I. Call to Order
President Wasserman called the meeting to order at
6:13 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Gruber; Justman;
Lightner; Marshall; Mosser; Wasserman.
Commissioners not Present: Aung; Becker;
Hobson; Murphy.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Lightner went off 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) told the Board that Parkmerced management is offering to relocate
the tenants in 33 units, at their same rent, if they do not wish to live
next door to the new Montessori school that is being constructed. Mr. Pender
considers this a wrongful eviction attempt, and believes that it is being
done to "scare and intimidate the tenants into not voting no on Proposition
R."
B. James O’Donnell, a former tenant at 1550 Bay
St. (AT020147 thru -0190), referred to a letter he had previously written
the Board accusing Commissioner Murphy of having a conflict of interest
when he voted on the tenant appeals concerning 1550 Bay Street on February
26, 2002. Mr. O’Donnell attempted to introduce additional evidence of Commissioner
Murphy’s alleged conflict, which he said contradicts statements made by
Commissioner Murphy and recorded in the Minutes. Mr. O’Donnell told the
Board that the City Attorney should review the federal court file regarding
the alleged discrepancies.
C. Arnold Cohn, a tenant at 1550 Bay Street, inquired
regarding the status of the decision on tenant claims of decreased housing
services during a prolonged construction project, and was told it would
probably be going out by the end of this month.
V. Consideration of Appeals
A. 1550 Bay St. AT020147 thru -0190
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs, including a large waterproofing project, to 94 out of 241
units was granted in the amount of almost $3,200,000.00. 48 tenants, represented
by the same attorney, filed a joint appeal. At the meeting on February 26,
2002, the joint appeal was accepted and remanded to the Administrative Law
Judge on the issue of allocation of the costs of installing waterproofing
materials between the ceiling of the commercial units and the floor of the
twelve tenant decks above the ceiling of the commercial units; to determine
the use of the old laundry room space as of the date of the close of the record,
or March 30, 2001, for purposes of allocation of those costs; and to establish
a repayment schedule for sums owing from the tenants to the landlord. 44 tenants
represented by the same attorney now appeal the remand decision, claiming
that: the tenants were prejudiced because the landlord violated the pre-hearing
order regarding evidence; the tenant representatives understood the stipulation
reached between the parties regarding the costs of the waterproofing materials
as applying only to the appealing tenants; and the entire passthrough should
be barred by Proposition H.
B. 21 Byron Ct. AL020206
Two tenants filed petitions alleging decreased housing
services and asking for determinations as to whether their current rents are
lawful. Unlawful rent increases were determined to have been given, and the
landlord was found liable to one tenant in the amount of $97.00 and $2,380.00
to the other tenant. Additionally, the landlord was found liable for rent
reductions to both tenants for decreased housing services due to the presence
of an additional six to nine individuals residing at the subject unit. On
appeal, the landlord asserts that: the premises are a single family dwelling
that is exempt from rent control pursuant to Costa-Hawkins; the rent increase
was justified because the tenant moved from a smaller room that was uninhabitable;
the tenants failed to meet their burden of proving decreased housing services,
and did not provide notice to the landlord; the living room was not available
temporarily while the new tenants were moving in; and the Administrative Law
Judge exhibited bias against the landlord and in favor of the tenants.
C. 334-336 - 2nd Ave. AL020203
The landlord filed a petition seeking a determination
of the initial rent for a non-comparable replacement unit. The Administrative
Law Judge set the initial rent at $970.00. On appeal, the landlord maintains
that the decision is in error in ruling that there are no banked rent increases
available to the landlord.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board
to continue consideration of this case to the meeting on October 15th.
D. 334-336 - 2nd Ave. AL020204
The tenants’ petition alleging decreased housing services
was granted and the landlords were found liable to the tenants in the amount
of $883.60 due to rodent infestation in the unit and a defective oven. On
appeal, the landlords assert that the rat infestation was caused by the tenants
themselves.
E. 1050 Post St. #35 AT020205
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs for nineteen of forty units was granted. One tenant appeals
the decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
F. 1955 Lyon St. AT020208
The tenant’s appeal was filed over four months late
because the tenant claims not to have understood that retroactive amounts
would be due and owing after she had vacated the building.
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital
improvement costs for five of six units was granted. One tenant appeals the
decision on the grounds of financial hardship.
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful rent increase
was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount
of $1,970.50. The Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant was a subtenant
of a master tenant during the period March 1, 1999 through September 30, 2001
and that any claim regarding overpayments during this period would have to
be made against the estate of the master tenant. On appeal, the tenant argues
that: the decision allows the landlord’s wrongful retention of an unlawful
rent increase from the individual who actually paid it; the master tenant
died intestate and without property, so there is no probate or estate against
which any claim could have been lodged; the master tenant did not raise the
tenant’s rent, but was merely a conduit between the tenant and the landlord;
the tenant became a co-tenant upon the landlord having demanded the rent increase
of him; and subtenants have the same rights as tenants in seeking recovery
of rent overpayments under the Ordinance.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board
to continue consideration of this case to the meeting on October 15th.
The landlord’s petition seeking a determination as
to whether the tenant is a "Tenant in Occupancy" pursuant to Rules
Section 1.21 was granted. The tenant appeals the determination, claiming non-receipt
of the notice of hearing, and attaching the requisite Declaration.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
for a new hearing at the convenience of the landlord; should the tenant
fail to appear, absent extraordinary circumstances, no further hearings
will be granted. (Gruber/Marshall: 3-0)
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on
the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. A Memorandum from the Office of the City Attorney
regarding Commissioner Murphy’s alleged conflict of interest in voting on
the tenant appeals concerning the property at 1550 Bay St. (AT020147 thru
-0190).
B. Results of the "Tenant Survey", which
is part of the Housing Study commissioned by the Board of Supervisors.
C. The Department’s Annual Statistical Report.
D. Revised copies of the Department’s informational
brochures, which have been updated to reflect recent changes in the law.
E. A letter from Parkmerced management, offering
to relocate tenants who do not wish to live next door to a soon-to-be-constructed
Montessori school, at their same rent.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Board that he
would be on vacation in Bali from September 19th through October
6th.
VIII. Old Business
Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations Section
1.18
Due to the absence of Commissioner Aung, and the fact
that Commissioner Murphy will not be at the meeting on October 1st,
this issue was continued to the meeting on October 15th.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
D. Mark Weiss, a tenant at 336 - 2nd
Ave. (AL020204), thanked the Board for putting one of the landlord’s two
appeals to rest.
E. Robert Pender asked if PRO could obtain a copy
of the "Tenant Survey", which was provided to him.
F. James O’Donnell, a former tenant at 1550 Bay
St., advised the Board to "discharge their duties with integrity."
Mr. O’Donnell said that it would be best for Commissioners to disclose any
potential conflicts or anything that could lead to the appearance of impropriety.
He suggested that in large cases like 1550 Bay, the Rent Board should get
involved and try to mediate "before the train wreck." He also
recommended that the Board set more reasonable amortization schedules for
capital improvement work.
IX. Calendar Items
September 24, 2002 - NO MEETING
October 1, 2002
8 appeal considerations
Old Business:
The Blaine Family Trust v. Rent Board (Perlstadt)
(Superior Court Case No. 500854)
Rules and Regulations Section 1.21
X. Adjournment
President Wasserman adjourned the meeting at 7:16
p.m.