Tuesday, January 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. at
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70, Lower Level
I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly; Gruber; Hobson;
Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Mosser; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Wolf.
Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:10
p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
MSC: To approve the Minutes of December 21, 1999 with the following
correction: under Directors Report, the legislation sponsored
by Supervisor Ammiano would raise relocation payments to low-income
tenants displaced pursuant to an Ellis eviction to $4,500.00. However,
the $3,000 payment to elderly and disabled tenants is already required
by the Ordinance.
(Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
IV. Remarks from the Public
Marcella Barron, a tenant involved in the case at 4220 Cesar Chavez (U001-57R
thru -68R) informed the Board that the tenants attorney was unable to
appear at the meeting due to prior commitments. She referred to several contentions
in the tenants appeal, and informed the Commissioners that she has not
received several of the recently mailed documents in the case.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 765 Sutter St. #206 U001-41R
(cont. from 11/9/99)
The landlords petition for certification of the costs of new kitchen
vinyl floors and seismic upgrading of the building to 17 of 24 units was granted,
resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $49.43. One tenant appealed
the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. Consideration of this appeal
was continued from the meeting on November 9, 1999 in order for staff to advise
the tenant that a co-tenant, currently away from the unit, must also file
a Hardship Application.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Marshall
dissenting)
B. 2244 - 2252 15th St. U001-44A
The landlords petition for certification of the costs of seismic
retrofit of the building and addition of a residential and commercial parking
garage was granted, in part. On appeal, the landlords claim that: the garage
should not be considered a separate unit for purposes of allocation of the
retrofit costs, because the estimator already removed the costs of creating
the parking area when valuing the retrofit work; and the parking area is also
used as a basement, and therefore is of benefit to the tenants;
MSC: To deny the appeal except to remand the case to the hearing
officer for a Technical Correction regarding the effective date
of the notices of rent increase. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Gruber,
Lightner dissenting)
C. 4220 Cesar Chavez U001-57 thru -68R
The landlords petition for certification of capital improvement
costs to 26 out of 36 units was granted, in part. Twelve tenants appeal the
decision, asserting that: certain items of work were waived by the landlord
at the hearing, but the costs were certified in the decision; alarms on the
roof doors were not installed until after the date of the hearing; documentary
evidence provided by the tenants in a prior decrease in services case prove
that the work was necessitated by the current landlords deferred maintenance;
discrepancies in the estimators report undermine the credibility of
the entire report; and, to be consistent with the prior case, the fire escapes
should be considered common area improvements.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this
case. (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeals and remand the case to the hearing
officer on the record 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 whether it needs corroboration;
and to examine whether the fire escape retrofit should be treated
as a common area improvement. (Marshall/Hobson: 5-0)
D. 105 Grattan St. U001-42A
The tenants petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was granted,
and the Master Tenant was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $372.00.
The Master Tenant and tenant had resided in the unit with one other occupant.
When that occupant moved out, the Master Tenant decided to restrict the occupancy
of the unit to two persons only, and raised the tenants rent to reflect
a payment of 1/2 rather than 1/3 of the rent (a 49% rent increase). The Master
Tenant bases her appeal on contradictions between statements made by the hearing
officer at the hearing, and the ultimate Conclusions of Law reached in the
Decision; alleges that both parties benefited by having fewer people living
in the unit; and maintains that if the tenant had not agreed to pay the increased
amount, the Master Tenant would have found another place to live.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
E. 2250 - 31st Ave. U001-54R
The tenants petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent from
$883.15 to $1,750.00 based on Costa-Hawkins was denied. The subject premises
is a single family dwelling with a non-conforming in-law unit. Since the entire
premises was rented to the tenant, and the tenant converted the downstairs
room into a day care center, the hearing officer determined that the property
is exempt from Rent Board jurisdiction because it is alienable separate from
the title to any other dwelling unit and the tenancy commenced after January
1, 1996. On appeal, the tenant claims that, since there are two units in the
building, it is not exempt and the increase is unlawful.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Justman/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Marshall
dissenting)
F. 1550 Fillmore St. #500 U001-55R
The landlords petition for certification of capital improvement
costs to 15 out of 52 units was granted, in part. One tenant appeals the decision
on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing
on the tenants claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
G. 1674 - 22nd Ave. U001-45A
The tenants petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was
granted and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount of
$6,433.18. On appeal, the landlords claim that: the landlord who had knowledge
of the facts was sick on the day of the hearing and could not appear; the
$85.00 rent increase was actually a charge for the garage that the tenants
had failed to pay for four years; and the decision contains inaccuracies put
forward as facts by the tenants.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
H. 1010 Bush St. #105 U001-56R
The tenant’s appeal was filed thirteen days late because the person who
had the additional evidence that the tenant needed was out of town.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.
(Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
The tenants petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent and
substantially decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was
found liable to the tenant in the amounts of $1,059.39 and $305.46 respectively.
On appeal, the tenant submits additional evidence that purports to demonstrate
long-term notice to the landlord regarding the conditions in her unit.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Marshall
dissenting)
I. 362 Pierce St. U001-43A
The landlords petition for certification of capital improvement
costs to all six units in the building was granted, in part. Additionally,
a determination was made that, since the landlords had accepted rent from
one of the tenants in the unit for five months prior to serving her with a
notice pursuant to Rules Section 6.14, they could not increase the rent to
"market" now that the last of the original tenants has vacated the unit. On
appeal, the landlords submit an itemized breakdown per unit regarding the
structural pest work and receipts for the cost of low-flow toilets, which
costs were found to be insufficiently documented by the hearing officer. On
appeal, the landlords also claim that they served the tenant with a 6.14 notice
within 60 days of her moving into the unit, although the tenant says that
she did not receive the notice.
MSC: As to the landlord’s appeal in Case No. L980201, regarding
certification of capital improvement costs: to remand the case to
the hearing officer to consider the additional evidence regarding
the cost of the low-flow toilets; and to allocate costs of the pest
work that is structural to all units, even if the work was done
in individual units. A hearing will be held only if necessary. (Lightner/Gruber:
5-0)
MSF: As to the landlord’s appeal in Case No. L980194 regarding
a 6.14 determination: to deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: Gruber,
Lightner, Justman dissenting)
MSC: As to the landlord’s appeal in Case No. L980194 regarding
a 6.14 determination: to accept the appeal and remand the case to
the hearing officer for a new hearing on the issues of waiver and
estoppel and with instructions that the 5-month time period is not
dispositive. (Justman/Lightner: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
VI. Communications
The Board received a draft copy of the Appeal Decision regarding the
case at 1935 Franklin Street #503 (T001-70A), heard and decided on October
19, 1999, for possible approval at the January 18th meeting. The Board also
received a new copy of the Rules and Regulations, with amended Section 6.15.
VII. Directors Report
Deputy Director Wolf informed the Board that Executive Director Grubb
was ill.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
The landlords involved in the case at 1674 - 22nd Ave. (U001-45A) asked
what happens if someone disagrees with the Board’s disposition of an appeal,
and also asked how a landlord can communicate with their tenants. An individual
said that his parents are giving him a one-half interest in a building so
that he can move in, and asked how he should go about it.
VIII. Calendar Items
January 11, 2000 - NO MEETING
January 18, 2000
9 appeal considerations
6:30 Appeal Hearing: 2490 Bryant St. T001-81A
(rescheduled from 12/7/99)
IX. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.