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: