MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, September 6, 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 6:06 p.m.
II. Roll Call
|
Commissioners Present:
|
Becker; Gruber; Henderson; Justman; Mosbrucker; Mosser; Wasserman.
|
|
Commissioners not Present:
|
Hurley.
|
|
Staff Present:
|
Wolf.
|
Commissioner Marshall appeared on the record at 6:11 p.m.; Commissioner Murphy arrived at 6:13 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of August 2, 2005.
(Gruber/Becker: 5-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Landlord Attorney Andrew Zacks, representing the landlord in the case at 157 Beaver St. (AL050214), told the Board that the landlord’s petition requested a determination as to the tenant’s status under Rules Section 1.21 and Costa-Hawkins. As a determination was made regarding the applicability of §1.21 only, Mr. Zacks told the Board that the case should be remanded for Costa-Hawkins findings. Mr. Zacks also expressed his belief that, in accordance with prior Rent Board decisions, the tenant does not reside in the subject unit as his principal place of residence.
B. Landlord Brett Eilers of 2671 – 21st St. (AT050192), whose tenants filed a financial hardship appeal, told the Board that he fixed up a run-down building and filed a capital improvement petition to recoup some of his expenses. Mr. Eilers did not believe he should have to divulge all of his personal financial information in order to claim landlord hardship, as it’s “not worth the risk.”
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 2671 – 21st St. AT050192
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs for one of two units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $30.81. The tenants appeal the decision 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. (Gruber/Mosser: 5-0)
B. 856 Presidio Ave., Apt. #2 AT050191
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to three of six units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $28.30. 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/Murphy: 5-0)
C. 1221 Folsom St. AL050190
Two subtenants filed petitions alleging that they paid a disproportionate share of the rent pursuant to Rules Section 6.15C(3). The petitions were granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenants in the amount of $1,699.06 and $1,431.22. The Master Tenant’s hardship appeal was granted, and a repayment plan commencing August 1, 2005 was established. The Master Tenant appeals the remand decision, claiming that financial emergencies have adversely impacted his ability to pay, and asking that the payment plan begin after January, 2006.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to make the commencement date of the repayment plan the next business day after February 1, 2006. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)
D. 17 Decatur, Apt. #8 AT050193 thru -95
The landlord filed three petitions for certification of capital improvement costs, which were granted. The tenants in one unit appeal the decisions on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeals and remand the cases for a hearing on the tenants’ claims of financial hardship. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
E. 747 Ellis #15 AT050189
The tenant’s appeal was filed almost three years late because the tenant was managing to pay the rent before, but can no longer afford the phased-in capital improvement amount. The tenant also does not remember receiving the decision at the time it was issued, and did not know he had the right to appeal.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs for eight of fourteen 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/Marshall: 5-0)
F. 206-208 Dorland AL050215
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to two of three units was granted. On appeal, the landlord claims that the costs of a new back wall and stair should be allocated to the two units in the building that have access to the stairs, because the other two units are not in the same structure where the work was performed. The landlord also appeals the equal allocation of costs between the residential and commercial units, because the commercial unit is smaller.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge only to determine whether the affected units are in the same building; a hearing will be held only if necessary. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
G. 3933 Mission St. #4 AT050196
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to three of four units was granted. The tenant in one unit appeals the decision on the grounds that: the tenants in the building helped pay for repair of the garage door; and the landlord may have been reimbursed by her insurance company for construction of the new back yard fence.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing on the issue of whether the tenants helped to pay for any of the capital improvement work; and to determine whether any of the landlord’s costs were compensated by insurance. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
H. 157 Beaver St. AL050214
The landlord’s petition for a determination pursuant to Rules Sections 1.21, 6.14 and Costa-Hawkins was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the subject unit is the tenant’s principal place of residence. The landlord appeals the decision on the grounds that the tenant claims a homeowner’s exemption on a property in Palm Springs, which proves that the subject unit is not his principal place of residence.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing to take further evidence on whether the unit is the tenant’s principal place of residence, including whether he takes a homeowner’s interest deduction for the Palm Springs residence on his Federal and State income tax returns, and whether he has reported any income he receives from the Palm Springs residence. (Murphy/Gruber: 4-1; Marshall dissenting)
I. Parkmerced AT050197-0213
The appeals of the tenants at 355 Serrano Drive #6M and 405 Serrano Drive #3E and 11J were filed two or three days late.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of these appeals. (Henderson/Justman: 5-0)
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeals. (Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
Fourteen tenants appealed decisions certifying capital improvement costs for eleven tower buildings at this multi-unit complex; twelve on substantive grounds and five claiming financial hardship. The tenant at 405 Serrano Drive #10C subsequently withdrew her appeal. The tenants at 55 Chumasero #11H and 6K, 750 Gonzalez #7E and 1M and 405 Serrano #5D appeal on the grounds of financial hardship. Eight tenants of 405 Serrano Drive appealed because they do not want to pay the retroactive amounts owed since March 1, 2004. The tenant at 405 Serrano Drive #5D claims that the Administrative Law Judge failed to require the landlord to submit adequate proof of cost and payment, particularly those labor costs associated with employees of the landlord. The tenant at 55 Chumasero #6K appeals because her January 2005 lease renewal included the proposed passthrough, which had not yet been approved. The tenant at 355 Serrano #6M appeals on the grounds that her rent has gone up in excess of the annual allowable amounts and the landlord should not be entitled to any more passthroughs. The tenant at 405 Serrano #7A maintains that she should only have to pay the retroactive amounts owed from the date of her October 1, 2004 lease renewal, and not from the March 1st effective date of the landlord’s notice of rent increase.
MSC: To deny the substantive appeals filed by the tenants at 55 Chumasero Drive #6K, 355 Serrano Drive #6M, and 405 Serrano Drive #7A, 12B, 5D, 12D, 3E, 12F, 10G, 11G, and 11J. (Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenants at 55 Chumasero Drive #11H and remand the case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial hardship. (Henderson/Murphy: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenants at 55 Chumasero Drive #6K and remand the case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial hardship. (Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant at 750 Gonzalez Drive #7E. (Gruber/Henderson: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenants at 750 Gonzalez Drive #1M and remand the case for a hearing on the tenants’ claim of financial hardship. (Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenants at 405 Serrano Drive #5D and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence regarding cases on the calendar, the Board received the following communications:
A. A Pending Litigation Status Report from Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee.
B. Two articles regarding Ellis evictions from Beyond Chron.
C. The office workload statistics for the month of July, 2005.
D. An article by landlord Jim Forbes in the July SF Apartment Magazine extolling the merits of rent control.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Delene Wolf informed the Board that Supervisor Elsbernd had introduced a motion at the Board of Supervisors to have the legislative analyst look into the issue of means testing for rent control; the motion failed for lack of support. Ms. Wolf also told the Board that she met with representatives from the Small Property Owners of San Francisco; she would be the guest speaker at a luncheon meeting of the Professional Property Managers Association on September 9th; and she would be attending a District 6 Town Hall Meeting with the Mayor on September 10th.
VIII. New Business
President Wasserman announced that she would begin working as Real Estate Counsel for the Nature Conservancy on September 12th.
IX. Calendar Items
September 13, 2005 - NO MEETING
September 20, 2005
5 appeal considerations
X. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.