January 05, 1999B>
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION
BOARD,
Tuesday, January 5, 1999 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 6:15 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly;
Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Gruber.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Moore appeared on the record
at 6:20 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of December
15, 1998. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 2471 Bryant St.
T001-26A (cont. from 12/1/98)
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 $7,432.50 due to long-term
habitability problems on the subject premises. The landlord failed to appear
at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the landlord claims that he
did not attend the hearing due to a family emergency. He also maintains
that: the information provided by the tenant at the hearing was false;
the lease states that the garage is the tenant’s responsibility; the bedroom
heater is not working because the tenants placed a large dresser in front
of it; the carpet and walls were damaged by the tenant; and the tenant
refused the owner access to the premises when he attempted to effectuate
repairs.
After discussion, it was the consensus
of the Board to continue consideration of this case to the meeting on January
5, 1999, in order for staff to contact the landlord and have him: explain
and document the nature of the family emergency, under penalty of perjury;
and explain why the new property manager failed to appear in his stead.
After discussion of the submission received from the landlord, it was the
consensus of the Board to further continue this case in order to provide
the landlord a final opportunity to explain the exact nature of the "emergency"
that prevented his attendance at the hearing, including documentation,
and under penalty of perjury.
B. 1750 Vallejo St. #201 & #406
T001-28 & -29R;
T001-37 thru -40R
(cont. from 12/15/98)
The landlords’ petition seeking rent increases
based on increased operating expenses and certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, in part. Nineteen tenant appeals were granted and remanded
for hearing on the following issues: to determine whether there were code
violations in existence at the time of the noticed increase based on operating
expenses; to clarify that Rules Section 6.12 does not require that notice
to the landlord be in writing; and to give any tenants not originally allocated
the costs of the new windows an opportunity to raise pertinent objections,
if any. In her Decision on Remand, the hearing officer affirmed that the
cost of the new windows shall be allocated to all units in the building,
because of the weatherproofing benefits provided; rejected the argument
that the amount of the passthrough for the new windows should be reduced
because the replacement vinyl windows are less expensive because no evidence
of such lower cost was provided; and found that the notices of rent increase
based on increased operating expenses were issued subsequent to all code
violations having been remedied. The tenants in unit #406 appealed the
remand decision on the grounds that they failed to receive notice of the
remand hearing and the tape recording of the hearing provided to them was
unintelligible. They and the tenants in unit #201 again asserted that the
windows ultimately received by the tenants cost less than the windows for
which the passthrough was certified.
A motion was made to remand this case to
adjust the amount of the window passthrough to reflect the lower cost of
the vinyl windows for all nineteen tenants who appealed the original Decision
of Hearing Officer. After discussion, it became clear that there was no
voting majority, and the matter was therefore continued to the meeting
on January 5, 1999.
Subsequent to the December 15th Board meeting,
an additional four tenants filed appeals to the Decision on Remand on the
issue of adjustment of the cost of the vinyl windows. The appeals were
untimely filed because the tenants allegedly believed that an adjustment
in the amount of the passthrough would be made for all tenants at a later
date.
After discussion, as to the original two
tenant appeals (T001-28 & -29R), the Board passed the following motion:
MSC: To deny the appeals. (Mosser/Lightner:
3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
As to the four untimely appeals filed subsequent
to the original appeals (T001-37R thru -40R), the Board passed the following
motions:
MSC: To find good cause for the late
filing of the appeals. (Justman/Mosser: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeals. (Justman/Mosser:
3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
C. 405 - 18th Ave.
T001-28A
(cont. from 12/15/98)
The tenant’s petition alleging substantially
decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found
liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,402.65 due to increased noise
from a commercial unit downstairs and $177.76 in reimbursement for increased
PG&E bills during a period of construction in the building. On appeal,
the landlord maintained that the tenant had failed to provide evidence
that the alleged disturbance constituted a reduction in housing services,
nor a violation of relevant noise ordinances; and that the removal of the
loft that previously served as a sound barrier was required under the law
and removed a fire hazard.
MS: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall)
After discussion on the above motion, it became
clear that there was no voting majority and the case was continued to the
January 5, 1999 meeting. After discussion, the below two motions were made:
MSF: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall:
2-3; Justman; Lightner; Mosser dissenting)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
for a hearing to determine whether the level of noise is legally permissible;
if so, then no rent reduction is warranted. (Lightner/Mosser: 3-2; Becker,
Marshall dissenting)
D. 315 Parnassus (Lower)
T001-29A
(cont. from 12/15/98)
The tenants’ petition alleging a substantial
decrease in housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable
to the tenants in the amount of $1,624.00 due to the loss of storage space.
The tenants had already been given a $75.00 per month rent reduction by
the landlord for loss of use of the garage, which the hearing officer determined
to be sufficient compensation for this service. However, $112.00 per month
was granted for the additional loss of an adjacent room used for storage.
On appeal, the landlord contended that she relied on an estoppel certificate
filled out by the tenants and representations from the former owner that
only the garage, and not the storage area, were included in the tenant’s
lease; and, since the tenants had paid no additional rent for use of the
storage area, no rent reduction was warranted.
After discussion, due to the lack of a
voting majority, this matter was continued to the next meeting.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall:
3-2; Lightner, Mosser dissenting)
VI. Old Business
Costa-Hawkins (Civil Code Section
1953.54)
In conjunction with Deputy City Attorney
Marie Blits, the Commissioners continued their discussion of issues associated
with the implementation of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995.
Ms. Blits walked the Commissioners through proposed amendments she had
drafted to the Ordinance and Rules and Regulations and discussed questions
of sequencing and specificity. As to the issue of rooms in a single family
dwelling that are not separately alienable, but are rented out as separate
rental units, Ms. Blits explained that definitions of "boarding houses"
and "group homes" from the Planning Code are not totally on point. The
Deputy Director pointed out the fact that the Rent Ordinance exempts "buildings"
and "structures", whereas Costa-Hawkins talks about "units." Additionally,
the exemption for Artist Live/Work units contained in Rules Section 1.17(g)
adds a requirement that there be no residential tenancy between June 13,
1979 and the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, whereas
Costa-Hawkins appears to mandate exemption if the Certificate of Occupancy
was issued after February 1, 1995. The Tenant Commissioners reported that,
as to the requirement that vacancy control be in effect when prior tenancies
are terminated pursuant to 30-day notice or when there are long-standing
health and safety violations on the premises, the tenant community feels
that it would be appropriate to implement a scheme of vacancy decontrol-recontrol
-- as San Francisco currently does not have vacancy control, the landlord
would be entitled to set the initial rent, but rent stabilization would
apply thereafter (as per the current state of the law for those units).
The Commissioners also discussed whether or not "anniversary dates" will
still apply: will the Board be enjoined only from restricting the rental
rate,
but not when that rate is established? Deputy City Attorney Blits will
work on a new draft of proposed amendments to the Ordinance and Rules,
incorporating the suggestions and consensus of the Commissioners, where
one exists. This issue will be continued to the meeting on February 2,
1999.
V. Consideration of Appeals (cont.)
E. 3615 - 17th St.
T001-35 & -36R
The landlord’s petition for certification
of capital improvement costs was granted. The landlord had served notices
of rent increase on October 27, 1997, stating that the effective date of
the increase was "retroactive to October 1st." The hearing officer deemed
the effective date of the notices to be November 27th. However, subsequent
to the hearing, the landlord served new notices of rent increase with an
effective date of August 1, 1998. On appeal, the tenants maintain that
the effective date of the increase in the Decision is incorrect. Additionally,
one of the three roommates appeals the Decision on the grounds of financial
hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal filed by all
three tenants and remand the case on the record to issue a correction as
to the effective date of the rent increase. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the individual appeal filed
on the grounds of financial hardship. (Lightner/Mosser: 4-1; Becker dissenting)
F. 1121 Masonic Ave. #6 & 9
T001-30A
Two tenant petitions alleging substantial
decreases in housing services were granted and the landlord was found liable
in the amounts of $2,865.00 and $3,091.80 due to serious habitability problems
on the premises. Additionally, rent overpayments were determined and an
annual increase was deferred for the tenant in one unit due to the landlord’s
failure to repair. On appeal, the landlord claims that: repairs and maintenance
are performed on a continuing basis; no promise was made to reinstall the
front gate to the premises, and the gate was not in a state of disrepair;
there is no pest infestation of any kind in the building; the floors are
wet only when they are being cleaned and mopped; the windows are tightly
sealed; the tenant in unit #6 refuses to provide access to his unit; the
only problems with the toilets are caused by the tenants; the tenants are
in arrears on their rent payments; and the tenant making the majority of
the allegations lied in a previous court case and is currently lying because
he knows that the Rent Board will not conduct an inspection of the premises.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
G. 2211 Castro St.
T001-31R thru -34R
The landlords’ petition for certification
of capital improvement costs to the tenants in four units was granted,
in part, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $38.00. The
tenants appeal the decision, asserting that: the landlords failed to provide
adequate documentation in support of their petition; the work was in the
nature of repair, rather than capital improvement; the landlords have previously
submitted incorrect information to another City agency; the work was necessitated
by the owners’ deferred maintenance; and the petition should have been
dismissed without hearing.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Mosser:
5-0)
VII. Communications
The Commissioners received the following
communications:
A. Two newspaper articles and a Press Release
concerning criminal prosecution by District Attorney Terrence Hallinan’s
Office of landlord George Hoffberg for multiple violations of the Rent
Ordinance and other housing codes.
B. Two newspaper articles regarding the
California Supreme Court decision in the case of Santa Monica Beach
Ltd. v. Superior Court (S058723), which held that Santa Monica’s rent
control law did not constitute an unlawful "taking" because it had failed
to achieve its stated purpose of alleviating a housing shortage.
C. A Memorandum from Executive Director
Joe Grubb offering an alternative source for determining imputed interest
rates for capital improvement costs pursuant to Rules and Regulations Section
7.14(b).
VIII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb discussed his
Memorandum suggesting an alternative method for determining imputed interest
rates for capital improvement costs pursuant to Rules and Regulations Section
7.14(b). Currently, the Board uses the rates for like years for Treasury
Bills as posted on the last day of each January in the Wall Street Journal.
However, as there is not always a figure available on this date, Mr. Grubb
has identified a more reliable source (the Federal Reserve Statistical
Release). Additionally, he suggests that the rate be determined at an earlier
date, so that it could be posted concurrent with the posting of the annual
allowable rent increase amount. The Commissioners concurred with Mr. Grubb’s
suggestions, and asked that he draft amendments to Rules Section 7.14 to
be put out for Public Hearing on January 19th.
IX. Calendar Items
January 12, 1999 - NO MEETING
January 19, 1999
3 appeal considerations
(1 cont. from 12/15/98)
6:00 Public Hearing:
Amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 7.14
X. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting
at 9:50 p.m.