November 14, 1995

I. Call to Order

President L. Becker called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m.

II. Roll Call

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

Commissioner Marshall appeared on the record at 5:50 p.m.

III. Approval of the Minutes

MSC: To approve the Minutes of October 17, 1995.
(Lightner/Gruber: 4-0)

MSC: To approve the Minutes of October 24, 1995.
(Gruber/Lightner: 4-0)

IV. Consideration of Appeals

A. 736 Dolores St. Q001-18A

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,378.00 due to the loss of use of a washer and dryer on the premises, restricted use of the common back yard, and discontinuance of a security alarm service. The landlords appeal, asserting that: the problem with use of the back yard has to do with a personality conflict between the petitioner and the occupants of another unit in the building; the tenant has been compensated for the discontinuance of the alarm service because the landlords failed to impose the full amount of annual rent increase they were entitled to; use of the washer and dryer was allowed as a courtesy and were not housing services provided in conjunction with the tenancy; and a permanent rent reduction for loss of the washer and dryer does not reflect the agreement of the parties that use of the machines would terminate once the appliances were no longer operational.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer, on the record if possible, to make an equitable and final determination of the remaining life span of the washer and dryer and grant an appropriate rent reduction, not to include the tenant’s time spent in doing the laundry; to deny as to all other issues. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)

B. 470 Collingwood St. Q001-17A

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part, by the hearing officer. The landlord appeals the portion of the decision finding that window replacement in unit #9 benefited the tenants in that unit only. The landlord argues on appeal that the window replacement constituted a structural improvement which benefited all of the units in the building because the elimination of air and water leakage halted further deterioration of the building.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record to clarify the reason for determining that the window replacement in unit #9 benefited the tenants in that unit only, or, if it is determined that the window replacement constituted a structural improvement, to make necessary corrections to the decision.
(Gruber/L. Becker: 5-0)

C. 2201 Laguna St. #609 Q001-20R

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was denied because the rent increase at issue was found by the hearing officer to be within limitations. The tenant appeals, that the landlord can only increase the rent as of November, which has been the landlord’s practice in the past. Additionally, the tenant maintains that the increase should be determined to be null and void because the landlord incorrectly stated that he was imposing a "banked", as opposed to an "annual" increase; that an increase granted due to increased operating expenses should nullify any banking rights the landlord might have had; and that the hearing officer was biased because she had granted the landlord’s operating expense petition.

MSC: To deny the appeal, except for a technical correction as to the date the hearing was held. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)

D. 1209 Waller St. Q001-19R

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement work in one unit of the building was granted, in part, resulting in a $252.68 monthly passthrough to the tenants in that unit (subject to the 10% "cap"). The tenants appeal the decision, asserting that: the landlord defrauded the estimator by showing receipts that were actually for work to a different unit; much of the work was necessitated by the landlord’s deferred maintenance which resulted in code violations; the landlord should not be entitled to interest on his own uncompensated labor costs; and, since much of the work resulted from a lawsuit and settlement agreement between the parties, allowing the landlord to pass through the costs negates the benefits of the settlement to the tenants.

MSF: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 2-3; L. Becker, Hayden, Marshall dissenting)

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record to delete the allowance of interest on the landlord’s uncompensated labor and recalculate the allowable passthroughs accordingly. (Hayden/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

E. 833 - 14th St. Q001-14A
(cont. from 10/24/95)

The landlord filed a petition for rent increases for two units 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 maintained 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. At their meeting on October 24th, the Commissioners continued this matter in order for staff to contact the parties and explore settlement possibilities. The landlord has since rescinded the 1994 increase and refunded the amounts paid by the tenant in full.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record on the issue of the proposed comparables increase based on past rent history. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)

E. 1214 Newhall St. Q001-19A

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $4,530.00 due to serious habitability defects on the premises. The landlord, who failed to appear at the hearing, appeals on the grounds that he failed to receive notice of the hearing. Attached to his appeal is the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.

MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)

F. 2689-2699 Bryant St. Q001-20A

The tenant’s petition alleging decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,080.00 due the lack of heat in the unit, bathroom ceiling leaks and inadequate security due to the condition of the front and back doors to the unit. On appeal, the landlords allege that the tenant failed to provide access to the unit in order for a replacement heater to be installed; and that a letter purportedly putting the landlords on notice of the heat problem was never received by the landlords and casts doubts on the petitioner’s credibility.

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

G. 15 Noe St., Apt. B Q001-21A

This matter was settled between the parties and the appeal was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

I. 725 Corbett St. #11 Q001-22A

The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $818.75 ($225.00 per month) due to severe leaking and resulting water damage in the unit. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: the hearing officer granted an amount that is excessive, especially for a period of time when the problem was partially remedied; the amount granted is greater than that requested in the tenant’s petition; the tenant limited the landlord’s access to the unit by insisting on being present when work was being performed; and that the unusually wet winter prevented the roof work from being done expeditiously, which was beyond the landlord’s control.

MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Hayden: 5-0)

V. Communications

The Commissioners received copies of several pleadings in the case of Hislop v. S.F. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 972898), currently on appeal by the Rent Board.

VI. Director’s Report

Executive Director Grubb discussed a letter from the Mayor to commission presidents and department heads setting out budget directives for the next fiscal year. Specific guidelines for City departments include: a 15% reduction in staff to be phased in over a 3-year period; greater contracting out of services currently performed by City employees; permanent elimination of all vacant positions; etc.

VII. Old Business

A confidential memorandum from Deputy City Attorney Mariam Morely regarding the provisions of the Costa-Hawkins Bill (AB 1164) will be received by the Board prior to the next meeting.

VIII. New Business

Commissioners Marshall and Lightner volunteered to work with Senior Hearing Officer Sandy Gartzman on possible amendments to eviction procedures under Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(13) and Rules Section 12.18 (Ellis).

IX. Calendar Items

November 21, 1995 - NO MEETING

November 28, 1995
2 appeal considerations
Old Business: Costa-Hawkins Bill (AB 1164)

X. Adjournment

President L. Becker adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.