DAVID & DONNA DEFEAT A DECREASE PETITION!

I attended the Rent Board meeting of February 6, 2003 when the Board considered Regulation 3004, which permits rent increases for rental units where tenants use them other activities such as commercial storage, vacation villas, massage parlors, meditation schools and/or whatever. At that meeting, Commissar Alan Toy asked if I was ever going write anything positive about the Rent Board in this column. That seemed like a reasonable request, so I have been thinking about something positive to say about the Rent Board since then and I finally thought of something. David and Donna Kamin recently defeated a tenant’s rent decrease petition. I never saw that happen before and I have been reviewing decrease petitions for about twenty years. Tenants always win something in these decisions.

This story began badly enough with the Northridge earthquake of January 1994. A few months after the quake, the City council adopted earthquake-retrofitting requirements for “soft story” construction where which buildings were located over parking spaces. Fortunately, when the City Council adopted that ordinance, it also required that the Rent Board allow rent increases by a “short form” rent increase process. Donna Kamin was quite certain that the requirements applied to the two ten-unit buildings located on one lot which were owned by herself and her husband, David, but the City’s Department of Building and Safety assured her that the requirements did not apply to their buildings. Unfortunately, in 1998 they changed that conclusion and informed the Kamins that they would have to comply with more comprehensive (and expensive) requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.

To add to the degree of difficulty, the City Council also adopted a Temporary Tenant Relocation Fees Ordinance which required that tenants be paid for meals and lodging (for people and pets) whenever units were under construction. And to be certain that tenants did not end up paying for any of the costs, it did not require that Rent Board continue its “short form” rent increase petition process for earthquake retrofitting work.

Before the required work began on the buildings. David and Donna Kamin came to Gordon Gitlen’s Law Office, and Gordon referred them to me. As a result, we carefully complied with all the requirements of the Tenant Relocation Fees Ordinance. When construction began, the Kamins had two vacant rental units in one of their two identical buildings, so they used the vacant units as temporary housing when other units were under construction. Between June 2001 though March 2002 they spend more than $862,000 complying with the new code requirements. This did not include the rent loss from holding the units vacant for temporary tenant housing, the cost of two full-time onsite managers or the ten months of income Dr. David Kamin lost by taking a leave from his medical practice.
By March 2002, the project was finished, except for final approval for retrofitting the swimming pool. The pool was finished in May 2002, and that month the last tenant to be relocated filed Rent Decrease Petition U-0022 seeking rent decreases for the inconvenience she had suffered during the construction at the property. Her petition was 69 pages long, including the attached exhibits and the following complaints:

“Relocated 3 months instead of 2 weeks originally promised” This complaint was based upon the fact that she was the last tenant to be relocated and was therefore permitted to remain in the temporary unit which was located in the building where construction was already completed rather than moving back to her unit where construction was still talking place.

“Construction began at 8 a.m. causing sleep to be interrupted” This complaint reflects the owners successful attempt to have construction completed as quickly as possible during lawful business hours.

“Constant noise impaired ability to concentrate, which impaired ability to write.” The tenant is a writer for television shows who works out of her home and expects the property to be quiet at all times.

“Loss of storage in new apartment” Page 11 of the hearing examiner’s decision describes this complaint as follows: “Her loss of storage in the temporary apartment was because they removed a shelf from the closet [in the temporary unit]….” “It is true that the kitchen [in the temporary unit] had increased storage but she could not put big items in the kitchen.”

“Loss of Pool” The County required that the Kamin’s drain and retrofit the pool, so the tenant demanded compensation for her loss of use of the swimming pool.

“Loss of laundry facilities each time water shut off” This inconvenience was caused during replacement of all the plumbing in the building. Although the water was only turned off for a few days between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., the tenant demanded her right to do laundry at all times.

“Loss of free movement within home” This happens when extensive construction takes place.

“Significant debris left in common areas making area unsafe - unsightly.” This also happens when $862,000 of construction takes place, including reconstruction of a swimming pool between two buildings. Maybe the contractor should have filled in the pool every night and removed all the construction equipment, but he never would have finished the job.

“Smell of smoke since former occupant smoked.” One of the tenants who used the temporary relocation unit before the complaining tenant arrived was a smoker.

“Confusion made cat ill.” This charge was true. In fact, Donna Kamin submitted a photo of the cat throwing up on the freshly painted balcony. We figured that if a rent decrease must be awarded for anything, then that was the perfect issue to take to a reviewing court on appeal.

In addition to the complaints, there was space on each of the 10 pages the Petition to “Describe any mitigation provided.” In each space, the tenant she wrote “None.” Although the owners moved the tenant and all her possessions to a temporary unit, provided a different parking space during construction and paid all the cost or reconnecting phone and cable TV services, this was not mentioned as a “mitigation measure” anywhere on the petition.

Fortunately, the case was sent to the Board’s most reasonable hearing examiner, who only works part-time and is not completely dependent on the Rent Board for all her income and career advancement. She held hearings for rent decrease petition U-0022 on December 16, 2002 and January 22, 2003 and on February 11, 2003 she issued a 58-page decision which found that the tenant was not entitled to any rent decreases! Fortunately, the tenant did not appeal the decision to the Board, so that was the end of the matter.

Therefore, this story demonstrates that it is possible to completely defeat a tenant decrease petition if (a) you plan ahead with someone who knows Rent Control and spend a lot of time and money on the building, (b) you get a part-time hearing examiner who is not entirely dependent upon the Board for her income, and (c) the tenant does not appeal.

And if you don’t believe it, go to the Rent Board and read Rent Board story U-0022.