July 06, 1999B>
"
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION
BOARD,
Tuesday, July 6, 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 6:07 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly; Lightner;
Mosser; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Marshall; Murphy.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Justman appeared on the record
at 6:13 p.m.; Commissioner Gruber arrived at the meeting at 6:16 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of June 29, 1999.
(Becker/Lightner: 5-0 )
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 400 Hyde St. T001-68A; T001-94R
The landlord’s petition for certification of
capital improvement costs for forty-two out of sixty-nine units was granted,
in part. Additionally, rent overcharges were determined to be owing to
the tenants in three units. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds
of financial hardship. The landlord appeals on the following issues: a
new security camera, monitor and VCR added to the safety of the building
and should have been certified; the maximum interest rate of 10% should
have been granted because, although the work was financed with variable
rate loans, the minimum amount the landlord was obligated to pay would
always exceed 10%; the rent increase calculation errors are "de minimus"
and should not result in the entirety of the rent increases being held
to be null and void; and there is an error in the rent history for the
tenant in unit #100.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration
of this case. (Lightner/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit
#507 and remand the case for a hearing on the claim of financial hardship.
(Becker/Bierly: 4-0)
MSC: To accept the landlord’s appeal and remand
the case to the hearing officer on the record to certify the costs of the
security system and to correct the rent history for the tenant in unit
#100. (Becker/Bierly: 4-0)
B. 286 Arlington St. T001-66A
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing
services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the
tenant in the amount of $3,045.00 due to serious habitability defects on
the premises. The landlord failed to appear at the hearing, allegedly because
she undertook repairs to the premises with the understanding that the tenant
would withdraw the petition. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the tenant
failed to prove long-term notice to the landlord regarding the lack of
heat and cracked window pane; the kitchen sink had been repaired prior
to the date of the hearing; and the amounts granted present the landlord
with a financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
for a new hearing and to consider the landlord’s claim of financial hardship.
The landlord and her attorney are advised that the tenant is entitled to
pay the base rent amount authorized in the Decision of Hearing Officer,
and any eviction attempt could lead to referral to the District Attorney
for criminal prosecution. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
C. 828 Anza St. #3 T001-90R
The landlord’s petition for certification of
capital improvement costs to ten of twelve units was granted. One tenant
appeals the decision, claiming that: the work performed constitutes maintenance
and not capital improvement; and the work does not add value to the property
because nothing new has been added that didn’t already exist.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber:
5-0)
D. 6678 A-D 3rd St. T001-67A
The landlord’s petition for rent increases
to the tenants in four units based on increased operating expenses was
administratively dismissed without hearing due to defects in the petition.
On appeal, the landlord claims that the staff member who processed her
petition exhibited bias against her and did not offer assistance in curing
the defects in the petition; that she was not able to obtain copies of
bills incurred by the prior owner; and that the information submitted is
sufficient to warrant the scheduling of a hearing on the petition.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Bierly: 5-0)
E. 71 Sharon St. T001-69A
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing
services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable in the
amount of $2,490.00 due to code violations on the premises. Additionally,
the tenants’ failure to repair claim was granted and an annual rent increase
was deferred for two months. On appeal, the landlords maintain that certain
of the repairs having to do with the physical appearance of the unit have
been effectuated and that the damage to the walls in the unit was not substantial.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the
Board to continue consideration of the landlords’ appeal to the meeting
on July 20th, in order to consolidate it with an appeal filed by the tenants
in this case.
F. 405 - 18th Ave. T001-92R
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased services
based on loss of quiet enjoyment and increased electrical bills during
a period of construction work was granted. The hearing officer had found
that removal of a loft in the commercial unit below the tenant’s unit caused
the tenant to experience ongoing noise from the commercial unit, because
the loft had served as a sound barrier. Upon appeal by the landlord the
case was remanded for a hearing to determine whether the noise level was
legally permissible and, if so, then no rent reduction was to be granted.
Accordingly, on remand, the tenant’s petition was denied as to this issue.
The tenant appeals the remand decision, claiming that there is no way for
her to prove that the sound is now significantly louder than it was before,
since she has no evidence from prior to the renovation.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Bierly/Gruber: 5-0)
G. 250 Castro St. #2 & #7 T001-91R & -93R
The landlord’s petition for certification of
capital improvement costs to six of eight units was granted, in part. Two
tenants appeal the decision. The tenant in unit #2 claims that the rent
history provided by the landlord is incorrect as to his unit; that repairs
necessitated by a prior occupant of the unit should not be passed through
to him and that certain of the work was performed prior to his occupancy
of the unit; that he had an agreement with the landlord that only 50% of
the cost of refinishing the floors would be his responsibility; and the
cost of the work is excessive. The tenant in unit #7 asserts that he has
received an unlawful rent increase and that the 6-Month Rule should preclude
him paying for some of the certified amounts.
MSC: To accept the appeals and remand the case
for a hearing on the rent histories of the tenants in units #2 & #7
and to make necessary adjustments, if any, to the application of the 6-Month
Rule for these tenants and the tenant in unit #4.
(Becker/Bierly: 5-0)
H. 1935 Franklin St. #503 T001-70A
The tenants’ petition alleging an unlawful
rent increase from $930 to $1,650.00 per month was granted. The tenants
had switched apartments with the tenants in another unit in the building
and created an assignment of the tenancies at the same rent with the consent
of the prior resident manager of the building. Therefore, the hearing officer
found the tenants to be "original tenants" within the meaning of Rules
and Regulations Section 6.14. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: pursuant
to the provisions of Civil Code Section 1954.53 (Costa-Hawkins), the landlord
has the right to increase the rent because the tenants did not occupy the
rental unit prior to January 1, 1996; a landlord’s knowledge or consent
to an occupancy is not consent to a rent level as the issues are separate
and distinct and the tenants cannot assign a statutory right held by the
owner; the tenants in this case engaged in a concerted effort to obtain
a larger apartment without having to pay market rent for the unit; and
the hearing officer failed to make the tenants meet their burden of proving
the rent increase to be illegal but, rather, put the onus on the landlord
to prove that the increase was lawful.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration
of this appeal. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)
After discussion, the Commissioners continued this
case to the meeting on August 3rd, when there will be more voting members
present.
V. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases
on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A letter from five tenants concerning several
cases involving the property at 2211 Castro Street, questioning legal ownership
of the building.
B. A letter from four property owners regarding
the Public Hearing held on June 29th.
VI. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Board
that the proposed legislation regarding absolute prohibitions against subletting
and assignment sponsored by Supervisor Leno came before the Housing and
Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors for continued hearing this
afternoon. The Committee members referred several questions regarding the
legislation to the Office of the City Attorney. Mr. Grubb also told the
Board that the Mayor’s Office is hoping to have an Alternate appointed
for Tenant Commissioner Becker by July 15th, as well as reappointment of
current Commissioners whose terms are up.
VII. Remarks from the Public
The tenant involved in the case at 1935 Franklin
St. #503 (T001-70A) inquired as to the disposition of the landlord’s appeal.
VIII. Calendar Items
July 13, 1999 - NO MEETING
July 20, 1999
10 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 6/1/99)
Old Business:
Interest Rate When Capital Improvement Work is
Financed With a Variable Rate Mortgage
IX. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at
7:30 p.m.