I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at
6:06 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Aung; Becker; Gruber; Hobson;
Mosser; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Lightner; Marshall.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:11
p.m.; Commissioner Murphy arrived at the meeting at 6:15 p.m.; and Commissioner
Becker went off the record at 6:38 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of August 21, 2001,
with the following addition to the comments upon the conclusion of the
Public Hearing concerning new Rules and Regulations Section 1.21: Commissioner
Hobson asked that the record also note that he stated that the regulation,
if prospective, would create two different classes of tenants, not treated
equally.
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 3330 Pierce St. #104 AL010131
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on
increased operating expenses was granted, resulting in 7% base rent increases
to the tenants in 15 units. The increase was denied as to the tenants in unit
#104, because they had received a comparables rent increase effective April
1, 2001, a date which fell within Year 2 of the operating and maintenance
expense petition. The landlord appeals only as to the denial of the increase
to unit #104, asserting that the decision on the comparables rent increase
established the base rent as of December, 1995, and factored in only annual
increases since that time, which should not preclude an additional increase
based on subsequent increased operating expenses.
B. 2333 Market St. AT010132
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase
in rent was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that a $100
rent increase was a permissible charge for the additional housing service
of being allowed to have a cat on the premises. On appeal, the tenant contends
that he did not know that it could be unlawful to charge additional rent for
a pet prior to filing the petition; and that there are other factual errors
in the decision.
During discussion, Commissioner Hobson said that there
is a State law that prohibits increases in rent because of a pet on the premises.
Consideration of this appeal was continued to the meeting on September 18th
in order for Commissioner Hobson to provide staff with a copy of this bill
to disseminate to the Commissioners.
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 11 of 18 units was granted, in part. The landlord appeals
the disallowance of a cost of $7,698.00 for "construction management"
of a brick façade project, asserting that: this cost covered the planning,
design and development of the construction work done, some of which occurred
during construction; the fee billed by the property manager did not cover
the property manager’s actual out-of-pocket staff expense; and both the early
project management work and the later project management work were necessary
parts of the project and the costs should be certified as part of the capital
improvements.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board
to continue consideration of this appeal in order to obtain a Memorandum from
the Administrative Law Judge.
D. 110 Portola Dr. #2 AL010128
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
due to removal of the right to have an extra front door key was granted, and
the landlords were found liable in the amount of $315.00, or $70.00 per month.
On appeal, among other arguments, the landlords asserted that the Administrative
Law Judge erred in granting more than the amount requested by the tenant in
her petition. The Commissioners accepted the landlords’ appeal only to
adjust the amount of the rent reduction to an amount no greater than that
requested in the tenant’s petition, or $50.00, and denied the appeal as to
all other issues. The landlords appeal the remand decision, claiming that:
the tenant failed to meet her burden of proof; the landlords were not given
adequate time to respond to the tenant’s evidence upon appeal; the facts do
not warrant the tenant being awarded $50.00 per month; the decision in this
case is not in keeping with previous cases decided by the Board; and the Administrative
Law Judge exhibited bias against the landlord.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Gruber from consideration
of this appeal. (Justman/Murphy: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Aung: 3-2;
Mosser, Murphy dissenting)
E. 670 Eddy St. #302 AT010129
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase
in rent, decreased housing services and the landlord’s failure to repair was
denied because the tenant failed to prove substandard conditions in the residential
hotel, and the rent increase was authorized pursuant to the banking provisions
of the Ordinance. On appeal, the tenant maintains that she cannot afford to
pay the rent increase and that "pain and suffering" should be taken
into account in the disposition of cases.
F. 1684 & 1688 Grove St. AT010028 & -29
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs was granted, resulting in monthly passthroughs in the amount
of $$99.47 to the tenants in three units. The tenants in two of the units
appeal, asserting that: the capital improvement work was necessitated by the
landlord’s deferred maintenance; the work was in the nature of repair; the
landlord was not required to provide proof of payment; and the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge is unfair and biased against the tenants.
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs, including seismic work, to the tenants in two units was
certified. The tenants in both units appeal the decision. The tenant in unit
#304 claims that the Administrative Law Judge did not take into account necessary
repairs that should not have been passed through to the tenants. The tenant
in unit #302 asserts that the work also benefits the tenants in another building,
which is joined at the roof with the subject building; that the amount of
the passthrough is incorrect; and that payment of the passthrough would constitute
a financial hardship.
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to the tenants in 18 units was granted. The tenants in ten
units appealed the Decision on the grounds of financial hardship; five of
those appeals were granted and remanded for hearing. The tenants in one additional
unit untimely appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. The
tenant’s appeal was filed 3 and one-half months late because the tenant, who
is elderly, had been in the hospital at the time the decision was issued and
forgot to file until other tenants in the building received their decisions
on remand.
Since there was only one voting Tenant Commissioner
in attendance after Commissioner Aung’s recusal, this case was continued to
the next meeting.
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 18 of 30 units was granted, in part. The tenants in one
unit appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 33 of 92 units was granted, in part. Two tenants appeal
the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit
number 312 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of
financial hardship. (Hobson/ Aung: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit
number M310 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim
of financial hardship. (Aung/Hobson: 5-0)
V. Communications
The Commissioners received the office workload statistics
for the month of July, 2001.
VI. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that he
will be on vacation from September 6th through September 21st.
Deputy Director Delene Wolf will be acting in his stead.
VII. Remarks from the Public
A. The landlord involved in the case at 110 Portola
Dr. #2 (AL010128) expressed his feeling that he did not get a fair hearing
the first time around; said that the Administrative Law Judge took the tenant’s
word over theirs; and failed to change his findings on remand even when
faced with conflicting evidence.
B. The tenant in the case at 2333 Market St. (AT010132)
told the Board that he owned his cat for four years before moving into the
property; that he had pointed out 11 discrepancies in the Decision, but
the Administrative Law Judge only admitted to 1; and said that the Master
Tenant’s witness wasn’t credible.
VIII. Calendar Items
September 11, 2001 - NO MEETING
September 18, 2001
12 appeal considerations (3 cont. from 9/4/01)
Rules and Regulations Section 6.10(e)
IX. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:11
p.m.