A controversial San Mateo landlord-tenant dispute has concluded with the City Council finding in the landlord’s favor, despite concerns from community and housing advocates about the precedent it sets for future disputes.
At its June 5 meeting, the City Council adopted its statement of the decision granting the appeal of the property owner at 100 North Humboldt St., which said the property owner was not required to reimburse the city for around $12,000 in permanent relocation benefits advanced to tenants who had to leave the property in January due to substandard living conditions.
The June 5 decision and the council’s initial May 15 appeal hearing, where it voted 3-1 to grant the appeal of the property owner, worried many housing advocates about the future implications on red-tagged properties and the strength of the city’s 2019 red-tag ordinance aimed at protecting tenants living in unsafe or substandard housing conditions. Many public speakers came out in force at the June 5 meeting to speak about the concern of switching the burden of proof from the landlord to the tenant with the decision. However, the council stressed it supported the red-tag ordinance and said its decision not to request repayment from the landlord would not lead to a new precedent for tenants.
“I want to make it clear we are not a court,” Councilmember Rich Hedges said at the June 5 meeting. “Our decisions do not make precedents. Each one of these cases stands on their own merit.”
According to a city staff report, code enforcement staff received a complaint Jan. 10 at 100 N. Humboldt St. about nonworking heaters, roof leaks, collapsed portions of the ceiling in the kitchen and hallway, rats entering the home through holes in the roof and ceiling and a lack of hot water reaching the kitchen sink and a bathroom shower. Staff inspected the property three days later and found substandard conditions, issuing a notice Jan. 26 detailing eight immediate life and safety conditions and requiring the property owner to correct the substandard conditions by Feb. 27 and pay the displaced tenants’ relocation benefits. The city advanced relocation benefits to the family due to the need to immediately vacate the residence. San Mateo Municipal Code requires property owners to pay for the relocation of their tenants when displaced by substandard housing conditions. It also says that property owners may contest relocation payment decisions by appealing to the City Council. The property owner, Trina Pierce, contested the findings, with Pierce’s attorney Gina Papan, also a member of the Millbrae City Council, asserting the substandard conditions were generally created by the tenants and motivated by a pending eviction, which the city should have taken into consideration.
The council conducted a May 15 hearing on the appeal and voted 3-1 to grant the property owner’s appeal, with Gina Papan and Assemblymember Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, speaking in support of Pierce at the May meeting. The council decided Pierce was not required to reimburse the city for $12,000 in permanent relocation benefits advanced to the tenants. Councilmember Adam Loraine voted against the decision at the May 15 meeting. The council reasoned the city should have communicated with the property owner between Jan. 13-26 when determining whether the tenants were eligible for relocation benefits to get more details.
Those worried about the precedent spoke at the council’s June 5 meeting to make their concern known. Jennifer Martinez lives in North Central and is a member of One San Mateo, a community coalition working for housing solutions. She believes the decision could weaken a needed ordinance that helps renters who often have few protections and are vulnerable to harmful, uninhabitable living conditions. The council passed a red-tag ordinance in 2019 to protect tenants living in unsafe or substandard housing conditions modeled after a similar county ordinance. It requires property owners to pay relocation benefits to tenants who’ve been displaced due to the city’s code enforcement actions.
Recommended for you
“It is the landlord, and only the landlord, who is responsible for ensuring the structural integrity of their property, not the renters. Two weeks ago, powerful political interests rather than fair, just housing laws won the day. Today, we ask you to uphold the city’s laws.” Martinez said.
Emily Morris, a neighbor of the tenants, was concerned the council’s decisions would affect other renters who live in bad conditions and need protection.
“To me, they were kind neighbors, and I feel the loss of these neighbors personally,” Morris said. “I’m really worried about what is going to happen to them now.”
Several neighbors commented in defense of Pierce and noted she was a longtime resident who was not to blame for the alleged behaviors of the tenants. Many noted this was the first time there had been issues at the property. Gina Papan spoke at the June 5 meeting and said the evidence showed the tenants caused the substandard conditions and concealed items and there were a lot of assumptions made by city staff around the situation.
“Staff failed to consider the overwhelming evidence that was submitted to you, that you as a council looked at,” Papan said.
The council voted 4-0 to uphold its previous decision following public comment, citing there was evidence supporting Pierce and no new evidence otherwise.
“I see no real reason to re-litigate this, even though we are tonight, and I stand with my previous decision,” Hedges said.
(6) comments
I find it hard to believe that tenants would be responsible for roof leaks. The city should have records to indicate the last time the roof was replaced, if ever, and any other capital improvements, if at all. Congrats to Gina Papan for successfully representing a slumlord. The heck I'll ever vote for her.
Thanks, Curtis
Looks like a well connected landlord brought the Sisters of Perpetual Intransigence to the council meeting to reverse the city staff's recommendations.
Ray, if you read the 700 documents submitted by the landlord, you will see the city staff sided with the tenant without ever speaking with the landlord. And it was the tenants that trashed the house, not neglect on the landlord’s part. With tenant laws so strong and bias against landlords, she had to fight this case with everything she had and I say, good for her!
Hi, Connie
Your post does shed a different light on this matter. I do not plan to read the 700 documents presented by the landlord, but if you have read them maybe you can shed some more light on this dispute. It is not difficult to believe a tenant may have damaged a furnace heater or a hot water heater. However, collapsed portions of a ceiling and a 37-year-old leaking roof that provides a way for rats to enter the premises are not usually things caused by tenants. Yes, tenants may have strewn trash about, but refuse should not cause structural damage that can make a home unsafe for habitation.
I’m assuming the San Mateo City Code Enforcement officers are professionally trained and experienced in assessing whether a house or apartment may be unsafe and uninhabitable. It was unfortunate they did not speak with the landlord during their evaluation of the conditions found in the home. Even if their protocol does not require that they speak with a landlord, I still think it’s a good idea. Such a conversation may or may not have changed the Code Enforcement officers’ decisions. We’ll never know.
What makes this appeal to a decision by city staffers different? Clearly, it’s the introduction of two local politicos into the mix. Are they allowed to show up on behalf of the landlord? Absolutely. Did that make a difference? According to another DJ reader… what’s curious about the appeal decision rendered last month is that Code Enforcement has investigated 35 other cases similar to this most recent one. While some of the other decisions were appealed, none of the earlier appeals were affirmed. This is the first successful appeal of a red-tag ordinance case. So, did the appearance of two well-known office holders on behalf of the landlord make a difference?
Ray, or perhaps the evidence mad a difference? My point is while I support tenant laws, I don’t think all landlords are “evil” and also know these are not the first bad tenants who are a landlord’s worst nightmare. It’s about balance and truly assessing the situation. In the point about the roof, this landlord, like two of my neighbors in Baywood, found leaks during the heavy rains and had to put tarps up to get through the worst of the weather before a roofer could address. Like many old homes, the roof at 100 Humboldt had 3 layers and the landlord showed receipts of repairs over the years. She, like my two neighbors, got caught off guard in the severe storms we experienced. The good news is that all the roofs are now repaired and the tarps are gone.
Hello, Connie
Looks like we agree on some important points. Like you, I support tenant laws, and I also don’t think all landlords are evil. However, I’m still scratching my head over whether this case was decided differently… and if so… why? Here’s something else we probably agree on… this particular case does not appear to signal the wholesale mistreatment of tenants by landlords in the future. The sky is not falling.
The rough timeline, according to Curtis’ article, starts with Code Enforcement receiving a complaint on Jan. 10, and after investigating the complaint, Code Enforcement sends a notice to the landlord on January 26. Something else we agree on… Code Enforcement should have contacted the landlord during its investigation, but that did not apparently happen. Then, the landlord had 30 days to correct the substandard conditions. Did the landlord’s documents show a reasonable effort to correct the conditions during that 30-day period ending on February 27? While covering the roof with tarps may keep some rain runoff from leaking into the home, placing tarps on a roof is not a corrective measure. Does anyone expect the tenants to remain in the home with a leaking roof? San Mateo got more than 5 inches of rain in March 20323 which is a lot more than the City’s 3-inch average for that month.
At the end of the day, it is the landlord’s responsibility to fix the roof. A former San Mateo mayor commented that the Council’s suggesting it is not the landlord’s responsibility is “ludicrous on its face.” So, if the roof cannot be fixed in a reasonable period of time, should the landlord… not the City… be required to provide the tenants with different housing?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.