MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level
I. Call to Order
Commissioner Gruber called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Justman; Mosbrucker; Mosser;
Commissioners not Present: Marshall; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Lee; Wolf.
Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:07 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of October 18, 2005.
(Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Tenant Vance Elliott of the Baldwin Hotel asked how he could qualify as a Master Tenant.
B. Landlord Hannah Pierce of the case at 442B Vallejo St. (AL050232) said that the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge allows two individuals who do not qualify to get the benefits of rent control. Ms. Pierce believes that it was not the intention of the legislature that a person who is not a “Tenant in Occupancy” could be deemed to permanently reside in a rental unit.
C. Master Tenant Josh Huster of 2924 Octavia St. said that the allocation of rent in a roommate situation involves more than just the division of the rent for the unit; services, such as furniture, should also be factored in. Mr. Huster also stated his belief that decisions should be consistent in valuing services, and that either actual cost or market value should be used
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 610 Hyde St. #205, 303, 306 & 606 AT050234 thru -37
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 15 of 36 units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $34.44. Four tenants appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #205 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.
(Mosbrucker/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #303 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.
(Mosbrucker/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #306 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.
(Mosbrucker/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #606 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.
(Mosbrucker/Becker: 5-0)
B. 1831 Polk #111 AT050233
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 10 of 24 units was granted. The tenant in one unit appeals the Minute Order 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. (Becker/Mosbrucker: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
C. 270 McAllister St. AT050231
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed because the Department of Human Services regulates the rent on the tenant’s unit and the Rent Board has no jurisdiction over the property. The tenant appeals, asking where he can pursue his claims.
MSC: To deny the appeal but instruct staff to write a letter providing the tenant with information as to where he can pursue his claims. (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)
D. 959 Powell #1 AT050228
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 6 of 12 units was granted. The tenants in one unit appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Mosbrucker: 3-2; Gruber, Murphy dissenting)
E. 248 Golden Gate Ave. #E AL050229
The tenant’s appeal of a decision certifying capital improvement costs was granted, as the Administrative Law Judge found sufficient financial hardship to warrant permanent deferral of the passthrough. On appeal, the landlord argues that the passthrough should not be permanently deferred since the tenant’s income will increase when he turns sixty-five.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing in May of 2007 on the tenant’s financial circumstances at that time. (Gruber/Murphy: 3-2; Becker, Mosbrucker dissenting)
F. 1117 Guerrero #5 AL050230
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $556.40. On appeal, the landlord claims that: there was no reduction in services, because the services in question did not exist at the inception of the tenancy, were not promised, nor were they reasonably to be expected; the tenants did not notify the landlord regarding the alleged lack of services; the landlord was not given time to effectuate repairs; the tenants were already paying a reduced amount of rent for an “as is” unit; the amount of the rent reductions is arbitrary; the time period granted for the rent reductions does not correspond to the length of the tenancy; the tenants received additional housing services for which they paid no consideration; the housing services are minor and not substantial; Notices of Violation are routinely issued and should not be dispositive; the tenants caused the damage to the kitchen ceiling; the rear doors were repaired in a timely manner; the kitchen window lock was not broken; and the lighting on the rear stairs and in the basement was sufficient.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record to terminate the rent reduction granted for loss of the right to barbecue as of January 12, 2005 and to reverse the $12.50 granted for the window lock; to deny the appeal as to all other issues. (Mosbrucker/Becker: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
G. 901 Treat Ave. #1 AT050226
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. The tenant appeals, stating that she was not feeling safe at her unit due to problems with the relative of another tenant in the building.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for another hearing. Should the tenant fail to appear at the remand hearing, no further hearings will be granted, absent extraordinary circumstances. (Becker/Murphy: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
H. 2924 Octavia St. AL050227
Two subtenant petitions alleging payment of a disproportionate share of the rent pursuant to Rules Section 6.15C(3) were granted, and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenants in the amounts of $740.84 and $2,010.06. On appeal, the Master Tenant claims that: square footage is not the only allowable method for apportioning rent payments under the Rules and Regulations; the Administrative Law Judge erred as to the amount of rent paid to the landlord; the bedrooms in the unit should be differently valued based on their location and features; the Administrative Law Judge under-valued or failed to value many of the services provided by the Master Tenant; and the garage should be valued at the $100 amount set by the landlord at the inception of the tenancy.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Mosser from consideration of this appeal. (Murphy/Justman: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosbrucker/Gruber: 5-0)
I. 442B Vallejo St. AL050232
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. The landlord appealed, and the Board denied the appeal but remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge to vacate that portion of the decision that found the tenant to be a “Tenant in Occupancy.” The landlord appeals the remand decision, arguing that: the tenant cannot permanently reside in the subject unit because he is not a Tenant in Occupancy, and the terms are interchangeable; the tenant’s legal status as a temporary visitor to the United States precludes the subject unit from being his principal place of residence; and the tenant lives in Germany, has only spent eight weeks in the unit in the last two years, and pays only 1/10th of the monthly rent.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to find that the tenant no longer permanently resides in the subject unit based on the facts of this case. (Murphy/Gruber: 3-2; Mosbrucker, Becker dissenting)
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 September, 2005.
B. Several articles from Beyond Chron.
C. An article from the October 2005 S.F. Apartment Magazine by Andrew Sirkin regarding individual TIC loans.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Wolf reminded the Commissioners that their holiday dinner will take place at Indigo after the Board meeting on December 13th; and the staff holiday party will be at noon on December 15th at Don Ramon’s.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
D. Allan White told the Board that he believes there are several problems with the current Residential Hotel Visitor Policy, including: the Policy states that, if there’s a problem, tenants or visitors should “visit” the Rent Board or the police; hotel employees should not be allowed to retain IDs; the policy isn’t posted at the majority of hotels; and visitors have no remedy at the Rent Board because they are not tenants.
E. Landlord Morko Korzowsky of 1117 Guerrero #5 (AL050230) expressed his disappointment that he put hours of his time into his appeal, but he felt that his “words weren’t heard” and the issues he raised weren’t addressed. Mr. Korzowsky said that he pursued the appeal to preserve his reputation, since he had been accused of being a “liar and oppressor.” Mr. Korzowsky also told the Commissioners that a DBI Notice of Violation should not be dispositive in a Rent Board case.
VIII. Calendar Items
November 22nd, 29th and December 6th, 2005 - NO MEETINGS
December 13, 2005
IX. Adjournment
Commissioner Gruber adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.