March 30, 1999p>
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO
RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION &
ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, March 30, 1999 at 6:00 p.m.
at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower
Level
I. Call to Order
Vice-President Marshall called the meeting
to order at 6:07 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Lightner; Marshall;
Moore; Mosser; Murphy.
Commissioners not Present: Becker; Bierly;
Wasserman.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Gruber appeared on the record
at 6:09 p.m.; Commissioner Justman arrived at 6:12 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of March
16, 1999.
(Lightner/Mosser: 4-0)
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 36 Divisadero St. T001-43A
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful
rent increases was granted and the landlord of this Proposition I Affected
Unit was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $7,858.00. On appeal,
the landlord asserts: that the increase was lawful at the time it was given;
that it was issued prior to the retroactive rollback provisions of Proposition
I; and that it is an impermissible penalty to declare a rent increase invalid
if it was proper at the time of service of the notice of rent increase.
Since the landlord attorney’s brief had
not been mailed to the tenants in time for them to respond, consideration
of this case was continued to the next meeting.
B. 1582 - 22nd Ave. T001-42A
The landlords’ petition for rent increase
based on comparable rents was denied because the hearing officer found
that the landlords had not proved that they had set the rent for the unit
very low due to a special relationship they had with the tenants. Additionally,
the landlords was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $3,138.00
due to unlawful rent increases. On appeal, the landlords claim that the
hearing officer: erred in her calculation of rent overpayments in that
Rules Section 1.12(b) permits a 4% increase, rather than 1.6%, during the
time period in question; erred in finding that the rent was not set and
kept low; should have taken into account capital improvements made to the
property; gave no weight to the special relationship between the landlords
and the tenants; ignored objective evidence regarding the condition of
the premises, believing the tenants without support; was biased against
the landlord and issued a decision not consistent with prior decisions
of the Board. The landlord also asserts that the Board should have provided
the landlord with a "mandatory landlord hardship petition."
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand
the case to the hearing officer in order to properly apply Rules and Regulations
Section 1.12(b); and to consider the landlord’s allegation that this is
a furnished unit in the comparables analysis. A hearing will be held only
if necessary. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
C. 3374 - 22nd St. T001-41A
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased
housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable
to the tenants in the amount of $5,441.00 due to habitability defects on
the premises. Additionally, a rent increase based on the landlord’s contention
that no original tenants continued to reside in the unit was found to be
null and void, and the landlord was found liable for rent overpayments
in the amount of $4,500.00. The landlord appeals the decision, claiming
that: the hearing officer exhibited bias against the landlord and granted
rent reductions that were excessively punitive; the problem with the doorbell
buzzer was the result of one of the tenants’ having cut the wires, which
should impeach the credibility of that tenant and her claim to being an
"original tenant"; the tenants contacted the Dept. of Building Inspection
in retaliation for the landlord’s having issued a 6.14 notice and subsequent
rent increase; there should have been greater consideration given to the
landlord’s medical condition; the handrail on the stairs was removed without
the landlord’s knowledge or consent, and constructive notice should not
be imputed since the stairs in question are located at the rear of the
building; and the tenants’ notice to a court-appointed receiver of the
problem with the defective thermostat on the heater should not be imputed
to them, because a receiver is an agent of the courts, and not the owners.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Lightner from
consideration of this case. (Mosser/Gruber: 5-0)
MSF: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Moore:
2-3; Gruber, Justman, Murphy dissenting)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the
case to the hearing officer only on the issue of the rent reductions for
the heater and handrail: the amounts granted shall only apply to tenant(s)
who were in residence during the period of time the services were decreased,
based on the length of time they were on the premises and the proportion
of the rent that they paid. (Justman/Murphy: 4-1; Moore dissenting)
D. 743 Silliman St. T001-44A
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 $4,535.00 due to serious habitability
problems on the premises. On appeal, the landlord claims that she did not
appear on the hearing because she had two deaths in the family, and asks
for an opportunity to present her side of the story.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand
the case for a new hearing. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
E. 95 Grandview Ave. #3 T001-46A
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful
increases in rent was granted and the landlord was found liable to the
tenant in the amount of $1,398.84. On appeal, the landlord claims that,
since he refunded the actual amount of the overcharge, it is unfair that
a year later the entire amount of the increase was found to be null and
void; that, when she agreed to pay an additional $15.00 for permission
to have a cat, the tenant had also agreed that the rent dispute was resolved;
there is an error in the decision regarding the amount of the rent; and
the overcharge was an honest mistake, because the allowable annual increase
had been 4% for so many years.
MSC: To deny the appeal except to correct
the amount owing from the landlord to the tenant to $1,276.12 due to the
tenant having vacated the unit prior to issuance of the decision. (Marshall/Justman:
5-0)
F. 730 Stockton St. #43 T001-45A
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful
rent increases due to the landlord’s failure to discontinue a capital improvement
passthrough and the inclusion of such passthrough in the calculation of
annual rent increases was granted and the landlord was found liable to
the tenant in the amount of $3,134.92. On appeal, the landlord claims that:
the tenant failed to meet his burden of proof, in that he provided only
canceled checks in support of his petition, and not the actual notices
of rent increase; the tenant lacks credibility in that he has lied or failed
to submit evidence not favorable to his claim; the three-year limitation
on the refund of rent overpayments should also apply to failure to discontinue
a capital improvement passthrough; there are calculation errors in the
decision and the landlord is being penalized twice for the same mistake;
and the hearing officer has exhibited bias against the landlord.
MSC: Based on the facts of this case
only, to accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on
the record to find that the rent increase given in September, 1990 is not
null and void if the total amount of the rent increase does not exceed
the total of the prior base rent times the actual percentage rent increase
given plus the capital improvement passthrough, even if the notice is technically
defective.
(Lightner/Gruber: 4-1; Moore dissenting)
G. 2450 Lake St. #2 T001-49R
The landlord’s petition for certification
of capital improvement costs for five of six units was granted, resulting
in a passthrough in the amount of $26.48 per month. One tenant appeals
the decision on the grounds that the costs should not have been equally
allocated to all units in the building, because some units are larger than
others; and claiming that he should have been allowed to examine the landlord’s
original documents, since the copies submitted could have been falsified.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber:
5-0)
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased
housing services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly
noticed hearing. On appeal, the residential hotel tenant claims that his
mail has been stolen, and submits a Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice
of Hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and schedule
the case for a new hearing. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
V. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning
cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the office workload statistics
for the month of February.
VI. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb reminded the
Commissioners that the Form 730 Statement of Economic Interests are due
to the Ethics Commission on April 1st.
VII. Calendar Items
April 6, 1999
8 appeal considerations (1 cont. from
3/30/99)
Old Business: Non-Residential Use of a
Unit
April 13, 1999 - NO MEETING
VIII. Adjournment
Vice-President Marshall adjourned the
meeting at 8:00 p.m.