September 07, 1999

Landlord Peter Lewis expressed his belief that the Minutes failed to reflect the fact that many landlords, especially Chinese landlords, appeared in opposition to the Leno legislation. He was informed that all comments from members of the public appearing at a meeting of the Rent Board are summarized in the Minutes. Tom Ramm from the Small Property Owners’ Association took issue with certain comments in a letter Executive Director Grubb wrote that was published in the Bay Area Reporter and complained regarding the untimely processing of his O&M petition.

The tenants’ petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $1,363.45. On appeal, the landlord asserts that there is a calculation error in the decision and that it is unclear whether the amount is to be collected by the tenants’ deducting from their monthly rent payment, or in a lump sum.

The tenants’ appeal was filed 2-1/2 months late because the tenants, who claim not to have received the notice of rent increase referenced in the Decision of Hearing Officer, had no way of knowing that the Decision was in error until receipt of a subsequent notice of rent increase.

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted. The tenants in one unit appeal the decision, claiming that since they failed to receive notice, the Decision of Hearing Officer is in error as to the effective date of the rent increase.

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was denied because the hearing officer found that the tenant, who came into possession of the unit as the caretaker of the prior tenant, was not an "original tenant" as defined by Rules and Regulations Section 6.14. The tenant appeals, asserting that: building management knew that she was residing on the premises and paying rent as early as 1996; the fact that she was also employed by her roommate does not negate the fact that she had established tenancy status; and that the landlord’s 6.14 notice was not timely served, as it was issued more than 2-1/2 years after the landlord had notice that the appellant resided on the premises.

The tenant in unit #100 filed her appeal 3 days late because she was allegedly advised by a Rent Board staff member that only calendar days count when calculating the appeal deadline.

The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 44 out of 75 units was granted, in part. The tenant in unit #409 appeals on the grounds of financial hardship and asserts that the effective date for the passthrough in the decision is incorrect because she failed to receive the notice of rent increase. The tenants in unit #410 and #100 also appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. The landlord appeals on the issue of the application of the "Six Month Rule" {Rules Section 7.12(b)} to the seismic work, contending that the engineering firm having been authorized to prepare seismic plans did not constitute the "start of work."

The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted and the landlords were found liable in the amount of $8,200.00 due to serious habitability problems on the premises. The landlords failed to appear at the hearing after their request for postponement was denied. On appeal, the landlords asked that the case be remanded, alleging that there were extenuating circumstances that prevented their appearance at the hearing; that the problems were caused by the tenants; and that the tenants failed to provide access so that repairs could be effectuated.

The landlords’ appeal was filed 3-1/2 months late because, allegedly, the landlord who read the decision became too distraught to finish reading the decision and therefore was unaware of the deadline for filing an appeal.

No good cause for late filing having been found, the Decision is final.

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted. The tenant appealed on the grounds of financial hardship. At the meeting on August 17th, the Commissioners requested that staff ascertain whether or not the tenant had a roommate and, if not, whether the landlord had not allowed the tenant to get a replacement roommate.

The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparable rents was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed continued hearing. On appeal, the landlord’s counsel alleges that he failed to receive notice of the hearing, and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services and an unlawful increase in rent was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims that she was unable to appear because of having undergone surgery three days prior to the hearing and states that her husband arrived ten minutes after the case had been dismissed.

The Deputy Director informed the Board that this case was again continued to the October 5th meeting because the parties are engaged in settlement negotiations, with the provision that no further continuances will be granted.

The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases in rent was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $9,814.92. On appeal, the landlord claims that the building was owner-occupied and therefore exempt for a portion of the period in question, and that the decision is in error regarding the amount of rent paid by the tenant.

At the request of the attorneys for both sides, the hearing on this case was taken off calendar until after November 15th in order for the parties to enter into settlement negotiations.

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the office monthly workload statistics for July, 1999.

Deputy Director Wolf gave the Commissioners a Memorandum with proposed language authored by Senior Hearing Officer Tim Lee that would conform the procedures for obtaining consent to a replacement roommate in the event of an absolute prohibition against subletting with the current procedures outlined in Rules Section 6.15. This issue will be discussed at the meeting on Sept. 21st.

September 14, 1999 - NO MEETING

September 21, 1999

9 appeal considerations

7:00 Public Hearing: "De Minimus Rule" & Commissioner Compensation

Old Business: Proposed Amendment to Rules Section 6.15 in Conformity with the Leno Legislation

President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.