May 5, 2006

Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber; Henderson; Hurley; Marshall; Mosbrucker; Mosser; Wasserman.

Commissioners not Present: Murphy.

Staff Present: Lee; Wolf.

Commissioner Justman appeared on the record at 6:14 p.m.

MSC: To approve the Minutes of April 18, 2006.

(Gruber/Becker: 5-0)

Ron Schivo, Attorney for the tenants at 827 Pierce/1401-1403 McAllister (AL060028), introduced his clients and told the Board that the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge should be affirmed for all of the reasons stated in his brief.

The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 16 of 26 units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $51.47. The tenant in one unit appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services due to noise from tenants in the upstairs unit was denied. The tenants appeal, claiming that: the problems with the upstairs tenants are continuing; the tenants met their burden of proving that the upstairs tenants make an unreasonable amount of noise; the Administrative Law Judge exhibited bias against them, and wouldn’t accept their taped evidence; and the upstairs tenants should not have been found to be credible.

The subtenant filed a petition alleging decreased housing services and seeking a determination as to whether she was paying a proportional share of the rent pursuant to Rules Section 6.15C(3). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Master Tenant liable in the amount of $2,418.00 due to rent overpayments and $290.00 based on decreased housing services. The Master Tenant also filed a petition, seeking a determination of the proper amount of rent the subtenant should pay "going forward;" the amount being tendered was found to be lawful. On appeal, the Master Tenant claims that: the ALJ exhibited bias against him and on behalf of the subtenant; the master bedroom was a common area that the subtenant was free to use; there are factual inaccuracies in the decision; the subtenant was not prevented in her use of the living room by the presence of another subtenant in the unit, because they kept different hours; the ALJ exceeded her authority in ruling on the validity of a rent increase issued to the Master Tenant by the landlord; the mail box key was removed as a security measure, and the subtenant always had access to her mail; and the subtenant failed to provide notice of the problem with the oven, and received more than her fair share of the rent reduction granted for this loss.

The landlord filed a petition for certification of the costs of a new sub floor and carpeting to one unit in a fifteen unit building. The petition was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the work was done in order to reduce the noise between the subject unit and another unit in the building, was not necessary for health or safety reasons, and the tenants objected at the hearing to paying for the cost of the work. On appeal, the landlord argues that: the regulation requires that the tenants object to the installation, whereas these tenants wanted the work to be done; and amelioration of noise is a valid health concern.

The landlords’ appeal was filed one day late because the landlords assumed that Cesar Chavez Day was a legal holiday.

The landlords’ petition for certification of substantial rehabilitation exemption was denied because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the landlords had failed to prove that the building was essentially uninhabitable prior to the work being done. On appeal, the landlords argue that: the ALJ exceeded her authority in developing a standard for determining when a property is "essentially uninhabitable" for purposes of substantial rehabilitation exemption from the Ordinance; the lack of a known standard is violative of the landlord’s due process rights and the standard used by the ALJ conflicts with the definition of substantial rehabilitation in the Rent Ordinance; the standards for certification of substantial rehabilitation are impossible to meet, which was known to the Board; petitioners are being punished for attempting to comply with the regulations, because the only report they could obtain applied the standard for conversion to condominiums; the evidence showed that the building was untenantable; the prior landlords had standing to file and pursue the petition but were not allowed to do so, to their potential detriment in pending litigation between the parties; it was therefore discriminatory to grant standing to the former tenants, who are not tenants as defined in the Ordinance; the tenants’ wrongful eviction claims are not relevant; and the rules and procedures governing substantial rehabilitation exemption from the Ordinance should not provide a disincentive to the undertaking of necessary major renovations and the resulting loss of rental units from the market.

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

A. Several articles from the San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Chronicle and BeyondChron.

B. A letter from the San Francisco Apartment Association to Ed Lee, Chair of the Rate Board, asking that a direct procedure be implemented for the passthrough of upcoming increases in garbage costs.

C. A copy of legislation introduced by Supervisor Peskin that would prohibit condo conversion if tenants in two units or an elderly or disabled tenant were evicted for specified no-fault evictions since January 1, 1999.

Executive Director Wolf informed the Board that Senior Administrative Law Judge Sandy Gartzman has agreed to take a photographic portrait of the Commissioners at a future Board meeting.

Commissioner Justman asked that consideration of amendments to the substantial rehabilitation regulations be calendared for a future Board meeting, after consultation with the Office of the City Attorney.

May 9, 2006 - NO MEETING

May 16, 2006

6:30 7 appeal considerations

President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.