- 4163 - 23rd St. S001-04R
(post. from 8/19/97)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, resulting in capital improvement passthroughs
in excess of $400 to the tenants in four units. One tenant appeals
the decision, asserting that: the two new decks added to the
structure should be considered "luxury items", her deck
is smaller than that of her neighbor’s, and the new decks are
smaller than the original decks; she should not have to pay for
energy conservation work because she was not provided with low-flow
water devices and she purchased her own shower assembly; the costs
of new carpet and mini-blinds should be allocated separately to
each unit, and not equally to all units in the building; allocation
of the costs of garden renovation should factor in use of the
garden by tenants who reside in an adjacent building owned and
occupied by the same landlord; the rebuilding of the rear stairs
and decks was due to the landlord’s deferred maintenance and the
costs were found to be excessive by the independent estimator;
and she derives no benefit from work done in the basement area
of the building.
MSF: To accept the appeal and remand the case on the issues
of: whether the rebuilding of the rear stairs and decks was due
to the landlord’s deferred maintenance; the discrepancy between
the landlord’s costs and the amount deemed to be reasonable by
the independent estimator; and whether the costs of garden renovation
should factor in the use of the garden by tenants who reside in
an adjacent building owned and occupied by the same landlord.
(Becker/Bierly: 2-2; Gruber, Murphy dissenting)
Consideration of this matter was therefore continued to
the next meeting.
- 2844 Lyon St. R001-71A
(cont. from 8/19/97)
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable
to the tenant in the amount of $7,745.00 due to serious habitability
defects on the premises. The landlord failed to appear at the
hearing and maintained on appeal that the Notice of Hearing was
sent to an incorrect address. Additionally, the landlord claimed
that a $100.00 per month rent reduction due to lack of heat was
excessive because the heat is defective but operative; that the
common area lighting problem was corrected immediately after notice;
that the cracked and broken windows are the fault of the tenant;
that the tenant painted the unit with the wrong paint, which created
peeling; that there is mildew in the unit due to the tenant’s
failure to ventilate; and that the tenant’s filing of the petition
was not in good faith but was in retaliation for the landlord’s
service of a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. As the landlord
had informed the Director that she would be sending the Board
a copy of her Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice, which she
believed her attorney had already mailed to the Board, the Board
continued consideration of this case from the meeting on August
5, 1997. The Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing
was subsequently received.
As there were several inconsistencies in the landlord’s communications
regarding her correct address and notations in the file that she
had been called twice regarding the hearing by staff, it was the
consensus of the Board at the August 19th meeting for staff to
write a letter requesting clarification under penalty of perjury.
The matter was therefore further continued. Upon discussion
of the landlord’s response to the Board’s queries, the Commissioners
in attendance voted as follows:
MSF: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Bierly: 2-2; Gruber, Murphy
dissenting)
Consideration of this case was again continued, to the September
23rd meeting.
- 1830 Jackson St. #A, B D & E S001-13A
The landlord’s appeal was filed 16 days late because the decision
was mailed and received while the landlord’s representative was
on vacation.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.
(Gruber/Murphy: 4-0)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, in part. The portion of the petition requesting
rent increases based on increased operating expenses was denied
due to the landlord’s failure to prove an increase in the aggregate
cost of operating and maintenance expenses for the building.
On appeal, the landlord alleges that: the hearing officer made
inconsistent distinctions between capital improvements and repairs;
he was unaware that a computer printout would have been acceptable
in lieu of invoices and canceled checks, and he requests the opportunity
to obtain such evidence now; costs attributable to owner-occupied
units should be considered as part of the aggregate in exactly
the same manner as costs attributable to tenant-occupied units;
and that the increase in debt service alone should serve to justify
the requested increases.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Bierly: 3-1; Gruber dissenting)
- 930 Sutter St. #107 S001-13R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement
costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses
was granted, in part. On appeal, the case was accepted and remanded
to the hearing officer to make certain corrections, and to add
two units improperly deemed to have been withdrawn from the petition.
One of the tenants who had been thought to have been withdrawn
appeals the remand decision on due process grounds, claiming that
he was denied his right to a hearing. He did not appear at the
original hearing, of which he had been sent notice.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Bierly: 4-0)
- 1450 Washington St. #7 S001-14R
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase on the grounds that
the last original tenant had vacated the rental unit was granted,
resulting in a rent increase from $1,422.00 to $2,000.00 per month.
The tenant, who failed to appear at the hearing, appeals on the
grounds that the hearing officer’s decision is heavily weighted
in favor of the landlord. She claims that she was unable to attend
on the day of the hearing; was unaware of how the process works;
and requests an opportunity to submit evidence and present her
version of the facts.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Murphy: 4-0)
- 905 Columbus St. #134 S001-15R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement
costs resulting from seismic work on an unreinforced masonry building
was approved, resulting in a passthrough in the amount of $11.61
per month to the tenants in twenty units. 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. (Gruber/Murphy:
4-0)
- 1464 - 45th Ave. S001-14A
The portions of the tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases
in rent and the landlord’s failure to make requested repairs were
denied. The landlord was, however, found liable to the tenant
in the amount of $1,639.50 due to substantial decreases in housing
services. The landlord appeals the decision on the grounds that:
the tenant knew of the condition of the unit prior to the inception
of the tenancy and accepted it "as is"; the tenant owes
him additional amounts due to late charges, rent withholding,
and unilateral lowering of her base rent amount; the broken window
latch was caused by a contractor hired by the tenant; the fact
that the skylights in the unit are covered with clear plastic
does not make them unsafe and there has only been leakage on one
occasion; and the kitchen exhaust fan cannot be broken because
there is no exhaust fan in the kitchen.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing
officer only on the issue of the kitchen exhaust fan. A hearing
will be held only if necessary, at the discretion of the hearing
officer. (Becker/Gruber: 4-0)
- 2890 California St. S001-16R
This case arose pursuant to a landlord petition for certification
of capital improvement costs, which was granted. The instant
tenant’s appeal on the basis of financial hardship was granted,
and the case was remanded to the hearing officer for a hearing
on that claim. In the Decision on Remand, the hearing officer
found sufficient hardship to warrant permanent waiver of any retroactive
amounts owing and to prevent a third year phase-in in the amount
of $80.11 from taking effect. The tenant appeals the remand decision,
asserting that the landlords made clear in their response to the
tenant’s original appeal that they did not object to a complete
waiver of the entire amount granted for this tenant.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing
officer on the record. Pursuant to the landlord’s statement in
response to the tenant’s original appeal, the approved capital
improvement passthrough shall be waived in its entirety unless
and until the tenant’s financial circumstances should change.
(Gruber/Bierly: 4-0)
- 119 Hancock St. S001-17R
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparables
for a Newly Covered Unit under Proposition I was granted, allowing
the landlord to raise the rent from $920.00 to $1,267.58 per month.
The tenant appeals the decision, asserting that: he was not
permitted to see nor respond to the measurements taken of the
size of the unit, upon which the hearing officer relied; a minimal
amount of refurbishing of the unit was done prior to his moving
in; and the hearing officer seriously undervalued the rental value
of a unit with an additional bedroom and panoramic view, skewing
the comparables analysis used to justify the amount approved.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Gruber/Murphy: 4-0)