tv [untitled] December 10, 2013 5:30pm-6:01pm PST
i do it to explain what god means. see, jesus hates hypocracy and there is really no essential difference between two lesbians that go to church and even go to a bible study every week and yet don't want to hear what the word of god says about lesbianism and a professing christian that goes to church every sunday and a bible study every week and doesn't want to hear what the word of god says about a semis i have and obedient wife. submissive and obedient wife ~. the bible says sarah obeyed abraham and called him lord. on the day of judgment, folk, i'm telling you the word of god says everything you've done and said and thought will be weighed in the balances. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, why don't we go
back to the items at number 34 and 35 around conversion demolition merger and conformity of residential uses as well as nonconforming uses. supervisor avalos. >> okay, colleagues, thank you for hearing this item and indulging me some doubts with the different moving parts we've made today. i do want to thank colleagues for weighing in and actually providing some amendments rather than just coming out and voting no. i think that the amendments will help make it supportable. i also feel that this legislation will have dramatic impact on preserving rent control data and affordable housing in the city. it will protect tenants. it also allows property owners to make improvements on property as well and keep housing stock affordable and
rent controlled as well. there have been, you know, a couple people who have e-mailed me recently about this legislation. [speaker not understood] the record explains really well why this legislation makes some sense. this is from a constituent in -- i'm not sure what district she's in. i have a building with four units which was built 34 years ago before the new planning code went into effect. all units were permitted and inspected as installed. it is zoned r2h meaning it can have two units with two secondary units, two granny units. a month after the new planning code was adopted in 1979, the planning department inspected and found four units. they said okay as long as it is two families we don't care how many units it has. today 34 years later the property is rent controlled and has still the same four affordable units.
however, beginning in 2004 the building and planning department decided that i as a new owner and not the original builder who purchased the four unit building had installed a new kitchen. they filed an abatement against the building, billed me for a fine which i paid and then have continued to harass me, telling me i must remove two affordable rent controlled units. i have repeatedly pointed out this is in violation of their own stated principles of not removing affordable housing installed on improved -- on approved permits. they have posted a lien against my property. i cannot sell it or refinance since i could not refinance when the loans were 1 and 2% during the downturn. the harassment has cost me 24,000 a year in additional interest. the inspector said i had to replace the decks which were rotten and deteriorating after 34 years, but when i went to get permits to do so they refused to issue the permits because i had not removed the
two affordable units. when i went to replace the deteriorating siding on the side of the building, the same thing. finally after threatening lawsuits, they allowed the two permits, but this has held up construction for over a year. luckily the decks did not collapse. passage of ordinance will stop this insanity. so what we're trying to do is build flexibility on two ways. landlords, property owners who want to preserve housing and make improvements in housing where there are nonconforming units, where the zoning has changed from the original zoning that had occurred when the building was first created. and we also want to preserve housing and prevent mergers and demolition of housing where they are currently rent controlled units and affordable housing stock. this legislation will help keep families in san francisco. i know of many, many people including family members with children who no longer live in
san francisco because of evictions, because of the high cost of living and this is rent -- these are two tools, these two ordinances are two tools that will help prevent evictions from occurring. and these are buildings that exist all across san francisco and we have been called upon by score, hundreds, not thousands of people in the city to help preserve this housing stock. so, colleagues, i hope to have your support. i do so appreciate your flexibility and hope we can move forward on this today. thank you. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you. again, i want to thank supervisor avalos for bringing this forward, this tough issue. and i also appreciate the amendments that have been made by several supervisors today. and i'm glad i had the
opportunity to get some of the questions i needed to answer during this break of discussion. and i was -- that was the biggest issue for me was the omi piece. and i was looking at it from the lenz of how do we keep kids, families in the city. and the example i would use, it may not be a big percentage of examples, but it was my example. what if you're a married couple that bought a four-unit place and all of a sudden you have two kids and your one bedroom isn't going to make it any more. and the opportunity to merge or put two units together so that you stay there is a possibility. and if it's not a possibility, would you move out of the city or not.
so, then, we would lose -- if that's not a possibility, then you might lose that family. but on the other hand, it was explained to me that you could also lose families by asking tenants to leave. so, it's a trade-off of which family you're going to lose. and, so, i think with the amendment of having the years reduced from ten years to five years is a compromise to me that maybe you would keep the tenants with kids for five years and hopefully you don't lose the family that [speaker not understood] and stay in our schools and they'll think five years is a worthwhile wait to stay in san francisco. so, because of all these
explanations, i will be supporting the ordinance. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i'll be brief. i do also plan to support both items today. i do know we will have the item brought back to us for a second reading and at that time have clarity around the amendments that were proposed here today would make it easier for us to understand it. but it took awhile to get me to a point where i actually under exactly what is going on in the legislation. i think this is a real complicated piece of legislation where clearly a lot of time is necessary to ensure that the outcome of the legislation doesn't negatively impact the folk that we intend
to positively impact, and specifically part of my concern had been situations where supervisor avalos and i talked about in terms of those who are temporary displaced as it relates to a fire and what does that mean in term of mergers and other things. and i think that ultimately based on my understanding of the legislation that it will positively impact a number of nonconforming units that tend to have significant problems with the planning department and permitting and codes and violations in my district. many of those situations that i have to personally deal with as supervisor. i also hope this is a disincentive to those who continue to move folks out of these units and the desire to renovate and make them what they want them to be. i understand it's their property, but this also sadly takes much needed rental
housing units off the market which are just a very low supply of our units that are rent controlled units. and i just also lastly want to say, because i think people get sometimes confused with rent control. rent control is not necessarily meaning the units are affordable. rent control means that you don't get the significant increase in your rent. your landlord is only able to raise your rent by a small percentage compared to those that don't have rent controlled units. but sadly it is a problem in our city, and why these rent control units are so incredibly valuable. so, i agree with supervisor cohen's comments earlier that, yes, this is something great that we're doing, but we have to look at the larger picture here as well and how we try and
deal with rentals and what this means in terms of affordable housing in the city in order to not be forced into a situation where we have to continuously push emergency legislation that is a gray if i can, a temporary fix, but there's a larger problem here. we have some great minds in this chamber. i know if we continue to work together and put our heads together, we can come up with something even better that is more of a long-term solution for folks. so, i will be supporting the legislation today. look forward to hearing or seeing the revised language and thank you. >> okay. unless there are any further comments, madam clerk, why don't we take a roll call vote on items 34 and 35. >> supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye.
supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the ordinance passed on the first reading with the various amendments. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you go to our adoption calendar? >> items 32 through 47 are being considered for immediate adoption without committee reference. a matter can be removed and considered separately [speaker not understood]. >> colleagues, would anyone like to sever any of these items? roll call vote on items 42 through 47. >> supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed?
breed aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the resolution are adopted and motions approved. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you read the in memoriams? >> mr. president, before i read the in memoriams, supervisor cohen would like to be re-referred. >> supervisor cohen. >> we lost sergeant nevil gittens from the police department last week. i have so much to say it's hard for me to organize my thoughts. what i want to say is there is a me norial planned thursday, december 12, 11:00 a.m. at joins me norial united methodist church. the address is 1975 post street in fillmore. sergeant gittens was an asset to the community and a true gentleman and true professional. he worked very hard particularly with the domestic violence community. thank you. i'd like to make a motion that we close out the board meeting
in honor of sergeant nevil gittens. >> can we do that without objection with the full board? [gavel] >> that shall be the case. >> today's meeting will be adjourned on behalf of the following beloved individuals. on behalf of president chiu for rhonda [speaker not understood]. on behalf of supervisor breed for the late melvyn holmes. and mr. ikenna waka. and on behalf of the full board of supervisors fully, sergeant nevil gittens and nelson mandela. >> colleagues, i want to take a moment to thank sfgovtv, charles kremenak and manny very last uke. i want to swish supervisor tang a happy birthday. with that madam clerk is there any more business in front of the body? >> that concludes our business today, mr. president. >> with that, ladies and