tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 21, 2018 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT
did-when it changes hands, so it's always required to be up to code. oftentimes, when a building does change hands, through title searches, prospective buyers will find that there are outstanding notices of violations, where the violations were just never corrected. and orders of abatement were issued which arelenes against the property that are just sitting there, waiting to be addressed. and in those cases, they are -- they are part of the process, i guess, of buying, that they will bring it up to code -- to address those violations in the notices of violation. >> supervisor fewer: so -- so then -- so you -- we could then kind of consider any investment in the property above what is required by code. would you say it's to increase
the value of the property? >> yeah, that would be my assessment, yes. >> supervisor fewer: okay. and so then when tenants come and complain about violations, and we've heard some complaints today from tenants that they're not up to standard and that their quality of life has been diminished because of some of these violations, what is the process? so a tenant would first report that to their rent board or would they call dbi to come out and have an inspection? >> yeah. so tenants can always contact dbi. you can go through 311. it's a lot faster to go directly with housing code violation to contact housing inspection services directly? the number is 415-558-6220, and we will -- if you file a complaint, we will get back to you generally within 24 hours and setup an inspection
appointment. we'll come out, look at any violations they want to show us or any conditions they want to show us, and we will make the assessment of whether or not it is a violation of the housing code. violations that we verify, we will issue a notice of violation giving the owner typically 30 days to comply to bring it correct, all violations. there's some variation when they are life safety hazards. we shorten the time frame for compliance. >> supervisor sheehy: yeah. so when the have the examples of people in units that are adjoining where construction take place, does dbi react to that if somebody's roof is caved in or other damage is done to someone's unit because there's construction happening next door? and then, how do you respond to that when that person is
basically forced out of their home? >> i'm not sure of the question. >> supervisor sheehy: so if you look in the presentation, construction was happening in the unit above. >> right. >> supervisor sheehy: the roof opened up with a huge crack. the tenant was moved out. what does dbi do in those circumstances? >> so when we are notified that there is a condition like this, we will come out and verify that that's a violation, and that we will provide a timeline where it needs to be corrected. we don't -- we don't get involved with where the tenant needs to go? it is -- it's the owner's responsibility to always maintain code compliance? so they need to do what they need to do to correct the violations, and if that means moving the tenant out, then that's what they need to do. >> supervisor sheehy: does dbi
measure the health aspects of some of these? as best owes, lead paint, we've heard of lead poisoning, rodent infestation, are those matters that dbi would come and -- >> yes, sure. there's a bunch of different -- certain things fall within certain people's jurisdictions? lead paint falls within housing inspection jurisdiction? so when there is -- there are practices of lead paint being removed, and we just assume that it's lead paint whenever we see it being removed. then we make sure there's proper containment, and if not, we issue notices of violation. generally for, like, hazardous work practices when there is construction happening, the permitting process that we have
by people pulling building permits, electrical permits, plumbing permits, that process oversees the workmanship and violations there. so what was the other one? other, like, asbestos removal, there is a person who's specifically within the department of public health, environmental health that deals with that. if it's just rodents or creatures for lack of a better word, then that's also public health. >> supervisor fewer: so we heard today that there's -- they feel -- some of the tenants feel there isn't enough management over the construction sites, and that these companies that own 200 or 250 buildings, i mean, it's possible that they could have 100 construction site projects going on. does dbi see that these are the same companies, for example,
one company might have -- be working on 100 construction projec projects at one time? does that raise a red flag at all to dbi or do we keep giving out permits to continue construction, continue adding, adding on, when we haven't -- or if we do any evaluation on how well those construction projects are being managed? >> yeah. that's a question that's beyond my -- my knowledge within the department. i think that the -- the building inspection division would be the people to go to for that. i'm just pretty limited to housing inspection. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: so unless we have more questions from 2k3d bi, then perhaps we have -- i did have questions for planning, perhaps. i don't know if you want to take them from there or come
up. >> supervisors, good morning. dan cider from the planning department. thank you for having us today. we're happy to provide or guidance when asked. >> supervisor sheehy: i just had a couple of questions. so is there anything in the planning process that looks at the impact of a construction project and large residential building, the impact of the tenants on the project? so when they -- they come before planning and say we want to do all this to the building, is there anything in the code that says -- that has any discussion about what the -- 'cause that seems like the place that may be best to try to -- and if there's not, then that becomes, obviously, a policy gap. if there's no mitigation of impacts or looking at the impacts of other tenants when a
building is being remodelled while tenants are living there? >> so it's an interesting question. i think there's two, perhaps two answers to that. the first is that many of the -- in fact, the vast majority of the city permits that the city issues -- that the department of building inspection issues are not reviewed by our staff because we don't have a role to play. land use, urban design, these are typically the -- the areas in which we become involved, the physicality of a structure or a building. and a lot of what we've heard about is -- they're certainly very important issues, but they're not issues that are under our purview or review. and i think the second answer would be that because of that, you know, because the planning code is geared almost exclusively towards physical structures, buildings, uses, that it is by design not focused on necessarily
residents, where perhaps the admin code or other parts of the municipal code address those issues better. >> supervisor sheehy: and so it doesn't come to planning for instance if you have a studio and they put a wall and turn it into a one-bedroom, that would not be a planning code issue? >> we do like to be -- i think aware is the right word, of changes of the bedroom count, but that would not be a planning issue. >> supervisor sheehy: so that would be a dbi issue? >> correct. >> supervisor sheehy: unless i have -- >> supervisor fewer: oh, i do have one question. today we brought up short-term housing and the office of short-term rentals are not catching some of these short-term corporate housing -- housing units. do we have any idea how widespread the problem is? >> one of the things we're working on is the office of
development strategy. while i can't speak specifically for the office of short-term rentals, which understanding is a permit from that office isn't required unless rentals are occupancy is less than 30 days. that's what the administrative code requires as sort of a threshold in those cases. it doesn't mean the issue is any less relevant, but the regulatory context is what's different. >> supervisor fewer: so you're saying if it's less than 30 days, it goes under the office of short-term rentals, the permit. >> that's correct. >> supervisor fewer: so do we give any kinds of permits out through housing to corporate planning that goes to housing for two or three months. >> our department regulates housing in general terms only as a hotel use or as a permanent housing use, if you will, while -- >> >> supervisor fewer: could be a loophole here. >> there's certainly different ways of looking at it. certainly folks use that as a
loophole, and if this body was contemplating a way to address corporate housing in that, that's something we would like to sit down and have a long discussion with. >> supervisor fewer: and considering vacancies of these buildings, when a corporation owns so many buildings and so many vacant units, if you own a place, like a mom and pop that owns only four units in a building, then if you're losing rent on one, that's substantial. but i think these corporations can actually absorb some vacancies. do we have any idea how many vacancies one corporation has within their portfolio? >> again, that's a great question. we hope to get a flavor for that baysed on our housing affordability studies. one of our cases and issues that we've been looking at is
that oftentimes, ownership structures are often difficult to parse. a single entity is difficult to discern. >> supervisor fewer: so if we were just to look at green tree, for example, and we would see all the green tree properties, we wouldn't be able to, though, know, how many vacancies are there within their portfolio because we don't actually have them -- we don't require them to list vacancies within their apartment buildings, is that correct? >> the planning code does not require the folks publish or lit any vacancies. there's a subtle but important difference between property owners and property managers. it's very relevant to this discussions, but the regulatory issue is not the proper tool to get into this today. >> supervisor fewer: if -- i think it's very easy to mask when he own 200 or 250
buildings that -- it's easy to have a lot of vacancies, and maybe these short-term corporate housing units also are really -- should be classified as vacant units if they're renting them out for only a couple of months a year or whatever, and it looks like this is a really big loophole here about the corporate housing. okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. and then, can we hear from the rent board. >> good morning, supervisor sheehy, supervisor ronen, supervisor fewer. thank you for allowing us to be here. i'm robert collins, i'm the rent board's executive director. i'm here for any questions, and if you want me to present anything, i'm happy to.
>> supervisor fewer: i have one question. >> sure. >> supervisor fewer: if i may. is that we've heard about bundling, and i think we've seen the bundling of so -- for rent increases. so what i'm seeing on this chart presented to me, it looks as if there were some pass throughs that maybe previous owners did not pass through to the tenants, but then the new owners can actually capture that. so even though they didn't pay before, it was the previous owner that didn't -- that actually absorbed the cost and didn't pass through, and now, these new owners have just bought a building, and they're looking and saying gee, this hasn't been passed through, now we can pass through all of these, is my describing it correctly? >> yes. i think that is sort of the lay of the land if you would, when it comes to residential property ownership.
typically, the new owner steps into the shoes of the old owner and would be able to take advantage of any prior increases that were not effectuated by the old owner in banking or keeping certain pass throughs that could then be kboesed. at the same time, they would also be responsible for any illegal rent increases that the prior owner effectuated, so they could be on hook for returning moneys that they never collected but a prior owner collected. so it goes in both directions. it's basically -- you can sort of thinking it as selling the business, and the business is still responsible, and so there's liability and also rights that come and are associated with that, but that is correct, that is the general way in which it works. a prior capital improvement can be passed through by a new owner, for example. or like the examples that you've given, banking or previous pass throughs that were not utilized can be utilized by a future landlord. >> supervisor fewer: and does those pass throughs -- so what
i'm looking at in this actually sample of it is is that it actually increases the permanent based rent for every tenant, is that correct? >> well, that's a matter of which pass through. so you -- supervisor fewer, you're describing a situation that we've seen quite a bit with changing in ownership of property where an owner will come in and try to take advantage of as manies these pass throughs as possible, so you have these lengthy notice of rent increases on tenants that comprise a variety of different mechanisms to increase the rent. some of them are base rent, and some of them are one time. so it could be a multimonth pass through or multiyear pass through. so to give you an example, the annual allowable increases the base rent, an l and m approved pass through would increase the
base rent. water revenue pass throughs, water bond pass throughs, utility pass throughs, rent board fees, security deposit interest rate changes or reimbursements, all those do not increase the base rent. in the case of the bond measure pass throughs, they're typically there for one year and then would be required to be discontinued the next year. >> supervisor fewer: so are you seeing that -- that these corporations are actually doing this? i mean, like, they are actually -- okay. okay. so full disclosure, i'm a property owner. i own a pair of flats in the mission, and i don't do any of these pass throughs, quite frankly. i don't even keep track of them or even know that i can. so i'm wondering, are we seeing that these pass throughs are mainly used by corporate landlords? >> sure. so i did pull together some data for the -- specifically
for veritas green tree properties, and during the past three years, we, the rent board granted 59 capital improvement petitions involving 1,100 units, about 1,100 units. by the way, the figures i'm provided you, all of these units are sort of owned by different l.l.c.'s, but the i am in as we could pull, we had 59 capital improvement permits that we approved on 1,100 units. about 37 tenants filed for hardship from those capital improvement increases. we also granted 40 petitions involving 552 units based on increased operating and maintenance expenses in the last three years for veritas green tree properties. out of those, mostly -- they were mostly due to increased
debt service and property tax increases as a result of the recent change in ownership. 96% of the 552 units received the maximum 7% allowable under that petition process, and the other 4% did not receive the full maximum. 36 tenants in those units filed for hardship relief from the rent increases, and so that gives you, i think an idea of the ones that we have. and i can also give you the separate figure for the number of hardships that we see for other kinds of pass throughs. >> supervisor fewer: just to make sure i understand that correctly, of the operating maintenance pass throughs, this is just veritas. >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: -- 96% of the units had the max, 7% allowable increase. >> that's correct. >> supervisor fewer: is that what you're telling me? >> supervisor fewer, that's correct. 96% would probably have been at or above the max, and only 4%
were below the max of 7%. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> supervisor ronen: i just had one follow up question if that's okay. i was just curious -- so for capital improvement grants, or pass throughs, i understand for the bond pass throughs that that's time limited to about a year, but for capital improvements, those are permanent, even if -- go ahead. >> right. so -- no, it's -- you can see why, i think a big question we get from tenants in these buildings are, what is this? i thought my rent increase was going to be 1.6%. there's all these things, and it's a lot more than 1.6%. not in those terms. there's usually a lot more frustration associated with it. the cap pal improvement pass through -- it has different
periods. we had proposition h in 2000, and the court overturned that, and then a bunch of compromises which led to a much more complex law. but in essence, you're looking at 7, 10, and 20 year amortization periods, and then you'll be asked to pay that. >> supervisor ronen: okay. thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: so somebody buys a building and it's assessed at a higher rate, somebody can pass -- the new owner it pass that through to the tenants. [inaudible] >> -- so if that in conjunction with any other expenses -- any time, really, that a building has an increase in expenses from one consecutive year to another, the landlord is allowed to petition the rent board for an additional pass through on those units up to an
additional 7%. and so some portion of all those expenses could be passed onto tenants. in some cases it's all based on unit counts, in some cases it's a portion of debt increase property tax, management repairs, garbage, it's a totality of the expenses for the building. >> supervisor fewer: but a clarification, operating and maintenance expenses actually in the petition, it's really about debt service and property taxes the incorrection in it, because landlords -- but landlords are able to write off their property tax, isn't that correct? >> supervisor fewer, i can o y answer from the rent control perspective. i don't feel comfortable commenting, but from a rent board perspective, the landlord -- you know, most of the operating maintenance petitions that we see are generally the result of a change in ownership because that is what triggers.
so the landlord gets generally an increase of 60% of the consumer price index, and then, the way that it's structure is -- and that covers most increases that you'll see in a garbage bill, for example, because that covers a lot of koogs. so the vast majority come in when there's been a change of ownership because you would have two or three big categories to change, debt service, finances, and property management. i have an idea, but i don't want to answer the question. >> supervisor fewer: i mean, that's true, you can write off your property tax. the renters can't write that off, but the owners can. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. thank you. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> supervisor ronen: i just -- unfortunately, i had a prior commitment. this is a special meeting today, so i'm going to have to leave in about five minutes. i will go back and watch the rest of the public comment 'cause there's so many of you here, and i really want to hear
your experience, but i just wanted to apologize to you and thank you all for coming out today. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. so if there are no further questions for colleagues, before i open up to public comment, we did reach out to veritas. i don't know if somebody from veritas is here. yeah, you're welcome to come up if you want to respond to any of the things that have been raised today. it's up to you, if you guys want to -- or we can go to public comment, either way, but i did want to give you an opportunity. [inaudible] >> supervisor sheehy: okay. that sounds fine. okay. then we will -- i'll open up public comment and let me just read off some of the names. and public comment will be one minute because we have a great many speakers. >> supervisor fewer: you actually also have an opportunity to come on friday if you'd like, also.
>> supervisor sheehy: there'll be another hearing on friday. so i have pamela ginsburg -- respond. [inaudible] >> supervisor sheehy: you guys, i don't know. i was going to give you more than a minute, but did you want to respond now or after public comment? [inaudible] >> supervisor sheehy: yes, so -- well -- well, okay. okay. before -- you're in public comment now, so -- so that's fine? so we'll -- i'll reopen public comment in a second. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is justin sato. i'm the chief operating officer of veritas investments. i'm responsible for overseeing the daily precisions of veritas investments and its company green tree property management. i joined the leadership of veritas six years ago when we
were 20 employees and monitored its growth. i've lived in san francisco, i've raised a family in san francisco and am an active member of the community. i give you this background in support of our statements oz our behavior and our character is being challenged publicly here today. one of the last times in this room, we were sepg the good samaritan award for work in housing displaced tenants whose homes had caught on fire. each time this city and its supervisors have reached out to us for assistance, we have responded, willingly and without hesitation.
most of our employees are residents in this city and residents in our buildings. we understand the concerns by some of our residents over the disruption some of these improvements create. i have personally lived through this type of work in the building i live in through soft story retrofit. however, it's all to make our homes safer and more comfortable. we are committed to the community and our residents. we strive to improve the level of communications with our residents each and every day and have made significant progress over the years. there will always be critics, however, criticism over our character and our intentions are unjustified. we are far from speculative on san francisco. in fact we are members and residents of san francisco with a goal of making it a better and safer place for us to live. thank you for your time. >> supervisor sheehy: well, just a question or two.
i guess when i see tenants of the building leaving a building because they don't have water for 30 days or they don't have a working fire escape, just the burden of construction, what is the response to that? >> so the building you brought up specifically, 1064 delores, when we purchased the building, it had significant dry rot on the exterior. the fire escapes that you refer to are actually balconies that residents use to as part of their apartments. never did they not have access to their fire escapes during the construction. we did ask them not to use the balconies of their apartment when we address the dry rot repairs. when you do that, you have to erect scaffolding in order to do so. the issues with the windows, we have had a couple of window projects throughout the years, and the reason you do window
replacement, is because of water intrusion. we replace windows with like kind because that's what we're obligated to do. we go through the planning department and as they do, like to preserve the look and feel of our building. so we replace windows with what was there, but we wouldn't do that unless it was absolutely required because it was some kind of of water intrusion issue. >> supervisor sheehy: i just want to say, i think the speculation thing here isn't about you buying buildings and selling them, it's about you buying buildings, moving tenants out and having dramatically higher rent. so the speculation seems to be a model that people are alluding to, it's a model where you come and do construction, the construction's done in such a way to make the units basically unlivable for the people living there. they leave, and you rerent it at market rate. i just want to talk to you about it speculation. >> that i say not based on -- that is not actual data, that
is theoretical data through an underwriting model. he likes to use that as an example, that model, that's not because of pass throughs or any other things that we're doing, that's because of natural atrition of residents when they move out, and tenants and units are older. >> supervisor sheehy: and -- well, i don't think -- i'd -- like this one building -- we see buildings where virtually everybody leaves, but i'd like to say, too, a general comment on your credibility, so when i called this hearing, a representative of yours paid for by you called me up and started yelling at me and calling me names. then, when i met with you, that same individual started yelling in my office and calling me names. so your individuals were there and witnessed it. i had to escort this individual out of my office.
so it does not appear to me -- your credibility as a good actor because of that has been severely undermined. >> i can't speak of those on behalf of those who are outside of veritas. >> you pay them, they represent you. and i haven't had an apology. >> i can think of several instances where we've had very productive meetings with you on several topics. i've had productive meetings with supervisor fewer specific to the lnm legislation discussing alternatives to it, suggestions to it, just debating the types of amendments that is being proposed. so, you know, any time that there is a call for a meeting, we are always open and welcome to sit down and discuss things. you know, i can't speak on behalf of those that, you he
no, behave in that manner -- >> supervisor sheehy: you can't speak on behalf of those who represent you? >> supervisor sheehy, i can't speak -- >> there were people from veritas there. you're basically calling my credibility into question? >> no, i'm not at all. i'm not at all. i'm asking you to think about the credibility of veritas, who we are and how we behave. >> supervisor sheehy: and i'm telling you how you behaved, and you're saying you don't know anything about it. you're saying you don't talk to your colleagues? >> no, i talk to my colleagues, but that is an outside firm, and i'm sure that there are other outside firms, other consultants that don't necessarily exhibit the type of values and character and behavior that you would like to see. and that is an example of it. >> supervisor sheehy: so you can't vouch for the people you hire, so how can you vouch for the practices of construction companies that make these people's lives unlivable. your veritas was overseeing
this individual when he was yelling at me. >> so is this about a meeting or is this about our behavior at a management company? >> supervisor sheehy: this is about your credibility, and you're basically saying we should believe you when you act in this way. you're saying they don't work for us, but the people who do your construction don't work for you, either. you oversee them. we have instances where people said -- we have instances of people who work for you don't respect either the people who serve in my capacitor ty or th companies who are doing the work. >> just for the record i was in that discussion with you, and it was an emotional issue, and it was a surprise, and our consultant acted emotionally and expressed his feelings, and
when he was trying to recharacterize that during the hearing, you asked him to leave. i thought he was respectful in that people can disagree with that. he left and we went onto have a very productive meeting about the discussion -- about the topics at hand. just to further the thought, we are open and willing to have these discussions. we want to work with our residents and obviously the city and the supervisors to better the experience for everyone. so i understand the point, but i think it's -- there are isolated incidents that we can grab over ten years of property management service within this community that we can always paint a picture. but what we'd like to do is ultimately make sure that we're seeing the whole picture of what our performance has been and the impact that we're having, and there's also a lot of positive in there, as well, and we look forward to addressing all of these issues to make sure that everyone is aligned on the goals. >> supervisor sheehy: great. thank you. by the way, they still represent you, right?
[inaudible] >> supervisor sheehy: yeah, just to be clear, they still represent you. okay. i think unless you have something else to add, i'm ready to open it up to public comment. and i apologize for one minute, but a lot of people want to talk and -- thank you. >> thank you for your time. i'm father john jimenez. i represent st. charles stuff on 18 street and south vanness. there are two families that i know on capp street, capp and 20 area. one on capp, more on 21, this story, they heard. they buy it, they do some nice repairs, maybe some as necessary. i think we need to work for the tenants because what you see a
majority of tenants are gone one way or another. stress on the family, children upset in my school, they're gone, evicted. quickly evicted even though they pay their rent. another building we their did these repairs, they told them well, it'll take two weeks to two months, you can stay at our building from pine street. you'll hear from tenants from there. well, most of those tenants are gone. most of those are corporate rentals. you hear of these three day eviction notices. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you next speaker, please. >> i'm renee curran. i'm a san francisco resident of 25 years and a tenant counselor of about nine. i feel that speculation should be tacked and not rewarded. speculation is driving us, not only the cost of the buildings themselves, but the surrounding land, making it even more difficult to build truly
affordable housing. and as for the hardships, i feel there's a really much too high bar for tenants to be eligible for a hardship to get out of capital improvements. you can't have more than $60,000 in your bank account, basically. i think that maybe that the landlord should also be required to show a hardship in order to pass those costs onto the -- onto the tenants. thanks. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. we're lining up. i'm sorry, but if you want -- >> say it again? >> supervisor sheehy: that's okay. that's fine. go ahead. >> my name is penny schoener, and i'm in a veritas building. they began rhenvating when they got the building in 2012. they began renovations in 2013. they were hiring people who did not speak english and were not licensed.
i overheard a yelling match that lasted approximately half an hour in the street and in the apartments, and that these people were not getting paid, and it was in chinese and english. and they later came back -- those workers, at night, and disconnected the electrical that they had installed because they never -- they were not receiving pay. th there needs to be an oversight by the city of licensed repair people and contract people that veritas hires. that's really obvious. i've heard it discussed at other sites, also. thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. people if you're going to speak, i do have cards, but it seems as if people have all lined up, to please go ahead. >> thank you, supervisor sheehy and supervisor fewer for proposed legislation, it's a
great relief to me to even just learn about it. my name is charles steiner, and i live at 1424 polk street. it's a green tree veritas owned building for the last five years. i'm a long-term resident, and i represent four other long-term tenants in this one minute of speaking here. i'm not the longest long-term tenant, i'm not the oldest. one of my neighbors received a three day notice to vacate even though the check was sent on time, it arrived at headquarters from a previous address that the -- had moved -- headquarters had moved, and so they did not receive the check, and one day after the first of the month, my neighbor received a three day notice to vacate right on his door. another neighbor --
[inaudible] >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. thank you. >> clerk: your time is concluded, sir. >> supervisor sheehy: sorry. yes. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is kathy lipscomb. i'm a tenant in noe valley. i've been in building for 26 years and it's a 36 unit building, and we really fare the wors the -- fear the worst, i'm telling you. i tell you after the consideration of the present housing crisis in san francisco, i will help the tenants move with reform -- and there by set the stage for evictions and ruinations of people's lives. landlords can write off all their operating expenses such as mortgage interests, property insurance, travel, office, telephone, computer costs,
etcetera. my building is being renovated, i'm very happy, but we're going to pay that through the rent of the building. the real estate equity or the net worth in a property is used by these speculators -- [inaudible] >> supervisor sheehy: okay. thank -- thank you. thank you. thank you, kathy. thank you. [inaudible] >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. teresa flandrick with senior and disability action as well as north beach tenants committee. you will hear a statement with the goal of getting people out, either being priced out or unable to take the construction because of asthma attacks, etcetera. the point is speculation starts
with purchase of a building that is occupied by tenants, which is usually at 20% less than market rate because there are tenants there. and then, the immediate goal is to get those tenants out so that they can maximize on their profit one way or another, and this is destroying the city. furthermore, zillow has also recently announced as a real estate company that they will be not only -- they will be going into the business of selling themselves, so buying up the properties that they're to represent, and then to sell them. we need to get a grasp on what is going on, otherwise, the city -- >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor fewer and supervisor sheehy. thank you both so much for offering us this opportunity to speak about corporate landlords. we know that not all speculative landlords are landlords in large buildings
and this is especially apparent out on the west side. after me you will hear from tenants who are not green tree tenants but a speculator that are using tactics to displait them. the name of the speculator is adam 23i7 philips. he is operating under at leave five l.l.c.'s that we know of? in addition to that, his building -- or his family business is actually a crucial example of how far greedy speculators are willing to go, so i hope that the tenants before me are able to explain that. afterwards, supervisor sheehy as you asked, these buildings go for $3,000-you asked, and this is right off the website -- >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please.
>> hi. good afternoon. my name's jeanine. my partner's and i rent controlled building was bought by a very rude serial evictions speculator, that is the adam phillips, the afore mentioned. he operates under 366 development for his l.l.c.'s and other buildings. he sees long-term tenants in rent controlled buildings as an impediment to his profit. we're not human beings, we're an impediment. and he wants to ellis act us and turn it into t.i.c.'s that he can rent as a high rate. please change this. my partner can't leave san francisco because that's where her doctor is, and if she
leaves san francisco, her health is going to get much worse. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. >> my name is karen lee, and i live in noe valley. in november 2016, adams philips purchased my building. on january 9, i was informed that he purchased the property for $500 a square foot but he was wanting to t.i.c. the units to get 8 to $900 a square foot as soon as possible. after three months he said we had not reacted to his buyout offers, and he ellis acted us soon after. we were all teachers, artists, and educators, and we will all be forced now to leave san francisco. >> supervisor sheehy: please contact my office. >> i have several times. we have many, many times.
it's too late. we're ellised. in january and february , we called you and sent e-mails, and turned up to market, and no one ever -- >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. thank you. >> i'm juanita roussef, and i'm living in the same property as karen, who was just speaking. i'm old time san francisco. i've been here since the 70's. very happily renting in affordable places. i have -- i'm not going to fight this. it's -- it's -- i'm too low-income, so i did agree to a buyout, but i have to leave the city, even with buyout money. you know, who can afford the current rents? so i'll be leaving in a few weeks. thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. >> hello. i'm anastasia, and in my
struggle to maintain my rent in my rent controlled apartment, i've had my share of hair raising history with the landlords that's impacted my health and safety, including car exhaust fumes coming up to my units through the heating vent. harassment by landlords makes tenants sick. corporate landlords like veritas, green tree and moser use harassment to get their tenants out of rent controlled apartments, destroys the city's affordable rentals. they weaponize construction, they make pass throughs that don't actually improve tenants lives, only spike up the rents, forcing those without means or on fixed incomes out of their homes. please, supervisors, prioritize tenants health and safety. investigate the abusive behavior of these speculative landlords. >> supervisor sheehy: thank
you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is marlenea minasas. my concern is they. [inaudible] >> -- for not paying rent on time, and i'm low-income. i'm worried about the pass through renter, and i can't afford it. they keep raising my rent, and i will be out. and i hope you consider the situation. thank you very much. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for holding this meeting today. it's really needed. my name is atopan. i'm a master tenant. i'm here to address the
violations that impact the health and safety of the tenants. in my unit since i've moved in a year ago, i've had issues from violence in the building to mold and water intrusion, in which moser did not fix properly, they just did white washed, even though i paid out of my own pocket which they refused to have an assessor come in. right now, i have carbon monoxide in my unit. pg&e said for me to not sleep there. moser has not done anything. radio silence, that is their motto in their building. for a year now i've been living in that unit. >> supervisor sheehy: where is your building at? >> it's at 425 hyde street,
yeah. >> hello. i'm sandra jimenez. i'd like to thank you for holding this. i am a tenant at 425 hyde street, and my landlord is moser properties. since february , we put together an advocacy group in our building to deal with some of the issues there, mostly safety. we did call dbi, they did come out and they served a multiple violations against the building along with a $50,000 fee. they also had a stop order, which they did not abide by. there's a -- one of the multiple violations was to address structural issues with the perimeter of the building with a structural engineer, and that was placed in march. there still hasn't been anything filed as a permit for that. it is -- we really would love it if the city would implement something that makes it so that the landlords have to abide by
the violations, otherwise, with other things that -- >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes. hello. my name is jesus, and i'm the cochair of the hiv and asian group. please check the density of the transferring of one bedroom apartments to two bedroom apartments. my lawyer is maybe telling me it may not always be legal. construction has been going on for three years right now. right now, i would speak there is another water shutoff in the building, just to let you know, and i've been being harassed, so i hope there is a chance that i can give you or show you in this thing, this is not enough. i have many -- a minute is not enough. i have many things and many papers to show you guys.
>> supervisor sheehy: thank you, jesus. next speaker, please. >> my name is john dusting. i am a resident of 420 baker street. the apartments above and below me were converted from one bedroom apartments to two bedroom apartments, and i had to endure several months zp years of relativeless construction which was allegedly over seen by the property manager who did a terrible job. i had my water cutoff repeatedly, i had my electricity cutoff repeatedly without notice, in addition to several other violations. thank you for your time. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is lance. i'm a resident at 720 baker, veritas building. and the -- i'm in the process of being evicted right now, not because of any rent, nonpayments, anything like that. it's fore the simple thing of the pass throughs that they send us every month, every week
that changes your rent, and if you miss it or it's wrong, that's one of the things that they get you on. there's several things that they have in their business model that is designed to evict people, and it's a -- it was ae a dangerous model for the city because there are 10,000 people in veritas buildings, and thousands of them are being evicted out of the city for no real reasons. a lot of them are having to leave because they can't handle construction, they can't handle a lot of these things that they're doing. it's several processes. in had our building alone, there are three people in the process of being evicted, even though they paid their rent for ten years without any lateness or -- >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm going to translate for this tenant.
[speaking spanish language ] >> i live in apartment 207 turk, 302. [speaking spanish ] [voice of interpreter. >> what i've seen is the abuse of veritas against tenants, specifically, the abuse of rent control. almost every four months, it seems like i've seen increases, and i also see late charges constantly on my rent. but they're not very considerable with us because we have rats and mice but they're very happy to keep increasing our rent.
they do not consider us, they don't consider our well-being, they just consider their bottom line profit. i want you guys to please investigate green tree. just like they have rights, we also have our tenants rights, and i want you to please investigate this green tree and this specific building. okay. thank you very much. [end of translation ] >> supervisor sheehy: thank you very much. next speaker, please. [speaking spanish ] [voice of interpreter ] >> my name is raymundo.
i live at 807 turk, 207, as well. his issue that he wanted to bring to light was that december 29 of last year, there was some sort of ceiling issue at 270 turk where the ceiling came in and splattered all through the lobby floor. there -- it doesn't look like there was any cleanup or immediate response, so mr. raymondo, he entered, he slipped, and he has a really bad fall. he has a huge costly bill, and he doesn't know what to do because he feels like he has alerted green tree because of this occurrence, what had happened, and the property manager on-site laughed at him and said sure, try to sue green tree, see what happens. so the property manager at green tree, the lack of response to his needs and his
issue is why he's here today. thank you very much. [end of translation ] >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. and there are representatives of green tree in the room, by the way, if that's helpful, if anybody wants to hear from the tenants about the problems they're expressing. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is ana g., and i work with the tenderloin housing clinic, and i'm here to speak on behalf of an elderly couple. when green tree acquired the building, they gave them a three day notice to what was going to happen. they were late on their rent payment. so they acquired a late fee, and this lasted for about six months until we got to fixed.
so i agree that i will go ahead and go for the next three months to pay rent during think lunch with them to make sure that we're not late. last month, they just got a new -- a new ledger that said they were late. so no matter what the tenants do, they're always going to see that late fee, and after that will be the three day notice, and following the three day notice will be an unlawful detainer, so thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is paula ginsberg. i'm a retired schoolteacher, on a minimum pension. i have health issues involving choking episodes that date back about, oh, 12 years ago. but have been exacerbated by
the extensive renovation in my 95-year-old building, four units, and the whole bottom floor, that have been having ongoing effects to my health. i'm -- it's hard to -- i'm perhaps extra workers could come in to ex-pediate the work because it's making sicker and sicker, mindfulness of overloading the apartment manager, there's 25 units for him to navigate all of this, and please make health and well-being of tenants -- [inaudible] >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello there. my name is rosa maria caballo. i work with tenderloin housing in