supervisor yee seeks to amend to add factored oris -- factors to the hardship already existing in breed's legislation. they are separate amendments but both in the document. >> madam clerk? how would you like to proceed? city clerk: mr. president when a measure under debate that includes points connected, you can take the items, those sections of supervisor breed amendments which are not controversial and take those as a whole and come back to the section that includes supervisor yee and campos second. >> what? [ laughter ] city clerk: the section of supervisor breed's amendment which are non-controversial can be taken first paragraph

by paragraph. and then we can come back and hear the section of supervisor breed's item that includes supervisor yee and supervisor campos. >> okay. let me try to restate that. supervisor breed has offered two separate amendments which seems to be support by many of us at the board and one that probably requires a little bit more discussion. i would suggestion we cast two separate votes for that and divide that motion to amend if that makes sense. why don't we continue the discussion on the amendments as they have been proposed by supervisor breed and yee. supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: i think i'm prepared to support that motion. to consider when deciding hardship that it's okay to consider these additional factors. i guess i

had two questions. one i think is for the scenario that supervisor yee has brought up is actually one that i was wondering on if you owned a 2-unit building and wanted to bring one back to the family but reside in the other unit, i think that's the scenario that i was hearing. is owner move in a possibility if you lived in one of the units but want a family member to move into second unit which is you would not have to use the ellis act eviction. i'm not sure if that covers. the rent board is here. >> ms. wolf? thank you. >> wolf, director of the rent board. you are correct. the owner operated just cause eviction. the landlord can evict to live there. they can evict for a family member to

live in the unit if they already live in the building or will move in simultaneously >>supervisor jane kim: if in a 2-unit building and the homeowner lives in the unit and they have a child they would like to move into a second unit where they have a tenant they can choose to use an owner move in eviction instead of the ellis act and this would not apply. >> it would not be in is to use the ellis under that fact. >>supervisor jane kim: i'm happy to support the factors. i'm curious, supervisor yee, if that satisfies your concern. >>supervisor norman yee: it's just an example. it's not only ones i have heard in the past. my point really is and supervisor breed thank you for having that language in there. i didn't realize it was

identical. i'm supporting supervisor breed's language. my point is we can't ever give every case scenario and that's something we might not have thought of that might come up will be important for these factors to come into play when making decisions about hardship. >>supervisor jane kim: thank you supervisor and my next question is for supervisor breed. i'm happy to hold my question. is that okay? so i hear the scenario on elderly landlords with four or less units depending on the sale of the building for their retirement. i don't see how anything in the legislation would prevent that landlord from selling the building. they would not have to ellis act in order to sell. so i guess i'm trying to better understand the circumstances

that you articulated earlier. if i was an elderly landlord of the building with 4 units or less and depended on the sale of that building for my requirement, i can still sell it without ellis act and sell it is to any real estate company. i don't know of any property owners without the ellis act in tend to sell the building and there are legal fees involved in the ellis act, a couple of those landlords can afford that anyway and go forward with the sale. i just want to understand if there is specific scenarios that you heard that counter to what i understand as what typically occurs. >>supervisor london breed: some of the situations like one in particular in terms of the value of the property or how much the family would anticipate receiving, they

were asked -- they were told they would get a higher value if there was no one in the building. no. 1, no. 2, the challenges they face from liens on their property from additional loans they took out on the property. they took out more equity. they sell the building and did the ellis act and whoever they worked with from the real estate industry and walked away with not a lot of money from this scenario, many of these cases are in my district in particular and some of these cases are from people who experienced that even before i became supervisor. i can point to some cases that would be familiar with people, but i don't feel comfortable using individual names, some of them have been in the paper. there has been a lot of challenges

particularly in my district as it relates to african american home owners. this is their only property. these are people that do not own other buildings other places. he is the don't have the ellis act but the advice is they can get more for their buck. when you charge someone less than $1,000 for 40 years, these families are walking away with almost nothing. i don't think we are about a city that would penalize the rich and not recognize the people who work as janitors and everyday folks who worked really hard to purchase their properties and are faced with these kinds of additional layers of bureaucratic requirement. so, this is what i'm really trying to go after. i understand

your comments about what you don't need to do, but in some cases, this is a step that they are taking in order to try and maximize the benefits of selling the property that these folks are taking. >>supervisor jane kim: i will make a couple comments in response to that. i don't know if this is a question that ms. wolf can answer, but my understanding that to ellis act evict in 99 percent of the cases you are required to hire an attorney and pay legal fees in order to do that. so i'm curious in a case ellis act eviction cases have you ever seen a property owner ellis act evict without an attorney? >> i have seen many property oranges unsuccessfully evict through ellis act with an attorney, we encourage people

to seek legal advice and it's well worth it in terms of the return to be able to successfully effectuate an ellis act eviction. >>supervisor jane kim: i'm sympathetic to the situation but this is a case where a speculate or is asking the property owner to evict so they don't have to go through ellis act themselves and they are offering more money so they can speculate on the property. this is still a gain for the speculators. whoever is doing the ellis act is for the next property owner who wants to speculate on the property. that's where i'm landing on this situation. it doesn't seem to, i understand that the property owner could get slightly more money for that property but it's because someone is asking them to ellis act evict so they will be willing to pay more value

for that. what we are trying to prevent is speculation. this would merely encourage property owners to ellis act evict from the sale of the property. >> supervise wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you. i support this legislation. hardly a week goes by where i don't learn about another ellis act eviction property happening in my district. so i know it's happening elsewhere. far more than not those that are evicted are often seniors. it's just absolutely heartbreaking. and so i think the time has come to increase the relocation benefit. i remember back in 2006

thereabouts when prop h was on the ballot to increase ellis act eviction and it was increase to 5200 and now looking back that it's not very much. i do support the legislation. i also i supported the amendments and i have an additional amendment to offer. this is along the lines of what the issue that i brought up in committee which i was not resolved in committee and i think is a real issue. that is what assets are these smaller landlords are taken into account in determining hardship. right now under the rent ordinance when a tenant claims hardship basically only includes their household income and i believe bank accounts if i'm not mistaken. it excludes non-liquid assets

and retirement accounts. we don't expect tennants to somehow have to pay out of their 401k or have to sell their car or other liquid assets. that's not included in the application and i agree with that. it's totally appropriate. however when you look for landlords seeking hardship because there are some scenarios where a landlord can seek financial hardship it is a much more extensive list of assets. it includes in addition to the income of the landlord and also includes retirement funds so that the list out whether their 401k or pension. their clothing, their furnishings and jewelry, any art and other personal property. a

landlord, i understand from ms. wolf that it's clear from what the rent board would do today or the future, but, the idea that we would say to someone frankly to hooument someone and i'm shocked that this will be in the legislation. i would stipulate in subsection b to add the following to excluding the retirement act and non-liquid assess only subject

to the displacement if a primary residence to the landlord and the only property by the owner. so in other words the landlord does not have to list any retirement accounts or non-liquid assets and would have to include real property, but not if they only own one small building that they live in, they would not have to include that building, but if they own more than one building, then the real estate is fair game. as supervisor kim mentioned you will sell the building, but if you are livingston -- living in the building it's a different situation. that's the amendment i'm proposed and i want to mention that and distribute it and put it in the amendment. i am supporting this legislation. i think increasing the relocation benefit is long over due.

>> thank you, supervisor wiener has made a motion. seconded by supervisor breed. supervisor breed? >> >>supervisor london breed: i have a few comments. if we are concerned about speculators, we should come up with legislation against speculators. what i believe supervisor campos in doing so is trying to resolve an issue in san francisco. i support the intent, i support what he's trying to accomplish in this legislation. and the problem is that there is not a one size fits all in many cases which is why i'm proposing what i'm proposing why supervisor yee or wiener

is making a suggestion, it's not about speculators, but also those who are going to be harmed because of legislation. when we enter into this legislation we always deal with unintended consequences. what i'm trying to do with my proposal is nip that in the bud. it's clear when we take into consideration a continuance on this item to have the opportunity to understand everyone's proposed amendment and how this might factor into the legislation. before we move forward i think we should continue this item. i think of course i'm happy to continue this discussion. but we should continue this item in order to give everyone an opportunity to make whatever proposed changes to hopefully talk this out with the author of the legislation. that's my suggestion. and again, this is the reason why. i know that

these are the folks that the families that i have mentioned before are going to be the ones negatively impacted. speculators are not. i don't want to see this continue to impact my community neglect atively. >> supervisor breed, you have two options to continue this later on in this meeting or continue to a date certain in the future. which motion would you like to make? >> i will continue this to the end of the meeting depending on the attorney if not continue to the following week if we can't resolve how these various recommendations for amendments overlap. >> these motions to continue this to the later time in

this meeting. there is three motions to amend that are still attached to this legislation at this time. madam clerk, can you call the next item, please. city clerk: item 16: [planning, building, administrative, and subdivision codes - legalization of dwelling units installed without a permit] sponsors: chiu; wiener, avalos and mar ordinance amending the planning and building codes to provide a process for granting legal status to existing dwelling units constructed without the required permits, temporarily suspending the code enforcement process for units in the process of receiving legal status, and prohibiting units from being legalized under the provisions of this ordinance if there have been no-fault evictions; amending the administrative code to prohibit the costs of legalization from being passed through to the tenant; amending the subdivision code to prohibit legalized units from being subdivided and separately sold; affirming the planning department's california environmental quality act determination; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to submit this ordinance to the california department of housing and community development in accordance with california government code, section 65852.22hh.12341234 >> president chiu? chiu thank you colleagues. this is legislation that i introduced last november for applying to legal status to our city. i want to thank supervisors

wiener and mar and breed for their cosponsorship. we know that we have families being pushed out of the city and shadow economy involving illegal unit. there were 20-30 thousand in laws building in 1960 and 90 percent of them were not permitted. there are 8,000 of them illegal. that represented 10 percent of our housing stocks. who lives in these units? they are tennants and the most vulnerable tennants, seniors and families with many children, immigrants and lowest income and longer term residents. these are units affordable but often the tends are in them have challenged

legal rights. 40-5 percent who live in these units don't have written leases. for many years there has been a calling for legalization. the housing element stated secondary units are housing method for expanding housing supply. california state law has proetd -- promoted state in laws. the city has turned a blind eye to these in laws and the housing has permitted of these in laws based on complaints. which is why i year ago icon convenience -- convened a large table. the san francisco tennants union, the asian law caucus, the chinese development center and housing clinic and others. on property owner sides the

housing realtors and citywide housing advocates, spur, livable cities and many city departments that did work on this among others. what i'm proposed today is very simple that we allow an owner to legalize one existing in law unit without additional permit or a citywide basis. that we wave local planning rules that don't deal with like safety so they don't need to meet additional open space requirements, no additional need to add parking and no additional need for zoning. it does not require exits and entrances, fire and plumbing and electrical, etc. there are really three fold purposes why we move forward with this is to bring 10s of thousands of

units to propose housing that are at risk of elimination and keep vacant units off the market. secondly, we wanted to move forward with this legislation to protect tennants who live with fear and vulnerability with regard to their tenancy status. there are five things we are doing for tennants, protecting and assuring rent control status, and this legislation does not permit cost pass through for major capital improvements and doesn't allow for subdivisions and counter conversion, and if there is construction to be done, this requires relocation and reimbursement and permits legalization if there have been no fault evictions for the legal process to begin. third, is to help home owners

and first and foremost we know these values will exist if rented. secondly we produce planning and zoning, and we create certainty and clarity as these owners of these buildings rent and we want to make this as easy as possible with a very small nominal fee to move forward with this process and prescreening process to allow owners to bring up to code without any fear of enforcement. let me close with a couple final comments, we heard at our land use committee a lot of comments. we heard from someone renting in law units from friends but at risk of being evicted because a neighbor complaining of enforcement. we heard from others who testify to ease

which tennants can be evicted from these units and we heard from home owners tonya sullivan who kepd her in law unit in her home vacant knowing she can't rent it out but can use it to support the family if this law passes. it affects tennants like brian and tonya. we believe this proposal would create a physical legal pathway to bound both housing preservation and both. do you want to take a moment to acknowledge this year long process and complicated issue and we heard from complications from a number of neighborhoods in supervisor yee's district. my response is these units already exist in homes throughout the entire

city and they house thousands of residents, we need an alternative to the status quo. doing nothing is not a real solution. now, i do understand there are some on the other hand who think this legislation doesn't go far enough. that by allowing legalization to be volunteer rather than mandatory, not enough property owners will come forward to legalize these units. i appreciate that is a perspective. my response is really, we need to take a first major step in moving forward and we need to understand what's going on and our legislation requires every 6 months so there is monitoring with regard to what is happening on the ground with regard to legalization so we can take a step forwards and think about legalizing in a mandatory way. i would like to thank the 5 of us who are cosponsors to this

legislation and i would ask for your support. >> supervisor yee? >>supervisor norman yee: thank you. supervisor's chiu's legislation can make some laws safer by requiring building code standards. i would acknowledge that. my priority as a supervisor is to do everything possible to maintain families and including protecting family housing. i don't like the legislation would allow in law units to be legalized citywide across all zoning districts no matter when the units were built and no matter what the neighborhood wants or needs. i cannot support such a far reaching change that doesn't respect decades of our best thinking around zoning and neighborhood preservation. rewards, illegal behavior by allowing landlords who broke the city's law, a path to legalization. this legislation could have unintended consequences which are the

opposite of what the goals of the legislations are. this includes displacement of tennants, increase in rent. encourage speculation. for the units that can't be utilized does not enforce it's own code. i would like to add to this legislation. i'm sorry i didn't put this all in 1 piece. i passed out two files to you. the first one is is to look at the rh 1d units. this is to amend that these units would not be part of this legislation. it protects family appropriate housing present appropriation and development housing and

encourage remodeling of existing housing for families with children. the other amendment i would like to offer is around a pilot program. the pilot program i believe it is the most prudent approach. it would require a report to be prepared by declining after 50 units are legalized in rh 2 and rh 3 zoning district. the total number of applications filed to legalize existing dwelling units, the total number of permits that have been issued to legalize dwelling units and total number of dwelling units to have been legalized. an evaluation of the types of units being developed and their affordability rates would be important to find out what this pilot project. this

will lead to an informed proposal. >> do i have a motion and second to those. let's take them one at a time. supervisor yee, your 1st amendment, you can specify the topics? >> sure. the 1st amendment is in regards to prohibiting legalization of additional dwelling units in rh 1 d of zoning districts. >> we have an amendment regarding prohibition of rh 1d. do i have a second? >> second by supervisor

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