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

Skip to page body

July 7, 2009

July 7, 2009

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

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level

I. Call to Order

President Gruber called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Beard; Crow; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Marshall; Mosbrucker, Mosser.

Commissioners not Present: Justman; Murphy.

Staff Present: Lee; Wolf.

III. Approval of the Minutes

MSC: To approve the Minutes of June 16, 2009.

(Mosbrucker/Hurley: 5-0)

IV. Remarks from the Public

A. Mark Velasquez of 1251 – 10th Avenue (AT090156) asked whether the Decision in his case was final, and how the Board arrives at their decisions.

B. Mr. Shakoori, the landlord at 1200 Taylor (AL090130), told the Board that the tenant didn't meet his burden of proof. Mr. Shakoori said that a professional inspection showed that the stove worked, and that the Decision is in conflict with a prior Board Decision regarding a unit across the hall from the subject unit.

C. Attorney Paul Hogarth, representing the tenants at 839 Leavenworth (AT090132 thru -47 & -54), told the Board that all of the tenants in the building are equally affected by the Decision and asked that any modifications apply to all tenants. Mr. Hogarth maintained that tenants have to meet their burden of proof when they come before the Rent Board, but that the landlord in this case was not required to do so.

D. Tenant Ray Hartz of 1139 Leavenworth told the Board that there has been a significant decline in the quality of maintenance of the building over time. Mr. Hartz said that the landlord doesn't clean the walls or carpets. Mr. Hartz believes that rent increases are appropriate, but that they need to be fair.

E. An 1139 Leavenworth Street tenant named Yvonne said that her rent increase was issued in June, but she wasn't required to pay it because she had filed a timely appeal. Still, the landlord demanded payment.

F. A young woman spoke on behalf of her father, Mr. Tu, the landlord at 344 – 2nd Avenue. She said that all of the tenants in the building agreed to share the costs of water and garbage, but this is not allowed under the rent law.

G. The property manager at 1251 – 10th Avenue asked what lengths she must go to in order to appease the tenant, as she feels that unreasonable tenants can "manipulate the system."

V. Consideration of Appeals

A. 805 Bush #418 AT090149

The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted. The tenants in one unit appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenants' claim of financial hardship. (Mosbrucker/Hurley: 5-0)

B. 640 Mason #303, 405 & 602 AT090155, -57 & -58

The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 34 of 53 units was granted. Three tenants appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

MSC: To accept the appeals of the tenants in unit numbers 303, 405 and 602 and remand the cases for hearings on the tenants' claims of financial hardship. (Mosbrucker/Marshall: 5-0)

C. 935 Geary #701 AT090159

The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 46 of 115 units was granted. The tenant in one unit 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. (Mosbrucker/Marshall: 5-0)

D. 839 Leavenworth AT090132 – thru -47 & AT090154

The appeal of the tenant in unit number 206 was filed three weeks late because the tenant was ill at the time the decision was issued.

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

The landlords' petition for 7% base rent increases to 29 of 50 units based on increased operating expenses was granted. The tenants in 5 units appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. The tenants in 12 units jointly appeal the decision on the following grounds: the landlords failed to meet their burden of proof in that the petition was incomplete in four areas, which could have affected the outcome; the tenants should not have to pay for the debt service on the landlord's interest-only loan, which could turn out to have been risky or imprudent; and the outstanding Notice of Violation should have nullified the petitioned-for rent increases. The tenants ask that any decision modified on substantive grounds should apply to all affected tenants in the building, and not just the tenant appellants.

MSC: To accept the joint appeal filed by the tenants in twelve units and remand the case for a supplemental hearing on the following issues: to consider the categories of elevator service and pest control that were not included in the original petition; to examine the terms of the interest-only loan; and to consider whether the landlord has met their burden of proof in not providing the aggregate of all expenses associated with the building. The appeal is denied as to the Notice of Violation issue. The hardship appeals will be held pending the outcome of the remand on the substantive issues. (Marshall/Mosbrucker: 5-0)

E. 321 Chestnut #5 AT090131

The landlords' petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted resulting in monthly passthroughs in the amount of $42.64 for the tenants in 3 of 5 units. The tenant in one unit appeals on the grounds that: the water heater was an appliance, rather than a fixture, and the tenants should not have to pay for its replacement; and the water heater, drywall replacement and new shingles do not meet the definition of capital improvement but, rather, constitute repair and maintenance.

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

F. 1200 Taylor #30 AL090130

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $700.00 due to a defective kitchen stove and $1,286.52 due to construction work in the building that made it impossible for the tenant to use the bedroom in his unit. The landlord appeals, asserting that: the tenant offered no evidence to support his contention that the stove was defective and the bedroom was uninhabitable, other than his own testimony; the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) disregarded the landlord's evidence and otherwise exhibited bias against the landlord; the ALJ should have been bound by a prior Rent Board decision regarding an adjoining unit affected by the same construction which found that the claim was barred by the Golden Gateway decision; there was no risk to the bedroom after a two-week period, and the tenant was so informed; the tenant could have used other areas of the unit; the tenant had agreed to replace the stove at his own expense; the landlord had no opportunity to cross-examine the tenant regarding his post-hearing submission; the tenant lacked standing to file the petition; the tenant's filing of the petition was retaliatory; and the rent reduction for the stove is excessive.

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

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

G. 201 – 11th Ave. #9 AL090148

The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. The landlord appealed as to the passthrough to the tenants in unit #9, questioning the applicability of the 6-Month Rule and whether this was a new or continuing tenancy. In the Decision on Remand, the ALJ found that when the tenants moved from unit #2 to unit #9 in the building at a new rent, a new tenancy was created. Since the capital improvement work commenced within six months, the costs were disallowed. The landlord appeals the remand decision, arguing that: the capital improvement work was done entirely in the common areas of the building, which is not recovered by the landlord in setting a market rent; and the tenants did not object to paying for the work.

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

H. 360 – 6th Ave. #5 AL090150

The tenants' petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $130.00 due to inadequate heat in the unit for a 1-1/3 month period. The landlord appeals, maintaining that: the 2 degree variation from the required standard for heat was due to the tenants' having open windows and fans in the unit; the tenants failed to verifiably prove their claims; no other tenants in the building have complained; the landlord should not be penalized for equipment malfunctions when problems were otherwise dealt with in a timely manner; and the time clock was replaced purely as a preventative measure.

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

I. 680 Brazil Ave. #1 & #4 AL090153

The tenants in two units filed petitions alleging decreased housing services which were granted, in part. The landlords were found liable to the tenants in both units for a loss of quiet enjoyment due to noisy tenants in another unit in the building and a defective entry door. The landlords appeal the decision, asserting that: the rent reductions for quiet enjoyment are excessive, since the problem was not that serious nor were the noise decibels measured, and the landlords made a good faith effort to have the front door maintained.

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

J. 344 – 2nd Ave. #2 AL090152

The landlords' appeal was filed two days late because the landlords did not receive a copy of the decision in the mail.

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

The tenants' petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount of $2,664.21. On appeal, the landlords claim that they only increased the rent by the allowable annual amount and that any improper rent increases were given by the previous owner.

MSC: To deny the appeal without prejudice to any claim the current owners may have against the prior owner of the property. (Mosbrucker/Marshall: 5-0)

K. 1251 – 10th Ave. #5 AT090156

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was denied because the ALJ found that the allegedly defective items were either not substantial, the tenant failed to provide notice of the problem or the landlord responded in a timely fashion to the tenant's repair requests. On appeal, the tenant claims that the carpet needs to be replaced rather than cleaned and the unit should be painted by a professional painting contractor.

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

VI. Communications

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

A. A new staff roster.

B. The office workload statistics for the month of May, 2009.

C. Articles from the Bay Area Reporter, BeyondChron, the S.F. Chronicle, the S.F. Daily Journal, the S.F. Appeal and the Los Angeles Times.

VII. Director's Report

Executive Director Wolf told the Board that the proposed amendments to the Rent Ordinance sponsored by Supervisor Daly were passed by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on June 23rd. It is anticipated that the Mayor will veto the legislation and that there are not enough votes to over-ride a mayoral veto. Ms. Wolf also informed the Commissioners that Attorney Amelia Yaros has been appointed to the Alternate Neutral seat; Commissioner Beard has been elevated to the Voting Neutral position that was held by Commissioner Justman. It is hoped that Commissioner Yaros will be sworn in in time for her to attend the August 4th Board meeting.

VIII. Old Business

Restoration of Original Rental Amount After Voluntary Reduction

By Landlord

Discussion of this issue was continued to the next meeting, when Commissioner Murphy will have returned.

IX. Calendar Items

July 14th, 21st and 28th, 2009 – NO MEETINGS

August 4, 2009

12 appeal considerations

Old Business:

A. Voluntary Rent Reductions

B. Petitions for Extension of Time

X. Adjournment

President Gruber adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.

NOTE: If any materials related to an item on this agenda have been distributed to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet, those materials are available for public inspection at the office of the Rent Board during normal office hours.

Last updated: 10/9/2009 11:26:19 AM