May 15, 2001
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION
BOARD,
Tuesday, May 15, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level
I. Call to Order
Vice-President Marshall called the meeting to order
at 6:12 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:15
p.m.; Commissioner Murphy arrived at the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of April 24, 2001,
with the following correction: regarding the case at 887 Bush #509 (AL010034),
to make it clear that the written agreement between the parties omitted
any mention of parking. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-0)
MSC: To approve the Minutes of May 1st,
2001. (Lightner/Becker: 4-0)
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1659 - 1661 - 10th Ave. AL010094
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase
in rent from $750.00 to $1,200.00 was granted because the Administrative Law
Judge found that the first Certificate of Occupancy for the building was issued
in 1946, and the landlord had not filed a petition for exemption from the
Ordinance due to substantial rehabilitation of the premises. On appeal, the
landlord claims that: the conversion of the building from a single family
dwelling to a 2-unit building adds rental units to the housing market, and
is within the spirit of the new construction exemption; the Administrative
Law Judge has confused Certificates of Occupancy with Certificates of Final
Completion, and there is no legal authority for concluding that the framers
of the Ordinance meant to include Certificates of Final Completion as a basis
for precluding exemption; the premises have been substantially rehabilitated
as defined in the Ordinance, and there is no requirement in the Ordinance
that a landlord obtain certification of substantial rehabilitation exemption;
and the landlord’s failure to immediately claim exemption does not waive her
right to assert such status later.
B. 550 Leavenworth St. #2 AT010093
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
and the landlord’s failure to repair was dismissed due to his failure to appear
at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant attributes his confusion
as to the date of the hearing to the effects of medication he was taking due
to a bout of pneumonia.
C. 2330 Larkin St. #32 AT010091
The landlords’ separate petitions for rent increases
based on increased operating expenses and certification of capital improvement
costs were granted. The tenant appealed both decisions on the grounds of financial
hardship, which were consolidated on remand. The Administrative Law Judge
found that the tenant had significant assets held in trust which could be
accessed to meet her needs, and therefore there was not sufficient financial
hardship to deny or defer imposition of the rent increases. The tenant appeals
the remand decision on the grounds of financial hardship as to the capital
improvement passthrough and the operating expense increase. Pursuant to the
Moratorium on processing of capital improvement passthroughs, only the appeal
as to the operating and maintenance expense increase is currently at issue.
In her further appeal, the tenant claims that: CD accounts in her name are
actually held jointly with her sister; interest payments attributed as income
to her are not actually received; and her expenses are increasing while her
income is decreasing.
V. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on
the calendar, the Board received the following communications:
A. A letter from landlord Barbara Ebel suggesting
several ways that the Board could mitigate what she believes to be the damaging
effects of Proposition H.
B. A letter from tenant Bruce Ettelson regarding
actions allegedly taken by his landlord, Commissioner Bart Murphy, regarding
the issue of "principal place of residence."
VI. Director’s Report
Deputy Director Wolf informed the Board that the court
hearing on the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dissolve the Preliminary
Injunction in Quigg vs. City and County of San Francisco, et al., Superior
Court Case Number 316928, will be held on May 24, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept.
302 of Superior Court. The owners’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in the
case will be heard at the same time. Since the time of the Board meeting,
the hearing has been continued until June 4th at the same time
and place.
VII. Old Business
Proposed Amendments to Sections 1.21 and 6.15C(3)
of the Rules and Regulations
The Board continued their discussion of a proposal
by Commissioner Lightner to add Section 1.21 to the Rules and Regulations,
which would require that an individual occupy a unit as his or her principal
place of residence in order to be covered by the rent increase limitations
of the Rent Ordinance. Commissioner Becker suggested, as an alternative,
that the Board use the same standard as Costa-Hawkins, which requires that
a tenant "permanently reside" in the unit. Commissioner Murphy
said that it is more appropriate for the standard to be consistent with
that for owner-occupancy eviction, with which Commissioner Justman agreed.
Commissioner Lightner’s proposed language was amended slightly, and then
the Board voted as follows below:
MSC: To put proposed new Rules and Regulations
Section 1.21, defining "Tenant in Occupancy", out for Public
Hearing. (Gruber/’Lightner: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
The proposed new Section follows below:
1.21 Tenant In Occupancy
A tenant in occupancy is an individual who resides
in a rental unit as his or her principal place of residence. Occupancy
does not require that the individual be physically present in the unit
at all times or continuously, but it must be his or her usual place of
return. Evidence that a unit is the individual’s "principal
place of residence" includes, but is not limited to, the following
elements, a compilation of which lends greater credibility to the finding
of "principal place of residence" whereas the presence of only
one element may not support such a finding:
(1) the subject premises are listed as the
individual’s place of residence on any motor vehicle registration,
driver’s license, voter registration, or with any other public agency,
including Federal, State and local taxing authorities;
(2) utilities are billed
to and paid by the individual
at the subject premises;
(3) all of the individual’s
personal possessions have been moved into the subject premises;
(4) a homeowner’s tax exemption for the individual
has not been filed for a different property;
(5) the subject premises are the place the individual
normally returns to as his/her home, exclusive of military service, hospitalization,
vacation, or travel necessitated by employment.
The Public Hearing will take place on June 5th
at 6:30 p.m. in Room 408 at City Hall.
The Commissioners then discussed proposed new Section
6.15C(3), also put forward by Commissioner Lightner, which would require that
a master tenant pay a pro-rata share of rent for the unit. After discussion,
Commissioner Lightner agreed that only subtenants and master tenants would
be able to file a petition alleging an overcharge or for establishment of
the initial rent, and that a landlord could not. Additionally, only the excessive
amount being charged would be null and void, and not the entirety of the rent
tendered by the subtenant. Staff will finalize the language and consider whether
a specific hardship provision needs to be added, and the Board will discuss
this issue further at the June 5th meeting.
VIII. Remarks from the Public
Brook Turner of the Coalition for Better Housing urged
the Board to put proposed new Sections 1.21 and 6.15C(3) out for Public Hearing.
IX. New Business
This case will be discussed at the meeting on June
5th in Executive Session.
X. Calendar Items
May 22nd and 29th, 2001
- NO MEETINGS
June 5, 2001
6 appeal considerations
Executive Session:
Goodwin vs. Rent Board (Superior Court Case
No. 317339)
6:30 Public Hearing: Proposed New Section 1.21, Defining
"Tenant in Occupancy"
Old Business: Proposed New Section 6.15C(3), Requiring
that a Master Tenant Pay a Pro-Rata Share of the Rent
XI. Adjournment
Vice-President Marshall adjourned the meeting at 8:00
p.m.