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

Skip to page body

January 17, 2006

January 17, 2006

 

 

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT

STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

 

Tuesday, January 17, 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 6:10 p.m.


      II.       Roll Call


               Commissioners Present:              Becker; Gruber; Hurley; Mosser; Wasserman.

               Commissioners not Present:        Henderson; Justman.

               Staff Present:                                  Lee; Wolf.


               Commissioner Mosbrucker appeared on the record at 6:14 p.m.; Commissioner Marshall arrived at the meeting at 6:16 p.m.; and Commissioner Murphy appeared at 6:35 p.m.

 

      III.      Approval of the Minutes

 

                        MSC:  To approve the Minutes of January 3, 2006.

                                    (Gruber/Hurley:  4-0)


      IV.     Remarks from the Public


               A.  James Faye, representing the tenant at 1335 Washington #6 (AT050258), told the Board that they have the authority to accept appeals based on hardship.  The huge Costa-Hawkins increase the tenant is facing will result in her eviction from the unit, and she is only seeking a temporary deferral of the increase until the summer so that her son doesn’t have to change schools.  Mr. Faye also informed the Board that the landlord’s contention that the tenant conspired with the Master Tenant to defraud the landlord is not true.


               B.  Tenant Shan Xiao of 1335 Washington told the Board that she has lived in the unit for nine years.  Ms. Xiao explained that she put her son in private school because he has ADHD and public school was not working out for him.  She bought her second-hand Toyota because she needed reliable transportation, and the money she has saved is for her son’s education or emergencies. 


               C.  Master Tenant Ping Xue of 1335 Washington told the Board she has no money for a lawyer, and that what she said in her appeal is true. 


               D.  Tim Scoler asked how the Board sets the interest rate on security deposits.


               E.  Tenant James Imbt of 46 Summer St. (AT050257) said that he hopes the Board will approve his appeal so that he will be able to “prove the landlord’s lies.”


      V.     Consideration of Appeals


               A.  935 Geary St. #1004 & 211                                       AT050256 & AT060002


      The tenant in unit #211 filed his appeal ten days late because he is disabled and his representative was out of town for the holidays.


                        MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.  (Becker/Marshall:  5-0)


      The landlord’s petition for a utility passthrough was granted in the amount of $5.23 monthly.  Two tenants appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.


                        MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #211 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Becker/Marshall:  5-0)


                        MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #1004 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship.  (Becker/Marshall:  5-0)


               B.  2264 Francisco St.                                                      AT050797


      The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services due to loss of use of the back yard and a limitation on use of the laundry room was denied.  The tenants appeal, claiming that:  the landlord submitted false evidence and statements, and should not be considered credible; the advertisement submitted by the landlord was for a different unit, and the ad for their unit did not preclude use of the back yard; the landlord placed potted plants in the concrete area of the back yard in order to take pictures that would deceive the ALJ; they did not have the opportunity to cross-examine one of the landlord’s witnesses, who provided a letter but did not appear at the hearing; the landlord is upset because of noise the tenants’ children make and is trying to drive them out of the unit; and the restrictions on the use of the laundry room are retaliatory on the part of the landlord.


                        MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Gruber/Hurley:  5-0)


               C.  1100 Sacramento #904                                              AL050254


      The landlord’s petition seeking 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 tenants’ principal place of residence.  On appeal, the landlord argues that:  the Administrative Law Judge failed to consider the fact that the newspaper is delivered to the tenants’ Napa Valley estate on a daily basis; the tenants could not enter the building through the garage without coming to the attention of the doormen, who testified to seeing the tenants at the premises infrequently; and the tenant’s testimony at the hearing was inconsistent and, therefore, not credible.


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

                                    Hurley dissenting)


               D.  1335 Washington #6                                                   AL050255


      The tenant filed a petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent and requesting a determination as to the lawful rent for the unit.  The Administrative Law Judge found the Master Tenant liable to the tenant in the amount of $15,500.43 because she was charged more rent for the unit than was paid to the owner.  Additionally, because the Master Tenant has vacated the unit, a rent increase to market based on Costa-Hawkins was found to be warranted.  The Master Tenant appeals, claiming that:  the tenant agreed to pay more than the rent being paid to the landlord in order to reimburse the Master Tenant for childcare services and furniture that she bought from her; the tenant requested that the Master Tenant continue renting the unit in her name so that the rent would not be increased; the tenant knew the contents of the 6.14 notice, because the Master Tenant translated it for her; the tenant knew the amount of rent the Master Tenant was paying to the landlord; and the Master Tenant did not appear at the hearing because the tenant discouraged her from doing so.  The tenant also appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.


                        MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal.  (Mosbrucker/Gruber:  5-0)


      After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this appeal to the next meeting to see if staff could facilitate a settlement between all the parties.


               E.  46 Sumner St.                                                              AL050257


      The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount of $1,545.00 due to several habitability defects on the premises.  However, the Administrative Law Judge did not find long-term verifiable notice to the landlords of the conditions, and granted rent reductions going back only to the date a Notice of Violation was issued, a few months prior to the petition being filed.  The tenants appeal on the grounds that:  oral notice was repeatedly given to the building manager since 1991; the landlords were on constructive notice as to the conditions; the landlord admitted that he knew about the conditions when he bought the building in 1992; the Administrative Law Judge was misinformed regarding conditions in the unit; and the tenant performed some of the repair work himself, for which he requests reimbursement.


                        MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a new hearing.  (Wasserman/Marshall:  4-1; Gruber dissenting)


      VI.     Public Hearing


               Residential Hotel Visitor Policy


      A Public Hearing on issues concerning the Residential Hotel Visitor Policy was convened at 6:55 p.m. and concluded at 8:11 p.m.  Thirty individuals spoke as follows below:


               1.  Tenant Tom Rice of the Mission SRO Collaborative told the Board that access is a problem, because tenants can’t have guests or get deliveries when they don’t have phones.  Mr. Rice disapproves of the retention of IDs in “the age of identify theft,” since “even a poor person has something to lose.”  Mr. Rice said that owners call the police any time they want to oust an individual, and the “cops always side with the landlord.”  Mr. Rice feels that the Rent Board should fine owners who violate the Visitor Policy.


               2.  Tenant Wayne Ramsey of Conard House said that all tenants don’t comply with the visitation rules and he has been threatened and harassed by a tenant in the building and his visitors.  Mr. Ramsey feels that management has been inaccessible and uncommunicative in dealing with the problem.  Mr. Ramsey does believe that an adequate logging system of IDs could replace the current system.  Tenants in his building are allowed fourteen overnight visits per month, but “scam for more.”


                     3.  Tenant Representative Dwight Saunders of the Empress Hotel said that the Empress is a “model SRO.”  Mr. Saunders felt uncomfortable with “upper middle class people making decisions for people of color,” and said that the Commissioners can’t know because they don’t “live the experience.”  He believes that the Rules should be no different for subsidized units than for tourist hotels, and that the Board should come up with the least restrictive policies possible.


               4.  Charles Maxwell of 88 – 6th Street is the Tenant Representative for the 5th Floor.  Mr. Maxwell said that IDs shouldn’t be taken, although he can see that it’s a safety issue.  If an individual doesn’t have proper ID, they shouldn’t be allowed in.


               5.  Emma Gerauld and Sarah Zimmer of the Civic Center SRO Collaborative said that most of the complaints they get from tenants involve the retention of IDs.  Often, the hotels do not give out receipts, lose IDs and refuse to pay the $75.00 fee.  Since it takes two weeks to get a new ID, the person’s life is in limbo during that time, as they can’t access social services.  Some hotels take the $75 out of the desk clerk’s paycheck.  Ms. Gerauld and Ms. Zimmer suggested that hotels be required to use a log-in system instead, which many hotels are changing to on their own, since the desk clerks don’t want to be responsible for visitors’ IDs.  Photocopying the IDs would also work.


               6.  Joseph Brown, Tenant Representative at the Pierre Hotel, said that 86-ing a tenant should only last for a year, and the reason should have to be written down.  Mr. Brown also feels that a tenant should be able to leave a visitor unattended for a brief period of less than an hour.


               7.  Tenant Representative Jarman Michaels feels that a tenant shouldn’t have to notify the desk clerk ahead of time in order to have a visitor after 9:00 p.m. – 11:00 should be the cut-off, since tenants shouldn’t be treated like children.


               8.  Frank Cole spoke in support of the proposals put forward by the Central City SRO Collaborative.


               9.  Tenant Representative Robert Bowers said that visiting hours should be extended to 11:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays.


               10. Tenant Otto Duffy spoke in opposition to the retention of IDs and said that an “inconvenience fee” should be added to the $75.00, to make it $300.00.  Mr. Duffy said that there are still problems enforcing the ban on visitor fees.

               11. Tenant Mark Ellinger said that there is already a Municipal Code in place regarding guest registers, which are more effective and prevent Identity Theft.  Mr. Ellinger told the Board that most hotels, except for non-profits, do not have the Visitor Policy posted and most tenants don’t know they have a right to $75.00 if their ID is lost.  Mr. Ellinger believes that residential hotels are homes and that tenants who live there shouldn’t be discriminated against based on their economic status.


               12. Landlord Shorty Lagasca of the Drake Hotel said he would be willing to give back a visitor’s ID after taking a photo of it.


               13. Landlord Dipak Patel believes that it is unnecessary to meet every year on these issues, and that everyone should “talk reality.”  Mr. Patel thinks that five overnight visits per month should be allowed and that increased visitors result in higher costs which hotel operators will start petitioning to pass through to tenants. 


               14. Landlord Adil Shaikh said that the current system is working fine, although it could use some “fine-tuning.”  Mr. Shaikh feels that an unlimited number of visitors encourages illegal activity; that hotels are different from apartments because of the shared common areas; and that other tenants suffer from excess visitors due to lack of cleanliness, etc.  Mr. Shaikh also reminded the Commissioners that IDs could be tampered with.


               15. Landlord Hitesh Patel said that residential hotels are not apartment buildings, and that the commercial rates they pay are higher.  He asked why hotel operators have to reimburse tenants $75.00 for a lost ID, when the replacement cost is only $21.00; especially when tenants use fake IDs that they fraudulently claim were not given back.  Most of Mr. Patel’s tenants are drug dealers and he believes they would not be able to read a written 86 policy, or would tear it up.


               16. Landlord Jay Devdharu wondered what the problem was, since the Policy was just changed one year ago.  According to Mr. Devdharu, his tenants do not have a problem with the existing restrictions, because they need to be able to get up and go to work.  He believes there should be a maximum number of visitors per day, but exceptions could be made.  He wants to be able to continue to hold IDs as a “safeguard,” since he then knows when visitors leave the building.

 

      Several landlords in the audience declined to use their three minutes of speaking time, but stated that they agreed with Dipak Patel.

 

               17. Sam Dodge of the Central City SRO Collaborative expressed his belief that the retention of IDs also victimizes owners, which is “the one thing that’s proven untenable over the past year.”  Mr. Dodge said that many private hotels write down the ID number, which is safer.  The resident is responsible for their visitor and hotel operators know who the tenant is.  Mr. Dodge expressed support for extending visiting hours to 11:00 p.m. and requiring a written reason for 86ing someone.  Mr. Dodge also cautioned that it is illegal to knowingly rent to drug dealers.


               18. Tenant Prince Bush was upset by what he saw as “stupidity from the hotels.”  He particularly disagrees with not being allowed to have visitors on the 1st and 15th of the month, which he feels treats residents like convicts.  He said that there are roaches running down the walls, but that the Jefferson Hotel is run right.


               19. Landlord Prashant Patel said that the Public Hearing should be convened every two years, and that he can’t remember everyone’s names if he doesn’t hold on to IDs.


               20. Landlord Vikram Patel said that every California resident should have an ID, according to the Office of Homeland Security.


               21. Landlord Vik Patel informed the Board that every one of his ninety tenants does not act responsibly.  Mr. Patel feels that there should be a limit on the number of visitors allowed per day and that the retention of IDs acts as a deterrent to those who engage in unlawful behaviors.


               22. Landlord Kiran Patel agreed that there should be a limitation on the number of visitors, and said that eight overnights per month is a lot.  Keeping the IDs lets the desk clerk know who’s going in and acts as an incentive to visitors to check out.  He feels it is unrealistic to think the hotel operator can go after the tenant for their visitor’s conduct.


               23. Landlord Sam Patel noted that the Central City SRO Collaborative surveys Tenderloin Housing Clinic Hotels, which is their parent organization.  The John Stewart Company still holds IDs.  Mr. Patel informed the Board that the City Attorney who sits on the SRO Task Force went around to hotels to make sure that the Visitor Policy was posted.


               24. Tenant Representative Lauren Alden of the Winton Hotel said that it is a hardship to turn over her ID since she has memory impairment.  She feels that IDs shouldn’t be taken or copied because of concerns about identity theft.  Ms. Alden can’t escort her visitors because of physical disabilities, and feels she should be able to leave her visitors unattended.  Ms. Alden concluded by saying that visiting hours should be abolished or extended to midnight.


               25. Robert Kapaona of the Royan Hotel said that the hotel is “immaculate” since the Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC) took it over.  THC’s policy is to copy the ID and give back the printout when the visitor leaves; they now accept out-of-state IDs.  Mr. Kapaona experiences problems when his three sons visit because of the two visitors at a time limitation.


               26. Tenant Bruce Allison said that it is not necessary to take IDs; entering a residential hotel is not like going in to the Federal Building “under threat of terrorism.”  The Isabel Hotel has a midnight curfew but he goes to bed early and has never been disturbed.


               27. Tenant Joanne Sutton of the Coronado Hotel said that blackout dates should be posted and that eight overnights are not sufficient.  Ms. Sutton thinks a tenant should have until midnight to request an overnight visit.


               28. Allen White objected to having been told that the Board would not be making extensive changes to the Policy and the fact that all occupants of residential hotels were not notified of the Public Hearing.  Mr. White suggested that the Rent Board pay for providing copies of the Visitor Policy to all SRO hotel residents.  He expressed his beliefs that people should be allowed to live with dignity and respect, that restrictions on liberty are wrong, and that drug dealing and other behaviors conducted in someone’s home are not anyone else’s business.


               29. Tenant Reed Knopp said he agreed with everyone “with a few modifications.”  Since “all men are created equal,” the Visitor Policy should be enforced uniformly, or not at all.  The same rules should apply for the St. Francis Hotel; otherwise, a caste system is being established.


               30. Earl Brown of the Mission SRO Collaborative said that IDs are not a “security blanket” and that sign-ins would still allow desk clerks to keep tabs.  Mr. Brown suggested putting the responsibility on the tenant for having visitors sign out and said their visitor rights could be suspended  if they fail to do so.


      The Board briefly discussed the public testimony and agreed that it would be helpful to have the Executive Director convene a Committee of tenant and landlord representatives, as had been done in the past two years.  An attempt will be made to find points of agreement, which will be brought back to the Board.


      VII.    Communications


      In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar and the SRO Hotel Visitor Policy, the Board received the following communications:


               A.  Several articles from the San Francisco Chronicle and Beyond Chron.


               B.  A letter to Lora Traveler, President of the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization (PRO), written by Executive Director Wolf on behalf of Board President Wasserman.


               C.  A copy of the Settlement in the Complaint regarding unfair or unlawful business practices regarding utility passthroughs by Olympic View Realty at the Villas Parkmerced.


      VIII.   Director’s Report


      Executive Director Wolf informed the Board that there has been a Settlement between the former landlords of the Villas Parkmerced and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office regarding improper utility passthroughs.  The Settlement provides that tenants and former tenants of Parkmerced who paid a utility passthrough at any time between August 15, 2000 and January 5, 2006 will be compensated in the range of $75 - $100 per unit.  Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee gave the Board an overview of the trial court decision on a landlord’s omnibus challenge to the eviction provisions in the Oakland Rent Ordinance (Kim v. City of Oakland, Superior Court No. RG03-081362) – the Court upheld most of the provisions of the Ordinance.


      IX.     Calendar Items


               January 24th & 31st, 2006 - NO MEETINGS


               February 7, 2006

               5 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 1/17/06)

               New Business:  Departmental Budget


      X.     Adjournment


      President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m.

 

 

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:17 AM