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

Skip to page body

August 2, 2005

August 2, 2005

 

 

CORRECTED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

 

Tuesday, August 2, 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 6:10 p.m.

 

      II.       Roll Call

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

                 Commissioners not Present:        Mosbrucker; Mosser; Murphy.

               Staff Present:                                  Wolf.

 

      III.      Approval of the Minutes

 

                        MSC:  To approve the Minutes of July 19, 2005.

                                    (Gruber/Justman:  5-0)

 

      IV.     Consideration of Appeals

 

               A.  2600 – 47th Ave.                                              AT050185

 

      The tenant filed a petition requesting a determination as to whether his rent is a lawful amount.  The petition was dismissed because the tenant failed to appear at the properly noticed hearing.  On appeal, the tenant provides evidence to show that he was ill on the day of the hearing.

 

                        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a new hearing. 

                                    (Becker/Marshall:  4-1; Gruber dissenting)

 

               B.  742 Divisadero #4                                           AT050186

 

      The landlord filed a petition seeking a rent increase pursuant to either Rules and Regulations Section 6.14 and/or Costa-Hawkins and the tenant filed a petition alleging an unlawful rent increase; these petitions were consolidated for hearing.  The Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the landlord, finding that the rent increase from $471.70 to $1,250.00 was authorized by the service of a timely 6.14 notice on the subtenant after the landlord learned of the death of the original tenant.  The tenant appeals, claiming that:  the 6.14 notice served on the tenant was invalid because it did not enclose a complete copy of the regulation; and, since a notice of termination of tenancy was not mutually withdrawn, a new tenancy was created upon the landlord’s acceptance of cashier’s checks signed by the tenant.

 

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

 

               C.  442B Vallejo                                                                 AL050184

 

      The landlords’ petition for a determination pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the subject unit is the tenant’s principal place of residence, as the tenant is only temporarily away from the unit while waiting for his Visa application to be granted.  On appeal, the landlords maintain that:  the tenant cannot be a “Tenant in Occupancy because he does not currently reside in the United States and is legally prohibited from doing so; and the landlords’ representative did not have a chance to cross-examine the tenant or the maker of a Declaration on his behalf, because they did not appear at the hearing.

 

                        MSC: To deny the landlord’s appeal and vacate that portion of the Decision that finds that tenant Budding is a “Tenant in Occupancy.”  (Justman/Marshall:  3-2;

                                    Gruber, Hurley dissenting)

 

               D.  459 Turk St.                                                                  AT050188

 

 

      The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services in this single room occupancy hotel was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $150.00 due to the presence of bedbugs in the unit for three months.  The tenant appeals the decision, claiming that: sheets, towels and

      pillow cases used to be provided on a weekly basis and a vacuum cleaner was available for tenants’ use; the toilets in the building constantly malfunction; the showers are filthy and unsafe; and the Administrative Law Judge exhibited bias on behalf of the landlord.

 

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

 

 

               E.  742 Treat Ave.                                                              AL050187

 

      The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $10,013.76.  On appeal, the landlord claims that:  the tenant and landlord agreed to the passthrough of the costs of roof replacement and repainting; the tenant actually has an overdue rent balance; and the tenant petition was unlawful because the tenant was encouraged to file by another tenant in the building who violated a confidential mediation agreement by discussing the case.

 

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

 

      V.     Appeal Hearing

 

               2201 Pacific Ave. #601                                                    AT050139

 

      The landlord’s petition for a determination pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the subject unit was the tenant’s principal place of residence.  The landlord appealed the decision, and the Rent Board Commissioners voted to vacate the decision and remand the case to the ALJ to find that the tenant is not a “Tenant in Occupancy.”  The tenant appealed the remand decision, maintaining that:  the documentary evidence shows that the subject unit is the tenant’s principal place of residence and usual place of return; the fact that the tenant is married, and her husband resides in Sausalito, should not result in her case being decided differently than if she were single; the Ordinance requires that reversal of a decision is only permitted after an appeal hearing; the landlord failed to meet its burden of proof; the tenant never signed the application for the homeowner’s property tax exemption her husband takes on the Sausalito property; the tenant is her mother’s primary caregiver at the subject unit; and the Commissioners exhibited bias against an alternative living arrangement in reversing the original decision in this case.  At the meeting on June 7, 2005, the Board accepted the landlord’s appeal for an appeal hearing before the Board.  Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement which was approved by the Board pursuant to the below motion.

 

                        MSC: To approve the agreement of the parties as the Board’s decision in this case.  (Gruber/Hurley:  5-0)

 

      VI.     Communications

 

The Commissioners received the following communications:

 

               A.  A copy of Judge Quidachay’s Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate in the case of Johnson v. City of San Francisco (Superior Court No. 505-273).

 

               B.  An e-mail from Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee explaining recent changes to Ordinance Section 37.13, regarding the provision of keys to tenants.

 

               C.   An article from the July 21st S.F. Examiner regarding Judge Mitchell’s ruling that the owners of a building on Francisco Street violated the State’s Subdivided Lands Act in creating tenancies in common (TICs) in this six-unit building.

 

      VII.    Director’s Report  (Note:  amount of rental unit fee corrected from first version of Minutes)

 

      Executive Director Delene Wolf informed the Board that this year’s rental unit fee will be $20.00 for residential units and $10.00 for residential hotel rooms, a $2.00 reduction from last year.  The fee will be assessed on the November 1st property tax bills and landlords can collect 50% of the amount from any tenant in residence as of November 1st.

 

      VIII.   Remarks from the Public

 

      Landlord Leon Ribay of the property at 742 Treat Ave. (AL050187) told the Board that he is a senior citizen who has “done his best.”  Mr. Ribay believes that he helped the tenants by reducing the amount of the capital improvement passthrough; that the decision constitutes an injustice; and said that he will have to sell the building in order the pay the tenants the amount ordered owing in the decision.

 

      IX.     Calendar Items

 

               August 9, 16, 23 & 30, 2005 - NO MEETINGS

 

               September 6, 2005

               9 appeal considerations  (including several from Parkmerced)

 

      X.     Adjournment

 

      President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.

  

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:17 AM