January 06, 1998

Vice-President Wasserman called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

Commissioners Present: Becker; Bierly; Gruber; Justman; Marshall; Moore; Mosser; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.

President Lightner appeared on the record at 6:07 p.m.; Commissioner Murphy arrived at 6:15 p.m. Commissioner Justman went off the record at 5:40 p.m.

MSC: To approve the Minutes of December 9, 1997.
(Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)

1. 1410 - 15th St. S001-24A

   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 $1,605.00 due to habitability defects on the premises. On appeal, the landlord maintains that she failed to receive the Notice of Hearing and attaches 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)

2. 757 Sutter St. #205 S001-25A

   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 $30.00 per month because the security system in the building was changed and tenants are now only issued one key to the front door. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: the tenant failed to prove the value of the alleged service reduction; the tenant was not entitled to additional keys to the unit and therefore had not suffered a decrease in service; and the tenant had not been denied access to the premises, but merely suffered an inconvenience in not having an extra key available.

   MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the same hearing officer to explore whether the "one key per tenant" policy is sufficiently flexible to accommodate inconveniences experienced by the tenant; and to reexamine the amount of the rent reduction. Another hearing will be held only if necessary. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)

3. 858 Greenwich St. S001-26A

   The landlord’s appeal was filed slightly over three weeks late because the landlord had been out of the country at the time the Decision of Hearing Officer was issued and, subsequent to his return, suffered severe medical problems.

   MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)

   The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases in rent was granted and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,700.00 due to rent overpayments. The landlords appeal the decision, claiming that the tenant’s rent had been set artificially low due to her provision of managerial services to the property; that the provisions of Proposition I apply, because although the owner was deceased at the time the rent increase took effect, the legal definition of "person" includes a trust; that the landlords were prejudiced in that they were not represented by an attorney; that the imposition of a substandard rent upon private property constitutes an unconstitutional "taking"; that they are not receiving a fair return upon their investment; and that the tenant operates a business upon the premises.

   MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)

4. 724 Leavenworth St., Apt. F S001-27A

   The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $92.00 due to the lack of hot water in the unit for a fourteen-day period. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: since it has not been proven that the tenant has Aids, this should not have been a factor in the hearing officer’s determination; the hearing officer mistakenly depicted a Notice of Complaint as a Notice of Violation; the hearing officer failed to allow relevant evidence and testimony pertaining to the fact that the boiler had been vandalized; unproven allegations were accepted as fact by the hearing officer; the decision contained multiple errors and inaccuracies that are contrary to the evidence; and, since the boiler provides both heat and hot water, the conclusions regarding the provision of both services should be the same.

   MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this appeal. (Justman/Lightner: 5-0)

   MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Justman: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)

5. 46 Belvedere St. S001-28A

   The landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of painting the exterior of the building was granted. However, the landlord was found liable in the amount of $2,041.09 to the tenant in one unit due to an unlawful rent increase. The landlord only appeals that portion of the decision determining rent overpayments, explaining that the base rent figure used in the petition for that unit was in error.

   MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record to issue a correction regarding the tenant’s rent history. (Marshall/Lightner: 5-0)

6. 750 O’Farrell St. S001-41R

   The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services largely due to noise from an upstairs unit was denied because the hearing officer found that the tenant’s expectations and conduct were unreasonable. The tenant appeals, claiming that the other units in the building offered to him by the resident manager were substandard and not comparable to his own; that seismic reinforcement of the building caused little disruption compared to the noise generated by his upstairs neighbors; and that quiet enjoyment of his unit is a contracted service for which he pays rent.

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

7. 45 Magnolia Ave. S001-29A

   The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses was dismissed due to their failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the landlords explain that they forgot the correct date of the hearing because of the serious illness of a family member.

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

8. 2109 Pine St. S001-42R

   The tenants’ appeal was filed 30 days late because the tenants claim not to have received the decision for 30 days after it was mailed, at which time two of the three tenants in the unit were out of town.

   MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)

   The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on the past rent history of a Newly Covered Unit under Proposition I was granted on remand. The tenants appeal, maintaining that the premises were not kept in good repair during a large portion of the period for which the rent increase was granted and the increase should not take effect until December 1, 1997; and that the large amount of the increase (15.2%) will cause a hardship for the tenants.

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

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:

1. The Mediation Statistics for the month of November, 1997.

2. An article from the January 6, 1998 San Francisco Chronicle regarding fines in the amount of $770,500.00 levied by a Superior Court Judge against two owners of a building in the Mission District with serious code violations.

Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that, as of January 5, 1998, the office has had the services of four new hearing officers (Dinah Verby, Jeff Eckber, Mike Berg and Jean Turk) and one new counselor (Elizabeth Chang). All of the new additions to staff are currently undergoing training by their respective supervisors.

1. 122 Baker St. S003-17E

   The tenant filed a Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction because the owners of the building (a couple) served Notices to Vacate based on owner-occupancy to the tenants of two separate units in the same building. The landlord asserted that no construction work nor permits to merge the two units was necessary. The hearing officer found the eviction attempt wrongful in that Rules Section 12.14(c) specifies that a landlord can only have one principal place of residence, and recommended that a strongly worded letter be sent cautioning the landlords against proceeding with the eviction. Should they do so, the hearing officer suggested that the Board consider referring this matter to the District Attorney for criminal prosecution.

   MSC: To accept the hearing officer’s Recommendation with a change to read as follows (additions underlined): "For the reason stated above, it is recommended that the Rent Board Commissioners send a strongly-worded warning to the landlords which cautions them against proceeding with any attempts to evict this tenant under the facts of this case or prior to receiving a permit to merge the units." (Marshall/Justman: 5-0)

2. 1133B Green St. R007-43E

   The tenants filed a Report of Alleged Wrongful Eviction because the owner of the property has served them with four Notices to Vacate; based either on owner-occupancy or that, as the "Master Tenant", the owner does not need a just cause reason to evict. The unit in question had previously been subdivided by the owner into two units. The hearing officer found, therefore, that the owner had no basis to evict because: he was already residing in an adjoining unit and could not occupy two units at once; and, since the units are separate, the parties are not "roommates" and he cannot evict without a just cause reason. The hearing officer also found strong evidence of a retaliatory motive on the part of the owner. Her recommendation was that a strong cautionary letter be sent and, if the eviction is pursued, that the case be referred to the District Attorney.

   MSC: To accept the Recommendation of the hearing officer. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)

George Martland, the landlord involved in the case at 724 Leavenworth St., Apt. F (S001-27A), expressed his displeasure at the Board’s denial of his appeal. He contended, among other things, that by denying his appeal, the Commissioners were encouraging the filing of false complaints. Mr. Martland’s wife then stated her belief that none of the Commissioners had reviewed the evidence in the case and alleged that the Board was "encouraging vandalism." The Martlands informed the Board that they would be filing a Writ in Superior Court.

1. Proposed Rules and Regulations Section 12.21

   The Commissioners discussed proposed new Rules Section 12.21, authored by Commissioner Becker and re-drafted by Deputy Director Wolf in accordance with concerns expressed by President Lightner. Commissioner Wasserman expressed her concerns that an addition to the Rules specifying that a tenant could not be evicted for failing to sign a lease or rental agreement with materially changed terms was unnecessary in light of Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(5), and the Board therefore voted as follows on Commissioner Becker’s original proposal:

   MSF: To adopt proposed new Rules and Regulations Section 12.21. (Becker/Marshall: 2-3; Gruber, Lightner, Wasserman dissenting)

2. Proposed Rules and Regulations Section 6.15

   The Commissioners discussed proposed new Rules and Regulations Section 6.15, authored by Commissioner Marshall, which would: require disclosure and explanation by the landlord to the tenant of any absolute prohibition against subletting and assignment; explain what constitutes unreasonable withholding by the landlord of consent to a new roommate; and specify that failure by the landlord to consent to a replacement tenant in a unit could constitute a decrease in housing services. Commissioner Marshall reiterated that the proposed Rule, if adopted, would apply only to leases entered into after the effective date of the new Regulation. Several of the Commissioners offered suggestions for additions, deletions and alternative language, which Commissioner Marshall will attempt to incorporate in a revised draft for discussion at the meeting on February 3rd.

Executive Director Grubb and Deputy Director Wolf advised the Board that the office’s workload is at an all-time high, with many staff members working mandatory overtime. In order to reduce the backlog of cases and continue to provide quality service to the public, Mr. Grubb believes that additional staffing and an incumbent increase in the rental unit fee will be necessary. This issue will be discussed further at the next Board meeting.

January 13, 1998 - NO MEETING

January 20, 1998
5 appeal considerations
Old Business:

1. Continued Discussion of Proposed Additions to the Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Changes in Roommates and "Master Tenants"
2. Discussion of Necessary Amendments to the Rules and Regulations in Order to Implement Amendments to the Rent Ordinance Pertaining to Owner Move-In Evictions
3. Departmental Budget

President Lightner adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.