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

Skip to page body

October 17, 2000

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

        MSC: To approve the Minutes of October 3, 2000.

                (Gruber/Marshall: 4-0)

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.

        MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Gruber/Lightner: 4-0)

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.

        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to re-examine the commencement date for the rent reduction due to the landlord’s unreasonable withholding of consent to subletting; and to determine whether there was a new or continuing tenancy for purposes of evaluating the claim of unlawful rent increase. (Marshall/Lightner: 4-0)

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.

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

    C. 635 Chesnut St. AT2K0163

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.

        MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Marshall/Gruber: 4-0)

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.

        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Marshall/Justman: 4-0)

    D. 514A Utah St. AL2K0164

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.

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

Consideration of this appeal was continued to the meeting on November 14th, when there will be another Tenant Commissioner present.

    E. 740 Monterey #111 AT2K0165

The tenant’s appeal was filed 4 days late because the tenant was experiencing medical difficulties.

        MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Marshall/Gruber: 4-0)

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.

        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Lightner: 4-0)

    F. 711 Leavenworth #20 AT2K0166

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.

        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Lightner: 4-0)

    G. 1487 Guerrero St. AL2K0169

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.

        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record to defer implementation of the passthrough for 90 days from the date of issuance of the Decision on Remand, in order for the tenant to find a roommate. This is conditioned on the landlord’s acceptance of rent directly from the roommate, which will not make this person a tenant under the facts of this case. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-0)

    H. 486 Funston Ave. #302 AL2K0168

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.

    I. 2451 - 26th St. AL2K0167

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.

        MSC: To accept the appeal and, in the interests of fairness and justice, of the total amount owing of $10,481.28, to remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record to hold the landlords liable for overcharges only for the period of time that they have owned the building. (Gruber/Lightner: 3-1; Marshall dissenting)

    J. 1684-88 Grove St. AL2K0170

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.

        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-0)

    K. 650 Tenth Ave. AT2K0171

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.

        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing; no further continuances or postponements will be granted to the tenant absent extraordinary circumstances. (Marshall/Gruber: 3-1; Lightner dissenting)

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 19, 2000

                    Old Business:

      A. 60-Day Notices of Rent Increase (SB 1745)

      B. Fair Return

    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

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