March 09, 2004
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, March 9, 2004 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 6:15 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Henderson; Mosser.
Staff Present: Gartzman; Grubb; Wolf.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of February 17, 2004.
(Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Ernestine Weiss spoke on behalf of the tenants at the Golden Gateway complex, saying that there are “too many passthroughs” and that the PG&E passthrough should be excised completely. Ms. Weiss believes that PG&E passthroughs constitute “double-dipping”, since PG&E costs are included in the annual increase the landlord is entitled to each year. Ms. Weiss feels that the elderly are particularly affected.
B. Robert Pender of the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization (PRO) distributed copies of the Tenant Times. Mr. Pender informed the Board that he received 5,000 votes in his run for the Democratic Central Committee, which he feels is recognition for all the work he has done over the years. Mr. Pender admitted that he is relieved that he didn’t get elected. Mr. Pender also told the Board that PRO is 30 years old and the oldest tenant organization in San Francisco. He expressed his support for the tenant appellant at 405 Serrano Drive (AT040007).
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 405 Serrano Dr. #5D AT040007
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted. The tenant’s appeal on the grounds of financial hardship was accepted and remanded for hearing. The tenant failed to appear at the remand hearing and her appeal was dismissed. On appeal, the tenant claims not to have received notice of the hearing, and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Justman: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Mosbrucker: 5-0)
B. 1830 Clay St. #103, 303, 402 & 403 AT040009 thru –12
The landlords’ petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted, resulting in 7% rent increases for 11 out of 21 units. The tenants in four units appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #103 and schedule a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
MSC To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #303 and schedule a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.
(Becker/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
The tenant in unit #402 indicated that there are two adult occupants in the unit, but did not furnish a Hardship Application for her husband, because she said he refused to cooperate. The tenant indicated that she did not wish to proceed at this time. The Board considers this appeal to have been withdrawn. If the tenant provides the requested documentation within a reasonable period of time, the appeal may be reopened.
On her Hardship Application, the tenant in unit #403 indicated that she had been unemployed, but would be starting a new job in February. Since no current income information was provided, the Commissioners continued consideration of this appeal in order for staff to contact the tenant and obtain additional information regarding her financial status.
C. 345 Jones St. #401 AT040014
The tenants’ appeal was filed almost eight months late because the tenants allege that they did not receive a copy of the Decision of Administrative Law Judge, and English is not their native language.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 25 of 30 units 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)
D. 600 – 24th Ave. #4 AT040008
Four tenant petitions alleging decreased housing services were granted, in part. One tenant appeals the decision, claiming that: the decision is in error as to the number of problematic windows she has in her unit; the decision is incorrect regarding the dates that the landlord received notice from the tenant as to the defective windows; the decision states that the windows have been reglazed when they have not; the tenant notified the landlord as to the maintenance and upkeep problems in the building as early as 1997; and the landlord was on notice regarding the peeling paint pursuant to a letter dated December 2, 1998.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing on the issue of the broken windows and to determine whether the mildew in the living room could have been exacerbated by leaking windows in the living room, if any. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
E. 1266 – 20th Ave. AT040013
The tenant’s petition was partially granted as to claims of decreased housing services, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,183.50. Claims regarding the front gate and entry door were denied due to lack of notice to the landlord. The tenant’s appeal was accepted and remanded in order for the Administrative Law Judge to make Findings and Conclusions on the issue of constructive notice regarding the gate and front entry door. In the Decision on Remand, the Administrative Law Judge found that the gate and front entry door appeared to be in good repair from the photographic evidence, and determined that there was no constructive notice to the landlord of any defects. The tenant appeals the remand decision, claiming that: the Administrative Law Judge exhibited bias towards the landlord, including giving greater weight to the testimony of the property manager than the Declaration of the tenant’s witness; the landlord performed almost no maintenance over a twelve-year period, which should lend credence to the tenant’s assertions regarding defects on the premises; the photographic evidence does, in fact, show the existence of defects; and the property manager’s testimony at the hearing is not credible.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Justman/Gruber: 3-2; Becker,
Marshall dissenting)
VI. Communications
The Board received the following communications:
A. The departmental budget for the fiscal year 2004-2005.
B. An article from The Recorder regarding Gary Near, an appellant in a prior case before the Board.
C. A letter from landlord Bill Quan regarding proposed amendments to Rules Section 4.11.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb went over the proposed departmental budget with the Commissioners. The budget for fiscal year 2004-2005 shows a net reduction of $377,000, which constitutes an 8% decrease from this year’s budget. This figure includes a 5% reserve in the City Attorney and Temporary Salaries categories.
VIII. Old Business
A. Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 4.11 Regarding PG&E Passthroughs
The Board continued their discussion of proposed amendments to Rules Section 4.11 with Senior Administrative Law Judge Sandy Gartzman. The Board agreed on the following additional changes to the proposal: passthroughs that are currently in effect shall be discontinued 12 months from imposition or 60 days from the effective date of the proposed amendments; page 4, line 2 shall be changed to reflect that the landlord shall deduct user fee income for the laundry facilities actually received by the landlord from a third party vendor from the total utility costs for the building, or, where no third party vendor is used to operate the laundry facility, 50% of the income actually received by the landlord shall be deducted; and page 4, line 6 shall state that where laundry facilities are not separately metered and not available and not for the benefit of the tenant, the landlord may not pass through any increase in the building’s utilities to that tenant. Ms. Gartzman will draft the additional changes for discussion at the March 23rd Board meeting.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
C. Robert Pender told the Board that there are 3,500 units in the Parkmerced complex, that not every block has a laundry room and that lights in the laundry rooms are left on 24 hours a day. Mr. Pender feels that the Board is “making sausage” in that the proposed amendments to Rules Section 4.11 are “a can of worms,” very complicated and “won’t be fair to either side.” Mr. Pender is going to inform the Board of Supervisors of his feelings about this issue.
IX. New Business
The Board briefly discussed proposed changes to Rules and Regulations Sections 2.13 and 2.15 which would make it not mandatory for the Board to meet on the first Tuesday of the month and increase the amount of the Commissioners’ per diem compensation and voted as follows:
MSC: To put the proposed changes to Rules and Regulations Sections 2.13 and 2.15 out for Public Hearing. (Gruber/Justman: 5-0)
X. Calendar Items
March 16, 2004 - NO MEETING
March 23, 2004
8 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 3/9/04)
Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to Rules Sections 2.13 and 2.15
Old Business: Proposed Amendments to Rules Section 4.11
XI. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m.