I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at
6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber;
Hobson; Lightner; Marshall; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Justman;
Mosser; Murphy.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of January 9, 2001
with the following corrections: to reflect that Robin Leavitt is a Mr.
and not Ms.; and to specify that it was Commissioner Marshall who asked
staff to draft a regulation allowing tenants to file hardship appeals
upon the imposition of accumulated capital improvement passthroughs.
(Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
The following individuals addressed the Commissioners
concerning appeals on the calendar:
1. Jennifer Welsh of St. Peter’s Housing Committee
said that, because of their remand instructions in the cases concerning
3451 - 26th St. (AT2K0224) and 1487 Guerrero (AT2K0227), the
Board appears to have "bowed to landlord interests." In the Guerrero
Street case, Ms. Welsh feels that the hardship appeals process is a "farce"
if a disabled widow is ineligible and forced to get a roommate. In the 26th
Street case, by reducing the refund due to rent overpayments, Ms. Welsh
said that the Board had granted the landlord a hardship appeal without making
them fill out the forms. She submitted petitions with 175 signatures asking
that the Board overturn the remand decisions.
2. Robert Rosenbaum, the landlord in the case concerning
1075-A Fell Street, told the Board that he was available to answer any questions
they might have.
3. Tommy Avicolli Mecca of the Housing Rights Committee
also said that the Guerrero and 26th Street decisions were unfair.
He believes that tenants shouldn’t have to pay capital improvements because
of Prop. H. He asked that the Board "do the right thing and rule in
favor of the tenants.
4. Ada Cook, the landlord in the case at 932 Cabrillo
#1 (AT2K0228), told the Board that the tenant had threatened to "create
nuisances for the landlady only" and that the assertions by the tenant
in her appeal were untrue.
5. Ignatius Degroot is a pastor of a parish in the
Mission District. He said that 6 of his parishioners have been evicted recently,
and that the poor are being driven out of San Francisco. He told the Board
that the feeling amongst tenants in the Mission is that "an appeal
won’t do any good."
6. Daniel Quigg, the landlord in the Guerrero Street
case, provided a summary of where the case now stands. Mr. Quigg said that
he spent $28,000 on capital improvements, including $1,445 for a new heater
that he did not assess to the tenant because she is a senior citizen.
7. Enrique Salinas, the tenant involved in the 26th
Street case, said that he had clearly shown that the rent increase was illegal
and that he had paid it for many years.
8. Dave Wasserman, attorney for the landlord in
the 26th Street case, told the Board that his client wasn’t a
"greedy landlord", and that this building is her only asset. He
said that his client accepts the rollback of the base rent, and that she’d
purchased a building with "horrible records." He said that another
equitable consideration should be the economic circumstances of the landlord.
9. Miguel Carrera from the Coalition on Homelessness
demanded good decisions for "these and all people", especially
in the Mission District. He told the Board that he’d had to move to the
East Bay because he couldn’t afford to pay rent in San Francisco, and that
"low-income families are attacked every day."
10. Tenant Zoila Veliz demanded justice for these
people.
11. Dave McGuire of Mission Agenda said that an
income-to-rent ratio of 33% is a "rational number" and that in
this "crazy, aberrant economy", people are having to choose between
food, medicine and rent.
12. Matt Brown, former Director of St. Peter’s Housing
Committee, said that the tenant in the Guerrero Street case is exactly who
the hardship provisions were designed to protect, and that the Board has
no authority to make her get a roommate in order to remain in her home.
Mr. Brown questioned why the Board was deviating from its prior policy of
holding new owners liable for unlawful rent increases given by a prior owner,
since it is harder for low-income tenants to file lawsuits than for landlords,
and the Board was not obligated to follow the unpublished Larsen
decision.
13. Lauren Porter of St. Peter’s Housing Committee
said that she tells tenants that it’s not true that there are no laws to
protect them, and asked what she is supposed to say when the Rent Board
Commission doesn’t "uphold the law." She said that it is their
"duty, discretion and responsibility" to do so.
V. Consideration of Appeals
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on
increased operating expenses and certification of capital improvement costs
to the tenants in twenty units was granted, in part. The tenant appealed on
the grounds of financial hardship. The appeal was continued from the December
5th meeting in order for the Deputy Director to draft a letter
and obtain additional information regarding the tenant’s interest income and
available resources.
This appeal was withdrawn immediately prior to the
meeting.
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increase
was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount
of $4,254.12 due to a mis-calculation of allowable banking. On appeal, the
landlord argues that: the rent increase in effect during the period 1992-1993
was confusing, due to the rate having changed; the tenant paid the increase
without complaint for two years; the tenant had received no rent increase
for seven years prior to the subject increase having been imposed; the improper
increase was due to an arithmetic error; and the tenant has been given leeway
when she was late in making rent payments.
After discussion at the meeting on January 2nd, it
was the consensus of the Board to continue this case in order for staff to
identify the nature of the landlord’s mistake in calculating the allowable
banking.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 3-2;
Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
C. 1075-A Fell St. AL2K0222
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
due to loss of garage space and the right to park in the driveway was granted,
and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,220.00.
On appeal, the landlord claims that: use of the garage for storage was explicitly
precluded at the inception of the tenancy, and this service was added later
for no additional consideration; loss of on-street parking because of loss
of the right to block the driveway does not constitute a housing service provided
by the landlord; the garage is not an extension of the tenant’s unit; and
the tenant has been using this area as a work space without the landlord’s
knowledge and for no additional charge.
The tenant’s petition containing several allegations
of decreased housing services was denied except that the landlord was found
liable in the amount of $68.75 due to a leaking rear porch area. On appeal,
the tenant claims that the landlord failed to test the efficacy of the repairs
that were made; that the amount of the rent reduction granted is inadequate,
since replacement storage cannot be found for $25.00 per month; and that the
Administrative Law Judge failed to take into account the potential danger
of water leaking on an electrical switch.
The tenants’ petition alleging unlawful rent increases
was granted, and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount
of $10,481.28. The landlords’ appeal was accepted and the case was remanded
in the interests of fairness and justice to hold the landlords liable for
overcharges only for the period of time they have owned the building. The
Decision on Remand therefore holds the landlords liable for the reduced amount
of $3,543.64. The tenants appeal the remand decision, asserting that: since
successor landlords inherit the right to banked increases and capital improvement
passthroughs not imposed by the prior owner, they should also inherit liability
for overcharges; there are more remedies available to the landlords for recovery
of the disputed amounts than there are to the tenants; the Decision in this
case could encourage landlords to raise rents unlawfully in order to increase
the sale price of a building; current owners are held liable for security
deposit amounts paid to a prior owner, whether or not the sums had been transferred
to them; and the outcome in this case was determined by the amount of money
owed, and not in accordance with existing law or policy.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 3-2;
Becker, Marshall dissenting)
F. 1082 Post St. #306 AT2K0223
The tenant’s appeal was filed one day late because
the tenant has been ill and immobilized.
The landlord’s petition for certification of seismic
strengthening costs to 14 units was granted. One tenant 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. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
G. 1010 Bush #105 AT2K0230
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
because of the revocation of overnight guest privileges was denied because
the Administrative Law Judge found that the right to have overnight guests
was not included in the tenant’s base rent at the commencement of the tenancy,
nor did the tenant pay additional consideration for this service at a later
date. The tenant appeals, claiming that her case was not given adequate consideration
by the Administrative Law Judge; that she never signed a lease or rental agreement
restricting visiting hours; and that the revocation of overnight privileges
was in retaliation for her having filed a petition at the Rent Board.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board
to continue consideration of this case in order for Commissioners Becker and
Marshall to research the constitutional question of whether the tenant’s right
to have overnight guests could be restricted; and for the Administrative Law
Judge to address the issue of retaliation.
The landlords’ appeal of a remand decision deferring
a capital improvement passthrough unless and until the tenant’s financial
circumstances should change was accepted and the case was remanded to the
Administrative Law Judge to defer the passthrough for 90 days so that the
tenant could obtain a roommate. The tenant is 67 years old, Spanish-speaking
and hearing-impaired. On further appeal, she maintains that, because of her
disability, she is afraid to invite a stranger to live with her.
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases
in housing services and the landlord’s failure to repair was denied because
the Administrative Law Judge found that the conditions were not substantial,
did not constitute violations of State or local law and/or the tenant had
failed to prove that notice had been provided to the landlord. On appeal,
the tenant claims that: evidence was admitted that was illegally obtained
by the landlord; the tenant’s evidence was mis-labeled as having been submitted
by the landlord; pertinent evidence was omitted; and the tenant was not given
the opportunity to examine photographs submitted by the landlord.
J. 536 Mason #306 AL2K0231
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
because of broken window blinds in her furnished apartment was granted, and
the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $87.50. The landlord
had not appeared at the hearing. On appeal, the landlord claims not to have
received notice of the hearing; that written notice was not provided by the
tenant regarding the alleged problem with the blinds; and that the blinds
were operable when checked and did not compromise the tenant’s privacy.
K. 505 - 26th Ave. #2 AL2K0229
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount
of $3,682.83 due to unreasonable withholding of the tenant’s right to have
replacement roommates. On appeal, the landlord claims that there are many
factual inaccuracies in the Decision.
VI. Communications
Pursuant to Commissioner Marshall’s request of staff
at the last meeting, the Board received a copy of proposed additions to Section
2.18 of the Rules and Regulations that would make it possible for tenants
to appeal the imposition of an accumulated capital improvement passthrough
on the grounds of financial hardship. This issue will be discussed at the
Board meeting on January 30th or at the meeting on February 6th.
VII.Old Business
The Board’s discussion of issues pertaining to the
implementation of Proposition H, including fair return, will be continued
in closed and public sessions at the Board meeting on February 6th.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
The tenant in the case at 932 Cabrillo (AT2K0228)
told the Board that she would not have accepted her "last-minute"
appeal either.
14. The landlord in the case at 536 Mason (AL2K0231)
inquired as to the outcome of her appeal.
VIII. Calendar Items
January 23, 2001 - NO MEETING
January 30, 2001
A. Fair Return/Implementation of Prop. H
B. Hardship Appeals of Accumulated Capital Improvement
Passthroughs
February 6, 2001
4 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 7/1//00;
1 cont. from 1/16/01)
Closed Session: Quigg v. S.F. Rent Board
(Superior Court Case No. 316928)
Old Business:
A. Fair Return/Implementation of Prop. H
B. Hardship Appeals of Accumulated Capital Improvement
Passthroughs
IX. Adjournment