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

Skip to page body

March 15, 2005

March 15, 2005

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 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 6:05 p.m.

    II .     Roll Call

Commissioners Present:

Becker; Gruber; Mosbrucker; Mosser; Wasserman.

Commissioners not Present:

Henderson; Justman.

Staff Present:

Lee; Wolf.

Commissioners Hurley and Murphy appeared on the record at 6:06 p.m.; Commissioner Marshall arrived at the meeting at 6:11 p.m.

III.     Approval of the Minutes

    MSC:    To approve the Minutes of March 1, 2005.

        (Gruber/Becker:  5-0)

    IV.     Remarks from the Public

        A.  Ron Woo, the landlord in the operating expense increase case concerning 614 Pine (AT050018 thru -26), told the Board that the building’s appraisal was not submitted because it “has a lot of confidential information,” and that two of the building’s businesses have failed, resulting in re-rental at reduced rents.  Mr. Woo said that he is only increasing the rents of tenants paying less than $500 per month, and that the 7% increases are being phased in over a two-year period at the rate of 3-1/2% per year.  

        B.  Gen Fujioka, Attorney for the tenants at 614 Pine, argued that, in a mixed-use building, commercial units that generate 2/3 of the building’s income should not have the same cost allocation as residential units.  Mr. Fujioka believes that square footage is not a relevant factor in allocating the operating expenses, because the commercial units generate more of the debt service.  He suggested that the building’s appraisal could be of help, but it was not provided in this case.  Mr. Fujioka suggested that costs should be allocated based on the percentage of the value of the building they represent.

    V.     Consideration of Appeals

        A.  750 Guerrero St. #4                AT050005

                                    (cont. from 2/15/05)

    The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to the tenants in seven units was granted pursuant to a Minute Order.  The tenant in unit #4 appealed on the grounds of financial hardship.  The Board continued consideration of the appeal so that staff could pursue an allegation by the landlord that the tenant’s wife also resides in the unit, in which case she would need to provide a Tenant Hardship Application as well.

    MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Becker/Marshall:  5-0)

    B.    171 Broad St.        AL050013

    The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $322.50 due to noise from the landlords’ roosters crowing in the back yard and lack of access to the mailbox.  The landlords appeal, appearing to claim that there could not have been six roosters and one hen on the premises; questioning the tenant’s tape recording, since roosters cannot crow non-stop for that long; and wondering whether the tenant stayed at home all day.

    MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Becker/Marshall:  4-1; Gruber dissenting)

    C.  3325 Steiner St. #16        AL050014

    The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increases, decreased housing services and the landlord’s failure to repair was granted, in part.  The unlawful rent increase and failure to repair claims were found to be without merit.  However, the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $270.12 due to a gas leak in the stove and a power outage.  The landlord appeals, claiming that:  the amounts granted are unreasonable; the electrical problem was repaired prior to the time period for which the rent reduction was granted; and $60.00 per month is excessive for the malfunctioning stove considering the fact that the tenant admits he does not cook.

    MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Becker/Marshall:  5-0)

    D.    945 Larkin St. #54        AT050015

    The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted as to a claim of lack of heat and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $65.00 per month for a 3.25-month period.  A claim of improper rent increase was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found all rent increases to have been proper and a claim regarding lead based paint in the unit was found not to have been proved.  The tenant appeals, claiming that:  the Administrative Law Judge ignored the evidence she presented; there are many factual errors in the Decision; the tenant was not allowed to move back to her original unit after being terminated as Resident Manager, as had been promised; and there was no heat in the unit for four years.

    MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Murphy/Gruber:  3-2; Becker,

        Marshall dissenting)

    E.    899 Corbett Ave. #1        AT050027

    The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part.  The tenant appeals on the grounds that:  the work was necessitated by the deferred maintenance of the current owner, who was on notice regarding the necessary repairs; if the landlord had timely repaired the leaks in the unit, friable asbestos would not have been released and the carpet wouldn’t have needed to be replaced; certain repairs were the result of defects in the deck for the upstairs unit; and code violations existed that were not repaired within ninety days.

    MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Murphy/Gruber:  3-2;

        Becker, Marshall dissenting)

    F.    2201 Pacific Ave. #601        AL050016

    The landlord’s petition seeking a determination pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant was a “Tenant in Occupancy” at the subject unit at the time the petition was filed.  The landlord appeals, arguing that:  the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding that the tenant did not claim a homeowner’s exemption for a property in Sausalito; the evidence shows that the tenant’s principal place of residence is in Sausalito; the tenant was evasive at the hearing and ignored the landlord’s discovery requests; and the landlord met its burden of proving that the subject unit is not the tenant’s principal place of residence.

    MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record to vacate the Decision and find that the unit is not the tenant’s principal place of residence.  (Gruber/Murphy:  3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)

        G.  614 Pine St. #314, 210, 421, 409,        AT050018 thru -26

              402, 202, 212, 302 & 419

    The landlord’s petition for rent increases to 41 of 59 units based on increased operating expenses was granted.  The tenants in nine units appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship as well as on the grounds that:  the landlord failed to meet its burden of proof by failing to provide a complete copy of the property’s appraisal; and, in a mixed-use building, allocation of costs based on square footage leads to an unfair result because the commercial units account for a higher sales price and a resulting greater increase in debt service, as well as higher insurance costs.

    MSC: To deny the tenants’ joint substantive appeal.  (Gruber/Murphy:  3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)

    MSC: To accept the appeals of the tenants in unit numbers 202, 302, 314, 402, 419 and 421 and remand the cases for hearings on the tenants’ claims of financial hardship.

        (Becker/Wasserman:  5-0)

    MSC: Pursuant to the stipulation of the landlord, to accept the appeals of the tenants in unit numbers 210, 212 and 409 and remand the cases to the Administrative Law Judge on the record to find sufficient financial hardship to warrant permanent deferral of the approved rent increases.  The landlord shall refund any sums paid by the tenants forthwith.  (Gruber/Murphy:  5-0)

    VI.     Communications

    The Commissioners received a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing for the March 29 th Public Hearing on proposed new Rules and Regulations Section 6.15(D), to conform the Regulations to newly enacted Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(2)(B) regarding additional occupancy of family members.  They also received a copy of an article from the March 2 nd “Beyond Chron” regarding alleged continuing problems with retained ID faced by visitors to residential hotels.

    VII.     Director’s Report

    Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee informed the Board that Landlord Attorney Andrew Zacks has filed a lawsuit challenging the recently increased amounts for Ellis relocation payments (legislation introduced by Supervisor Peskin and passed by the Board of Supervisors).  Judge Warren denied Mr. Zacks’ request for stay; a hearing on the merits will be held on March 23 rd .

    VIII.     Calendar Items

         March 22, 2005 - NO MEETING

         March 29, 2005

        9 appeal considerations (1 rescheduled from 3/15/05)

6:30    Public Hearing:  Gonzales Amendments

        New Business:  Water & Sewer Bill Increase Passthroughs Resulting from         Issuance of Water System Improvement Revenue Bonds(Ordinance             §37.3(a)(5)(B))

    XI.     Adjournment

    President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.

Last updated: 12/24/2013 2:28:24 PM