- 2890 California St. R001-40A &
R001-67R thru -78R
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, in part, resulting in a total passthrough in
the amount of $167.31 to the tenants in twenty-four units. Three
tenant petitions claiming decreased housing services were also
partially granted. On appeal, the landlord claims that the hearing
officer erred in granting a rent reduction for wet walls and related
problems through August, 1994, when exterior renovation work which
abated the condition was concluded in May, 1993. One tenant appeals
the portion of the decision certifying capital improvement costs
on the grounds of financial hardship -- she and eleven other tenants
maintain on appeal that the hearing officer was biased against
them because he has a business relationship with the landlord’s
agent; that the capital improvements were necessitated by the
landlords’ deferred maintenance; that certain costs were improperly
amortized; and that some of the work constituted repair rather
than capital improvements. Additionally, one tenant claims that
there are factual inaccuracies in the decision regarding her decreased
housing service claims, including her alleged failure to provide
access to the landlords in order for them to remedy the conditions.
Another tenant objects to the rent reduction amounts granted
as insufficient; and disputes the hearing officer’s finding that
adequate security was provided in the building during the period
of renovation work.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Murphy from consideration of this
appeal. (Lightner/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the landlords’ appeal (R001-40A) to determine
which repair project cured the problems related to the wet walls
in tenant Akeroyd’s unit (#102) and terminate the rent reductions
accordingly; and to accept the tenants’ appeals (R001-67R thru
-78R) only on the issue of proper amortization of the concrete
work related to the exterior painting and waterproofing, which
shall be for ten years. No further hearing will be held on these
issues, and the record will be re-opened only if necessary. (Marshall/Palma:
5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal of tenant Chiara in unit #501 (R001-78R)
and remand the case for a hearing on the issue of financial hardship.
(Marshall/Palma: 3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)
MSC: To deny the separate appeal of tenant Akeroyd in unit #102
(R001-67R). (Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the separate appeal of tenant Carleton in unit
#405 (R001-75R). (Marshall/Gruber: 5-0)
- 236-1/2 San Jose Ave. R001-41A
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was
granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the
amount of $3,178.75. The hearing officer determined that, although
a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject premises had not been
issued until 1996, the premises continue under Rent Board jurisdiction
because mere legalization of an existing housing unit does not
qualify for exemption as new construction. The landlord appeals,
maintaining that the hearing officer’s decision contradicts information
that he and his counsel received from Rent Board staff members.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Palma: 5-0)
- 818 Hyde St. #5 R001-79R
The tenant’s current appeal was filed approximately six weeks
late. The tenant had timely filed a prior appeal to the decision
certifying capital improvement costs on the grounds that she had
not been provided sufficient opportunity to raise her objections,
which had to do primarily with claims of decreased housing services.
The instant appeal was filed fifteen days from the mailing of
the Notice of Action on the prior appeal, which was denied. The
tenant maintains that, at the time of filing the prior appeal,
she did not know that she could raise financial hardship as a
grounds for appeal.
MSC: To find good cause for the late filing of the appeal.
(Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough in the amount
of $24.39 to the tenants in four units. One tenant appeals 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.
(Marshall/Palma: 5-0)
- 1077 - 1081 Ashbury St./1042 Clayton St. R001-80R thru -84R
Seven tenant petitions alleging unlawful rent increases exceeding
the limitations under the Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RAP)
were denied. The hearing officer found that the landlord had
properly calculated the increase in the CPI since 1973 and correctly
allocated the actual increased costs for the subject units as
required pursuant to Ordinance Section 32.73; and that the defenses
specified in Ordinance Section 32.73-1 only apply to properties
in areas designated as under RAP jurisdiction after July 1, 1977,
which is not the case for the subject building. On appeal, the
tenants assert that: costs for work in the nature of capital
improvements should be separated from the "maintenance"
category; the increases were effectuated in "bad faith",
in that they were imposed in order to make the building saleable;
and the landlord should not be able to benefit from a "decade
of deferred maintenance" by carrying out all repairs in one
year, thereby creating exaggerated results.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Murphy from consideration of this
appeal. (Palma/Lightner: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeals and schedule a Board hearing on the
issues raised by the tenants in their appeals. (Marshall/Becker:
3-2; Gruber, Lightner dissenting)