I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Marshall; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Hobson; Justman; Lightner; Mosser.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Murphy appeared on the record at 6:15 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Mary Ann Greb, one of the hardship appellants at 825 Bush St. (AT2K0138), informed the Board that she cannot afford to pay any rent increase and that going to school isn’t elective for her, it’s a necessity.
B. Christian Lackner, the tenant appellant in the case at 2526 Van Ness Ave. (AT2K0150), told the Commissioners that he submitted his rebuttal to the Administrative Law Judge’s Memorandum as early as possible. Mr. Lackner stated that the base rent amount in the Decision is incorrect because it includes a charge for a storage space, which is illegal and unavailable.
C. Karen Uchiyama, the attorney for the landlord appellant at 1670 Clay St. (AL2K0140 & AL2K0139), explained that she filed one of the appeals one day late due to what should be considered excusable neglect. She expressed her belief that the Decision in these cases is in violation of the Golden Gateway Decision, and that the conversion from steam to electric heat constituted an improvement to the property.
D. The tenant appellant in the case at 1501 - 46th Ave. (AT2K0149) said that, even if the landlord plants a new shrub outside the property, it will be small and of no protective value.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1670 Clay St. #5 AL2K0140
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services due to the conversion from landlord-provided steam heat to electric heat paid for by the tenant was granted, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $2,935.61, or $137.00 per month. On appeal, the landlords maintain that: the landlords are being penalized for having improved services to the building; the Administrative Law Judge erred in granting rent reductions during a period of time when there was adequate heat in the building; the result is prohibited by the Golden Gateway decision; capital improvement passthroughs petitioned for by the landlords are irrelevant and should not have been considered; the amount granted constitutes a windfall, results in an absurdly low rent and does not promote the policies and goals of the Rent Ordinance; and the Decision denies the landlords a fair return, is unconstitutional and constitutes a taking of the landlords’ property without just compensation.
Discussion of this appeal was continued to the next meeting in order for staff to report back on whether the formula used to calculate rent reductions due to a conversion from steam to electric heat takes into account temperature fluctuations, since a tenant would not always have to have the heat on in order to maintain a 68_ temperature in the unit.
B. 1670 Clay St. #7 & 8 AL2K0139
The landlord’s appeal was filed one day late because the landlord’s attorney mistakenly assumed that the Decision in this case was mailed on the same day as a Decision regarding another unit in the building, because both Decisions were given to her on the same day by her client.
The tenant in unit #7 filed a petition alleging unlawful increases in rent; decreased housing services due to the conversion from steam to electric heat, which the tenant now has to pay for; and an allegation that the heat was inadequate when the electric heater was first installed. The petition was granted as to the conversion from steam to electric heat and it was found that the heat was inadequate for 7.3 months. The landlords were therefore found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,963.95. Additionally, rent overpayments in the amount of $212.54 were determined to be owing from the landlords to the tenant. The tenants in unit #8 petitioned for a rent reduction due to the conversion and transfer of payment issue, and allege that the heat is dangerous and insufficient to heat the entire unit. These tenants also claim that the landlords have failed to repair peeling paint in the unit and otherwise failed to perform necessary repairs. The landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount of $762.62 pursuant to the decreased services claims concerning the heat; the failure to repair claim was determined to have been untimely filed. The landlords make the same arguments in appealing this case as cited above concerning unit #5 at the same property in appeal number AL2K0140, additionally asserting that the lease for unit #8 makes payment of utility bills the tenants’ responsibility.
Consideration of this appeal was continued to the meeting on October 3rd for the same reason specified in the discussion of the case at 1670 Clay St. #5 (AL2K0140), above.
C. 825 Bush St. #406 & 404 AT2K0137 & -38
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs for 33 of 43 units was granted. Two tenants appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #406 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of the tenant in unit #404 and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
D. 26 Belvedere St. AT2K0141; AL2K0143
The landlords’ petition for rent increases to two units based on increased operating expenses was granted, resulting in 7% base rent increases to the tenants in those units. Additionally, the landlord was found liable to the tenant in one unit for rent overpayments in the amount of $3,590.12. On appeal, the tenant asserts that: there is also a commercial unit in the building which should share in the apportionment of operating expenses; there is a mistake in the Decision as to the amount of his base rent; and the landlord is currently offering the tenant another Settlement Agreement and Release of claims pursuant to the Decision. The landlord also appeals, claiming that: the Administrative Law Judge failed to address a rent correction given in January, 1999, which was done immediately upon notice that the prior owner of the building may have imposed improper rent increases; the landlords and tenant entered into a Settlement Agreement in 1998 based on the amount the rent would have been had allowable annual increases been imposed through the years; and the current amount of rent that the tenant is paying is correct.
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was denied except that the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $15.00 per month due to ceiling leaks and $10.00 per month due to a temporary loss of access to the building’s garbage cans. On appeal, the tenants claim that: the landlord should be required to fortify the walls in the unit, because of an accident where an automobile crashed into the unit; an outside shrub was removed as a retaliatory measure; the placement of a window higher up on the wall affords less protection and loss of views; the tenants have been subjected to noise and harassment by the landlord and other tenants in the building; and the tenants’ access to the laundry room should be restored.
The tenant filed a petition alleging an unlawful rent increase because the tenant claimed that the landlord had failed to refund amounts found owing to him in a prior Decision; the tenant contended that he had not been properly served with the notice of rent increase; the tenant maintained that the notice was technically defective in that it did not itemize banked increases by year; and the tenant contended that the landlord was not entitled to restore a rent reduction for loss of storage space because improvements to the space had not been effectuated. On appeal, the tenant asserted that the amount of overpayments determined to be owing from the landlord were still incorrect; that he was not served with the notice of rent increase until several months later than the date determined in the Decision; and the full use of the storage space had not been restored. The tenant’s appeal was denied except that the case was remanded to the Administrative Law Judge only to correct the amounts owing from the landlord to the tenant. The tenant appeals the remand decision, claiming that since his base rent improperly includes the $50 charge for restoration of the storage space, this issue is subject to further appeal.
G. 2755 Bryant St. AL2K0135
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted only as to the landlords’ refusal to grant consent to a replacement roommate and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,952.32, or 50% of the tenant’s base rent. On appeal, the landlords maintain that withholding of consent was reasonable because the applicant, a foreign student, had no rental or credit history and only a limited work history, so that no background information could be obtained.
The landlord’s petition for an extension of time to do capital improvement work was denied because the landlord waited until March 1, 2000 to file the petition when he knew that the work would take longer than the original estimate as of November, 1999. On appeal, the landlord claims that he advised the Board, in writing, of the need for an extension to file the petition over three months before filing; and that the landlord was involved in a court proceeding concerning the property which was not concluded until March 23, 2000. Two tenants also appealed because they were not included in the landlord’s petition and therefore did not receive notice of the proceedings in this matter.
MSC: To accept the landlord’s appeal and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing to grant the petition after determining a reasonable period of time in which to complete the work; the landlord is advised that no further untimely filings will be tolerated. (Wasserman/Murphy: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
MSC: Regarding the tenants’ appeals, to advise the landlord that all tenants who resided in the building at the time construction commenced should be included in all future proceedings. (Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
I. 3144-46 - 22nd St. AL2K0144
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 3 of 4 units was granted only in part. The landlords appeal, asserting that: the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding that interior painting of units constituted repair work rather than capital improvement, since painting the inside of a structure helps to prolong its life just as painting the exterior does; work done to the vestibule and replacement windows constitute structural improvements which benefit the entire building; and the allocation method used by the Administrative Law Judge is unfair, as the units are of disparate size.
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A letter from Lynn Elman , the landlord appellant in the case at 436 B Haight St. (AL2K0113), which was considered at the Board meeting on September 5th. Ms. Elman maintains that the Board denied her appeal based on a belief that the Administrative Law Judge thoroughly reviewed the facts of the case when she does not believe that this occurred.
B. A copy of the "Five City Rent Stabilization and Housing Chronicles", put out by one of the Commissioners on West Hollywood’s Board.
C. A letter from landlord John Artal, complaining about what he felt were inappropriate comments in a Decision he recently received.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
E. The tenant appellant involved in the case at 1501 - 46th Ave. (AT2K0149) asked whether the Board had received an additional submission from he and his roommate.
F. Hardship appellant Mary Ann Greb of 825 Bush St. (AT2K0138) told the Board that she is requesting more than a 6-month deferral of the capital improvement passthrough, and is asking that she not be required to pay the increase until she obtains full-time employment.
VII. Calendar Items
September 26, 2000 - NO MEETING
October 3, 2000
11 appeal considerations
October 10, 2000 - NO MEETING
October 17, 2000
4 appeal considerations
October 19, 2000
Special Meeting: Fair Return
VIII. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m.