Tuesday, November
23, 1999 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; Marshall;
Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners
not Present: Lightner.
Staff
Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner
Justman appeared on the record at 6:15 p.m.
III. Consideration of Appeals
A. 227 - 7th St. U001-32A
The tenants petition
alleging decreased housing services in this live/work unit was granted, in
part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $5,530.00.
On appeal, the landlord explains his failure to appear at the hearing because
of a pressing business commitment; and asserts that the relevant lease agreement
between the parties is commercial and places responsibility for certain repairs
on the tenant.
After discussion, it was the
consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this case in order for
staff to contact the landlord and obtain a Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury
and documentation regarding the alleged business commitment that prevented
him from appearing at the hearing.
B. 36 Divisadero St. U001-48R
The landlords petition
for certification of capital improvement costs and for a 7.2% base rent increase
based on the Past Rent History of this Proposition I Affected Unit was granted.
The tenants appeal, asserting that: a 42.8% increase that took effect in 1990
should preclude the 7.2% increase, which is not mandatory given the language
of Rules Section 6.11(b); sums owing from the tenants to the landlords should
be offset against amounts owing from the landlords to the tenants in another
case pending before the Board; that the capital improvement cost allocation
is unfair, since the landlord has exclusive use of 60% of the building; and
that the roof work did not constitute a capital improvement.
MSC: To deny the
appeal except to remand the case to the hearing officer for a Technical
Correction regarding the base rent amount, if necessary. (Gruber/Murphy:
5-0)
C. 2195 Sacramento St. #301
& 303 U001-31A
The landlords petition
for certification of capital improvement costs to 15 of 16 units was granted.
Additionally, a 206.8% increase in rent to the tenants who jointly occupy
two units in the building was found to be unlawful. The landlords appeal only
that portion of the decision pertaining to the rent increase on the grounds
that: neither of the tenant petitioners are "tenants in occupancy"
in unit #303; the predominant use of that unit is commercial, and not residential;
the proper interpretation of the policy intent of the Ordinance is that a
tenant only have the protections of rent control in one apartment; the Decision
results in a "taking" of the landlords property without just
compensation; and the Decision is in violation of the Equal Protection doctrine
because landlords are held to having one principal place of residence, while
tenants are not.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner
Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Marshall/Wasserman: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the
appeal. (Hobson/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Murphy dissenting)
D. 656 OFarrell St.
#202 U001-49R
The tenants appeal was
filed thirty-five days late because the tenant was out of the country visiting
an ailing relative, and English is not his first language.
MSC: To find
good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
The landlords petition
for certification of capital improvement costs for fourteen of sixteen units
was granted. The tenants in one unit appeal 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)
E. 1573 - 48th Ave. #3 U001-47R
The tenants petition
alleging substantial decreases in housing services due to the loss of an outdoor
electrical outlet and faucet was granted, and the landlord was found liable
to the tenants in the amount of $780.00. On appeal, the tenants claim: misrepresentation
on the part of the landlord with regard to ownership of the property; that
the tenants were unable to cross-examine opposing witnesses; that hearsay
evidence offered by the landlord was improperly allowed into the record; that
the amounts granted are inadequate compensation; and that the hearing officer
should have disciplined the landlords attorney for threatening to file
a lawsuit against the tenants.
MSC: To deny the
appeal. (Gruber/Marshall: 5-0)
F. 466 Castro St. U001-33A
The tenants petition
alleging substantially decreased housing services was granted, and the landlord
was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,595.00 due to serious habitability
defects on the premises. On appeal, the landlord claims that he failed to
appear at the hearing because he got caught in accident-related traffic; that
the roof and gutter were repaired as of March, 1998; and that the back porch
does not have rotted floor boards.
MSC: To accept the
appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Murphy/Justman: 5-0)
G. 221 Noe St. #3 U001-50R
The tenants appeal was
filed thirteen days late because he did not receive a copy of the Decision
of Hearing Officer on Remand.
MSC: To find good
cause for the late filing of the appeal. Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
The landlords petition
for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. The landlords
appeal regarding the hearing officers discontinuation of passthroughs
that had been, in effect, "banked" was accepted, as was the tenants
appeal on the grounds of deferred maintenance. In the Decision on Remand,
the hearing officer reinstated the banked passthrough amounts, but denied
the tenants deferred maintenance claim. The tenant now appeals the remand
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)
H. 257 So. Van Ness Ave. U001-35A
The landlords petition
for exemption due to substantial rehabilitation and certification of capital
improvement costs was denied. On appeal, the case was remanded in order to
provide the landlords with another opportunity to properly document capital
improvement costs. In the Decision on Remand, a monthly passthrough in the
amount of $142.88 was approved for both units in this two-unit building. On
further appeal, the landlords assert that: the completion date for the last
item of work should be considered the completion date for all of the work,
since this was a large, complex renovation project of a building that was
"red-tagged" after the Loma Prieta earthquake; the hearing officer
consistently interpreted the Regulations in a way disfavorable to the landlords;
expenses that were incorrectly categorized should have been shifted to other
categories; Small Business Administration documents that support the landlords
claims were ignored by the hearing officer; and the landlords would have been
financially better off if they had demolished the building.
MSC: To deny the
appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
I. 367 Capp St. U001-34A
Two tenant petitions alleging
decreased housing services were granted, in part, and the landlord was found
liable to each tenant in the amount of $725.00 due to loss of a water supply
to the back yard and loss of access to the back yard from the street. On appeal,
the landlord claims that it is unfair to require that 30-day notice be given
to restore the prior base rent amount, when the water service was restored
several months ago; and that the base rent amount in the Decision is incorrect.
MSC: To accept the
appeal and remand the case to determine the date that the rent reductions
should terminate based on proof of restoration of the service and
for a Technical Correction regarding the base rent amount; a hearing
will be held only if necessary. (Murphy/Justman: 5-0)
J. 1040 Leavenworth St. #21 U001-51R
The tenants appeal was
filed three months late because she did not realize that the capital improvement
certification provisions of the Rent Ordinance are not applicable to recipients
of tenant-based rental assistance.
MSC: To find good
cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)
The landlords petition
for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. One tenant
appeals the decision because she is on Section 8, and the capital improvement
provisions of the Rent Ordinance do not apply to her unit.
MSC: To accept
the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record
to dismiss the petition as to this tenant due to the inapplicability
of the capital improvement provisions of the Ordinance to recipients
of tenant-based rental assistance. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)
IV. Communications
In addition to correspondence
concerning cases on the calendar, the Landlord Commissioners distributed a
proposed revision of Rules and Regulations Section 6.14 that they believe
conforms that Section to the requirements of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing
Act.
V. Calendar Items
November 30, 1999
- NO MEETING
December 7, 1999
9 appeal considerations
(2 cont. from 11/9/99)
6:30 Appeal Hearing:
2490 Bryant St. T001-81A
(rescheduled from 9/7/99)
VI. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned
the meeting at 7:35 p.m.