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

Skip to page body

March 21, 2000

March 21, 2000p> 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

Tuesday, March 21, 2000 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 6:11 p.m.

II. Roll Call

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

Commissioners not Present: Murphy.

Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

President Wasserman appeared on the record at 6:13 p.m.

III. Consideration of Appeals

A. 807 Ashbury #6 U001-53A

(cont. from 2/1/00)

The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs to one out of six units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $166.24. The landlord appealed, asserting that: he should not be restricted to the imputed interest rate, since the work was financed with a loan at the rate of 10.5%; imposition of the 10% cap on the passthrough contained in Rules Section 7.12(d) denies him a fair return on his investment, is unconstitutional and sufficient extraordinary circumstances exist in this case to warrant relief from the cap; he is entitled to make a profit on the capital improvement investment, in addition to recovering the costs; and a "zero dollar return" on capital improvements constitutes a taking.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this case in order for the Administrative Law Judge to provide the Commissioners with a Memorandum explaining why she was unable to trace the loan proceeds to payment for the capital improvement work; for staff to provide calculations as to the length of time it would take to phase in the passthrough if the cap were increased to 12 or 15%; for the tenant to furnish information regarding her claim of financial hardship should the amount of the passthrough be increased; and for the parties to provide a copy of the 1992 Decision regarding a comparables increase for this unit, if available.

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

B. 236-1/2 San Jose Ave. U001-86R

(cont. from 2/15/00)

The landlord's petition for certification of the costs of legalizing one unit were granted, in part, resulting in a total monthly passthrough in the amount of $534.25, subject to the 10% cap. The tenant appeals, asking that she be allowed to reserve her right to a future hardship claim at such time as she no longer can afford to pay the increase.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this appeal in order for staff to contact the tenant and obtain additional information regarding her financial situation.

MSC: To recuse Commissioner Marshall from consideration of this appeal. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)

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

C. 6674 - 3rd St., Apt. D AT2K0005

(cont. from 2/15/00)

The tenant's petition alleging substantially decreased housing services was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant alleged that an emergency meeting at work prevented her appearance.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this case in order for staff to contact the tenant and obtain documentation of the work-related conflict that prevented her from appearing at the hearing. Nothing further was submitted by the tenant.

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

D. 2112 Baker St. AT2K0007 & -08

The landlords’ petition for certification of the costs of painting and reconstruction of the exterior facade of the building to the tenants in two of three units was granted. On appeal, the tenants claim that: post-hearing evidence submitted in support of the petition was not sworn to under penalty of perjury; the landlords should not have been given additional time to augment their petition, especially as the record was not reopened in order for the tenants to respond; one of the competing contractor’s proposals refers to work that had not been done at the time, which proves that the proposals were obtained afterwards; only one door viewer was installed, but the tenants were charged for two; the tenants are not required for furnish evidence of their socioeconomic status in order for prevail on an objection that the work constitutes "luxury items"; the work was done without permits; and most of the work was unnecessary "gold plating" for which the costs are excessive.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to allow the tenants to respond to the landlords’ December 1, 1999 post-hearing submission; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

E. 709 Geary #204, 206, 207, 405, 410 AL2K0009

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 23 of 39 units was granted. On appeal, the landlord’s representative asserts that a typographical error as to five tenants’ move-in dates resulted in erroneous applications of the 6-Month Rule. He asks that the case be remanded to the Administrative Law Judge in order for corrections to be made to the Decision.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for corrections as to the tenants’ move-in dates and application of the 6-Month Rule, if warranted. The tenants shall be served with a copy of the amended petition and given an opportunity to raise objections to the capital improvements, if any. A hearing will be held only if necessary. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)

F. 6200 California #2 AT2K0010

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 3 of 4 units was granted, in part. Additionally, a tenant petition alleging unlawful rent increase was granted, and rent overpayments in the amount of $1,733.13 were determined to be owing from the landlord to the tenant. The tenant appeals the capital improvement portion of the decision, claiming that: an independent estimator should have been hired to determine whether the costs were reasonable; the landlord submitted minimal documentation in support of the petition; the permit taken out by the contractor was for a lesser amount than that petitioned for; the dry rot repair, exterior painting and window replacement were necessitated by deferred maintenance; and the costs of the garage doors should have been allocated to four, rather than three, units.

MSF: To accept the appeal and remand on the issue of the garage door allocation; also, to obtain an estimator’s report as to the value of the work and hold a hearing only if there is more than a 10% discrepancy between the estimator’s valuation and the landlord’s petitioned-for costs. (Becker/Marshall: 2-3; Justman; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record for a correction regarding the garage door allocation only. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-1; Marshall dissenting)

G. 563 Columbus Ave. AL2K0011

The tenant’s petition was denied as to an allegation of unlawful rent increase. A claim of decreased housing services due to the lack of a heating source in the unit since the inception of the tenancy was granted, however, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $13,200.00. The landlord appeals, claiming that the Administrative Law Judge failed to take into account the provisions of the lease that state that the premises are in "good working order" and a written settlement agreement between the parties.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)

H. 2245 Chesnut St. AL2K0012

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent from $1,581.84 to $2,800.00 per month based on the provisions of Costa-Hawkins regarding sublessees and assignees was granted. On appeal, the landlord argues that: the landlord’s acceptance of rent from the tenant, who commenced occupancy after January 1, 1996, did not constitute waiver because she had not received written notice of his presence in the unit and thereafter accepted rent; the tenant failed to receive the landlord’s consent to his tenancy pursuant to the provisions of the lease, and therefore is a subtenant or assignee of the prior tenant, rather than a co-tenant; and the facts in this case typify the relief envisioned by the passage of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge with instructions that a new tenancy was created and the rent increase was warranted. (Lightner/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)

I. 1977 Pine St. AL2K0014

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted due to the loss of the right to have guests park in the garage on the premises and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $80.00 per month or $480.00. The landlord appeals, asserting that: the amount of the rent reduction is too high a penalty for disallowing guest parking "once or twice a month"; the length of time granted by the Administrative Law Judge was longer than the actual period of the reduction in services; and the landlord and tenant have worked out a viable arrangement to deal with the problem.

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

J. 1074-1076 Carolina AL2K0015

The landlord’s petition for certification of substantial rehabilitation was dismissed due to the landlord’s failure to meet the threshold requirements of Rules and Regulations Section 8.12. On appeal, the landlord asks that the Board waive many of the procedural provisions of the Rules, with which he will be unable to comply; otherwise, he will sell the building to tenants-in-common buyers.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this case to the meeting on May 2nd out of concern that the landlord may have thought that he would be able to make arguments in support of his appeal at tonight’s meeting; and to give him an opportunity to do so in writing.

IV. Communications

The Commissioners received a copy of proposed new Rules and Regulations Section 6.14, which will be the subject of a Public Hearing on April 25th.

V. Director's Report

Executive Director Grubb reminded the Commissioners that their Statement of Economic Interest forms are due by April 3rd, and that they are now on the payroll as City employees. He also informed them that the legislation sponsored by Supervisor Amos Brown authorizing a Housing Study passed First Reading at the Board of Supervisors on Monday, March 20th. Deputy Director Wolf informed the Board that a Writ challenging Rules Section 6.15 was filed by Attorney Steven Rosenthal (Danekas v. Rent Board, Superior Court Case No. 310104), and that Mr. Rosenthal personally served President Wasserman at her home on a Sunday morning. As the Commissioners found this personally and professionally objectionable, as well as unnecessary, they authorized Ms. Wolf to ask the Office of the City Attorney to explore whether there is some way to preclude such behavior in the future.

VI. Remarks from the Public

Andy Braden, the landlord’s representative in the case at 709 Geary (AL2K0009), thanked the Board for allowing him to fix a mistake and inquired as to whether there was some way to do so without the necessity of filing an appeal. Tenant Christopher Slingsby of 2112 Baker Street (AT2K0007 & -08) commended the Board on their balance and fair-mindedness.

VII. Calendar Items

March 28, 2000 - NO MEETING

April 4, 2000

9 appeal considerations

VIII. Adjournment

President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:13 AM