August 1, 2006
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,
Tuesday, August 1, 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; Henderson; Hurley; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Gruber; Justman; Mosser.
Staff Present: Lee; Wolf.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of July 11, 2006.
(Becker/Murphy: 5-0)
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 587 Arballo Drive AT060065
The landlord's petition for approval of a utility passthrough for 39 of 100 units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough of $0.54 per room, or $2.70 for the tenant's unit. The tenant appeals 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 tenant's claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Henderson: 5-0)
B. 3039 Pine Street AT060066
The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services and the landlord's failure to perform requested repair and maintenance was denied. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the tenant did not meet her burden of proving that the number or location of the heaters was a code violation or that the amount of heat provided by the landlord did not meet code requirements. The ALJ also found that the lack of a main entry light does not constitute a substantial decrease in housing services nor is it required by the local housing code. On appeal, the tenant claims that: her bedroom is cold at night due to the lack of a heater and she cannot sleep well; the lack of an entry light makes the tenant fearful of an assault; and it is difficult to get her keys in the lock at night without a light.
MSC: To grant the tenant's request for a postponement and re-schedule consideration of this appeal for the September 5, 2006 Board meeting. (Marshall/Wasserman: 5-0)
C. 536 Leavenworth Street, #61 AL060067
The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $525.00 due to unclean common areas and urine-contaminated elevator floors and walls. The landlord appeals, arguing that: the tenant continued to use the services in question; the tenant did not provide objective evidence as to his claims; no other tenants in the building complained; the tenant failed to provide notice of the alleged defective conditions; the problems were de minimus; and the amounts granted are excessive.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Hurley, Murphy dissenting)
D. 1000 Prague Street #A AL060069
The tenant's petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $6,423.27. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the tenant's unit was exempt from the Ordinance from August 1987 when the tenancy commenced until Proposition I went into effect on December 22, 1994 because it was in an owner-occupied 3-unit building. The tenant's first rent increase, which was given in 1997, exceeded the lawful limits for a Newly Covered Unit and was determined to be null and void. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the landlord made a good faith effort to comply with the Ordinance by increasing the tenant's rent by less than he would have been entitled to had the unit been subject to the Ordinance since 1987; the landlord was in substantial compliance with the Ordinance pursuant to Civil Code Section 1947.7 (The Petris Act); the Decision effects an unjust taking of the landlord's property in violation of the Fifth Amendment; Rules Section 1.11(b) is unconstitutional; the landlord should be entitled to banked annual allowable rent increases for the period 8/1/87 to 12/22/93; the landlord is being denied a fair return; the Decision violates the purpose and goals of the Ordinance; the tenant did not meet his burden of proving the rent history as alleged in the petition; the legal Statute of Limitations should apply; the landlord was prejudiced because records were not retained; the 1997 rent increase was not excessive because it includes costs for roof repair and exterior painting; and the rent includes utilities and the cost of utilities has increased.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Murphy from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Murphy: Approved by acclamation)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to permit the landlord to file a comparables petition in accordance with Rules Section 6.11(b)(2)(c); any increase approved pursuant to this petition shall be effective retroactive to May 1, 2004. (Wasserman/Hurley: 4-0)
E. 561 Baker Street, #2 AT060070
The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed mediation session. On appeal, the tenant claims that he did not receive the Notice of Mediation and submits a Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a new hearing. (Murphy/Marshall: 5-0)
V. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A Resolution introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi urging the Sheriff's Department to collect data on the number of Ellis Act evictions it enforces and urging the Sheriff and the Rent Board to stop providing information and assisting landlords seeking to evict tenants under the Ellis Act.
B. A Pending Litigation Status Report from Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee.
C. A copy of the Uniform Hotel Visitor Policy as amended by the Board on July 11, 2006.
D. Two Resolutions introduced by Supervisor McGoldrick urging the School District to track student mobility caused by residential evictions and amending the Rent Ordinance to identify and report data on evictions involving school-age children, including data on evictions during the school term.
VI. Director's Report
Executive Director Wolf informed the Board as follows:
A. The rental unit fee split by tenants and landlords, which funds the operations of the agency, will be $22 next year.
B. Proposition B, the eviction disclosure requirement passed on the November ballot, went into effect on July 28, 2006.
C. Staff is getting questions regarding the Mirkarimi legislation, which requires Just Cause for the severance or removal of certain housing services. Discussion of possible amendments to the Rules and Regulations will be calendared for the September 5th Board meeting. In the meantime, staff has developed a special Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction form for this purpose, as well as accompanying form letters notifying landlords of the language of the new legislation.
VII. Remarks from the Public
A. Ted Kronick, the tenant in the case at 1000 Prague (AL060069), inquired as to the disposition of the landlord's appeal.
B. The tenant in Eviction Case No. E060592 read from the Eviction Unit Counselor's response to his Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction; expressed his opinion that tenants have no rights in San Francisco; and said that he was disappointed with the Department of Building Inspection as well as the Rent Board.
C. The landlord's son in the case at 1000 Prague said that the tenant could have moved out if the conditions were so bad and expressed his belief that the tenant's niece is egging him on.
VIII. Calendar Items
August 15, 2006 - NO MEETING
September 5, 2006
8 appeal considerations (1 postponed from 8/1/06)
New Business: Mirkarimi Legislation (Ordinance Section 37.2{r})
IX. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.