Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 8, 2014 1:00am-1:31am PDT

1:00 am
tang. discussion on that? >> supervisor cohn. >> my question to the maker of the motion what do we do to the in law units that are illegal already zoned in rh 1d. there are illegal units that exist. what happens to those units? do we turn a blind eye and forget about them? >> part of what you are asking is whether this legislation will ask everybody that has illegal units to convert and it maybe would read this that pathway. i'm just saying that in particular in district 7 where we have a lot of these types of units and their desire, the concerns that people have around whether there is going to be motivation to ones that maybe to build in law units in the
1:01 am
near future or not is a big question for us. >> so i think from my perspective or my concern is that you are in essence robbing a property owner of a right to choose to govern the future of their property. am i misunderstanding your amendment? >> i'm not too sure to say that i'm robbing anybody of anything. if i'm what i have done is been able to talk a lot of people with these properties and probable 99 people out of 100 would support this. >> did you talk to a hundred people? >> yes i did. >> so basically -- i understand this. i want to make sure i understand this correctly and mr. chiu maybe
1:02 am
you can walk me through. your legislation is voluntary, right? that if a property owner chooses to voluntarily participate in this conversion, there is no penalties or restrictions should they do so, correct? and what i understand is that this motion is basically saying that although there are in law units already out there, we are going to prohibit you from having the ability to participate in whether you want to or not in converting or legalizing your in law unit? >> supervisor cohn, yes, the answer is this is volunteer and for home owners that want to move forward with this in the rh 1d area under supervisor yee, they wouldn't be allowed to do it. let me
1:03 am
say, supervisor yee i appreciate your constituents. a select of members of this committee came from this and i appreciate you discussing the challenges of this fact and with these amendments you wouldn't be able to support the legislation. i think that is a factor as i think about this. i will not be able to support this amendment for a couple of reasons as suppose or cohn just pointed out that this means that home owners within those areas that have in law units that those in law units won't be able to be voluntarily legalized. and this still leaves those individuals in those neighborhoods in the legal limbo that we've been talking about. let me mention another issue that are raised by those neighbors covenants and agreement on what they permit and don't permit . there was
1:04 am
a concern from my legislation that those would impact those. i included to make it clear that my ordinance does not supercedes those and my addressing the concerns by supervisor yee and his concerns for the district. the other thing i would say is that i think it's important that we apply this fairly throughout the entire city because essentially with supervisor yee's amendment this would be saying in 10 or 11 districts we are moving forward with this but a portion of supervisor yee's district we won't be doing that. we have existing in laws in every district in every neighborhood. those foegz -- folks are there and people are living in them and we need to think about how we think about this and make sure that we are creating the same balance throughout the city. there are likely many more in
1:05 am
law units in supervisor avalos district or other neighborhoods in the district, but i certainly think for those that currently exist in the rh 1 d area we should give those home owners and opportunity if they want to voluntarily do this and if they want to not move forward with that. >> supervisor cohn? >> thank you very much. supervisor malia cohen: supervisor chiu, thank you for bringing this legislation forward. i was really excited to begin the conversation and the policy discussion back in november. over the months i have tempered a little bit of my enthusiasm to think about the impact of this legislation to be to the southeast neighborhoods. and i believe that we do need to begin somewhere with incentivizing with encouraging property owners to legalize these
1:06 am
units. it's actually through my office and the code enforcement work that we've been doing is counter illegal in law units with predominantly low income tennants living in them. handful of them coming from being section 8 voucher holders. when these units are discovered and the property owners must remove them, they have to evict the tennants who are often as supervisor breed mention are often the least able to compete in the residential market. despite to what some people are saying, i believe this is a special component to the affordable housing in our city. i personally rented an in law unit in ex-else -- and they
1:07 am
provide income for the small property owners. we don't have the appropriate data to answer at this particular time and i'm wondering if we have any representative from dbi in the audience today. i want to ask you a couple of questions. i want to ask the department of building and inspection to include in their 6-month evaluation of the program or excuse me we have not begun to answer a lot of question at this time including whether or not we should be allowing pass throughs. the property owners to pat some legalization cost to tennants. i ask the building of inspection include this in their 6-month evaluation of the program so that at the end of six 6 months we have a more fuller
1:08 am
picture of real data to make better informed decision to how to proceed forward in dealing with this issue. in district 10, we've got many several in law units that could be eligible for legalization under this new process. i want to give you an opportunity to comment on the ability to collect data. >> as i understand part of the bill strong with adoption department of building inspection planning would keep a map of this going forward. we would certainly be collecting some data. the building department has nothing to do with the pass through that comes through usually the rent board or some
1:09 am
other review. obviously department department of building inspection. we can get that and we would be ethiopia do -- happy to do that. >> thank you very much. >> we have a motion on the floor and second by supervisor yee and tang. supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: i was going to speak on the legislation overall. we want to go on to discuss the amendment itself. >> let's do the amendment right now. supervisor wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you, mr. chairman. i support the legislation for a lot of the reasons that president chiu mentioned. i want to thank him for his support and his staff for doing a great job of getting this together and moving it forward and i will be voting
1:10 am
for the legislation today. in terms of the amendments and just so i don't have to speak again, i know there is only one amendment that is formally seconded. i don't support the pilot program of only allowing 50 units. i think that undermines the purpose of the legislation. i don't think it makes sense to me in terms of moving in that direction. i won't be supporting that. in terms of and it will also exclude all of rh 1 and there are a lot of areas of rh 1 and in my district where there is a lot of these units. i think it goes further than i would want to go. in terms of supervisor yee's amendment, i'm sorry, no. 1, the amounts
1:11 am
that exclude rh 1d, as a mentioned in committee i am open to amendment to take into account only rh 1d. it's a very discrete set of neighborhood in supervisor yee's district. there is very few of these units in the rh 1d zoning. i am open to that. i would is a that i would only consider supporting that amendment is we remove the language that starts at the bottom of page 3 and run for the top of page 5 which are a series of findings i think duplicating i think very problematic findings passed by the board of supervisors in 1984. in the 80s the state legislature passed the law
1:12 am
requiring localities for allowing secondary units. san francisco purported to exempt itself from that legislation. it is what it is, but that's the ordinance that was passed and it contains these findings that i think are inaccurate and contains a blanket finding that supposedly losing a single family home with the addition of in law units is somehow anti-family because they want to be in single family homes. yes, we love single family homes, but the fact in san francisco, i know a lot of families who are not able to afford a single family house. there are a number of things, what's driving families out of this city is the unaffordability of
1:13 am
housing. if a family wants to be in a single family home, many families will never be able to afford a home in san francisco. there are other housing options they need to consider. our restrictive housing policies in this city, having the city grown over 75,000 people in this decade and only adding 80,000 units and exploding prices, that is what's causing problems for families. these findings if they had any connection to the facts from the ground in 1984, i don't think they would today. i'm open to supporting the amendment exempting rh 1d districts. but only if those findings are stripped out because i will not support any legislation that reiterates those erroneous findings. >> okay. supervisor wiener has made an amendment to
1:14 am
supervisor yee's amendment. can i have a second? we have a full roster here. is there anyone here, supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: i would like to speak on the original amendment but it's fine on the motion as amended. can i speak on that. >> hold on. let's amend it first. can we take supervisor wiener's motion without objection. >> can you ask him to restate his motion. >> can you restate the motion? >>supervisor scott weiner: i'm happy to restate as a motion. this is to label yee as a 1. my motion to strip out from the bottom of page 3 line 23 to the top of page 6 line 3 which are findings repeated
1:15 am
from the 1984 ordinance. so that would be my motion. >> okay. supervisor wiener has made a motion. president chiu? chiu: i support this and i don't support and i don't believe we are achieving what it is set to achieve on this motion. >> can we take supervisor wiener's motion without objection? okay. so moved. on supervisor yee's amendment as amended. supervisor tang? next on the roster? we have
1:16 am
supervisor yee's motion now to amend for rh 1d and it's been amended and approved by the full board by supervisor wiener and taken discussion on that 1st amendment by supervisor yee. >>supervisor katy tang: no comment on the amendment. >> supervisor cohn? >>supervisor malia cohen: you mentioned there were not many units in an rh 1d zone. how do you know that and if you can identify your source? >> just from a few conversations i have had and i do not have the data on that. >> is there a particular staff that i can follow up with to find the answer? >> no. >> okay. thanks. >> supervisor avalos was
1:17 am
next? >>supervisor john avalos: i took my name off the roster. do we want to vote on the amendment. >> discussion on the amendment. we have two amendments offered by supervisor yee. let's go with that amendment now. supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: thank you. i want to speak on the amendment before us. i sympathize with the amendment that supervisor yee moved forward. we did get a few e-mails from others from regarding rh 1d to remove this from legislation. i don't spupt at support that because i don't believe there is a reason for this legislation. if we were able to get an actual physical reason, policy reason about the type of residential housing that makes it difficult for them to
1:18 am
legalize it would make sense. this is purely coming from a motion that the neighborhood would like to see and i think it's completely reasonable for supervisor yee to make that request on behalf of the residents that he represents. i think that's where that comes from. on the second motion that supervisor yee has moved forward i do plan on supporting a pilot program. i actually appreciate the work that has gone into a path way to legalize in law units. it's something that has vexed the city for decades and it's clearly a source of income for many single family home owners and d, a source of affordable units here in san francisco. however, i have a lot of concerns about the legislation that is being introduced in having unintended consequences and mine is a scenario that i brought up at land use committee which again is that as we know many of the tennants that live in in law
1:19 am
units has been as articulated as a shadow economy and therefore because of that probably more affordable tend to be our most vulnerable residents, non-english speaking and able to live in these units because they are affordable. i'm concerned for property owners go through the process of spending the money and then pay more property taxes and not be able to raise the rent on their tennants that many people won't opt in this program. yes, there is a pathway, but nothing in here to ensure that any home owners opt into this program. the only home owners wanting to
1:20 am
legalize and hope the tennants don't report it to the rent board because it's an illegal unit and they won't be prohibited by the 10-year no fault eviction provision that was carefully put into this legislation. a pilot would make me feel more comfortable. it would allow the legislation to move through and see who are the home owners who decide to opt into this program and are we incentivize the wrong behavior. if this is something that is successful, those that preserving affordable housing units and supporting the type of tennants that i heard about at land use committee, then this is of course legislation that i would support to make permanent. i think there has to be an incentive program, a stick or carat to get home owners to legalize their units and it's something i don't see
1:21 am
in legislation. i think a lot of protections were put in and i appreciate the work put in to protect many of these tennants. i'm worried the tennants we are trying to protect are not protected by this legislation. those were just some of my thoughts on a motion. i won't be the supporting the first motion but i will support the second motion to amend. >> okay. if no further discussion we'll have a roll call vote to amend. >> can you clarify which. we have no. 1 and 2. city clerk: mr. chairman, the 2nd amendment made by mr. yee has not been motioned yet. we are taking the vote on the prohibition of rh 1 districts. >> are we voting on the amendment that exclude rh 1d?
1:22 am
>> correct. >> okay. wanted to be clear. >> [roll call vote taken] city clerk: chiu, no, farrell, yes, kim, no, supervisor tang, aye, wiener, aye, yee, campos, there are 5 ayes and 5 no. >> that motion fails. >> can we have a motion? >> i want to thank supervisor yee for the time you spent on this. i understand the challenges that you have faced in your district. i have had
1:23 am
conversations with many of constituents on this. colleagues, this is a pilot program that would not only exempt out major swaus of our city in rh 1 and 2. it would create a 50-unit limit. i think we can meet supervisor avalos in xelz yoer. let me take a moment to respond that some of the comments that supervisor kim has made that we should perhaps add more carrots or sticks to this legislation. we contemplated whether to make this a mandatory regime. the property is we don't know exactly what the cost are going to be to
1:24 am
home owners and rather than enforcing home owners to legalize without being able to assist someone without incrementing we thought about this volunteer program which is almost a pilot program because we'll see in the coming years whether it's a few thousand folks and everyone gets do do this on a volunteer basis. because of that, i won't be able to support this amendment on the specifics of this program but i do support his work on this amendment. >> supervisor wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: i will not support this amendment. i do have to the chair two clarifying questions for supervisor yee. i think
1:25 am
this is a draft, it says rh 1 and 2, i think it means to say h r 1 and rh 1d if i'm not mistaken. >> you are right. >> then the second thing through the chair supervisors yee, as supervisor yee that same findings that were removed from other amendment. >> okay. so i would then make offer two amendments to correct rh 2 to rh 1d to findings in the other amendment. >> any discussion on that motion to amend? >> we need a second. >> second by supervisor
1:26 am
cohn. >> supervisor yee? >>supervisor norman yee: we are taking a pause. the 50 applicants 50 years from now, it could be 2 weeks from now. there is no realtime limit. it's not 6 months. it is what it is when we get to 50. that will give us an opportunity to look at if there are any unintended consequences. that's one of the things i'm concerned with in this amendment that i'm offering. >> supervisor tang? >>supervisor katy tang: i wanted to speak on the other one. >> okay. we'll wait on that supervisor cohn? supervisor malia cohen: i just want to speak to the motion about the pilot program. i
1:27 am
believe that property owners who are going to proceed with the legalization need some certainty about the program which is why i believe that we could not legislate on the scenario. i don't think it's necessary at this time. i'm willing to revisit this issue after 6 months once the department provides us with an evaluation of the program. thank you. >> supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: for me it's not number of units or year. i don't think as many home owners will sign up for this program. i can't see any
1:28 am
homeowner signing up for this program. my concern is making sure we have a way if there are on the negative side that i'm speaking of if there is a way to temporarily halt this legislation. obviously all of this is speculation. any other one concern is again the only people that will be incentivised to do this is people who believe they can make more money from this than they are currently. the home owners and the tennants we are trying to protect, they don't gain anything by legalized. i'm concerned that we are happy to help those focus which is why i would give legislation a shot. is there another way for us to have some type of points
1:29 am
in this legislation when we can have that motion. i know you said there will be checks in the process but something more than that which will allow us to check and let's keep moving this forward or if it is that the home owners that are coming into this program isn't what we interested intended that we have an opportunity to halt this program. there doesn't have to be 50 units. my question is to the author. >> a couple of thoughts. first of all, i have heard criticisms of this legislation both from folks who don't think anyone is going to take advantage of on the one hand and folks who think there is going to be rampid concern about being evicted. those
1:30 am
are contradictory. what i would suggest again the reason we propose a voluntary regime to see how it goes. if there is a monitoring report after 1 year or 2-year come back to decide that we need to tweak this and i suspect what i think is likely to happen is the fact that we may not be providing enough financial assistance to home owners to legalize that means we may not see the legalization we want. supervisor avalos pointed out that we may think about an incrementing mechanism to assist hope -- home owners and in that regime we may make it mandatory. i would be willing and i mentioned to supervisor yee if in 2 years we want to have another hearing to take a