denied as to all other issues. (Marshall/Justman: 3-2; Gruber, Hurley dissenting)

H. 2 Fuente Ave. AT040131

    The landlord's petition for certification of the costs of a repiping/irrigation project was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $63.70 to the tenants in 48 of 66 units. The tenant at 2 Fuente Ave. appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

    This appeal was rendered moot by the Board's motion regarding the joint appeal regarding 412 Font, 2, 12 & 16 Fuente & 159 & 231 Serrano (AT040125 -0130), below.

    I. 12 Fuente Ave. AT040132

    The landlord's petition for certification of the costs of a repiping/irrigation project was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $63.70 to the tenants in 48 of 66 units. The tenant at 12 Fuente Ave. appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

    This appeal was rendered moot by the Board's motion regarding the joint appeal regarding 412 Font, 2, 12 & 16 Fuente & 159 & 231 Serrano (AT040125 -0130), below.

    J. 159 Serrano Dr. AT040133

    The landlord's petition for certification of the costs of a repiping/irrigation project was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $63.70 to the tenants in 48 of 66 units. The tenant at 159 Serrano Drive appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

    This appeal was rendered moot by the Board's motion regarding the joint appeal regarding 412 Font, 2, 12 & 16 Fuente & 159 & 231 Serrano (AT040125 -0130), below.

    K. 231 Serrano Dr. AT040134

    The landlord's petition for certification of the costs of a repiping/irrigation project was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $63.70 to the tenants in 48 of 66 units. The tenant at 231 Serrano Drive appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

    This appeal was rendered moot by the Board's motion regarding the joint appeal regarding 412 Font, 2, 12 & 16 Fuente & 159 & 231 Serrano (AT040125 -0130), below.

    L. 412 Font Blvd., 2, 12 & 16 Fuente Ave. AT040125 thru -0130

    159 & 231 Serrano Dr.

    (Joint Merit Appeal)

    The landlord's petition for certification of the costs of a repiping/irrigation project was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $63.70 to the tenants in 48 of 66 units. The tenants in six units jointly appeal the decision on the following grounds: that the costs should have been allocated on a complex-wide basis, rather than block-by-block; that the petition should have been dismissed since the project was not completed at the time the petition was filed; that the tenants are being denied equal protection under the law because they all received equal benefit from the work and should bear the costs equally; and that the amounts of the passthroughs vary greatly and are inequitable.

        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to vacate the Decision and dismiss the petition because the work performed was part of a project involving multiple blocks in the complex that was not completed at the time of filing and therefore the case was not ripe for adjudication. The dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a single petition for certification of the costs of the entire repiping/irrigation project. Pursuant to this motion, the hardship appeals filed by four tenants are moot. (Marshall/Henderson: 3-2; Gruber, Hurley dissenting)

    M. 28 Fuente Ave. AT040135

    The landlord's petition for certification of the costs of a repiping/irrigation project was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $63.70 to the tenants in 48 of 66 units. The tenant at 28 Fuente Ave. appeals the decision, asserting that: the cost of the property should have reflected the cost of improvements that needed to be made; and tenants should not have to pay for the previous landlord's deferred maintenance.

    This appeal was improperly thought to be mooted pursuant to the Board's motion on the joint merit appeal of the six tenants above. Since this tenant was not part of the joint appeal, his individual merit appeal will be considered at the Board meeting on January 4, 2005.

VI. Communications

    The Commissioners received a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing for December 8, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. The subject of the Public Hearing will be proposed changes to the SRO Hotel Visitor Policy.

VII. Director's Report

    Acting Executive Director Wolf informed the Commissioners that she had attended a meeting of the SRO Health and Safety Task Force on November 17th. She also invited them to the staff holiday party, which will be held at Don Ramon's restaurant on December 16th from noon until 2:00 p.m.

VIII. Calendar Items

    November 30th & December 7th, 2004 - NO MEETINGS

    December 8, 2004

6:00 Public Hearing: SRO Hotel Visitor Policy

    December 14, 2004

    8 appeal considerations

XI. Adjournment

    President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.

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