September 16, 2003
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, September 16, 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 6:00 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Mosser; Murphy.
Commissioners not Present: Wasserman.
Staff Present: Gartzman; Grubb; Wolf.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of September 2, 2003 with the following correction: on page 2, under the motions regarding the hardship appeals at 322- 14th St. #11 and #8, to show that the motions were made by Commissioner Marshall and seconded by Commissioner Justman and passed 5-0. (Gruber/Becker: 5-0)
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 798 Post #103 AT030271
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 31 of 47 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)
B. 150 Franklin #302 AT030273
The tenant’s appeal was filed almost 6 months late because the Minute Order did not contain any language regarding the tenant’s right to file a hardship appeal.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 17 of 39 units was granted pursuant to a Minute Order. The tenants in one unit appeal the Minute Order on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
C. 444-448 Page St. AT030270
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to the tenants in three units was granted. The tenant in one unit appeals the decision, alleging that the Administrative Law Judge failed to hear all the evidence and failed to “establish the link of landlord negligence.”
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Lightner: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
D. Golden Gateway AT030154 – AT030262
The tenant at 440 Davis Court #514 filed her substantive appeal 3 months late because she was traveling throughout the summer in order to help her children move.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
The tenant at 440 Davis Court #605 filed his substantive appeal 7 weeks late because he was traveling at the time the decision was issued.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
The tenant at 440 Davis Court #1616 filed their substantive and hardship appeal 1 day late because the tenant is a native speaker of Farsi.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
The tenant at 155 Jackson #908 filed her substantive and hardship appeal 3 days late because she did not receive the decision until 4 days before the deadline.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
The tenant at 155 Jackson #2206 filed her substantive appeal 9 days late because she was traveling with her grandson at the time the decision was issued.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
The tenant at 155 Jackson #2404 filed her substantive appeal 9 days late because she was traveling at the time the decision was issued.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
The tenant at 17 Whaleship Plaza filed her substantive appeal 7 days late because she was traveling at the time the decision was issued and management was unable to locate her mail immediately upon her return.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
The tenant at 550 Battery #1120 filed her substantive and hardship appeal 22 days late because she was involved in a slip and fall accident at the time the decision was issued.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of voluntary seismic work to 622 units was granted, in part, resulting in passthroughs ranging from $14.00 to $27.72 per month. 108 tenants appeal the decision. Most of the tenants are represented by fellow tenant Robert Coleman (the joint appeal); tenant Thomas Flowers filed a substantive appeal on behalf of himself and one other tenant (the Flowers appeal); two tenants filed individual substantive appeals; and twenty tenants filed appeals on the grounds of financial hardship.
The arguments put forward by the tenants in the joint appeal are as follows: the work does not constitute a capital improvement because it harmed rather than benefited the tenants by creating new structural weaknesses in the buildings; evidence of previous seismic work at the property and lack of completion signoff were disregarded by the Administrative Law Judge; the decision misallocates costs by ignoring benefit to the public; the landlord’s key financial witness provided false testimony at the hearing and therefore should not be considered credible in any of his assertions; the landlord’s attorney engaged in witness tampering; and the imputed interest rate in effect at the time the amended petition was filed should be used.
MSC: To deny the joint appeal filed by tenant Robert Coleman on behalf of himself and 85 other tenants except to remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to re-examine the percentage allocation to the retail portion of the property by determining whether there is any additional square footage in the form of common or miscellaneous square footage that should be allocated to the retail side in the same way that the Common and Miscellaneous columns in paragraph 25 of the Decision were allocated to the residential percentage. (Justman/Marshall: 5-0)
The arguments put forward by the tenants in the Flowers appeal are as follows: since the buyer and seller of the property were aware of pre-existing earthquake problems at the time of sale, the purchase price was undoubtedly discounted and recovery of capital improvement passthroughs for the work constitutes “double-dipping”; and the work does not meet the definition of capital improvement because it was not proved that the property’s value was increased nor that its useful life was prolonged.
MSC: To deny the appeal filed by tenant Thomas Flowers on behalf of himself and one other tenant. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board continued consideration of the appeals filed by twenty-two individual tenants to the September 30th meeting.
V. Public Hearing
Proposed Amendments to the Uniform Visitor Policy for Residential Hotels
In accordance with the requirement that the Rent Board review the provisions of the Uniform Visitor Policy on an annual basis, three Public Hearings were held. As a result of concerns raised by tenants at those hearings, Executive Director Grubb convened a Committee to suggest possible amendments to the Visitor Policy. The Visitor Policy Committee met four times and consisted of four landlord representatives, four tenant representatives, one neutral and Mr. Grubb. A majority of the members reached agreement on all issues that were raised by the public at the Public Hearings, and the Committee came up with a list of proposed amendments to the Visitor Policy that were put out for Public Hearing.
The Public Hearing convened at 7:35 p.m. and concluded at 8:40 p.m.; sixteen individuals testified as follows below:
1. Delphine Brody, President of the Seneca Hotel Tenants’ Association, said that the way the Committee was formed should have been more democratic. She expressed her thanks for the proposals that she agrees with, but said that many of the proposals are “anti-tenant and pro-landlord” and took away some of the protections that previously existed. Ms. Brody feels that: tenants should be able to have 15 consecutive overnight visitors, rather than 8; tenants should not have to wait 32 days before they can have visitors; tenants should be able to request permission for an overnight visitor until 9:00 p.m. on the day of the visit; any staff member of the hotel should be able to approve a request for a visitor; there should be no “blackout days” on visitation; and violations of the Visitor Policy should not be used as a basis for eviction.
2. Meredith Walters of the Central City SRO Collaborative thanked the Committee members for their time, but said that the process for getting tenants on the Committee needs to be more clear and representative in the future. While Ms. Walters believes the proposed amendments are “a step in the right direction,” she felt that: secondary ID’s should not be required; a $20 fine for losing an ID will not be a sufficient deterrent – either ID’s should not be retained, or the fine should be higher; and the Policy should state that permission for an overnight visitor can be requested up until 9:00 p.m.
3. Sean Carroll of the Seneca Hotel Tenants’ Union said that it is humiliating to have to escort one’s guests in the hotel – if there is a problem, the guest should be “86-ed”; hotel clerks should be able to write down the information, but not hold a guest’s ID; and the Visitor Policy should be displayed poster sized in the lobby of every hotel.
4. Wendy Phillips of the Mission SRO Collaborative said that the amendments had specified that the Visitor Policy be posted in various languages, and that the Rent Board would provide translation if necessary – this was left out, and should be added back in. Ms. Phillips also stated that there should not be an additional blackout day on visitation in addition to the one allowed by the present Uniform Visitor Policy; any blackout day should be on an actual check day; minors should not have to show ID’s; child care workers shouldn’t count as overnight visitors after 9:00 p.m., unless they stay overnight; and any Federal or State ID should be sufficient.
5. Tenant James Collins of 6th Street Agenda and Mission Agenda was a member of the Committee. Mr. Collins said that an ID issued by the Dept. of Corrections should be acceptable; one form of ID should be enough; and notification requirements are unconstitutional.
6. Bill Murphy, President of the Crown Hotel Tenants’ Union, said that 2-3 blackout days are too many; his girlfriend should be able to come over when she gets off work; and that those keeping the ID’s often aren’t citizens themselves.
7. Tenant Anthony Faber of the Blackstone Apts. asked what qualifies as a second ID, and said that hotel staff should not be able to hold on to ID’s, especially since $20 is not near the replacement value.
8. Bob Coleman of the Golden Gateway Tenants’ Association said he was there in support of the efforts of tenants in residential hotels. Mr. Coleman said that the Policy should state a blanket exemption for caregivers, and suggested that some individuals should have “repetitive visitor status” and be exempt from limitations on visitation.
9. Tenant Regi Meadows of the Alexander Residence said that the proposals give landlords too much power; and that the allowable number of consecutive days per visitor should be determined by the occupants, and not management. Mr. Meadows said that the Commissioners wouldn’t accept these restrictions, and asked why occupants of residential hotels should be treated any differently.
10. Henry Karnilowicz, operator of the Sharon Hotel, said that two guests in each room would be a problem in the event of an emergency. Mr. Karnilowicz stated his belief that SRO’s are different from apartments, but that operators give decent tenants leeway and the rules are necessary for those who do not act as they should. Mr. Karnilowicz told the Board that ID’s are for security, and that it is too easy to forge out of State ID’s. Mr. Karnilowicz was on the Committee and urged adoption of the recommendations.
11. Drennen Shelton, Property Manager for City Housing, was a member of the Committee. Ms. Shelton said that compromises came pretty easily, and the recommendations don’t just reflect a landlord’s or tenant’s point of view. Ms. Shelton explained that the restrictions are necessary for the safety of the entire building, because SRO’s are a community living situation. Ms. Shelton believes that there are tenants who don’t want visitors in the building because they are afraid. Ms. Shelton also said that Dept. of Corrections ID’s are easily forged and that cons out on weekend passes are perhaps not the visitors you want at your hotel.
12. Herman Taft, Jr. of City Housing said that you have to hold on to ID’s to know who’s in the building, and that desk clerks don’t recognize out of State ID’s. Mr. Taft said that the Jefferson Hotel was on the police blotter every night when he took over as manager, but that there are no longer problems at City Housing hotels.
13. Nick Pagoulatos of St. Peter’s Housing Committee said that many issues raised at the Public Hearings are not in the recommendations because of the way that the Committee was convened, and that two of the tenant representatives were “self-appointed.” Mr. Pagoulatos believes that these individuals were advocating for management’s side and that this undermined the process. He asked the Commissioners to “keep an open mind” and accept some proposals that aren’t in the Committee’s recommendations.
14. Tenant Joseph Shipman of the Royan Hotel said that he has been through four fires, and is glad that he had his ID.
15. Tenant Matthew Hammond of the Seneca Hotel objects to the limitations of the policy, especially handing over ID’s. Mr. Hammond feels that his word should be enough that his guests are ok.
16. Tenant Lauren of the Winton Hotel said that two visitors at a time during the day aren’t enough, since “it’s your home.” Eight consecutive overnight visits also aren’t enough, especially when family comes to visit.
Executive Director Grubb informed the Commissioners that he had contacted Meredith Walters of the Central City SRO Collaborative when he was forming the Committee, and had asked that she provide four tenant representatives. When he had not heard back from her after three weeks, Mr. Grubb appointed two SRO tenants who had contacted him and volunteered. Mr. Grubb felt that there was a general lack of coordination among the SRO Collaboratives in coming up with representatives for the Committee. Mr. Grubb also informed the Board that Wendy Phillips was correct in saying that the Rent Board has agreed to provide translation, if necessary, so that the Visitor Policy can be posted in appropriate languages.
After discussion of the issues raised by the public, the Board identified several areas for further discussion, including: the number of blackout dates, which should fall on actual check days; whether ID’s can be retained by hotel staff, and which types of ID’s are acceptable; exemption for caregivers; and limitations on guests. This discussion will be continued to the meeting on October 14th.
VI. Communications
The Board received a response to the Memorandum of ALJ in the Golden Gateway case from tenant Thomas Flowers, and a letter to the Editor of the Bay Guardian from Executive Director Joe Grubb in response to an opinion piece by Ted Gullickson of the Tenants’ Union.
VII. Director’s Report
Mr. Grubb informed the Board that the legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors allowing for “Floating Alternates” would be in effect by the time of the next meeting.
VIII. Remarks from the Public
Regi Meadows told the Board that he hopes that the concerns of SRO tenants voiced at the Public Hearing don’t “fall on deaf ears.” He also said that disabled individuals shouldn’t have to go and greet their guests.
IX. New Business
Commissioner Gruber expressed his concern that the Board had just heard one side of the issues at the Public Hearing, and said that hotel operators have valid security concerns.
X. Calendar Items
September 23, 2003 - NO MEETING
September 30, 2003
9 appeal considerations
Golden Gateway individual appeals (cont. from 9/16/03)
Old Business: Rossoff v. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 401226)
New Business: List of Energy Conservation Improvements
XI. Adjournment
Vice-President Marshall adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.