October 24, 1995

I. Call to Order

President L. Becker called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners Present: L. Becker; Gruber; How; Lightner; Marshall; Nash; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: B. Becker; Hayden; Steane.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

III. Executive Session

The Commissioners went into Executive Session with Deputy City Attorney Mariam Morely pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) from 6:10 to 6:20 p.m. to discuss the case of Hislop v. S.F. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 961-976).

IV. Old Business

The Commissioners briefly discussed the Costa-Hawkins Bill (AB 1164) with Deputy City Attorney Mariam Morely, focusing on the questions that they wish her to address in writing.

V. Consideration of Appeals

A. 833 - 14th St. Q001-14A

The landlord filed a petition for rent increases for two units based on the past rent histories of newly covered units under Proposition I. A 15.2% increase was granted for one of the units in the building. However, no increase was allowed for the other unit because the tenant had voluntarily increased his own rent in 1994. On appeal, the landlord maintains that he should not be punished for a rent increase that he did not impose and that was proffered by the tenant to help offset the costs of the installation of a new furnace in his unit.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this case to the next meeting in order for staff to explore settlement possibilities with the parties.

B. 626 Hayes St. Q001-13A

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to three newly covered units under Proposition I was granted, in part. Pursuant to Rules Section 7.12(b), the passthrough of costs was disallowed to the tenants in one unit, who had moved in prior to or within six months of the work having been performed. On appeal, the landlord asserts that the six-month Rule should be waived in this case because he had not set the initial rent for the unit at a level high enough to recoup the costs of the work, because he knew he would be able to raise the rent without limitation at a future point in time.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Wasserman: 4-1; Lightner dissenting)

C. 2038 Leavenworth St. Q001-15A

The landlord’s petition for increases based on the past rent histories of newly covered units under Proposition I and certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. The landlord appeals the portion of the hearing officer’s decision finding that proper notice of the capital improvement passthrough had been given but that proper notice of the comparables increase had not. On appeal, the landlord asserts that notice of both had properly been given at the same time and on the same notice.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer for a technical correction on the issue of the legality of the notice of rent increase.
(Lightner/Marshall: 5-0)

D. 63 Paramount Terr. Q001-16A

The tenants’ petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent and a substantial decrease in housing services was granted. The landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $210.00 due to unpleasant odors in the unit due to problems with the sewer system. Additionally, the landlord was found liable in the amount of $644.00 due to a $26.00 per month rent increase which was found to be null and void. The hearing officer found that the current occupants of the unit had established a new tenancy at a monthly rent of $1,350.00 while the landlord asserts that the tenancy is a continuing one at a rent of $1,416.00 per month. On appeal, the landlord asserts that there is no new tenancy because notice was not given under Rules Section 6.14.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the same hearing officer for a hearing on the issue of whether the tenancy was terminated, regardless of whether the tenants had vacated the unit. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)

E. 3044 Webster St. Q001-18R

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services and the landlord’s failure to repair was granted, in part. The landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $962.50 and the annual rent increase was ordered deferred due to several habitability defects on the premises. The tenant appeals the portion of the decision that finds that the bathroom ceiling and leak had been repaired, stating that the repairs only lasted for a period of four weeks.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing on the issue of the bathroom ceiling and leak repairs. ((Marshall/L. Becker: 5-0)

VI. Calendar Items

October 31 & November 7, 1995 - NO MEETINGS

November 14, 1995
9 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 10/24/95)
Old Business: Costa-Hawkins Bill (AB 1164)
New Business: Ellis Act Amendments

VII. Adjournment

President L. Becker adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.