November 14, 2006

Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Justman; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Murphy.

Commissioners not Present: Mosser.

Staff Present: Gartzman; Lee; Wolf.

Commissioner Marshall went off the record at 8:35 p.m.

MSC: To approve the Minutes of October 17, 2006.

(Becker/Hurley: 5-0)

A. Darryl Nelson, Attorney for the tenant at 285 Greenwich (AT060106), told the Board that tenants in eviction controlled units are affected by a ruling that the rent can be increased without limitation, because that can result in a constructive eviction. Ms. Nelson expressed her belief that a rent increase pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 should be limited to the fair market rent. She asked why a landlord would pay the higher relocation benefits under Proposition H when they could just prohibitively raise the rent?

^{The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims that ill health had prevented him from attending the hearing.}

^{The tenants' petition alleging decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount of $1,395.00. The landlords appeal, maintaining that: the amounts granted by the ALJ are excessive and not explained; the tenants never complained that their belongings were damaged by mold; the buzzer system was resolved within a reasonable period of time; and the tenant could have entered the unit through other means when she was locked out.}

^{The landlord filed 20 petitions for approval of utility passthroughs pursuant to Rules Section 6.16. The petitions were administratively dismissed as having been untimely filed. On appeal, the landlord argues that the Board should waive the regulatory filing deadline because: this is a huge apartment complex which made the changed filing requirements exceptionally difficult to meet; the changed methodology made the landlord's computer database records obsolete; the tenants are neither harmed nor prejudiced on account of the delay; the landlord will suffer financial hardship if the petitions are not heard; good cause exists for waiving the filing deadline in the first year of the new regulatory scheme, and the Board has waived its regulations in the past; the filing deadline is directory, and not mandatory; and the Board lacks the authority to require landlords to file petitions to pass through increased utility costs.}

^{The tenants' appeals were filed one day late because the tenants mailed the appeal from out of town, which took longer; and the envelope the decision was mailed in did not have a postmark.}

^{The tenants' petition alleging decreased housing services due to lack of heat in the unit was denied. Additionally, a $75 increase in rent was determined to be a lawful restoration of the prior base rent amount that was temporarily reduced by the landlord to accommodate the tenants' hardship. The tenants appeal both decisions, claiming that: the landlord made false statements at the hearing, including the allegation that the tenants turned off the circuit breaker, which caused the heater to fail; the ALJ exhibited bias on behalf of the landlord and ignored evidence submitted by the tenants; the landlord lowered the tenants' rent due to market conditions and because the tenants might have moved out of the unit if he hadn't; and the upstairs unit with a lower rent is identical to the tenants' unit.}

^{The landlord's petition for a determination pursuant to Rules Section 1.21 was granted as the ALJ found that the subject unit is not the tenant's principal place of residence. The tenant failed to attend the properly noticed hearing, nor did he send a representative. On appeal, the tenant claims that: the decision is unconstitutional and denies the tenant due process, as he was not informed of the amount of the proposed rent increase; and the amount of rent exceeds the market value of the unit and therefore is an attempted constructive eviction, from which the tenant is protected.}

^{The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services was denied because the ALJ found that the conditions were not substantial, that the tenant failed to provide the landlord access to make repairs and that the tenant had failed to follow the procedures for obtaining a replacement roommate outlined in Rules Section 6.15B(b)(1). On appeal, the tenant claims that: written evidence and witness testimony provided by the tenant were not considered by the ALJ; that she has been harassed by her landlords; and that the ALJ exhibited bias on behalf of the landlords.}

^{The landlord's petition for extension of time to do capital improvement work was denied as having been untimely filed, incomplete and because the scope of work was expanded beyond what was stated in the notice to vacate and requested in the original building permit. On appeal, the landlord maintains that it was impossible for the landlord to comply due to circumstances beyond her control and the ALJ failed to take this into account.}

^{B. Attorney Darryl Nelson told the Board that her client's due process rights were violated because he wasn't on notice as to the amount of rent increase that was being proposed – he believed that the only issue to be decided was his principal place of residence. If he had known that the rent increase would be so large, he would have attended the hearing and put on a defense.}

^{C. Landlord Andy Park said that he owns a 12-unit building and would like to re-claim one of the parking spaces in the building for his own use. He told the Commissioners he has spoken with 3 different Rent Board counselors and 2 attorneys and received 3 different answers as to his rights in this situation.}

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

^{A. A copy of Ordinance 252-06, effective November 10, 2006, which amended the Elections Code to require bond proposals to include a provision authorizing a 50% passthrough to tenants of the change in a landlord's property tax attributable to the bond repayment. This will ensure that voters are informed of the 50% passthrough before approving a bond measure. Bonds issued by the San Francisco Unified School District or Community College District and approved after November 1, 2006 are also included.}

^{B. A copy of Proposition H, which applies to eviction notices for certain no-fault evictions issued on or after August 10, 2006, and establishes and/or raises the amount of relocation payments landlords are liable to pay to tenants. Each authorized occupant who has resided in the unit for at least one year is now entitled to a payment of $4,500.00, with a maximum payment of $13,500.00 per unit. In addition, each elderly or disabled tenant, and each household with one or more minor children, is entitled to an additional payment of $3,000.00.}

^{C. Articles from the October 19th and November 9th, 2006 S.F. Chronicle regarding Proposition H and the current state of the San Francisco rental market.}

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

^{E. A letter from SRO tenant A. Wayne Ramsey thanking the Commissioners for their even-handed approach to recent amendments to the Hotel Visitor Policy.}

^{In August 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 502-06, urging each City board, commission and advisory body to adopt an internal policy regarding members' attendance at meetings. Pursuant to this Resolution and in accordance with guidance from the Mayor's Office and Office of the City Attorney, staff drafted a proposed Attendance Policy for the Rent Board. The proposed Policy provides that the Executive Director shall be notified in advance of any known absence of a Commissioner; in the event of unforeseen circumstances, the Commissioner shall notify the Director as soon as reasonably possible after an absence; the Director shall report Commissioners with any non-notified absences or three consecutive absences to the Mayor's Office; and the Director shall submit a written attendance report to the Mayor's Office at the end of each fiscal year.}

^{The Board continued their discussion of possible amendments to the Rules and Regulations to implement the Mirkarimi legislation, which took effect August 8th. The Commissioners discussed proposed regulations drafted by Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee with input from Commissioner Justman, and requested the following changes: in proposed ß13.10(b), add "capital improvement and lead remediation work" for fewer than 30 days as a carve-out to a severance, and clarify that carve-outs remain subject to a decreased housing service petition; in proposed ß13.11(a), add nuisance and illegal use as just causes; in proposed ß13.11(a)(3), add the requirement that a landlord's or relative's use of a housing facility be "reasonable and lawful"; and in proposed ß13.11(b), clarify that only the housing facility is at issue in disputes regarding severance, but do not otherwise affect a landlord's eviction rights under Ordinance Section 37.9(a). Mr. Lee will incorporate the above suggestions into a new draft, which will be discussed at the November 28th Board meeting.}

^{November 21, 2006 - NO MEETING}

^{November 28, 2006}

^{5 appeal considerations}

^{6:30 Appeal Hearing: 1360 Jones St., Unit No. 602 (AL060094; acpt. 10/17/06)}

^{Old Business: Mirkarimi Legislation (Ordinance ß37.2{r})}

^{President Gruber adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.}