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

Skip to page body

March 20, 2007

March 20, 2007

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

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level

I. Call to Order

President Gruber called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

II. Roll Call

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

Staff Present: Lee; Wolf.

Commissioner Marshall appeared on the record at 6:03 p.m. Commissioner Murphy arrived at the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

III. Approval of the Minutes

MSC: To approve the Minutes of March 6, 2007.

(Gruber/Becker: 5-0)

IV. Remarks from the Public

A. Tenant Will Scoggin of 655 Kansas (AT070035) told the Commissioners that he does not have a car so he does not use the garage in the building. Mr. Scoggin therefore feels that he should not be responsible for the costs of lighting the garage.

V. Consideration of Appeals

A. 1730 Kearny C-3 AT070032

The tenant's appeal was filed 4 months late because the tenant did not receive a copy of the decision and did not know that it could be appealed on the grounds of financial hardship.

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

The landlord's petition for approval of a utility passthrough to 23 of 30 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision 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/Marshall: 5-0)

B. 957 Mission #430 AT070031

The landlord's petition for a utility passthrough for 92 of 116 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision 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. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)

C. 655 Kansas AT070035

The landlord's petition for approval of a utility passthrough for 8 of 30 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds that he doesn't own a car and therefore feels that he should not be charged for the costs of lighting the garage. The tenant also believes that the landlord recovers any increased utility costs for the garage by raising the amounts he charges non-tenants for parking.

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

D. 2048 Polk St. #203 AL070030

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was granted in part and denied in part. The landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $845.00 due to soiled carpeting, the lack of fire sprinklers in this residential hotel, and a leaking sink pipe. The landlord appeals on the grounds that installation of the sprinklers was a very large and costly project; there was no deadline for the installation as long as the landlord was acting in conjunction with the appropriate City agencies; the tenant was not really concerned about this issue; and the landlord should not be penalized, since he eventually complied with the requirement.

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

E. 1451 Valencia #3 AL070034

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was granted in part and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $306.65 due to an inoperative dishwasher and cracked kitchen linoleum. The tenant's failure to repair claim was also granted and a rent increase was ordered deferred. On appeal, the landlord claims that: he did not attend the hearing because he was out of town and thought that the tenant was going to withdraw the petition; a new dishwasher was installed shortly after receiving notice of the problem from the tenant and the landlord had no reason to believe it was not working correctly; new linoleum was installed shortly after receipt of notice of the problem; all repairs were made within a reasonable period of time; and the tenant now wishes to withdraw the petition, which was confirmed by staff.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to allow the tenant to withdraw the petition. (Hurley/Justman: 5-0)

VI. Communications

The Commissioners received the following communications:

A. A Memorandum from Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee regarding the exemption for hotel accommodations contained in Ordinance ß37.2(r)(1).

B. The office workload statistics for the month of February 2007.

C. The Annual Report on Eviction Notices.

D. Several articles from BeyondChron.

VII. Director's Report

Executive Director Wolf again reminded the Commissioners that their Statements of Economic Interest are due on April 2nd. The new training requirement under AB 1234 is a two-year requirement, and they have fulfilled it if they attended last year's ethics training put on by the Office of the City Attorney. She also went over the highlights of the office's Annual Report on Eviction Notices.

IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)

B. Tenant Gary Near of 1408 California Street distributed a packet of materials to the Commissioners. He said that Ms. Perrin of unit number 306 didn't receive a copy of the petition until 2-1/2 months after it was filed. Mr. Near alleges that the petition was fraudulent and incomplete, that the landlord's representative did not have authorization and that the petition should have been dismissed. Mr. Near believes that the landlord committed mail fraud. Mr. Near also told the Board that the one of the Senior Administrative Law Judges contacted the landlord in order to get the problems corrected. He asked the Board to exercise their administrative authority and dismiss the petitions. He wanted the record to reflect that the Commissioners had no questions for him.

VIII. New Business

Exemption for Hotel Accommodations (Ordinance ß37.2(r)(1))

At the meeting on March 6th, the Executive Director of the Hotel Council and two colleagues approached the Board with their concern that the definition of a "tenant" in the Rent Ordinance conflicts with State law, which forbids considering a guest in a full-service hotel a "tenant." The Commissioners asked staff to research this issue, and Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee prepared a Memorandum. In his Memo, Mr. Lee suggested that any amendment to ß37.2(r) must be made by the Board of Supervisors, that state law determines whether or not a court action is required to evict a hotel occupant, and that it is unlikely that an amendment to the Rent Ordinance would effect how the San Francisco Police Department responds to disputes between hotel guests and innkeepers. Commissioner Mosser suggested that the solution is to not let guests stay more than thirty days in a room in a tourist hotel. The Board took no action on this item.

IX. Calendar Items

March 27, 2007 - NO MEETING

April 3, 2007

8 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 1/23/07; 1 cont. from 3/6/07)

New Business: Rent Board Determinations of Protected Status

X. Adjournment

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

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:18 AM