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.