I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at
6:11 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Aung; Becker;
Gruber; Marshall; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Hobson; Lightner;
Mosser.
Staff Present: Wolf.
Commissioner Justman appeared on the
record at 6:30 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Robert Pender of the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization
(PRO) informed the Commissioners that tenants and representatives of PRO
had attended 14 Rent Board hearings on the landlord’s operating expense
increase petition over the past year. PRO now has over 300 members and 20
Board members.
B. Tenant Ruby Gold of 3972 & 3974 - 23rd
St. (AT020012 & -13) told the Board that the tenants hadn’t attended
the hearing on the landlord’s capital improvement passthrough petition because
of the events of 9/11.
C. Tenants Margaret Miyasaki and Jessie Richardson
of 1381 Utah St. #1 (AT020004) informed the Board that they were in attendance
at the meeting.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 3330 Pierce St. #305 AL020006
The landlord filed a petition seeking a determination
as to whether the subject unit is exempt pursuant to Rules and Regulations
Section 1.17(i) and/or 1.21. The Administrative Law Judge found that, although
the tenants rent two units that are next door in the building, both units
comprise the tenants’ principal place of residence and are used for residential
purposes. The landlord appeals the determination that both of the units are
subject to Rent Board jurisdiction, claiming that: the language of Section
1.21 describes a tenant in occupancy as residing in a single rental unit;
the word "principal" does not allow for more than one; the tenants’
use of both units does not covert them to one unit; and the tenants’ behavior
clearly favors one unit over the other.
B. 1360 Lombard St. #403 AT020005
The tenant’s hardship appeal was filed almost nine
months late because he assumed that it was being taken care of by the attorney
who filed a joint appeal on substantive issues for he and many other tenants
in the building.
The landlord’s petition for certification of the costs
of a large waterproofing project was granted. One tenant untimely appeals
the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
C. 1381 Utah St. #1 AT020004
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
was dismissed due to her failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing.
On appeal, the tenant claims not to have received notice of the hearing because
mail delivery to the premises has been disrupted due to the landlord’s removal
of the mailbox in order to repair the stairs.
D. 1733 McAllister St., Apt. 5 AL020007
The landlord filed a petition seeking a determination
as to whether the tenant is a "tenant in occupancy" pursuant to
Rules Section 1.21. The Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant’s absence
from the unit in order to attend a graduate program for a year constituted
a reasonable temporary period of absence for education and that the unit remained
the tenant’s principal place of residence. The landlord appeals, asserting
that: an individual cannot occupy a unit if they are not there for a year;
a tenant cannot occupy a single occupancy unit if someone else is residing
there; the requirements of Rules Section 1.21 should conform to the owner-occupancy
eviction requirements of Ordinance Section 37.9(a)(8); the exceptions to the
occupancy requirement of Section 1.21 should be limited to circumstances beyond
the tenant’s control, or brief absences; and, once the unit was sublet, the
tenant was no longer a "tenant in occupancy."
E. 883 Sacramento St. AL020008
The landlord’s Petition for Extension of Time to Do
Capital Improvement Work was denied because: the landlord had a nine-month
construction estimate at the time the notice to vacate was served on the tenants,
but failed to file the Petition for Extension of Time until more than three
months after the notice was served; and the landlord had failed to obtain
all necessary permits prior to filing the petition. On appeal, the landlord
claims that: the landlord petitioner appropriately relied on the requirements
of Rules Section 12.15(e)(2), rather than 12.15(e)(1); the Administrative
Law Judge exceeded his authority by denying the petition, rather than deciding
on the reasonableness of the landlord’s time estimate; and, since the landlord
prevailed in an Unlawful Detainer action against these tenants, there is a
judicial determination that the landlord’s notice of termination of tenancy
was in compliance with the Rent Ordinance.
F. 322 Cumberland St. AL020010
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the
amount of $1,708.50 due to habitability defects on the premises. On appeal,
the landlord provides evidence that the lot has been split, and asserts that
the property is now exempt from Rent Board jurisdiction pursuant to Costa-Hawkins
in that it is a single family dwelling which is separately alienable from
the title to any other dwelling.
G. 740 Monterey Blvd. #11 AT020009
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 15 of 24 units was granted. The tenant appealed the decision
on the grounds of financial hardship. The appeal was granted, and the capital
improvement passthrough was ordered deferred for one year in order for the
tenant’s daughter to obtain employment. The remand decision provided that
the tenant could file another financial hardship application after the one-year
period had expired, should extraordinary circumstances warrant further deferral.
The tenant now appeals to reopen the case, because her daughter’s condition
has worsened, and has made it impossible for her to work.
H. 3972 & 3974 - 23rd St. AT020012
& -13
The tenants’ appeals were filed three days late because
they relied on the postmark date rather than the date of issuance of the decision.
The landlord’s petition for certification of the costs
of exterior painting of three of four buildings on the property was granted,
resulting in a monthly passthrough to the tenants in the amount of $33.35.
On appeal, the tenants in two units claim that: the work done on the buildings
varied, and should not have been equally allocated to the tenants; the contracts
for the work do not reflect the work that was done; cleaning wood shingles
does not constitute capital improvement work; scaffolding was used on all
four buildings, but is only being charged to two; and, since the largest building
was eliminated from the landlord’s petition, the remaining buildings are being
assessed a disproportionate share of the costs.
I. 319 - 27th Ave. #3 AL020014
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase
in base rent from $1,200 to $1,900 per month was granted. The tenant had been
receiving a voucher through the Section 8 Program, and terminated his participation
in that program as of August 5, 2001. The landlord had issued a notice of
rent increase conditioned on the approval of the Housing Authority to take
effect August 1, 2001. Since the increase was not approved by the Housing
Authority, the Administrative Law Judge found that it did not go into effect
and the tenant’s base rent upon coming under the jurisdiction of the Rent
Board remained at the prior amount of $1,200. The landlord appeals, contending
that: the Rent Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of a rent
increase sought while the unit was under Section 8; the landlord is entitled
to the increase under Federal law; since the tenant terminated participation
in Section 8 after the effective date of the rent increase, the holdover rent
was at the last noticed rate; the tenant waived his rights to contest the
increase; the Administrative Law Judge abused her discretion and failed to
apply applicable facts and law; and the tenant should be estopped from contesting
the increase because of his interference with the inspection necessary to
obtain approval of the rent increase.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
to the Administrative Law Judge for a hearing to determine whether the
tenant acted in bad faith to interfere with the rent increase taking
effect and, if so, to determine whether it would have taken effect absent
the tenant’s conduct. (Justman/Murphy: 4-1; Becker dissenting)
J. 1819 Golden Gate Ave. #12 AT020011
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services,
unlawful rent increases and the landlord’s failure to repair was denied. Specifically,
the tenant maintains that the landlord should not be allowed to restore a
$200 rent reduction for a prior cockroach infestation because there are still
cockroaches in the unit. On appeal, the tenant claims that: it is the landlord’s
burden to prove that the cockroach problem has been eliminated, which he has
not done; the prior owner agreed not to ever restore the rent reduction in
return for the tenant’s waiving his right to sue for asbestos exposure; his
claim of being set up for eviction was not dealt with by the Administrative
Law Judge; and the tapes of the hearing have been tampered with.
VI. Communications