April 12, 2005

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

 

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. at

25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level

 

    I.     Call to Order

     President Wasserman called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.

    II .     Roll Call

    III.     Approval of the Minutes

MSC: To approve the Minutes of March 29, 2005.(Gruber/Justman:  5-0)

    IV.     Consideration of Appeals

    A.    1033 Guerrero    AL050042

The tenant filed a petition requesting a determination of his lawful base rent.  The Administrative Law Judge found a rent increase from $875.00 to $1,100.00 to be null and void, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $10,332.00.  On appeal, the landlords maintain that:  the calculation of rent overpayments is incorrect, since the tenants failed to pay rent for several months; the prior owner, a financial institution, accepted rent at a lower amount but did not waive the right to collect the correct amount at a later date; and the bank sold the property at a trustee sale, and did not bother to contest the amount of rent paid by the tenants.

 

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to reverse the decision and find that there was no permanent rent discount agreed to in April 1993 by former landlord Home Savings.  Therefore, the rent amount of $1,100.00 as of November 1, 1993 constituted a permissible re-setting of the rent; allowable annual increases shall also be calculated from that date forward.  (Murphy/Gruber:  5-0)

    B.    1550 Bay St.    AL050043; AT050052 thru -0108

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs in the amount of $3,093,759.80 was granted in part, and costs of a major remodeling project in the amount of $1,152,106.27 were certified for passthrough to the tenants in eighty-six units.  The landlord and fifty tenants appeal the decision.  The landlord asserts that:  the landlord’s pledge regarding future capital improvement passthroughs removed any need for the landlord to identify specific elements of the work; the Estimator’s Report should have been used to certify all costs of the project; benefit to tenants is not a proper standard for denying certification of costs; the failure to certify costs as luxury items is not valid; the landlord is being denied a fair return; the Decision is inconsistent with a prior Decision regarding this property; the bathroom was enlarged to meet handicap requirements; the landlord demonstrated that this building always commanded the highest rents in the neighborhood; the denial of payroll costs for the landlord’s employees contravenes the Ordinance and applicable law; the failure to certify the cost of the laundry room move is not valid; and the failure to certify the cost of the landlord office is not in accordance with the Ordinance.  Forty-five tenants jointly appeal the decision on the grounds that the approved passthrough should only be retroactive to the date the first facially adequate petition was filed by the landlord; and a payment schedule should be established for the arrearages owed by the tenants. One tenant in unit #430 incorporates the arguments raised in the joint appeal and also asserts that Proposition H should be applied to preclude any obligation of the tenant to pay capital improvement costs.  Ten tenants appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship:  six are parties to the joint appeal (unit numbers A105, B318, B320, B331, B412 and D249) and four appeal on the grounds of hardship only (unit numbers A305, B416, C135 and D358).

 

MSC: To recuse Commissioner Murphy from consideration of these appeals.  (Gruber/Justman:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #A105 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #B318 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #B320 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #B331 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #B412 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #D249 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #A305 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #B416 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenants in unit #C135 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial hardship.  (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #D358 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the tenants’ joint appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to make the capital improvement passthroughs effective as of June 6, 2003, when the Second Amended Petition was filed; and to establish a repayment schedule for arrearages owed at the following rate:  on or before June 6, 2005, the tenants shall pay a lump sum in the amount of one year’s worth of the certified monthly passthrough for their unit, with the balance owing to be paid in equal installments over a 12-month period, along with the current certified monthly passthrough, commencing June 6, 2005.  (Justman/Gruber:  5-0)

 

MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #430 and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to make the capital improvement passthrough effective as of June 6, 2003, when the Second Amended Petition was filed; and to establish a repayment schedule for arrearages owed at the following rate:  on or before June 6, 2005, the tenant shall pay a lump sum in the amount of one year’s worth of the certified monthly passthrough for his unit, with the balance owing to be paid in equal monthly installments over a 12-month period, along with the current certified monthly passthrough, commencing June 6, 2005.  The tenant’s appeal is denied as to the applicability of Proposition H.  (Justman/Gruber:  4-1; Marshall dissenting)

 

MSC: To deny the landlord’s appeal.  (Marshall/Becker:  3-2; Gruber, Hurley dissenting)

 

    C.    462-466 Haight St.    AL050051

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 petition was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the subject unit is the

tenant’s principal place of residence.  The landlord appeals, claiming that:  the Decision is inconsistent with the Findings of Fact and evidence in the case; the tenant is currently living in Santa Barbara, with no exact plans to return to San Francisco; and the Administrative Law Judge exhibited bias on behalf of the tenant.

 

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing to determine if the tenant is a “Tenant in Occupancy” pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 as of September 30, 2005; any proposed rent increase shall be stayed in the interim.  Should it be determined that the tenant is not a “Tenant in Occupancy” as of September 30, 2005, and the landlord has served the tenant with a notice of rent increase pursuant to Section 1.21, the tenant shall owe the landlord the amount of the noticed rent increase retroactive to the effective date of the landlord’s notice.  (Gruber/Murphy:  5-0)

 

    D.    1416 Grant Ave., Unit #24    AL050109

The landlord’s petition seeking a determination as to whether the tenant is a “Tenant in Occupancy” pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 was denied, as the Administrative Law Judge that the subject unit is the tenant’s principal place of residence.  On appeal, the landlord argues that:  there is no evidence that the tenant withdrew a homeowner’s exemption claim on another property, which remains in effect until withdrawn; the subject property is not an investment for the tenant, since his fiancée is the beneficiary of his trust; and the tax schedules provided by the tenant are incomplete and of little use in determining whether the tenant derives any tax benefit from his real property interests.

 

MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Becker/Marshall:  4-1; Gruber dissenting)

 

    V.     Communications

The Commissioners received a copy of the office workload statistics for the month of February and corrected statistics for the month of January.  The Board also received a copy of the Department’s Annual Report on Eviction Notices.

    VI.     Director’s Report

Acting Executive Director Delene Wolf went over the Annual Report on Eviction Notices with the Board.  While the number of notices filed with the Department this year represents an 8.9% decrease over last year’s filings, notices based on withdrawal of the unit (Ellis) increased 59.3% and unapproved subtenant evictions increased 50%.

    VII.     New Business

MSC: To approve the Chair Wasserman’s appointment of Delene Wolf as Acting Executive Director of the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board. (Murphy/Becker: 5-0)

    VIII.     Calendar Items

         April 19 th & 26 th , 2005 - NO MEETINGS

         May 3, 2005

        7 appeal considerations

        Old Business:  Water & Sewer Bill Increase Passthroughs

    IX.     Adjournment

President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.