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

Skip to page body

August 21, 2007

August 21, 2007

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT
STABILIZATION & ARBITRATION BOARD,

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level

I. Call to Order

Vice-President Becker called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Becker; Henderson; Hurley; Mosser.

Commissioners not Present: Gruber.

Staff Present: Gartzman; Wolf.

Commissioner Marshall appeared on the record at 6:13 p.m.; Commissioner Mosbrucker arrived at the meeting at 6:15 p.m.; Commissioner Justman appeared at 6:20 p.m.; and Commissioner Murphy at 6:35 p.m.

III. Approval of the Minutes

MSC: To approve the Minutes of July 24, 2007.

(Henderson/Mosser: 4-0)

IV. Remarks from the Public

A. John Exworthy, the Master Tenant at 1209 Waller (AL070165), said that he appreciates the Rent Board, or he wouldn't be paying low rent. Mr. Exworthy told the Commissioners that he "fixed up the place and made it nice" and that there should be something he could study to know what he can charge his roommates to share in the expenses.

B. Tom Bostock spoke on behalf of tenant William Bayma of 1701 North Point #302 (AT070163) by saying that he is a neighbor of Mr. Bayma's and he hasn't seen evidence of Mr. Bayma holding any garage sales in months. Mr. Bostock also said that Mr. Bayma has never been a nuisance.

C. Alexandra Grover lives across from the North Point property and said that she hasn't seen a garage sale since the end of 2005; she also mentioned that Mr. Bayma is a pleasant neighbor.

D. Al Ginsberg submitted a declaration on behalf of William Bayma saying that, if you believe the proceedings in the recent hearing, Mr. Bayma is now a "bad guy" although the only change is the fact that he has a new landlord. Mr. Ginsberg said that the landlord is lying, "throwing stuff on the wall to see what will stick," and has taken away services.

E. John Jordan said that Mr. Bayma hasn't had any more garage sales since the landlord asked him not to.

F. William Bayma made sure that the Commissioners received all of the paperwork that he submitted and read a statement summarizing his appeal.

G. Leland Grover said that Mr. Bayma is an excellent neighbor.

H. Mr. B. Soffer spoke on behalf of Master Tenant John Exworthy of 1209 Waller. Mr. Soffer said that Mr. Exworthy provides short-term housing at a reasonable rent, and that Rules ß6.15 is for an unfurnished place. Mr. Soffer expressed his belief that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) didn't understand the value of the artwork provided by Mr. Exworthy.

V. Consideration of Appeals

A. 250 Fell St. #45 AT070169

The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 31 of 46 units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $80.26. One 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. (Murphy/Justman: 5-0)

B. 427 Stockton St. #305 AL070168

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $500.00 due to a leaking hole in the wall. The landlord failed to appear at the hearing. On appeal, the landlord's property manager claims not to have received the Notice of Hearing, and attaches the requisite 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. (Mosser/Murphy: 5-0)

C. 1701 North Point #302 AT070163

The tenant's hardship appeal of a decision approving a rent increase based on increased operating expenses was granted at this time. However, the ALJ stipulated that the tenant must inform the landlords of any inheritance he receives within 30 days, and the landlords may re-open the case should they believe that the tenant no longer qualifies under the Board's hardship guidelines. The tenant appeals that portion of the remand decision, claiming that: the decision violates his privacy rights; the landlord's failure to respond to his appeal prior to the hearing prejudiced the tenant's presentation; the mediation portion of his hearing violated his due process rights; the landlords did not conduct themselves in "good faith and fair dealings;" the ALJ's finding that his testimony was not credible should be stricken from the record; and he qualifies for a permanent deferral of the approved O&M increase.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge to revise the language in the Decision so that the landlord can request that the case be re-opened no more frequently than every twelve months, commencing September of 2008, only to examine the issue of any inheritance that the tenant may receive. (Marshall/Murphy: 5-0)

D. 1781 Revere Ave., Unit A AT070162

The landlord's petition for a rent increase from $600 to $1,350.00 per month based on comparable rents was granted. One of the tenants in the unit appeals the decision on the grounds that he is not a family member, and the comparables increase should not apply to him.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosser/Murphy: 5-0)

E. Golden Gateway Center, Phase 1 AL070160

The landlord filed a petition for approval of utility passthroughs for 116 of 794 units. Although the landlord had purchased natural gas from Commercial Energy of California, the landlord voluntarily elected to use cost data from PG&E, which was lower, to the benefit of the tenants. However, for one month when the PG&E costs were higher than the Commercial Energy costs, the ALJ used the Commercial Energy costs that the landlord actually paid. The landlord appeals this portion of the decision, asserting that: no provision of the Ordinance or Rules requires this result; the Rules and Regulations provide that all increases in utility costs shall be recovered; Rules ß6.16 requires that annual and not monthly cost figures be used; and the landlord should recover the total difference in costs from one year to the next, without cost comparisons between one provider and another.

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

F. Golden Gateway Center, Phase 2 AL070161

The issues in this appeal are identical to those in the Phase 1 appeal, above.

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

G. 164 Hancock St. AT070164

The subtenant filed a petition requesting a determination of the proper base rent pursuant to Rules ß6.15C(3). The ALJ determined that the subtenant did not pay more than a proportional share of the rent because the Master Tenant was rarely in the unit, had few possessions there and the subtenant had unrestricted access to the entire unit. On appeal, the subtenant maintains that: he did not have exclusive use of the Master Tenant's rooms in the unit and it is inconsequential that the Master Tenant did not make use of those rooms for purposes of determining his liability for rent.

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

H. 1209 Waller St. AL070165

Two subtenants filed petitions requesting a determination of the proper base rents pursuant to Rules ß6.15C(3). The ALJ found that both tenants paid more than their proportional share of the rent to the Master Tenant, who was found liable to the subtenants in the amount of $1,160.00 and $720.00. On appeal, the Master Tenant argues that: there were additional amenities furnished to the subtenants, besides those enumerated in the decision; the subtenants agreed to pay 1/3 share for utilities; the subtenants were in arrears on their rent at the time they vacated the unit; and the amount of the overpayments is excessive, because the additional housing services furnished were undervalued by the ALJ.

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

I. 2444 Van Ness Ave. #4 AL070167

The tenant filed a Summary Petition challenging a noticed rent increase. A decision was issued finding that the Rent Board has jurisdiction over the subject condominium unit, because the ALJ found that the landlord had failed to prove that the unit was sold separately to a bona fide purchaser for value nor that the unit is exempt as new construction. The landlord was therefore found liable to the tenants for rent overpayments in the amount of $1,000.00. On appeal, the landlord argues that the original subdividers of the property sold the unit to a bona fide purchaser for value, even though the members of the LLC who currently own the property were part of the original subdividing group, and provides supporting documentation as to the transfers of ownership since the time the unit was converted to a condominium.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a new hearing to make Findings regarding the value of the property at the time of the transfer; tenancy in the unit between the time of issuance of the subdivision map and the subject tenancy; and whether additional property taxes were paid. The Administrative Law Judge shall then make Conclusions as to whether this transfer was to a bona fide purchaser for value.

(Marshall/Justman: 5-0)

VI. Communications

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:

A. A copy of the Court of Appeal Decision in Action Apartment Association v. City of Santa Monica (Ct.App. 2/5 B165082) and an article from BeyondChron regarding the case.

B. An article from Capitol Weekly regarding eminent domain measures which are currently under consideration for the June 2008 ballot.

C. An article from the Los Angeles Times regarding a bedbug infestation in Southern California.

D. A new Rent Board Commissioners' roster.

VII. Director's Report

Executive Director Wolf informed the Board as follows:

A. The rental unit fee for the fiscal year 20-07-08 will be $26 per residential unit and $13 per guest unit.

B. On June 29, 2007 the Appellate Division of the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in Erdmann v. Dalton (Superior Court Case No. 618054) that Ordinance ß37.9(a)(8)(vi) prohibiting a landlord from recovering a second unit in a building for owner-occupancy eviction purposes is prospective -- the limitation applies only to evictions after the effective date of Proposition G on December 18, 12998.

VIII. Calendar Items

August 28, 2007 - NO MEETING

September 4, 2007

10 appeals (4 Parkmerced)

XI. Adjournment

Vice-President Becker adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m.

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:18 AM