March 1, 2005

 

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

 

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 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

 

 

    III.     Approval of the Minutes

    MSC:    To approve the Minutes of February 15, 2005.

        (Gruber/Hurley:  5-0)

    IV.     Remarks from the Public

        A.  Attorney Carlos Privat, representing the landlord in the case at 2235 Laguna #504 (AT050011), told the Board that the tenant contacted the Rent Board subsequent to having terminated her tenancy.  Mr. Privat contends that the tenant has no standing to bring an appeal.

        B.  Natalia Michalun, the tenant in the case concerning 2235 Laguna, told the Board that she filed the appeal prior to terminating her tenancy.

    V.     Consideration of Appeals

    A.    20 – 12th St. #519 & 231        AT050007 & -08

    Tenant petitions alleging decreased housing services due to the landlord’s failure to timely install a fire sprinkler system in this residential hotel were granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $20.00 per month.  Two tenants appeal, explaining that they accidentally failed to provide their move-in dates on their petitions, and therefore rent reductions were only granted back to the date the petitions were filed.

    MSC: To accept the appeals and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to grant the rent reduction for the tenant in unit #519 commencing July 1, 2002 if the tenant can demonstrate that he moved in prior to that time and as of the demonstrated move-in date of the tenant in unit #231; a hearing will be held only if necessary.  (Becker/Mosbrucker:  4-1;

        Hurley dissenting)

    B.    370 – A Dolores St.        AL050006

    The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,412.50.  The landlord appeals, arguing that the prior landlord is an indispensable party to the case; and the improper rent increases were collected by the prior owner of the property.

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

    C.    1930 Sacramento St. #10        AT050009

    The subtenant’s appeal was filed thirteen days late because the subtenant was out of the country at the time the Decision was mailed.

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

    The subtenant’s petition alleging that she was charged more than her proportional share of the rent was denied.  However, the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $42.00 due to her failure to remove her possessions from the subtenant’s bedroom closets.  On appeal, the subtenant argues that:  the Decision is in error in finding that the subtenant’s separate space was larger than the Master Tenant’s; the hallway closet was not a common area and wasn’t equally shared by the Master Tenant and subtenant; the Master Tenant’s testimony should not be found credible, since she lied in attempting to postpone the hearing; and the Master Tenant’s storage of large objects in the living room resulted in a decrease in housing services to the subtenant.                            

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

    D.  2235 Laguna #504        AT050011

    The subtenant’s appeal was filed slightly over three weeks late because she was out of the country at the time the Decision was mailed.

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

     The landlord’s petition seeking a determination pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 was granted and the Administrative Law Judge found that there was no “Tenant in Occupancy” at the subject unit at the time the petition was filed; the tenant had failed to appear at the properly noticed hearing.  The tenant appeals, claiming that:  she did not receive the Notice of Hearing because she was in Argentina taking care of her mother at the time; she has been traveling, and many of the documents to establish residency will be available to her upon her return to San Francisco in February; the landlord may have had her daughter’s phone number because her number is still in service; and she donated her car to a local church because it no longer ran properly.  The tenant also furnished bank statements and other indices of residency with her appeal.

    MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the ALJ for a new hearing.  (Becker/Mosbrucker:  4-1; Gruber dissenting)

    VI.     Communications

    The Commissioners received an article from the San Francisco Chronicle regarding the purchase of the Stonestown Apartments by San Francisco State University for use as student and faculty housing.  In addition, the Board received a current Pending Litigation Status Report from Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee.

    VII.     Director’s Report

            A.  Acting Executive Director Delene Wolf informed the Board that the California Supreme Court has voted to grant review in the Action Apartment v. City of Santa Monica case, where the Court of Appeal held that tenants could not sue for wrongful eviction based on the service of illegitimate eviction notices because their sole remedy was malicious prosecution due to the litigation privilege.  

            B.  Ms. Wolf reminded the Commissioners that their Statement of Economic Interest Forms must be filed with the Ethics Commission by April 1st.  Sunshine and Ethics Training will be provided by the Office of the City Attorney on Monday, March 7th, from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the Herbst Theater.

            C.  Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee informed the Board that amendments to Sections 1359(d) and 1396.1 of the Subdivision Code introduced by Supervisor Daly require owners who are applying for condominium conversion to certify that there have been no evictions from the unit of elderly tenants who have resided in the unit for ten years or disabled tenants since November 16, 2004.  Mr. Lee informed the Board that he will check the Rent Board’s records regarding requests for a one year extension of the date of withdrawal by elderly or disabled tenants who have received Ellis eviction notices; and claims of protected status by elderly or disabled tenants who have filed such claims with the Board.

    VIII.     Old Business

            A.    Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(2)(B) Regarding Additional                     Occupancy of Family Members

    At their meeting on February 1, 2005, the Commissioners passed a motion to put out for Public Hearing proposed amendments to Rules and Regulations Sections 6.15A and B and proposed new Section 6.15D to conform the Rules and Regulations to newly enacted Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(2)(B).  This amendment to the Rent Ordinance, proposed by Supervisor Gonzales, allows for specified family members of a tenant and/or domestic partners to occupy the rental unit notwithstanding a lease provision limiting the number of occupants if the landlord has unreasonably denied the tenant’s request to add such occupant.  Proposed new Rules Section 6.15D outlines consent procedures modeled after the consent procedures for subletting contained in Rules Sections 6.15A and B, per the intent of the Board of Supervisors, modified to accommodate family situations.  At the meeting on February 15, 2005, the Board voted out for Public Hearing additional language providing for a decrease in services remedy for tenants whose landlord has unreasonably withheld consent to a family member or domestic partner.  At the instant meeting on March 1, 2005, the Board discussed proposed language from Commissioner Becker and Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee which would allow a landlord or tenant to request a Rent Board determination of whether a landlord’s withholding of consent for an additional occupant was reasonable, and providing that any petition for such a determination or for a decreased housing service under this Section shall be expedited.

    MSC: To add proposed new subsections 6.15D(f) and (g) to the proposed amendments being put out for Public Hearing in order to conform the Rules to newly enacted Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(2)(B).  (Becker/Marshall:  5-0)

    The Public Hearing will be held at the Board meeting on March 29th.

    IX.     Calendar Items

         March 8, 2005 - NO MEETING

         March 15, 2005

        7 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 2/15/05)

    X.     Adjournment

    President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.