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

Skip to page body

November 23, 1999

November 23, 1999p> 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

Tuesday, November 23, 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 6:05 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly; Gruber; Hobson; Marshall; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.

Commissioners not Present: Lightner.

Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:15 p.m.

III. Consideration of Appeals

A. 227 - 7th St. U001-32A

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services in this live/work unit was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $5,530.00. On appeal, the landlord explains his failure to appear at the hearing because of a pressing business commitment; and asserts that the relevant lease agreement between the parties is commercial and places responsibility for certain repairs on the tenant.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this case in order for staff to contact the landlord and obtain a Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury and documentation regarding the alleged business commitment that prevented him from appearing at the hearing.

B. 36 Divisadero St. U001-48R

The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs and for a 7.2% base rent increase based on the Past Rent History of this Proposition I Affected Unit was granted. The tenants appeal, asserting that: a 42.8% increase that took effect in 1990 should preclude the 7.2% increase, which is not mandatory given the language of Rules Section 6.11(b); sums owing from the tenants to the landlords should be offset against amounts owing from the landlords to the tenants in another case pending before the Board; that the capital improvement cost allocation is unfair, since the landlord has exclusive use of 60% of the building; and that the roof work did not constitute a capital improvement.

MSC: To deny the appeal except to remand the case to the hearing officer for a Technical Correction regarding the base rent amount, if necessary. (Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)

C. 2195 Sacramento St. #301 & 303 U001-31A

The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 15 of 16 units was granted. Additionally, a 206.8% increase in rent to the tenants who jointly occupy two units in the building was found to be unlawful. The landlords appeal only that portion of the decision pertaining to the rent increase on the grounds that: neither of the tenant petitioners are "tenants in occupancy" in unit #303; the predominant use of that unit is commercial, and not residential; the proper interpretation of the policy intent of the Ordinance is that a tenant only have the protections of rent control in one apartment; the Decision results in a "taking" of the landlords’ property without just compensation; and the Decision is in violation of the Equal Protection doctrine because landlords are held to having one principal place of residence, while tenants are not.

MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Wasserman: 5-0)

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Hobson/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Murphy dissenting)

D. 656 O’Farrell St. #202 U001-49R

The tenant’s appeal was filed thirty-five days late because the tenant was out of the country visiting an ailing relative, and English is not his first language.

MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs for fourteen of sixteen units was granted. The tenants in one unit appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

E. 1573 - 48th Ave. #3 U001-47R

The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services due to the loss of an outdoor electrical outlet and faucet was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $780.00. On appeal, the tenants claim: misrepresentation on the part of the landlord with regard to ownership of the property; that the tenants were unable to cross-examine opposing witnesses; that hearsay evidence offered by the landlord was improperly allowed into the record; that the amounts granted are inadequate compensation; and that the hearing officer should have disciplined the landlord’s attorney for threatening to file a lawsuit against the tenants.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Marshall: 5-0)

F. 466 Castro St. U001-33A

The tenant’s petition alleging substantially decreased housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,595.00 due to serious habitability defects on the premises. On appeal, the landlord claims that he failed to appear at the hearing because he got caught in accident-related traffic; that the roof and gutter were repaired as of March, 1998; and that the back porch does not have rotted floor boards.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Murphy/Justman: 5-0)

G. 221 Noe St. #3 U001-50R

The tenant’s appeal was filed thirteen days late because he did not receive a copy of the Decision of Hearing Officer on Remand.

MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. The landlord’s appeal regarding the hearing officer’s discontinuation of passthroughs that had been, in effect, "banked" was accepted, as was the tenant’s appeal on the grounds of deferred maintenance. In the Decision on Remand, the hearing officer reinstated the banked passthrough amounts, but denied the tenant’s deferred maintenance claim. The tenant now appeals the remand 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. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

H. 257 So. Van Ness Ave. U001-35A

The landlords’ petition for exemption due to substantial rehabilitation and certification of capital improvement costs was denied. On appeal, the case was remanded in order to provide the landlords with another opportunity to properly document capital improvement costs. In the Decision on Remand, a monthly passthrough in the amount of $142.88 was approved for both units in this two-unit building. On further appeal, the landlords assert that: the completion date for the last item of work should be considered the completion date for all of the work, since this was a large, complex renovation project of a building that was "red-tagged" after the Loma Prieta earthquake; the hearing officer consistently interpreted the Regulations in a way disfavorable to the landlords; expenses that were incorrectly categorized should have been shifted to other categories; Small Business Administration documents that support the landlords’ claims were ignored by the hearing officer; and the landlords would have been financially better off if they had demolished the building.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)

I. 367 Capp St. U001-34A

Two tenant petitions alleging decreased housing services were granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to each tenant in the amount of $725.00 due to loss of a water supply to the back yard and loss of access to the back yard from the street. On appeal, the landlord claims that it is unfair to require that 30-day notice be given to restore the prior base rent amount, when the water service was restored several months ago; and that the base rent amount in the Decision is incorrect.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to determine the date that the rent reductions should terminate based on proof of restoration of the service and for a Technical Correction regarding the base rent amount; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Murphy/Justman: 5-0)

J. 1040 Leavenworth St. #21 U001-51R

The tenant’s appeal was filed three months late because she did not realize that the capital improvement certification provisions of the Rent Ordinance are not applicable to recipients of tenant-based rental assistance.

MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)

The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. One tenant appeals the decision because she is on Section 8, and the capital improvement provisions of the Rent Ordinance do not apply to her unit.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record to dismiss the petition as to this tenant due to the inapplicability of the capital improvement provisions of the Ordinance to recipients of tenant-based rental assistance. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)

IV. Communications

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Landlord Commissioners distributed a proposed revision of Rules and Regulations Section 6.14 that they believe conforms that Section to the requirements of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

V. Calendar Items

November 30, 1999 - NO MEETING

December 7, 1999

9 appeal considerations (2 cont. from 11/9/99)

6:30 Appeal Hearing:

2490 Bryant St. T001-81A (rescheduled from 9/7/99)

VI. Adjournment

President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:14 AM