I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:10 p.m.; Commissioner Marshall arrived at the meeting at 6:16 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 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 at the meeting on September 4th, Commissioner Hobson said that he believes there is a State law that prohibits increases in rent because of a pet on the premises. Consideration of this appeal was therefore continued in order for Commissioner Hobson to provide staff with a copy of this bill to disseminate to the Commissioners. At this evening’s meeting, Commissioner Hobson reported that the legislation he was thinking of only applied to public housing.
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. At the meeting on September 4, 2001, it was the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this appeal in order to obtain a Memorandum from the Administrative Law Judge.
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.
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.
D. 1200 Taylor #18 & #4 AT010047 & -48
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses and certification of capital improvement costs to 12 of 16 units was granted. The tenants in two units appealed the decision as to the capital improvement passthrough and the operating expense increase. Pursuant to the Moratorium on processing of capital improvement passthroughs, the tenants’ appeals as to the operating and maintenance expense increases were denied at the meeting on June 5, 2001. In their appeal as to the capital improvement passthrough, the tenants in unit #18 claim that: any increases granted should not apply to them because they were served notice of the hearing under an incorrect name; the new radiator valves did not benefit their unit; the landlord was allowed to supplement the evidentiary record after the hearing with invoices that the tenants did not have an opportunity to refute; the services of an independent estimator should have been used in this case; the replacement of the boiler has resulted in less heat; the new awning and basement lighting do not benefit the tenants in the building; tile replacement in the laundry room should not be allowed since the tenants pay for use of the facilities in that room; the phone based entry system resulted in a decrease in services; the costs were inflated; much of the work was cosmetic and unnecessary; and the new owner should not be allowed to pass through costs incurred by the prior owner. The tenants in unit #4 assert that: the tenants were not provided with the opportunity to prove their socioeconomic status in order to assert the "luxury item" defense to certain of the capital improvements; the work on the back porch enclosure was promised to the tenants prior to their occupancy of the unit at no additional cost; the tenants were given insufficient time to obtain documentary evidence to prove their case; and the landlord has the burden of proof, which was not met.
E. 790 Church St. #105 AT010049
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 22 of 30 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision, asserting that since the decision was mailed but not served prior to April 1, 2001, it should be stayed pursuant to the temporary Moratorium on the processing of capital improvement petitions that went into effect on April 1st.
F. 1137 Bush St. #5 AT010050
The landlords’ petition for certification costs was granted pursuant to a Minute Order. One tenant appeals, asking for a temporary deferral of the passthrough on the grounds of financial hardship.
G. 270 Buckingham Way AT010097
The tenant originally filed a financial hardship appeal prior to the issuance of a decision on the landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs. Her appeal and supporting documents were therefore returned to her, and she was instructed to re-file upon the issuance of a decision. The tenant, who is elderly, became confused and failed to re-file the appeal until 4-1/2 months after the deadline had passed.
The tenant appeals the Minute Order certifying capital improvement costs on the grounds of financial hardship.
H. 2200 Beach St. #102 AT010105
The tenant’s hardship appeal was filed almost seven months late because she planned on being able to pay the passthrough, and had no idea that her business would go under as a result of the dotcom downturn.
I. 653 Capp St. AT010114
The tenant’s appeal was filed over two months late because she speaks only limited English and did not realize that the Decision would affect her.
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 5 of 6 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship and that several of the improvements are not of benefit to her.
J. 1902 Page St. #2 AL010133
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,407.94. The landlord failed to appear at the hearing. On appeal, the landlord claims to have been scheduled for an operation on the day of the hearing, and that she had been assured by the tenant that he would be withdrawing the petition.
K. 902 Divisadero #202 AL010134
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $6,280.00 due to serious habitability problems on the premises. The landlord failed to appear at the hearing. On appeal, the landlord claims not to have received notice of the hearing, and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.
L. 2330 Larkin #32 AT010090
The landlords’ separate petitions for rent increases based on increased operating expenses and certification of capital improvement costs were granted. The tenant appealed both decisions on the grounds of financial hardship, which were consolidated on remand. The Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant had significant assets held in trust which could be accessed to meet her needs, and therefore there was not sufficient financial hardship to deny or defer imposition of the rent increases. The tenant appealed the remand decision on the grounds of financial hardship as to the capital improvement passthrough and the operating expense increase. Pursuant to the Moratorium on processing of capital improvement passthroughs, the appeal as to the operating and maintenance expense increase was denied at the meeting on May 15, 2001. In her further appeal as to the capital improvement passthrough, the tenant claims that: CD accounts in her name are actually held jointly with her sister; interest payments attributed as income to her are not actually received; and her expenses are increasing while her income is decreasing.
V. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received:
A. A new Commissioners’ roster.
B. A copy of Ordinance No. 186-01, which amends the Rent Ordinance to provide for a 6-month period during which landlords may not evict tenants for non-payment of capital improvement passthroughs certified after April 10, 2000, pursuant to petitions filed prior to August 10, 2001.
VI. Old Business
Rules and Regulations Section 6.10(e)
Goodwin v. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 317339)
Commissioner Marshall distributed draft language to address the issue raised in the case of Goodwin v. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 317339). In that case, the Court found that the landlord was entitled to two operating and maintenance expense increases, one based on his purchase and one based on the increased property taxes incurred by the estate after the death of the prior owner. This issue will be discussed at the October 2nd Board meeting.
VII. Remarks from the Public
A. Will Anzenberger, Director of Law & Advocacy for the San Francisco SPCA, made some remarks regarding the Board’s consideration of the appeal at 2333 Market St. (AT010132), and the issue of rent increases for pets as additional housing services. Mr. Anzenberger expressed his concern that, if tenants fear that rent increases will result, they will "go underground" and not report the presence of a pet to the landlord. Mr. Anzenberger offered the services of his organization to the Commissioners in formulating future policies regarding pets in rental units.
B. Marc Goldsmith, the tenant in the case at 902 Divisadero St. #202 (AL010134), read a statement alleging that his landlord committed perjury in asserting that he did not receive the notice of hearing, and asking that the Board not grant the landlord’s appeal.
VIII. New Business
IX. Calendar Items
September 25, 2001 - NO MEETING
October 2, 2001
8 appeal considerations (1 rescheduled from 9/18/01)
Rules & Regulations Section 6.10(e)
X. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m.