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

Skip to page body

June 15, 1999

June 15, 1999B>

 

 

 

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

Tuesday, June 15, 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 6:16 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Bierly; Marshall; Mosser; Murphy.

Commissioners not Present: Becker; Gruber; Lightner; Wasserman.

Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:54 p.m.

III. Approval of the Minutes

MSC: To approve the Minutes of June 1, 1999.

(Murphy/Mosser: 3-0)

IV. Consideration of Appeals

A. 529 Hugo St. T001-64A

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 apologizes for having mixed up the date of the hearing and asks for the hearing to be rescheduled.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Murphy/Mosser: 3-0)

B. 73 Cumberland St. T001-62A

The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. The costs of construction of a rear porch and deck were disallowed to the tenants in two units pursuant to Rules and Regulations Section 7.12(b) ("The 6-Month Rule"). On appeal, the landlords claim that, while some of the preliminary architectural and engineering design work occurred prior to the move-in date of the tenants in one unit, the physical construction did not commence until ten months after the move-in date. They contend that prior cases have held that the date the actual physical construction commenced should be used for triggering the 6-Month Rule.

After discussion, it was agreed that this matter should be continued to the next meeting, when more Commissioners will be in attendance.

C. 261 - 23rd Ave. T001-83R

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services, the landlord’s failure to repair and unlawful rent increase was denied. The hearing officer found that a $50 increase in rent was actually restoration of the prior agreed-upon base rent amount after discontinuation of a discount for the tenant’s provision of management services. The tenant’s habitability claims were determined to not be substantial or it was found that the landlord acted expeditiously to effectuate repairs and was hindered by an inflexible repair schedule of the tenant’s choosing. On appeal, the tenant claims that the hearing officer was biased in favor of the landlord; that his managerial discount was in the amount of $20, not $50; that the leak and mildew problems in his bathroom are more serious than depicted by the hearing officer; and that he has been reasonable in providing access to the landlord

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record to examine the October 8, 1998 letter from the landlord to the tenant asking for reinstitution of the $50.00 monthly discount in light of the finding that the tenant had failed to produce evidence of the amount of rent that he had been paying; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Murphy/Mosser: 3-0)

D. 469 - 8th Ave. T001-63A

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $4,972.50 due to habitability defects on the premises. On appeal, the landlords claim that: they should not be liable for problems that existed prior to their purchase of the property; they never received letters from the tenant regarding defects on the premises; the tenant has been uncooperative in providing access to the premises and has failed to move her belongings so that the ceiling could be painted; and the light over the mantle did not need repair as it was not broken.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this appeal to the June 29th Board meeting.

E. 331 Waller #3 T001-84R

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 claims to have an unsecured mail box, and attaches a Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Murphy/Mosser: 3-0)

F. 242 Turk St. #314 T001-87R

The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases in rent was denied because the tenant failed to meet his burden of proof. On appeal, the tenant asserts that he did not move into the unit at the earliest date assumed by the hearing officer; and that he did not pay the original rental amount stated in the decision but, rather, received free rent from the Salvation Army as compensation for services that he provided.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosser/Murphy: 3-0)

G. 6678 Third St. #C T001-89R

The tenant’s appeal of a decision granting a comparables increase based on the Past Rent History of a Proposition I Affected Unit was granted, and the case was remanded on the issue of the tenant’s rent history, specifically, whether the tenant’s base rent included a charge for a parking space. The hearing officer found that the carport on the premises was an additional housing service provided after the inception of the tenancy, for which the landlord was entitled to charge additional rent, and the $30.00 rent increase was therefore lawful. The tenant again appeals, claiming that the prior owner knew that he was using the carport, charged no additional rent and, therefore, use of the carport was a housing service included in his base rent

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosser/Murphy: 3-0)

H. 801 - 25th Ave. #19 T001-67R

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was granted because the hearing officer found that there was a continuing, rather than new, tenancy. On appeal, the landlord claimed that there was no basis for finding that the petitioner had established a tenancy pursuant to Rules and Regulations Section 6.14. The landlord’s appeal was accepted and the case was remanded for further hearing on this issue. The Decision on Remand overturns the original decision, finding that the landlord and resident manager never approved the subtenancy; and, while the resident manager had some contact with the petitioner, he was not aware that she was residing at the premises. The rent increase from $712.50 to $950.00 was therefore found to be lawful. The tenant appeals the remand decision, asserting that the resident manager and landlord lied at the remand hearing, and asking for another hearing in order to present new information.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosser/Murphy: 3-0)

I. 2655 Pine St. T001-65A

The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted, in part. The majority of the landlord’s claimed increased expenses, in the repair category, were disallowed because the hearing officer found that the disproportionate number of repairs performed in Year Two as opposed to Year One created exaggerated results. Additionally, rent overpayments in the amount of $1,465.80 were determined to be owing to the tenants in unit #2, who moved to another unit in the building at a higher rent, which should have changed their anniversary date. The landlord appeals the decision on the grounds that: his due process rights were violated by the determination of rent overpayments having been made without a hearing on the issue; that the move to another unit was at the tenants’ initiative and there was an agreement between the parties that their anniversary date in the other unit would be retained; that the necessity for repairs during the Year Two time period was not within his control; there are arithmetic errors in the decision; the hearing officer and Rent Board are biased against landlords; and his petition was not processed in a timely manner.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing only on the rent history of the tenants in unit #2; the decision is final as to all other issues. (Mosser/Murphy: 3-0)

V. Communications

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:

A. A Memorandum from Senior Hearing Officer Sandy Gartzman regarding proposed amendments to Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(13) ("Ellis").

B. Judge David Garcia’s Order Granting Writ of Mandate in the case of John Hickey Brokerage v. City and County of San Francisco (Superior Court Case No. 303023) and Order for Preliminary Injunction in Cynar v. City and County of San Francisco (Superior Court Case No. 303014).

C. Several newspaper articles concerning the rulings in the above-cited cases.

VI. Director’s Report

Executive Director Grubb reported that the departmental budget had its first hearing before the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors today. Budget Analyst Harvey Rose is recommending that half of the new positions requested by the department be deleted. The public will have an opportunity to comment at a hearing to be held on Saturday, June 19th.

VII. Old Business

A. Ellis Amendments

The Commissioners discussed a recommendation from Deputy City Attorney Marie Blits that the package of suggested amendments to conform the Ordinance to the Ellis Act being forwarded from the Rent Board to the Board of Supervisors be further amended as follows below:

(13) The landlord, who does not have cause to evict under any other provision of this Section 37.9(a), wishes to withdraw from rent or lease all rental units within any detached physical structure and, in addition, in the case of any detached physical structure containing three or fewer rental units, any other rental units on the same lot, and complies in full with Section 37.9A with respect to each such unit; provided, however, that a unit classified as a residential unit under Chapter 41 of this Code which is vacated under this Section 37.9(a)(13) may not be put to any use other than that of a residential hotel unit without compliance with the provisions of Section 41.9 of this Code; or

Since the Ellis Act does not require an owner to utilize other possible grounds for eviction before filing an eviction under the Ellis Act, the Courts are not requiring an owner to exhaust other grounds before proceeding under Ellis. Therefore, the Board voted as follows:

MSC: To adopt the additional proposed amendment in the Board’s recommended package of Ellis Amendments to go before the Board of Supervisors. (Murphy/Mosser: 4-0)

VIII. Calendar Items

June 22, 1999 - NO MEETING

June 29, 1999

2 appeal considerations (cont. from 6/15/99)

6:00 Public Hearing: Proposed Repeal of Rules Section 12.18 (Ellis)

Old Business:

A. Interest Rate When Capital Improvement Work is Financed With a Variable Rate Mortgage

B. Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regs. Section 6.15

C. Translation Services

D. Minute Order Program

New Business: Commissioner Protocols

July 6, 1999

8 appeal considerations

IX. Adjournment

Vice-President Marshall adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

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