August 01, 2000

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

III. Approval of the Minutes

IV. Remarks from the Public

1. Lynn Elman, the landlord in the case at 436 B Haight St. (AT2K0114; AL2K0113), said that she didn’t defend herself against a claim raised by the tenant at the arbitration hearing because she was told by the Administrative Law Judge during a Mediation that the issue wasn’t viable. She told the Board that she was just trying to enhance her building, and not move people out.
2. Tom Hilton, a former tenant at 1169 Pacific (AL2K0111), informed the Board that the landlord was successful in his Unlawful Detainer action and that it was Mr. Hilton’s opinion that the "perjurious" statements in the landlord’s appeal were instrumental, and part of the landlord’s strategy.
3. Miguel Fernandez appeared on behalf of Lynn Elman, and expressed his opinion that she is one of the best landlords in the neighborhood.
4. Summer Graham also spoke on behalf of Lynn Elman, saying that she missed Ms. Elman’s "availability in the community."
5. Robert Ayala said that Ms. Elman’s shop is no longer open regularly because of the renovation work and the stress of the Rent Board case.

V. Consideration of Appeals

A. 1301 Leavenworth St. AL2K0109

The landlord’s petition for extension of time to do capital improvement work was denied because the landlord failed to file the petition prior to serving the notices to vacate, as required by Rules Section 12.15(e)(1), although he knew at that time that the work would take longer than three months to complete. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the landlord alternatively relied on Rules Section 12.15(e)(2), which requires that the landlord file the petition after giving the notice to vacate if the landlord then realizes that the work will take longer than three months to complete; the landlord satisfied his burden of proving that the work would reasonably take more than three months to complete; and the landlord acted pursuant to a Superior Court order to undertake the rehabilitation work and should not be exposed to liability by the Rent Board for having done so.

MSC: Based on the facts of this case, to waive the requirements of Rules and Regulations Section 12.15(e)(1), vacate the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge and grant the landlord’s Petition for Extension of Time.

(Lightner/Gruber: 3-0)

B. 1169 Pacific Ave. AL2K0111

The tenants’ petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services due to the loss of use of the rooftop area and amenities was granted and the landlord, who had failed to appear at the hearing, was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $4,500.00. On appeal, the landlord claimed that the Rent Board acted negligently in sending the Notice of Rescheduled Hearing to an old address which was provided by the tenants. The landlord’s appeal was filed 3 months late because the landlord was engaged in settlement negotiations with the tenants pursuant to an owner move-in eviction lawsuit.

MSC: To find no good cause for the late filing of the appeal. The Decision is therefore final. (Becker/Justman: 4-0)

C. 1369 Hyde St. #73 AL2K0110

The tenants’ petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent from $1,206.06 to $3,800.00 per month was granted because the Administrative Law Judge determined that the tenants commenced occupancy prior to January 1, 1996 and an original tenant still remained on the premises; therefore, the landlord was not entitled to an increase pursuant to Costa-Hawkins nor Rules Section 6.14. On appeal, the landlord argues that: the Decision is based solely on Rules and Regulations Section 6.14, with no weight given to the landlord’s arguments regarding contracts and case law; the Decision was based on hearsay; the Administrative Law Judge proceeded as though it were the respondent who had the burden of proof in this case; the tenant should not acquire the status of "original tenant" by misrepresenting herself as one; the landlord did not waive his right to raise the rent by failing to do so, because he did not have actual knowledge that the last original tenant had vacated the unit; and the Decision is based on equity, and ignores the written contracts between the parties.

MSC: To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration of this appeal. (Lightner/Becker: 4-0)

MSF: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 2-1; Gruber dissenting)

Due to the lack of a voting majority, consideration of this appeal was continued to the August 15^th meeting.

D. 436 B Haight St. AT2K0114;AL2K0113

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $768.50. On appeal, the landlord asserts that the amount of the rent reduction granted due to decreased lighting is excessive and for too long a period of time; the tenant has received additional services due to the construction work performed on the premises; there are certain erroneous statements in the Decision; and the tenant contributed to the untidy condition of the yard, although the landlord does not appeal the amount granted as to this issue. The tenant also appeals, maintaining that her claims of elimination of privacy and quiet enjoyment, mailbox problems, interruption of gas service, unauthorized entry and harassment were not sufficiently looked at by the Administrative Law Judge.

MSF: To deny the appeal except to remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record for a correction as to the commencement date of the rent reduction for the loss of natural light. (Justman/Becker: 2-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

Due to the lack of a majority vote, this appeal was continued to the August 15^th meeting.

E. 1080 Post St. AL2K0112

The landlord’s petition seeking a determination as to whether the rent for the unit could be raised to "market" based on Costa-Hawkins and Rules Section 6.14 was denied. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that a rent increase given during a period when the original tenant had vacated the unit, but family members were residing there, constituted the rent increase that the landlord was allowed pursuant to Costa-Hawkins. The landlord appeals, claiming that: the tenants coached each other to ensure that their responses matched each others’ at the hearing; it was inappropriate for the ALJ to attempt to ascertain the amount of the rent increase the landlords were intending to impose; the Decision is in error regarding the circumstances surrounding the first rent increase given by the landlord; the Rent Board Rules and Regulations require that a 6.14 notice be served upon the tenant prior to a rent increase being issued pursuant to Costa-Hawkins, and the landlord had not served such a notice at the time the first rent increase was given; the landlord’s acceptance of rent should not operate as a waiver of their right to raise the rent because no written notice was given of the subtenants’ occupancy of the unit; the Decision is incorrect in stating that a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit was issued for the amount of the first rent increase, rather than the subsequent increase to market rent; and it is illogical to conclude that the earlier rent increase constituted the Costa-Hawkins increase when other units in the building were renting for a much higher rate at that time.

MSF: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 2-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

Due to the lack of a voting majority, consideration of this appeal was continued to the August 15^th meeting.

F. 1025 Post St., Apt. 47 AL2K0117

The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in services because of a conversion from central heat paid by the landlord to electric heat paid by the tenant was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $66.22 per month. The landlord’s appeal on the grounds that the amount granted did not reflect the tenant’s actual usage of electricity was granted, and the amount granted pursuant to the Decision on Remand was reduced to $25.22 per month. The landlord again appeals, asserting that there is a typographical error in the remand decision as to the amount of the tenant’s monthly rent payment.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-0)

G. 1572 - 36^th Ave. AT2K0116

Two petitions alleging unlawful rent increase were dismissed due to the tenant’s failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant explains the many reasons for his late arrival.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Justman: 4-0)

H. 34 Lloyd St. AL2K0115

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase from $328.00 to $950.00 was granted because the Administrative Law Judge found that the petitioner was a tenant, and not an assignee, and therefore the rent increase was not warranted pursuant to the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. On appeal, the landlord maintains that: a subjective description of the petitioner’s personal status in the Decision has the appearance of bias; the petitioner failed to seek permission to move into the unit from the landlord, and did not inform the landlord of her status as a roommate in the unit; and the petitioner is attempting to take advantage of the elderly landlady in this case.

MSF: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 2-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

Due to the lack of a majority vote, this case was continued to the August 15^th Board meeting.

VI. Communications

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received a Memo from the Mayor, informing them that they must relinquish their appointed position if they are a candidate for public office in November.

VII. Director’s Report

Executive Director Grubb informed the Commissioners that the Ordinance increasing the annual rental unit free by $3.00, which will be paid by landlords on a one-time basis, was introduced a couple of weeks ago. The Department’s corresponding Supplemental Appropriation was introduced yesterday at the Board of Supervisors and will go before the Finance Committee on August 9^th. If the fee increase is approved, the layoff date for 6 of the Administrative Law Judges (3 full-time equivalents) will be January 8, 2001.

IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)

6. A landlord asked questions concerning exemption of single family dwellings from rent control pursuant to Costa-Hawkins.
7. Robert Pender announced a meeting of the Tenants’ Network, specifically for the tenants at Parkmerced, to be held on August 6^th at 1:00 p.m. in Room 250 at S.F. State.
8. Lynn Elman made several more comments concerning the case at 436 B Haight St. (AL2K0113; AT2K0114), alleging that the tenant provided false evidence. Ms. Elman believes that there is nothing she could have done to produce a different result, and feels that housing services should be evaluated in the context of the whole apartment.
9. Lisa Chavez, the tenant in the case at 436 B Haight Street, told the Board that it has been one year since the construction work began, but it is still not finished. She said that she has lost storage and natural light throughout the unit, and that she would not have rented the unit in its current condition. She believes that the landlord is trying to drive her out.
10. Miguel Fernandez said, on behalf of Lynn Elman, that he sees nothing wrong with the condition of the back yard.
11. Summer Graham stated her belief that Lynn Elman has been sensitive while undergoing the remodeling project, including putting in larger windows to increase the light in the unit.

VIII. Calendar Items

IX. Adjournment