October 20, 1998B>
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, October 20, 1998 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 6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly; Gruber; Lightner; Marshall; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Moore.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 5:40 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of October 6, 1998.
(Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1364 Broadway St. T001-16A
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to the tenants in this "Newly Covered Unit" under Proposition I was granted. However, the landlord was found liable to the tenant in one unit for rent overpayments in the amount of $4,026.40. On appeal, the landlord claims that she had mistakenly depicted the tenant as a subtenant of her prior tenants when, actually, he had not occupied the unit until after the prior tenants had vacated.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the issue of the tenant’s rent history; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
B. 4253 - 18th St. T001-16A
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $480.00. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the tenants lack "standing" because they are subtenants who have moved out of the unit prior to issuance of the decision; the original tenants rented the unit on an "as-is" basis and, since these tenants were not on the premises at that time, the decision is based on hearsay; there is an error as to the number of months during which the rent reduction is warranted; the amounts granted for the conditions are excessive; and the hearing officer should have taken into account the fact that the tenants failed to properly ventilate the unit, which was the cause of the mildew and peeling paint problem.
MSC: To deny the appeal except to remand the case to the hearing officer to issue a Technical Correction regarding the number of months for which a rent reduction was granted. (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
C. 7427 Geary Blvd. #3 T001-14R
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $113.33 due to inoperable windows and peeling paint on the premises. However, the petition was denied as to all other complaints raised by the tenant. The tenant appeals, claiming that the hearing officer erred in finding that his failure to clean the refrigerator caused it to malfunction; that a Notice of Violation procured after the hearing proves that the smoke detector is defective; that the hallway lighting is very dim and dangerous; and that he does not drop garbage from his unit into the garbage area and, thus, does not contribute to the problem.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Wasserman/Gruber: 5-0)
D. 455 Euclid Ave. #301 T001-15R
The landlords’ petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses and certification of capital improvement costs was granted. One tenant appeals the portion of the decision granting a capital improvement passthrough on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the tenant’s appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship, only if the parties cannot settle the matter. (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
V. Remarks from the Public
The landlord involved in the case at 7427 Geary (T001-14R) informed the Commissioners that she has installed a brand new smoke detector in the tenant’s unit, even though the old one was in working condition.
VI. Public Hearing
Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Sections 7.12(b) and 11.10; and Proposed New Section 12.14(d)
No individuals appeared to testify regarding any of the proposed Rules changes. The amendment to Section 11.10 clarifies that petitions filed for purposes of determining disability pursuant to Ordinance Sections 37.9(i)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) ("The Moratorium") may be conducted by a departmental hearing officer or any other designee of the department. New Section 12.14(d) allows a finder of fact in any such hearings to consider various types of medical evidence, absent a determination of disability by the Social Security Administration or Rent Board. Amended Section 11.10 and new Section 12.14(d) read as follows below:
Section 11.10 Time of Hearing; Consolidation
(Amended September 19, 1989; and October 20, 1998)
Within a reasonable time following the filing of a petition and payment of the estimator fee, if required, the petition shall be referred to a hearing officer. If the petition is for a determination of disability pursuant to Ordinance Sections 37.9(i)(1)(B)(i) and (ii), such hearing may be conducted by a hearing officer or other designee of the Rent Board. That hearing officer shall hold the hearing within forty-five (45) days of the date of the filing of the petition. Where petitions are filed by or for tenants of a single housing complex, and there are common material issues of law or fact, those petitions shall be consolidated for hearing, unless to do so would be unfair to either party. Written notice of the hearing, by mail, shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. A declaration under penalty of perjury stating the date and place of the mailing of such notice and stating to whom and at what addresses the notice was sent shall be retained in the file of each case.
Section 12.14 Evictions under Section 37.9(a)(8)
(Amended June 18, 1991; Subsection (c) amended March 7, 1995; Subsection (d) added October 20, 1998)
(d) In determining whether a tenant is disabled as defined under Section 37.9(i)(1)(B)(i), a finder of fact shall consider relevant evidence, including:
(1) findings by any government entity concerning a disability;
(2) testimony concerning the disability; and
(3) medical evidence concerning the disability.
MSC: To adopt the proposed amendment to Rules and Regulations Section 11.10 and new Rules and Regulations Section 12.14(d). (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
The proposed amendment to Rules Section 7.12(b) is intended to clarify that a tenant who moves into a unit within six months of commencement of capital improvement work, during the construction period, or after the work has been completed shall not be subject to a capital improvement passthrough based on the costs of such work. After discussion, the Board passed proposed Version Two, as amended, which follows below:
(b) Effect of Vacancy on Rent Increases Requested for Capital Improvements
If a unit becomes vacant and is rerented after completion of capital improvements, rehabilitation, and/or energy conservation work listed in an application for certification, no additional rent will be allowed on the unit based on the improvements or work since the landlord has the opportunity to bring the unit up to market rent at the time the unit is rerented. This section also applies to those units rented during the construction period for the project of which the work is a part , as stated in the permit(s), contract document(s), and/or as shown by other relevant evidence, or rented within six months of the commencement of work for which an application for certification is filed, provided that ownership has not changed in that period.
MSC: To adopt proposed Version Two, as amended, of Rules and Regulations Section 7.12(b). (Gruber/Marshall: 5-0)
VII. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A Summary of Mediated Move-Out Agreements for the months of July through September, 1998.
B. The 1998-99 Bond Measure Passthrough Worksheet.
VIII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb let the Board know that he will be in Australia for slightly over three weeks commencing October 22nd and returning November 16th. Deputy Director Wolf will be acting in his stead. He also informed them that, if Proposition G passes on the November 3rd ballot, it will be effective 30 days after the election. Since certain of its provisions appear to conflict with the recently enacted Bierman legislation, the City Attorney’s Office would then have to determine which would prevail.
IX. Calendar Items
October 27 & November 3, 1998 - NO MEETINGS
November 10, 1998
7 appeal considerations
November 19, 1998
Old Business: Costa-Hawkins
X. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.