I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Aung; Becker; Gruber; Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Hobson; Mosser.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:19 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 910 Bay St., Apt. 6 AT010146
The tenant filed a petition alleging decreased housing services because of the loss of use of his parking and storage space in the building. The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the $55.00 rent reduction given the tenant by the landlords was a reasonable valuation for the lost services. The tenant appeals, claiming that: the landlords are not using the space themselves, as found by the Administrative Law Judge; replacement value for the parking space alone in the Fisherman’s Wharf neighborhood would be $200 to $250; and compensation based on 1977 rates is unrealistically low.
B. 1515 Sutter St. #253 AT010138
The tenant filed a petition seeking a determination as to the lawfulness of his base rent. The tenant had vacated his rent controlled apartment at the premises in order to become the resident manager of the building, and had moved to another unit pursuant to an employment contract. In so doing, the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant became a licensee, rather than a tenant entitled to the protections of the Rent Ordinance. Upon the termination of his employment contract, a new base rent in the amount of $1,000 per month was found to be lawful. The tenant appeals on the grounds that: the prohibition against a tenant’s waiver of rights under the Ordinance is unequivocal and there are no exceptions; the employment agreement did not alter the petitioner’s status as a tenant in the building, since he was entitled to the exclusive use and occupancy of the rental unit; upon having been fired without just cause, the tenant should have reverted to his pre-employment status and his rent controlled rent, or landlords will use employment as a pretext to rid themselves of unwanted tenants; and the landlord should be bound by the $800 rental amount listed on an invoice that was issued after termination of the employment contract.
At the October 2nd meeting, a motion to deny the appeal was made by Commissioner Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Gruber. However, after discussion, it was agreed to continue the case to the next meeting in order for Commissioner Justman to read the case of Chan v. Antepenko (1988 302 Cal.App.3d Supp. 21, 25).
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration of this appeal. (Gruber/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Murphy/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
C. 2188 Sutter St. AL010147
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 $2,464.00 due to habitability defects on the premises. On appeal, the landlord claims that: he was unable to make the necessary repairs while the tenant remained in the unit, since structural changes to the unit were required, and water and electricity would be temporarily disconnected; the tenant has not paid rent since December of 2000; and the landlord was out of the country at the time of the hearing and during the period for post-hearing submissions.
D. 895 Sutter #512 AT010148
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due to their failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenants claim to have misunderstood the Notice of Hearing because they had a relative in from out of town, which caused them to arrive for the hearing one and a half hours late.
MSF: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Lightner: 2-3; Becker, Marshall, Justman dissenting)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing with instructions that the tenants are not to miss the rescheduled hearing. (Becker/Justman: 4-1; Lightner dissenting)
E. 3792 - 21st St. AT010149
The tenant’s appeal was filed six days late because of the events of September 11th, which exacerbated the tenant’s existing health problems.
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services because of the rescission by the landlord of his right to use laundry and storage facilities on the premises was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that these services were not included as part of the tenant’s base rent at the inception of the tenancy. The tenant appeals on the grounds that: there was an exchange of services for the use of the laundry and storage facilities which was not taken into consideration by the Administrative Law Judge; the landlords had given him permission to use the facilities for the previous six years; the landlords had retaliatory motives; the Administrative Law Judge was influenced by the fact that the landlords are elderly in assessing credibility; and a prior roommate and witness for the tenant was unable to appear at the hearing.
F. 858 Filbert St. #3 AL010150
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $185.00 due to a leak in the bathroom. Additionally, an annual rent increase was deferred for one month due to the landlord’s failure to make required repairs. On appeal, the landlord claims that: there are factual errors in the decision; the delay in effectuating the repairs was partially caused by the tenants’ children being present in the unit and needing to use the bathroom; the leak problem was difficult to diagnose and resolve; there was never a time when the tenants were unable to use the shower; and the inconveniences suffered by the tenants were minor.
G. 614 & 620 Cole St. AL010151
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to the tenants in six units was dismissed due to the landlord’s failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. The landlord appeals only as to two units, claiming that he did not realize that he had to appear at the hearing, and that he was out of the country at the time of the hearing.
H. 365 Bay #3 AT010152
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed because she appeared 1/2 hour late for the hearing. The tenant appeals, claiming that the taxi she was riding in broke down on the day of the hearing.
V. Remarks from the Public
A. Whit Ashley, attorney for the landlord involved in the case at 910 Bay St. (AT010146), thanked the Board for their service to the public. Mr. Ashley told the Board that the public policy goals of the Ordinance should be considered when considering the merits of an appeal, in that the tenant in this case is not a low or moderate income individual, and allegedly has a home elsewhere.
B. Jerry Harris, the tenant at 3792 - 21st St. (AT010149), questioned why the Administrative Law Judge found all of his landlords’ testimony and evidence credible, but none of his; said that an individual is at a disadvantage before the Board if they can’t afford a lawyer; and said that he is willing to take a lie detector test to prove that he was told he could use the washer and dryer on the premises from the day he moved in.
C. The tenants involved in the case at 895 Sutter St. #512 (AT010148) inquired as to the disposition of their appeal.
VI. Public Hearing
Proposed Amendment to Rules and Regulations Section 6.10(e)
Goodwin v. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 317339)
A Public Hearing commenced at 7:27 p.m. and concluded shortly thereafter. The only speaker was Michelle Horneff, President of the Professional Property Managers’ Association, who inquired as to whether the proposed amendment changed the definition of "landlord" for purposes of operating and maintenance expense increases, and was informed that it did not. Rather, the proposed amendment makes it clear that only an owner who incurred an increase in expenses can file a petition for rent increase based on those expenses. Commissioner Lightner requested that consideration of the proposed amendment be continued to the next meeting, since she was out of the country when it was proposed. It was therefore the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this proposal under "Old Business" at the October 30th meeting.
VII. Communications
The Commissioners received correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, as well as a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing.
VIII. Calendar Items
October 23, 2001 - NO MEETING
October 30, 2001
10 appeal considerations
Old Business: Amendments to Rules and Regulations Section 6.10(e)
November 6, 2001- NO MEETING (Election Day)
November 13, 2001
1 appeal consideration