February 01, 2000

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to one of two units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $52.48. The tenant appeals on the grounds of financial hardship.

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to one out of six units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $166.24. The landlord appeals, asserting that: he should not be restricted to the imputed interest rate, since the work was financed with a loan at the rate of 10.5%; imposition of the 10% cap on the passthrough contained in Rules Section 7.12(d) denies him a fair return on his investment, is unconstitutional and sufficient extraordinary circumstances exist in this case to warrant relief from the cap; he is entitled to make a profit on the capital improvement investment, in addition to recovering the costs; and a "zero dollar return" on capital improvements constitutes a taking.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this case in order for the Administrative Law Judge to provide the Commissioners with a Memorandum explaining why she was unable to trace the loan proceeds to payment for the capital improvement work; for staff to provide calculations as to the length of time it would take to phase in the passthrough if the cap were increased to 12 or 15%; for the tenant to furnish information regarding her claim of financial hardship should the amount of the passthrough be increased; and for the parties to provide a copy of the 1992 Decision regarding a comparables increase for this unit, if available. This case will be put on the March 21st Board meeting calendar.

The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted only as to full use of the deck, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,500.00. On appeal, the landlord claims that the subject housing service is not a "deck" but, rather, a walkway provided for cleaning the windows and use as storage.

The tenant’s appeal was filed almost two months late because, at the time the decision was issued, the tenant had no way of knowing that the landlord would continue to deny her the right to have a replacement roommate.

The tenants’ petitions alleging substantial decreases in housing services were granted, in part. Both tenants were granted monthly rent reductions in the amount of $100.00 due to loss of use of their decks, and the tenant in unit #F was granted a prospective $100 rent reduction from such time as he vacates the garage; the tenant in unit #E was granted a $100.00 monthly rent reduction for loss of one parking space, as well as having her rent halved for a twelve-month period during which the landlord withdrew the right to sublet. On appeal, the landlord maintains that the tenant in unit #E was never rented more than one off-street parking space, which she still has; that tandem parking at the subject property is illegal; that the tenant voluntarily gave up the tandem space for the parking space she now has; and that the tenant has failed to pay rent for use of the garage since July of 1999. As to the tenant in unit #F, the landlord alleges that he received a carport space of equal value. The landlord additionally claims that the subject decks are merely walkways meant to be used for window cleaning; and that the rent reductions are proscribed by the Golden Gateway decision. As to the rent reduction for loss of the right to sublet, the landlord claims that the tenant had no right to have additional roommates prior to service of the notice of change of terms of tenancy; and that the original lease included non-waiver language. The tenant in unit #E also appeals, claiming that the rent reduction should be continuing, because the landlord has failed to respond to her repeated requests for permission to obtain a roommate.

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to one of two units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount of $35.84. On appeal, the landlord asserts that the 6-Month Rule (Rules Section 7.12{b}) should be waived because the tenant himself requested that the new kitchen sink and counter be installed. The tenant appeals on the grounds of financial hardship; claims that the rear exterior siding should not have been certified because of the landlord’s deferred maintenance; and asserts that the landlord is forcing him to remove his possessions from the back yard.

The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful rent increases was granted and the landlord of this Proposition I Affected Unit was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $7,858.00. On appeal, the landlord asserted: that the increase was lawful at the time it was given; that it was issued prior to the retroactive rollback provisions of Proposition I; and that it is an impermissible penalty to declare a rent increase invalid if it was proper at the time of service of the notice of rent increase. At the meeting on April 6, 1999, the landlord’s appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to consider any equitable issues. The Decision on Remand upholds the original decision, because the Administrative Law Judge held that the landlord had presented no evidence or legal basis on which to alter the original decision on equitable grounds. The landlord again appeals, asserting that: Proposition I was improperly retroactive in that it impaired an existing contractual relationship and deprived the landlord of a vested right; State law provides that a landlord who acts in good faith shall not be penalized for failure to comply with a rent control Ordinance; and the Decision is unfair and creates a hardship for the landlord.

The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services due to inadequate heat was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $275.00. On appeal, the landlord maintained that the Decision contained misstatements of fact and errors of law; that a Notice of Violation from the Department of Building Inspection had to do with conditions that did not affect the supply of heat to the unit; and that the tenant should not be considered credible due to a history of alleged harassment toward management and other tenants in the building. The landlord’s appeal was accepted and remanded for a new hearing in order for the tenant to meet her burden of proving the heat to have been deficient. The tenant’s petition was subsequently dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed remand hearing. On further appeal, the tenant provides documentation that her attorney had a scheduled jury trial at the same time as the remand hearing; contends that her request for postponement should have been granted; and argues that the landlord’s original appeal was untimely and, therefore, the Original Decision of Hearing Officer should be reinstated.

The landlord’s petition for a rent increase from $190.00 to $674.17 based on comparable rents was granted. The tenant appeals on the grounds of financial hardship, and also asserts that the tape recordings of the two hearings in this matter are defective, and that documents are missing from the files.

The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services in this live/work unit was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $5,530.00. On appeal, the landlord explained his failure to appear at the hearing because of a pressing business commitment; and asserted that the relevant lease agreement between the parties is commercial and places responsibility for certain repairs on the tenant.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to continue consideration of this case in order for staff to contact the landlord and obtain a Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury and documentation regarding the alleged business commitment that prevented him from appearing at the hearing.

The tenant’s petition alleging substantially decreased housing services was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $917.50 through April 1999, the last month the tenant paid rent. On appeal, the tenant claims that: the street door to the premises still has not been fixed; notice was provided to the landlord regarding the problem with the front door pursuant to the Notice of Violation issued by the Department of Building Inspection; and the Administrative Law Judge’s valuations regarding lack of security and bathing facilities are not commensurate with the extent of the problems.

The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease in housing services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims that his landlord does not give him his mail, and attaches the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.

In addition to correspondence concerning cases on the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:

A. The Board’s approval of the appeal decision concerning the case at 1935 Franklin St. #503 (T001-70A) was continued to the next meeting.

B. A copy of an updated Commissioners’ Roster.

Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that the amendments to the Ordinance regarding revised Ellis procedures and changing the Hearing Officer designation to Administrative Law Judge took effect on January 29, 2000. The amendments increasing relocation payments to low-income tenants displaced pursuant to an Ellis eviction will take effect on February 13, 2000.

Commissioner Murphy expressed his opinion that the most recent proposed re-draft of Section 6.14 strays too far from Costa-Hawkins, and he questioned why the Board had ceased to consider the draft that he had distributed prior to Christmas. He distributed a new proposal, which he represented as mirroring the language of Costa-Hawkins. The Board agreed to calendar another Special Legislative Session to discuss this issue, which will be held on March 14th.

A. Dennis Hyde, the attorney for the prior owner of the property at 201 Chesnut St. (U001-54 & -55A), said that the Board should amend the rent law to make it clear that a tenant can only have one residence; and re-stated several of the contentions that he had raised in his appeals.

B. The tenants involved in the case at 36 Divisadero (U001-59A) expressed their gratitude for the Board’s denial of the landlord’s appeal of the remand decision, but were upset that the Commissioners had discussed a lawsuit as an option for the landlord, since that would just make the case drag on longer.

February 8, 2000 - NO MEETING

February 15, 2000

9 appeal considerations

President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.