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

Skip to page body

February 06, 2001

February 06, 2001p> 

 

 

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

Tuesday, February 6, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at
City Hall, Room 408 I. Call to Order

President Wasserman called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Aung; Becker; Gruber; Hobson; Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Gartzman; Lee; Wolf.

President Wasserman introduced new Commissioner Khin Mai Aung, who is the Tenant Alternate for Commissioner Marshall.

IV. Public Comment on Whether the Board Should Go Into Closed Session

Robert Pender of the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization (PRO) objected to the meeting as having been improperly noticed. Carolyn Kahn, President of PRO, told the Board she had "spent an hour" trying to find the meeting, having gone to 25 Van Ness instead of City Hall. For this reason, Ms. Kahn believed that the Board should not conduct a Closed Session.

V. Vote on Whether to Go Into Closed Session Regarding the Case of Quigg v.
Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 316928) Pursuant to S.F.
Administrative Code Section 67.11{a}

MSC: To go into Closed Session. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)

VI. Closed Session re Quigg, supra, Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9{a}

The Board went into Closed Session from 6:25 to 7:35 p.m. with Deputy City Attorneys Marie Blits and Andrew Schwartz to discuss the case of Quigg v. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 316928).

VII. Vote on Whether or Not to Disclose and Possible Disclosure of Any/All
Conversations Held in Closed Session Regarding Quigg, supra.

MSC: To not disclose the content of conversations held in Closed Session. (Marshall/Lightner: 5-0)

VIII. Report on Any Actions Taken in Closed Session Regarding Quigg, supra,
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1{a}{2} and S.F. Administrative
Code Section 67.14{b}{2}

President Wasserman reported that the Board held a Closed Session to discuss the Quigg case with its attorneys. No actions were taken.

IX. Remarks from the Public

1. Tom Ramm of the Small Property Owners’ Group asked the effect of a net operating loss in the base year for purposes of a fair return analysis.

2. Mike Betts, an attorney representing landlord Chris Larsen in the Ellis case at 195-197 Randall (L2K1517), told the Board that the landlord Ellised the building in order to establish a non-profit shelter. Although the landlord stopped at step 7 of the 10 steps required to Ellis the building, Rent Board staff recorded a Notice of Constraints. Mr. Betts believes this to be a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution, and asked that the Board consider his "appeal", or he will file a Writ. Mr. Betts represented that the tenant had voluntarily vacated the unit.

3. Tenant Sandra Finnegan questioned the exception in the proposed Prop. H regulations for "seismic" work, which she believes should only apply to unreinforced masonry buildings. Ms. Finnegan told the Board that by broadening the definition of seismic work, they were "gutting Prop. H."

4. Landlord Karen Crommie said that she hoped the proposed regulations would be made more "user-friendly." Ms. Crommie asked the Board what would be done about the 9 months she waited for a Decision on her capital improvement passthrough petition, which resulted in her having been affected by the passage of Proposition H. She said that 40% of the CPI is the accrued interest she should receive on her retirement investment.

XI. Consideration of Appeals

A. 161 & 165 Jordan Ave. AL2K0099
(cont. from 7/11/00)

The tenants in five of the 8 units in the building filed petitions alleging decreased housing services and unlawful rent increases, which claims were partially granted. Within 15 days after the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge was issued, the landlord’s son wrote the Board a letter requesting an extension of the appeal deadline because of his father’s having been bedridden due to ill health at that time. Two months later, the son reported that his father had been hospitalized, and requested that his father be allowed to file an untimely appeal at such time as he was released from the hospital. At the meeting on July 11, 2000, the Board passed a motion granting the landlord’s request and allowing him 6 months, or until no later than January 11, 2001, to pursue his appeal. Nothing further had been received from the landlord until the calendaring of this continued appeal consideration, which was after the January 11th deadline. The landlord has since submitted arguments in support of his appeal, including the following contentions: that the landlord made a good faith effort to repair the boiler, and heat was always provided to the tenants; that the petitions were filed in retaliation for the landlord having taken away the unlawful use of the garage as a woodworking studio; that if the boiler had been providing insufficient heat, there would have also been complaints regarding a lack of hot water; and that the radiators are leaking because the tenants are opening the valves.

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

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

B. 1010 Bush #105 AT2K0230
(cont. from 1/16/01)

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services because of the revocation of overnight guest privileges was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the right to have overnight guests was not included in the tenant’s base rent at the commencement of the tenancy, nor did the tenant pay additional consideration for this service at a later date. The tenant appeals, claiming that her case was not given adequate consideration by the Administrative Law Judge; that she never signed a lease or rental agreement restricting visiting hours; and that the revocation of overnight privileges was in retaliation for her having filed a petition at the Rent Board.

At the meeting on January 16th, it was the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this case in order for Commissioners Becker and Marshall to research the constitutional question of whether the tenant’s right to have overnight guests could be restricted; and for the Administrative Law Judge to address the issue of retaliation. After a brief discussion, consideration of this case was again continued.

C. 895 Sutter #402 AT010003

The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses and certification of capital improvement costs for 16 of 33 units was granted, in part. One tenant appeals the Decision on the grounds that several of the improvements do not benefit him; that the electrical work was shoddily done and without permits; and that the landlord has failed to make necessary repairs to his unit.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-1; Marshall dissenting)

D. 2280 Jackson St. #3 AL010005

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services due to loss of use of a storage unit was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $75.00 per month. On appeal, the agent for the landlord claims that: the lease for the unit requires that items cannot be left in the common areas of the building without the owner’s written consent; the storage locker was provided to the resident manager for his own use, and he has allowed the tenant to store items there as a favor only; and the tenant has failed to provide required information regarding his fiancée, who has recently moved into the unit.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing. If the service is found not to be substantial and/or if it was not verifiably promised at the inception of the tenancy, no decrease in housing services will be found to have occurred. (Lightner/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)

XII. Old Business

Consideration of Draft Proposed Amendments and Additions to Rules and Regulations Sections 1.13, 7.10, 7.12, 7.13 and 11.25, and New Sections 7.19 - 7.24, Providing for Implementation of Proposition H

The Commissioners discussed proposed regulations drafted by the Office of the City Attorney to implement Proposition H. Commissioner Justman expressed his view that, while there will be opportunities for the landlord and tenant communities to suggest ways that these regulations could be "tweaked", they should be put out for Public Hearing will all due haste. To that end, the Board passed the following motion:

MSC: To put proposed amendments to the Rules and Regulations providing for implementation of Proposition H out for Public Hearing. (Becker/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

The Commissioners agreed that the public would be given 3 minutes to speak; and that individuals could bequeath their time to organizations, in order for longer presentations to be given. The first Public Hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 21st, with a backup date of March 6th, should a second Public Hearing be necessary. A sufficiently large meeting room in City Hall will be procured for both dates, and a Press Release will be issued. The meeting on February 20th will be cancelled, and cases scheduled for that night will be re-scheduled.

XIII. Communications

The Commissioners received the following communications:

A. A letter from landlord Bill Quan asking that the Board promulgate regulations requiring that a Master Tenant pay their proportionate share of the total rent.

B. An article from the S.F. Daily Journal of February 6, 2001, about the court’s decision in the case of Galland v. City of Clovis (2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1313), which held that cities cannot be held liable for damages if rents are improperly set too low.

C. A letter from landlord Burton Greenberg concerning Proposition H.

XIV. Director’s Report

In the absence of Executive Director Grubb, Deputy Director Wolf informed the Board that proposed legislation by Supervisor Gonzales implementing a Temporary Moratorium on the Rent Board’s processing of capital improvement petitions during the pendency of the Temporary Injunction on Proposition H will be heard before the Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors on February 8th at 1:00 p.m.

X. Remarks from the Public (cont.)

5. Landlord David Crommie told the Board that the proposed regulations are "impossible to understand"; asked if the issue of retroactivity is addressed; and said that indexing at 40% is "bizarre."

6. Tenant Sandra Finnegan asked whether seismic work was included in the Quigg lawsuit, and stated her belief that the voters wanted unreinforced masonry buildings treated differently than other seismic work.

7. Small landlord Nancy Tucker said that the proposed regulations don’t "look very good"; and asked if her annual salary as a telecommuter would be counted as gross income for purposes of a fair return petition.

8. Robert Pender of PRO said that he was going to write a letter to the Sunshine Task Force regarding what he believes to be the improper noticing of the meeting.

XV. Calendar Items

February 13 and 20, 2001 - NO MEETINGS

February 21, 2001
6:00 PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Regulations to Implement Prop. H
Board of Supervisors’ Main Chamber, City Hall

XVI. Adjournment

President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.

    Go To:

    Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:12 AM