- 825 Pine St. #12 T001-03R
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services, the landlord’s failure to repair and an improperly calculated PG&E passthrough was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant requests another hearing, because a request for postponement had been made three days prior to the hearing. The tenant claims that it was impossible to fax in a written request, and that his pager was inoperable on the day of the hearing.
- 1830 Taylor St. T001-02R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted, in part, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $37.88. The tenant appeals the decision on the grounds that: the penthouse portion of her unit was not been approved for residential use until after the completion of the work; a good deal of the work was necessitated by the landlords’ deferred maintenance, which also caused the costs to be greater; the cost of replacing the roof was not fair and reasonable; and the replacement of a back yard area with a concrete patio resulted in a diminution of the value of the property, rather than an improvement.
MSC: To deny the appeal; the tenant is advised that she may file a tenant petition for arbitration if she believes that she has suffered a substantial decrease in housing services due to the change in use of the back yard. (Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)
- 412 Texas St. T001-05A
The landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of capital improvement work was granted, in part, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $70.49. However, costs associated with a new deck below the tenant’s unit and adjacent to the landlord’s unit were denied, because the hearing officer found that the tenant did not have equal access to and use of the deck. On appeal, the landlord asserts that the deck is freely accessible to both flats through an enclosed, exterior back stairwell; that the tenant committed perjury in claiming that he has to go through a laundry room in order to reach the deck; that documentation of the higher amount requested for exterior painting will be provided upon receipt of a copy of a second check from the bank; and that expenses on the building, including debt service, have increased tremendously.
MSC: To deny the appeal except to remand the case to the hearing officer on the issue of the costs allowed for exterior painting, in light of the additional documentation submitted by the landlord. (Becker/Marshall: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
- 1441 Clay St. #5 & #12 T001-06A
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services was denied because the hearing officer found that the tenant had failed to prove that the value of a garage space that the tenant no longer had use of was more than the $145.00 compensation that the tenant received from the landlord. However, the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $3,048.72 due to unlawful rent increases on the garage. The landlord’s petition requesting a determination as to whether the tenant additionally occupies another unit in the building was also denied, as the hearing officer found that the tenant is entitled to the "exclusive use and occupancy" of both units. On appeal, the landlord asserts that the hearing officer erred in finding that the tenant must have abandoned a rental unit in order to have "vacated" it; that a tenant should not be entitled to the protections of the Rent Ordinance on units which the tenant subleases, but does not occupy; that at the time the garage space was separately rented, the Rent Board did not impose the same annual limitations on garage rents that were in effect for residential rental units; that the tenant specifically withdrew her claim of unlawful rent increase; and that the hearing officer erred in failing to calculate allowable banking on the garage.
MSF: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 2-3; Gruber, Justman, Murphy dissenting)
MSC: To deny the appeal except to remand the case to the hearing officer on the record to allow the rent increases on the garage that occurred prior to the issuance of the May 1, 1984 Board Decision on Appeal clarifying that rent increases on garages are subject to the same annual rent increase limitations as residential rental units. (Justman/Becker: 5-0)
- 99 Lupine St. #201 & #301 T001-04 & -06R
The tenant’s appeal (unit #301) was filed 18 days late because she was out of the country when the Decision of Hearing Officer was mailed.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs was granted only in part. The costs of new windows which proved to be defective and were subsequently replaced were disallowed as being of no benefit to the tenants; the replacement windows were not certified at this time because they are not water-tight and allow for leakage into the units. Two tenants appeal the decision. The tenant in unit #301 objects to certification of any costs connected to either of the window installation projects, which costs were disallowed by the hearing officer; claims that the work was necessitated by the landlord’s deferred maintenance; and alleges a continuing leak, despite the fact that a new roof has been installed on the building. The tenants in unit #201 object to the certification of any costs associated with the new windows; complain of long-standing leaks in their unit; and point out that they paid the passthrough amount originally noticed by the landlord, rather than the amount approved by the hearing officer.
MSC: To deny both appeals. (Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)
- 3822 - 19th St. #6 T001-05R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to the tenants in eight units was granted, in part, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $84.86. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing on the tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
- 553 Sanchez St. T001-08A
The landlord’s appeal was filed one day late because he claims to have attempted to obtain additional information from the hearing officer, and failed to receive a timely response.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on increased operating expenses was denied because the hearing officer found that the landlord’s expenses actually went down from the base year to the comparison year. On appeal, the landlord claims that the hearing officer erred in calculating the amount of the base year loan payments by including payments that were posted but subsequently reversed because the payment checks were drawn against insufficient funds.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer to sort through the documentation provided to find and allow legitimate costs for the time period when they were incurred; and to allow the costs of the third loan only if it was not renegotiated in order to produce exaggerated results pursuant to Rules and Regulations Section 6.10(a). A hearing will be held only if necessary. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
- 1231 - 11th Ave. #2 T001-07A
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases in rent was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,699.20. On appeal, the landlord maintains that, out of compassion for the tenant’s financial situation, she failed to impose rent increases to which she was entitled; that she acted in good faith and relied on erroneous information from Rent Board staff in calculating the annual increases; that determining the increases to be null and void results in a forfeiture; and that the decision creates a financial hardship for her.
Since the tenant had not had a chance to respond to a late submission by the landlord, it was the consensus of the Commissioners to continue consideration of this case.
- 1451-1/2 Shotwell St. T001-09A
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,900.00. On appeal, the landlord claims that the tenant fraudulently entered into a lease at a higher rent, as the result of negotiations between the parties to avoid an owner-occupancy eviction. Since the rent increase was found to be null and void, the landlord believes that the lease between the parties should also be found to be of no force and effect, so that the tenancy would revert to month-to-month and she could now evict for owner-occupancy.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)