- 572 San Jose Ave. S001-02A & S001-03R
(cont. from 8/19/97)
This case involves a Proposition I Affected Unit. The tenant’s
petition alleging unlawful increases in rent due to capital improvement
passthroughs not having been discontinued and having been improperly
included in base rent was denied due to the equitable defense
of laches. The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based
on comparable rents was granted, resulting in a rent increase
for the unit in the amount of $312.60 (from $339.00 to $651.60).
The tenant’s appeal was accepted and remanded only on his claim
of financial hardship. In the Decision on Remand, the hearing
officer found sufficient evidence of financial hardship to waive
the retroactive amount owed from the tenant to the landlord ($7,189.80),
but ordered that the tenant commence payment of the approved rent
increase as of July 1, 1997. Both the landlord and the tenant
appeal the remand decision. The tenant maintains that factual
and legal errors in the original Decision of Hearing Officer regarding
the comparables rent increase should be reexamined; and asserts
that the hearing officer erred in finding insufficient hardship
to disallow all or part of the noticed increase. The landlord
appeals the waiver of the retroactive amount owed in its entirety,
maintaining that the tenant has the ability to repay the sum in
installments.
Because of the absence of a voting neutral Commissioner at the
August 19, 1997 meeting, consideration of this matter was continued.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this
appeal. (Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC: To deny both the landlord’s and tenant’s appeals. (Wasserman/Gruber:
3-2; Marshall, Moore dissenting)
- 1406 Pacific Ave. #4 S001-03A
(cont. from 8/19/97)
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparable
rents was denied. The hearing officer found that the landlord
had established the requisite extraordinary circumstances to justify
a rent increase based on comparables, and that the rent for the
subject unit was set low and kept low due to a special relationship
and fraud. However, the landlord failed to meet his burden of
proving what a comparable rent for the unit should be, instead
providing somewhat unreliable evidence as to "market"
rent for the unit. On appeal, the landlord claimed that the decision
is unsupported by the evidence. Because of the Board’s failure
to pass a final motion at the meeting on August 19th, this case
was continued. After further discussion at the September 2nd
meeting, it was the consensus of the Board to again continue this
matter in order to obtain clarification from the hearing officer
as to exactly what instructions the landlord received pertaining
to the inadequacy of his comparables evidence.
- 634 - 18th Ave. S001-04A
(cont. from 8/19/97)
The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases in rent was
granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the
amount of $18,311.46. On appeal, the landlord asserts that the
tenant is barred from recovery of the rent overpayments due to
the equitable doctrines of laches, waiver and estoppel. She asserts,
specifically, that: there is no evidence of retaliation against
the tenant for her filing of the petition but, rather, a good
faith owner-occupancy of the subject premises pursuant to the
provisions of Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(8); the hearing officer’s
conclusion that the landlord’s deceased husband had "unclean
hands" is based upon hearsay and is unreliable; the death
of the owner who managed the property constitutes real prejudice
to the landlord; the tenant’s conduct over the years would lead
any reasonable landlord to believe that the rent charges were
proper and permissible; and fairness dictates that the amount
of overpayment be reduced by one-half, on the theory that both
parties are equally at fault, conditioned on the landlord’s prompt
payment to the tenant. Due to the absence of a voting neutral
Commissioner at the meeting on August 19th, consideration of this
appeal was continued.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Wasserman/Becker: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner
dissenting)
- 3239 - 17th St. #3 S001-07A
(cont. from 8/19/97)
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the
tenants in the amount of $14,950.00 due to egregious conditions
on the premises. No appearance was made by the landlord at the
hearing. The property had been sold prior to the date of the
hearing, and Notice of Hearing was sent to the prior owner and
the mortgage company (California Mortgage and Realty Company)
that had collected rent subsequent to the sale. On appeal, California
Mortgage and Realty claims that the company is not an owner but,
rather, a second lender that does not hold title to the property.
After discussion, this matter was continued from the meeting
on August 19th in order for the Deputy Director to investigate
ownership of the property and confer with the Senior Hearing Officer
on policy in the event of an ownership change after a hearing
has been held. After receiving a report from Deputy Director
Wolf, and further discussion, the Board voted as follows:
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Wasserman: 5-0)
- 170 Highland Ave. S001-08A
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the
tenants in the amount of $4,080.00 due to serious habitability
defects on the premises. The landlord failed to appear at the
original hearing and appealed the decision on the grounds of non-receipt
of notice of hearing. The appeal was accepted and the case was
remanded for a new hearing. On remand, the hearing officer granted
rent reductions in the amount of $3,567.00. The landlord appeals
the Decision on Remand, providing copies of receipts and proposals
that he claims prove that many of the conditions cited in the
decision have been remedied.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Wasserman: 5-0)
- 86 & 88 Frederick St. S001-12A; S001-11R & -12R
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable
to two tenants for slight overcharges in rent. The landlord appeals
the decision on the grounds that the move-in date used by the
hearing officer for one of the tenancies was incorrect, in that
the tenancy consisted of revolving roommates. Therefore, the
landlord asserts that he was entitled to several years of banked
increases prior to the instant tenant’s having resided on the
premises. Two tenants appeal the decision on the grounds that
certain items constituted repairs rather than capital improvements;
were the result of deferred maintenance; and/or were unfairly
allocated. One tenant also contends that the rent history in
the decision is incorrect as to her unit.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Moore from consideration of this
appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the landlord’s and tenant’s appeals and remand
the case for a hearing only on the issue of the rent history for
the tenant in unit #88, and to correct the allocation of the costs
of the new front window. (Becker/Wasserman: 5-0)
- 1950 Gough St. #502
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on increased
operating expenses was granted. The tenant appeals the decision
on the grounds that the landlord’s debt service costs should be
disallowed, because the landlord’s loan had an initial, low "teaser"
rate, which the landlord knew would go up; that the hearing officer
should have looked only at the costs associated with her unit,
as opposed to the operating expenses for the entire 35-unit condominium
complex; and, since the landlord’s homeowners’ association fees
did not go up, the actual costs to the landlord did not increase.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
- 1353 Filbert St. S001-09R
This case concerns a Newly Covered Unit under Proposition I.
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, in part. On appeal from the landlord and two
tenants, the case was remanded by the Commissioners with instructions
to determine whether the landlord had previously been compensated
for costs of capital improvement work, among other issues. The
hearing officer found that this was not the case. One tenant
appeals the Decision on Remand, asserting that, since there were
regular, sizable rent increases every year of the tenancy, the
landlord has clearly been adequately compensated; and that by
the use of the word "repair" on at least one notice
of rent increase, the landlord also meant to include what would
more properly be called "capital improvement" work.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Lightner from consideration of this
appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Murphy: 5-0)
- 4110 Anza St. S001-10R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement
costs to the tenants in one unit was granted, in part. The tenants
appeal on the grounds that: they should not be liable for work
done in the back yard area, as they are denied access to the back
yard by the landlord; and that an outdoor light fixture did not
need replacement and the cost of the replacement fixture was excessive.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Bierly
dissenting)
- 100 Broderick St. #104 & 306 R001-09A
The landlord’s appeal was filed five days late because the landlord
claimed that he was unable to check his mailbox due to having
had knee surgery.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.
(Gruber/Lightner: 4-1; Bierly dissenting)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, in part. In addition, the hearing officer
determined rent overcharges due to annual increases having been
calculated on base rent amounts that included parking charges
that were not yet in effect. On appeal, the landlord submits
estoppel certificates obtained at the time of purchase that indicate
that the tenants were already paying extra for garage space.
He therefore asks that the otherwise allowable banked increases
be recalculated on the proper base rent amounts, exclusive of
parking charges.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing
to determine when parking was obtained by the tenants. (Wasserman/Gruber:
5-0)
- 1246 Sacramento St. #2 S001-10A
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on increased
operating expenses but granted, in part. The categories of debt
service and property taxes were disallowed, however, because the
landlord had obtained an increase on those grounds subsequent
to his purchase of the property. On appeal, the landlord asserts
that Section 6.10(e) of the Rules and Regulations should not apply
in the instant case because there was no change in ownership or
refinancing, just an increase in an adjustable rate mortgage.
Additionally, the increase in property taxes was a normal, annual
adjustment, and was not due to reassessment upon transfer of the
property.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing
officer on the record to grant the landlord’s increase in property
taxes and make any necessary corrections to the decision. (Becker/Bierly:
5-0)
- 4027 - 27-1/2 Folsom St. S001-11A
The landlords’ petition for rent increases based on increased
operating expenses was denied. The hearing officer found that
the majority of the increased costs were in the category of repairs,
and that most of these items constituted capital improvements.
On appeal, the landlords claim that the hearing officer completely
disregarded documented repairs in the amount of $2,670.35.
MSC: To deny the appeal. The landlord is, however, encouraged
to file a petition for capital improvement certification. (Lightner/Gruber:
5-0)