MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, January 3, 2006 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; Hurley; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Henderson; Justman; Mosser; Murphy.
Staff Present: Lee; Wolf.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of December 13, 2005.
(Gruber/Hurley: 5-0)
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 2785 Green St. #1 AT050248
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services due to noise from a neighboring tenant was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $70.00 per month. On appeal, the tenant claims that: the amount of time granted for the rent reduction should include the initial months of the noisy neighbor’s occupancy; the landlord did not make adequate attempts to ameliorate the problem; and the amount granted for the rent reduction is arbitrary and insufficient.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Mosbrucker/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Hurley: 3-2; Marshall,
Mosbrucker dissenting)
B. 438 Anza St. AL050247
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services due to loss of use of a deck was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $400.00. No rent reductions were granted during the period that repairs were being undertaken pursuant to the Golden Gateway decision, nor for alterations to the deck as a result of the repairs. The landlord appeals, claiming that: there was no substantial reduction in a housing service; the amount granted is excessive; the landlord should not be held responsible for the results of the tenant’s misconduct; the landlord must be given sufficient time to rectify the problem; and the problem was an unavoidable inconvenience only.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
C. 264 Dolores St. AL050249
The landlord’s Petition for Extension of Time to Do Capital Improvement Work was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the landlord failed to provide required documents at the time the Petition was filed, failed to immediately file the Petition when it became apparent that the work would take longer than three months, and failed to submit a written contract with the contractor; the landlord’s estimate of time to complete the work was also found to be unreasonable. The landlord appeals, asserting that: the tenants were evicted and do not have the right to possession of the subject premises; the landlord was not required to file the subject petition and his electively doing so should not estop him from claiming that the Rent Board no longer has jurisdiction; and the Administrative Law Judge does not have the authority to grant the tenants the right to reoccupy and in so doing exhibited bias on behalf of the tenants.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Gruber,
Hurley dissenting)
D. 3256 – 21st St. AT050250
The tenant filed two petitions alleging decreased housing services, which were granted only as to a claim of a defective window in the amount of $85.00. The tenant appeals, claiming that: the Decision is in error as to the date the window was repaired and the company that did the work; the landlord did not effectuate the repairs within a reasonable amount of time and had constructive notice of the conditions; the damage caused by the radiator was severe and hazardous; the radiator continued to leak after the repairs were done; and the landlord was issued a citation regarding the carpet.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Hurley: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
E. 147 Gladeview Way AL050251
The tenants filed a petition alleging decreased housing services because they believed that the landlord, who lives in the lower unit in the building, would only be on the premises a few nights each month. The petition was granted as to claims of loss of exclusive use of the backyard and loss of quiet enjoyment due to the landlord’s unannounced entries into the tenants’ unit and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $1,562.50. On appeal, the landlord alleges that: the Administrative Law Judge was not fair and impartial and the Decision was based on fabrications; the written contract between the parties was not considered; and he was not provided equal time to prove his case.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
F. 175 Hancock St. AL050252
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase and decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $11,400.00 for rent overpayments, and $18,612.50 for loss of a rear deck and garage space. The landlord appeals, asserting that: the landlord does not reside in San Francisco, was unfamiliar with the requirements of the Rent Ordinance and was not acting in bad faith; the decision confers a windfall on the single remaining tenant, who will receive more than his fair share of the overpayments; the tenants were not precluded from using the garage space for the entire period of time; the City required the landlord to remove the deck and prevented him from reconstructing it; the rent reduction granted for removal of the deck is disproportionate to its size and not consistent with Rent Ordinance limitations on rent increases; the principles of laches, estoppel, waiver and statutes of limitation should apply; the amount granted is unfair and creates a hardship for the landlord; and disallowance of the entire increase is confiscatory and violative of the landlord’s right to due process, and denies him a fair return.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing on the extent of the loss of use of the garage space and to have the Master Tenant provide, at the time of the remand hearing, a plan for division of the funds between current and former co-tenants and subtenants. The landlord will be provided with an opportunity to demonstrate financial hardship, if appropriate. (Becker/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Hurley dissenting)
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A letter from landlord Bill Quan asking that the Board pass regulations allowing a landlord to raise the rent based on increases in water, garbage and PG&E bills if a tenant brings a spouse or other family member in to the unit.
B. An article from the S.F. Chronicle regarding the rise in Ellis Act evictions.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Delene Wolf informed the Board that the interest rate on security deposits as of March 1, 2006 would be 3.7%.
VIII. Calendar Items
January 10, 2005 - NO MEETING
January 17, 2005
5 appeal considerations
6:30 Public Hearing: Residential Hotel Visitor Policy
IX. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.