ADU Dues

written by THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT BOARD

therefore, will probably be forced to leave San Francisco.

Editor’s Note: The following San Francisco Rent Board cases are real, though they have been edited for space and clarity. They have been selected to highlight some of the more interesting cases that the board reviewed at its recent commission meetings. For full Rent Board agendas and minutes, please visit sfrb.org.

800 Block of Corbett Avenue

The tenants’ objection to the landlord’s ADU Declaration was denied. The ALJ found that the landlord’s proposed ADU construction project would not result in a substantial reduction in housing services pursuant to Rent Ordinance Section 37.2(r).

On appeal, the tenant of one unit argues in part that the relocated parking spaces will be inaccessible to the tenants and that the ALJ failed to consider whether the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment will be impacted by the work.

A property manager for the landlord stated that no shared housing services provided to the tenants would be removed as a result of the ADU construction. He said that the area described as a “loading zone” by the tenant appellant is not a loading zone and that no tenants have access to the building storeroom in the basement of the building.

A representative for the landlord stated that only one tenant appealed the ALJ’s decision, and that the comments submitted by neighbors in adjacent buildings have no relevance to the appeal. He stated that all the proposed parking spaces in the landlord’s ADU construction plans are virtually the same size as the existing spaces, which are equal to, or larger, than the parking space dimensions required by the Planning Code. He stated that although the building’s existing garage can be challenging to maneuver, the design plan for the work accounts for maneuverability, which will not be substantially impacted by the changes.

A tenant of the building told the Board that tenant opposition to his landlord’s planned ADU construction is what inspired the recent legislation that allows for Rent Board review of ADU plans. He stated that his case was one of the first under the new law, and that the ALJ took a “narrow and rigid” view of the law that ignored the tenants’ objections related to noise and maneuverability.

The tenant stated that, according to his research, in cases with similar facts decided by different Rent Board ALJs, the ALJ upheld the tenants’ objections related to parking maneuverability. He also stated that the author of the ADU legislation itself, an aide for Supervisor Mandelman, confirmed that the ALJ should have considered any temporary impacts on the tenants during the construction work, including the anticipated loss of quiet enjoyment and other disruptions. He stated that if the landlord is allowed to proceed with construction, several disabled seniors will be unable to park their cars in the garage, and

Decision: To deny the appeal (3-2).

200 Block of Guerrero Street

The landlord’s petition for a determination pursuant to the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act was granted. The ALJ found that a rent increase was authorized because all of the original occupants vacated and the tenant respondent is a subtenant who moved in after the tenancy commenced. The tenant appeals the decision on the ground that he is an original occupant who moved into the unit with the landlord’s permission at the same time as the rest of his family members.

The landlord’s attorney said the tenant disguised himself as one of the original leaseholders “for years,” and produced false identification to avoid a rent increase. He stated that the ALJ wrote a thorough decision based on many exhibits and two days of arbitration, and that the previous decision should be upheld.

The tenant’s attorney stated that the appeal does raise questions of law, contrary to the landlord attorney’s characterization of the appeal. Specifically, she stated that the ALJ incorrectly interpreted the term “occupy” for the purpose of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. She also stated that the undisputed evidence showed the tenant was in possession of the unit at the start of the tenancy, and that the Commission should reverse the decision.

Decision: To deny the appeal (3-2).

Interest On Deposits

The rate of interest owed on deposits for the period March 1, 2023 through February 29, 2024 is 2.3%.

The rate of interest owed on deposits for the period March 1, 2022 through February 28, 2023 is 0.1%. The new rate is published annually by the Rent Board.

The Rent Board calculates the interest rate according to the annual average of the 90-Day AA Financial Commercial Paper Interest Rate (rounded to the nearest tenth) for the immediately preceding calendar year as published by the Federal Reserve.

The above information was reprinted from the Rent Board. For more information, visit Sfrb.org.

1900 Block of Page Street

A tenant stated that she had not yet seen the landlord’s revised ADU construction plans and asked that the case be remanded for a supplemental hearing so that the tenants can review the new plans and raise any objections.

Another tenant stated that the sufficiency of bike storage in the building is an important issue, and that both he and a co-occupant keep bicycles on the premises that they use to commute to work each day. He stated that the revised ADU construction plans submitted by the landlord on appeal are confusing and contradictory, and that the tenants deserve a chance to review the landlord’s revised plans at a supplemental hearing.

A tenant stated that the landlord’s revised ADU construction plans were not part of the original hearing and asked that the landlord’s appeal be denied or remanded for a supplemental hearing to allow the tenants to review the plans.

The tenants’ objection to the landlord’s ADU Declaration was granted. The

ALJ found that the landlord’s proposed ADU construction project, resulting in a reduction of bike parking spaces, constitutes a substantial reduction in housing services pursuant to Rent Ordinance Section 37.2(r).

On appeal, the landlord argues in part that their current construction plans will accommodate more bike parking spaces than previously proposed.

Decision: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a supplemental hearing to allow consideration of the proposed amended plans and to give the tenants an opportunity to respond (5-0).

For more information, visit. Sfrb.org