Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 11, 2013 5:00pm-5:31pm PDT

5:00 pm
what would happen in the case there are several lawsuits. it says upon service of the lawsuit. are you talking about the first one? so, if you can clarify that, that would be great. >> john malmed from the city attorney's office. through the president. we haven't explicitly addressed the situation where there might be multiple successive lawsuits and what happens. i think a fair reading of the language a has been proposed, it would be the first lawsuit that triggers the one-year period to have new applications come in and it would be based on that, that the additional 180-day period would be added on in order to get tentative approval. it's certainly up to the board if they wanted to specify that if the time periods run from the filing of the first lawsuit, that could be something that you propose. >> thank you.
5:01 pm
any other comments, colleagues? president chiu. >> thank you, supervisor. first of all, i want to thank all of the comments of my colleague. this has been a difficult topic. it has been a very complicated topic and i appreciate all the thinking that everyone has provided. and i want to echo something that supervisor farrell and wiener said about the fact that i think we're actually very, very close, which is contrary to what you would read in a lot of our mainstream editorials on this topic. we have been working at this for quite sometime and i actually think the two sides are truly not very far apart. it was certainly the intention of the amendment that i offered to bring the two sides closer together. i do want to comment, though, on the amendments that have been offered and i certainly appreciate that the spirit in which they were offered. i do not plan to support either supervisor breed's amendments or supervisor wiener's tacking provisions and i'd like to just explain why.
5:02 pm
first of all, vis-a-vis supervisor breed's amendments, i do appreciate the very, i think slight hypothetical risk of what i would refer to as sort of the lawsuit from hell that happens on day one and continue unresolved for 10 years. and, in fact, i actually am concerned and supervisor breed and i have not had a chance to talk about this, and i'm happy to explore this further. i'd be concerned that the amendment would actually encourage litigation because it essentially allows for a one year free pass for challenges to the ordinance. so, in other words, imagine a building that has tenants in place that both applies for the conversion and simultaneously files a lawsuit to challenge the obligation for a lifetime lease. during the year and a half of the amendment, the application for that building could be approved but the lifetime lease requirement could be struck down on a technicality. and, so, i would be concerned about that issue and i'm not really sure how to solve that. but again, i appreciate the spirit in which it was provided and will continue to think
5:03 pm
about it. i have already in land use discussed the concern i've had with the tacking provisions. i'm not, per se, opposed to any type of provision to deal with tacking. but i think that the suggestion that every three years there could be a turn over in the building. i'd be a little worried that would create the wrong type of incentives we're looking for. again, that being said, i appreciate the spirit with which they were provided and happy to continue the dialogue. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. i do want to thank all my colleagues who have worked on this. certainly supervisor farrell and supervisor wiener as well as president chiu, supervisor kim and supervisor breed and everyone [speaker not understood], of course supervisor yee and his staff have spent a lot of time working on this. i don't know that you can ever
5:04 pm
find the perfect piece of legislation on something as complicated as condo conversion. i think it's one of those issues. there are a number of differences and very strong differences of opinion. my sense of the amendments that have been introduced and the changes that have been made by president chiu, supervisor kim and supervisor yee is that they do strike the right balance in terms that there is interests that are implicated. i don't know that there would be 100% agreement in term of whether every single aspect of the proposal is something that we're all happy with. you know, for me, i've been trying to find something that tries to balance the interests of the tic owners and the interests of the tenants.
5:05 pm
and what sort of tipped it for me was the fact we have had a very engaged tenant community as well as real estate community. but the tenant community has been very engaged in drafting the compromise that's before us and it is in the end that has convinced me to support the amendments that have been put forward by president chiu and supervisors kim and yee. and it is in that spirit, because of the involvement of the tenant community, that i'm supportive of it. but i do want to provide some context because as important as the tic and condo conversion discussion is, i actually believe that we are only dealing with the larger issue of the affordability of housing in san francisco at the margins. i agree that we are dealing
5:06 pm
with a housing affordability crisis. that's the term that supervisor wiener has used. but i don't think that whatever happens with the tic issue, that we as city government are actually doing enough or doing anything that's sufficient to deal with this crisis. the fact is that irrespective of what happens with this piece of legislation, we're talking about a situation where ellis act evictions have skyrocketed in san francisco. they have increased by more than 92%. and whatever happens with this piece of legislation is not going to address that fact. and, so, i really believe that -- today has been an interesting day because a number of issues that really go to the heart of this question of affordability were raised.
5:07 pm
and i don't believe that city government is doing enough to tackle that issue. i think that's a question that was presented by supervisor avalos, goes to the heart of the question -- of the matter. while i appreciate the response from the mayor that indeed it's good that there is an economic boom, i don't think it's safe that saying we have a growing economy is enough to address the issue of -- we have a situation where many people in this city, and i see it in my district every day, are no longer able to afford to live in san francisco. we see it in the castro. we see it in district 8 where you have many members of that community, including members of the queer community of the lgbt community, are no longer able to live in san francisco. many of them who are living with hiv and aids. in my district, you have many families of all colors, but many families that can no
5:08 pm
longer afford to stay in the mission. and while it's important for us to address this issue and deal with the condo conversion proposal that's before us, i don't think that we're doing enough to really deal with the fundamental question of who gets to live in san francisco. and, so, my hope is that irrespective of how this vote goes, that we finally take on this issue as a city. and i'm really glad that the tenants are involved in this, in this effort because we need that involvement to really take that issue head on. and i also believe that many in the real estate industry do want to have a san francisco that remains diverse, do want to work with us, and maybe this is an opportunity for us to come together as a city to talk about that issue. but when you have a situation
5:09 pm
where 97 year olds are being subjected to the ellis act, we have a crisis in san francisco. so, if you have a crisis, you have to respond to it like it is a crisis. i don't think we're there yet, and i hope that this is the beginning of that discussion because this is only a preferal issue and a much substantive discussion that needs to happen and it needs to happen soon. >> thank you. (applause) >> supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen. >> thank you. i wanted to also give voice to this issue, but maybe from a different perspective. we think about the african-american community, many of whom were born and raised here in san francisco, and struggle and we certainly see the statistics. we're talking about a community that was a little over 40% 30
5:10 pm
years ago and now are down to 4%. we're talking about not just members of the lgbt community, but significant number of seniors that are not able to grow old in the place that they call home in their community, in their building around their friends and family. we're talking about communities where now members are isolated because they -- if you're a member in communities of color particularly, oftentimes relegated to public housing. and we have been watching the news lately and we've been watching what's been happening with the housing authority. and in this discussion, i think one thing that is missing, we talked specifically about condo conversion but we haven't talked about how it relates to our brothers and sisters that live in public housing because it's a continuous cycle. and when we're talking about the affordability crisis, we need to make sure that we are paying attention to those that are in public housing.
5:11 pm
now, one of the thing that is most attractive is the fact that -- about this legislation is the fact that there is an opportunity for a significant amount of money to go towards public housing and those amendments were made by supervisor yee. thank you. and woulder talking about 75% of an undisclosed amount of money but usually a conservative number thrown out is $20 million. 75% of $20 million is a good chunk of change unfortunately doesn't get us out of the woods, some of the challenges we're dealing with the housing authority. ~ but it's a step in the right direction and i'm someone that's representing four of the city's largest public housing units in this city. supervisor campos talked about we as a board taking on this
5:12 pm
issue, and i agree, we definitely need to talk about the affordability of living in san francisco because we speak from a place of fear. we don't want san francisco to become a bedroom community. we don't want to have a -- create a city where only the wealthy can afford to live. well, the fact is that a lot of our projects that we are approving, you have to be pretty wealthy and supervisor kim went down the statistic of how much you actually have to earn in order to live inside san francisco. when we come to the table to discuss this, we need to do it a little bit differently than how we did with tenants and property owners. and we need to put down these turf wars in this position and really come with the express goal of how to address our housing, our housing crisis. this is actually something that we've been discussing for many years. certainly in the african-american community. now, there are three key
5:13 pm
factors that really factor into my decision today. first, i'm looking to provide support, relief, if you will, to tic current owners. the interest rate that they're paying on their mortgages, very burdensome. almost like the industry created this and then created the tic industry, little niche market and then created a special loan package for them and there are few banks that offer loans for tic owners. and i believe they're in a difficult position. the second issue that's important to me is that we definitely need some structural reform to the lottery system. i think the legislation begins to extrapolate and pull out the discussion that needs to happen around this. and one of the third and final issue is when we think about
5:14 pm
the constituency that i represent, largely working class community, i'm looking at an area that is not -- doesn't have a significant tic ownership, but we have significant housing challenges. and as i mentioned particularly in public housing, thea challenges are severe. ~ these challenges are severe. in terms of priority when you have a crisis, you have a triage, right, supervisor campos? so, for me, public housing is a number one priority. how do we begin to offer relief? well, this legislation helps show the pathway for me that i can see that will create a pool of money and the trust that would help direct some funds to revitalize, revitalize housing. in terms of the proposed amendment for the poison pill
5:15 pm
language, i think that it strikes an interesting balance. i don't know if it's the right balance or the wrong balance, but it's certainly one -- an interesting one that allows nontenant occupied units to continue to convert. i am intrigued by the tacking issue because one of the thing we think about, when we think about the future and how the impact of any legislation is going to have on the future, i think about what if someone were to die in their unit, how do we begin to solve that problem? whether loan alone or whether they stay in place. i'm commit today working on this issue. if we don't get it right, we can come back to the table and move this agenda forward. that's my commitment to making sure san francisco is affordable 230er everyone. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. and i appreciate the comments from supervisor cohen. i'm still not sure as to sort
5:16 pm
of the point around public housing. i mean, i think that the issue of public housing is a much larger issue and i have three developments in my district which is why i think it was good that we called for a management audit of that agency and there will be a hearing, as you know, the committee that you chair on thursday. i don't think, though, that public housing is in the state of crisis that it is because somehow we have failed to allow more condo conversions. i don't think that's the reason. and i actually think there's a larger issue there. my point, though, is that the issue of condo conversions is a small issue, an important one, but it's a small issue and a larger issue of the affordability of the city. and i actually think public housing is an important piece of that. but there is a lot more -- a lot more that needs to be done. and one of the things that i hope happens is actually one of the things that is recommended
5:17 pm
in the context of public housing, which is greater involvement by this board of supervisors because that's been one of the problems with public housing, that we haven't had enough involvement by the entirety of the city elected family. so, i think that we have an opportunity with public housing to do precisely that, to tackle that issue head on, not only through this hearing, but through all the work that the mayor's office is doing. i do think, though, that once this debate is completed around condo conversion, that we need to move on to a much larger issue that goes to the core of who we are as a city and who gets to continue to live in san francisco. and there is no easy answer to that, and it's going to require all of us working together to get to that point. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
5:18 pm
president chiu, and i appreciate the comments, through the chair, about not necessarily being categorically opposed to the tacking, but not liking the provision that a transfer could happen no more frequently than once every three years. and, you know, i've said in various conversations with some of the tenant advocates as well as publicly in hearings, there's nothing magical about this particular formulation. there are various forms that it could take. and i hoped that we would be able to negotiate on the tacking issue and come up with a consensus. and as i mentioned before, it would be no more frequently than once every four years or five years. it could be only one transfer per unit. there are various ways to approach it that would i think be fair and i think the issue that some of the objections have raised. so, i just wanted to put that
5:19 pm
out there, that it doesn't have to be in this current form. we can certainly put it in an amended form. and this is, for the record in item 37 section 1396 subsection g. so, i would put that out there. if there is another form, that that would be acceptable. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i just wanted to clarify some things to supervisor campos through the chair. i understand that the issue that we're talking about here is about tic and condo conversion. my point is that what we're talking about in the context of housing period, that we do need to give voice and consider it and move it forward. wasn't specifically targeting it that. but also there are amendments that are offered that would allow 75% of what is -- could be monies that are brought in
5:20 pm
through the bypass fee that is directly allocated for the housing authority. so, that is the reason why i brought in the discussion of the housing authority. thank you. >> thank you, colleagues. are there any other comments on the amendments or the ordinance? supervisor avalanche owes. ~ supervisor avalos. >> thank you, i'll be short. just wanted to appreciate president chiu and supervisor yee and supervisor kim for your work on this. i also had major concerns about the legislation after it first was introduced. three years ago there was legislation that was before the budget committee at that time that was trying to bring in revenue for the budget year that would be based on the condo fee. and i just didn't think that was a really worthwhile way to move forward on trying to get revenue. and, so, i was opposed to the fee at that time. i still am unless we have some way that we can preserve rental
5:21 pm
housing in the city. and i see that without a protection against future buildings being converted, rental housing stock being converted to tics, that we would open the flood gates by allowing conversion to happen. that was my position why i opposed and why i was opposed to the original version of this legislation. but i do want to just thank president chiu for taking a position on this and getting this work done, and i'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out. >> thank you. seeing no other comments, madam clerk, we have two amendments before us. let's handle them in the order they were presented. so, on the chiu amendment, can we have a roll call? >> mr. chair, just for clarity. on supervisor breed's two item, you are amending items 29 and 37, is that correct? [speaker not understood]?
5:22 pm
>> so, that's amending items 29 and 37 for the breed amendment and for the chiu amendments it's amending item 29. is that correct? >> that's correct, mr. chair. >> so, can we have a roll call on the chiu amendment -- >> mr. chair, we have a motion made by president chiu, but we need a second for that and also a second for supervisor breed's. >> supervisor yee seconds the motion. >> so moved. >> so, roll call on the chiu amendments. >> and for supervisor breed, supervisor wiener? >> supervisor wiener. >> great. >> madam clerk, roll call on the chiu amendment. >> supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang no. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye.
5:23 pm
supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell no. there are 8 ayes and 3 no's. >> thank you, the motion carries. [gavel] (applause) >> madam clerk, roll call on the breed amendments to items 29 and 37. >> supervisor kim? kim no. supervisor mar? mar no. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee no. supervisor avalos? avalos no. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos no. supervisor chiu? chiu no. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. there are 5 ayes and 6 no's. >> thank you, so the motion fails. [gavel] >> madam clerk, now on the main item number 29, roll call. >> on item 29 as amended, supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye.
5:24 pm
supervisor tang? tang no. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell no. there are 8 ayes and 3 no's. (applause) >> the item carries. [gavel] >> madam clerk, we have item number 37. so roll call on item 37. >> on item 37, supervisor kim? kim no. supervisor mar? mar no. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee no. supervisor avalos? avalos no. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos no. supervisor chiu? chiu no. supervisor cohen? cohen no. supervisor farrell?
5:25 pm
farrell aye. there are 4 ayes and 7 no's. >> ordinance fails. [gavel] >> thank you, colleagues. why don't we proceed to our remaining items, if we could go to our adoption calendar item 38 through 34. are there any item people would like to sever, let me suggest severing -- if i could ask members of the public if you could leave quietly we still have business in front of the boers. ~ board. if we could sever item 41 and take a roll call vote on the balance -- oh, supervisor breed? >> yes, i want to sever item 38. >> item 38, okay. on the balance of the adoption calendar, madam clerk, roll call. >> supervisor kim? >> aye. i also added my name to item number 39. >> kim aye. we'll make a note of that. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar?
5:26 pm
mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? supervisor farrell? farrell aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the resolutions are a doddthved. colleagues, why don't we tab item 31 first. could we have, madam clerk, could you call item 31? >> certainly. item 41 is resolution did he nating supervisor mark farrell as the league of california cities voting delegate, and treasurer-tax collector jose cisneros as the league of california cities alternate voting delegate. >> colleagues, can we have a motion to excuse supervisor farrell, motion by supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor kim without objection, he should be excused. and why don't we take a roll call vote on item 41. >> item 41, supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener?
5:27 pm
wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen? cohen aye. there are 10 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> and let's take the remaining item, item 38. >> item 38 is a resolution urging the san francisco housing authority commission to move its meetings to city hall, video record its meetings, and make all video recordings publicly accessible on its website. >> any discussion? supervisor breed. >> thank you. i wanted to have a discussion about this issue because i have a real problem with a lot of the language in the resolution. there are a number of inaccuracies and my biggest concern is that we are faced with significant challenges in public housing. and to begin to piecemeal various parts of the report and
5:28 pm
introduce -- even though this is not something that we're mandating or forcing the housing authority to do, we're just urging them to move their meetings here. the challenge is during the time that they are proposing to meet, there are issues with the availability of rooms. the other issue that i have with the details of the resolution, as i said, are some of the inaccuracies. for example, the whereas clause that six of the seven members of the san francisco housing authority commission resigned and that's actually not true because there were some terms that have been expired. and i know this is all technical, but out of the desire to just look at a report, introduce legislation without looking at housing authority and the bigger picture and the whole picture and addressing those issues appropriately, i have some concerns. i also have concerns with the amount of money it's potentially going to cost. and right now i'm looking at trying to locate money to deal
5:29 pm
with very real issues in public housing. specifically pest and mice issues that many of the residents are facing. so, i just think that when we look at public housing, especially the fact that not only do i have a significant number of public housing developments in my district, but more importantly, my direct involvement with many of those residents and the concerns that they have brought to my attention. i have real concerns with introducing any housing authority legislation urging or binding or what have you without making sure that it is accurate, that it is serving the tenants in a positive way, that it is not continuously wasting resources, especially when we talk about in the resolution specifically that the housing authority potentially is imminently expected to run out of cash and then this is another vehicle
5:30 pm
for additional money to be spent for this purpose. so, i want to see real solutions, long-term solutions and not bandaids with regards to public housing. we've come a long way, especially with the audits that the board of supervisors proposed. we've come a long way with the fact that the mayor is really interested in addressing housing authority differently than before. some of the recommendations have been really great recommendations, but i'd like to see us do a better job as a board in looking at the whole picture and not out of, you know, just a desire to do something, introduce legislation. so, i just wanted to express that i have real concerns with the inaccuracies of this resolution as well as the way that thing were done with regard to this resolution, especially having so many public housing developments in my district. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. you know, normally when