September 03, 1996

I. Call to Order

President Becker called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly; Marshall; Murphy.

Commissioners not Present: Lightner; Wasserman.

Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

Commissioners Moore and Mosser appeared on the record at 5:48 p.m.; Commissioner Palma appeared at 5:53 p.m.; and Commissioner Gruber arrived at the meeting at 6:03 p.m.

III. Approval of the Minutes

MSC: To approve the Minutes of August 20, 1996.

(Bierly/Murphy: 3-0)

IV. Remarks from the Public

Robert Pender remarked once again on the loss of businesses at the Parkmerced shopping complex.

V. Consideration of Appeals

A. 637 Green St. #5 R001-06A

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase, substantial decreases in housing services and the landlord’s failure to repair was granted, in part. The landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $940.00 due to an excessive rent increase and it was held that the landlord could not impose annual and banked increases to which she was otherwise entitled until an outstanding Notice of Violation had been abated. Rent reductions totaling $3,515.00 were also found to be owing to the tenant due to defective conditions on the premises since the inception of the tenancy. On appeal, the landlord asserts that the tenant failed to prove that the original base rent was $320 rather than $500; and that the amount of the rent reductions granted is excessive.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Palma: 3-2; Mosser, Murphy dissenting)

B. 1449 Washington St. #4

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant admits that she made a mistake as to the date when putting the hearing on her calendar, but states that she could have taken a cab to the hearing had she been phoned at her office instead of home telephone number.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing. (Murphy/Marshall: 5-0)

C. 571 Alvarado St.

The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on increased operating expenses was denied because the landlord failed to meet his burden of proof. The landlord of this Newly Covered Unit under Proposition I was also found liable to the tenant in the amount of $544.00 due to a 7.2% rent increase imposed based on the past rent history of the unit, when the tenants had not been in possession of the unit for the requisite three-year period as of May 1, 1994. The landlord appeals the decision, asserting that: it would be impossible to account for all sums expended for materials and supplies, since he keeps a running stock for his real estate business; the interest paid on credit card purchases should qualify as "debt service"; it is discriminatory and an absence of equal protection to not provide for a "past rent history" increase for two and one-year tenancies; and that he has provided sufficient documentation to justify the small amount of increase that he is asking for.

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

D. 1111 - 1133 Green St.

The landlord’s petition for certification of the cost of several new roofs on the building was denied because the landlord failed to document full proof of what work was done to the property nor the cost of such work. The landlord appeals, claiming that the hearing officer did not attempt to determine what work was in the nature of repair and what constituted capital improvement; and that the roofer who provided a statement in support of his petition speaks little English.

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

E. 100 Webster St.

The tenant’s petition alleging a decrease in housing services due to the presence of rodents on the property was denied because the hearing officer found that the tenant failed to prove that the problem was substantial. On appeal, the tenant asserts that the hearing officer erred in drawing a distinction between the presence of rats in the back yard of the property, rather than in the tenant’s unit; and that the landlord’s failure to appear at the hearing should have been taken into account as well as a history of code violations on the premises.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Palma/Murphy: 5-0)

G. 3445 Clay St.

The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparables from $750.00 to $1,450.00 for this Newly Covered Unit under Proposition I was denied because the hearing officer found that the rent had not been set low due to extraordinary circumstances, and had doubled over the course of the tenancy. On appeal, the landlord alleges that the hearing officer should have taken the landlord’s hardship and rate of return on the property into account in rendering the decision; that the hearing officer erred as to the circumstances surrounding the setting of the rent for the unit, because the current tenant was not a party to the agreement and therefore could not offer credible testimony; and that the hearing officer is biased against landlords.

MSC: To recuse Commissioner Moore from consideration of this appeal. (Becker/Moore: 5-0)

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Palma/Becker: 4-1; Murphy dissenting)

VI. Communications

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received a letter from Ted Gullickson of the Tenants’ Union expressing some concerns regarding the Rent Board’s Mediation Pilot Project and an article from the San Francisco Independent regarding the Department of Building Inspection’s new "Code Enforcement Outreach Program", which contains a mediation component.

VII. New Business

Report on Mediation Pilot Project

The Executive Director reported on the success of the Rent Board’s pilot Mediation Program, begun in November, 1995. Questionnaires completed by landlord and tenant participants in the mediation sessions demonstrate a high degree of enthusiasm for the process, with settlements achieved in 88% of the cases. On a 5-point scale, participants rated satisfaction with the mediated agreement at 3.7 and satisfaction with the hearing officer/mediator at 4.7. In attendance at the meeting to answer the Commissioners’ questions were Senior Hearing Officer Sandra Gartzman and Hearing Officers Connie Brandon, Lela Harris and Erika Pardo.

The Commissioners expressed their general support for the program, especially with regard to speedier problem resolution, the ability to address issues outside of Rent Board jurisdiction and the fostering of a more amicable relationship between the parties. Several Commissioners articulated concerns regarding a power imbalance between landlords and tenants, and they were assured by staff that the non-waiver of rights provision contained in Ordinance Section 37.(e) was strictly adhered to in the mediation process. It was agreed that the Notice of Mediation Session would be clarified so that parties would be aware that mediation was in no way mandatory; that the Berkeley Rent Board would be contacted regarding the possibility of mediation of landlord petitions, since this is currently a part of their mediation program; and staff will draft regulations codifying the mediation process. With these assurances in place, it was the consensus of the Commission that the Board should continue to offer Mediation as well as Arbitration, as a way of further enhancing the quality of services provided to the public.

VIII. Director’s Report

Executive Director Grubb reminded the Board members about the Giants game on September 12th and informed them that he will be on vacation from September 18th through September 29th.

IX. Calendar Items

September 10, 1996 - NO MEETING

6:00 September 17, 1996

6 appeal considerations

September 24, 1996 - NO MEETING

X. Adjournment

President Becker adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.