December 11, 2007

Commissioner Marshall appeared on the record at 6:19 p.m.; Commissioner Becker arrived at the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

MSC: To approve the Minutes of November 13, 2007.

(Mosbrucker/Hurley: 5-0)

The tenant's hardship appeal of a decision approving a utility passthrough was accepted and remanded for hearing but the tenant failed to appear, so the appeal was dismissed. On further appeal, the tenant claims not to have received notice of the 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 on the tenant's claim of financial hardship; should the tenant again fail to appear, absent extraordinary circumstances, no further hearings will be scheduled. (Henderson/Marshall: 5-0)

The landlord's petition seeking approval of a utility passthrough to 14 of 38 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

The tenant's appeal was filed one day late because he miscalculated the deadline for filing.

The landlord's petition for approval of utility passthroughs to 14 of 794 units was approved. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds that: the passthrough is being imposed cumulatively, rather than on an annual basis; and the allowable annual increase covers the landlord's increased utility costs, since utility charges were included in the base rent at the inception of the tenancy.

The tenant's hardship appeal of a capital improvement passthrough was granted on remand. The Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant experienced sufficient financial hardship to conditionally defer the passthrough unless and until the tenant obtains employment or her financial circumstances change. The landlord appeals the remand decision, asserting that: the appeal should not have been accepted and remanded for hearing, because it was filed four years after the decision was issued and the Ammiano amendments were not applicable; the tenant only filed the appeal because of the landlord having filed for a second passthrough; the tenant's evidence was inconclusive, as not all monthly bills were provided; the tenant has engaged in elective spending and speculative investments; and the tenant has sufficient income and resources to pay the passthrough.

The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs for two of four units was granted pursuant to a Minute Order. The tenant in one unit appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

The tenant's petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $23,735.92. The landlord's appeal on the grounds that the premises was a "Newly Covered Unit" under Proposition I was accepted and remanded for a hearing on the tenant's rent history. In the Decision on Remand, the Administrative Law Judge found the landlord liable for $12,237.98 in rent overpayments. The landlord appeals the remand decision, arguing that: for purposes of applying the limitation on refund of rent overpayments, the date that the tenant filed her complete petition should be used, since her original filing was incomplete; and the landlord was prejudiced because almost two years elapsed from the time of filing to the hearing on this matter, which greatly increased his liability for rent overpayments.

The tenants' petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $1,800.00 for an unsafe exterior deck and $350.00 for unsafe rear stairs. The landlord appeals the decision, claiming that: at the inception of the tenancy, the tenants were informed that the deck was unsafe and there was no commitment as to when repairs would be effectuated; the rental rate for the unit was discounted due to the unavailability of the deck; the deck repair would be an additional housing service added after the commencement of the tenancy; and the tenants failed to prove that the back stairs were structurally unsound.

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services and requesting a determination as to the lawful base rent was granted and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,103.25 for rent overpayments and $6,250.00 due to habitability problems on the premises. On appeal, the landlords claim that: the $200.00 per month rent increase was authorized by Rules ß6.14 because the Master Tenant was not an original occupant of the unit and the last of the original tenants had vacated; the transfer of utility charges to the tenant was allowable because the landlords had the right to renegotiate the lease terms with any holdover occupants; the tenant failed to verifiably complain regarding the lack of heat until February of 2007, rather than September of 2005, which also proves that the problem was not substantial; the tenant failed to prove the value of the decreased housing services; and the landlords are entitled to discovery and to have these claims decided by a jury.

Maria Castellucci, agent for the landlord at 1111 Treat (AL070201), told the Board that she has made several attempts to fix the defects in the unit. She reported that the tenant said she didn't want a second heater because she would then have to pay higher utility bills.

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

A. A new Commissioners' roster.

B. Several articles from BeyondChron, the New York Times, the S.F. Bay Guardian and the S.F. Examiner.

C. The final, approved Statement of Incompatible Activities for the Rent Board.

Executive Director Wolf briefly discussed the mandatory Sexual Harassment Training that must be completed by December 31, 2008.

December 18^{th & 25th, 2007 & January 1st, 2008} - NO MEETINGS

January 8, 2008

9 appeal considerations

President Gruber adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m.