I. Call to Order
Vice-President Marshall called the meeting to order
at 6:11 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Becker; Hobson;
Justman; Marshall; Mosser; Murphy.
Commissioners not Present: Gruber; Lightner;
Wasserman.
Staff Present: Grubb; Wolf.
Commissioner Aung appeared on the record
at 6:13 p.m.
III. Approval of the Minutes
IV. Remarks from the Public
A. Robert Pender of the Parkmerced Residents’ Organization
(PRO) distributed a copy of the organization’s latest newsletter; told the
Board that the organization has been "vigorously" representing
tenants at Rent Board hearings; and introduced members of PRO that were
in attendance at the meeting.
B. Tenant Ross Wilkinson submitted a letter raising
the following points: the IRS does not consider interior or exterior painting
a capital improvement, and neither should the Rent Board; the Rent Board
should pursue credible accusations of perjury; wrongful eviction hearings
should be recorded; and the Board’s recycled tapes are sometimes inaudible.
C. Kevin Donahue, who has been a resident at Parkmerced
for twenty-five years, said that he believes painting and new roofs constitute
routine maintenance.
D. Sharon Gelder, a tenant at Parkmerced, said that
capital improvements and rent increases would price people out of their
units. Ms. Gelder believes that the work is unnecessary, and is being done
to appeal to new renters, at long-time tenants’ expense.
E. Ana Maria Huslen has lived at Parkmerced for
twenty-five years and is concerned about rent increases, since she is still
paying for windows that were put in ten years ago.
V. Consideration of Appeals
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital
improvement costs was granted pursuant to a Minute Order. One tenant filed
an untimely appeal of the decision on the grounds of financial hardship. The
appeal was continued from the meeting on July 16th in order for
other occupants of the unit, the tenant’s wife and adult daughter, to fill
out Hardship Applications. Since nothing was received from the tenants, who
are not native English speakers, this case was continued to the August 20th
meeting in order for staff to contact the tenant appellants one more time.
B. 623 - 15th Ave. AT020141
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
due to the landlord’s refusal to allow a replacement roommate was denied.
The Administrative Law Judge found that the landlord’s refusal was not unreasonable
because it was the second request within a one-year period absent good cause.
The tenant appeals, asserting that: the request to sublet was made with good
cause; her roommate had agreed to limited use of the kitchen, and that was
not the reason she vacated the unit; the roommate moved out because she felt
unsafe walking home from the bus stop late at night after work; and she had
no control over her roommate moving out.
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Aung from consideration
of this appeal. (Becker/Marshall: 5-0)
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
to the Administrative Law Judge on the record to vacate the decision
and find good cause under the facts of this case. (Becker/Marshall:
5-0)
C. 808 Leavenworth St. AL020144
The landlord’s petition for certification of capital
improvement costs to 20 of 33 units was dismissed due to the landlord’s failure
to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the landlord claims
to have been out of the country at the time of the hearing.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board
to continue this case to the meeting on August 20th in order for
the landlord to provide documentation of his having been out of the country
and an explanation as to why he failed to request a postponement.
D. 1204 Alemany Blvd. AT020143
The tenant’s petition alleging a substantial decrease
in housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant
in the amount of $861.00 due to the replacement of a no-fee washer and dryer
with coin-operated appliances. The landlord appealed, claiming that: the Administrative
Law Judge was biased against him; the lease he entered into with the tenant
let him know that a pay washer and dryer would be installed shortly; the subtenant
vacated the premises, so the rent reduction amount granted to her constituted
a windfall to the master tenant; and the tenant perjured himself at the hearing.
The Board accepted the landlord’s appeal and remanded the case to the Administrative
Law Judge to vacate the decision and find that there was no decrease in housing
services based on the facts of this case. The tenant appeals the remand decision,
arguing that: he never saw a copy of the original lease agreement when he
entered into the tenancy; he was never told that the washer and dryer were
going to be replaced in the future; and use of a free washer and dryer were
part of the original agreement when he rented the apartment.
E. 370 Ellis St. #28 AT020145
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
was denied because the Administrative Law Judge found that the conditions
were not substantial and/or the tenant had failed to provide the landlord
with notice as to the defective conditions. The tenant appeals, claiming that:
the Administrative Law Judge imposed too high a standard of proof on the tenant;
the Administrative Law Judge required too great a degree of specificity as
to the habitability defects; the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding
that notice was not provided to the landlord regarding the defective carpet;
the landlord was not required to prove why it took three months for the elevator
to be repaired, which was the result of years of deferred maintenance; the
landlord should have followed up the notice from PG&E regarding the radiator
with an inspection; and, had the landlord performed an inspection of the premises,
he would have had constructive notice of the problem with the window locks.
H. 424 Bartlett St. #1 AT020191
The tenant’s petition alleging decreased housing services
and an unlawful rent increase 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, and requests a new hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case
for a new hearing; the tenant is advised that should she fail to attend
the remand hearing, absent extraordinary circumstances, no further hearings
will be granted. (Becker/Mosser: 5-0)
VI. Communications
In addition to correspondence concerning cases on
the calendar, the Commissioners received the following communications:
A. The office workload statistics for the month
of June, 2002.
B. An updated "Pending Litigation Status Report"
from Senior Administrative Law Judge Tim Lee.
C. An updated list of Ordinance amendments.
VII. Director’s Report
Executive Director Grubb informed the Commissioners
that prior Administrative Law Judges Lily Lau and Vanessa Davenport have been
re-hired to fill two of the outstanding Temporary Administrative Law Judge
positions that are available. Ms. Lau began working on August 5th;
Ms. Davenport will be coming on board around October 1st. It is
unclear at this time whether there will be a need to fill the third Temporary
ALJ position; Mr. Grubb expects to know whether this is necessary by October.
IV. Remarks from the Public (cont.)
F. Robert Pender of PRO inquired as to the date
of the prior Parkmerced capital improvement passthrough for the installation
of new windows. Staff will respond.
VIII. New Business
Commissioner Aung presented a proposed revision of
the definition of substantial rehabilitation codified in Rules and Regulations
Section 1.18. In a recent court decision, the judge found that Section 1.18
as written does not apply to evictions for substantial rehabilitation of the
premises because its valuation scheme uses a post-construction frame of reference,
whereas evictions occur prior to the work being done. The proposed revision
would provide guidance as to the scope of work necessary to justify an eviction
based on sub. rehab., using figures that are available prior to the work being
completed. This issue will be discussed at the August 20th meeting.
The landlord’s petition seeking a determination as
to whether a rent increase was justified under Costa-Hawkins was granted because
the Administrative Law Judge found that the tenant no longer permanently resides
at the premises and the subtenant was not in possession prior to January 1,
1996. The tenant’s appeal of the decision was denied by the Board at their
meeting on July 16, 2002. Subsequent to that meeting, a Writ was filed by
the tenant’s attorney. The Deputy Director asked the Board whether they wished
to instruct the Office of the City Attorney to defend the Writ, since both
parties are represented by competent counsel, and the policy question is one
of interpretation of State law. After discussion, the Board voted as follows:
IX. Calendar Items
August 13, 2002 - NO MEETING
August 20, 2002
7 appeal considerations (1 post. from 8/6/02; 2
cont. from 8/6/02)
Old Business: Proposed Amendments to Rules Section
1.18
X. Adjournment
Vice-President Marshall adjourned the meeting at 7:40
p.m.