September 16, 2008

Commissioner Marshall appeared on the record at 6:10 p.m.; Commissioner Justman arrived at the meeting at 6:12 p.m.

MSC: To approve the Minutes of August 19, 2008.

(Mosbrucker/Hurley: 4-0)

A. Allan White told the Board about an article in the Central City Extra alleging that the SRO Hotel Visitor Policy is not being followed. Mr. White contended that many police officers are unaware of the provisions of the Policy, which sometimes results in visitors being arrested for trespassing.

B. Tenant and Master Tenant Martin Eng of 665 Pine (AL080086 & -87; AT080088) told the Board that the subject unit is his only legal address and that the landlord has tried to evict him many times. Since he is registered to vote at that address, he would be committing fraud if he did not live there. Mr. Eng said that, if he can no longer afford to live in the unit, he would be homeless, even though he owns real estate. Mr. Eng also claimed that he provides a furnished apartment for his subtenants.

C. Master Tenant Raisa Akinshin (AL080082) informed the Board that her rent has been raised $150.00 since the issuance of the decision. Ms. Akinshin said that she is "on the edge," since she is receiving less rent from her subtenant and that, if the Judge does not reconsider, she'll have to go someplace and she doesn't know where. Ms. Akinshin explained that she is not profiting from her subtenant but, rather, having a subtenant is the only way for her to hold on to the apartment.

The landlord's petition for approval of utility passthroughs to 59 of 153 units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

The Master Tenant's hardship appeal of the decision finding that the subtenant paid a disproportional share of the rent was accepted. In the remand decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that sufficient hardship existed to warrant the establishment of a payment plan for repayment of the $2,018.85 in rent overpayments. On further appeal, the Master Tenant claims that the $300.00 per month that the subtenant is allowed to deduct from her rent is too much, as she recently received a rent increase and there has been a slowdown in the job market.

The tenant's hardship appeal of a utility passthrough was denied by the ALJ because it was found that the tenant pays only 18% of his income towards rent. On appeal, the tenant claims that the decision is in error, and his rent actually comprises 31.1% of his income.

The landlord's appeal was filed six days late because the landlord was unaware that the decision discontinued his capital improvement passthrough until a tenant brought it to his attention.

The landlord's petition for rent increases to four of six units based on increased operating expenses was granted, resulting in 7% base rent increases. However, because the landlord failed to include a previously certified capital improvement passthrough on the notices of rent increase, the ALJ deemed the passthrough discontinued. The landlord appeals that portion of the decision, arguing that: the tenants were on notice of the continuing nature of the capital improvement passthrough because it was itemized on the copies of the petition that the tenants all received; the landlord intentionally kept the base rent increases separate from the capital improvement passthrough; all of the affected tenants have continued to pay the capital improvement passthrough; and the landlord later clarified any possible misunderstanding with a letter to the tenants.

The tenant's petition alleging decreased housing services due to the loss of garage parking was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $180.00 per month. The landlord appeals, maintaining that the rent should be reduced by the value of the parking space at the inception of the tenancy plus allowable annual increases since that time.

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 $3,096.25. The landlord appeals the portion of the decision granting rent reductions for loss of free laundry services, arguing that: the amount granted is excessive and barred by the Statute of Limitations; the tenant failed to provide an estoppel or otherwise provide notice regarding the laundry agreement he had with the prior landlord; the new machines constitute an increase in services; and the tenant is over-filling the machines. The tenant appeals the portion of the decision granting rent reductions for loss of storage space, arguing that: the amount granted is inadequate and was not justified by the ALJ; the tenant proved replacement cost for the space, while the landlord failed to do so; and the ALJ failed to take into account important facts that should have affected the valuation of the space.

The landlord filed a petition seeking a determination pursuant to Rules ß6.14 and the ALJ found that a rent increase was warranted pursuant to Costa-Hawkins because the original tenant, Martin Eng, no longer permanently resided in the subject unit. Additionally, two subtenants of Martin Eng's in the unit filed petitions requesting a determination as to the lawfulness of their rents. Rent overpayments were ordered refunded as the ALJ found that Martin Eng was charging the subtenants rents in excess of the rent he was paying to the landlord. Martin Eng appeals all three decisions, claiming that: the ALJ was favorably pre-disposed towards the landlord and his counsel; the subject unit is his principal place of residence, and he has no other legal residence; the homeowner's exemption on a condominium that he owned was the result of loan fraud by the seller; the subtenants were only charged for the furnishings in the unit; the landlord previously tried to evict him; and there is mold in the subject unit.

The tenant's petition alleging unlawful rent increase was denied because the ALJ found that the rent increase was authorized by Costa-Hawkins as the original tenant no longer resided in the unit and the petitioner was a subtenant who moved in after January 1, 1996, and not a co-tenant. The tenant appeals, claiming that: he has established a direct landlord-tenant relationship with the landlords, through the communication of necessary repairs and having performed work in the unit; and he would like to obtain counsel to represent him at a remand hearing.

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

A. The annual statistical report for Fiscal Year 2007-08.

B. The office workload statistics for the months of July and August, 2008.

C. A new Commissioner Roster.

D. Articles from the Washington Post, New York Times, S.F. Examiner and the San Francisco Police Blotter.

Executive Director Wolf informed the Commissioners that the landlord petitioned the Supreme Court for review in the Baychester case concerning successor liability, but the Petition was denied.

^{Discussion of this issue was continued to the next meeting due to the absence of Commissioner Murphy.}

^{D. Tenant and Master Tenant Martin Eng said that he felt the Board was very biased in the disposition of his case, and that they had made their minds up in advance. He also felt that the ALJ had his mind made up prior to the commencement of the hearing. Mr. Eng believes that "hanky-panky" was involved.}

Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee told the Board that the 5-year "indexing" anniversary for the establishment of new base years pursuant to Rules ß6.16 regarding utility passthroughs is coming up in January 2009. Since the adjustment procedures are somewhat complicated and staff expects landlords and tenants alike to be confused about the new requirements, the Commissioners asked that staff prepare a Memo outlining the history of the utility passthrough regulations and identifying issues presented.

President Gruber adjourned the meeting at 7:26 p.m.