October 05, 1999

The tenant’s petition alleging unlawful increases in rent was granted, and the landlords were found liable to the tenant in the amount of $16,560.00. The subject two-unit building had been exempt from Rent Board jurisdiction until the death of one of the owners in 1987. Since the owner died intestate, the Court set aside a Homestead to his wife, the surviving spouse, and distributed a one-third interest in the property to her, and a 1/3 interest to each of the couple’s two daughters. Therefore, the property was no longer exempt at the time that rent increases were given in 1987, 1989, and 1992. The current owners took title to the property in 1998. On appeal, they assert that: the decision is unjust, because the current owners relied on an Estoppel Certificate completed by the tenants prior to their purchase of the property, and had no reason not to believe that the property had been exempt due to owner-occupancy; the tenants’ claim should be barred by the equitable defenses of laches and estoppel; and two years of rent overpayments were made to the prior owners, and should not have to be refunded by the new owners.

This matter was continued from the meetings on July 20th, August 17th and September 7th because the parties were attempting to settle this matter themselves.

The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 17 of 27 units was granted, in part. One tenant appeals the decision, asserting that: the office in the building is used in the management of other properties; the fire extinguishers were purchased for another building; the tenants are already paying for the cost of painting the lobby; and the cost claimed for the new, upper roof is excessive.

The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement costs to 5 out of 6 units was granted, in part. One tenant, who failed to appear at the hearing, appeals on the following grounds: that the base rent amount for his unit is in error, since he is the on-site property manager and his base rent is discounted for the services he provides; that he does not benefit from the roof repairs that were effectuated since his roof is not attached to the roof that was repaired; and that he has suffered a reduction in housing services due to the work that was done.

The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase was denied because the hearing officer found that the tenant had failed to prove that the amount the tenant’s rent had been reduced for provision of managerial services was $50.00, rather than $20.00. Upon appeal, the case was remanded to the hearing officer to examine a letter in the file referring to the amount of the rent reduction. The Decision of Hearing Officer on Remand affirmed the original Decision. The tenant again appeals, claiming that the hearing officer was biased against him; that his sworn testimony at the hearing constituted proof of the verbal contract between the parties; and that the contract with the current property managers had been severed and is no longer relevant.

The landlords’ petition for 7% rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted to the tenants in 6 units. One tenant appeals the decision, claiming not to have received the notice of rent increase. The tenant therefore asserts that the effective date of the rent increase in the Decision is incorrect.

The landlord’s petition seeking certification of capital improvement costs to 14 of 16 units was granted, in part. The tenants in three units appeal the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.

The landlord’s appeal was filed almost a month late because the landlord had been ill.

The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services due to poor water quality and a defective toilet were granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $2,231.25. On appeal, the landlord claims the Decision is in error in stating that the water was not tested from inside of the unit.

The tenants’ petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent because the landlord asked for an additional $50.00 due to the tenants’ parking two, instead of one, vehicle in the garage was granted. On appeal, the landlord maintains that the language in the lease that does not prohibit the tenants from parking a second car in the garage does not override the clause that provides that one parking space only was included with rental of the premises.

The tenant’s petition alleging substantially decreased housing services due to roof leaks over a 5-year period was granted, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $2,075.00. On appeal, the 80-year old tenant claims that the rent reduction granted is inadequate compensation for the extreme inconvenience that she suffered for six months out of every year since 1994; and that prior to the issuance of the decision, the attorney for the landlord had offered a settlement of three times the amount ordered in the Decision.

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

A. An Organizational Chart for the Office of the Rent Board.

B. A current list of amendments to the Ordinance.

C. The office workload statistics for the month of August, 1999.

D. An announcement of a Community Meeting from the Mayor’s Office of Children, Youth and Families.

E. A letter to the Executive Director from Thomas Ramm of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco.

Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that legislation sponsored by Supervisor Amos Brown requiring a study of the effects of rent control in San Francisco after 20 years will be heard before the Finance Committee on Wednesday, October 13th at 10:00 a.m.

Discussion of this issue was continued from the meeting on September 27th. The Board approved language conforming the procedures for obtaining consent to a replacement roommate in the event of an absolute prohibition against subletting with the current procedures outlined in Rules Section 6.15, with the exception of subsection (a). Commissioner Marshall will re-draft the proposed language to continue to provide that the failure of a landlord to disclose and get the tenant’s agreement to an absolute prohibition against subletting or assignment will result in the landlord being unable to evict pursuant to the breach of any such clause. Additionally, at the request of the other Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall will separate and make clear which provisions of Section 6.15 apply to situations where there is an absolute prohibition against subletting, and which apply to situations where there is not. Further discussion of this issue will be continued to the meeting on October 19th.

October 12, 1999 - NO MEETING

October 19, 1999

7 appeal considerations

6:30 Appeal Hearing: 1935 Franklin #503 (T001-70A) (acpt. 8/3/99)

Old Business:

A. Costa-Hawkins

B. Rules and Regulations Section 6.15 (Leno)

C. Rules and Regulations Section 6.14