April 18, 2006

Commissioner Marshall appeared on the record at 6:49 p.m.; Commissioner Murphy arrived at the meeting at 6:55 p.m.

MSC: To approve the Minutes of April 4, 2006.

(Becker/Hurley: 4-0)

Attorney Jeffrey Chen, representing the landlord at 237 Parque Drive (AL060020), asked the Board to "look at the whole case," since there had only been one rent increase in almost fifteen years. Mr. Chen asserted that the rent increase was attributable to the additional housing service of a bedroom downstairs, which the tenant denies. Mr. Chen also said that the tenant rents this bedroom out for $400 per month, when the rent increase was only $300 per month. According to Mr. Chen, the landlord in this case thought that a lease signed by the tenant was "good enough."

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due to the tenant’s failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims to have had the flu on the day of the hearing.

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $2,483.80 due to habitability defects on the premises. The landlord appeals, claiming that: he did not have notice of the hole in the closet ceiling and broken windows in the unit until two months after the date stated in the Decision; and there appears to be a mathematical error in the computation of the landlord’s liability.

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $12,200.00. On appeal, the landlord claimed that the increase in rent was warranted because the additional housing service of a downstairs bedroom was provided to the tenant. The landlord’s appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to the Administrative Law Judge on this issue. The Decision on Remand upholds the original decision, finding that the tenant’s rent always included use of the downstairs bedroom. The landlord appeals the remand decision, claiming that: there is new evidence which proves his claim; the decision is unfair because there was only one rent increase in fifteen years; the Master Tenant’s rent is now disproportionate to his subtenant’s rent; and the decision presents him with a financial hardship.

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant no longer permanently resides in the subject unit and the increase is warranted pursuant to Costa-Hawkins. A claim of decreased housing services was granted, however, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $270.00. On appeal, the tenant maintains that: the evidence shows that he resided in the unit during the summer of 2005; the documentary evidence establishes the unit as his principal place of residence; there are factual errors in the Decision; only the landlord could have locked him out of the apartment in 2002; he has never rented out the entirety of the unit and has never rented out more than one room; since 2004, he has been temporarily absent while attending school, and the period before that time is irrelevant.

The landlord’s petition for a determination pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 was granted because the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant is not a "Tenant in Occupancy" of the subject unit. The tenant appeals, claiming that: the Rent Ordinance does not require that a unit be the tenant’s principal place of residence; in a lawsuit she recently filed, the tenant states that she lives at the Geary Boulevard address; the Administrative Law Judge relied on hearsay evidence submitted by the landlord; the tenant has no other residence; the tenant fell ill while visiting friends in Australia, which has prevented her return; and the hearing should have been continued in order for the tenant or her representative to attend.

The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $751.50 due to habitability defects and lack of caretaker access after 9:00 p.m. in this residential hotel. On appeal, the landlord maintains that: the tenants failed to prove the value of the housing services and the rent reductions granted by the Administrative Law Judge are arbitrary; the Rent Board does not have jurisdiction over this case, since the tenants have vacated the unit; the State law standard of habitability should have been used to evaluate the tenants’ claims; the tenants may have caused some of the problems themselves; and the landlord’s evidence and attempts at mitigation were not taken seriously by the ALJ.

The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services was granted and the tenants’ rent was reduced by $1,080 per month due to serious habitability defects on the premises. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the lease for the premises was ignored by the ALJ; the tenants were behind in their rent and created a nuisance; there are additional occupants on the premises; a $300 rent reduction was given for the lack of gas service in the unit; the lock on the gate is necessary for security; refuse was picked up, although not by Sunset Scavenger; and the tenants are liable for damage to the unit.

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 from the April 4^{th Board meeting, when it was anticipated that the other voting neutral Commissioner would be present, as Commissioner Justman was recused from considering this case.}

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

^{A. Several articles from BeyondChron and the San Francisco Chronicle.}

^{B. An article about the phase-out of rent control in the Czech Republic from Commissioner Murphy.}

^{C. The office workload statistics for the month of March.}

^{Executive Director Wolf informed the Board that the Committee to consider changes to the Residential Hotel Visitor Policy met and had a highly productive session, coming to agreement on each of the issues raised at the Public Hearing. These suggestions will be forwarded to the Board for another Public Hearing in the near future. Also, Commissioner Becker had suggested that a photographic portrait be taken of the Commissioners, which Ms. Wolf will work on arranging.}

^{April 25, 2006 - NO MEETING}

^{May 2, 2006}

^{5 appeal considerations}

^{President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m.}