June 03, 2003
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, June 3, 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 6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Gruber; Lightner; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Mosser; Murphy.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:28 p.m.; Commissioner Becker arrived at 6:50. Commissioners Lightner and Justman went off the record at 7:15 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of May 20, 2003.
(Gruber/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Robert Pender, Vice-President of the Parkmerced Tenants’ Association (PRO), asked that the record reflect the correct spelling of State Senator Jackie Speier’s name, and passed out copies of the Tenant Times. Mr. Pender informed the Board that 37 garden court capital improvement cases were cancelled by Rent Board staff at the last moment, which Mr. Pender considers “unfair tactics.”
B. Helen Young, landlord in the case at 7 @ 9th Ave. (AT030071), said that the tenant is appealing the decision certifying capital improvement costs and asked that the decision be affirmed. Ms. Young said that she replaced the windows every time the tenant asked, always within 90 days.
C. Robert Sigmund, representing the landlord at 561 Baker (AT030067), informed the Board that the tenant has vacated the unit, although retroactive amounts are owing to the landlord.
D. Jose Morales, representing the tenant at 1026 Shotwell (AT030069), said that the landlord, who is a “slumlord”, has abused the tenant. He told the Board that the tenant was without a refrigerator for over a year, and asked the Board to order the landlord to provide a comparable replacement appliance.
E. Landlord Lucy Wong of 1026 Shotwell said that the refrigerator was not new, but was verified as being in working condition by the building inspectors. Ms. Wong said that the landlords would pay the $1,600 ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, but that “the tenant is still not happy.”
F. Landlord Dee El Malik of 2809 Steiner St. (AL030072) said that she has documents and cancelled checks to show that the problems have been taken care of, and that the tenant has a history of making false claims.
G. Tenant Greg Roberts of 3940 @ 20th St. (AL030070) just wanted to make sure that the Commissioners had received everything he had submitted in response to the landlord’s appeal.
H. Landlord Regan Wong of 1026 Shotwell wanted to show the Commissioners pictures of the refrigerator in question and was informed that this was not appropriate. Mr. Wong said that there is a working refrigerator on the premises and “the complaint’s not right.”
I. A tenant who lives at the Royan Hotel complained that tenants are now supposed to pay their rent by money order, which is very inconvenient.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1423 @ 33rd Ave. AT030047
(cont. from 5/6/03)
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase from $1,607.00 to $2,400.00 per month was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the Progress Foundation, a non-profit corporation providing social services to severely mentally ill persons, does not meet the definition of “tenant” in the Ordinance. On appeal, the tenant argues that: the premises are under the jurisdiction of the Rent Ordinance because the Progress Foundation merely acts as a facilitator of their clients’ occupancy of the premises for residential purposes; this case is distinguishable from a prior Rent Board case where the premises were used for temporary housing for corporate clients; the purpose of the Ordinance is served by protecting the Progress Foundation’s clients; and the notice of rent increase is invalid since it applies to the Progress Foundation and “all other subsequent occupants.”
After discussion, the Board continued consideration of this appeal in order for the Deputy Director to attempt to facilitate settlement. A Settlement Agreement and Stipulation was subsequently received from the parties.
MSC: To affirm the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge based on the Stipulation of the parties. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-1;
Marshall dissenting)
B. 434 Arballo Dr. AT030063
The tenant’s appeal was filed six and one-half months late because the tenant was taking care of an ill parent and did not realize that her rent would be going up until she received her lease renewal.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Marshall/Justman: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
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. (Marshall/Mosbrucker: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
C. 2355 Francisco St. #5 AL030066
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 $944.00. An annual rent increase was also ordered deferred due to the landlord’s failure to repair and rent overpayments were determined to be owing from the landlord to the tenant in the amount of $1,663.32. On appeal, the landlord provides evidence that the time period granted for the lack of heat is excessive because repairs were effectuated promptly upon the landlord receiving notice of the problem.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 4-1; Lightner dissenting)
D. 3655 Vicente #2 AT030068
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 6 of 8 units 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: 5-0)
E. 561 Baker #11 AT030067
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 3 of 11 units was granted, resulting in a total passthrough in the amount of $298.65. 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: 3-2;
Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
F. 1026 Shotwell, Apt. A AT030069
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in services without a corresponding reduction in rent was granted in part and denied in part. The landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,600 for a period of time when the tenant’s refrigerator was inoperable, but no liability was found after the date the landlord offered the tenant a used replacement refrigerator. The tenant appeals the decision, claiming that the Administrative Law Judge should have ordered the landlord to replace the defective refrigerator with a comparable, clean, operable refrigerator and the rent reduction should stay in effect until such time as that occurs.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosbrucker/Lightner: 5-0)
G. 145 Gonzalez Dr. AT030064
The tenants’ appeal was filed over six months late because at the time the Decision was issued, the tenants were assuming the lease from their mother, did not realize the repercussions of the rent increase and assumed that a joint appeal filed by the tenants’ organization would cover all tenants with hardships.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Marshall:
3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted. Two 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: 4-1;
Gruber dissenting)
H. 3940 @ 20th St. AL030070
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $6,006.88. On appeal, the landlord claims that he should have been given credit for banked rent increases in the overpayment calculations and that the rent increases were given in good faith.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
I. 7 @ 9th Ave. AT030071
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to one unit was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $41.58. The tenants appeal, maintaining that: the decision is incorrect in finding that the tenants failed to notify the landlords that the bedroom window had come off its hinges; and replacement of the windows was necessitated by the landlords’ deferred maintenance because if the landlords had made timely repairs, replacement of the windows would not have been necessary.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 4-1; Mosbrucker dissenting)
J. 1215 Laguna #301 AT030065
The landlords’ petition for 7% base rent increases to 20 out of 37 units based on increased operating expenses was granted. One tenant appeals the decision, alleging that the decision is a forgery.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
K. 2809 Steiner St. #2 AL030072
The landlord’s appeal was filed 16 days late because the landlord has been experiencing stress, as verified by her doctor.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
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 $1,285.48. On appeal, the landlord provides evidence to show that: the refrigerator was checked and found to be functioning adequately; and the loose brick in the fireplace was repaired, as were the garbage room light, garbage room doorknob, and inoperative windows.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
VI. Continued Public Hearing
Residential Hotel Visitor Policy Ordinance
From 7:20 to 8:38 p.m. the Board continued the Public Hearing commenced on May 6th regarding implementation of the Uniform Visitor Policy for Residential Hotels. Twenty-two individuals testified as follows below:
1. Richard Marquez of Mission Agenda and the SRO Collaborative asked who has the power to re-write and enforce the Ordinance, since multiple violations of the Ordinance are occurring. Mr. Marquez said that hotels are denying visitors on the 1st, 15th and 30th of the month, and that even prison inmates are not denied visitors on those days. He also said that health care aides are being considered visitors and he believes that there are “racial and class dynamics to how the policy’s being applied.”
2. Nick Pagoulatos of St. Peter’s Housing Committee and the SRO Collaborative asked what the process and timelines are going to be for the Board to address possible amendments to the Visitor Policy.
3. Tenant Rick Nicholls said that he is “putting his life together” so that he will be able to move. Mr. Nicholls said that his girlfriend had to leave one night at 9:00 p.m. and that it is “too tacky” to ask someone if they are going to sleep with him the next night. He also said that ID’s are sold for identity theft purposes.
4. Tenant Anup Desai suggested the following revisions to the Visitor Policy: there should be different policies for daily, weekly and monthly tenants; childcare workers should be exempt; the 8 visitors per month limitation should be abolished; tenants should be able to have a party; 24-hour notice should be eliminated; ID cards should be returned; visitors shouldn’t be disallowed on the 1st and 15th of the month; and the Visitor Policy should be prominently displayed.
5. Tenant David Lopez said that hotel managers don’t respect the Visitor Policy or San Francisco, and that this affects the whole community because people do “wrong things” because of the way they’re treated. Mr. Lopez believes that most people don’t know about the Ordinance.
6. Tenant Charles Pitts said that the Visitor Policy violates Section 602(n) of the Penal Code, and that it is illegal to kick people out under this Section. In tourist hotels, residents can bring in whomever they want whenever they want. Mr. Pitts asked what recourse tenants have if the hotel staff loses their ID’s, and said that the hotels are taking short cuts and not hiring the proper staff.
7. James Collins of Mission Agenda and 6th Street Agenda said that under the “write-up system”, a tenant with more than 3 write-ups could have restrictions placed on visitation. Mr. Collins thinks that tenants are so happy to get out of a shelter and into stable housing that they will sign anything. At the Plaza Hotel, Mr. Collins used to have to escort his guests to the bathroom. Mr. Collins maintains that tenants “are not in prison”, and should be given more freedom.
8. Roger Cooper of Mission Agenda said that he has a broken window because of a burglar and can hear gunshots, which is scary. The old owner put in a window that didn’t fit. He lives at the Arata Hotel where there are vermin, and he has seen a possum “as big as a pregnant cat.”
9. Tenant Arthur Brown is “appalled” that there are so many rules about visitors, and feels that his parents should be able to stay with him when they come to visit. People should be able to show their ID, but not have to leave it.
10. Tenant Wanda Johnson said that her daughter is considered a visitor, and is not allowed entry on the 15th of the month. She told the Board, “work with us, and we’ll work with you.”
11. Tenant Rosalind Orcutt lives at the Apollo Hotel, which is managed by Caritas Management. Ms. Orcutt said that there is no regular or resident manager, and that they are “making up rules”, especially about visitors. The Visitor Policy is not distributed to tenants, nor is it posted. Visitors are allowed to stay for more than 8 days if they come from out of state, but no one knows that.
12. Tenant Aurora Grajeda lives at the Mission Hotel, and wanted to know how the Rent Board could affect City Housing’s policies. Ms. Grajeda would like to say “no rules”, but knows that wouldn’t work. She also said there is a noise problem in the hotel.
13. Jen Yu of Mission Agenda and St. Peter’s Housing Committee lives at the Royan Hotel, which is run by City Housing. She said that new policies are being implemented that tenants aren’t used to. Ms. Yu’s parents and brother came by to visit her on Memorial Day, but could only come up one at a time. Ms. Yu sometimes needs childcare after 9:00 p.m., which is a problem. Ms. Yu maintains that SRO tenants come from all walks of life, but the policies are created for drug dealers.
14. Tenant Marty Borrego is an ex-drug addict and alcoholic who lives at the Aranda Hotel. Mr. Borrego thinks that visiting hours should end at 10:00, rather than 9:00, and complains that the managers and desk clerks at the hotel are always drunk. He also was displeased that he had been rented a room that someone had died in.
15. Tenant Heidi Gregorio of Mission Agenda and the SRO Collaborative lives in the Royan Hotel, which is managed by City Housing. Ms. Gregorio said that the 1st and 15th are supposed to be “blackout” dates, but this is enforced on the 30th also. She feels that the hotel is very restrictive toward tenants who’ve attained residency status, while tourists can do whatever they want. Ms. Gregorio says that people are trying to “make a home out of a room.” However, if people agreed to these restrictions when they first moved in, that’s different.
16. Tenant Tim Briggs lives at the Royan Hotel. Mr. Briggs signed his lease at 10:00 at night without reading it, and now feels that it contains ridiculous restrictions. Mr. Briggs maintains that he is a “productive member of society” who should be treated like anyone else. Mr. Briggs proposes that, after 6 months, tenants should come under a different set of rules.
17. Tenant Bill Murphy lives at the Crown Hotel. His girlfriend doesn’t always know when she’s going to get off work, and should be able to come over whenever she gets off. Mr. Murphy contends that the hotel discriminates on the basis of race because his girlfriend is Black and Chinese. He also complains that they don’t fix the plumbing.
18. Tenant Joe Shipman lives at the Royan Hotel and thinks that 24-hour notice is “absurd.” There are issues with health care workers and with children. Mr. Shipman said that he was told his lease was “no big deal”, and now he is stuck with it. He also claims that he has a receipt which shows he is out 11 days’ rent. He installed carpet and put up shelves in his unit.
19. Robert Pender congratulated the Commissioners who stayed to listen to the public testimony. He also congratulated the tenants in attendance for organizing; otherwise, “they’ll walk all over you, just like the tenants in Parkmerced.” He also urged them to register to vote.
20. Earl Brown of the Central City SRO Collaborative distributed a set of proposals that have been endorsed by the SRO Collaborative and Mission Agenda.
21. Jack Colberg used to live in SRO’s, but now has a house in Daly City. He thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to speak, since he believes it is still important to “lend his voice” even though he doesn’t live there any more.
22. Tenant Delphine Brody added “Talking Points” that she believes should have been included in Earl Brown’s proposals: an appeals process should be in place in the event of suspension of visitor rights and no penalties should kick in while the appeal is pending unless violent or threatening behavior is exhibited; the “no visitors on check day” rule should be eliminated; and “in and outs” should be permitted throughout the night.
At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Commissioners and Executive Director Grubb briefly discussed what would happen next. Mr. Grubb will convene meetings of interested parties and come back to the Board with suggestions for amendments to the Uniform Visitor Policy.
VII. Communications
The Board received communications concerning the case at 1423 @ 33rd Ave. (AT030047).
VIII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that the departmental budget passed its second hearing and is approved. The Ordinances regarding interest on security deposits and Ellis amendments will take effect on June 15th; the Ordinance that authorizes a 50-50 split of any increased water bills related to the renovation of Hetch-Hetchy (Proposition A) will take effect on June 23rd. Departmental outreach efforts include a training on capital improvement passthrough petitions for small property owners conducted by Senior Administrative Law Judges Sandy Gartzman and Tim Lee; Deputy Director Delene Wolf will be taking part in a training for new counselors at the Tenants’ Union.
IX. Calendar Items
June 10, 2003 - NO MEETING
June 17, 2003
11 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 5/20/03)
X. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m.