September 5, 2006

Commissioner Mosbrucker appeared on the record at 6:25 p.m.; Commissioner Henderson arrived at 6:30 p.m.

MSC: To approve the Minutes of August 1, 2006.

(Becker/Murphy: 5-0)

A. Hannah Peters, representing the tenant at 349 Cherry St. (AL060073), told the Board that the landlord is just focusing in on the tenant's having taken a Homeowner's Exemption, while the timeline shows that the condominium in San Mateo was up for sale prior to the petition having been filed, and was sold prior to the hearing. Mr. Peters remarked that a Homeowner's Exemption is just one factor in determining a tenant's principal place of residence.

B. Tenant Mary Ann Cramer of 25 Guerrero (AT060068) asked for a clarification of the depiction of her appeal on the Agenda.

C. Board President Sharon Wasserman announced her resignation from the Board after eleven years of service; the October 3^{rd Board meeting will be her last.}

^{The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services and the landlord's failure to perform requested repair and maintenance was denied. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the tenant did not meet her burden of proving that the number or location of the heaters was a code violation or that the amount of heat provided by the landlord did not meet code requirements. The ALJ also found that the lack of a main entry light does not constitute a substantial decrease in housing services nor is it required by the local housing code. On appeal, the tenant claims that: her bedroom is cold at night due to the lack of a heater and she cannot sleep well; the lack of an entry light makes the tenant fearful of an assault; and it is difficult to get her keys in the lock at night without a light. At the meeting on August 1st, the Board granted the tenant's request for a postponement.}

^{The tenant's hardship appeal of a decision certifying capital improvement costs was filed three years and four months late because the tenant allegedly did not know that he had the right to appeal.}

^{The tenant's petition alleging that she pays a disproportional share of the rent pursuant to Rules Section 6.15C(3) was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable in the amount of $7,957.18. Additionally, the Master Tenant was found liable for prior rent overpayments and utility overcharges never refunded to the tenant pursuant to a prior Decision. The Master Tenant, who failed to appear at the hearing, appeals on the grounds that: he failed to receive notice of the rescheduled hearing because he was out of the country and the case should have been postponed; he provided many amenities and improvements to the premises; the Decision is incorrect as to the amount of shared space in the unit; PG&E costs have risen substantially; statements about him by the tenant are untrue; the tenant failed to provide access in order for him to make repairs; many of the repairs were necessitated by the tenant's actions; there are errors in the Decision as to the amount of rent charged; and the Decision presents him with a financial hardship.}

^{The tenant's petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $561.33. The portion of the petition alleging decreased housing services was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that restrictions placed on the tenant's use of the back yard by the landlord were reasonable. On appeal, the tenant argues that: the rent overpayments are incorrectly calculated; there are factual and procedural errors in the Decision, as well as omission of material facts; and the ALJ abused his discretion in finding that the changes the landlord imposed in the garden did not result in a reduction of services to this tenant.}

^{The tenant's petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services due to the unit's being significantly smaller than was represented by the landlord's agent was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $200.00 per month. The landlord's appeal was accepted by the Rent Board Commissioners, who remanded the case on the record to the Administrative Law Judge to vacate the Decision and find, under these facts, that there is not a substantial decrease in housing services. The tenant appeals the remand decision, arguing that: in prior cases, the size of a unit has been found to constitute a "housing service;" a 25% reduction in square footage is "substantial;"
he was thwarted by the resident manager in his attempts to measure the unit; although the additional space was never provided, it was promised and reasonably to be expected; moving would have subjected him to burdensome additional costs; and the landlords have demonstrated a pattern of unfair business practices.}

^{The landlord's petition for a determination pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 was denied because the ALJ found that the subject unit is the tenant's principal place of residence. On appeal, the landlord maintains that: the ALJ erred in finding that it was not proved that the tenant claimed a homeowner's exemption on a condominium in San Mateo; it is unfair that the tenant can retain rent control protections when he is subletting his unit for almost the entire monthly rental amount; and the burden of proof shifted to the tenant to rebut the landlord's evidence, which he did not do.}

^{Thirty-four tenants were granted rent reductions in the amount of $20 per month due to the landlords' failure to seismically retrofit their Single Room Occupancy Hotel, an unreinforced masonry building (UMB). The landlords appeal the decision, claiming that: the tenants failed to meet their burden of proving that the building is a UMB; the building has recently been reinspected and shown to be a steel frame structure, which does not require seismic retrofit; the failure to seismically upgrade a structure does not constitute a decrease in housing services; and there was no evidence that the tenants reasonably expected that the building would be retrofitted, nor that the landlords promised such an upgrade.}

^{A Stipulated Agreement requesting that consideration of this appeal be continued was received from the parties and granted prior to the meeting.}

^{The landlord filed a petition requesting a determination pursuant to Rules Section 6.14 and the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. The ALJ determined that, as the last original tenant no longer permanently resides in the subject unit and the subtenants moved in after January 1, 1996, a rent increase is warranted. On appeal, one of the subtenants claims not to have received the copy of the 6.14 notice the landlord claims to have sent.}

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

^{A. A copy of the Decision in the case of Small Property Owners of San Francisco v. City and County of San Francisco (Superior Court Case No. 406692).}

^{B. A Memorandum from City Attorney Dennis Herrera regarding political activity by City officers and employees.}

^{C. An article by Attorney Barbara Herzig in the S.F. Apartment Association magazine regarding restrictions on condo conversion where there have been evictions in the building.}

^{D. Various articles from the San Francisco Examiner, BeyondChron, and the San Francisco Daily Journal.}

^{E. A letter to President Wasserman from Rex Reginald regarding possible legislation to encourage landlords to be "pet friendly" by allowing them to increase rents slightly.}

^{F. A Press Release from the Mayor's Office announcing the reappointment of Commissioners Marshall, Mosser, Mosbrucker and Hurley.}

^{G. A Log of petitions filed for substantial rehabilitation exemption from the Ordinance.}

^{Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee explained the holding in the case of Small Property Owners of San Francisco v. City and County of San Francisco. In a prior case involving the City of Santa Monica, landlords were required to place tenants' security deposits in interest-bearing accounts at a federally insured financial institution, which paid less than the 3% interest required by the Santa Monica ordinance. Under San Francisco's ordinance, landlords could invest the tenants' security deposit moneys however they wished, which the evidence showed could provide a return of more than the 5% interest required to be paid.}

^{Executive Director Delene Wolf told the Board that a Resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors urges boards and commissions to adopt policies regarding members' attendance at meetings, and requires such policy to be submitted by December 1, 2006. This issue will be discussed at a future Board meeting. Additionally, Ms. Wolf let the Board know that 60-day notice of termination for no fault evictions will be reinstated pursuant to a bill passed by the State legislature if it is signed by the Governor.}

^{D. Mary Ann Cramer of 25 Guerrero told the Board that she had no problem with the prior owners regarding her use of the garden for fourteen years, until the new owners bought the building. Ms. Cramer thought she had won the case at the time of the hearing, but feels that "something went wrong" upon review of the Decision. According to Ms. Cramer, the landlords are now saying that they will not put trees back in; what used to be the garden is now concrete; and she is being evicted pursuant to the Ellis Act.}

^{The Board began its discussion of possible amendments to the Rules and Regulations to implement the recently passed Mirkarimi legislation, which took effect August 8th. Since several of the Commissioners had not received the Staff Memo on this issue, and draft proposed regulations prepared by Commissioners Mosbrucker and Murphy were just distributed this evening, discussion of this issue was continued to the next Board meeting.}

^{September 12, 2006 - NO MEETING}

^{September 19, 2006}

^{7 appeal considerations}

^{Old Business: Mirkarimi Legislation}

^{New Business: Attendance at Board Meetings}

^{President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.}