March 7, 2006

Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Mosbrucker; Mosser.

Commissioners not Present: Marshall; Murphy; Wasserman.

Staff Present: Lee; Wolf.

Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:15 p.m.

MSC: To approve the Minutes of February 7, 2006.

(Becker/Hurley: 4-0)

Attorney Tim Larsen, representing the tenant at 899 Corbett, No. 1 (AT060009), told the Board that the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge was "thoughtful," but merits a second look by the Board. Specifically, Mr. Larsen maintains that the banking calculation is wrong because a 30-day notice would have been required at the time, which would have made the allowable amount 1.6% rather than 4%.

The tenant’s appeal was filed over eighteen months late because the tenant did not realize that she had the right to appeal the remand decision.

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $15.40. The tenant’s hardship appeal was denied by the Administrative Law Judge, who found that the tenant had failed to demonstrate that her son could not increase the amount of financial assistance he was providing to her. The tenant appeals the remand decision, swearing under penalty of perjury that her son will not provide her with additional funds.

The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $13,980.00. On appeal, the landlord states that she increased the rent because of additional occupants in the unit and that her husband is sick and she couldn’t leave him to attend the hearing.

This appeal was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

^{The landlord’s petition for a rent increase pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 and Costa-Hawkins was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that two original occupants continue to permanently reside in the subject unit. The landlord appeals, claiming that: tenant Maria Alvarado is not an original occupant because she was not listed on the original rental agreement; tenant Maria Carmen Gutierrez does not permanently reside in the rental unit, has two residences, and spends the majority of her time at the other residence; and tenant Gutierrez should not be found credible because she admits to having used the Social Security card of another individual.}

^{The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $102.66. On appeal, the tenant maintains that: the current rent increase anniversary date should be August 15th, and not August 1st; the landlord was not entitled to a 4% increase for the period March 1, 1992 through December 7, 1992; the landlord was not entitled to a rent increase during the period of time she was the executor of the prior owner’s estate; and the August 1st 2004 rent increase should be disallowed because there were habitability defects on the premises at that time.}

^{The landlord’s petition for approval of a utility passthrough for 25 of 70 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision, alleging that her apartment consists of two, rather than three rooms, and her passthrough should therefore be a lower amount.}

^{The landlord filed a petition seeking a determination pursuant to Rules Sections 1.21 and 6.14. The Administrative Law Judge found that a rent increase was warranted pursuant to Costa-Hawkins, since the original tenant no longer permanently resides in the subject unit, and the subtenant moved in after January 1, 1996. On appeal, the tenants claim that: the subtenant is actually a co-tenant, since the management company has accepted his rent checks and repair requests; and the original tenant has been traveling to New York frequently due to his father’s illness.}

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

^{A. Several articles from the San Francisco Chronicle, BeyondChron, and the Apartment Owners’ Association News.}

^{B. A Pending Litigation Status Report from Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee.}

^{C. Copies of two pieces of legislation recently introduced at the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Committee, one requiring residential hotel owners to provide a mail receptacle for each unit; the other requiring property owners to disclose to buyers within 3 days of entering into a contract for sale the legal grounds for the termination of any tenancy from a unit to be delivered vacant.}

^{F. A copy of the appellate decision in the case of Pieri v. CCSF (Court of Appeal No. A110571, Superior Court Case No. 505059), upholding expanded relocation payments to all tenants evicted under the Ellis Act.}

^{G. A copy of the appellate decision in the case of DeLaura v. Beckett (Court of Appeal No. A109948, Superior Court No. 436218), holding that protected status claims are better adjudicated at the Rent Board than through declaratory relief actions in court.}

^{H. A letter from the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization (PRO) to Robert Corrigan, President of San Francisco State University, requesting a meeting to discuss the impact of increased student tenancies on the quality of life at Parkmerced.}

^{Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee informed the Board that the City and other rent control jurisdictions have requested publication of the Pieri decision. Additionally, Mr. Lee reported that the City prevailed on the Galvani writ, upholding the Board’s finding that a single family dwelling legally designated as a two-unit building was not exempt pursuant to Costa-Hawkins. Mr. Lee also told the Board that the agency would begin conducting protected status hearings, pursuant to the DeLaura decision. Lastly, Mr. Lee told the Commissioners that the question of whether a 25 or 50% fee interest is required for OMI eviction will soon be resolved in the case of Garber v. Jones.}

^{Executive Director Wolf informed the Board that the capital improvement petition form for small buildings has been greatly simplified, and some of these changes have also been incorporated into the petition used for buildings of six or more units. Ms. Wolf invited the female Commissioners to participate in a photo with the Mayor commemorating Women’s History Month. She reminded all the Commissioners that the Office of the City Attorney would provide mandatory Sunshine Ordinance training on March 27th; and that Form 700 Statements of Economic Interest are due to the Ethics Commission by April 3rd.}

^{March 14th, 21st & 28th, 2006 - NO MEETINGS}

^{April 4, 2006}

^{8 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 3/7/06)}

^{Commissioner Gruber .adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.}