for for information sophisti april 8,

2014. board of supervisors meeting.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, april 8th. madam clerk call the role. >> avalos. >> avalos present. >> supervisor breed. >> here. >> supervisor campos. >> present. >> chiu. >> present. >> cohen. >> present. >> supervisor farrell. >> present. >> kim present. >> mar. >> here. >> mar present. >> supervisor tang. >> tang present. >> wiener, wiener present. >> supervisor yee. present. >> mr. president, all members are present. >> thank you ladies and gentlemen, join us in the ledge of an allegiance. "i pledge

allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." >> colleagues, we have our march 4th, board meeting minutes. motioned by supervise mar and seconded. madam clerk, do we have communications. >> none today mr. president. speaker: read our consent agenda. >> item motion approving the budget and legislative analyst services work plan for 2014; allocating hours for calendar year 2014; authorizing the budget and legislative analyst to reallocate up to 20 percent of the hours between services categories based on board of supervisors service needs, and requiring board of supervisors approval of hours re-allocation greater than 20 percent; establishing performance goals; and setting a date for the 2014 annual performance evaluation of the budget and >> item motion approving the budget and legislative analyst services work plan for 2014; allocating hours for calendar year 2014; authorizing the budget and legislative analyst to reallocate up to 20 percent of the hours between services categories based on board of supervisors service needs, and requiring board of supervisors approval of hours re-allocation

greater than 20 percent; establishing performance goals; and setting a date for the 2014 annual performance evaluation of the budget and legislative >> item motion approving the budget and legislative analyst services work plan for 2014; allocating hours for calendar year 2014; authorizing the budget and legislative analyst to reallocate up to 20 percent of the hours between services categories based on board of supervisors service needs, and requiring board of supervisors approval of hours re-allocation greater than 20 percent; establishing performance goals; and setting a date for the 2014 annual performance evaluation of the budget and legstre partnership.. >> role call. >> cohen. >> aye. >> farrell. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> supervisor aye. >> mar, aye. >> tang. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor campos. >> aye. >> chiu. >> there are 11 ayes. >> ordinance amending the administrative code to add first source hiring requirements for developers applying for permits for commercial or residential projects, anticipated local hires, and anticipated wages; and agree to hiring and retention >> ordinance amending the administrative code to add first source hiring requirements for developers applying for permits for commercial or residential projects, anticipated local hires, and anticipated wages; and agree to hiring and retention goals for apprentice level positions. >> colleagues without objection. this ordinance is passed. >> next item. >> an ordinance to appropriate 1.million of proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds for completion of capital improvement projects included in the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood park neighborhood for the fiscal year 2014-16. >> this ordinance passed. >> next item. >> item 4, ordinance amending administrative code, chapter 37, "residential rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance," to implement california civil code, section 1947.9 (a)(1)(a), by requiring the rent board to annually adjust the daily compensation rate for tenant household temporary dislocation of less than 20 days, according >> item 4, ordinance amending administrative code, chapter

37, "residential rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance," to implement california civil code, section 1947.9 (a)(1)(a), by requiring the rent board to annually adjust the daily compensation rate for tenant household temporary dislocation of less than 20 days, according to the consumer price index. >> same house, same call. this ordinance has passed. >> item 5. ordinance recognizing small business month in may 2014; amending the planning and building codes to retroactively waive fees for the month of may for certain facade improvements; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies >> item 5. ordinance recognizing small business month in may 2014; amending the planning and building codes to retroactively waive fees for the month of may for certain facade improvements; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and making findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. >> same house, same call. this ordinance has passed. next item. >> item 6 ordinance amending the administrative code to mitigate adverse impacts of tenant evictions to provide that when residential units are withdrawn from the rental market under the ellis act, each relocated tenant is entitled to the greater of the existing rent relocation payment, or the difference between the tenant's current rent and the prevailing rent for a comparable apartment in san francisco over a two year period; and allowing a landlord, through a hearing process, to obtain a revised relocation payment obligation based on an undue financial hardship adjustment >> item 6 ordinance amending the administrative code to mitigate adverse impacts of tenant evictions to provide that when residential units are withdrawn from the rental market under the ellis act, each relocated tenant is entitled to the greater of the existing rent relocation payment, or the difference between the tenant's current rent and the prevailing rent for a comparable apartment in

san francisco over a two year period; and allowing a landlord, through a hearing process, to obtain a revised relocation payment obligation based on an undue financial hardship adjustment or recalculated >> item 6 ordinance amending the administrative code to mitigate adverse impacts of tenant evictions to provide that when residential units are withdrawn from the rental market under the ellis act, each relocated tenant is entitled to the greater of the existing rent relocation payment, or the difference between the tenant's current rent and the prevailing rent for a comparable apartment in san francisco over a two year period; and allowing a landlord, through a hearing process, to obtain a revised relocation payment obligation based on an undue financial hardship adjustment >> item 6 ordinance amending the administrative code to mitigate adverse impacts of tenant evictions to provide that when residential units are withdrawn from the rental market under the ellis act, each relocated tenant is entitled to the greater of the existing rent relocation payment, or the difference between the tenant's current rent and the prevailing rent for a comparable apartment in san francisco over a two year period; and allowing a landlord, through a hearing process, to obtain a revised relocation payment obligation based on an undue financial hardship adjustment or recalculated rent differential amount. action was postponed and continued through april first and scheduled for today's meeting. it's in the same condition as it was immediately before the postponement following a three motions pending and a continuance continues to be passed. the first motion by breed and seconded with a cohen with the whole motion with yee and moved to amend on page 5. and the final motion with supervisor wiener and sec.ed by breed and starting online one relating to landlord hardship previsions. as a motion withdraw an existing motion or discussion on motion is in ordinary. thank you mr. president. >> thank you, colleagues , we have three motions regarding this ordinance. let's hear first from supervisor yee. >> thank you, president chiu. i just wanted to withdraw my motion for consideration at this point. >> supervisor yee has withdrawn his motion. with that, supervisor breed. >> i'd like us to take a vote

on my proposed amendment at this time. >> supervisor breed has asked for a vote on her motion which has been seconded. supervisor campos. >> i'll vote against at amendment hoping we can come back to the issue and proposed a revised amendment. >> with that madam clerk, a vote on yee's vote. >> supervisor cohen. >> no. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> no. >> supervisor mar. >> no. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> no. >> supervisor avalos. >> no. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor campos. >> no. >> supervisor chiu. >> no. >> there are four ayes and seven nos. >> motion to amend fails. >> mr. president i have an alternative that i'd like to offer in terms of amending the

legislation. i'd like to submit a request to amend the legislation with only page 4 lines 8-12 of my proposed amendment. wait, let me make sure i have that right. >> the number is i have is 14-18. >> i'm sorry, yes. page -- i'd like to make an amendment to the existing resolution to add lines 14-18 of my originally proposed resolution and would you like me to read it into the record? page 4 starting with line 14 at such a hear in the board or its

designated administrative law judges should consider all factors including the numbers of units in the building and any evidence submitted regarding the landlords age, length of ownership of the building, ownership of any other buildings, income, expenses and other assets, debts, and health and health care cost. i'd like that to be the proposed amendment to the resolution. >> supervisor breed has the motion seconded by yee. further discussion, supervisor campos. >> i want to take this opportunity to thank supervisor breed for her original amendment and for this revised amendment. it reflects the original intent without raising the concerns expressed so i'm happy to support this revised amendment and i look forward to continuing to work with supervisor breed as we deal with the impact on this

legislation with the landlords see identified. i think this amendment strikes a raw balance in making sure we address the issue of making sure that relocation cost reflect the need in the market that's out there without some of the unintended consequences. happy to support it. >> supervisor farrell. >> i want to thank supervisor campos for his legislation and to support the intent of what's happening and the fees that campos proposed earlier. from my perspective and i support supervise's breed amendment, but i won't support the underlining legislation. from my perspective, as we think about what's happening in our city, i don't have any sympathy for speculators. but the

consequence here and i went to go to supervisor breeds comment, smaller businesses, their savings are in a flat and i know many people like that in our city and walk-through some of mr. yegan's analysis of relocation fees and i appreciate the fact that some of the discussion last week was around family members, but that doesn't apply to aunts and nephews and it would cost $50,000 to meet my aunt into the building, that's inappropriate and we shouldn't legislate that. i appreciate this is going to go through regardless, but i won't be able to support the underlining legislation. >> we have supervise's breed amend and do that without

objection. without objection. we have supervisor wiener on the table, supervisor wiener, do you have comments? >> yes, just as a reminder, and i'm going to do a tweet version and he was kind enough to take that language that we did and make it into a better format, but it doesn't change the substance of last week. just as a reminder, this is in the context of a landlord applying for a hardship which supervisor campos put in an amendment and committee to provide a hard ship mechanism under landlords and we know we have hardship mechanisms in the rent ordinance for tenants, and as i pointed out in committee and last week, in terms of what assets are

considered and looking at hardship, there was a real discrepancy between tenants and landlords and tenants and you look at income and liquid assets so income and bank accounts and so forth whereas landlords when you look at what the board put out on its application forms, it includes not just income and liquid assets, but all assets including real-estate, including clothing, including furnishing, including retirement accounts, and the idea of forcing someone to put the value of some of those assets on, i think, in addition to being demeaning and humiliating is i appropriate. so the legislation would basically move this towards a parallel situation and we'll make clear that in determining hardship for a landlord under this

legislation, it would exclude retirement accounts, non liquid personal property like clothing and furnishing and would exclude non real property in general, but real property only if the landlord only owns the one building and lives in that building and the building is four units or less. if the landlord owns more than four buildings or doesn't live in the building, it would be hardship determination. there's been questions that comes up about retirement accounts and i think fundamentally, i don't think people should have to start cashing in their pensions or ria or 401k under this legislation. i think we have a strong public policy in this country in protecting retirement accounts. when someone goes into bankruptcy, creditor is

not go after retirement accounts. it's not an area where someone is going to be able to move a huge amount of money into a retirement account. that's not how the law works. so colleagues, i ask for your support on this amendment. >> supervisor wiener, this is a substitute amendment. >> because the language has been tweaked, i would offer it as a substitution amendment from last week. >> supervisor wiener has withdrawn the language from last week and is recommending this new language. >> supervisor breed seconded the first motion. >> we'll assume she's seconded this amendment. supervisor campos. >> thank you president and i'll speak against this amendment. owning real property in san francisco is indeed one of the most

probably and smartest investments that you can make in this city, and even though you may have situations where that is the only asset that the individual has which is a substantial asset and the problem i have with this amendment is it creates loopholes that ultimately could undermine the intent of the legislation. i think that one possibility here is that it creates an incentive for people to evict a tenant while they're living in that property as a way of paying the lower relocation amount and once that's paid, sell the property. i think this creates an incentive for speculators. again,

owning property in san francisco is very important and a valuable asset and it's an asset that's not available to most san franciscans and for those trying to stay in this city. i also think that the issue of ex collusion of these retirement accounts creates a loophole and provides the possibility that people will simply funnel monday knee through these accounts -- people will simply funnel money into these accounts to avoid paying. if there's a concern about the fairness and the information that needs to be provided by landlords, it's interesting that that concern has raised in the contents of

landlords and tenants. if we want uniformity, we need to not create loopholes, but direct the rent board to create uniformity in the rules that they have in place and we heard from the rent board that they're moving in the direction of doing precisely that. i think we should let them do their work instead of creating loopholes that at the end of the day undermine the intent of the legislation. >> supervisor wiener. >> one moment. >> would you like me to provide to -- >> my apologizes, mr. president. i was pulling out

the tenant hardship application which specifically states that assets -- when a tenant is applying for a hardship, it includes their assets and that determination including non liquid assets and retirement accounts. that makes a lot of sense. tenants should not have to provide the value of their retirement account in determining a hard ship and neither should a landlord that's not there on either end. i want to say at the hearing on this legislation, there were a lot of statements but some of the supporters of the legislation, i'm coming close to distributing the existence of the mom and pop landlords, the people who have a small

building, maybe their only building and they live in that building, and those are not the people who are doing the evictions and almost disputing it's really an issue. so i would question why it is then when you have a modest amendment that says if you own the one building, if it's a small building and if you live in the building, you shouldn't have to sell that building or take out a mortgage on it if you're otherwise of limited means because there's people who own a building and live in it and maybe they're living on a mixed income. in response to some of the commentary from committee, we prepared this very narrow amendment and so i think it's reasonable and i just -- the idea that people are going to start funneling significant amounts of money into retirement accounts ignores how retirement accounts work. you can't move money into your

pension and a

financial planner here? >> mr. controller. >> good afternoon supervisor. the budget and analyst and the deputy owe -- i don't though if we can answer the question frankly. we can do additional homework on how tax law works in this part of the world, but we don't walk into the meeting with that knowledge. >> supervisor yee, could you articulate the questions you wanted to have verified. >> the questions is whether or not there are limitations and i think there are in terms of how much one individual can put into their retirement account. the second part of that question is if there are limitations, what is the amount

that you can put because it's real different, this 15,000 that you can put in on an annual basis, but without knowing that might not be the minimum. i have concerns about that. >> supervisor campos. >> i just want to note that i think with any piece of legislation, there are circumstances that may arise that may create a hard ship on a landlord and it's difficult for us to anticipate every situation which is why the intent of the hardship exception is to provide those variations and facts and circumstances to be explained to the rent board. and there are examples where significant assets have been had been a landlord and there's still a finding of