July 15, 2008MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 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 6:00 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Beard; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Justman; Mosbrucker; Mosser.
Commissioners not Present: Marshall.
Staff Present: Gartzman; Lee.
Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:22 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of June 24, 2008.
(Hurley/Henderson: 5-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Greg Blaine, the landlord's representative for 3330 Pierce Street (AT080068 and AT080069),said that the capital improvement project undertaken in 2007 that was referenced in the tenants' appeals was small and did not require a lot of electricity because it involved mainly manual tasks and very little actual construction. He pointed out that utility costs for the building decreased from 2006 to 2007. He also explained that fluctuations in utility usage in 2007 are probably due to the use of thermostats which regulate the heat.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 3330 Pierce #103 & 107 AT080068 & -69
The landlord's petition seeking approval of utility passthroughs for 10 of 21 units was granted. The tenants in two units appeal the decision on the grounds that: the PG&E bills were inflated due to extra electricity used during a capital improvement project in the building; there are too many variations for steam heat and common area lighting in the comparison year; and PG&E has not agreed that the utilities at issue are on the same meters.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Hurley/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
B. 770 – 12th Ave. AT080064
The landlords' petition for a rent increase based on increased operating and maintenance expenses for one of two units was granted, but deferred due to the landlords' failure to make requested repairs. The tenants appeal the decision, asserting that: there should be no insurance expenses, since the landlord had previously said that they were uninsured; the tenants were not provided with a copy of the documentary evidence supporting the expenses and do not find them to be credible; the repairs have not been completed, which should further postpone the rent increase; and the rent increase is retaliatory because the tenants had filed a petition for decreased housing services.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Hurley/Gruber: 5-0)
C. 221 – 27th Ave. #1 AT080065
The landlord's petition seeking a determination as to whether a rent increase is warranted pursuant to Costa-Hawkins was granted, as the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant is a subtenant who did not reside at the subject unit prior to January 1, 1996. The tenant appeals, maintaining that the landlord knew of his occupancy in early 1996 but failed to give him a 6.14 notice within the required period of time.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Hurley/Gruber: 4-1; Mosbrucker dissenting)
D. 27 Card Alley #3 AT080067
The tenants' petition alleging unlawful rent increases and substantial decreases in housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $7,214.54 for rent overpayments and $1,116.32 due to habitability defects on the premises. The tenants appeal, claiming that: the rent overpayment calculations are incorrect; the decision is in error regarding the April 1982 rent and proper anniversary date; the notices of rent increase were defective and should be null and void; and oral and constructive notice of substandard conditions should be considered long-term verifiable notice.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Hurley/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
E. 3536 – 17th St. AT080066
The subtenant's petition alleging that he paid a disproportionate share of the rent pursuant to Rules ß6.15C(3) was denied. On appeal, the subtenant claims that: the square footage division of the flat was disregarded, resulting in an incorrect division of the rent; the utility costs also should not have been divided in half, since the Master Tenant had exclusive use of more of the space; the supplies and furnishings provided by the Master Tenant were over-stated, and should have been offset against those provided by the tenant; and the cleaning costs were disproportionate and not proved.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosbrucker/Justman: 4-1; Henderson dissenting)
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communication:
A. Monthly Workload Statistics for May 2008
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
B. Mukesh Budgujar, the landlord of 770-772 12th Avenue (AT080064), told the Commissioners that he appreciated the Board's appeal consideration process and also the decision they made on the tenants' appeal, but he had hoped the Commissioners would pay more attention to his submission because he spent a lot of time preparing it.
C. Marc Breindel, the former subtenant in unit 3536 17th Street,said that the ALJ was incorrect about the facts of the prior case that she cited in her Memorandum. He also does not agree with the ALJ that the master tenant had the right under the law to charge him 50% of the rent because the master tenant had more than twice as much benefit as the subtenant. He stated that he was there because the decision was a "gross inequity" and he believes in the law.
VII. New Business
Petitions for Extension of Time (Rules and Regulations Section 12.15(e))
The Board discussed the procedural requirements of Rules and Regulations Section 12.15(e)(1). Senior Administrative Law Judges Sandy Gartzman and Tim Lee explained that the ALJs routinely deny Petitions for Extension of Time where the landlord does not obtain all the necessary permits before filing the petition, even where the landlord obtains all the necessary permits before the hearing. The Commissioners discussed a possible exception to this interpretation where the landlord obtains all the necessary permits before the hearing and before serving the tenant with a notice to vacate. Commissioner Murphy reminded the Board that he and Commissioner Marshall also wanted to discuss possible amendments to Sections 12.15(e) and 12.16 that would require the landlord to pay the rent differential between the vacated unit and the replacement unit where the landlord's Petition for Extension of Time is granted. The Board continued this discussion to the next meeting on August 19, 2008.
VIII. Calendar Items
July 22nd & July 29th, 2008 – NO MEETINGS
August 5th & 12th, 2008 – NO MEETINGS
August 19, 2008
8 appeal considerations
Old Business: Petitions for Extension of Time
IX. Adjournment
President Gruber adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m.