I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at
6:14 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Aung; Gruber;
Hobson; Marshall; Murphy; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Becker; Justman;
Lightner; Mosser.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Remarks from the Public
The landlord in the case at 2741 Clay St. (AT020146)
informed the Commissioners that he was present. President Wasserman expressed
the Board’s condolences to Commissioner Becker on the loss of his brother.
V. Vote on Whether to Go Into Closed Session
Regarding the Case of The Blaine Family Trust vs. Rent Board (Perlstadt)
(Superior Court Case No. 500854) Pursuant to S.F. Administrative Code Section
67.11{a}
VI. Closed Session re Perlstadt, supra, Pursuant
to Government Code Section
54956.9{a}
The Board went into Closed Session from 6:17 to 6:55
p.m. with Deputy City Attorney Randy Riddle to discuss the case of The
Blaine Family Trust vs. Rent Board (Perlstadt) (Superior Court
Case No. 500854).
VII. Vote on Whether or Not to Disclose and Possible
Disclosure of Any/All
Conversations Held in Closed Session Regarding Perlstadt, supra.
VIII. Report on Any Actions Taken in Closed Session
Regarding Perlstadt, supra,
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1{a}{2} and S.F. Administrative
Code Section 67.14{b}{2}
President Wasserman reported that the Board held a
Closed Session to discuss the Perlstadt case with its attorney, and
voted to pursue an appeal of Judge Robertson’s decision in the case.
IX. Consideration of Appeals
A. 2741 Clay St. AT020146
The tenant’s appeal was filed three weeks late because
the hearing was held and the decision issued while the tenant was out of the
country.
The landlord filed a petition seeking a determination
as to whether there is a "Tenant in Occupancy" at the subject unit.
The Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant does not occupy the unit
as his principal place of residence but there is a lawful subtenant on the
premises, so no rent increase was found to be warranted pursuant to Rules
Section 1.21. However, since the subtenant commenced occupancy in February
1996, a rent increase was allowed under Costa-Hawkins. The tenant did not
appear at the hearing. On appeal, the tenant claims that the unit is his principal
place of residence, which he can prove; and that the landlord had told
him he wouldn’t proceed with the petition while the
tenant was out of the country.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
for a new hearing; should the tenant fail to appear, absent extraordinary
circumstances, no further hearings will be granted. (Hobson/Marshall:
4-1; Gruber dissenting)
B. 3617 - 17th St. AL020196
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, although the
tenant is frequently away from the subject unit, it is where she normally
returns exclusive of travel necessitated by employment. The petition was therefore
denied. The landlord appeals, asserting that: the Administrative Law Judge
considered hearsay statements in formulating her decision after upholding
the landlord’s objections to such statements, which prejudiced the landlord
in that he had no right to cross-examination; the Administrative Law Judge
failed to require that the tenant provide evidence as to her residency in
New York; the landlord does not have the burden of proving that the tenant
owns property elsewhere in order to prevail on a 1.21 petition; the tenant
was not specific in accounting for when and where she was residing when she
was away from the subject premises; and the tenant collected more rent from
the subtenants than she was paying to the landlord, which establishes a commercial
use of the unit.
MSC: To accept the appeal to vacate the decision
and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge on the record to
find that, under these facts, the tenant is not a "Tenant in Occupancy"
pursuant to Rules and Regulations Section 1.21. (Murphy/Gruber: 4-1;
Marshall dissenting)
C. 547 Grove St. AL020198
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase
and decreased housing services was granted. The landlord’s proposed rent increase
from $666.47 to $2,450.00 was found to be null and void because the last original
occupant of the unit had died seven years prior to a 6.14 notice having been
served. Additionally, the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount
of $40.00 per month due to loss of use of the back yard. On appeal, the landlord
claims that implicit in California law is a covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and the tenant withheld the fact that his roommate had died from
the prior and current owners.
D. 1566 Church St. AT020199
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 admits to having mis-calendared the hearing date.
E. 2620 Laguna St. #2 AL020200
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount
of $951.44 due to insufficient heat in the unit. Additionally, a notice of
rent increase was ordered deferred until outstanding code violations on the
premises were abated. The landlord appeals, arguing that: the tenant failed
to meet his burden of proof; the Administrative Law Judge did not consider
any of the landlord’s testimony refuting the tenant’s allegations; the decision
was in contravention of the facts and law; and the tenant has vacated the
unit and failed to pay rent for the months of June and July.
F. 1360 Jones St. #801 AT020201
The landlord’s petition for a determination as to
whether the tenant is a "Tenant in Occupancy" pursuant to Rules
Section 1.21 was granted because it was found that the tenants are a law partnership
headquartered in Santa Barbara, who use the subject unit only infrequently.
The tenants appeal, claiming that they failed to receive the Notice of Hearing,
and attaching the requisite Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.
G 883 Sacramento St. AL020202
The landlord filed a Petition for Extension of Time
which was denied because the petition was not filed prior to the tenants’
being given notice to vacate, although it was clear that the work would take
more than three months; and all necessary permits had not been obtained. The
landlord appealed, and the case was remanded in order for the Administrative
Law Judge to determine the reasonableness of the landlord’s estimate of additional
time needed to complete the work. This case was consolidated with a second
Petition for Extension of Time filed by the landlord. In the remand decision,
the Administrative Law Judge determined that the landlord’s original estimate
of time was too short, and also denied the landlord’s second petition because
the landlord still did not have all the necessary permits. On appeal, the
landlord maintains that the decision is unclear and contradictory, and he
requests clarification or that the Board hear the appeal.
X. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on
the calendar, the Commissioners received a new copy of the Ordinance and a
letter from a tenant at Parkmerced protesting what they consider to be excessive
rent increases.
XI. Old Business
Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Section
1.18
Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that he
would be working with some of the Administrative Law Judges on an alternative
draft of proposed changes to Rules Section 1.18, which would include an estimator’s
valuation of the cost of the substantial rehabilitation work instead of the
permit amount. This issue will be discussed further at the next meeting.
XII. Calendar Items
September 10, 2002 - NO MEETING
September 17, 2002
8 appeal considerations
Old Business: Proposed Amendments to Rules Section
1.18
XIII. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 8:00
p.m.