December 01, 1998B>
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL
RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION
BOARD,
Tuesday, December 1, 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 6:05 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly;
Gruber; Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Moore; Murphy; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Mosser appeared on the record
at 6:11 p.m.
III. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1700 Page St. #1, #7 & #8 T001-21-23R;
T001-24A
The landlord’s petition for certification
of capital improvement costs for ten of twelve units was granted, in part.
Three tenants and the landlord appeal the decision. The landlord appeals
the hearing officer’s denial of $9,800 for exterior painting work done
by the prior owner on the grounds that the tenants no longer benefit from
the work because the new owner painted the building again two years later.
The landlord contends on appeal that the extensive preparation of the building
prior to the first paint job aided in weatherproofing, thereby prolonging
the life of the building; whereas the latter paint job was done only for
aesthetic reasons, was significantly less thorough and, therefore, less
expensive. The tenants in unit #1 appeal the decision on the grounds of
financial hardship. The tenant in unit #7 claims that the base rent amount
in the Decision is incorrect as to her unit; that the condition of her
bathroom was the result of deferred maintenance; and that only two items
needed replacement and the rest of the work in her unit was unnecessary.
The tenant in unit #8 maintains that the bathtub in her unit did not need
replacement and, in fact, the new tub is smaller and does not have a sliding
door.
MSC: To accept the landlord’s appeal
and remand the case to the hearing officer for a hearing on the costs of
the exterior painting; the total cost allowed shall not exceed the cost
of one entire paint job. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenants
in unit #1 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial
hardship. (Marshall/Becker: 4-1; Lightner dissenting)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant
in unit #7 and remand the case for a hearing on the issue of the tenant’s
correct base rent only; to deny the appeal as to all other issues. (Justman/Gruber:
4-1; Marshall dissenting)
MSC: To deny the appeal of the tenant in
unit #8. (Gruber/Lightner: 4-1; Marshall dissenting)
B. 849 North Point St. T001-23A
The landlord’s petition for certification
of capital improvement costs was granted, but the portion of the petition
requesting rent increases due to increased operating expenses was denied.
A question regarding the rent history of the tenant in one unit remained
unresolved because the rent history provided by the landlord in conjunction
with the petition differed from that submitted in a prior case. On appeal,
the landlord contends that the tenant was incorrectly reimbursed for what
was mistakenly thought to be an overcharge, and requests a remand in order
to determine the proper base rent amount as well as the correct amount
of capital improvement passthrough.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand
the case to the hearing officer on the record to determine the tenant’s
proper base rent amount and allowable rent increases; a hearing will be
held only if necessary. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
C. 653-667 Bay St. T001-24 thru-26R
The landlord’s Petition for Extension
of Time to Do Capital Improvement Work was granted. On appeal, three tenants
assert that the hearing officer did not take into account the landlord’s
past record of negligence regarding conditions in the building and bad
faith dealings with the tenants; and that the work does not necessitate
the tenants vacating their units at all, and certainly not for a period
in excess of three months. Additionally, the tenants offer two construction
schedules which outline how the repairs could be completed without displacement
of the tenants.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber:
5-0)
D. 221 Scott St. T001-25A
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase
for this Newly Covered Unit under Proposition I based on comparables was
denied because the hearing officer found that the landlord had failed to
prove landlord hardship nor establish the rent for comparable units with
similar lengths of tenancy. The landlord appeals the decision on the grounds
that: the entire petition should not have been denied because the landlord
could not find a comparable tenancy of over 8 years, especially when the
tenant had agreed to a rent increase of $130.00 at the hearing; the tenant
voluntarily took early retirement at age 62, and has chosen to work part-time
instead of seeking full-time employment; and the tenant benefited from
extensive renovation of the building performed by the landlord.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand
the case to the hearing officer on the proper application of Rules and
Regulations Section 6.11(a)(4)(A) to the facts of this case; a hearing
will be held only if necessary. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
IV. Old Business
A. Minute Order Program
Senior Hearing Officer Sandy Gartzman
and Hearing Officer Lela Harris appeared to inform the Commissioners that
the Minute Order Pilot Program, previously approved by the Board, is ready
to be implemented; to answer any questions that the Commissioners might
have; and to explain the internal checks that have been established to
ensure that hearing officers continue to arrive at legally correct and
well-reasoned decisions.
The voluntary Minute Order Program arose
in response to the increased workload experienced by the agency, and the
resulting increase in the time it takes between the filing of a petition
and the issuance of a decision. Although a full and complete hearing will
be held on all petitions, when appropriate, the hearing officer may issue
a Minute Order instead of detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law. The Minute Order will be issued within 10 days of the hearing, and
will not be subject to appeal by either party. However, within 15 days,
either party may request that a full decision be issued, with full appeal
rights.
Upon having their questions satisfactorily
answered, the Commissioners thanked Ms. Harris and Ms. Gartzman for their
hard work and gave their consent for the Program to go forward. Staff will
continue to keep the Board informed as to the on-going progress of the
Program.
V. Remarks from the Public
Jennifer Bradford, a tenant involved in
the case at 653-657 Bay Street (T001-24R thru -26R) expressed frustration
at the difficulty she experienced in trying to dispute her landlord’s contractor’s
timetable for completion of the seismic retrofit work at her building;
she has architectural experience and "knows the ropes" and still found
it impossible to prove that the schedule provided was unreasonable.
III. Consideration of Appeals (cont.)
E. 948 "A" Rhode Island St. T001-22A
The landlord’s third Petition for Extension
of Time to Do Capital Improvement Work was denied because the hearing officer
found that: either the landlord has insufficient experience in executing
the type of remodeling project he has undertaken in this building; or that
the landlord has deliberately delayed the project in hopes that the tenant
would give up her right to return to the property. On appeal, the landlord
claims that: the hearing officer exhibited bias against him; he unintentionally
underestimated the scope of the project, but all of the reasons he offered
for the delays are valid; he, more than anyone, wishes for the project
to be completed because of the adverse impact it has had on his personal
life and the financial repercussions; the tenant has not communicated with
him for thirteen months; it is unlawful to do any of the interior finish
work until the entire building shell is completed and inspected; and he
is well aware of the risk of a wrongful eviction lawsuit if he acts in
bad faith and with wrongful intent.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
F. 2471 Bryant St. T001-26A
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 $7,432.50 due to long-term
habitability problems on the subject premises. The landlord failed to appear
at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the landlord claims that he
did not attend the hearing due to a family emergency. He also maintains
that: the information provided by the tenant at the hearing was false;
the lease states that the garage is the tenant’s responsibility; the bedroom
heater is not working because the tenants placed a large dresser in front
of it; the carpet and walls were damaged by the tenant; and the tenant
refused the owner access to the premises when he attempted to effectuate
repairs.
After discussion, it was the consensus
of the Board to continue consideration of this case to the meeting on January
5, 1999, in order for staff to contact the landlord and have him: explain
and document the nature of the family emergency, under penalty of perjury;
and explain why the new property manager failed to appear in his stead.
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning
cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A copy of the October 24, 1998 Rules
and Regulations.
B. The office workload statistics for the
months of September and October, 1998.
C. An e-mail inquiry regarding the question
of exemption from the rent restrictions of the Ordinance due to Costa-Hawkins
from a landlord renting out a condominium unit with some pre-and some post-1996
tenancies, and a change from separately rented rental units to joint and
several liability.
D. A letter from the Executive Director
to landlord representative Al Goodwin of Rent Board Petition Associates,
admonishing him for his abusive and uncalled-for conduct in hearings, especially
a recent hardship remand hearing for a tenant disabled by AIDS asserting
financial hardship. Mr. Goodwin was informed in no uncertain terms that,
in the future, such conduct on his part will not be tolerated and will
cause the hearing to be continued to another date, if necessary.
E. President Wasserman thanked the Deputy
Director for a letter she wrote to a tenant at 1550 Bay Street concerning
the denial of the tenants’ appeals (S001-93R thru -S003-53R) asserting
the applicability of the "anti-spec clause" (Rules and Regulations Section
6.10{f}).
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb discussed and
finalized plans for the Commissioners’ Holiday Party, which will be held
at the South End Rowing Club on Sunday, December 13th, from 2:00 to 6:00
p.m.
IV. Old Business (cont.)
B. Costa-Hawkins (Civil Code Section 1954.53)
Discussion of this matter was continued
to the December 15, 1998 meeting.
VIII. Calendar Items
December 8, 1998 - NO MEETING
December 15, 1998
6 appeal considerations
Old Business: Costa-Hawkins (Civil Code
Section 1954.53)
December 22 & 29, 1998 - NO
MEETINGS (Happy Holidays!)
IX. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting
at 8:20 p.m.