07/20/2016
Below is a letter I sent to a commercial tenant that didn't get the hint that the owner was not going to extend her lease and ran to the board of supervisors and the SF Examiner. The SF Examiner embellishes the story (read the attached Examiner article over a year ago).
-----------------------------
April 22, 2015
Melody Terrell
dba Chameleon Cafe LLC
1299 Pacific Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94109
Re: Issues Surrounding Closure of Chameleon Cafe
Dear Ms. Terrell,
Attorneys are always told not to give an answer if none is required. Case in point: termination of a lease for no cause. It's kind of like not giving a real answer as to why you're breaking up with someone. You know that they may want to know why, but you just can't tell them. You've already made up your mind, and you don't want to fight. It's just not meant to happen. Better not to tell Elaine Benes that she has a big head.
Yesterday, ownership's daughter **CONFIDENTIAL** was contacted by KGO Radio News. They wanted an explanation as to why ownership was not extending your lease. After speaking with Scott L. from KGO radio, and having my words spun to fit their David vs. Goliath take on the situation, you win. You demanded an explanation, and now you're getting it.
Ownership dislikes the way you run your business. Children running around on the sidewalk unattended. That's a liability. Children drawing on the sidewalk in chalk. Chalk is slippery. That's a liability. Food trucks outside with patrons crowding the sidewalk and forcing pedestrians to walk into the street to get around them. That's a liability. (See Exhibits 1-3.) You leaving the fans running during off hours. (See Exhibits 4-5.) That's a fire hazard--read the label on the fan's power cord because it's usually bullet point #3. Patrons drinking alcohol on the sidewalk. That's a liability for which you probably are underinsured if not completely uninsured.
These are things that seem to be part of the very fabric of the type of business that you run. I've attached as exhibits to this letter pictures I hope you see through fresh eyes that support the points made in this letter. Other members of the community can attest to these facts as well. While they may seem petty, and may not constitute a breach of the lease or a reason to terminate a long-term tenancy, it does show a lack of respect for ownership's wishes of how the property is used, and that is why ownership withholds consent to a long-term extension.
Ownership was hesitant to extend your lease back in 2008. They disliked the pressure you were putting on them by telling them of your pregnancy, needing to have an extension, essentially making them the bad guys if they didn't accept your proposal to extend an additional five years to you. They reluctantly accepted, but vowed not to be pressured again.
Let me be blunt: ownership does not trust you.
Ownership is made up of a trust with two senior citizens as trustees. They appreciate their privacy, and wish to keep a relatively low profile. As you know, you've been paying very little rent this whole time, so they're not greedy by any means.
You've embellished the facts, stating to everyone under the sun that this is a sudden eviction. We had a conversation back in December 2013, when ownership was honestly looking into the possibility of installing garage spaces. I had just served you with a notice that your lease term ended and you were now on a month-to-month tenancy, terminable upon 30 days notice. I told you to look for a new space. You seemed so sad at the time, I felt sorry for you. You asked how much time you had, and I said we'd give you time--at least a few months. Do you not remember that conversation? It has been more than a few months.
You've placed signs on your window stating how horrible ownership is. One of them says "(Name of Trustee's Daughter) SUCKS" vertically (see Exhibit 7). If this is how you do business, then you get what you get. If these are your patrons, they show some amazing class. By the way, it is a breach of your lease. "Tenant shall not have the right to place, construct or maintain any sign, advertisement, awning, banner, or other exterior decorations on the building or other improvements that are a part of the Premises without Landlord's prior written consent, which shall not reasonably withheld." (pertinent page attached as Exhibit 8) Consent is withheld with regard to the signs commenting negatively on ownership, but you may keep the signs up that constitute drawings, testimonials, and heartfelt words from patrons.
You've reached out to the community, to the city, to the media, saying that you've tried talking with ownership and they refuse to talk with you. Since our conversation back in December 2013, you have not asked me why your tenancy is ending. You have not asked ****CONFIDENTIAL***. And maybe I wouldn't have told you, but if you had said "tell me or I go to the city and the media and say ownership refuses to talk to me," I'm sure ownership would have preferred me telling you these reasons than to have their names plastered in the news. I've heard of some online chatter that seems to slander not only ownership, but the prospective new lessee. I attach such list, but am redacting last names out of respect for their privacy, which doesn't seem to be a two way street.
And what for? Some last-ditch attempt to strong-arm another extension to your lease? Another extension that they weren't comfortable with back in 2008? And then what? Another and then another? Perhaps persistence is some situations is admirable. You fight hard for what you believe in, and many people can respect that. But not taking no for an answer crosses a line at some point. You do not have a life tenancy. It ends here.
On the subject of respect--you have never bothered to earn it from ownership. Ownership has asked you numerous times to spray down the chalk on the sidewalk. The problem persists. Ownership has asked you several times to manage the refuse created by The Chameleon. Children tend to litter on the sidewalk outside your cafe and under the gate, and your employees don't do a good enough job cleaning it up. The problem persists. Ownership has told you several times that the refuse bins cannot be stored on the sidewalk. Homeless people empty those contents all over the sidewalk, and the city has issued a notice regarding concerns at 1299 Pacific Avenue in which the city states that it would be holding not only you, but ownership subject to a fine (see attached Exhibit 10). A picture taken recently illustrates that the problem persists (see attached Exhibit 11). Ownership has also told you and/or your employees to have the recycling bins covered and cleaned. Ownership has often had to compress the contents of your overflowing bin, pick up items and place them into the receptacles. I have just spent a whole paragraph simply covering things that you do not do with regard to chalk and trash.
Just last month, when you were called by ownership for the umpteenth time to turn off the fans, your response was something to the effect of "I don't have time now." That prompted the notice and since then, you have dragged ownership into a public battle with you when they wanted neither the publicity nor the battle. Just a few days later, you left the fans on again, which prompted me to reach out to you. You did not pick up your cell, so I posted on your page (see attached Exhibit 12). I've attached pictures of the fan in question--one with it off (it's quite dirty), and one with it on. It looks like it will overheat.
To set the record straight, KGO misunderstood or misquoted my last letter to you. Normally I wouldn't care, but since KGO stated that I threatened to withhold a favorable recommendation to a future landlord, I need to clear the air. What I threatened was to shorten the notice period by serving a true 30 day notice of termination upon you. My reasoning was that the less time you had to leave, the less threats of physical violence to my clients would endure from your supporters. My threat, if carried out on Monday (as stated in the letter) effectively would have ended your tenancy before your going away party. If carried out today, it would end your tenancy on the day of your going away party. I'm not that callous to actually carry out on that threat, even after you have run to the media in defiance of it.
It has been long pondered whether this letter should be sent just to you, or sent to everyone you have notified of your "sudden eviction"--including Supervisor Christiansen and KGO Radio News. Today it was decided that this goes out to everyone. I am sorry that it has come to this, but ownership wishes to clear its good name.
Very Truly Yours,
Evan A. Chan
Attorney for owner, (CONFIDENTIAL)
cc: Client, Supervisor Julie Christiansen, KGO Radio News
The ongoing disappearance of small businesses in San Francisco is illustrating the vulnerability of mom-and-pop shops, while showing how important they are to the communities...
