I. Call to Order
Vice-President Marshall called the meeting to order
at 6:16 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Gruber;
Hobson; Justman; Lightner; Marshall; Mosser; Murphy.
Commissioners not Present: Aung; Wasserman.
Staff Present: Gartzman; Grubb; Lee;
Wolf.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Public Comment on Whether the Board Should
Go Into Closed Session
Robert Pender objected to there being no general public
comment section prior to the Board’s going into Closed Session.
V. Vote on Whether to Go Into Closed Session Regarding
the Case of Quigg v.
Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 316928) Pursuant to S.F.
Administrative Code Section 67.11{a}
VI. Closed Session re Quigg, supra, Pursuant to
Government Code Section
54956.9{a}
The Board went into Closed Session from 6:19 to 7:11
p.m. with Deputy City Attorneys Marie Blits and Andrew Schwartz to discuss
the case of Quigg v. Rent Board (Superior Court Case No. 316928).
VII. Vote on Whether or Not to Disclose and Possible
Disclosure of Any/All
Conversations Held in Closed Session Regarding Quigg, supra.
VIII. Report on Any Actions Taken in Closed Session
Regarding Quigg, supra,
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1{a}{2} and S.F. Administrative
Code Section 67.14{b}{2}
Vice-President Marshall reported that the Board held
a Closed Session to discuss the Quigg case with its attorneys. No actions
were taken. She informed the public that Proposition H is still stayed pursuant
to the Preliminary Injunction issued by Judge Robertson. If the Rent Board
passes implementing regulations at this evening’s meeting, the City Attorney
will schedule a hearing before the same Judge and ask that the Preliminary
Injunction be lifted.
IX. Remarks from the Public
Robert Pender of the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization
(PRO) informed the Board that the tenants at Parkmerced were affected by a
fire that occurred close to where they live and park. Mr. Pender said that
the "sense of community" felt by the residents was damaged by the
way that management responded to the vandalism.
X. Public Hearing
The Board held a Public Hearing from 7:16 to 7:59
p.m. on proposed amendments to Sections 1.13, 7.10, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 and 11.25
of the Rules and Regulations and proposed new Sections 7.19, 7.20, 7.21, 7.22,
7.23 and 7.24. The proposed amendments and additions concern landlord applications
for certification of capital improvement costs and are intended to implement
November 2000 Proposition H. Eighteen individuals addressed the Board as follows
below:
1. Landlord Teresa Gognio said that no pro-landlord
legislation has been passed by the Board, and asked if the Board was totally
for tenants. Ms. Gognio said that she is "trapped by rent control"
and that it is hard to find skilled workers.
2. Landlord Bill Alvarado told the Board that he
has two units that his daughters currently live in. Mr. Alvarado said that
when the units become available he would sell the building, because the
economics aren’t warranted at 60% of CPI.
3. Tenant Lorraine Calcagni of Lombard Place Apartments
said that she hopes Prop. H is fair to small landlords. Ms. Calcagni said
that the tenants at Lombard Place have had their rights denied at hearings
before the Rent Board’s Administrative Law Judge. Ms. Calcagni reiterated
that $8.4 million in costs is being passed through to the tenants in her
building, which is "excessive", but there is no limit on passthroughs
in the law prior to Proposition H.
4. Tenant Helen Fellows at Lombard Place asked the
Board to implement Prop. H. Ms. Fellows said that the tenants’ rents would
double in five years, which will lead to displacement.
5. Tenant Representative Jennifer Welch of St. Peter’s
Housing Committee asked that the Board implement a Moratorium on the processing
of capital improvement petitions, prior to the effective date of the Moratorium
passed by the Board of Supervisors, since it is long-term tenants and seniors
who are the most affected by capital improvement passthroughs.
6. Tenant Juana Selena Televiz said that her landlord
never repaired anything. Now that he has finally fixed a few things, he
is seeking a rent increase for capital improvements. Ms. Televiz asked that
the Board "be for tenants, and not for the landlords."
7. Tenant Janis Winchester said she lives in a building
which was paid off long ago, but the landlord wants to make improvements
in order to sell. Ms. Winchester says that, due to the lack of affordable
housing for seniors, there is no place for her to move. Since the public
and the Board of Supervisors have spoken, Ms. Winchester believes it a "moral
outrage" that the Board is not implementing a Moratorium.
8. Landlord Peter Chen said that tenants who cannot
afford to pay passthroughs should be protected by the Board’s hardship appeal
provisions. Mr. Chen argued that the purpose of capital improvement work
is to improve tenants’ living conditions, and that contractors do not work
for free. Mr. Chen said that older buildings need the most work, but have
the lowest rent paying tenants, and said that the recent earthquake in Seattle
is a reminder of the need for capital improvements.
9. Tenant Michael Barrett said that, over 25 years,
he has paid over $125,000 in rent. Mr. Barrett maintained that upkeep and
maintenance do not constitute capital improvements.
10. Rebecca Logue-Bovee of the Housing Rights Committee
said that there
"needs to be fair play" and asked that the Board stop processing
petitions.
11. Tom Avicolli-Mecca of the Housing Rights Committee
expressed his opinion that Proposition H does provide for hardship for small
landlords and a fair return, and is fair. Mr. Avicolli-Mecca said that the
need is to protect tenants who cannot afford to pay; and that a Moratorium
is the only "decent, humane and moral thing to do."
12. Ted Gullickson of the Tenants’ Union said that
it has been 4 months since the voters spoke, which is "far too long"
for the Board not to have passed regulations.
13. Marina Franco, who is on the Board of the S.F.
Apartment Association, said that the proposed regulations provide a zero
rate of return for small and medium landlords, although larger landlords
may get something. Ms. Franco believes that "fair rate of return"
was added to Prop. H merely to "sound fair."
14. Tenant Linda Rothfield said that the prior owner
of her building failed to make repairs because he said he didn’t have the
money. Now, the new owner is imposing banked increases and attempting to
pass through capital improvements, even though he acquired the building
in bankruptcy. Ms. Rothfield finds it unfair that the owner is giving increases
only to those tenants he wishes to, which are those who complain.
15. Tenant Carolyn Blair, who lives at the Northpoint
Apartments and is with the Housing Rights Committee, said that her rent
will go up $100 in 5 years just from annual rent increases. Ms. Blair said
that even high-income tenants are moving out of her building. Ms. Blair
feels that the hardship is on tenants, since landlords will always have
a place to live.
16. Tenant Arnold Cohn of Marina Cove Apartments
said that there is an error in the Minutes of the meeting of February 21st
because he spoke of a "tax-free" rather than "tax-deductible"
gift that could be made annually. Mr. Cohn said that Angelo Sangiacomo and
Herbert Jaffee are the reasons we’re all here. Mr. Cohn also believes that
there is a problem in that Rent Board Administrative Law Judges have legal,
but not construction, expertise; and they "understand pieces of paper,
but not structures."
17. New landlord James Carsant said that buildings
have a certain life, and capital improvements must be performed in order
to provide safer, better, more energy efficient housing. Mr. Carsant believes
that government was set up to "protect the little guy from the rule
of the mob", and that the Commissioners will need "testicular
fortitude" in order to do unpopular things.
18. Small landlord Ina Alvarez said that, if Proposition
H survives, someone will need to put a cap on construction costs. Ms. Alvarez
feels that there has to be something for small owners, and that "tenants
can’t get it all."
After the conclusion of the Public Hearing, several
of the Commissioners made statements regarding the draft regulations. Commissioner
Lightner said that it is unfortunate that Prop. H was drafted the way it was,
since there is "little for property owners to support in these regulations."
Commissioner Murphy expressed his belief that there is nothing the Board can
do to these regulations to make them work; that the regulations do not function
to provide rent increases for capital improvement costs; and that the Board
is setting up a system for petitions that will fail. Commissioner Hobson said
that he supported Prop. H, and had called for a Moratorium on the processing
of capital improvement petitions on January 2nd. He also believes
that the current law needs to be amended to provide relief for small landlords,
and that these regulations are a "stop-gap measure." Commissioner
Justman said that the Board has a duty and obligation to promulgate regulations
to make Proposition H as workable as possible and that ultimately, it will
be up to the courts to decide. Commissioner Gruber said that Proposition H
was so poorly written, it would not benefit tenants; that the regulations
are "unacceptable"; and that we have gone "many steps backward"
in creating a process that is not beneficial to either side. The Board then
passed the following motion:
XI. Old Business
Fair Return/Implementation of Prop. H, Including Possible
Implementation of a Moratorium on the Processing of Capital Improvement Petitions,
Except for Seismic Work
Commissioner Becker began the discussion by proposing
that the Rent Board implement an immediate Moratorium on hearing and deciding
capital improvement petitions, except for certification of seismic work, since
it is unclear how long it will take for the Judge to rule on whether or not
to lift the stay on Prop. H and tenants are being affected. Commissioner Justman
said that he had spoken with Commissioner Wasserman about this issue. They
concurred that nothing had changed since this issue was first brought up in
January to cause them to reconsider what they felt were legitimate policy
reasons for not enacting a Moratorium at that time.
Commissioner Lightner responded that implementation
of a Moratorium would be such a deviation from the Rent Board’s normal procedures
that Rules changes and a Public Hearing would be required. Commissioner Becker
said that Judge Robertson had left this question up to the Rent Board’s discretion,
and it could be implemented as a Policy Directive to staff. Commissioner Murphy
maintained that the Sunshine Ordinance requires specific language and a Public
Hearing, while Commissioner Marshall asserted that this would constitute an
administrative decision well within the Board’s powers.
Commissioner Lightner then brought up recent changes
by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to the conflict of interest
rules governing when an elected or appointed official can vote on matters
in which they have an actual or potential economic interest. Commissioner
Lightner was concerned that the Landlord Commissioners on the Board are dissimilarly
situated from 90% of the landlords in San Francisco, in that they have pending
petitions on file, and therefore they could be precluded from voting on a
Moratorium. Deputy City Attorney Marie Blits told the Landlord Commissioners
that they could receive legal advice from the ethics attorneys at her office
and could recuse themselves from voting on the issue at this meeting if they
felt uncomfortable. However, it was Ms. Blits’ opinion that it was the call
of the Commission whether to formally amend the Rules and Regulations or just
give direction to staff should a majority of the Board wish to implement a
Moratorium. The Landlord Commissioners recused themselves as follows:
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Lightner. (Lightner/Gruber:
5-0)
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Murphy. (Murphy/Gruber:
5-0)
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Mosser. (Gruber/Becker:
4-0)
Commissioner Becker then made the following motion:
The Rent Board will therefore continue to process
capital improvement petitions until the effective date of the Moratorium enacted
by the Board of Supervisors, or April 1, 2001. The Board then briefly discussed
how that Moratorium will be implemented with Senior Administrative Law Judges
Sandy Gartzman and Tim Lee. Staff will provide the Commissioners with a more
detailed proposal for how to implement the Moratorium for discussion at the
March 20th meeting.
XII. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1135 Masonic Ave. #7 AT2K0244
(cont. from 1/30-01)
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase
in rent from $1,017.00 to $2,100.00 was denied because the Administrative
Law Judge found that the increase was justified pursuant to Costa-Hawkins.
The tenant appealed on the grounds of financial hardship.
The day before the Board meeting, the tenant submitted
additional arguments in support of his appeal, including allegations that
he resided at the rental unit pursuant to an agreement with an agent of the
landlord, and therefore was not a subtenant subject to a Costa-Hawkins rent
increase. Since there was no evidence that this submission had been served
on the landlord, the Commissioners continued consideration of this appeal
in order for staff to serve the landlord and provide an opportunity to him
to respond, should he desire to do so.
B. 4220 Cesar Chavez #429 AT2K0232
(cont. from 1/30/01)
The tenant’s petition alleging substantially decreased
housing services was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly
noticed hearing. On appeal, the tenant claimed not to have received the Notice
of Hearing, and attached the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice
of Hearing. At the meeting on January 30th, consideration of this
appeal was continued in order for staff to contact the tenant and obtain additional
information.
C. 542 Mason #30 & 60 AT2K0237 & -43
(cont. from 1/30/01)
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 19 of 34 units was granted, resulting in a monthly passthrough
in the amount of $15.43. The tenants in ten units appealed the Decision on
the grounds of financial hardship.
At the meeting on January 30th, the Board
voted to accept the appeals of the tenants in unit numbers 1, 20, 23, 50 and
55 and remanded those cases for a hearing on the tenants’ claims of financial
hardship; and to deny the appeals of the tenants in unit numbers 52, 53 and
54. The appeals of the tenants in unit numbers 30 and 60 were continued in
order for staff to obtain additional information.
MSC: To deny the appeal of the tenant in unit
#30 without prejudice to the tenant’s providing the requested information
within 60 days, at which time the appeal would be re-opened.
(Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
MSC: To deny the appeal of the tenant in unit
#60.
(Gruber/Lightner: 5-0)
D. 1010 Bush St. #105 AT2K0230
(cont. from 2/6/01)
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
because of the revocation of overnight guest privileges was denied because
the Administrative Law Judge found that the right to have overnight guests
was not included in the tenant’s base rent at the commencement of the tenancy,
nor did the tenant pay additional consideration for this service at a later
date. The tenant appeals, claiming that her case was not given adequate consideration
by the Administrative Law Judge; that she never signed a lease or rental agreement
restricting visiting hours; and that the revocation of overnight privileges
was in retaliation for her having filed a petition at the Rent Board.
At the meeting on January 16th, it was the consensus
of the Board to continue consideration of this case in order for Commissioners
Becker and Marshall to research the constitutional question of whether the
tenant’s right to have overnight guests could be restricted; and for the Administrative
Law Judge to address the issue of retaliation. After a brief discussion on
January 16th, consideration of this case was again continued.
E. 1819 Golden Gate Ave. #12 AT010006
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
based on claims of inadequate security in the building and harassment by the
landlord was denied, because the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant
had failed to meet his burden of proof. On appeal, the tenant maintains that
the ALJ is racist and exhibited bias against him; that there are many factual
mis-statements in the Decision; and that he was not provided ample opportunity
to present his case.
F. 2330 Larkin #32 AT010007
The landlords’ petition for rent increases based on
increased operating expenses was granted, resulting in 7% base rent increases
to the tenants in twenty units. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds
of financial hardship.
XIIII. Communications
The Commissioners received a new Commissioners’ Roster
and the office workload statistics for the month of January, 2001.
IX. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
Robert Pender commended the Commissioners on the way
they had handled themselves.
XIV. New Business
Commissioner Lightner introduced proposed amendments
to Rules and Regulations Sections 1.21 and 6.15©(3). The definition of
"Tenant" in Section 1.21 would be amended to require that the tenant
occupy the unit as their principal place of residence in order to be covered
by the Rent Ordinance. Section 6.15©(3) would be amended to require a
Master Tenant to pay a proportionate share of rent for the unit. These proposals
will be discussed at the March 20th meeting.
XV. Calendar Items
March 13,2001 - NO MEETING
March 20, 2001
10 appeal considerations
Old Business:
A. Fair Return/Implementation of Prop. H
B. Proposed Amendments to Rules Sections 1.21 & 6.15©(3)
New Business: Ellis Rescission
XVI. Adjournment
Vice-President Marshall adjourned the meeting at 9:30
p.m.