May 20, 2003
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 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 6:14 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Lightner; Mosser.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:26 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of May 6, 2003 with a correction to indicate that it is Senator, and not Assemblywoman, Jackie Spier.
(Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Landlord Ben Herman of 2124 Hyde St. said that an agreement had been reached in that case, but the tenant was now being allowed to re-open it. Mr. Herman asked that the Commissioners instruct staff not to allow parties to re-open cases and to act even-handedly towards landlords.
B. Robert Pender, Vice-President of the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization (PRO), read a letter that he wrote to Senator Jackie Spier outlining the history of Parkmerced and the housing crisis in San Francisco, and asking for her assistance in amending Costa-Hawkins.
C. Tenant Christian Lackner of 2526 Van Ness Ave. (AL030053) told the Board that his landlord is asking for the tenants to pay $2,000 per month so that he can manage his mother’s other buildings. There was no heat in the building for six months, but the landlord has his own source of heat. A resident manager is unnecessary in this 12-unit building, nor is the landlord credentialed. Mr. Lackner asked that the Board affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.
D. Bill Luque, representing the landlord at 12 Leona Terrace (AL030058), and tenant Susan Angst informed the Board that they have reached a settlement.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 66 Hazelwood Ave. AT030035
(cont. from 4/15/03)
The tenant’s hardship appeal of a capital improvement decision was filed almost five years late because the tenant alleged he did not receive a copy of the decision, and therefore did not know of his right to appeal on the basis of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing to determine whether there was good cause for the late filing of the appeal. If good cause is found, then a hearing will commence on the tenant’s claim of prospective financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Murphy dissenting)
B. 100 Font Blvd. #4A AT030048
The tenant’s appeal was filed six months late because the tenant claims not to have received the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge in the mail.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted. One tenant appeals the 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: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
C. 1249 – 17th Ave. AT030062
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to one of two units was granted. The tenant appeals the 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/Justman: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
D. 466 Frederick #4 AT030049
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 3 of 6 units was granted, in part, resulting in $78.33 monthly passthroughs. One tenant appeals the decision, claiming that: the landlord misrepresented facts about ownership of the building, and failed to prove that the actual landlords of the building incurred all of the capital improvement costs; the landlord and his representative perjured themselves at the hearing; the Administrative Law Judge failed to consider all of the tenant’s objections, including that the new fence was unnecessary; the landlord engaged in unfair business practices, including the eviction of low-paying tenants; the kitchen ceiling in her unit still leaked after the roof work was done; receipts were submitted with no names on them; the costs were not allocated fairly; some of the deferred maintenance necessitating the work was the responsibility of the current landlords; the burden of proof was improperly placed on the tenants; tenants were prejudiced by the landlord’s post-hearing submissions; and the Administrative Law Judge exhibited bias against the tenants.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Justman: 5-0)
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Gruber from consideration of this appeal. (Gruber/Justman: 4-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Murphy/Justman: 4-0)
E. 63 Pond St. AL030050 & AT030051
The landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of restoration of the exterior of the building was granted, in part, resulting in a total passthrough in the amount of $651.43. In addition, rent overpayments in the amount of $4,018.84 were determined to be owing from the landlord to the tenant. On appeal, the landlord claims that: he should be entitled to the actual rate of interest he incurred on his equity line of credit, rather than the imputed rate of interest; and the 1994 rent increase should not be null and void because $25 of it resulted from the provision of laundry services, and no rent increase had been given the previous year. The tenant also appeals, claiming that: much of the exterior renovation work did not need to be done; the doors and windows did not need to be replaced; and the tenant’s rent was increased due to capital improvements prior to the passage of Proposition I and the property coming under rent control.
MSC: To deny the landlord’s appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the tenant’s appeal. (Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)
F. 2526 Van Ness Ave. AL030053
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses was denied. The basis for the increases was the landlord’s son’s provision of management services to the building, for which he receives a free apartment and $500 in monthly salary. The Administrative Law Judge found that the landlord failed to prove that the costs were reasonable. On appeal, the landlord’s representative claims that: his managerial duties are greater from those enumerated by the Administrative Law Judge in the decision; he and his mother have an oral agreement for his provision of management services to the building; and his management of other buildings owned by his mother is kept separate from the compensation he receives for managing this property.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
G. 8021 Geary Blvd. AL030054
The tenants’ petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted and the landlords were found liable to the tenants for rent overpayments in the amounts of $6,900.00 and $4,140.00 respectively. On appeal, the landlord argues that: the landlords were unaware of the applicability of rent control to the subject premises, nor of their rights as Prop. I landlords; the landlord should be given credit for allowable banked increases; and the landlords should be given credit for capital improvements performed more than five years ago.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)
H. 1077-81 Ashbury/1038-60 Clayton AL030055 & AT030056 & -57
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 3 of 11 units was granted, in part. The landlord appeals certain portions of the decision, arguing that: the costs of the new low-flow toilets should have been certified because wasteful usage of water constitutes “excessive maintenance costs”; 10% interest should be granted on the entire $50,000 borrowed to perform the seismic work, even though the funds were not yet borrowed at the time the work was paid for, because the terms of the loan required that the money be spent before the proceeds could be drawn; and amending the petition by adding additional costs should not have changed the imputed interest rate used for costs contained in the original filing. Two tenants also appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To deny the landlord’s appeal but to accept the appeals of the tenants in unit #1077-C and 1081-D and remand the case for a hearing on the tenants’ claims of financial hardship. (Justman/Becker: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
I. 12 Leona Terr. AL030058
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 $4,800 due to inadequate heat, mold and peeling lead-based paint in the unit. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the tenant does not care about the conditions in the unit, but just wants her rent reduced; the tenant manipulated the evidence to make the situation look worse than it is; and the tenant has not cooperated in the landlord’s attempts to get repairs effectuated.
Per the statement of the tenant and the landlord’s representative during the “Remarks from the Public” portion of the Agenda, this case has been settled. The appeal will, however, be continued pending submission of withdrawals of the tenant’s petition and landlord’s appeal.
J. 665 Pine St. #304, 704 & 804 AT030059-61
The landlord’s petition for certification of exterior paint and waterproofing costs to 31 of 40 units was granted. Three tenants appeal the decision, claiming that the waterproofing work was faulty because the ceiling and newly installed windows on the south side of the building are leaking.
MSC: To deny the appeals without prejudice to the tenants filing petitions alleging substantial decreases in housing services, if appropriate. (Murphy/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
VI. Continued Public Hearing
From 7:45 to 8:19 p.m., the Board continued the Public Hearing commenced on May 6th regarding implementation of the Uniform Visitor Policy for Residential Hotels. Seven individuals testified as follows below:
1. Tenant Aurora Grajeda of the Mission Hotel questioned the purpose of having to give 24-hour notice prior to receiving guests, since she is responsible for anything that her guests do in the building. She feels that this requirement is unreasonable since “things don’t always work out the way you planned,” and that it is “embarrassing” for visitors to have to leave at 9:00 p.m.
2. Robert Pender of PRO said that when he first moved to San Francisco, he lived in an SRO above the Stockton Tunnel with his wife and children. He and his family were allowed to have visitors whenever they wanted and, although this was over 30 years ago, he doesn’t see any legitimate need for restrictions.
3. Tenant Delphine Brody of the Seneca Hotel said that visitor issues are very serious, especially for seniors and the disabled, since “folks are dying of loneliness.” Ms. Brody feels that “in and outs” should be permitted throughout the night, and that front desk staff should call up to the rooms to notify tenants when they have visitors.
4. Tenant Valerie Capchart of the Mission Hotel has been living in and out of SRO’s for more than 10 years. Ms. Capchart said that living in an SRO shouldn’t be like living in prison, and residents deserve to be treated better than criminals.
5. Herman Taft, Jr., Manager of the Jefferson Hotel and employee of City Housing, said that 24-hour notice is necessary to check people against the “86’ed” list. However, Mr. Taft announced that a new policy requiring that notice be given by noon the same day would be taking effect on July 1st. Mr. Taft explained that there are only 11 toilets for 101 units in the building, and that the facilities would be over-loaded if everyone brought in 2-3 people at a time. “In and outs” are necessary to keep the noise down, and staff will call up to the rooms, just not after visiting hours. Mr. Taft said, “accommodations can be made” with advance notice, but expressed a concern about fair housing violations because “if you do it for one, you have to do it for everyone.”
6. Tenant Rebecca Dorman of the Mentone Hotel said that 24-hour notice isn’t part of the Uniform Visitor Policy but, rather, is City Housing’s policy. She stated that ID’s get lost more in private hotels, and that she is more concerned about “responsible handling” than keeping of the ID’s.
7. Meredith Walters of the Central City SRO Collaborative is pleased that City Housing is now negotiating, but that the “loopholes” should be cut out for everyone else. She suggested that a fine should be collected to make the hotel culpable if they lose an ID.
8. Delphine Brody told of a desk clerk who gave someone another person’s ID. She thinks it should be sufficient to just copy down the number, and that keeping such strict tabs on folks constitutes the “criminalization” of SRO tenants.
9. Valerie Capchart said that a father asked for an exception to the overnight rule for his son. The desk clerks said ok, but the manager said no. Therefore, Ms. Capchart doesn’t think that “special accommodations” always work.
10. Aurora Grajeda asked, “Who’s going to guard the guards?” since managers aren’t always available. Ms. Grajeda said that each hotel is different, and they should be more homogeneous. While Ms. Grajeda feels that residents are being treated like children, she understands security concerns, and suggests a “common sense” approach where “the rules serve the people.”
Because of a calendaring error on the part of a staff member at the SRO Collaborative, several members of the public who wished to testify were unable to do so. Therefore, the Public Hearing was again continued to the June 3rd meeting at 7:00 p.m.
VII. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Board received the monthly workload statistics for April, 2003.
VIII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Commissioners that the departmental budget has had one hearing before the Budget Committee and willl have a final hearing next Wednesday.
IX. Calendar Items
May 27, 2003 - NO MEETING
June 3, 2003
11 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 5/6/03)
7:00 Continued Public Hearing: Residential Hotel Visitor Policy Ordinance
X. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m.