Commissioner Gruber appeared on the record at 6:16 p.m.; Commissioner Murphy arrived at the meeting at 6:26 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of August 1, 2000.
(Becker/Mosser: 3-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
Tenant Stanley Sim, involved in the case at 4220 Cesar Chavez Street (AT2K0127 thru -29), told the Board that he did not think it fair that he now has to pay for the landlord’s having done work that was promised to him prior to his having moved in. The tenant involved in the case at 466 Castro Street (AL2K0124) informed the Commissioners that the conditions at his building are worse than ever, even though the landlord has been brought before two Director’s Hearings at the Department of Building Inspection.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1418 Larkin #12 AT2K0018
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs for 8 of 12 units due to seismic work in the building was granted. One tenant appeals, alleging that a mistake as to his base rent amount in the notice of capital improvement passthrough should render the notice null and void.
MSC: To deny the appeal, except to remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record for a Technical Correction as to the correct amount of the tenant’s base rent, if necessary. (Becker/Wasserman: 3-0)
B. 995 Guerrero #3 AT2K0019
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increase was denied because the building was determined to be exempt as new construction in a prior Rent Board Decision and the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the issue was res judicata. The tenant appeals, claiming to have additional evidence proving that the property does not constitute new construction.
This appeal was withdrawn shortly before the meeting.
C. 1310 Sloat Blvd. AT2K0120
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs for one unit, a single family residence, was granted. The tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Wasserman: 3-0)
D. 2698 Filbert St. AL2K0121
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 4 of 6 units was granted. The landlord appeals the Administrative Law Judge’s allocation of the cost of rebuilding a porch to all 6 units in the building, asserting that: since there are several other exits from the building, use of the porch by other tenants to reach the roof in the event of an emergency is extremely unlikely; only one cable line goes through the porch; it is unfair to assess this charge against the other units in the building, since those tenants will probably never use this porch; and, at a minimum, he should be allowed to amend his petition to obtain compensation from the other tenants found to have benefited from the rebuilding of the porch.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to allow the landlord to amend his petition in order to allocate the cost of rebuilding the porch to all six units in the building. (Gruber/Wasserman: 3-0)
E. 466 Castro St. AL2K0124
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,595.00 due to serious habitability defects on the premises. The landlord’s appeal was accepted and the case was remanded for another hearing. In the Decision on Remand, the Administrative Law Judge found the majority of the conditions unabated and the landlord’s liability increased to $5,250.00 due to the passage of additional time since issuance of the first decision. The landlord again appeals, claiming that the Decision constitutes an abuse of discretion, in that it was not supported by the record or evidence provided by the parties.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Wasserman: 3-0)
F. 2112 Baker St. AT2K0122 & -23
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 2 of 3 units was granted. The tenants appealed on the grounds that they had not been afforded an opportunity to respond to one of the landlord’s post-hearing submissions, among other claims. The appeal was accepted only in order to give the tenants an opportunity to respond to the landlord’s submission, which they failed to do, so the decision remained unchanged on remand. The tenants now appeal the remand decision, providing evidence that they responded by referring the Administrative Law Judge to evidence they had previously submitted with their appeal.
MSC: To deny the appeals. (Murphy/Gruber: 3-1; Becker dissenting)
G. 1925 Chesnut St., Apt. 9 AT2K0125
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims not to have received notice of the hearing due to a defective mailbox, which was the claim in her petition.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Becker/Wasserman: 3-1; Gruber dissenting)
H. 1106 Plymouth Ave., Apt. 4
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services and an unlawful rent increase was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims that the electrical power service to his unit was interrupted the night before the hearing, so that his alarm clock failed to go off, and he overslept.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Becker/Wasserman: 4-0)
I. 4220 Cesar Chavez #425, 101 & 314 AT2K0127 thru -29
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 30 of 36 units was granted, in part. Twelve tenants appealed the Decision and the case was remanded to the Administrative Law Judge to determine which, if any, of the capital improvements were waived by the landlord at the hearing; whether the evidence that the roof door alarms were not installed as of the date of the hearing stands alone, or needs corroboration; and to examine whether the fire escape retrofit should be treated as a common area improvement. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the original decision should not be modified on remand. Three tenants appeal the remand decision. The tenant in unit #314 asserts that the estimator’s testimony is problematic and erroneous in several areas; that, to the tenants’ best knowledge, the doors were not replaced on the boiler storage room; and the landlord should not be entitled to interest since no funds were borrowed. The tenant in unit # 425 claims that the remand decision is in contravention of a previous decision granting the tenants rent reductions due to serious habitability problems on the premises; that the work does not constitute capital improvements; and the work was necessitated by the landlord’s deferred maintenance. The tenant in unit # 101 appeals on the ground of financial hardship and also asserts that: the estimator’s report is in error and the alarms were not installed until a day or two after the hearing; the electrical work in her unit was less extensive than the amount petitioned for, necessitated by neglect on the part of the landlord’s agent and constituted repair rather than capital improvement; and the tenants should not have to pay for remedying hazardous conditions that they suffered with for many years, and for which they were granted rent reductions.
MSC: To deny the appeal of the tenant in unit #314. (Murphy/Gruber: 3-1; Hobson dissenting)
MSC: To deny the appeal of the tenant in unit #425. (Murphy/Gruber: 3-1; Hobson dissenting)
MSC: To deny the appeal based on substantive objections of the tenant in unit #101. (Murphy/Gruber: 3-1; Hobson dissenting)
MSC: To accept the hardship appeal of the tenant in unit #101 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Wasserman/Gruber: 4-0)
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A letter from landlord Bill Quan regarding the appeal concerning the case at 730 Stockton St. #43 (AL2K0020), considered by the Board on April 4, 2000, stating that he has new evidence and asking that the Commissioners reconsider their denial of his appeal.
B. A letter from tenant Jason Sayler of 1572 - 36th Ave. (AT2K0116) supplementing his appeal, which was denied at the August 1st Board meeting.
C. The Annual Statistical Report on Filings at the Rent Board for the fiscal year1999-2000.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Commissioners that several landlord petitions seeking a Fair Return have been filed recently. Additionally, an Initiative that will be on the November ballot prohibits certification of capital improvement costs unless the landlord can prove that they are not receiving a fair return. It was the consensus of the Board that Rules and Regulations should be promulgated to address this issue. To that end, President Wasserman asked that staff prepare a packet for the Commissioners, including: a summary of important court cases in this area; copies of any such cases; and an outline of how other rent controlled jurisdictions handle this issue. She suggested that staff contact landlords who have petitions on file and ask if they wish to withdraw and re-file upon the adoption of Rules and Regulations.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
Landlord Lisa Ng asked several general questions regarding landlord-tenant law, including what a landlord should do when a tenant refuses to provide access to a rental unit.
VIII. Calendar Items
August 29, 2000 - NO MEETING
September 5, 2000
9 appeal considerations (4 cont. from 8/1/00)
6:30 Appeal Hearing: 123 Sanchez St. #8 (AT2K0083) (acpt. 6/20/00)
XI. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:08 .m.