May 16, 2006

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

Commissioners not Present: Justman; Marshall; Murphy.

Staff Present: Lee; Wolf.

MSC: To approve the Minutes of May 2, 2006.

(Mosbrucker/Hurley: 5-0)

The landlord's petition for approval of a utility passthrough for 67 of 153 units was approved. One tenant appeals the $15.46 passthrough on the grounds of financial hardship.

The tenant's appeal of a decision certifying capital improvement costs on the grounds of financial hardship was filed over seven years late because the tenant did not know there was a time limit on filing for hardship, and she has become disabled since the time the Decision was issued.

The landlord's petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted. The tenant in one unit appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

The landlord's petition for approval of a utility passthrough for 52 of 153 units was approved. One tenant appeals the $10.88 passthrough on the grounds of financial hardship.

The landlords' petition for certification of capital improvement costs to one of three units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $656.27. The tenant appeals, claiming that: his objections were not carefully considered by the Administrative Law Judge; the landlords failed to meet their burden of proving that the new foundation was necessary for reasons of safety; the intent of the landlords was always to build a new garage, and not to seismically strengthen the building; the construction costs were so high that the work appeals to a wealthier class of tenants; and there has always been adequate space for storing garbage cans in the tradesmen's area of the building.

^{The landlords' petition for certification of capital improvement costs to five of six units was granted. All of the tenants appeal the decision on the grounds that: the deferred maintenance defense was interpreted too narrowly by the Administrative Law Judge; unallocated, non-residential space benefiting the landlord should have been included in the allocation; the replacement of the water heater was necessitated by deferred maintenance; and there was abundant evidence of landlord neglect and lack of maintenance. The tenant in Apt. A additionally asserts that the landlord representative lied at the hearing; that the Notice of Violation has in fact never been abated; and the costs were not substantiated by cancelled checks or invoices, but only by estimates. The tenants in unit 3538 additionally appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.}

^{The landlords' petition for certification of capital improvement work was granted, in part. However, the costs of side passageway and rear stair work were disallowed because the Administrative Law Judge found that the work was required to correct code violations for which a notice of violation had been issued and remained unabated for 90 days. On appeal, the landlords submit additional evidence to demonstrate that timely good faith efforts were made to commence and complete the work within the 90-day period, and show that the landlords were hampered by circumstances beyond their control.}

^{The tenants' petition alleging unlawful rent increases and requesting a determination of the proper base rent was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $2,167.20. On appeal, the tenants claim that: the amount granted is incorrect, as one of the tenants worked for the owner of the building for several years, and the rent was deducted from his wages; a $30.00 late fee was added to the base rent; and the Decision is in error as to the amount of rent that was paid.}

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

^{A. A copy of legislation introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi that will be heard before the Land Use Committee on May 24th that provides that garages or common areas of the building cannot be taken away without Just Cause.}

^{B. Several articles from BeyondChron, the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner.}

^{Executive Director Wolf informed the Board that the departmental budget would go to the Budget and Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors for first reading on Wednesday, May 24th.}

^{A. Landlord Jim Liefer of 652 Waller St. (AT060033) told the Board that substantial sums were invested in the renovation of the property and went over the construction alternatives that the owners were faced with. Mr. Liefer felt that, if the Commissioners had read the case more closely, they wouldn't have engaged in so much speculation.}

^{B. Landlord Robert Stahman of 652 Waller reiterated much of what was expressed by landlord Liefer, and told the Board that there had not been a garage on the premises prior to the construction.}

^{May 23, 2006 - NO MEETING}

^{May 30, 2006}

^{3 appeal considerations}

^{6:00 Public Hearing: SRO Hotel Visitor Policy}

^{President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.}