- 1213 B York St. - T001-01A
(rescheduled from 8/4/98)
The landlord’s Petition for Extension of Time to do Capital Improvement Work was denied because the hearing officer found that the landlord had acted in bad faith for the following reasons: the work done to the interior of the tenant’s unit had been completed prior to the request for additional time; the exterior work did not render the unit uninhabitable and two other units in the building were occupied while this work was being done; and the landlord protracted the period of the tenants’ continued displacement in order to sell the unit. On appeal, the landlord claims that the extreme weather brought on by El Nino hampered the construction; extensive framing damage necessitated the work being done from inside the unit; there was more damage to the building than originally anticipated; and the unit could not be considered habitable until the Department of Building Inspection had performed a Final Inspection, which could not have taken place until after the exterior work had been completed.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
Commissioners Moore and Marshall expressed their concerns regarding the course of conduct undertaken by the landlord in this case, and asked that staff report back to the Board at the next meeting regarding the advisability of a referral to the Office of the District Attorney.
- 1550 Bay St. - S001-93R thru S003-53R
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds that, since his tenancy commenced after ownership of the property changed, he should not be subject to the rent increase pursuant to Rules Section 6.10(a). In addition, sixty tenants appeal the decision, asserting that the "anti-speculation clause" {Rules Section 6.10(f)} is applicable to the facts of this case. The landlord had purchased the "unit" or building in 1987, but did not acquire the land until December of 1994. The hearing officer therefore found that since the most recent purchase of the "unit" did not occur within two years of the date of purchase of the unit by the seller of the unit to the current landlord, Rules Section 6.10(f) is inapplicable. The tenants argue that since the definition of "rental unit" in Ordinance Section 37.2(p) specifically includes "the land and appurtenant buildings thereto", the sale and acquisition of the land cannot be ignored, even though the landlord owned the building prior to the acquisition of the land.
MSC: To recuse Commissioners Gruber and Murphy from consideration of these appeals. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
Since the tenants had submitted a relevant submission on the afternoon of the meeting, to which the landlord’s attorney had not had a chance to respond, the Commissioners continued consideration of these appeals to the September 15th Board meeting.
- 4030 Cabrillo St. - T001-02A
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $2,160.00 due to habitability defects on the premises. Additionally, rent overpayments in the amount of $560.70 were determined to be owing from the landlord to the tenant. The tenant’s claim that the landlord had failed to perform requested repairs was denied. On appeal, the landlord asserts that the tenants’ claim regarding the defective heater was not included in their petition; that repairs were effectuated in a timely manner; that the roof leak was minor in nature and did not seriously inconvenience the tenants in any way; and that the amounts granted are unwarranted and excessive.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record to delete the amount granted due to the defective heater, since the issue was not raised in the tenants’ petition. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
- 416 Lombard St. - T001-04A
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,636.35 due to the loss of use of a roof deck and $5,600.00 due to revocation of the right to have a roommate. On appeal, the landlord asserts that: the language in the Rental Agreement prohibiting subletting is clear and unambiguous; the landlord did not waive her right to enforce the covenant prohibiting subletting and the Rental Agreement specifically provides that failure to enforce a term of the contract shall not constitute a waiver; the issuance of a notice pursuant to the provisions of Rules Section 6.14 does not constitute waiver on the part of the landlord; provisions of the Police and Housing Codes that deem restrictions on the number of occupants in a unit as contrary to public policy are inapplicable; the right to sublet is not a "housing service"; and, the tenant never had a legal right to use the roof platform and therefore did not suffer the loss of a housing service upon its legal removal.
MSC: To deny the landlord’s appeal on the issue of the rent reductions granted due to revocation of the right to sublet but find that, under the facts of this case, no permanent waiver of the no subletting and assignment clause has been established, and the landlord has the right to reassert the no subletting clause if and when there is a new occupant on the premises, at the commencement of that tenancy. (Wasserman/Becker: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing to find out what representations regarding the use of the roof deck were made to the original tenant in the unit. (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
- 43301/2 - 17th St. - T001-03A
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services, the landlord’s failure to repair, improper rent increases and incorrect calculation of a PG&E passthrough was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,580.00 due to habitability problems on the premises. Additionally, rent overpayments in the amount of $608.00 were determined, although no refund was ordered since the tenant had failed to pay rent since July of 1997. On appeal, the landlord claims that: the tenant is not entitled to occupy the premises; she has attempted to effectuate repairs, but the tenant has failed to cooperate; the tenant constitutes a nuisance and a danger to the other tenants; and the dates and amounts granted for rent reductions are incorrect.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
- 150 Julian Ave. - T001-01A
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent from $540.00 to $807.30 was denied because the hearing officer found that the tenant had failed to meet her burden of proving that the amount was in excess of allowable annual and banked increases available to the landlord. On appeal, the tenant claims that the sellers could not have told the landlord that increases had not been imposed between 1982 and 1989, because they were not the owners of the property at that time; that the resident manager for the building at that time could confirm that increases had been imposed, but illness has prevented him from doing so; and that it is not possible to obtain copies of money orders from so long ago.
Since there was a question as to the calculation of allowable banking in the Decision of Hearing Officer, this case was continued to the meeting on September 15th in order to obtain clarification from staff.