MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, June 17, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level
I. Call to Order
Vice-President Marshall called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Lightner; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Mosser; Murphy.
Commissioners not Present: Wasserman.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:28 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of June 3, 2003.
(Becker/Gruber: 4-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Robert Pender, Vice-President of PRO (Parkmerced Residents’ Organization), informed the Commissioners that the Tenants’ Union is having an Open House on June 21st. Mr. Pender reiterated his objection to a May 29th capital improvement hearing for 37 garden court apartments having been cancelled at the last minute. Mr. Pender feels that this was “unfair” to the tenants. The hearing has been re-scheduled for July 8th and 9th, and he is “hoping for better luck next time.”
B. Timothy Chew, the landlord in the case at 5140 Diamond Heights Blvd. #208A (AL030078 & AT030086), told the Board that the Administrative Law Judge granted only the imputed rather than the actual rate of interest on his loan. Mr. Chew said that it is not customary to state the intended use of funds when obtaining a loan from a friend, and the delay in depositing the loan funds was because the money came from overseas.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 12 Leona Terr. AL030058
(cont. from 5/20/03)
The landlord’s appeal was filed three days late because the Decision was mailed to the wrong address.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 4-0)
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 $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.
At the meeting on May 20, 2003, the tenant and the landlord’s representative informed the Board that this case has been settled. However, the tenant subsequently notified staff that she did not wish to proceed with the settlement and asked that the landlord’s appeal be decided.
MSC: To deny the appeal.
(Becker/Marshall: 3-1; Lightner dissenting)
B. 815 O’Farrell #304 AT030073
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 21 of 42 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/Lightner: 5-0)
C. 434 Leavenworth #209 AT030077
The tenants’ appeal was filed 15 days late because the tenants do not speak English, and take their mail to their daughter in order for her to translate.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Lightner/Becker: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 56 of 70 units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $29.11. 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)
D. 404 – 12th Ave. #5 AT030079
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 5 of 7 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 tenants’ claim of financial hardship.
(Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
E. 218 Union St. #3 AL030074
The landlord filed a petition seeking a determination as to whether the tenant met the definition of “Tenant in Occupancy” pursuant to Rules and Regulations Section 1.21. The Administrative Law Judge found that he did and no rent increase was therefore warranted. Upon appeal by the landlord, the case was remanded to vacate the decision and find that the subject unit was not the tenant’s principal place of residence. Upon further appeal by the tenant, the case was remanded to grant the rent increase, but only as of the date that the Board decided the landlord’s appeal. The landlord again appeals, arguing that the rent increase should be effective as of the effective date of the landlord’s notice, which would be consistent with the Rules and Regulations and instructions given to landlords upon filing 1.21 petitions.
MSC: To deny the appeal.
(Becker/Gruber: 4-1; Lightner dissenting)
F. 179 Douglass St. AL030076
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted. However, the landlords’ request for interest at the rate of 9.5% was denied and only the imputed interest rate was allowed because the costs were paid prior to receipt of loan proceeds and the landlord failed to prove payment on the loan. On appeal, the landlord maintains that: there are technical errors in the Decision; the Administrative Law Judge demanded proof of payment on the loan that is not enumerated in the Rules and Regulations, nor was the landlord notified that such proof would be required; and the standard required by the Administrative Law Judge is impossible to meet without advance notice.
MSC: To accept the appeal only to remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to make any necessary Technical Corrections and to allow the landlord the actual rate of interest on the cost of the window hardware and window balance (Items d and e on the Memorandum of Administrative Law Judge). (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
G. 1635 Folsom St. AL030075
The landlord’s appeal was filed slightly over one month late because the landlord claims not to have received a copy of the Decision in the mail, and obtained a copy by coming in to the Rent Board office.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $11,650.00. On appeal, the landlord claims to have misunderstood the 3-year Statute of Limitations on rent refunds and says that if he had known the rent would be rolled back to its 1992 level, he would have argued more strenuously at the hearing. The landlord also asserts that the tenant’s petition only contested the most recent rent increase; other unlawful rent increases should have been challenged at the time they were imposed; and repairs were made that justify the amounts charged.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)
H. 5140 Diamond Heights Blvd. #208A AL030078 & AT030086
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs incurred for a condominium was granted, in part. The landlords appeal the decision, asserting that: the imputed interest rate should not be applied since they had a loan agreement at a rate of 10% but international bank transfer problems occurred which were beyond their control; the amount of the loan equals the cost of the capital improvements; and collection of only the imputed interest rate, when they are repaying the loan at the rate of 10%, presents a hardship. The tenant also appeals, claiming that: the case was not decided on a timely basis; the new windows and siding could be considered repairs rather than capital improvements; payment of the retroactive amount owed would constitute a financial hardship; and a new hearing should be held to consider the landlord’s additional documentation.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to re-open the record on the issue of granting the landlords’ actual interest rate on the loan; the tenant will be afforded an opportunity to respond. A hearing will be held only if necessary.
(Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
I. 2526 Van Ness Ave. AL030081 & AT030080
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. The landlord appeals the decision on the grounds that a higher cost for the boiler components than that requested in the petition should be allowed because: the change in the calculations resulted from an approach that the Administrative Law Judge thought more appropriate; and the total passthrough is still less than the amount requested in the petition. One tenant also appeals, claiming that: the replacement carpet should be allocated to all tenants in the building, even those on the floor which did not receive new carpet, because the old carpet emitted foul odors throughout the building and its removal benefited all tenants.
MSC: To deny the landlord’s and the tenant’s appeals.
(Justman/Gruber: 4-1; Lightner dissenting)
J. 355 Serrano #2J AT030082
The tenant’s appeal was filed 8 months late because the tenant failed to receive a copy of the Decision in the mail and didn’t realize her rent was going up until it was time for her lease renewal.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 4-1; Gruber 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 deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
K. 1906 B Folsom St. AT030088
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services and the landlord’s failure to repair was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims not to have received the notice of hearing, and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.
Consideration of this appeal was continued to the next meeting in order for staff to obtain additional information.
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. The office workload statistics for the month of May, 2003.
B. An updated list of Rent Ordinance amendments.
C. An updated staff roster.
D. Copies of recent Ordinances regarding Ellis and authorizing a 50-50 split of any increased water bills related to the renovation of Hetch-Hetchy (Proposition A).
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Commissioners that proposed legislation making the Rent Board an elected body would go before the Rules Committee of the Board of Supervisors on Monday, June 23rd, at 10:00 a.m. He also told the Board that he will be convening a meeting of interested parties regarding possible amendments to the Residential Hotel Uniform Visitor Policy; Mr. Grubb will act as the neutral. Hopefully, “constructive compromises” will be brought back to the Board within a few months.
VIII. Calendar Items
June 24, 2003 - NO MEETING
July 1, 2003
9 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 6/17/03)
IX. Adjournment
Vice-President Marshall adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m.