- 39 Curtis St. S001-40A
(rescheduled from 4/21/98)
The tenants’ petition alleging substantially decreased housing services was granted, in part, and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount of $1,305.00 due to habitability defects on the premises. On appeal, the landlords assert that the hearing officer erred in her factual findings and conclusions of law.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Bierly: 5-0)
- 1280 Vallejo St. S001-37A
(cont. from 4/7/98)
The tenants’ petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services due to the landlord’s refusal to allow a replacement roommate was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $3,000.00. On appeal, the landlord asserts that the fact that the rental agreement prohibited subletting but also contained language pertaining to procedures for replacing roommates under Rules Section 6.14 was not confusing to the tenants but, rather, they only raised this contention after being questioned by the hearing officer; the contract entered into by the parties is clear and unambiguous as to its prohibitions against sublet and assignment, and these provisions were never modified or waived; interpretation of the contract must be limited to its language, which is specific as to the prohibition against subletting; and the right to sublet is not a housing service as defined by the Ordinance and, therefore, revocation of that right does not warrant a rent reduction.
Since the landlord’s attorney submitted a 6-page brief only one day prior to the March 3rd meeting, it was the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this matter until the April 7th meeting. However, staff was instructed to admonish the attorney that, in the future, such late submissions would not be allowed nor considered.
A few days prior to the Board’s rescheduled consideration of this matter, a submission was received from the landlord’s attorney asserting that the tenants currently had a third roommate on the premises, that this had been the case at the time of the hearing, and they therefore had suffered no decrease in housing services. However, there was no indication that counsel had provided a copy of the letter to the tenant-appellees. Therefore, the Board again continued this matter, in order for staff to contact the tenants and provide them with an opportunity to respond to these recent allegations.
MSF: To uphold the hearing officer’s determination that the contract was ambiguous and deny the appeal. (Becker/Bierly: 2-3: Gruber, Lightner, Wasserman dissenting)
MSC: To find that the contract language was not ambiguous such that the tenants would reasonably believe they had the right to sublet; therefore, there was no substantial reduction in housing services. The Decision of Hearing Officer is overturned and the tenants’ petition is denied. (Gruber/Lightner: 3-2; Becker, Bierly dissenting)
- 1018 Tennessee St. S001-41A
The landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of capital improvement work performed during a period when the building was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Ordinance was denied. On appeal, the landlord raises equitable arguments. Since he and his wife, former owner-occupiers of the building, had temporarily moved overseas prior to the passage of Proposition I, they did not foresee its passage and raise the rent accordingly. However, since the building would not have become exempt if not for the passage of Prop I, because the owners already resided elsewhere, the provisions of Rules and Regulations Section 7.10(d) are inapplicable and events that took place before the unit was subject to the Rent Ordinance cannot be considered.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing to determine whether the tenants’ rent has already been increased to reflect the costs of the capital improvement work; if not, to certify the costs, as appropriate. ((Lightner/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Bierly dissenting)
- 424 Laurel St. S001-57R
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on increased operating expenses was granted on remand. The tenant appeals the remand decision, claiming that: the landlord’s cost figures are unreliable and not supported by the documentation provided; the comparison periods have been chosen to create exaggerated results; certain repair costs should be stricken because the repairs were ineffectual; and the tenant was prevented from presenting evidence concerning the condition of her unit as a defense against the proposed increase.
MSC: To deny the appeal but remand the case to the hearing officer on the record for a technical correction on the proper pro-ration of the insurance costs. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
- 837 Geary St. #402 & 302 S001-58R & -59R
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part. Two tenants appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: As to the tenant in unit #302: to find sufficient hardship to warrant permanent deferral of the approved passthrough unless the tenant’s financial circumstances should change, subject to the approval of the landlord. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC: As to the tenant in unit #402: to accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)
- 1280 Pine St. #401 S001-60R
The tenant’s appeal was filed two days late because the tenant claims that he understood the deadline to be calculated using work, rather than calendar, days.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Justman: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted. One tenant appealed the decision on the basis of financial hardship. Because the tenant is working less than full-time, and the ratio between his income and rent appears to have remained somewhat constant throughout his tenancy, it was the consensus of the Commissioners to continue this matter in order for staff to obtain additional information from the tenant.
- 1369 Hyde St. S001-35A
(cont. from 2/17/98)
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration of this appeal. (Gruber/Becker: 5-0)
Nineteen tenant petitions alleging substantial decreases in housing services were granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable for rent reductions to each tenant for a period of time during which one of the two elevators in the building was non-functioning; and for the lack of a resident manager on the premises sufficiently often to accept deliveries on behalf of residents. The landlord appealed, maintaining that: the reliability of elevator service was not substantially reduced during the period that one of the two elevators was not operational, since the functioning elevator had an improved level of emergency response service; granting rent reductions for reduced services during periods of necessary repair creates a disincentive for landlords to maintain and upgrade their properties; and there was no evidence that there was a building-wide policy that managers would accept parcels for residents, rather, this was an occasional and infrequent favor provided by a former manager.
At the meeting on February 17, 1998, the Commissioners passed a motion to deny the appeal on the issue of receiving parcels, but they continued consideration of the elevator issue until litigation concerning a similar issue regarding the Golden Gateway complex was resolved. The Deputy Director informed the Board that the Writ filed by the owner of the Golden Gateway complex challenging the lawfulness of granting rent reductions to tenants for decreased housing services due to the effectuation of necessary repairs was denied. Therefore, the Board passed the following motion:
MSC: To deny the landlord’s appeal regarding the issue of elevator service. (Becker/Bierly: 3-2; Gruber, Murphy dissenting)