I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Consideration of Appeals
A. 725 Ellis St. #506 T001-71R
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was dismissed
due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal,
the tenant’s grand-daughter claims that there was a misrepresentation on
the part of a translator, which led to a misunderstanding regardi�Öng
the date of the hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
B. 1536 Great Highway #38 T001-55A
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent and substantially
decreased housing services was granted, in part. The hearing officer found
the landlord liable to the tenant in the amount of $5,209.22 due to overpayments
in rent and continued a rent reduction ordered in a prior decision in the
amount of $15.00 per month due to broken and badly repaired bathroom floor
tiles. On appeal, the landlord claims that the decision is inequitable
because the unlawful rent increases were imposed by a prior owner; neither
the tenant nor the current owner knew that the amounts were excessive prior
to the instant proceeding; and, if proper rent increases that the owner
was entitled to had been imposed, the tenant would have paid the same amount
of rent.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 3-2; Gr�²uber,
Lightner dissenting)
C. 1900 Vallejo St. #104 T001-58A; T001-80R
The landlord’s appeal was filed one day late because the landlord’s
attorney was traveling and unable to confer with his client. The tenant
filed an appeal 16 days late because of new evidence recently come to light.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeals. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted,
in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount
of $1,025.00 due to peeling paint and clogged sink drains. The tenant’s
failure to repair claim was denied as untimely and because the tenant failed
to prove that the conditions constituted code violations. On appeal, the
landlord contends that the $50 per month rent reduction for the condition
of the paint is excessive because the area involved is small; and that
good faith attempts were made to repair the sinks,�· which
only backed up twice during the period in question. The tenant also appeals
the denial of two of her claims due to insufficient evidence, providing
documentation showing that two other tenants in the building complained
of the same conditions.
MSC: To deny both the landlord’s and tenant’s appeals. (Lightner/Gruber:
5-0)
D. 328 Kirkham St. #2 T001-72R
The tenants’ petition alleging a decrease in housing services was dismissed
due to their failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal,
the tenants claim not to have received notice of the hearing, and attach
the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing.
(Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
V. Public Hearing
The Board commenced a Public Hearing on the issue of non-residential
use of a unit at 6:40 p.m. Prior to proceeding, the Board passed the following
motion:
MSC: To recuse�" Commissioner Becker from consideration of this
issue. (Marshall/Lightner: 5-0)
Twelve individuals addressed the Board as follows below:
-- Landlord Attorney Nancy Lenvin spoke in support of the proposal,
stating that the increase in office rents has led to more residential units
being used commercially, which exacerbates the housing crisis.
-- Ted Gullickson from the Tenants’ Union said that Planning and Zoning
should deal with illegal conversions, as the proposal will open a new loophole
for eviction attempts. He questioned the use of the phrase "consistent
residential use" because of situations where tenants go away for a while.
-- Miguel Wooding from the Eviction Defense Collaborative said that
he has been seeing more "pretext evictions" since the enactment of restrictions
on owner-occupancy; he believes that it is disingenuous to say that the
proposal helps tenants.
-- Landlord Tommy Tang asked whether a building constructed in 1985
was� exempt from rent control.
-- Landlord Sonia Ng explained that two families bought a building that
they intended to occupy, but the tenants won’t move. She told the Board
that "landlords are not the problem." She also requested that the Board
provide translation services for the Chinese speakers in attendance.
-- David Man followed up on Ms. Ng’s request for translation, stating
that he only understood 50% of what was being said.
-- Tenant Kate Ritchey expressed her belief that the proposal would
discriminate against existing tenants who travel and have erratic schedules.
-- Tenant Debra Sialana explained that she has an irregular schedule,
and often travels for work. She asked that the language be "quantifiable,
and not wide open."
-- Janan New from the S.F. Apartment Association supported the "clarifying
language", stating that housing units are being used for ot�Âher
uses such as storage.
-- Landlord Peter Lewis told the Board about a friend of his in New
York who is quite affluent but retains his tenancy in a studio apartment
that he uses exclusively as an office.
-- J. B. Alejani said that he has a friend who is "proud" of the fact
that he has two large rent controlled units, one of which he is using as
an office.
-- Attorney Steve Mac Donald stated that the "spirit" of the proposal
was not problematic, but that the language was. He suggested that the Board
add that there be "consistent non-residential use."
After closing the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m., the Commissioners discussed
the issues raised. Commissioner Lightner explained that her proposal was
not a move toward requiring that a rental unit be the tenant’s principal
place of residence in order for there to be jurisdiction, and therefore
did not address the problem of "pied a terres." Commissioner Marshall expressed
concerns that �Ãthe proposal could provide an incentive
to owners to rent commercially, and reward owners who were in violation
of zoning laws with rent increases. Since the targeted situations were
those where a tenant changed the use of the unit, such as moving out of
the City but keeping one’s unit for office use only, the Board passed the
following motion:
MSC: To adopt new Rules and Regulations Subsection 1.17(i), which shall
read as follows below:
Section 1.17 Rental Units
(new language underlined)
"Rental Unit" means a residential dwelling unit, regardless of zoning
or legal status, in the City and County of San Francisco and all housing
services, privileges, furnishings (including parking facilities supplied
in connection with the use or occupancy of such unit), which is made available
by agreement for residential occupancy by a tenant in consideration of
the payment of rent. The term does not include:
(i) a residential unit, wherein at the inception of the tenancy there
was residential use, there is no longer residential use and there is a
commercial or other non-residential use. The presumption shall be that
the initial use was residential unless proved otherwise by the tenant.
(Gruber/Lightner: 3-2; Marshall, Moore dissenting)
E. 650 Waller St. T001-75R
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services
was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the continued hearing, his
request for postponement having been denied. On appeal, the tenant maintains
that: the hearing should not have been re-set without express confirmation
of acceptance of the date from both parties; there was inadequate time
to respond to the proposed date for the continued hearing; and dismissal
of all claims with prejudice constitutes a serious inequity under the circumstances.
MSC: To recuse Commissioners Lightner and Becker from consi�Æderation
of this appeal. (Wasserman/Marshall: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the same hearing officer
for a continued hearing; no further postponements will be granted to the
tenant for any reason.
(Wasserman/Murphy: 5-0)
F. 531 Broderick St. T001-70R
The tenants’ appeal was filed one day late because the tenants have
a concurrent case at the Board of Permit Appeals which is requiring a great
deal of preparation on their part; their lawyer was in New York at the
time of issuance of the decision; and they were visiting relatives over
the Passover and Easter holidays.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Marshall/Becker:
5-0)
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services
was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in
the amount of $900.00 for loss of use of a side yard and ancillary storage
and off-site parking. However, the tenant’s�" claim that loss of
access to a back gate connected with her off-site parking warranted a rent
reduction was denied, because the hearing officer found that access to
the gate was acquired after the commencement of the tenancy for no additional
compensation. On appeal, the tenant asserts that: since the side yard was
open space required by law, the value should be greater than $50.00 per
month; the only remaining outdoor space, the deck, has been unsafe for
several years; the loss of storage space and limitations on gardening commenced
at an earlier date; and, use of the back gate is a service which "reasonably
could have been expected", therefore warranting a rent reduction.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
F. 170 Duboce Ave. #8 T001-76R, 82R & -86R
One tenant’s appeal was filed twenty-three days late without explanation.
MSC: To find no good cause for the late filing of t�xhe appeal.
(Wasserman/Marshall: 4-1; Becker dissenting)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs
for three of eleven units was granted, in part, resulting in a monthly
passthrough in the amount of $109.71. On appeal, the tenants ask that an
independent estimator verify that the seismic upgrade work was actually
done.
MSC: To deny the appeals. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
G. 553 Sanchez St. T001-56A
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on increased operating
expenses was granted on remand, resulting in a 7% base rent increase to
the tenants in one unit. On further appeal, the landlord contends that
the 7% cap on operating expenses should be waived in this case due to landlord
hardship; and that the cap is unconstitutional as applied because he is
being denied a fair return.
MSC: To deny the appeal without prejudice to the landlord’s filing a
petition based on fair return. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
H. 1246 Jackson St. T001-57A; T001-77R
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services
was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenants
in the amount of $880.00. On appeal, the landlords claim that the Rent
Board has no jurisdiction over this matter since the tenants had vacated
the unit by the time of the hearing in this matter. The tenants also appeal,
claiming that the first notice to the landlords of the construction noise
problem was in October, rather than November, and the rent reduction should
therefore be for eleven rather than ten months.
MSC: To deny both appeals. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
VI. Communications
VII. Director’s Report
VIII. Calendar Items
IX. Adjournment