To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

December 8, 2004 (Special)

December 8, 2004 (Special)

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 330A

I. Call to Order

Commissioner Becker called the meeting to order at 6:18 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Justman; Mosbrucker; Mosser.

Commissioners not Present: Marshall; Murphy, Wasserman.

Staff Present: Wolf.

III. Public Hearing

Residential Hotel Visitor Policy

    In anticipation of the Rent Board's annual review of the Hotel Visitor Policy, representatives of the Central City and Mission SRO Collaboratives approached the Board and asked that the Committee that had made suggestions for amendments to the Visitor Policy last year be re-convened. It was represented that large-scale revisions to the Policy were not needed, but that there were certain issues that tenants wanted re-examined. Additionally, it was felt that it would be beneficial to get the major stakeholders together to discuss problems and brainstorm solutions.

    At the request of the Commissioners, Acting Executive Director Delene Wolf convened this year's Committee. The Committee met twice, and consisted of representatives of the respective communities. Representatives from the tenant SRO Collaboratives put forth the following list of 11 items, which the tenants they represented wished to see changed:

        1. Management should not hold visitor ID's.

        2. Management should accept different types of ID's, including jail ID, check cashing ID, and Day Labor Program ID.

        3. There should not be check-in/out times for consecutive visitors.

        4. No blackout days for visitors.

        5. Tenants should not be required to escort visitors to the bathroom or other common areas.

        6. Tenants should not be penalized for visitor behavior and there should be just cause for the suspension of visitor rights.

        7. No check-in time for overnight visitors.

        8. 14 consecutive overnights per month for same visitor; unlimited number for other visitors or non-consecutive stays.

        9. Expand visiting hours to 24/7.

        10. Children under 18 shouldn't count toward overnight visitor limitation.

        11. Caregivers of disabled tenants should be exempt from visitor limitations.

    On issues where consensus was reached between the landlords and tenants on the Committee, recommendations were forwarded to the Rent Board Commissioners. For issues on which no consensus was achieved, no recommendation was made, although the feelings of the landlord and tenant representatives were conveyed to the Board members. The Public Hearing convened at 6:22 p.m. and concluded at 7:55 p.m. 37 individuals addressed the Board as follows:

    1. Landlord Dikak Patel said that the exemption for caregivers is reasonable. As to escorting visitors within the building, Mr. Patel said that each hotel is different and should be allowed to have their own policies, since they don't all have staff to sign in guests. Mr. Patel also felt that raising the time for requests for overnights to 9:00 shouldn't present too much of a problem, although the current 7:00 is "reasonable." Mr. Patel believes that the SRO Collaboratives represent a small segment of the SRO tenant population.

    2. Tenant Melissa Burrell said that she cannot avail herself of overnight privileges unless necessary support is provided.

    3. Tenant Frank Cole said there should be no blackout days, and just cause should be necessary for the eviction of problem tenants.

    4. Tenant William Lockwood said that it is not always possible to request permission for an overnight guest in advance, and tenants should be allowed to do so until midnight. Mr. Lockwood believes that 15 overnight visitors should be allowed and that jail and temporary IDs with pictures should be allowed, since they are accepted at banks.

    5. Landlord Henry Karnilowicz said that the tenants want the same privileges as apartment dwellers, but SROs are different. Since most hotels don't have private bathrooms, you can't double the capacity. Mr. Karnilowicz believes that the present rules are "generous", and that "kids under 18 aren't children." Mr. Karnilowicz advocated using the movie standard, PG-13. He also told the Board they should differentiate between non-profit and for-profit hotels, and that evictions are expensive.

    6. Landlord Brad Patel told the Board that hotels are not eligible for reduced utility rates. Since he lives in his hotel and can't afford a desk clerk, Mr. Patel expressed a concern as to when he would sleep if visiting hours were expanded to 24/7.

    7. Tenant Ellen Pound of the Jerry Hotel said that operators and managers don't need to hold IDs to know who's in the building - they just have to look at the log. Ms. Pound doesn't understand why it's so important to know who tenants' visitors are. She believes that the Visitor Policy should be posted in different languages at the front desk of the hotel and on every floor. Ms. Pound also feels hotel operators wouldn't think that the rules were reasonable if they had to obey them.

    8. Tenant Bruce Allison advocated for 15 overnights per month, since that is what is allowed at the Isabel Hotel. Mr. Allison doesn't have to escort his guests, and wonders why other hotels can't do the same since "it is 2004, not 1904."

    9. Tenant Joseph Brown of the Pierre Hotel said that desk clerks lose tenants' IDs, so there should just be a log sheet and tenants should have to show a picture ID to get in. Mr. Brown believes that day labor, jail and check cashing IDs should be accepted.

    10. Sarah Norr of the Central City SRO Collaborative said that the requirement that tenants have to escort their guests is selectively enforced, and that "86-ing" of problem tenants and/or guests is an important tool that hotel operators can use. Ms. Norr suggested that it be required that incident reports be written up for issues regarding guests as well as tenants; otherwise, desk clerks have too much power. Ms. Norr offered the requirement of a receipt as a compromise on the issue of IDs: as it is now, tenants can't prove they are entitled to $75.00 if the hotel loses their ID.

    11.Tenant Lasale Love of the Albert Hotel said that she can't visit her friend after 9:00 p.m., and that isn't right.

    12. Landlord Gerda Kircher agreed that hotel operators should not retain tenants' IDs, and she also agreed with some of the tenants' other demands. However, Ms. Kircher said that an owner should be entitled to have reasonable "house rules", especially in small hotels where the owners do the work. On the issue of children, Ms. Kircher feels that "real kids" should be allowed to visit, but not teenage hustlers. She also thinks that overnight guests shouldn't have to check in and out, caregivers should be permitted, and that blackout days are unnecessary.

    13. Tenant Mark Hutchings of the All-Star Hotel is the parent of a teen-age daughter. He pointed out that, under the existing rules, he could only have his daughter stay with him for 8 nights. Mr. Hutchings believes he is being denied his court-ordered custody rights; he also advocated for the abolition of blackout days.

    14. Tenant Gerardo Mendosa is enrolled in the Day Labor Program and has resided at the All-Star Hotel for 3 years. Mr. Mendosa told the Board that he is discriminated against because he is not in this country legally and he does not have a California ID. Mr. Mendosa said that he and all his friends are hard workers but they can't visit each other, which he equated to being a prisoner. Mr. Mendosa urged the Board to allow Day Labor Program IDs.

    15. Julio Loyola of the Day Labor Program came to support the rights of immigrants, although he doesn't live in a hotel. Mr. Loyola asked how it could not be helpful to visit someone, and said that day laborers shouldn't have to be isolated. Mr. Loyola said the Board should accept Day Labor Program IDs, especially since they have a picture.

    16. Tenant Luis Frias of the Mission Hotel said that he is tired of waking up in the middle of the night to take a guest to the bathroom. He has been written up two times for this, and it's a problem. Mr. Frias was homeless for two years, but is tired of all the rules he has to follow to stay in the hotel.

    17. Allison Lum of the Mission SRO Collaborative told the Board that SRO tenants have to deal with these policies every day. She reminded the Board of the history of the Visitor Policy, which was enacted in 2002 to ensure tenants' rights to have visitors. Ms. Lum informed the Board of the process by which the Collaborative tenants came up with their demands: a survey of SRO tenants was conducted in August and September, which resulted in 133 tenants attending a Tenant Congress and formulating their proposals. Several of these tenants sat on the Committee convened by the Rent Board. Ms. Lum challenged the Commissioners to think about how they would feel if they had to live under these rules.

    18. Tenant Delphine Brody told the Board that she had lived in the Seneca Hotel for nearly 7 years. During that time period, her girlfriend was homeless on and off, and Ms. Brody had to stay on the street in order to be with her. Ms. Brody advocated for: 24/7 visiting hours, no checkout times, an increased number of overnights, especially for non-consecutive stays, no blackout days, and an expansion of the types of IDs that are acceptable.

    19. Tenant Bill Murphy said that since he is not wealthy, he is forced to live in an SRO. Mr. Murphy believes that he should not be subject to "random invasions" by management, nor should his visitors. Mr. Murphy feels that he has a right to privacy, and is upset because his girlfriend cannot come over to see him after work. Mr. Murphy asked that the Commissioners modify the Policy and make it more fair to everybody.

    20. Tenant Chris Underwood said that he was homeless when the desk clerk lost his California ID, and the only way to get into the hotel was to have an ID card. An ID card is now $20.00, whereas it used to be $6.00. Mr. Underwood believes that blackout days don't make sense and reminded the Commissioners that everyone doesn't use drugs and alcohol.

    21. Tenant Elaine Sharp of the Albert Hotel said she checked out several hotels where she was told she was not allowed to have visitors. Ms. Sharp supports 24/7 visiting hours and said that she didn't become a drug addict when she became poor.

    22. Landlord Sanjiv Patel said that hotel operators should be allowed to have three, not two, blackout days, since it is "crazy on the street these days." Visiting hours should be from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. rather than 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., since janitors should have a chance to clean. Mr. Patel explained that the Isabel Hotel can afford to have more liberal visiting policies since, as a non-profit, they receive subsidies.

    23. Landlord Roger Patel said that he has been a hotel operator for 13 years. Mr. Patel believes that escorting visitors is necessary for security since he had a situation where a visitor forgot the tenant's room number and entered another tenant's room. Mr. Patel works from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and doesn't have an office - the smaller hotels cannot afford a lot of staff. He believes that tenants should be responsible for their visitors' behavior, since it is impossible for hotel operators to police visitors all the time. Mr. Patel has quarterly meetings with his tenants and says that no one has a problem with the present Policy. Mr. Patel finished by speculating that more overnights would result in decreased services to the existing tenants, and asked that the Board keep most of the present Policy intact "for the tenants' sake." 24/7 visiting hours would result in "havoc."

    24. James Collins of the Mission SRO Collaborative asked why tenants should be penalized for paying more than 30% of their income for rent. Mr. Collins said that SRO tenants should have the same rights as any other tenant. Mr. Collins alleged that San Quentin inmates have fewer visitor restrictions than SRO tenants and said that it is up to the Commissioners to make sure that enforcement of the Visitor Policy occurs.

    25. Landlord Shabber Mohammed said he accepts other types of IDs. However, there are many types of fake IDs, and how is a landlord to know?

    26. Tenant Joe Shipman of the Royan Hotel said that there is limited handicapped accessibility in the hotel. Mr. Shipman feels that things are supposed to shut down at 10:00 at night, and he doesn't want to have to deal with noise in the middle of the night. Mr. Shipman said that breaking the rules should jeopardize one's living situation, but that hotel operators should have to post City and State laws that govern. Mr. Shipman concluded by saying that blackout days are "ridiculous" and make him feel like he's "sub-human."

    27. Ellis McDonald of Mission Agenda said that the Visitor Policy should be posted everywhere, and tenants should not have to escort their visitors in the building. As to blackout days, Mr. McDonald finds it ironic that, on the one day a tenant can afford to have someone over, s/he is not allowed to. Mr. McDonald also believes that visitor rights should not be suspended for any reason.

    28. Tenant Allen White told the Board that visitor restrictions cause real pain in a lot of people's lives, and that no one should have the right to tell someone who should have access to their room. Mr. White believes the Commissioners would be seriously offended if they were under such constraints. Mr. White suggested that all of these policies be thrown away, and that everyone be treated with respect. He feels that no one else is subjected to this "harassment and oppression."

    29. Tenant Susan Marsh believes that 14 overnights would be reasonable, since tenants in SROs need social ties and access to their loved ones. Ms. Marsh feels that the Visitor Policy has been working well, since there are remedies for problem tenants and their visitors. Ms. Marsh concluded by saying that all SRO tenants are human beings.

    30. Tenant William Hall told the Board that he had some questions regarding the survey.

    31. Landlord Adil Shaikh said that SROs are more like supportive housing than hotels, and that rules are enforced for tenants' protection. Mr. Shaikh pointed out that the hotel operators didn't come up with the rules; other agencies made suggestions. Mr. Shaikh believes that acceptance of jail IDs could cause harm and asked that hotel managers be given adequate time to clean and use the community bathrooms and kitchens. Mr. Shaikh agreed that exceptions to the rules should be made for the holidays.

    32. Landlord Rupesh Patel said that all of the rules should be thrown out because they impinge on operators' rights. Mr. Patel told the Board that the amount of monthly rents charged at the hotels doesn't cover the cost of a desk clerk, and that anyone can get a check cashing ID. If a visitor kicks down a door, the tenant should be held responsible.

    33. Landlord Narendra Patel told the Board that many of the operators live in the hotels and have relationships with their tenants - they know who are legitimate visitors. Mr. Patel said that the Commissioners should consult the police and fire department regarding the additional burdens expanding visitor rights could cause. Mr. Patel calls the police approximately 15 times per month regarding trespassing and there has been a "Domino Effect": the police response time has gradually increased. Mr. Patel asked that the Commissioners consider habitability and noise and said that the non-profit providers can blackball tenants and keep them out of their 1,200 rooms.

    34. Landlord Summer Desai told the Board that he lives under the same roof as his tenants, who have rights because they pay rent. Mr. Desai said that 1-2 visitors are not a problem, but that guests staying for many consecutive nights become "semi-tenants." Too many visitors at a time clog up the toilets and bathrooms, and make it difficult to operate the hotel.

    35. Tenant Dan Williams of the Hotel Coronado asked where a tenant can file to recover for a lost ID and what happens if a landlord fails to reimburse the tenant. Mr. Williams believes that hotels should be required to provide security, rather than making tenants act as escorts for their visitors. Mr. Williams supports the current visiting hours of 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. because he works.

    36. Landlord N. Sharma feels that hotels should be treated like any other business, and allowed to have their own rules and regulations. Mr. Sharma said that 9-9 visiting hours should be sufficient, since these are 12 x 12' rooms. Mr. Sharma asked what would happen if hotel owners are put out of business, since it is already difficult to get insurance, and hard to prove whose guest committed an act of vandalism. Mr. Sharma believes that the SRO Collaboratives represent a small minority of SRO tenants, and said that hotel operators have already come a long way.

    37. Nick Pagoulatos of St. Peter's Housing Committee thanked the Board for "a better process this year," and said that private SROs are more like "exploitation mills" than supportive housing. Mr. Pagoulatos told the Board that the Visitor Policy was a response to criminal actions being taken by some hotel operators and that Supervisor Daly, the legislation's sponsor, favors an expansion of visitor rights. Mr. Pagoulatos speculated that "oppressive rules put people back out on the streets," whereas all City departments should be working to "keep folks housed." Mr. Pagoulatos concluded by stressing that the Policy should "allow people their humanity, since they only have fewer rights because they're poor."

    After the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Commissioners discussed the public comments and voted to amend the Visitor Policy as follows below:

    Issue #2: Acceptable Forms of ID

        MSC: To make clear that any valid California or out-of-state current government agency issued picture ID is acceptable, and to specifically add merchant seaman, Veteran's Administration and Day Labor Program IDs to the list of acceptable IDs. (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)

    Issue #11: Caregivers

        MSC: To specify that caregivers shall not count against both daytime and overnight visitor limitations, although the owner or operator of the hotel may request medical verification or a caregiver ID card. (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)

    Issue #5: Escorting visitors in the hotel

        MSC: To prohibit any house rule that requires a tenant to escort their visitor(s) to the bathroom or other common area of the hotel; however, tenants are responsible for the conduct of their unaccompanied visitor. (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)

    Issue #3: Check-in/out Times for Consecutive Visitors

        MSC: To make clear that any visitor staying consecutive nights shall not be required to check in and out during the course of a consecutive stay. (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)

    Issue #7: Check-in Time for Overnight Visitors

        MSC: To change the time by which requests for an overnight visitor must be made from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

              (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)

    Issue #10: Children

        MSC: To adjust the age at which children do not count against visitor limitations from 10 to 13; however, management shall still have the right to allow no more than 2 children per room at any time. To provide that court-ordered custodial rights, which end at age 17, shall be honored for purposes of consecutive overnight stays, although any such visits shall count toward the limitation on overnight visitors. (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)

    Issue #1: Retention of IDs

        MSC: To allow hotel operators to hold visitor IDs, but to provide that they must issue a receipt if they do so. (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)

    Issue #4: Blackout Days

        MSC: To continue to allow hotel owners and operators to restrict visitors on 2 of the 3 actual check days of each month. However, such blackout days shall not apply to children 13 years of age and under, custodial children or consecutive visitors. (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)

    Issue #6: Visitor Behavior and Suspension of Visitor Rights

        MSC: To leave the provisions of the Visitor Policy regarding visitor behavior and suspension of visitor rights unchanged, except as to new Section 2(F). (Justman/Gruber: 5-0)

    Issue #8: Number of Overnight Visitors Allowed

        MSC: To keep the number of overnight visitors allowed unchanged, at eight per calendar month. (Mosbrucker/Gruber: 4-1;

              Becker dissenting)

    Issue #9: Duration of Visiting Hours

        MSC: To keep the hours of visitation unchanged, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. (Gruber/Justman: 5-0)

    The Amended Hotel Visitor Policy reads as follows below:

UNIFORM HOTEL VISITOR POLICY

As amended December 8, 2004

1. No owner or operator of a single room occupancy hotel (SRO) shall deny a guest or occupant of the hotel the right as to:

A. Day Time Visitors

      1. To receive visitors between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. daily. A maximum of two (2) day time visitors at a time per room may be imposed by management. There is no limit on the total number of visitors a tenant may have per day, week or month.

      2. Children 13 years old and under shall not be counted towards the visitor limitation rule. However, a maximum of two (2) children per room at a time can be imposed by management.

    B. Overnight Guests

      1. To have eight (8) overnight guests per month, limited to one visitor per tenant per night. Only tenants who have resided in their unit for thirty-two (32) continuous days or more shall be entitled to have overnight guests. Court-ordered custodial rights, which end at age seventeen (17), shall be honored for purposes of consecutive overnight stays but any such visits shall be counted toward the limitation on the number of overnight visitors.

        2. For tenancies of two (2) persons per room, each tenant is permitted to have eight (8) overnight visitors per calendar month, but those tenants will have to reach agreement as to who will have the one (1) visitor per night if there is a dispute.

        3. Tenants are entitled to have a visitor stay eight (8) days consecutively in a calendar month. Any visitor staying consecutive nights shall not be required to check in and out during the course of a consecutive stay.

      4. Requests for overnight guests shall be made no later than 9:00 p.m. on the same day.

    C. Caregivers of disabled tenants shall be exempt from visitor limitations. The owner or operator of the hotel may request medical verification or a caregiver I.D. card.

2. Owners and operators of SROs shall have the right to adopt reasonable rules and regulations to ensure that the visitor rights set forth above do not infringe on the health and safety of the building and/or otherwise interfere with the tenants' right of quiet enjoyment.

    A. Owners or operators are entitled to request that visitors provide identification as follows:

        1. Only ONE of the following types of I.D. need be provided: a valid and current passport, a California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued I.D., a Mexican Consular Registration Card or Resident Alien Card, merchant seaman I.D., a Day Labor Program I.D., Veteran's Administration I.D. or any valid California or out-of-state current government agency issued picture I.D.

        2. Owners/managers can require that an I.D. be left with management during the visitor's stay, but they must provide a receipt if they do so.

        3. A log must be maintained by management and the visitor must sign in and sign out when the I.D. is surrendered and when it is returned.

        4. If the I.D. is lost or misplaced and not returned within 12 hours of the visitor's request to have it returned, the owner/manager shall pay the visitor $75.00 in cash immediately upon demand by the visitor as compensation for the loss and inconvenience of replacing the lost I.D.

    B. Owners and operators shall have the specific right to restrict visitors on two (2) of the three (3) actual check days of each month. Providers are required to post those blackout dates at least five (5) days prior to the first blackout date on a minimum size of 8-1/2" x 11", to be posted prominently by the entrance or in the lobby. Blackout dates shall not apply to children thirteen (13) years of age and under, custodial children or consecutive visitors.

    C. Owners and operators may deny visitor rights for 30 days to tenants who are repeat violators of hotel visiting rules. No penalty may be imposed until the second violation. All notices of violation of the policy, including the first notice, must be in writing with a copy provided to the tenant.

    D. Tenants who disagree with the imposition of a penalty may either:

        1. appeal to the operator or tenant representative (if one is present); or, in the alternative,

        2. the tenant may go directly to the Rent Board for adjudication of their complaint.

    E. Owners and operators shall also have the right to limit the number of nights any single visitor can make to the property to eight (8) per calendar month.

    F. Tenants shall not be required to escort their visitors to the bathroom or other common areas of the building. However, the tenant is responsible for the conduct of their unaccompanied visitor.

3. Nothing in this section shall interfere with the rights of owners and operators of SROs to exclude specific visitors who willfully or wantonly:

    A. disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants and neighbors;

    B. destroy, deface, damage, impair, or remove any part of the structure or dwelling unit, or the facilities or equipment used in common; or,

    C. have committed repeated violations of the visitor policy which can be construed as creating a nuisance on the property; or constituting substantial interference with the comfort, safety or enjoyment of the landlord or tenants, which can be a just cause for eviction under the Rent Ordinance, as determined by the courts.

4. SRO owners or operators shall make available to their tenants a copy of any written Supplemental Visitor Policy that complies with this policy. SRO owners or operators are required to prominently post the Uniform Visitor Policy and any Supplemental Visitor Policy on a minimum size of 11" x 17" by the entrance or in the lobby.

5. Other than as a settlement of an unlawful detainer action, a tenant cannot waive the rights as outlined in this legislation. Any agreement between the SRO owner or operator and the tenant that reduces or limits the rights set forth in this legislation shall be deemed void and unenforceable.

6. Tenants are accorded certain and specific rights as a result of this legislation. If the SRO owner or operator violates this provision, a tenant will have legal recourse and will be encouraged to visit the San Francisco Rent Stabilization Board or the Police, as appropriate.

7. SRO owners or operators seeking a modification of the rights set forth above may file a petition with the San Francisco Rent Stabilization Board and receive a hearing on said petition. Notice of the time and date of said hearing shall be prominently posted by the SRO owner or operator above the front desk of the hotel, in the lobby and at least five (5) copies shall be posted on each floor of the building.

8. The Rent Board shall translate the Uniform Visitor Policy into the predominant languages of the community and make them available as needed.

IV. Adjournment

    Commissioner Becker adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:16 AM