MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION &
ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, August 7, 2001 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 6:15 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners
Present: Aung;
Becker; Gruber; Hobson; Lightner; Marshall; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners
not Present: Justman;
Mosser.
Staff
Present: Wolf.
Commissioner
Murphy went off the record at 7:10 p.m.; Commissioner Hobson left the meeting
at 7:22 p.m.
III. Approval
of the Minutes
MSC: To
approve the Minutes of July 10, 2001.
(Lightner/Marshall: 5-0)
IV. Remarks
from the Public
A. Karen Hull, attorney for the tenants at
1375 Green St. (AL010120), asked that Commissioner Lightner be recused from
consideration of this case because one of her employees had acted as a witness
for the landlord.
B. Escanio Pianelli, attorney for the
tenant in the case at 305 San Carlos St. (AT010119), responded to “mis-characterizations”
in the landlord’s response to the tenant’s appeal, which had not been timely
provided to tenant’s counsel.
V. Consideration
of Appeals
A. 1800-1806
– 16th Ave. AL010111
(cont.
from 7/10/01)
The
landlord’s petition for rent increases to the tenants in two units was
partially granted only as to only one unit (1804). It was found that the rent paid by the tenant in unit 1806
was only slightly less than that for other comparable units, and therefore no
additional increase was warranted.
Both tenants are the children and two of four beneficiaries of the
deceased prior owner; the tenant in unit 1804 had been living in the building
rent-free. The landlord appealed,
asserting that: the tenant in unit
1806 moved in to that unit upon her own initiative and not pursuant to any
request from the landlord, so there was a new rather than a continuing tenancy;
Rules Section 6.11(a)(3) requires that the length of occupancy of the subject
unit be considered, and not the length of time the tenant has lived in the
building; the tenant in unit 1806 has lived in the building for 9 fewer years
than the tenant in unit 1804, but her rent is a lesser amount; evidence was
presented at the hearing to show that the initial rent for unit 1806 was far less
than market; “perfect comparability” was required by the Administrative Law
Judge, which is contrary to the language of the Regulation; improvements made
to unit 1806 should be taken into account; and the subject tenants should not
reap more benefits than their siblings by having life-time rent controlled
leases and receiving their share of the sale proceeds of the building.
Since
the Memorandum prepared by the Administrative Law Judge had not been timely
received by the parties, consideration of this case was continued from the July
10th Board meeting.
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration of this case. (Gruber/Marshall: 5-0)
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Marshall/Hobson: 3-2;
Gruber, Murphy
dissenting)
B. 1375 Green St. # AL010120
The
landlord’s petition for rent increases for four units based on comparable rents
was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the initial rents
were not set low due to a special relationship but, rather, because the units
were in deplorable condition; and because the landlord failed to provide
adequate evidence of rents for comparable units at the time the units were
rented. On appeal, the landlord
asserts: the Administrative Law
Judge prevented the petitioner from presenting relevant evidence, excluded
competent evidence as hearsay and exhibited bias against the landlord; there
was no evidence to show that the rents in the building were set by the owner,
rather than the manager, who had a personal relationship with the tenants;
testimony from all of the experts at the hearing, including a witness for the
tenants, concluded that the initial rents for the units were set at less than
market, even considering the condition of the units at the time; and the case
of Vega v. City of West Hollywood does not require that the low rents
had been set prior to the enactment of a rent control ordinance.
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Becker/Marshall: 3-2;
Gruber, Murphy dissenting)
C. 1000 Howard #305 AT010115
(cont.
from 7/10/01)
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 $1,375.00 due to a
faulty fire exit door and lack of building cleanliness. The tenant appealed, claiming that the
amounts granted are inadequate, considering the nature of the conditions.
After
discussion at the July 10th Board meeting, the Commissioners
requested that the Administrative Law Judge prepare a Memorandum explaining how
he arrived at the amount of the rent reductions and continued consideration of
this case.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Wasserman/Gruber: 4-1;
Marshall dissenting)
D. 1910
Greenwich St. #7 AL010118
The
landlord’s appeal was filed 33 days late because the landlord’s attorney did
not receive a copy of the Decision until a week after it was mailed out; the
attorney had long-standing vacation plans, and thought that another attorney in
his firm was going to file the appeal; and he required a transcript of the
hearing tapes in order to prepare the appeal.
MSC:
To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber:
5-0)
The
tenants’ petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was granted and a proposed
rent increase from $1,635.00 to $2,900.00 was found not warranted by the
Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
The Administrative Law Judge found that an original tenant still
permanently resides on the premises, although he is temporarily living in
Ithaca, New York, while attending grad school. On appeal, the landlord contends that: the tenant does not live at the premises,
and only visits occasionally; utilities have been switched out of the tenant’s
name; facts alleged in the Decision are not supported by any evidence in the
record; the requirement in Costa-Hawkins is that the tenant no longer
permanently reside on the premises, not that they must have permanently
vacated; there is no evidence that the tenant will, with certainty, occupy the
premises in the future on a long-term basis; and the Decision in this case is
in conflict with a recent Decision in another similar case.
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing to obtain competent
and direct evidence from the tenant who did not attend the original hearing as
to his current relationship to the unit and intent to return; telephonic
testimony can be arranged.
(Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
E. 2311-A
California St. AL010117
The
tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases in rent and substantial decreases
in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to
the tenant in the amount of $7,258.00 due to several wrongful rent
increases. The landlord was also
advised that PG&E costs could not be transferred to the tenant. A claim of decreased housing services
due to alleged noise emanating from the landlord’s unit was denied. On appeal, the landlord asserts that
the rent increase calculations in the Decision are incorrect; that the tenant’s
move-in date was July of 1994, and not September; and that the landlord did not
agree to pay for all utilities at the inception of the tenancy.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
F. 305
San Carlos St. #3 AT010119
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 $2,266.88 due to
numerous habitability defects on the premises. Long-term notice of the conditions was not proved to have
been given by the tenant to the landlord, so the rent reductions were limited
to the one year period prior to the filing of the petition. On appeal, the tenant asserts that the
Administrative Law Judge erred by requiring that notice as to the defects had
to have been given repeatedly.
Rather, the tenant contends that the rent reductions for 4 of the
conditions should commence on May 10, 1994, the later of two possible dates
that the parties agree the landlord came to the premises. As to the remaining problem of the
broken doorbell, the tenant claims that the rent reduction should begin on April
1, 1992, or one week after the landlord indicated in writing that he was aware
of the defect and the tenant informed the landlord that he wanted it
repaired.
MSF:
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to
find that long-term notice was given back to May 10, 1994 as to the protruding
shower valves and the doorbell, and to adjust the rent reductions granted
accordingly.
(Wasserman/Marshall: 2-3;
Becker, Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
MSF:
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to
find that long-term notice was given back to May 10, 1994 as to the protruding
shower valves, the doorbell, the bathroom ceiling leaks, bathroom window frame
and counter backsplash, and to adjust the rent reductions granted accordingly. (Becker/Marshall: 2-3; Gruber, Lightner, Wasserman
dissenting)
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Lightner/Gruber: 3-2;
Becker, Marshall dissenting)
G. 34 – 6th St. #433 AT010121
The
tenant’s appeal was filed three months late because the tenant claims not to
have received a copy of the Dismissal of his petition.
MSC:
To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Lightner:
5-0)
The
tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due to his
failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims not to have received the Notice
of Hearing, and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of
Hearing.
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
H. 3116 – 16th St. #17 AT010110
The
landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs for 18 of 30
units was granted. One tenant
filed an appeal on the grounds of financial hardship. Pursuant to the Moratorium on processing of capital
improvement petitions, and a subsequent Request for Continued Processing on the
part of the landlord, the portion of the Decision certifying seismic retrofit
costs only is being appealed at this time.
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Wasserman from consideration of this appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Lightner/Gruber: 4-0)
VI. Communications
In
addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Board received
the following communications:
A. An Invitation from the Mayor to the
signing of the 2001-2002 budget on August 9th at 3:00 p.m.
B. The Department’s Annual Statistical
Report.
C. The Agenda and Notice of Public Hearing
for the meeting on August 21st, which will be held at City Hall,
Room 406.
VII. Director’s
Report
In
the absence of Executive Director Grubb, Deputy Director Wolf informed the
Board that there would be a hearing on the Proposed Order in the case of Quigg
v. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 316928) on August 8th at
3:30 p.m. in Department 302.
IV. Remarks
from the Public (cont.)
C. Karen Crommie encouraged the Board to
pass proposed new Section 6.15C(3), since “tenants should be subject to the
same rules as landlords.”
VIII. New
Business
Commissioner
Marshall asked that a discussion of the problem raised in the case of Goodwin
v. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 317339) be put on the calendar for a
future meeting. In this case, the
Court found that the landlord was entitled to two operating and maintenance
expense increases, one based on his purchase and one based on the increased
property taxes incurred by the estate after the death of the prior owner. This issue will be discussed at the
September 18th meeting.
IX. Calendar
Items
August 14,
2001 - NO MEETING
August 21,
2001
6 appeal
considerations
6:30 Public
Hearing:
Proposed
New Section 6.15C(3) Requiring that a Master Tenant Pay a Pro-Rata Share of the
Rent
X. Adjournment
President
Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.