- 1600 Larkin St. #104 R001-47R
(cont. from 10/15/96)
The landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of bathroom
renovation necessitated by dry rot was granted, resulting in a
capital improvement passthrough in the amount of $180.70 to the
tenant in one unit in the building. On appeal, the tenant alleged
that the work was in the nature of repair, and not capital improvement;
that he failed to vigorously contest the passthrough at the hearing
because he assumed that the hearing officer would agree with his
depiction of the work as necessary repairs; and that the work
was necessitated by the current landlord’s deferred maintenance.
Since the tenant had expressed concern at the hearing over his
ability to pay the passthrough, and stated in his appeal that
he is a senior citizen, at the meeting on October 15th the Commissioners
denied the appeal on substantive grounds but continued the matter
in order to staff to contact the tenant and see if he wished to
pursue a hardship appeal. As the tenant failed to submit a Hardship
Application, no further action was taken regarding this case.
- 320 Turk St. #408 R001-23A
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 $765.00 due to a lack of heat; mold, mildew
and dampness on the walls of the unit; and sporadic elevator service.
The landlord failed to appear at the hearing and alleges on appeal
that this was due to the Notice of Hearing having been lost by
a new property manager his first week on the job. The landlord
accepts the majority of the hearing officer’s findings but asks
that the Board reduce the amount of the rent reduction for the
lack of heat because the repair was effectuated as of November
22, 1995, rather than the end of December.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
- 1555 Greenwich St. #11 R001-49R
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses
for ten of twelve units in the building was granted. One tenant
appeals the decision, alleging financial hardship. The Commissioners
had several questions regarding the information provided in the
tenant’s Hardship Application and continued consideration of this
case to the next Board meeting in order for staff to contact the
tenant.
- 2699 Bryant St. R001-50R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, in part, resulting in a passthrough in the
amount of $124.07 to one unit in the building. The tenant of
that unit appeals, asserting that: the majority of the work performed
was necessitated by the negligence of upstairs tenants who have
since vacated the unit; repeated water leakages from the upstairs
tenants resulted in deferred maintenance resulting in code violations;
tenants should not be responsible for paying for work necessary
for habitability; certain of the costs for the work are unreasonably
high; the heating system purchased by the landlord is unnecessarily
elaborate and a luxury item; and that there has been a decrease
in housing services due to the conditions that necessitated the
work. The tenant appellant did not appear at the hearing and
claimed on appeal that he is a City Housing Inspector and was
required to testify in Superior Court on the day of the hearing.
The Commissioners continued this matter in order for staff to
contact the tenant and ask him to provide documentation of the
court appearance; an explanation as to why he failed to request
a postponement of the hearing; and the reason why his wife also
failed to appear.
- 2450 Lake St. #2 R001-52R
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services was denied, for the most part, except for a $10 per month
rent reduction for a two-month period due to a broken bedroom
light switch. The parties have been involved in numerous prior
cases in which rent reductions were granted for pest infestation
and drainage problems in the unit, which were found to have been
abated by the landlord. In the instant petition, the tenant raised
these problems again but the hearing officer found that there
was no evidence to prove that the problems had not been corrected
or had resurfaced. On appeal, the tenant maintains that there
are still problems with cockroaches, sewage backup and blocked
drains.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to a different
hearing officer for a new hearing. (Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
- 572 San Jose Ave. R001-51R
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 hearing officer found that the tenant had been
a party to the capital improvement certification proceedings and
had waited too long to assert this claim. 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). On appeal, the tenant asserts that the hearing
officer erred and abused her discretion in the following respects:
since the landlord did not make the building his principal place
of residence in good faith and with honest intent, this is not
a Proposition I Affected Unit; since the tenant’s family has occupied
the unit since 1966, tenancies commencing prior to 1979 should
have been considered; the tenant’s comparables evidence, including
comparison of the subject unit to itself, was superior to that
provided by the landlord; the delays in scheduling of the hearing
and issuance of the decision were prejudicial to the tenant; laches
should not apply, since the tenant did not know that the capital
improvement passthrough should have been discontinued and the
landlord has unclean hands; and the decision creates a financial
hardship for the tenant, especially considering the large retroactive
amount owed.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this
appeal. (Lightner/Palma: 5-0)
MSF: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing
on the issues of: whether the landlord resided in the unit in
good faith such that this is a Proposition I Affected Unit; laches,
because the notices of rent increase didn’t separate out the capital
improvement passthrough amounts; rents for comparable units prior
to 1979; and tenant hardship, if necessary. (Marshall/Moore:
2-3; Lightner, Mosser, Palma dissenting)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing
on the issue of tenant hardship. (Lightner/Mosser: 4-1; Palma
dissenting)
MSC: To reconsider the prior motion because Commissioner Marshall
mis-heard the motion and misunderstood what was being voted on.
(Marshall/Moore: 3-2; Lightner, Mosser dissenting)
MSF: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing
on the issue of tenant hardship. (Mosser/Lightner: 2-3; Marshall,
Moore, Palma dissenting)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a hearing
on the issue of tenant hardship; and to state that, in similar
cases, the issue of good faith owner occupancy and ulterior motive
shall be examined in determining whether the unit qualifies as
Proposition I Affected. (Palma/Marshall: 3-2; Lightner, Mosser
dissenting)
- 99 Jersey St. #1 - 12 & 14 - 16 R001-24A
This case involves 19 tenant petitions alleging decreased housing
services due to inadequate heat, which was remanded pursuant to
the Order of the Superior Court. In the original decision in
this case, the hearing officer granted rent reductions in the
amounts of either $100 or $125 for the winter months from November
1992 and on-going because the majority of the tenants had proved
that, although the heating sources provided by the landlords were
in compliance with code requirements, the amount of heat generated
was insufficient. The landlord’s appeal, which was denied by
the Rent Board Commissioners, asserted that the hearing officer’s
finding that the heat was inadequate was contradicted by the sworn
deposition of a building inspector; that rent reductions were
inappropriate because there was no violation of health or safety
codes; and that the decision promulgates confusion because the
landlords have no way of knowing what would be considered adequate
under the circumstances. Upon the landlord’s Writ of Administrative
Mandamus having been granted, the case was remanded to the hearing
officer by the Board "for consideration, upon the record
or after a hearing, of the August 2, 1994 deposition of David
Gogna and to determine the amounts owed, if any."
In the instant decision, the hearing officer found that the deposition
of the housing inspector shed little light on the matter, nor
did it persuade her to rule differently, and the rent reductions
granted in the original decision were upheld. The landlord appeals
the Decision on Remand, asserting that: the hearing officer should
have taken the fact that roofing insulation has been added to
the building into account in determining the sufficiency of heat;
the requirement that these landlords do more than comply with
City housing codes constitutes disparate treatment; the hearing
officer gave great credence to the tenants’ expert witness, who
is unfamiliar with San Francisco code requirements, but gave little
consideration to the landlords’ witness, a City building inspector;
and the commencement date for the rent reductions should be February,
1993, rather than the fall of 1992, since that is when the Department
of Building Inspection re-opened the case and the owners received
notice that there was a problem with heat adequacy.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Becker: 3-2; Lightner,
Mosser dissenting)