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

Skip to page body

November 19, 1996

November 19, 1996B>

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
  
Tuesday, November 19, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level
  

    I. Call to Order

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

    II. Roll Call

    Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly; Gruber; Marshall; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.

    Commissioners not Present: Lightner; Moore; Palma.

    Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

    III. Approval of the Minutes

    MSC: To approve the Minutes of October 29, 1996 with the following correction: that a motion was made and carried to recuse Commissioner Murphy from consideration of the appeal concerning 1555 Greenwich St. #11 (R001-49R).

    (Becker/Marshall: 5-0) )

    IV. Remarks from the Public

      A. Landlord Glen Hildebrand asked if there was a problem with the posting of the Rent Board Minutes on the Internet, since the Minutes of the October 29th meeting were not up on the web site as of yet. He also remarked on his pleasure at Commissioner Wasserman being the voting neutral at the meeting, since he believes that Commissioner Palma has voted with the tenants 80 - 85% of the time.

      B. Robert Pender invited all of the Commissioners to the next meeting of the Tenants’ Network and wished the Minutes to reflect the passing of Faye Lacey, a great champion of tenants’ rights.

    V. Consideration of Appeals

      A. 1555 Greenwich St. #11 R001-49R
      (cont. from 10/29/96)

      The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses for ten of twelve units in the building was granted. One tenant appealed the decision, alleging financial hardship. At their meeting on October 29th, the Commissioners had several questions regarding the information provided in the tenant’s Hardship Application and continued consideration of this case in order for staff to request clarification from the tenant, which was provided.

      MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Wasserman: 3-1; Marshall dissenting)

      B. 2699 Bryant St. R001-50R
      (cont. from 10/29/96)

      The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part, resulting in a passthrough in the amount of $124.07 to one unit in the building. The tenant of that unit appealed the decision, asserting that: the majority of the work performed was necessitated by the negligence of upstairs tenants who have since vacated the unit; repeated water leakages from the upstairs tenants resulted in deferred maintenance resulting in code violations; tenants should not be responsible for paying for work necessary for habitability; certain of the costs for the work are unreasonably high; the heating system purchased by the landlord is unnecessarily elaborate and a luxury item; and that there has been a decrease in housing services due to the conditions that necessitated the work. The tenant appellant did not appear at the hearing and claimed on appeal that he is a City Housing Inspector and was required to testify in Superior Court on the day of the hearing. At their meeting on October 29th, the Commissioners continued this matter in order for staff to contact the tenant and ask him to provide: documentation of the court appearance; an explanation as to why he failed to request a postponement of the hearing; and the reason why the co-tenant in the unit also failed to appear.

      MSF: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Murphy: 2-3; Becker, Marshall, Wasserman dissenting)

      MSC: To accept the tenant’s appeal and remand the case for a new hearing with the same hearing officer; the scheduling of the remand hearing will be at the convenience of the landlord and the landlords’ witnesses, if any. (Wasserman/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Murphy dissenting)

      C. 50 Turk St. #40 R001-53R

      The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the hearing. The tenant appeals the dismissal, alleging that he failed to receive notice of the hearing because it was sent to a post office box that he had not had the use of since February. However, the tenant’s petition was filed in July, and he had requested that the Rent Board use the post office box as his mailing address in September.

      MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)

      D. 640 Clay St. #111 R001-54R

      The tenant’s petition alleging substantially decreasd housing services due to noise emanating from the unit above hers was denied because the tenant failed to prove that the level of noise was above that to be reasonably expected in a multi-unit building. On appeal, the tenant asserts that she provided sufficient documentation of the noise problem to meet her burden of proof; and that regulations regarding noise in residential hotels are stricter than those for apartment buildings.

      MSC: To deny the appeal. (Wasserman/Gruber: 5-0)

      E. 640 Clay St. #118 R001-55R

      The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services, failure to repair and unlawful oral notices of rent increase was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. The tenant had requested a postponement of the hearing due to the death of her father, the need for more time to gather documentation in support of her case, and various medical conditions; the postponement request was denied. The tenant maintains that her appeal of the dismissal was filed two months late because of numerous medical difficulties, including the fact that she is visually impaired.

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

      F. 666 Greenwich St. R001-56R

      The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the hearing. On appeal, the tenant alleges that he failed to receive notice of the hearing because the master tenant has the key to the mail box and therefore control over delivery of his mail.

      MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing; staff will make every effort to ensure that the tenant receives the Notice of Hearing. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)

    VI. Communications

    In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Board received the following communications:

      A. The latest draft of legislation proposed by Supervisor Yaki which would amend Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(8) concerning owner move-in evictions.

      B. A letter from landlord Stephanie Munoz stating her belief that it is unduly punitive to change the anniversary date if a landlord skips a few months before imposing the allowable annual increase.

      C. The office workload statistics for the month of October, 1996.

      D. A letter from Michele Sutton, Investigator for the State Bar of California, regarding the Board’s referral of Attorney David Dawson for investigation of questionable business practices.

    VII. Director’s Report

    Executive Director Grubb reported as follows:

      A. Deputy City Attorney Mariam Morley will no longer be assigned to the Rent Board, and will be replaced by Deputy City Attorney Amy Ackerman.

      B. Legislation proposed by Supervisor Yaki pertaining to owner move-in evictions passed out of the Housing and Land Use Committee without recommendation and will be considered by the full Board of Supervisors on December 9, 1996.

      C. Deputy Director Wolf provided the Board with a report regarding pending litigation.

    VIII. Old Business

    Mediation Project

    The Commissioners received a November 19th Memorandum from Senior Hearing Office Sandy Gartzman to the hearing officers providing additional guidelines for how agreements for tenants to vacate a unit are to be handled by the mediator. Additionally, the Commissioners were given re-drafted amendments to Rules and Regulations Sections 11.15, 11.20 and 11.21, which codify the Rent Board’s Mediation Project.

    MSC: To adopt the amendments to Rules and Regulations Sections 11.15, 11.20 and 11.21 which serve to codify the Rent Board’s Mediation Project. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

    Discussion of possible further amendments to Rules Section 6.14 necessitated by the passage of AB 3244 and codification of the Board’s Artist Live/Work Policy were continued to a future meeting.

    IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)

      C. An individual expressed an interest in the mediation process, remarking that there was "too much deliberation" at the Board level.

      D. Landlord Glen Hildebrand commented that Commissioner Wasserman was a "breath of fresh air"; and stated that Commissioner Palma should recuse herself due to the "appearance of impropriety."

      E. Robert Pender of the Tenants’ Network requested that information on the Mediation Project be made available and was informed that this has already been done.

    IX. Calendar Items

    November 26, 1996 - NO MEETING

    December 3, 1996

    4 appeal considerations

    Old Business: AB 3244

    December 10, 1996 - NO MEETING

    X. Adjournment

    President Becker adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.

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