- 2663 Greenwich St. R001-64A
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs was granted, in part. The cost of a new stove was held
to be an operating expense because the landlord failed to prove
that the tenants had agreed, prior to installation, to amortization
of the cost of the stove as a capital improvement. On appeal,
the landlord asserts that: since the kitchen had been remodeled
over time, and the tenant asked that the old stove be replaced,
an "agreement" existed between the parties sufficient
to satisfy the requirements of Rules and Regulations Section 7.12(b).
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to determine whether
there was an agreement between the parties that the cost of the
new stove would be amortized as a capital improvement. A hearing
will be held only if necessary.
(Marshall/Becker: 5-0)
- 685 Fell St. R002-23R
Four tenant petitions alleging substantial decreases in housing
services were granted. Innovative Housing, a non-profit corporation,
was also found liable to two tenants for rent overpayments due
to charging more rent than was being paid to the owner of the
property in violation of Ordinance Section 37.3(c). Upon appeal,
the Board remanded the case to overturn that portion of the decision
determining rent overpayments because Innovative Housing is not
a person and does not meet the definition of "tenant"
in the Ordinance. Therefore, Section 37.3(c) is inapplicable.
One tenant appeals the remand decision claiming that she thought
a $35.00 monthly "management fee" was a "one-time
filing fee", and that she does not use the services allegedly
provided in exchange for the fee.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Marshall from consideration of this
appeal. (Becker/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Becker from consideration of this
appeal. (Murphy/Gruber: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Bierly/Gruber: 4-0)
- 495 - 3rd Ave. R001-66A
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement
costs and rent increases based on increased operating expenses
was granted, in part. The costs for certain items of capital
improvement work were disallowed for the tenants in some units
due to the work having been completed prior to or within six months
of the inception of the tenancies. On appeal, the landlord contends
that the "6-Month Rule" (Rules and Regulations Section
7.12[b]) is inapplicable because there was a change in ownership
during the relevant time period, although the work was completed
and paid for by the prior owner.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Palma: 5-0)
- 571 Lombard St. R001-67A
The landlord’s Petition for Extension of Time to Complete Capital
Improvement Work was denied because the hearing officer found
that the landlord failed to obtain all necessary permits prior
to issuing the notices to vacate. (Rules and Regulations Section
12.15[e][1]) On appeal, the landlord’s attorney asserts that
the petition was denied on grounds not raised at the hearing by
any party and that the grounds for denial pertain to the landlord’s
right to temporarily evict the tenants for capital improvement
work, and not to the request for additional time to complete the
work.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
- 1390 Pine St. R001-65A & R002-24R
The landlord’s petition for certification of the costs of seismic
and electrical work to the tenants in eleven units was granted,
in part. Certification was denied as to the tenants in four units
because the hearing officer determined that the work commenced
when a structural engineer began performing the necessary engineering
services for the seismic improvements, and these tenants’ move-in
dates triggered application of Rules and Regulations Section 7.12(b)
(the "6-Month Rule"). The tenant in one unit appeals
the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. The landlord
appeals the denial of certification of the costs to the tenants
in four units, alleging that the "6-Month Rule" is inapplicable,
because physical commencement of the seismic work did not occur
until a much later date.
MSC: Regarding the hardship appeal filed by the tenant in unit
#302: Pursuant to the landlord’s statement in his response to
the tenant’s appeal that he has no objection to a one-year deferral
of imposition of the approved passthrough, the effective date
for the passthrough shall be February 21, 1998.
(Becker/Palma: 5-0)
MSF: To deny the landlord’s appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 2-3;
Gruber, Murphy, Palma dissenting)
MSC: To accept the landlord’s appeal and remand the case to
find that the "6-Month Rule" applies only to the structural
engineering costs in the amounts of $700.00 and $2,750.00, and
not to the remainder of the costs of the seismic work. (Murphy/Gruber:
3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
- 1620 Grove St. R001-68A
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on increased
operating expenses was granted. The portion of the landlord’s
petition that requested a determination that none of the present
occupants of the unit are "tenants" subject to the jurisdiction
of the Rent Ordinance was denied, because the landlord knew of
the presence of at least one of the current occupants in the unit
and failed to avail himself of the procedures outlined in Rules
and Regulations Section 6.14. On appeal, the landlord asserts
that Section 6.14 of the Rules was intended to apply only to unrelated
adults who become roommates, and not to "family situations."
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Marshall/Palma: 5-0)
- 3246 Anza St. R001-69A
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services and the landlord’s failure to repair was denied except
for a $25.00 per month rent reduction due to inadequate hot water
on the premises. On appeal, the landlord claims that the decision
is based only on the tenants’ unverified statement regarding the
condition of the water heater; and that the hearing officer should
have examined the underlying causes of the complaint.
MSC: To deny the appeal except to remand the case to the hearing
officer in order to make two necessary Technical Corrections to
the Decision. (Becker/Palma: 3-2; Gruber, Murphy dissenting)
- 152 Onondaga Ave. R002-25R
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing
services was dismissed due to his failure to appear at the properly
noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims that he thought
that the hearing was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. instead of 9:00 a.m.;
that he was unemployed and didn’t have the necessary funds to
arrive at the hearing any sooner; and that he will be starting
a new job, which will eliminate this problem. As correspondence
from the landlord contained the assertion that a Judgment had
been entered in an Unlawful Detainer case that he brought against
the tenant, and an eviction was scheduled to have taken place
on July 9, 1997, it was the consensus of the Board to continue
this matter in order for staff to ascertain whether or not the
tenant remained on the premises.