I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at
6:05 p.m.
II. Roll Call
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. James Driscoll, the tenant’s attorney in the
case at 11 Naglee Ave. #3 (AL010035), told the Board that his legal arguments
on appeal were before them, and explained the circumstances behind the tenant’s
not having returned to the unit from her residence in Las Vegas.
B. Tenant Alma Morris of Lombard Place Apartments
told the Board that she could not afford to pay thousands of dollars in
passthroughs, and that she "didn’t get rich, but did get old."
Ms. Morris said that she "thought the battle was over with the passage
of Proposition H."
C. Helen Fellows, a tenant at Lombard Place, told
the Board that the landlord’s petition for certification of capital improvement
costs did not include subcontractor invoices and the petition should therefore
be reconsidered and dismissed.
D. Tenant Lorraine Calcagni of Lombard Place took
issue with the effective date of the Moratorium on processing capital improvement
petitions. Ms. Calcagni told the Board the Ordinance passed Second Reading
before the Board of Supervisors on February 20th and she believes
it became law 30 days later, or March 22nd. Ms. Calcagni stated
her belief that the 10 extra days for the Mayor to decide what to do has
no effect on the effective date of the legislation.
E. Landlord Karen Crommie asked that the Board look
favorably on and pass the two amendments proposed by Commissioner Lightner
on this evening’s Agenda to "plug loopholes and abuses" of the
rent control law.
F. Tenant Bill Shockley of Lombard Place Apartments
stated his opinion that the Decision in their case was rushed out to beat
the Moratorium. Mr. Shockley told the Board that this forced the tenants
to file appeals to preserve their rights, and that the briefing schedule
agreed to by the attorneys for the two sides constituted "continued
processing" of the appeals. Mr. Shockley asked that the Board hold
the appeal deadlines in abeyance so that the parties are not forced to pay
attorney’s fees to make arguments that may be mooted by the disposition
of Proposition H in the courts.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 11 Naglee Ave. #3 AL010035
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase
in rent from $349.90 to $1,200.00 was granted and the landlords were found
liable to the tenant in the amount of $5,155.44. Although the original tenant
had not resided on the premises for several years, the subtenant moved in
to the unit in 1995 and, therefore, no Costa-Hawkins increase was warranted.
The Administrative Law Judge found that the landlords could not rely on their
6.14 notice, because the tenant had not "vacated" the premises and
the landlords had waived their right to a market rent increase by their conduct.
On appeal, the landlords argue that: the Rent Ordinance was promulgated to
protect "tenants in residence", and the instant tenant resides out
of State; the doctrine of estoppel should be applied to petitioner’s conduct,
since she represented that she was moving out of the unit only temporarily,
and her immediate family members continued to assert that this was the case;
and waiver does not apply to the facts of this case, since the landlord did
not "intentionally relinquish a known right after full knowledge of the
facts" because the tenant and her family members misrepresented the facts.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
to the Administrative Law Judge to vacate the Decision and find that,
based on the facts in this case, the tenant has vacated the unit, having
demonstrated no real indicia of an intent to return. (Wasserman/Gruber:
5-0)
B. 887 Bush St. #509 AL010034
The landlord’s appeal was filed one day late because
the landlord’s attorney was in court for the two-week period prior to the
appeal deadline.
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
due to the loss of interior parking for his motorcycles was granted and the
landlord was found liable in the amount of $81.03 per month. On appeal, the
landlord argues that: the Decision does not promote the policies and purposes
of the Ordinance; because of questionable facts asserted by the petitioner,
the case should have been evaluated in light of the written agreement regarding
parking, and a subsequent agreement is invalid; the tenant failed to prove
that parking was included in his rent at the inception of the tenancy; the
tenant’s self-serving statements at the hearing constitute hearsay, and should
not be the basis for the decision; and the prior management company is engaged
in litigation against the owner of the property, and therefore should not
be considered credible.
C. 863 - 41st Ave. AL010039
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services
was granted, and the new landlords were found liable in the amount of $1,900.00
due to the tenants’ inability to use their kitchen for a six and one-half
month period. On appeal, the new owners claim that: they had no notice as
to the petition that had already been filed by the tenants against the prior
owner; and the tenants showed a lack of good faith by filing the instant claim.
D. 1769 Page St. AL010038
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase
in rent from $1,627.89 to $3,250.00 was granted because the Administrative
Law Judge found that the petitioner was a tenant in the unit, rather than
a subtenant, so that no increase was justified pursuant to Costa-Hawkins.
Additionally, a 6.14 notice was not timely served. On appeal, the landlords
claim that: the petitioner is a subtenant, who commenced occupancy of the
unit pursuant to an agreement with the original tenants, and whose name is
not on the lease; the prior landlord had no choice but to consent to petitioner’s
occupancy of the unit pursuant to the Board’s Rules governing subletting and
assignment; the landlord’s acceptance of rent from petitioner was an accommodation,
and did not alter his status as a subtenant in the unit; the Administrative
Law Judge mischaracterized testimony at the hearing and misconstrued applicable
law; alternatively, the petitioner is an assignee whose rent may be increased
pursuant to Costa-Hawkins and the new owners did not waive this right; Rules
Section 6.14 is inapplicable to the facts in this case because the petitioner
did not have a rental agreement with the owners; and the prior and new owners
did not have knowledge of petitioner’s occupancy of the unit until the last
of the original tenants vacated.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
to the Administrative Law Judge to vacate the Decision and find, based
on the facts of this case, that no original tenants are currently occupying
the premises, and the rent increase pursuant to Costa-Hawkins is authorized.
(Lightner/Gruber: 3-2; Becker, Aung dissenting)
E. 286 Sagamore St. AL010036
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
due to serious habitability defects on the premises was granted and the landlord
was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $12,206.25. On appeal, the
landlord maintains that: at least four different attempts were made to repair
the leaks, which were temporarily abated; the roof was repaired in March of
2,000, but rent reductions were granted through June; and the Administrative
Law Judge failed to determine when rainfall occurred during the time period
for which rent reductions were granted.
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on
the calendar, the Commissioners received a letter from Ted Gullickson of the
Tenants’ Union requesting that the Board refer the landlord of the building
at 15 Rico Way to the City Attorney for investigation of a possible wrongful
eviction.
VII. Director’s Report
Deputy Director Wolf informed the Board that the City
Attorney had received a 10 day extension to file opposition papers in the
case of Quigg vs. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (Superior
Court Case No. 316928). The hearing on the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction has been continued to May 24, 2001
at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. 302 of the Superior Court. The plaintiffs’ Cross-Motions
for Summary Judgment will be heard at the same time.
President Wasserman asked that the Minutes reflect
the Board’s deep sorrow at the death of Peter Bellinger, and conveyed condolences
to Executive Director Joe Grubb and Mr. Bellinger’s family.
VIII. New Business
The Commissioners received a Memorandum from Deputy
City Attorney Marie Blits confirming that, in accordance with Charter Sections
2.105 and 3.103, the effective date of the Moratorium on processing capital
improvement petitions is April 1, 2001. In conjunction with the request of
tenant Bill Shockley of Lombard Place Apartments earlier in the meeting, the
Board decided to hold the briefing schedule previously agreed on by the attorneys
for the parties in abeyance as long as the Moratorium is in effect.
Commissioner Lightner told the other Board members
that, as a landlord with a pending capital improvement case, she was extremely
impressed with the communications she had received from Rent Board staff concerning
implementation of the Moratorium. President Wasserman expressed kudos to staff,
especially Senior Administrative Law Judge Sandy Gartzman, for the enormous
amount of thought and work that went into organizing and implementing the
Moratorium.
IX. Old Business
Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Sections
1.21 and 6.15©(3) of the Rules and Regulations
Consideration of this issue was continued to the meeting
on May 1, 2001.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
G. John McCartlett said that it is difficult for
members of the public to follow the Board’s discussions since they do not
have copies of appeal materials.
H. Mario Luchetti, the landlord in the case at 11
Naglee Ave. (AL010035), asked about the disposition of his appeal.
X. Calendar Items