|
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF
|
|
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
|
|
STABILIZATION &
ARBITRATION BOARD,
|
| |
|
Tuesday, May 2, 2000 at 6:00 p.m.
at
|
|
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower
Level
|
| |
|
I. Call to Order
|
|
|
|
President Wasserman called the meeting
to order at 6:10 p.m.
|
| |
|
II. Roll Call
|
| |
|
Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly;
Hobson; Marshall; Murphy; Wasserman.
|
|
Commissioners not Present: Justman; Lightner;
Mosser.
|
|
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
|
| |
|
Commissioner Gruber appeared on the record
at 6:14 p.m.
|
| |
|
III. Approval of the Minutes
|
| |
|
MSC: To approve the Minutes of April 25, 2000.
|
|
(Murphy/Becker: 4-0)
|
| |
|
IV. Consideration of Appeals
|
| |
|
A. 1074 - 1076 Carolina AL2K0015
|
|
(cont. from 3/21/2000)
|
| |
|
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 at the meeting on March 21st,
it was the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this case
out of concern that the landlord may have thought that he would be able
to make arguments in support of his appeal at that meeting; and to give
him an opportunity to do so in writing. After review and discussion of
additional documentation and arguments submitted by the landlord, the
Board voted as follows below.
|
| |
|
MSC: To deny the appeal without prejudice
to re-filing. (Becker/Marshall: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
|
| |
|
B. 338 Kirkham St. #3 AL2K0013
|
|
(cont. from 4/4/2000)
|
| |
|
The landlords’ appeal was filed two days late
because the landlords allege that they were out of town at the time the
Decision was mailed.
|
| |
|
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing
of the appeal. (Becker/Murphy: 5-0)
|
| |
|
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial
decreases in housing services was granted only as to the claim of loss
of use of the garage floor area for storage for several months, and the
landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount of $163.45. On
appeal, the landlords assert that: the tenants acquired the additional
garage floor storage space after the inception of the tenancy for no additional
consideration; the lease and Estoppel Certificate filled out by the tenants
do not mention storage space and it was reasonable for the landlords to
have relied on these documents; and the landlords should not be punished
for an omission on the part of the tenants.
|
| |
|
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
for a hearing to consider the Estoppel Certificate and new evidence submitted
by the landlord on appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
|
| |
|
C. 1369 Hyde St. AT2K0024; AT2K0040
thru -44; & AT2K0049 thru -63
|
| |
|
The landlord’s petition for certification
of capital improvement costs to 70 of 84 units was granted, in part. A
tenant petition alleging decreased housing services due to the landlord’s
refusal to give consent to a replacement roommate was denied. Five tenants
appeal on the grounds of financial hardship. Nineteen tenants jointly
appeal on the grounds that: the cost of painting the same areas in the
building was significantly less the last time the work was performed;
the new Cardkey system and video cameras are luxury items, and tenants
pay a "use fee" for replacement card keys; and the landlord failed to
prove that the roof door work was necessary.
|
| |
|
MSC: To deny the individual appeal of the
tenants in unit #40. (Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)
|
| |
|
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in
unit #49 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial
hardship. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
|
| |
|
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in
unit #56 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial
hardship. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
|
| |
|
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in
unit #17 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial
hardship. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
|
| |
|
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in
unit #63 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial
hardship. (Wasserman/Becker: 5-0)
|
| |
|
MSC: To deny the joint appeal filed by nineteen
tenants. (Murphy/Gruber: 4-1; Marshall dissenting)
|
| |
|
The hardship appeal of the tenant in unit
#52 was continued in order for the tenant to respond to an allegation
made by the landlord’s attorney that the tenant has a roommate and, if
so, to obtain a Hardship Application from that individual.
|
|
|
|
D. 1700 Page #8 AT2K0027
|
| |
|
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful
rent increase was denied because the tenant was questioning whether the
landlord had correctly imposed a capital improvement passthrough, and
the Administrative Law Judge found that the landlord had imposed less
than he was entitled to. On appeal, the tenant maintains that she had
asked that her rent history be checked back to 1997, and that if she had
known that complete documentation was required, she would have provided
it.
|
| |
|
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
to the Administrative Law Judge to check the tenant’s rent history; a
hearing will be held only if necessary. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
|
| |
|
E. 7427 Geary Blvd. #3 AL2K0034
& AT2K0028
|
| |
|
The landlord’s petition for certification
of capital improvement costs was granted, in part, resulting in a monthly
passthrough in the amount of $59.72. The tenant appeals the decision,
arguing that: the landlord failed to adequately document costs and payment;
and an independent estimator should have retained to give an opinion as
to the reasonable cost of the work. The landlord also appeals, claiming
that the cost of stair replacement should have been certified; and the
electrical work should have been certified over a 7, rather than 10, year
period.
|
| |
|
MSC: To deny both the tenant’s and the landlord’s
appeals. (Gruber/Murphy: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
|
| |
|
F. 626 Leavenworth St. AL2K0029
|
| |
|
The landlord’s petition for extension of time
to do capital improvement work was denied because the landlord failed
to provide a written breakdown of the proposed work and did not file the
petition until more than three months after they knew, or should have
known, that the work would take longer than three months to complete.
On appeal, the landlord asserts that the delay was caused by PG&E’s
inability to provide new electrical service to the property and the tenant’s
failure to vacate the unit upon expiration of the 30-day notice. The landlord’s
appeal was filed five days late without explanation, and no response was
received to a Memorandum from the Deputy Director requesting that the
landlord explain the reason for the late filing.
|
| |
|
MSC: To find no good cause for the late filing
of the appeal. The Decision of the Administrative Law Judge is therefore
final. (Becker/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Murphy dissenting)
|
| |
|
G. 2656 Van Ness #11 AL2K0033
|
| |
|
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial
decrease in housing services due to termite infestation in the unit was
granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount
of $1,125.00. The landlord appeals, arguing that: the exposed wall cavity
was closed up by January 11th, except for caulking around the windows;
and extermination services were provided on or about January 15th, which
should have remedied the problem.
|
|
|
|
MSC: To deny the appeal except to clarify
that, if the infestation ceased prior to the date that rent reductions
were granted in the Decision, the parties shall make the appropriate adjustment
to the amounts owing from the landlord to the tenant. Additionally, if
the problem recurs, the tenant can reinstate the rent reduction. (Wasserman/Marshall:
5-0)
|
| |
|
H 1550 Fillmore #500 AT2K0035
|
| |
|
The landlords’ petition for certification
of capital improvement costs to 15 of 52 units was granted, in part. One
tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
|
| |
|
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
|
| |
|
V. Director’s Report
|
|
|
|
Executive Director Grubb informed the Commissioners
that amendments to the Rent Ordinance to conform it to Costa-Hawkins were
passed by the Housing and Social Policy Committee and will now go before
the full Board of Supervisors.
|
| |
|
VI. Remarks from the Public
|
| |
|
Tony Bevevadia, attorney for the landlord
involved in the case at 7427 Geary Blvd. #3 (AL2K0034), asked that the
Board reconsider their denial of the landlord’s appeal, contending that
the stair replacement was capital improvement work, and not in the nature
of repair.
|
| |
|
VII. New Business
|
| |
|
Commissioner Becker introduced an amendment
to Rules Section 6.10(a), as follows below (new language in bold):
|
| |
|
(a) A rent increase may be considered justified
if it is found that the aggregate cost of Operating and Maintenance Expenses
(including but not limited to real estate taxes, business registration
and license fees, insurance, routine maintenance and repairs, water, sewer
service charge, janitorial service, refuse removal, elevator service,
security system and debt service) has increased over a 12-month period
preceding the date of filing the petition ("Year 2"), compared to the
Operating and Maintenance Expenses incurred in the 12 months prior to
Year 2 ("Year 1"), after having been offset by increases in revenues,
in a percentage amount of the tenant’s rent above the percentage amount
equal to the allowable rent increase. Alternatively, the immediately preceding
two calendar years may be used. Use of a particular calculation period
in order to create exaggerated results is disfavored. To determine the
per unit rent increase, this cost increase is divided by 12 months, then
divided by the number of units in the building. Only those tenants in
residence during Year 1 may be assessed a rent increase based on an increase
in Operating and Maintenance Expenses, except in cases of change of ownership
following commencement of tenancy.
|
| |
|
Discussion of this proposal will be on the May
16th Board meeting calendar.
|
|
|
|
VIII. Calendar Items
|
| |
|
May 9, 2000 - NO MEETING
|
| |
|
May 16, 2000
|
|
11 appeal considerations (1 cont. from
5/2/00)
|
|
Old Business: Revenue Offset for O&M
Increases
|
|
New Business: Recission of Notice of Constraints
(665 Clay St.)
|
| |
|
IX. Adjournment
|
| |
|
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting
at 7:35 p.m.
|