April 4, 2006

Commissioner Marshall appeared on the record at 6:10 p.m.; Commissioner Justman arrived at the meeting at 6:19 p.m.; and Commissioner Murphy appeared at 6:22 p.m.

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

(Becker/Mosser: 4-0)

A. Landlord Mark O’Flynn of 1672 Great Highway (AL060014) told the Commissioners that he was in attendance and would be available to clarify his appeal if they had any questions.

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant admits that he made a mistake in noting the hearing date on his calendar.

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to two of six units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $37.27. The tenants in one unit appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted in part and denied in part. The landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $32.67 due to interruptions in cable service, but occasional interruptions in phone service were not found to be substantial. On appeal, the tenant claims that: there are many inaccuracies in the decision; only the landlord and resident manager have access to the telephone box; and the landlord’s failure to investigate and remedy the lack of a secure telephone box constitutes a substantial decrease in housing services.

The landlord’s petition for an extension of time to do capital improvement work was denied because the scope of the work exceeded the scope stated in the Notice to Vacate. On appeal, the landlord argues that: the Administrative Law Judge made an erroneous finding and did not consider additional evidence presented by the landlord; the ALJ mistakenly thought that the scope of work for lead remediation was the same as the work upon which the Notice to Vacate was based; the expanded scope of work did not necessitate the extension of time beyond the original three-month estimate; the ALJ erred in concluding that the additional work would not make the unit uninhabitable; the hearing in this case was not scheduled in a timely manner; and the Decision was issued after the tenant reoccupied the property, making the issue moot.

The landlord’s petition seeking permission to restore the prior base rent amount was granted, because the Administrative Law Judge found that the rent had been temporarily reduced by the landlord to accommodate the tenant’s financial hardship. On appeal, the tenant claims that: the landlord misled the ALJ and did not lower the rent an additional $70; the real reasons the landlord reduced the rent were so that the tenants would not move and would not get a third roommate; the landlord’s actions are punitive and she is seeking to evict the tenants; and the decision is in error as to the rent history, as well as other factual errors.

This case was continued to the next meeting, when it is anticipated that the other neutral Commissioner, President Wasserman, will be in attendance.

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 $715.00 due to the loss of linen service and failure to post the Hotel Visitor Policy as required. The landlord appeals, arguing that: the linen service claim should be barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations found in the Civil Code; the amount granted for loss of linen service is excessive, since the tenant did not use bed linens; and the amount granted for failure to post the Visitor Policy is arbitrary since the tenant did not suffer any loss, nor would any such loss be substantial.

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 tenant claims that: the subtenant is actually a co-tenant, since the management company has accepted his rent checks and repair requests; and that the original tenant has been traveling to New York frequently due to his father’s illness. At the meeting on March 7^{th, this appeal was continued in order to allow the tenant an opportunity to provide evidence that he was a co-tenant rather than a subtenant prior to the issuance of the 6.14 notice.}

^{The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services due to noise and odors coming from an upstairs unit was denied. The tenant appeals, claiming that: witness statements submitted by the tenant are accurate and verifiable; the tape recording made by the tenant demonstrates the existence of a humming noise from the other unit; relevant information was omitted from the Decision, while irrelevant information was included; the landlord has not fulfilled her legal responsibilities; the landlord’s witness should not have been found to be credible; and the Administrative Law Judge exhibited bias against him.}

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

^{A. The Department’s Annual Report on Eviction Notices.}

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

^{C. Several articles from BeyondChron, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the San Francisco Bay Guardian.}

^{Executive Director Wolf reminded the Commissioners that their Form 700 Statements of Economic Interest were due to the Ethics Commission on April 3rd, and fines will be assessed for Statements submitted after that date. Ms. Wolf also told the Board that the Committee that will consider proposed changes to the SRO Hotel Visitor Policy would meet tomorrow at the Office of the Rent Board; Commissioners Gruber and Becker will be participants.}

^{B. The landlord in the case at 670 Shotwell (AT060016) told the Board that the tenant moved out on March 29th. Since the noticed rent increase was to go into effect on June 1st, no have been overpaid and the appeal is now moot. The landlord was instructed to put this in writing to the Board, along with the tenant’s forwarding address.}

^{C. Landlord Mark O’Flynn thanked the Board for their thoughtful consideration of his appeal regarding the property at 1672 Great Highway. However, Mr. O’Flynn believes that the Mayor’s Office of Housing didn’t act responsibly in his case, and neither did the Rent Board. Mr. O’Flynn maintains that he is $2,000 in arrears each month on this property, and that there is no incentive for him to remain in the rental business.}

^{April 11, 2006 - NO MEETING}

^{6:30 April 18, 2006}

^{8 appeal considerations (1 cont. from 4/4/06)}

^{Commissioner Gruber adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.}