- 505 - 26th Ave. #1 & #3 R001-10A
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly scheduled hearing. The landlord’s request for postponement of the hearing had been denied due to his failure to provide documentation of his trip outside of the country. On appeal, the landlord alleges that he did not realize that he needed to furnish such documentation, and provides a copy of a round-trip airline ticket.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing. (Bierly/Gruber: 5-0)
- 60 Leavenworth St. #34 R001-06R
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. The tenant appeals five and one-half weeks late, alleging that she missed the hearing because of the hospitalization of her daughter. Staff had requested documentation of her daughter’s illness and the reason for her untimeliness, which the tenant failed to provide. The tenant’s appeal, however, raised the question of a possible language problem.
MSC: To continue consideration of this matter to the October 1, 1996 Board meeting in order for staff to attempt to contact the tenant. (Marshall/Murphy: 5-0)
- 2737 Sutter St. #1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12 R001-07R thru -13R
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to eight of thirteen units in the building was granted. The tenants in seven units appeal the decision on the basis of financial hardship.
MSC: To accept the appeals and remand the case to the hearing officer for a hearing on the tenants’ allegations of financial hardship. (Marshall/Palma: 5-0)
- Golden Gateway R001-11A thru -13A &
R001-14R thru -41R
This case involves 90 tenant petitions alleging substantially decreased housing services in four residential high-rise buildings at the Golden Gateway complex. The 52 petitions that went to hearing were divided between three different hearing officers, who rendered three decisions with essentially the same Findings and Conclusions. The tenants’ claims were denied as to an alleged reduction in the number of security guards and related coverage of building entrances by doormen; an alleged reduction in the level of janitorial and maintenance services on the premises; and a change in policy regarding maintenance of apartment interiors, specifically, painting, replacement and cleaning of carpets and drapes at no charge. The policy is that management makes a determination as to the need for the work and, if it is found not to be necessary, the resident is informed that the cost of the work may be the subject of a capital improvement passthrough petition or the tenant is referred to private contractors for performance of the work. The tenants prevailed on the issue of the loss of use of their decks during a 4-month period when the decks were being worked on and the landlord was found liable to each tenant in the amount of $100 per month.
Twenty-eight tenants appeal the decision only on the issue of the change in management policy regarding interior repair and replacement, arguing that the new policy was designed to discourage and intimidate tenants from requesting replacement and repair, and had a "chilling effect" on tenants’ assertion of their rights. The landlords also appeal, asserting: that temporary removal or diminution of a housing service during necessary capital improvement work is not substantial on its face; that granting rent reductions for such temporary removal or inconvenience discourages owners from properly maintaining their property and unreasonably inflates the cost of such work; that the nature and extent of the deck loss was overstated and the amount of $100 per month was excessive; that the subject project could been done in such a way so as to result in fewer inconveniences for the tenants, with a resulting much greater capital improvement passthrough; that the rent reductions granted constitute "damages", for which there is no authority in the Ordinance or Rules and Regulations; and that the loss of rental income imposed may constitute a "taking" as defined in recent court decisions, in that the public policy goals of the Ordinance are not being furthered while the landlord is being prevented from recoupment of the costs of the capital improvement project .
MSC: To deny the landlord’s appeal. (Marshall/Moore: 3-2; Gruber, Murphy dissenting)
MSC: To deny the tenants’ appeals. (Murphy/Gruber: 3-2; Marshall, Palma dissenting)
- 424 Laurel St. R001-42R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to three units was granted. One tenant appeals the decision, asserting that: the costs incurred by the prior landlord for exterior painting of the building should be disallowed because portico renovation work, including stucco removal, has obliterated the paint job; adequate documentation of the costs of the paint job was not provided by the landlords, as no invoice or contract for the work was submitted; the cost allocation method used by the landlords (square footage) was not proven to be the most equitable, especially since the landlords’ architect merely estimated the square footage of the floors in the building, and not the individual units; the hearing officer erred in not considering evidence of the landlords’ failure to make requested repairs; and the exterior paint job was routine maintenance, and not a capital improvement.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)
- 2656 Van Ness Ave. R001-14A
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 $425.00 due to a bathroom ceiling in disrepair and the loss of the services of a resident manager in this 18-unit building. The landlord appealed the decision, alleging that he had failed to appear at the hearing because he had not received notice. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded for a new hearing. The Decision on Remand affirms the original decision. The landlord again appeals, asserting that: the hearing officer gave undue weight to the testimony of the tenant, whose credibility should be suspect because he does not date the notices that he gives to the landlord; the landlord himself served as the resident manager after the death of the building’s resident manager; and the repairs to the bathroom ceiling were merely cosmetic and a two to four-week turnaround time for such repairs is reasonable.
MSC: To deny the appeal except for a Technical Correction to the Decision on Remand at page 11, lines 14 and 15, which shall read as follows: "Lack of a resident manager constitutes a substantial decrease in housing services in this case, warranting a reduction of base rent." [additions underlined] (Marshall/Murphy: 5-0)