February 15, 2000

The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs to three of five units was granted, in part. The landlord appeals, maintaining that: permit application fees should have been certified; and amounts expended for the repair of water leaks in two of the units should have been certified as incidental to the capital improvement work.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record to certify the costs of the permit fees only. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)

This consolidated case involves two tenant petitions alleging decreased housing services; two petitions seeking certification of capital improvement costs for two of five units; and one landlord petition for base rent increases for two units based on increased operating expenses. The landlord's capital improvement costs were certified, However, the petition based on allegedly increased operating expenses was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that repairs performed in order to abate a Notice of Violation were one-time expenditures and the time periods chosen produced exaggerated results. The tenant petitions were granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable in the amounts of $550.00 and $580.00, respectively, due to loss of quiet enjoyment during a period of construction work on the premises. Both the landlord and tenants appeal the decision. The landlord claims that the Rules and Regs. do not preclude one-time expenditures from being the basis for an O&M increase; and that the time periods chosen were those immediately prior to the filing of the petition. He also asserts that the tenant petitions were filed only to harass the landlord; that his request for the petitions to be heard separately was denied, resulting in a hostile and intimidating atmosphere; that the vacant unit being readied for re-rental was quieter than had it been occupied; that one of the allegedly affected units is separated from the rest of the building by a double wall, and would not have been as affected; and that there are many factual errors in the decision. The tenants allege that the documentation provided by the landlord in support of his petition is suspect; that a contractor's license was illegally used by workers not entitled to do so; that the cost of some of the repairs is inflated; that some of the claimed work was not actually done; and that some of the work was necessitated by the landlord's deferred maintenance.

MSC: To deny both the landlord's and tenants' appeals. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

C. 236-1/2 San Jose Ave. U001-86R

The landlord's petition for certification of the costs of legalizing one unit were granted, in part, resulting in a total monthly passthrough in the amount of $534.25, subject to the 10% cap. The tenant appeals, asking that she be allowed to reserve her right to a future hardship claim at such time as she no longer can afford to pay the increase.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this appeal in order for staff to contact the tenant and obtain additional information regarding her financial situation.

D. 1439 Ocean Ave. #2 AT2K0002

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services because of the current owner's failure to mow the lawn, and maintain the garden and yard area of the property was denied. On appeal, the tenant asserts that: the estimates provided by the landlord of the cost of yard maintenance are unrealistic; she does not have exclusive use of the yard, since the downstairs tenant also has access; the overgrown condition of the yard constitutes a fire and safety hazard; and the lease provision that appears to place responsibility for upkeep of the yard on the tenant is subject to interpretation.

The tenants' appeal was filed sixteen days late because they were out of the country at the time the Decision was issued.

The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs to two units was granted, in part, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $67.41. Additionally, rent overpayments were determined for both units. The tenants in one unit appeal, claiming that: the landlord's petition was defective and should have been administratively dismissed; the tenants did not benefit from the window repair and those costs should not have been allocated to their unit; the exterior painting costs should have been amortized over ten years; and the landlord's notice of rent increase was defective and should have been determined to be null and void.

The landlord's petition for a rent increase based on comparable rents was denied. The tenant is the son of the original occupant of the unit, who has resided in the unit since 1973. On appeal, the landlord argues that: there is no authorization in the Ordinance for making building-wide determinations as to fair return; State law requires that the petitioner be allowed to prove comparable rents at the time the unit came under rent control; the tenant's mother's controlled rent ought not to be passed on to her son, regardless of when he began occupancy of the unit; Rules Section 6.14 is inapplicable, as the subject tenancy commenced many years prior to the enactment of that Section; and, at a minimum, the petitioner should be allowed to offer evidence as to market rent for such units in 1979, with the allowance of compounded annual increases since that time.

The tenant's petition alleging substantially decreased housing services was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant alleges that an emergency meeting at work prevented her appearance.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this case in order for staff to contact the tenant and obtain documentation of the work-related conflict that prevented her from appearing at the hearing.

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $4,221.00 due to lack of heat in the tenant's unit. Additionally, rent overpayments in the amount of $1,100.00 were determined to be owing from the landlord to the tenant. 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.

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:

A. A copy of the Rent Ordinance effective February 13, 2000 containing recent amendments regarding Ellis evictions and the change in job title from Hearing Officer to Administrative Law Judge.

B. A copy of the appeal decision in the case concerning 1935 Franklin St. #503 (T001-70A), heard and decided on October 19, 1999. Prior to discussion of this matter, the following motion was made:

After incorporating suggestions made by Commissioner Murphy, President Wasserman signed the Decision following the Board’s approval pursuant to the below motion:

A. Kevin Johnson, the tenant involved in the case at 350 Funston St. (AT2K0004), expressed his view that the Board had failed to follow the mandatory language of the Rules and Regulations in their disposition of his appeal.

B. Mae Young, the landlord in the above-referenced case at 350 Funston, explained to the Board that she had made a mistake in her notice of rent increase, but that she had since tried to rectify it.

C. Dimitri Agaroff, the tenant in the case at 486 Funston Ave. #302, informed the Board that he was 32 years old at the time he moved into the unit, and stated that he had started paying rent well prior to 1973, when his mother died.

Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that the only changes in this year’s budget request will be the addition of two clerical positions. The Commissioners then voted as follows:

February 22 & 29, 2000 - NO MEETINGS

March 7, 2000 - NO MEETING (Election Day)

March 14, 2000

Special Legislative Session: Rules Section 6.14/Costa-Hawkins

President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.