I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at
6:05 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber;
Hobson; Lightner; Marshall; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Mosser.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Justman appeared on the
record at 6:35 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Remarks from the Public
1. Janan New, Director of the S.F. Apartment Association,
informed the Board that their organization has been deluged with calls regarding
the effects of Proposition H. She asked the Board for guidance as to what
to tell property owners, many of whom will not be able to prove that they
are not receiving a fair return under the standard mandated by Prop. H.
She said that small property owners will not be able to pay the bills for
necessary work.
2. Tenant Angelique Duvall also asked about the
impacts of Prop. H, and said that tenants too are living with uncertainty.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 745 Haight St. #6 AT2K0181
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase
from $709.29 to $1,150.00 was denied because the Administrative Law Judge
found that the increase was justified pursuant to Costa-Hawkins and that the
landlord had served a valid 6.14 notice. A decrease in services claim regarding
an inoperable oven was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant
in the amount of $240.00. On appeal, the tenant maintains: that she is a subsequent
occupant of the unit whose roommate moved out prior to April 25, 2000; that
she received the 6.14 notice 62 days after the landlord had knowledge of her
presence on the premises, which is untimely; and that she was forced to eat
out during the time period when she did not have a working oven, which cost
considerably more than $1.90 per day.
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 53 of 70 units was granted, in part. The tenant in unit
#200 appeals the decision, asserting that: the work was the result of deferred
maintenance; and the landlord purchased the building in 1984, and not 1992,
as stated in the Decision. The tenant in unit #204 also appeals on the issue
of the date of the landlord’s purchase of the building; and claims that the
amount of the increase is not consistent with the original petition. This
tenant also provides evidence that the requisite 30-day notice of rent increase
was not provided.
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses
for 3 of 5 units was granted. The tenants in two units appeal the decision
on the grounds of financial hardship.
The landlords’ appeal was filed two days late because
the landlords relied on the postmark date, rather than the date the Decision
was mailed by the Rent Board.
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services
due to the loss of their garage space was granted and the landlords were found
liable to the tenants in the amount of $100.00 per month. The tenants’ claim
for rent reduction due to the landlord’s interference with their right to
have pets in the unit was denied because the tenants’ two cats are still in
the unit. The landlords were cautioned, however, that the former owners had
waived the "no pets" provision in the lease. On appeal, the landlords
claim that the tenants provided fabricated evidence; that the tenants "know"
people at the Rent Board and there was improper influence; and that the landlords
do not speak English sufficiently well to adequately have represented themselves.
E. 2395 - 34th Ave., Apt. 7 AT2K0186
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs was granted. The tenant’s appeal was accepted and remanded
for hearing only on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. The tenant’s
claim was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant
had provided no evidence that she is medically unable to work during the summers,
when she is not teaching; and, even with the capital improvement passthrough,
the tenant’s income to rent ratio is lower than when she moved in to the subject
unit. The tenant appeals the remand decision, claiming that: she would like
to teach during the summer months, but does not have the opportunity to do
so; the Administrative Law Judge did not request evidence of her medical condition,
which she now provides on further appeal; she does not receive regular financial
assistance from her son; the ALJ exhibited bias against her; the figures in
the Decision regarding her income are incorrect; and one of her classes for
next year has been cut, so her income will be even lower.
The tenants in two units filed petitions alleging
unlawful rent increases, which were granted because the Administrative Law
Judge found that the premises are not exempt as new construction or as having
been substantially rehabilitated. On appeal, the landlords argue that: although
the landlords never filed a petition for exemption pursuant to substantial
rehabilitation, the building meets the criteria for such exemption; the Rent
Ordinance does not require that such a petition be filed, nor impose any time
limits on such filing; the Department of Building Inspection acknowledged
and authorized the creation of new units in 1987, based on the demolition
and rebuilding of a single family dwelling into a two-unit structure; Section
37.9A(b) does not apply to this case, because the tenants who resided in the
property were not evicted pursuant to the Ellis Act; the landlords’ failure
to immediately acknowledge exemption status does not constitute a waiver of
the right to assert exemption; and the newly issued Certificate of Occupancy
is sufficient to exempt the building from Rent Board jurisdiction.
The tenant filed a petition alleging that the master
tenant, to whom he paid rent, improperly increased his rent in excess of the
amount that was being paid to the landlord. The Administrative Law Judge denied
the petition, finding that the basement was not a separately rented commercial
space but, rather, part of the rental unit. Therefore the amount paid for
the basement was properly part of the base rent and the Master Tenant was
collecting no more rent from the subtenants than the amount he was paying
to the landlord. On appeal, the tenant claims that: the Administrative Law
Judge ignored the Master Tenant’s own statement that the basement rent is
separate and distinct from the rent paid for the unit; the ALJ failed to request
that the Master Tenant provide a copy of the lease agreement; and that canceled
checks are insufficient proof.
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 11 of 21 units was granted, in part. One tenant appeals
the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. The landlord appeals as
to the disallowance of three separate items of work done to the building’s
elevator systems, consisting of a new hydraulic jack assembly, rebuilt pump,
and new elevator door motor. The landlord asserts that: these items are not
repairs but constitute capital improvements, since they materially add to
the value of the building and prolong the life of the elevator, which is part
of the property; work that only needs to be done every thirty years or so
cannot be considered routine repair and maintenance; and the Decision does
not provide an incentive for landlords to maintain, improve and renovate their
properties, a stated policy goal of the Ordinance.
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 11 of 15 units was granted, in part. One tenant appeals
the certification of the cost of new hall light fixtures, claiming that the
original light fixtures were fully functional and did not need replacement;
and that the cost of the replacement fixtures is excessive.
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 24 of 32 units was granted. Two tenants appeal the decision
on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: As to the tenant in unit #1A, to accept
the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of
financial hardship. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
MSC: As to the tenant in unit #32, to accept
the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of
financial hardship. The trust documents must be provided in order to
determine whether the corpus can be invaded for the health and welfare
of the beneficiary. (Marshall/Becker: 4-1; Lightner dissenting)
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on
the calendar, the Commissioners received a copy of the Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the case
of Quigg v. City and County of San Francisco (Superior Court Case No.
316928), which challenges the legality of Proposition H.
VII. Old Business
Fair Return/Implementation of Prop. H
Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that Deputy
City Attorney Marie Blits has been out with pneumonia for the last two weeks,
which has delayed that office’s response to a Memorandum he sent outlining
four questions having to do with the implementation of Proposition H. They
will try and have something for next week’s meeting. Commissioner Becker urged
the Board to begin drafting Regulations, which Commissioner Murphy said would
be "impossible." Commissioner Lightner stated her opinion that there
are many policy questions to be debated first. Commissioner Justman said that
he doesn’t think the Board should do something that would affect the litigation;
Commissioner Marshall stated her belief that not trying to implement the Proposition
also affects the litigation. Mr. Grubb will convey a sense of urgency to the
Office of the City Attorney.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
3. Landlord’s representative Andy Braden, involved
in the case at 610 & 660 Clipper St. (AL2K0191), told the Board he was
disappointed that the case was sent back for more fact-finding, since he
considers the issue to be a policy call. He expressed his belief that the
Board’s current policy regarding the passthrough of elevator work contradicts
the Ordinance, and said that the Board needs to provide guidance on this
issue.
4. Tenant Sandra Finnegan said that landlords shouldn’t
be distressed at not being able to pass through the costs of capital improvements
when they get tax breaks and other relief, including reducing potential
liability.
VIII. Calendar Items
December 5, 2000
9 appeal considerations
Old Business: Fair Return/Implementation of Prop.
H