August 06, 1996

I. Call to Order

President Becker called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Becker; Lightner; Marshall; Mosser; Palma.
Commissioners not Present: Bierly; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Wolf.

Commissioner Gruber appeared on the record at 5:38 p.m.; Commissioner Murphy arrived at 5:45 p.m.; and Commissioner Moore appeared at 6:30 p.m.

III. Approval of the Minutes

MSC: To approve the Minutes of July 2, 1996.
(Marshall/Palma: 5-0)

IV. Consideration of Appeals

A. 1014 Florida St. Q001-61A

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $2,945.00 due to serious habitability problems on the premises for the period October 1, 1992 through June 30, 1996. On appeal, the landlord maintains that the rent reductions should cease as of February 6, 1996, as all necessary repairs had been made as of that date.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer for a hearing to determine the date that the conditions were abated and the rent reductions should cease. (Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)

B. 105 Chenery St. R001-01A

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,035.00 due to several habitability defects on the premises. The landlord’s appeal of the decision was accepted and remanded to the hearing officer only to allow the landlord to respond to a Department of Building Inspection Order of Abatement; to issue a Technical Correction to the decision; and to reconsider the length of time that rent reductions were granted for a drainage problem on the front landing. In her Decision on Remand the hearing officer upholds the original valuation of $20.00 per month for the drainage problem, asserting that seasonal fluctuations were taken into account. The landlord appeals the remand decision, reiterating many of the issues denied upon consideration of his first appeal; asserting that the hearing officer did not appear to account for weather because the amount granted is the same as requested in the tenant’s petition; and alleging that the problem is minor and does not constitute a decrease in housing services because the tenant was informed of the condition prior to the inception of the tenancy.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

C. 10 Julius St. R001-02A

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $4,707.50 due to serious habitability defects on the premises. On appeal, the landlord alleges that all violations were corrected between the time of the hearing and the issuance of the decision; and that the motivation for the tenant’s filing of the petition was his inability to pay the rent.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer for a hearing to determine the date that the conditions were abated, if any. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)

D. 1510 8th Ave. #D R001-01R & -02R

The landlords’ petition for certification of the costs of a new roof and seismic upgrading, as well as rent increases based on increased operating expenses, was granted. Two tenants in one unit appeal the decision on the basis of financial hardship

MSC: To deny both appeals. (Lightner/Becker: 5-0)

V. Public Hearing

Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 10.10 Regarding the Issue of Constructive Notice; and Non-Substantive Changes to Rules and Regulations Sections 1.12, 8.12 and 12.18

A Public Hearing commenced at 6:15 p.m. and concluded at 7:15 p.m. Three tenants and thirteen landlords spoke; most to the issue of adding “constructive notice” to Rules and Regulations Section 10.10. The tenants in attendance expressed their belief that the proposed amendments were merely a “sensible clarification of what already exists”; and stated their opinion that the requirement that notice must be in writing constitutes a hardship for many tenants. The landlords present articulated their opinion that tenants should be required to give written notice of defects, just as landlords are required to give written notice to tenants; that inspections of the premises by landlords could be seen as intrusions by the residents; that there is no need for the proposed amendments; that a landlord may reasonably believe that a tenant is not particularly bothered or affected by a defect on the premises, even if both parties know that it exists; and the proposed amendments may exceed the jurisdiction of the Rent Board and/or conflict with State law.

After conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Commissioners discussed the non-substantive changes suggested by staff, which include: a numbering change in Section 12.18 to refer to the proper Ordinance Section, recently amended; a correction to Section 8.12 to reflect the fact that the name of the “Department of Public Works” has been changed to the “Department of Building Inspection”; and a change in the language of Section 1.12, which allows a landlord who could have given a 4% increase prior to the passage of Proposition H and the lowering of the annual increase amount to 1.6% to still give the 4% increase, even if the requisite two-year period for banking had not expired. The Commissioners further clarified the proposed language of Section 1.12 and passed the following motion:

MSC: To pass the proposed non-substantive amendments to Rules and Regulations Sections 1.12, 8.12 and 12.18, with some additional clarifying revisions to Section 1.12. (Marshall/Lightner: 5-0)

After a great deal of discussion and revision of the proposed amendments to Section 10.10, this issue was continued to the meeting on August 20th so that the Board members can read the re-draft in its entirety prior to voting. The following motion was made and seconded, but not voted upon:

MSC: To adopt proposed amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 10.10 as modified at the meeting on August 6, 1996; which changes shall be distributed prior to the meeting on August 20, 1996. (Becker/Marshall)

VI. Communications

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received one letter from a landlord pertaining to proposed changes to Rules and Regulations Section 10.10 concerning the issue of constructive notice.

VII. Old Business

The Board’s discussion of the issue of extending amortization schedules for seismic work was continued to the meeting of August 20, 1996.

VIII. Remarks from the Public

A landlord member of the public informed Board President Becker that he did not believe the proposed amendments to Rules Section 10.10 to be “lucid.”

IX. Calendar Items

August 13, 1996 - NO MEETING

August 20, 1996

4 appeal considerations

Old Business:

A. Proposed Amendments to Rules Section 10.10 Regarding the Issue of Constructive Notice

B. Extended Amortization Schedules for Seismic Work

August 27, 1996 - NO MEETING

X. Adjournment

President Becker adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.