MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION &
ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 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
6:05 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners
Present: Beard;
Crow; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Mosbrucker; Murphy; Yaros.
Commissioners
not Present: Marshall.
Staff
Present: Lee;
Wolf.
Commissioner
Mosser appeared on the record at 6:07 p.m.
III. Approval
of the Minutes
MSC: To
approve the Minutes of December 15, 2009.
(Henderson/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
IV. Remarks
from the Public
A. Attorney Solvej Rose, representing the
tenant at 145 Judah (AT090249), told the Board that there was insufficient
evidence of a “special relationship” in this comparables case and said that the
market rent at the inception of the tenancy should have been reduced further
due to the condition of the unit.
She asked that the Board allow the tenant to submit new evidence of
market rent for the unit in 1998.
B. Tenant Ray Hartz of 839 Leavenworth
(AT090276 thru – 0286) told the Board that his comments at the July 7, 2009
Board meeting actually were that passthroughs are appropriate if fairly and
fully documented. Mr. Hartz said
that significant numbers were missing from his landlord’s petition, which is
the landlord’s responsibility. Mr.
Hartz expects fairness and equity and that all the numbers should be there.
C. Attorney Steven Wycliff, representing
the tenant in the comparables case at 2001 Pierce (AT090256 & -58), said
that the tenant received a letter confirming that the terms of his lease would
remain in effect, and that the Decision presents the tenant with a real
hardship.
V. Consideration
of Appeals
A. 1474 Sacramento #200 AT090259
The
tenant’s appeal was filed approximately four months late because the tenant was
experiencing medical difficulties.
MSC:
To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Henderson/Mosbrucker:
5-0)
The
landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses
was approved. The tenant in one
unit 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.
(Henderson/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
B. 515
John Muir Dr. #A410 AT090255
The
landlord’s petition for approval of a utility passthrough to 200 of 715 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.
(Henderson/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
C. 1155
Powell St. AL090250
& -51
The
Master Tenant’s appeal was filed five days late because the Master Tenant is
not a native English speaker and is mentally and physically disabled.
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Mosbrucker from consideration of this appeal. (Crow/Murphy: 5-0)
MSC:
To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Henderson/Crow:
5-0)
The
tenants’ petition alleging that they paid a disproportional share of the rent
pursuant to Rules §6.15C(3) and decreased housing services was granted and the
Master Tenant was found liable in the amount of $19,290.00 for rent
overpayments and $4,100.00 due to lack of heat in the unit. On appeal, the Master Tenant claims
that the decision presents her with a financial hardship and that: the heaters had to be turned off
because they were leaking gas; the subtenants have access to the dining and laundry
rooms; and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made errors in interpretation.
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the cases for a hearing on the Master Tenant’s
claims of financial hardship and to look at whether a 50-50 split of the rent
is equitable considering the number of subtenants in the unit. (Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)
D. 839
Leavenworth AT090276
thru -0286 &
AT090144
thru -47 & -0154
The
landlord’s petition for rent increases to 29 of 50 units was granted. A joint appeal filed by twelve tenants
was accepted and remanded to:
consider categories of expenses that were not included in the original
petition; examine the terms of the interest-only loan; and consider whether the
landlord had met their burden of proof in not providing the aggregate of all
expenses associated with the building.
On remand, the ALJ upheld the original decision. Eleven tenants again appeal, claiming
that the petition should not be granted because it was incomplete by not
providing cost information for the categories of repairs and other
maintenance. Five tenants also
appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSF: To grant the substantive appeal jointly
filed by the tenants in eleven units.
(Mosbrucker/Henderson: 2-3;
Gruber, Murphy, Beard dissenting)
MSC: To deny the substantive appeal jointly
filed by the tenants in eleven units.
(Murphy/Gruber: 3-2;
Henderson, Mosbrucker dissenting)
MSC:
To accept the appeals of the tenants in unit numbers 108, 308, 402, 510 and 206
and remand the cases for hearings on the tenants’ claims of financial
hardship. (Mosbrucker/Murphy: 5-0)
E. 145
Judah AT090249
The
landlord’s petition for a rent increase from $419.29 to $1,381.15 per month
based on comparable rents was granted.
On appeal, the tenant argues that:
the ALJ erred when he concluded that a special relationship between the
tenant and the previous owners resulted in a reduced base rent at the inception
of the tenancy; the rent at the inception of the tenancy reflected the
condition of the unit; and the amount granted by the ALJ reflects current
market value for the unit, when the subject tenancy commenced in 1998.
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Crow from consideration of this appeal.
(Mosbrucker/Murphy: 5-0)
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the
record to reduce the market value of the unit in 1998 by a range of $100 to
$200; to deny the appeal as to all other issues. (Murphy/Gruber:
5-0)
F. 2007
– 42nd Ave. AT090254
The
tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increase, failure to repair and
decreased housing services was denied.
The tenant appeals the decision, claiming that he has new evidence that
proves that his rent was $600.00, rather than $630.00, at the inception of the
tenancy.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)
G. 3823
Ulloa AT090252
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was denied because the
ALJ found that the landlord’s actions toward the tenant were not taken in bad
faith and therefore did not constitute harassment; and her quiet enjoyment
claims were barred by the Golden Gateway decision. On appeal, the tenant claims that the
landlord acted in bad faith and harassed her pursuant to Ordinance §37.10B
(Prop. M) by not making necessary repairs to the property, doing disruptive
construction work, issuing retaliatory rent increases, violating her right to
privacy and asking her to vacate the premises; that the landlord made false
statements at the hearing; and the construction work was not necessary repair,
was not effectuated in a reasonable and timely manner, was not temporary and
substantially interfered with her use of the premises.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Murphy/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
H. 230 Central #7 AT090253
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was denied as the ALJ
found that none of the conditions complained of by the tenant were
substantial. On appeal, the tenant
maintains that: he has new
evidence showing that management failed to cash his rent checks, which
constitutes harassment; his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises has been
violated by late night use of the laundry room; and the Fire Department has
instructed the landlord to install self-closers on the laundry room doors.
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Henderson from consideration of this appeal. (Mosbrucker/Crow: 5-0)
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)
I. 2001 Pierce #28 AT090256
& -58
The
landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparable rents was granted
and the ALJ found the landlord’s rent increase from $500.00 to $4,335.00 per
month was warranted. On appeal,
the tenant claims that the decision presents him with a financial hardship and
argues that: employment as a resident manager should not be considered a
“special relationship”; and he entered into a landlord-tenant relationship at a
rent of $500 per month with the new owners of the property, with whom he had no
such “special relationship.”
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Crow from consideration of this appeal. (Mosbrucker/Murphy: 5-0)
MSC:
To deny the tenant’s substantive appeal.
(Murphy/Gruber: 4-1;
Mosbrucker dissenting)
MSC:
To deny the tenant’s hardship appeal.
(Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)
J. 150-154 Sanchez AL090257
The
landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of exterior painting of the
building was certified but partial sidewalk replacement was determined to be in
the nature of repair rather than capital improvement. The landlord appeals, asserting that: the sidewalk squares were replaced and
not repaired; he is required by law to maintain the sidewalk; the work
constitutes a capital improvement rather than an operating expense; the tenants
did not object to certification of the costs; partial replacement is recognized
as a capital improvement for other kinds of work; and the subject property has
more than the usual amount of sidewalk.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Mosbrucker/Henderson: 4-1;
Murphy 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 November, 2009.
B. Articles from the New York Times,
San Francisco Chronicle, Examiner, San Francisco Magazine,
Bay Guardian and the S.F. Weekly.
VII. Director’s
Report
Executive
Director Delene Wolf informed the Board that she attended a hearing before the
Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors on January 11th
regarding the Academy of Art University’s practices as a residential landlord
in San Francisco. Additionally,
legislation sponsored by Supervisor Avalos that would extend eviction coverage
to post-19790 rental units passed on Second Reading before the Board on a 7-3
vote, but is likely to be vetoed by the Mayor. Lastly, legislation sponsored by Supervisor Mar that would
make families with minor children a “protected class” for purposes of owner
move-in eviction was continued by the sponsor.
IV. Remarks
from the Public (cont.)
D. Ray Hartz told the Board he was
exercising his First Amendment rights to petition government, redress of
grievances and free speech. Mr.
Hartz expressed his belief that landlords get whatever they want but tenants
have to cross their t’s and dot their i’s. The landlord’s representative in the case at 839 Leavenworth
said they couldn’t get the records from the prior owner but, in a court of law,
they would have had to provide all the numbers. Mr. Hartz said this was “the most opaque process I have ever
sat through” and that the ALJ did not consider the landlord’s burden of proof.
E. The landlord in the case concerning
150-154 Sanchez (AL090257) said that in order to qualify as an operating and
maintenance expense, a repair should be on the premises. Rather, the sidewalk is not on his
property but is public property that he is required to maintain. The Rules and Regulations specifically
include sidewalks as a capital improvement and the tenants would be better off
with a capital improvement passthrough than an operating expense increase.
F. Michelle Horneff-Cohen of Property
Management Systems remarked on the Board’s deliberations on the appeal
concerning 839 Leavenworth Street.
Ms. Horneff-Cohen maintained that the significant policy change
advocated by the Tenant Commissioners would require notice to the public and a
Public Hearing. She said that when
she was trained on petition preparation by one of the Board’s Senior
Administrative Law Judges, she was told that a landlord was only required to
exercise due diligence in attempting to obtain records of the expenses for the
building for the relevant two year period.
VIII. Calendar
Items
January
26, 2009; February 2nd, 9th & 16th, 2010
– NO MEETINGS
February
23, 2010
13
appeal considerations
New
Business: Departmental Budget
IX. Adjournment
President
Gruber adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
NOTE:
If any materials related to an item on this agenda have been distributed to the
Commission after distribution of the agenda packet, those materials are
available for public inspection at the office of the Rent Board during normal
office hours.