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

Skip to page body

December 14, 2004

December 14, 2004

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

Tuesday, December 14, 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 6:05 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Justman; Mosbrucker; Wasserman.

Staff Present: Wolf.

Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:15 p.m.; Commissioner Mosser arrived at the meeting at 6:30 p.m.; Commissioner Marshall appeared at 6:25 p.m. and went off the record at 7:05 p.m.; and Commissioner Justman left the meeting at 7:07 p.m.

III. Approval of the Minutes

      MSC: To approve the Minutes of November 23, 2004.

          (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)

IV. Remarks from the Public

A. Attorney Robert Peterson, representing the landlord at 2757 - 43rd Ave. (AL040146), told the Board that the landlord only gave four rent increases in twelve years, and that the tenant waited six years to bring the issue before the Rent Board. Mr. Peterson told the Board that California law allows waiver, and that all of other increases were within legal parameters, but were on an incorrect base rent amount.

V. Consideration of Appeals

A. 2757 - 43rd Ave. AL040146

The tenants' petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $883.58. On appeal, the landlord maintains that: Rules and Regulations Section 4.10(a) specifies that an increase is null and void if it exceeds allowable and banked increases, which the rent increases herein did not do; the tenants waived their right to written notices of rent increase; and the February 1999 and July 2004 rent increases should not have been adjusted just because they were assessed on improper base rent amounts.

      MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Mosbrucker: 5-0)

B. 2124 Hyde St. #3 AT040122

The tenant's petition alleging a decrease in housing services due to the loss of use of a water faucet and hose for washing his car was denied. The Administrative Law Judge found that use of the hose was not a housing service included or promised at the inception of the tenancy, nor was the loss of such use substantial. On appeal, the tenant argues that: use of the hose was part of a verbal rental agreement with the prior owner; permission to use the hose was implied; and the burden of proof required by the Administrative Law Judge was impossible for the tenant to meet.

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

C. 847 Clay St. #20 AT040147

The tenant's appeal was filed five days late because the tenant is not a native English speaker and did not understand the filing deadline until he had the Decision translated.

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

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services due to alleged noise from the upstairs tenants and seismic retrofit work done in the building was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found the conditions to be reasonable. The tenant appeals, claiming that the amount of people in the upstairs unit exceeds the occupancy limitations in the lease so that the noise is beyond that which is reasonably to be expected.

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

D. 1168-1170 Stanyan St. AL040138

The landlord's appeal was filed five days late because the landlord was attempting to ascertain the facts surrounding the untimely death of one of the tenants.

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

Two tenant petitions alleging decreased housing services were granted and rent reductions in the amount of $100 and $75 per month were ordered for the loss of a roof deck to both units; and $30 for the loss of a back porch to the tenant in unit 1170 only. On appeal, the landlord claims that there are errors regarding the back stairs and the amount of the rent reduction for the roof deck in the Decision; and that a resolution agreed to at the hearing is different from the Decision.

In order to review a submission provided by counsel to the landlord just prior to the meeting, the Board passed the below motion:

      MSC: To continue consideration of the appeal. (Murphy/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)

E. 4340 Anza St. AL040148

The landlords' petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, but in a lower amount than that requested by the landlord. The landlord's appeal was accepted, and the case was remanded to obtain square footage measurements of the residential and non-residential areas of the building as well as to look at the issue of user fees for purposes of allocating the costs. In the Decision on Remand, a proportion of the costs are allocated to garages in the building, on a square footage basis. The landlord appeals the remand decision, arguing that: a tenant in the building rented one of the garages for a 6-month period; the square footage of building appendages, such as fire escapes and bay windows, should be added to the calculation; it would be more equitable to use a formula based on revenue relative to building space and the garages comprise no more than 15% of the building's worth; and there were procedural irregularities in the issuance of the decision.

      MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)

F. 3338 - 16th St. AL040149

The tenant's petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was granted. The Administrative Law Judge found that the landlord and tenant entered into a new tenancy pursuant to a Settlement Agreement in resolution of an Unlawful Detainer. and the tenant had not been put on notice that a rent increase pursuant to Rules Section 6.14 would subsequently be issued. On appeal, the landlord maintains that: the tenant failed to prove that the landlords waived their right to a rent increase under Section 6.14; the landlords expressly reserved their rights under the Rent Ordinance in the Settlement Agreement; the landlords increased the rent within 90 days of learning that the last original tenant was vacating the premises; and the tenant did not assert that a new tenancy had been created but, rather, that his was a continuing tenancy based on a claim of acceptance of rent.

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

G. 625 So. Van Ness Ave. AT040150

The tenant's petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant was a subtenant who moved in to the unit after January 1, 1996, there are no original occupants residing on the premises and the increase is therefore authorized by Costa-Hawkins. On appeal, the tenant argues that: the prior landlord accepted his rental application and cashed his check, thereby accepting him as a tenant; the tenant never vacated the premises or relinquished his tenancy; and absences from the unit were of a temporary nature.

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

H. 941 Irving St. #3 AL040151

The tenants' petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $1,692.64 due to inadequate water service in the building and a leaking window. On appeal, the landlord maintains that: adequate water pressure was restored to the building as of October 12, 2004, whereas the rent reduction granted in the Decision extends through November 30, 2004; the water pressure deficit was not the landlord's fault and the Decision is unfair; the window is not leaking but, rather, the problem is one of condensation; and the amount granted for the leaking window is arbitrary and excessive.

      MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the issue of the correct termination date for the rent reduction granted for inadequate water pressure; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)

VI. Communications

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:

A. The office workload statistics for the month of October, 2004.

B. A letter from a tenant regarding the Uniform Visitor Policy for residential hotels.

C. A copy of the Court of Appeal Decision in the case of Baba v. Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco (124 Cal.App4th 504).

VII. Director's Report

Acting Executive Director Wolf reminded the Commissioners that the staff holiday party will be held on Thursday, December 16th from noon until 2:00 p.m. at Don Ramon's restaurant, and all of the Commissioners are invited to attend.

IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)

B. The tenant in the case at 625 So. Van Ness (AT040150) told the Board he believed that the PG&E bill he had furnished with his appeal provided the "paper trail" that proved he lived in the unit. He said that he wasn't there for only a few months, while he was pursuing his baseball career.

C. One of the tenants at 1168-1170 Stanyan St. (AL040138) clarified that the landlord's appeal regarding both units at the property was being continued.

D. Tenant Robert Louie at 847 Clay St. #20 inquired regarding the disposition of his appeal.

VIII. Calendar Items

December 21st & 28th, 2004 - NO MEETINGS

January 4, 2005

7 appeal considerations (2 cont. from 11/23/04)

New Business: Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(2)(B) regarding Additional Occupants in a Unit

IX. Adjournment

President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.

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