August 20, 1996
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION &
ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, July 10, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320
I. Call
to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order
at 6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners
Present: Aung;
Gruber; Hobson; Lightner; Mosser; Wasserman.
Commissioners
not Present: Becker;
Justman; Murphy.
Staff
Present: Grubb;
Lee; Wolf.
Commissioner
Marshall appeared on the record at 6:25 p.m.
III. Approval
of the Minutes
MSC: To
approve the Minutes of June 19, 2001 with a correction to reflect that Senior
Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee was not at the meeting. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
IV. Remarks
from the Public
A. Landlord Walter Hoffman objected to the
3-minute limitation on public comments.
He told the Board that he believes that Rent Board staff gives incorrect
advice to tenants, because one of his tenants failed to pay rent and had to be
evicted by the Sheriff. Mr.
Hoffman also said “This is not Munich.”
B. Tenant Karen Freeman, appellee in the
case at 1800-1806 – 16th Ave. (AL010111), informed the Board that
her attorney, Mr. John Lauricella, could not attend the meeting. She also said that Commissioner
Lightner was present the last time this case was discussed, and she is an
“interested party.”
C. Tenant Sharon Costanzo, appellant in
the case at 1476 – 26th Ave. (AT010116), said that the landlords
have been trying to evict her for the past year and that they are now trying to
use Costa-Hawkins to raise the rent so that she will be unable to continue
residing at the premises.
D. Landlord Lisa Ng, appellee in the 1476
– 26th Ave. case (AT010116), said that Sharon Costanzo was not
telling the truth. According to
Ms. Ng, Ms. Costanzo had moved out last June and sublet the premises, and the
landlords asked for the property back since they believed that she no longer
lived there.
‘
E. Kate Hague, the daughter of tenant
Sharon Costanzo, said that the Board’s informational materials concerning
Costa-Hawkins state that if there is an in-law unit, whether legal or illegal,
a single-family dwelling is considered a two-unit building. The information does not make any
distinction if it is the tenant, rather than the landlord, who is renting out
the second unit. She asked that
the information be clarified as to any exceptions to this rule.
V. Consideration
of Appeals
A. 1800-1806
– 16th Ave. AL010111
The
landlord’s petition for rent increases to the tenants in two units was partially
granted only as to 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 appeals, 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 in
addition to receiving their share of the sale proceeds of the building.
MSC:
To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration of this case. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
Because
the parties did not timely receive the Memorandum prepared by the Administrative
Law Judge, consideration of this case was continued to the August 7th
meeting.
B. 1801
Gough #302 AT010112
The
tenant’s petition alleging several decreased housing services was denied
because the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant had failed to meet
her burden of proof. On appeal,
the tenant claims that: her
evidence was not taken into consideration; the landlord’s witness has only recently
taken over management of the building; and her stove and shower do not work.
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
C. 970
Chesnut #3 AL010113
The
tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent from $1,348.56 to
$3,500.00 per month was granted, because the Administrative Law Judge found
that no rent increase was warranted pursuant to Costa-Hawkins or Rules Section
6.14. Although the tenant and his
wife purchased a home in Corte Madera, the tenant resides in the Chesnut Street
rental unit during the week and proved that he had not vacated. Additionally, the landlord was found
liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,820.53 due to an unlawful rent
increase in 1989. On appeal, the
landlord maintains that: the 1989
rent increase was an approved capital improvement passthrough and, therefore,
should not have been determined to be null and void; the rent rollback is
barred by the doctrine of laches; the Decision omits necessary findings
regarding the tenant’s principal place of residence; the tenant failed to meet
his burden of proof, because his evidence pre-dates the purchase of the home in
Marin County; and the landlord has no way to disprove the tenant’s contentions
regarding his personal circumstances.
MSC:
To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the
record on the issue of the rent history; a hearing will be held only if
necessary. The appeal is denied as
to all other issues without prejudice to the landlord filing a petition seeking
a determination as to whether the tenant is a “Tenant in Occupancy” pursuant to
new Rules and Regulations Section 1.21.
(Lightner/Gruber: 4-1;
Hobson dissenting)
D. 1000 Howard #305 AT010115
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 appeals, claiming that the
amounts granted are inadequate, considering the nature of the conditions.
After
discussion, the Board requested that the Administrative Law Judge prepare a
Memorandum explaining how he arrived at the amount of the rent reductions and
continued this case to the next meeting.
E. 1476 – 26th Ave. AT010116
The
landlord filed a petition seeking a determination of whether the subject property
is exempt as a single family dwelling pursuant to Costa-Hawkins. The Administrative Law Judge found
that, since it was the tenant who changed the use of the premises by renting
out the first floor, the structure remained a single family dwelling separately
alienable from any other dwelling unit and therefore exempt from the rent
increase limitations of the Ordinance.
The tenant appeals, asserting that: the in-law unit on the property is a fully habitable unit,
which meets the definition of a second unit under the California Government
Code; the landlords knew that both units in the building would be used as
living space at the time the lease was signed; the use of the building should
determine its status; the landlords are currently attempting to alter the
status of the in-law unit by obtaining a permit to remove the stove and
doorbell; and the proposed rent increase constitutes an “economic eviction.”
MSC:
To deny the appeal.
(Gruber/Lightner: 3-2;
Hobson, Marshall dissenting)
VI. Old
Business
Proposed New Section 6.15C(3),
Requiring that a Master Tenant Pay a Pro-Rata Share of the Rent
The
Board continued their discussion of a proposal by Commissioner Lightner that
would require that master tenants pay an equitable portion of the rent for the
unit. Commissioner Marshall wanted
to be sure that, in establishment of the initial base rent, additional amounts
paid for utilities could be accounted for. With two minor amendments to the language, the Board voted
as follows:
MSC:
To put proposed new Rules and Regulations Section 6.15C(3), as amended, out for
Public Hearing.
(Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
The
Public Hearing will be held on August 21st at 6:00 p.m. in Room 406
at City Hall. The proposed
language reads as follows:
Section
6.15C(3):
Partial Sublets. In the event a master tenant does not sublease the entire
rental unit, as anticipated in Section 37.3 (c), then the master tenant may
charge the subtenant(s) no more than the subtenant(s) proportional share of the
total current rent paid to the landlord by the master tenant for the housing
and housing services to which the subtenant is entitled under the
sub-lease.
(a) The allowable proportional share of total rent
may be calculated based upon the square footage shared with and occupied exclusively
by the subtenant; or an amount substantially proportional to the space occupied
by and shared with the subtenant (e.g. three persons splitting the entire rent
in thirds) or any other method that allocates the rent such that the subtenant
pays no more to the master tenant than the master tenant pays to the landlord
for the housing and housing services to which the subtenant is entitled under
the sublease. In establishing the proper initial base rent, additional housing
services (such as utilities) provided by, or any special obligations of, the
master tenant, or evidence of the relative amenities or value of rooms, may be
considered by the parties or the Rent Board when deemed appropriate. Any methodology that shifts the rental
burden such that the subtenant(s) pays substantially more than their square
footage portion, or substantially more than the proportional share of the total
rent paid to the landlord, shall be presumed to be in excess of the lawful
limitation.
(b) The master tenant or subtenant(s) may petition
the Board for an adjustment of the initial rent of the subtenant.
(c) If a portion of a capital improvement passthrough
or a utility increase is allocated to a subtenant, it must be separately
identified and not included in the subtenant’s base rent. Such amounts are subject to the rules
herein and must be discontinued or recalculated pursuant to the applicable
rules. Any amount that is
improperly calculated or not properly discontinued shall be disallowed.
(d) In the event of any dispute regarding any
allowable increase, or allocation, or any rental amount paid that is not rent,
the subtenant may file a claim of unlawful rent increase to have the matter
resolved between the subtenant and master tenant, as if the master tenant were
the owner of the building.
Disallowed or improper increases shall be null and void.
(e) For any sublease entered into on or before
_____________ [effective date of new rule] where the sublease rent was not
calculated as provided for herein, the master tenant shall have six months from
the effective date of this regulation to notice an adjusted proper rent and
refund any overpayments paid after the effective date of this section. No petitions alleging overpayments may
be filed during this time.
(f) For any sublease entered into after
____________ [effective date of
new rule] where the sublease rent was not calculated as provided for herein,
the portion of the subtenant’s rent that is in excess of the amount allowed pursuant
to this Section 6.15C(3) shall be null and void.
IV. Remarks
from the Public (cont.)
F. Sharon Costanzo, tenant appellee in the
case at 1476 – 26th Ave. (AT010116), corrected the Board by pointing
out that she had submitted a diagram that shows that the downstairs unit has a
full, working kitchen. Ms.
Costanzo stated that she had a “good rapport” with the landlords until, she
believes, they realized that because of her age and ill health it would be hard
to get rid of her. She decried the
“unjust” decision of the Board.
G. Kate Hague, Sharon Costanzo’s daughter,
told the Board that the agency “owes it to the public” to make the law clear.
H. Landlord Walter Hoffman expressed his
opinion that the rent for the premises at 1476 – 26th Ave. is a
“giveaway.” After reviewing the
file, Mr. Hoffman concluded that the tenant had violated the rental agreement
and was “taking advantage” of the landlord.
VII. New
Business
A. Litigation Update
Senior
Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee went over a Memorandum he had prepared,
outlining the status of pending and recently decided writs and affirmative
lawsuits against the Board.
B. Rule-Making Authority of the Rent Board
Commissioners
The
Commissioners briefly discussed a request by Supervisor Gonzales that the
Office of the City Attorney draft legislation that would restrict the Board’s
rule-making powers. Executive
Director Grubb will attempt to find out the status of this request and
Commissioner Lightner will draft a letter opposing any such proposal for the
Board’s consideration at the next meeting.
VIII. Calendar
Items
July 17th,
24th & 31st, 2001 - NO MEETINGS
August 7, 2001
8 appeal
considerations (2 cont. from
7/10/01)
Old
Business:
A. Proposed New Rules Section 6.15C(3)
B. Rule-Making Authority of the Rent Board
Commissioners
IX. Adjournment
President
Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.