- 2280 Pacific Ave. R001-42A
Five tenant petitions alleging substantial decreases in housing
services were granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable
to the tenants in varying amounts due to: lack of elevator service
in the twenty-four unit building for fifty-seven days; damp and
damaged walls and ceilings in certain units due to leaks; an inoperable
fire escape window; and a kitchen floor with loose tiles. On
appeal, the landlord asserts that: the hearing officer erred
as to the time period during which the elevator was malfunctioning;
the rent reduction granted for the lack of elevator service was
punitive and not compensatory; one of the landlord’s witnesses
should have been considered an "expert"; a tenant who
failed to appear at the hearings did not meet her burden of proof
based on the hearsay testimony of her counsel; the tenants interfered
with the landlord’s repair attempts and refused to provide access;
that the hearing officer erred as to the date that the landlord
was given notice as to the wall and ceiling problems in unit #704
and as to the length of time that construction was taking place
in that unit; and that the fire escape window was repaired promptly
after the landlord received notice of the problem.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
- 2645 Polk St. #307 & 308 R001-85R & -86R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement
costs and increases based on increased operating expenses was
granted. Two tenants appeal on the grounds that: the landlords
willingly entered into an arms-length negotiation for the purchase
of the building with knowledge as to the existing rent structure
and the tenants should not have to finance such acquisition; the
landlords should not be entitled to pass through the costs of
capital improvement work performed by the prior landlord as the
landlords have been compensated for these costs in the purchase
price; and the prior owner managed the building itself and the
tenants should not have to pay for the current owners’ management
preferences.
MSC: To deny the appeals. (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
- 665 Pine St. R001-43A &
R001-87R thru -99R
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs to the tenants in 23 out of 40 units in the building was
granted, in part; the landlord and thirteen tenants appeal the
decision. The tenants appeal on the grounds that: painting of
the garage only benefits those tenants who park at the garage
level; much of the work is in the nature of repair and/or maintenance,
and does not constitute capital improvements; removal of the underground
storage tank does not benefit the tenants and the owner has already
been compensated for this expense by the low purchase price of
the building; and the old steam heat system was preferable to
the new electric system, which was forced upon the tenants. On
appeal, the landlord maintains that the hearing officer had no
authority to certify the costs of installation of a new electrical
heating system, but forestall the passthrough of those costs to
the tenants until the steam heating system currently in place
is no longer in use; he also alleges that there are ancillary
benefits to the tenants in having a backup heating system in place,
although he disputes that tenant "benefit" should be
a consideration. Additionally, the landlord claims that costs
for retiling of shower walls, reinstallation of a skylight and
ancillary re-roofing work, and installation of electrical outlets,
which were disallowed as repairs, are more properly considered
capital improvements.
MSC: To deny the landlord’s appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 4-1;
Lightner dissenting)
MSC: To deny the tenants’ appeals. (Wasserman/Gruber: 4-1;
Marshall dissenting)
- 1534 Chesnut St. R001-44A
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparables
was granted, and an increase from $400.00 to $762.17 for this
two-bedroom unit in the Marina district was found to be justified.
Both parties appealed the decision and the case was remanded
on the issue of comparables. In her Decision on Remand, the hearing
officer denies the petition based on the landlord’s failure to
meet the requisite burden of proof. The landlord appeals the
remand decision on the grounds that: the hearing officer had
a conflict of interest in that she was acquainted with the tenant
appellee; the requirements of Rules Section 6.11(a) are impossible
to meet in cases such as this, with a 24-year tenancy; the landlord
has been denied due process in that the tenant’s evidence consisted
of hearsay which prevented the landlord from direct and cross-examination
of witnesses; and the decision is confiscatory in that it prevents
the landlord from obtaining a fair and adequate rent.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 4-1; Gruber dissenting)
- 1278 - 19th Ave. R001-45A
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services and unlawful rent increases was granted, and the landlords
were found liable to the tenants in the amount of $3,035.00 based
on habitability problems in the subject unit and $771.78 due to
rent overpayments. On appeal, the landlord provided a copy of
a Notice from DBI showing that the conditions had been abated.
The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded in order to
determine the appropriate termination date for the rent reductions.
In the Decision on Remand, the hearing officer upholds the original
decision, finding that the landlord failed to comply with the
conditions specified in that decision in order for the rent reductions
to be discontinued. The landlord again appeals, asserting that
the tenants had failed to provide notice of the problems in the
unit; that the conditions were remedied immediately upon notification
from the Department of Building Inspection; and that the hearing
officer exhibited bias in favor of the tenants.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
- 685 Fell St. R001-46A
Two tenant petitions alleging substantial decreases in housing
services and rent overpayments were partially granted. The landlord
in this case (Independent Housing, hereinafter referred to as
IH) is a non-profit corporation which subleases, arranges and
operates shared living situations; some ancillary social services
are also provided. In addition to the monthly rent forwarded
to the owner of the property, IH charges a $35.00 monthly "management
fee" which is added to each tenant’s base rent. The hearing
officer determined that the collection of this fee constituted
a violation of Ordinance Section 37.3(c) of the Ordinance, in
that IH was receiving more rent than the amount being forwarded
to the owner. On appeal, IH asserts that: the $35.00 charge
is a fee for services, and does not constitute rent; Ordinance
Section 37.3(c) is inapplicable since IH is not a tenant which
resides at the premises; and the tenants’ base rents have been
found to be lawful in a prior Rent Board decision.
MSC: To recuse Commissioners Becker and Marshall from consideration
of this appeal. (Murphy/Wasserman: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing
officer on the record to overturn the portion of the decision
determining rent overpayments since Independent Housing is not
a "tenant" as defined in Ordinance Section 37.2(r) and,
therefore, Section 37.3 (c) is inapplicable; to uphold the decision
in all other respects. (Wasserman/Gruber: 4-1;
Moore dissenting)