I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at
6:10 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Aung; Becker; Gruber; Hobson;
Marshall; Mosser; Murphy; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Lightner appeared on the record at
6:14 p.m.; Commissioner Justman appeared at 6:16 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 4045-4047 Cabrillo St. AL020123
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to one unit was granted. However, rent overpayments in the
amount of $3,348.68 were determined to be owing from the landlord to the tenants.
Additionally, the notice of rent increase was found to have been given to
the tenants prior to the petition having been filed, so that any amounts paid
by the tenants for the capital improvement passthrough were ordered refunded.
The landlord appeals, claiming that the tenants had partially corrected the
errors made by the landlord regarding the anniversary date and amount of rent
increase; and that the notice of rent increase was dated prior to the petition’s
having been filed, but not served upon the tenants until afterwards.
B. 278 Page St. AL020125
The landlord’s appeal was filed one day late because
the landlord had surgery from which he is still recovering.
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial reduction
in housing services due to lack of access to a common dining room and den
was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount
of $2,281.25. On appeal, the landlord claims that the tenant is causing him
great mental and physical suffering; the decision exacerbates his financial
burdens; and he would be negatively impacted by having to increase the tenant’s
living space.
C. 2432 Fulton St. AT020126
The tenant filed a petition requesting a determination
as to whether the occupant is a "Tenancy in Occupancy" pursuant
to Rules and Regulations Section 1.21. The Administrative Law Judge found
that the subject unit appears to be used for storage purposes only, and that
the landlord is therefore entitled to an unlimited rent increase. The tenant
failed to appear at the properly scheduled hearing. On appeal, the tenant
claims that the decision is in error due to partial, withheld, and misleading
evidence, and that several weeks’ delay in processing mail is typical of the
tenant’s 27 years of employment as a physicist.
D. 455 Hyde St. #42 AL020121
The landlord filed a petition seeking a determination
as to whether any of the tenants are "Tenants in Occupancy" pursuant
to Rules Section 1.21, and whether a rent increase is justified pursuant to
Rules Section 6.14 and/or Costa-Hawkins. The Administrative Law Judge found
that since the original tenant was only temporarily absent from the unit to
take care of an ill relative, no rent increase was warranted. On appeal, the
landlord claims that the facts do not support the decision in that: the tenant
owns property in San Jose, where he lives with his family; the tenant provided
no documentary evidence that the subject unit is his principal place of residence;
the decision is based entirely on the tenant’s testimony; and the tenant has
evidenced no intent to return to the subject unit.
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based
on comparable rents was granted, and a rent increase from $930.00 to $1,650.00
was approved. The landlord was also found liable to the tenants in the amount
of $59.52 due to a one-month overpayment in rent. The Administrative Law Judge
found that the prior resident manager of the building had approved the tenants’
exchanging units in the building at the same rent, but lacked the authority
to do so, which constituted fraud or "some other reason" for the
tenants’ rent having been set low. The tenants’ appeal of the portion of the
decision allowing the comparables rent increase was accepted at the October
30, 2001 Board meeting and remanded with the sense of the Board that no comparables
rent increase was warranted in this case. The landlord’s appeal was also remanded
on the issue of allowable banking only. In the Decision on Remand, the comparables
increase is denied, but banking is allowed back to 1995, which was the commencement
date of the assigned tenancy. The landlord appeals the remand decision, asserting
that: if a tenant asks to be moved into a new unit in the same building, a
new tenancy is created in that unit and the length of occupancy in that unit
is determinative for purposes of a comparables increase; there have been only
negligible rent increases since the unit was last empty, so the initial rent
was set very low; a special relationship can be inferred between the tenants
and the prior resident manager; new evidence submitted at the comparables
hearing was ignored; the case of Vega v. City of West Hollywood requires
that there be a mechanism for an owner to receive market rent at the time
the unit comes under rent control; the Administrative Law Judge heard all
the evidence and her original decision should not have been disturbed; the
decision is in error as to the inception date of the assigned tenancy; and
there were no unlawful rent increases by the current or prior owner.
MSC: To recuse Commissioners Lightner and Becker
from consideration of this appeal. (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
to the Administrative Law on the issue of the rent history; to grant
the rent increase based on comparables approved in the first Decision
on Remand prospectively only; and to waive any retroactive amounts that
would be owed by the tenants due to the comparables rent increase being
approved.
F. 1620 Grove St. AT020124
The landlord’s petition for rent increases to two
units based on increased operating expenses was granted. The tenant in one
unit appeals on the grounds that the decision is mistaken regarding the anniversary
date for her annual rent increase.
V. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on
the calendar, the Commissioners received the office workload statistics for
the month of May 2002.
VI. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that Supervisor
Peskin’s legislation changing the way that interest on security deposits is
calculated passed on First Reading at the Board of Supervisors. The legislation
has been amended to remove any retroactive provisions. The Rent Board will
post the interest rate annually. Mr. Grubb also told the Commissioners that
the departmental budget would be heard at the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday,
June 19th.
VII. Calendar Items
June 25, July 2 & July 9, 2002 - NO MEETINGS
July 16, 2002
8 appeal considerations
VIII. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:50
p.m.