October 17, 2000p>
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION
BOARD,
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 at 6:00 p.m.
at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320
I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at
6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Gruber; Lightner; Marshall; Mosser;
Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Becker; Hobson; Murphy.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at
6:35 p.m.
President Wasserman announced that Commissioner
Hobson would be taking a leave of absence until after the election.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 2386 Fulton St. AL2K0160
The landlords’ appeal was filed two days late because
the landlords relied on the date of receipt of the Decision rather than the
date of mailing.
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases
in housing services was granted and the landlords were found liable to the
tenants in the amount of $572.00 for inadequate bathroom facilities; $1,155.00
for loss of the right to sublet; and $1,600.00 due to rent overpayments. The
landlords’ appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to find that enforcing
a consent clause in a rental agreement does not constitute a decrease in housing
services; to grant a rent reduction only for the period of time that consent
to subletting was unreasonably withheld by the landlord; and to determine
whether the rent increase was the result of all of the original occupants
having vacated the unit. In the Decision on Remand, the landlords were held
liable in the amount of $891.00 due to unreasonable withholding of consent
to subletting; and their contention that the rent increase was warranted based
on the banking provisions of the Ordinance was found not to have been proved.
On further appeal, the landlords argue that: the tenants exaggerated the extent
of the bathroom problem; as a recent owner, the landlord is not able to obtain
documentation regarding the commencement date of the tenancy, which would
be readily available to the tenants; the Administrative Law Judge erred in
finding that the tenants had not requested a replacement roommate more than
once in the prior twelve-month period; the tenants should not have been granted
a rent reduction for the period of time it took for them to find a replacement
roommate and for that roommate to be approved by the landlord; and the Administrative
Law Judge has exhibited bias against the landlords and for the tenants.
B. 1278 - 26th Ave. AT2K0162
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvements and an 11.2% increase based on the Past Rent History of the unit
was granted. The tenant’s appeal was granted and the case was remanded to
disallow the cost of replacing a skylight, but the Administrative Law Judge
was instructed to allow an amount commensurate with the cost of re-roofing
that area. The tenant appeals the remand decision, claiming that making an
arbitrary separation of the costs of the skylights and for replacing that
area of the roof will have the effect of double counting the cost of the skylight
roof section and a portion of the cost of the skylight reconstruction.
The tenant’s appeal was filed 9 days late because
he relied on incorrect information from a Rent Board employee who no longer
works for the agency.
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase
in rent was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed
hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims not to have received Notice of Hearing,
and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.
The tenant filed a petition asking for a rent determination
for a non-comparable unit in the building that he was now living in, having
been evicted from his prior unit for occupancy by the owner. The Administrative
Law Judge found the appropriate rent for the replacement unit to be $976.04,
rather than the $1,350.00 set by the landlord. On appeal, the landlord argues:
that the Board’s authority to set a rent for a vacant unit is preempted by
Costa-Hawkins; that procedures for determination of initial rent for non-comparable
replacement units would have to be enacted by the Board of Supervisors; that
square footage comparison is an inaccurate measure of the value of a rental
unit and does not reflect the pricing of rental units in San Francisco.
Consideration of this appeal was continued to the
meeting on November 14th, when there will be another Tenant Commissioner
present.
The tenant’s appeal was filed 4 days late because
the tenant was experiencing medical difficulties.
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 15 of 24 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision
on the grounds of financial hardship.
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 18 of 31 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision
on the grounds of financial hardship.
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 5 of 6 units was granted. One tenant’s appeal on the
grounds of financial hardship was accepted and remanded for hearing. The Administrative
Law Judge found sufficient financial hardship to warrant deferral of the $61.00
passthrough unless and until the tenant’s financial circumstances should change.
The landlord appeals, arguing that he should not be required to subsidize
the tenant’s rent when it is already 500% below market.
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based
on comparable rents was denied. The landlord’s appeal was accepted and the
case was remanded to determine whether the threshold requirement for a rent
increase based on comparables had been met. The Administrative Law Judge found
that the landlord had failed to prove that the rent was set or kept low or
was increased only negligible amounts, nor had they demonstrated the lack
of a fair return on the building, as opposed to this particular unit. The
landlord appeals the remand decision, asserting that: the amount of rent the
Administrative Law Judge found was charged for the unit when it came under
jurisdiction may not be correct; the appropriate initial rent date for the
unit is 1994, when the tenant’s mother died, instead of 1979, when the unit
first came under rent control; allowing a subtenant to succeed to the benefits
of a controlled rent denies the landlord the benefits of vacancy decontrol;
the landlord is being denied procedural and substantive due process by being
deprived of a fair return on this unit; and the Board’s policies regarding
fair return are not elucidated in the Ordinance or Regulations.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Wasserman from consideration
of this appeal. (Wasserman/Gruber: 4-0)
MSF: To deny the appeal. (Justman/Marshall:
2-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
Consideration of this appeal was continued to the
meeting on November 14th, when another Tenant Commissioner will
be present.
The tenants’ petition alleging unlawful rent increases
was granted and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount
of $10,481.28. On appeal, the landlords argue that: the tenants have the burden
of proving an unlawful increase in rent, and the tenants herein did not have
a copy of their original rental agreement or other documentary evidence, nor
were they sure as to the amount of the initial base rent; the tenants admitted
that labor was sometimes exchanged for rent offsets; rent receipts that were
submitted were illegible, and the tenants admitted they did not always receive
receipts for payment of rent; the tenants’ credibility was impeached when
they denied having signed an estoppel certificate, which they later admitted
they had done; and the tenants should be estopped from filing this claim.
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly
noticed hearing. On appeal, the landlord claims not to have received notice
of the hearing, and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice
of Hearing.
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing.
On appeal, the tenant admits to having written down the wrong date for the
hearing in his calendar.
V. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on
the calendar, the Commissioners received the new bond measure passthrough
calculation worksheet for the 2000-2001 tax year.
VI. Calendar Items
October 24th, 31st
& November 7th, 2000 - NO MEETINGS
November 14, 2000
10 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 10/3/00;
2 cont. from 10/17/00)
Old Business: Fair Return
VII. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Top of page