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

Skip to page body

February 21, 2001

February 21, 2001

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

Wednesday, February 21, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at

City Hall, Board of Supervisors’ Main Chamber

    I. Call to Order

    President Wasserman called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

    II. Roll Call

                  Commissioners Present: Aung; Becker; Gruber; Hobson; Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Mosser; Wasserman.

                  Staff Present: Lee; Wolf.

                  Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:23 p.m.

    III. Approval of the Minutes

          MSC: To approve the Minutes of January 30th and February 6, 2001.

                  (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)

    IV. Remarks from the Public

    V. Public Hearing

        Proposed Amendments and Additions to Rules and Regulations Sections 1.13, 7.10, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 and 11.25, and New Sections 7.19 - 7.24, Providing for Implementation of Proposition H

    The Public Hearing commenced at 6:08 p.m. and concluded at 7:25 p.m. 34 individuals addressed the Board as follows:

      1. Brook Turner from the Coalition for Better Housing said that his organization opposes the Rules because they believe that Prop. H is unconstitutional, and regulations cannot make it constitutional. Mr. Turner believes that "after the courts have their final say", representatives from the landlord and tenant communities should work out a reasonable compromise.

      2. Robert Pender from the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization (PRO) gave a short history of that organization and urged the Board to pass rules and regulations to enforce Proposition H.

      3. Tenant George Buffington commended the Board on the proposed Rules and urged them to "prevent passthroughs."

      4. Tenant Edward Evans urged the Board to implement Prop. H because seniors and working class individuals are being affected by passthroughs, and one will "have to be a millionaire" to live in San Francisco pretty soon.

      5. Tenant Alma Morris from Lombard Place expressed outraged that her landlords are considering litigation after what the tenants have been through. Ms. Morris’ position was that: "We changed the law, now implement it."

      6. Small landlord Inge Weidman expressed her opinion that Prop. H is not constitutional. She said that someone could put an Initiative on the ballot to rescind PG&E rates and that such an Initiative would pass, but it wouldn’t be legal.

      7. Landlord Carlton Johnson is a retired teacher and pensioner who only has one rental unit which needs repairs due to leaks. Mr. Johnson told the Board that he is not unique.

      8. Landlord Gary Briggs predicted that Prop. H will be the "bane of the housing stock." He said that owners won’t be able to make necessary repairs if everyone doesn’t pay their fair share. He believes that many tenants will be evicted due to retroactive amounts owed should Prop. H be thrown out by the courts.

      9. Small landlord Andrew Long stated his opinion that the fair return formula in the proposed regulations is a "joke" that will have "real world consequences." Mr. Long said that he was going to replace a brick foundation in his building, but there was now no reason for him to make improvements.

      10. Robert Haaland of the Housing Rights Committee requested that the Commissioners instruct staff to stop processing capital improvement petitions, since the Judge gave the Board the discretion to do so. Mr. Haaland said that, since the voters passed Prop. H and the Board of Supervisors passed a Moratorium on the Rent Board’s processing of petitions, it is time to stop.

      11. Carolyn Cahn, President of PRO, said that constitutionality shouldn’t be a concern when 57% of the voters passed the Proposition. She expressed concerns about having to commute should she have to move.

      12. Landlord Burton Greenberg said that a means test should be applied to rent control coverage: that those who can afford to pay should absorb some of the costs, and that there should be hardship relief for those who can’t. Mr. Greenberg said he had a negative cash flow for 6-8 years. He filed a capital improvement petition in October of 1999 but didn’t receive a decision until July of 2000, so he is affected by Prop. H and feels he should be repaid.

      13. Nancy Tucker of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco used her and Karen and David Crommie’s time to make the following points and ask the following questions, among others: since debt service is accepted as a legitimate business expense by the IRS, why should it be excluded?; it is in the City’s best interest to keep small landlords in business, or units will be lost; causing property values to go down constitutes a "taking"; owners of small buildings are being penalized over owners of condominiums and single family dwellings; how does one calculate the value of owner-occupied and vacant units?; what if there is a loss in the landlord’s base year?; senior and disabled landlords living on Social Security won’t be able to maintain their properties, which will contribute to the deterioration of the housing stock; and "over-regulation" is driving small landlords out of business.

      14. Samuel Peacock said to implement Prop. H, since it is a "lifeline" for seniors.

      15. Small landlord Marian Halley said that this crisis was caused by large corporations, and that soon one will have to be a large corporation in order to be able to afford to own property. She said that small buildings don’t have much turnover so the landlords’ income doesn’t go up.

      16. Tenant Lorraine Calcagni of Lombard Place Apts. said that it is a "nightmare" to live through a passthrough; that the tenants in her building experienced horrendous conditions; the landlord is making "exorbitant" profits; and that the tenants’ rights were denied at their hearings before the Rent Board’s Administrative Law Judge.

      17. Tenant Alan Geller expressed his view that it is "well-intentioned" to improve property, but not to pass on years of neglect. He said that the tenants of Lombard Place should be covered by any regulations to implement Prop. H.

      18. Tenant Chieko Yushida of Lombard Place is retired and has lived in the building for more than 20 years. Ms. Yushida said that she is "too old to move" and asked that the Board implement Prop. H.

      19. Tenant Ernestine Weiss blamed past administrations for not building units, so the demand for housing has grown faster than the supply. Ms. Weiss said that landlords are making "unconscionable profits"; complained about hotelization; and said that "ignoring the will of the people equals an obstruction of justice."

      20. Carolyn Blair of the Housing Rights Committee said "if the laws were fair, we wouldn’t have Prop. H." She said that the landlords should open their books and, if they weren’t receiving a fair return, it would be obvious. Since a hardship appeal is "hard to go through", Ms. Blair asked that the Board stop processing petitions.

      21. Ted Gullickson of the Tenants’ Union said that the proposed regulations are not perfect, but they seem fair, and were drafted by the person who has to defend the lawsuit against Proposition H. Since the Supervisors have passed a Moratorium, Mr. Gullickson said it is "ludicrous" for the Rent Board to continue processing petitions, and that this should be stopped immediately.

      22. Garfield Powell, co-Vice President of PRO, said he was speaking for those who couldn’t be at the Public Hearing. Mr. Powell said that between annual increases, PG&E passthroughs, and 7% O&M increases, tenants at Parkmerced are faced with almost 10% increases. Mr. Powell maintained that services at Parkmerced have gone down since the Carmel Corporation took over.

      23. Shirley Bierly of the Senior Action Network said that it was crucial for the Board to pass Rules and implement Prop. H immediately.

      24. Tenant Michael Barrett said that landlords get a 100% annual write-off on their taxes, and don’t need passthroughs. Mr. Barrett believes that capital improvements must be major, for example, adding an elevator. He said that "doghouses" are worth $1,000,000 in San Francisco, and complained about abuses of the Ellis Act.

      25. Landlord Bill Quan said there is something wrong when examples run by staff show that landlords would not get rent increases based on lack of a fair return. Mr. Quan thinks that proposed amendments to the Regulations are an "improvement". He thinks that any regulations shouldn’t be "set in stone" and that flexibility is required.

      26. Tenant Keltie Morris of Lombard Place said that she lived with extreme mildew for many years, while the landlord refused to effectuate repairs. She believes that window replacement constitutes a repair, rather than a capital improvement.

      27. Tenant Arnold Cohn said that Judge Robertson said that Prop. H was constitutional. Mr. Cohn believes that tenants shouldn’t have to pay for deferred maintenance, and that the reduced purchase price of the building should compensate new owners for capital improvements they have to make. Mr. Cohn said that small owners aren’t the problem, but that "nobody’s making them hold on to their properties." Mr. Cohn suggested that any tenant worried about their landlord’s income could make a tax-deductible gift of up to $10,000.00.

      28. Small landlord Will Sprietsma said that he couldn’t afford to get a loan to fix the leaks in his building, and can’t access the equity in his property because the units are rented at below market rents. Mr. Sprietsma thanked the tenant community because he has realized that it would be cheaper to buy a building in the South of France and move.

      29. Jim Casio informed the Board that he purchased a TIC. His old landlord had fixed up the building, and Mr. Casio said that he was glad to pay the passthrough because he was raised not to "get something for nothing." Mr. Casio believes that San Francisco is about to become a "49 by 49 foot slum."

      30. Small landlord Peter Holden said that his 4-unit building is currently worth $300,000 but, if he Ellised it, it would be worth $800,000. He asked that the Regulations provide a fair rate of return, including mortgage, interest and legitimate business expenses. He also said that Prop. H didn’t address landlord hardship, and it could have.

      31. Tenant Rennie O’Brian said that if improvements to a landlord’s property can be passed on to tenants, landlords should have to share any capital gains with their tenants when they sell the property.

      32. Tenant Ann Doherty of Marina Cove said that the Board should stop processing capital improvement petitions, and instead schedule the petitions filed by the tenants at that property. She believes that small landlords should be treated differently.

      33. Janan New, Director of the S.F. Apartment Association, said that the Board couldn’t re-work Prop. H to make it constitutional. Ms. New believes that most landlords won’t get a cent under the proposed regulations, especially small landlords. Ms. New believes that this will lead to the degradation of neighborhoods and raise "life-safety issues"; and remarked that Supervisor Daly has introduced TIC legislation when Proposition N was defeated by the voters.

      34. Tenant Angelique Duvall said that the Rent Board hasn’t enough authority to do its job of protecting average income tenants because it can’t award damages, nor make landlords make repairs.

    After the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Commissioners questioned Deputy City Attorney Marie Blits as to additional proposed amendments they had received that were not noticed as part of the Public Hearing. Ms. Blits explained that proposed changes to existing Section 7.14 added a 20-year imputed interest rate for seismic retrofit work; and further changes to proposed new Section 7.22 added a procedure in determining Net Operating Income for adjusting base year income expenses if they were unusually high or unusually low. These proposals will be put out for Public Hearing on March 6th.

    Since the additional amendments required further Public Hearing, Commissioner Becker called for a Moratorium on the processing of capital improvement petitions. Commissioner Hobson also said that the Rent Board should stop processing petitions immediately, and further called for amendments to the rent law constraining large corporations while providing assistance to small landlords. Deputy City Attorney Blits informed the Board that they could not consider a Moratorium at this evening’s meeting, since it was not on the Agenda. Commissioner Becker therefore asked that discussion of a Moratorium be calendared for the meeting on March 6th.

    The Commissioners then went over the proposed amendments and additions to the Rules and Regulations that were the subject of this evening’s Public Hearing, and requested certain changes in the language. In addition, the Board passed the following motion:

          MSC: To put proposed changes to existing Rules Section 7.14, and further changes to proposed new Section 7.22, out for Public Hearing on March 6th. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

    VI. Communications

    The Commissioners received the office workload statistics for the month of December and a new Commissioners’ Roster.

    VII. Calendar Items

      February 27, 2001 - NO MEETING

      March 6, 2001

      6 appeal considerations (3 cont. from 1/30/01; 1 cont. from 2/6/01)

      Continued Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Regulations to Implement Proposition H

VIII. Adjournment

    President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.

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