tv [untitled] November 2, 2014 3:00pm-3:31pm PST
he is a professor emeritus at san francisco state university. has been since '05. he was a professor since 192 and perhaps best recognized by the san francisco public library in the 2013 black literary festival in their notice as the person who led the san francisco civil rights movement and addressed such issues as economic apartheid and job discrimination. ~ 1972 that's my client, folks. and his problem today and what he's asking you to remedy is the fact that a bank during the foreclosure crisis during the great recession foreclosed on an adjacent property that at one time he he also owned. he had taken out a loan with indy mac. indymac is out of business. they went out of business in the great recession. if you look at the deed of trust and it's attached to the complaint, we have filed a complaint with the san francisco superior court and ultimately we're going to urge you to deny this -- to make a motion denying this application
to let the courts handle this matter. but if you look at the complaint which is verified under penalty of perjury by mr. bradley, you're going to find an exhibit the deed of trust. if you look at the deed of trust that is in your packet, and i can give you the specific exhibit reference in a minute, you're going to find that in the deed of trust it references that this loan is for 637 peralta, not 639 peralta, the adjacent lot. and what happens to mr. bradley is when indymac goes out of business deutsche banc takes over and that hadxctionv off to a firm in nevada [speaker not understood], they as the deed of trust foreclose and they make a mistake. they foreclose on both lots. that's why we're here today and that's why we filed a lawsuit. they foreclosed on 637 and 639. so, after they foreclosed and
made this mistake unbeknowsctionv to mr. bradley, he had no clue any of this -- he had no clue any of this went on ~ until an indication in may of this year that there was construction on his property at which time, let me jump a little bit here, he then writes a letter to the property group who is coming here today, the applicant, and says, folks, there's a problem. it's a detailed letter, a letter you'd expect from a ph.d. there are exhibits attached. dole man ignores him. they've ignored the complaint that's been served on them since the beginning of october. bottom line is a mistake was made. we're going to prove it in court. with the greatest respect, this legislative body is ill suited as a general proposition for evidentiary findings, for rulings that of a legal nature -- this is a quiet title action. the fair place for it to be for my client is in the court system. so, we would ask you based on the mistake and i'm pleased to go through specifics if that's going to be helpful to you,
beyond what i've said, that you ultimately one of you move to deny this application and that you so vote. i can answer any questions if there are any. otherwise i'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? okay. at this time why don't we hear from any members of the public if they wish to speak in support of the appellant. okay, and at this time why don't we hear from members of the department of public works and planning who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their decision to approve the tentative map. >> good afternoon, supervisors. bruce [speaker not understood] city and county surveyor. i have little to add other than what i've provided you before. obviously we got an application for subdivision for two-unit new construction condominium. on august 8 we referred to all
the public agencies. on the 18th of september we've got approval from the planning department and issued tentative approval, and on the 29th we got the notice of the appeal. we have the dole man properties listed as the owner and the subdivider and have no other additional information that indicates otherwise. >> colleague, any questions to city staff? okay, at this time why don't we now hear from the real party in interest. >> good evening. [speaker not understood] here on behalf of dole man properties. i don't have a good deal to add. the gentleman from public works is right on the money. we have done surveys. we have done the research. there is nothing to the complaint.
that having been said, the complaint that is in state court should be the dominant issue here. we would suggest that the appeal, which is not the subject right now, which is late, i would point out, could have come a long time ago. it did not. what's happening right now is simply an end run and it's all about money. the property has been developed correctly and well to the tune of well over half a million dollars. somebody has waited long enough to make this worth their while to try to dredge this up. that's offensive on several different levels. i would also point out that any recourse that needs to be had by mr. bradley can be had in the courts. that's where it belongs. if the court decides that his allegations are well taken then he is obviously entitled to get
himself a preliminary injunction. we don't think that's going to happen, but we suggest that it's probably not within the province of this committee to jump that issue in court. we suggest that this matter, line item before you, should be approved and following that on the calendar [speaker not understood]. any questions? >> colleague, any questions to the real party in interest? okay. >> thank you. >> seeing none at this time, let's hear from members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the real party interest. seeing none, let's hear from the appellant who will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal. >> thank you. first let's talk briefly about the october 27, 2014 public works letter that's in your file. respectfully, the surveyor did not look at the entire chain of title.
there are actually errors. the first bullet point refers to a deutsche banc deed dated march 25, 2011. there is no such deed attached to these papers. the actual deed that is being referred is the october 28, 2011 deed that is in the complaint. but if you look, you're not going to find any reference to the pre-existing chain of title with rsm & a and with indymac which explains the mistake. it's been left out. you don't have a complete record here today. second, there's been a comment made about we have nothing else in our files to tell us who owns this property. please take judicial notice of the most recent property tax bill, which i'd like to present to the clerk. guess who owns this particular -- 639? according to the city and county of san francisco it's william bradley. folks, you're being asked to vote on something that's just plain wrong. you don't have your facts straight in front of you. i strongly urge you to make a
motion to deny this. and the idea that we're going to wind this way through court, that's right. it's going to take time. we have discovery outstanding. we september out document requests. we're serious about this case. rehe expectfully i'd ask that that motion be made to deny this application and it be voted on in favor of a denial. thank you very much for your time. mr. bradley, by the way, would like to say a few things if i might offer -- thank you. >> as part of the three-minute rebuttal. >> yes, in addition to what my attorney stated, you will note in the documents that the refinance done by indymac was on 637 peralta. it lists lot 15, the block no.. 639 was not covered. this property was owned by my family since 1943. this property was owned outright. i bought my family out of the property, paid them off, i owned it.
foreclosure on 637, i own 639 outright. the county recorder's office, san francisco county recorder's office list me as the owner. it is listed in the documents that you have here. so, this is not a question of some false charge. i was not late in responding. i found out by a contract company that the concrete company that laid the concrete that they had laid concrete. they sent me a notice to pay for 75,000 of laid concrete because when they went to the recorder's office they found that i was the owner. so, the point is i moved on this as soon as i found out about it. it what not a case of waiting. and i received no response from dole man property when i wrote them [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible].
>> thank you very much. thank you very much, sir. and with that, colleagues, any questions to the parties? supervisor campos? >> no, no questions. >> at this time item 20 has been held and is closed -- >> actually, no. i would like to -- >> you do not want to close it? so, if i could rescind, motion rescind, that objection that should be the case. [gavel] >> supervisor campos, what would you like to do? >> thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the parties and dpw for their comments. as was noted, there is a pending quiet title action in superior court that was filed on september 29th. and based on that, let me just say that legally there is a requirement that we actually hold this hearing. and, so, i'd like to move that the hearing remain open, but
that because there is the pending quiet title action that we actually continue the discussion but pending what happens in court and there will be a need for additional briefing from the parties. so, the motion is to continue the discussion to keep the hearing open and to continue the discussion to i guess december 16th. would that be appropriate, city attorney's office, or should it be a longer date? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. as i understand it, the parties will have their first case management conference in superior court well into next year in march. the board isn't bound by that schedule. i understand from conversations with you, supervisor, that you're potentially interested in hearing from both parties as to -- in writing as to how the board should decide this matter
in the context of the subdivision map act and our local subdivision code. so, perhaps if the board continues to december 16th you would request that the parties submit something in writing before that date. >> okay, great. so, with that in mind, with the understanding that the parties would submit something in writing to this board, i would move to continue the discussion and move this item to december -- is not this item to december 16th. >> so, supervisor campos has made a motion to keep this hearing open to continue this item to december 16th and request that the parties, any briefing materials the party would like to submit, second by supervisor mar. colleagues, any objection to the motion? without objection that motion passes. [gavel] ~ >> let's now go to our second item. madam clerk, can you call 24 through 26? >> [speaker not understood] pending approval of item 33 for a public hearing to consider
the proposed resolution, the subject matter of item 25. approving provisions of a variation decision by the commission on community investment and infrastructure modifying the outside affordable housing requirement for 181 fremont street in the transbay redevelopment project area. item 25 is a resolution of the board of supervisors, acting in its capacity as the legislative body to the successor agency to the former redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco, approving provisions of a variation decision by the commission on community investment and infrastructure, modifying the on-site affordable housing requirement for 181 fremont street in the transbay redevelopment project area. mr. president, would you like me to read item 33 as well? >> sure thing. >> item 33 is a motion scheduling the board of supervisors to sit as a committee of the whole, acting in its capacity as the successor agency to the former redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco, on october 28, 2014, at 3:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing to conditionally consent to the provisions of a variation decision by the commission on community investment and infrastructure modifying the on-site affordable housing requirement for 181 fremont, consisting of two parcels located on the east side of fremont street, between mission and howard streets, in the transbay redevelopment project area. ~ 118 fremont street. >> colleagues, let's first take item 33 so we can sit as a
committee of the whole. we have a motion in front of us. is there a motion whether we ought to sit as a committee of the whole to consider this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> on that motion, madam clerk will you call the roll? he supervisor cohen on item 33, cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? >> aye. >> kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the motion is approved. [gavel] >> and with regard to the hearing itself, item 24, let's open up this hearing. let me first ask supervisor kim if you have any opening comments. >> thank you, president chiu. colleagues, before us today is a modification to the transbay redevelopment area plan that would permit the outcomes of the negotiation that that's been undertaken between ocii
and the developer at 181 fremont. so, to give a little bit of context to the decision before us today, when the transbay redevelopment area plan was initially passed, we require on-site development of any below market rate units, affordable housing units within the envelope of the building itself, and that included 181 fremont as well. 181 fremont is a slightly different development in the sense it is a mix of office and residential with all of the office space on the bottom half of the building and all of the residential on the top half of the building. because of that even though the building is quite tall, only 11 units of below market rate housing was requirement -- was required in this agreement due as the exact percentage of all the market rate developments -- sorry, market rate units that are being built on this development. the developer did request the
city if he could off-site these units to another site within the transbay area plan. after lengthy negotiations, what has come before us is a modification that would allow the developer to off-site, but instead of paying the fee that the developer would have normally paid in the mayor's office of housing requirements which would have been $5.5 million, the developer has now agreed to pay $13.85 million instead. as a policy member -- as a policy preference, i always prefer inclusionary units to be built on-site and, in fact, any time a developer comes that is building rental housing here in san francisco, our office makes it clear that we would like the affordable housing units to be built on-site. however, in this specific case where we are building for homeownership, we find many of our luxury housing or multi-unit apartment buildings throughout the south of market that while our residents can afford to pay the mortgage,
because the price of the housing is based on income, they often cannot pay the hoa fees that are associated with that, hoa fees can be a couple hundred dollar a month and they can go all the way up to actually $4,000 it a month. in this case the developer is expecting the hoa fees to be at least $2,000. because of that we were open to negotiations. and after the outcome of it where the developer agreed to pay $13.85 million, we were able to renegotiate on the ana for another development two blocks away on the corner of fremont and folsom being built by related and tenderloin development corporation. to allow them to build 69 additional units of affordable housing instead of the 11 that was initially committed to in the 181 fremont deal ~. now, as you all know, the transbay area plan has a goal, a fixed goal of 35% affordable
housing. this is the highest in the city and it's designed to ensure that we have a mixed income diverse neighborhood. we already have built one 100% affordable housing project in this area. the [speaker not understood] apartment, a supportive housing project for residents that were formerly homeless and we also have another project underway being constructed by both mercy housing and [speaker not understood] development which will be mixed use. within the project area will be affordable housing for people making between zero and $55,000 a year for a family of four. in the area we also have plans for affordable ownership housing up to 100% ami or $81,000 a year for individuals for an individual or $97,000 a year for a family of four. now, i want to reemphasize that under our current fee structure under the mayor's office of housing, the developer would have only paid $5.5 million and, yes, while 11 units with
million dollar views would have been awesome, weighing that with building 69 additional units of housing where we wouldn't have to worry about whether residents could afford to pay an hoa fee felt that was the right direction to go for this area plan. now, i also want to explain the hoa policy. our office explored whether we could look at tiered hoa fees based on north korea. so, if you're in a below market rate unit you would pay a lower rate of homeownership association fees versus those that are paying market rate. what we discovered, though, in that investigation is that via state law we are prohibited from making any local ordinances that would require a subsidized or lower hoa fee. what is also exciting about this negotiation at the end of the day is that our office has been working with the mayor's office of housing and the mayor's office to explore tiered in-lieu fees. this negotiation absolutely sets a precedent for that type of policy.
we know that a waterfront condo should not be paying the same off-site fee that perhaps an 18-unit residential building in the excelsior should pay. this sets a policy preference for understanding that we should look at the value of the condos that we are building and when we do off-site fees versus just letting everyone pay the same fee in and of itself. so, again, i want to emphasize that this negotiation will allow us to build 69 more affordable housing units, a net increase of 50 new affordable housing agreements and that we have also executed an exclusive negotiation agreement with related ntndc to ensure that these units will be built on block a, and this building will again be designed by oma and the ferguson architects. i want to express my support for the agreement that is before us today and, colleagues, i hope that you will join me in my support. we also have kevin guy from the
planning department as well as courtney pash from ocii. ~ if board members have any additional questions. >> thank you, supervisor kim. why don't we now go to presentationses from our city staff. >> good afternoon, board members. i'm courtney pash, the office of community investment and infrastructure active project manager for the transbay bay area project. supervisor kim pretty much covered everything that i would say about this project. ocii is supportive of it. on october 10th our commission voted unanimously to approve a variation from the redevelopment plan to allow the developer to pay the $13.85 million fee in exchange for converting 11 of the on-site affordable housing units to market rate. on october 16th the planning commission unanimously approved an amendment to the 309
approval and conditionally approved the development agreement with the project sponsor. i also want to point out that in the development agreement the project sponsor has agreed to support the community facilities district and to vote in favor of it and even to pay a tax in lieu of the fee if the fee is not formed at the time of tco and this project sponsor has, in fact, been supportive of the csd from the very beginning. so, in the interest of time i'll conclude. i am available for questions as well as kevin guy and tiffany boeing aloe, the executive director of ocii. ~ >> colleagues, any questions to city staff? ~ bogey okay, seeing none, unless there are any other presentations from city staff, why don't we open it up to public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on this item? you know, dell see more. i've been kind of following this project and i'm not
necessarily a big fan of putting the -- relocating those units in this neighborhood because the problem is if you have a very low-income or no income folks, they can't afford to shop in the neighborhood. so, i'm still in favor of relocating it to a neighborhood other than that. and that's a great idea, if we can tier down the homeowner fees that's a really good idea. and i know the state regulates that and maybe one of our members on the way to sacramento real soon could help out on changing that legislation in sacramento. because that would be a great idea if we can still stay by that policy and tier those homeowner fees. thank you. >> next speaker. hello, my name is edmond jucee larry edmonds. i noticed you suddenly went from 11 apartments to 69. i think it's always good to increase more affordable living in san francisco. but also i know i live in a
[speaker not understood] and i want to make sure any building they build there's safety, we have a lot of building and abuse going on there. so, just like to [speaker not understood]. she he hit my head with a cup. we want to make sure houses are affordable but safe. things like in some of these building tndc house, people are overlooked constantly. they have us covered up now to four months where we cannot even breathe in these buildings. so, it's very important that i know tndc have a lot to do with the -- what's the lady's name over here? the black housing. it's very important that housing is safe and tndc, i know they are good in providing different forums to housing the sios and stuff, but safety is something that our city must make sure your house is just like you need to protect the people who write the tickets. san francisco is not taking
safety from people who making zero to 81,000 lower income where they're living inside or outside. so, i hope that's also, since they will have a view, you do want to be safe wherever you live. if you're not safe in your house wherever you live in san francisco, those things need to be dealt with a healthy solution. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in public comment on this item? public comment is now -- please step up. ~ on this item. i think as a citizen, everyone, [speaker not understood], should show loyalty to our president to the united states of america, to show [speaker not understood] loyalty to the national [speaker not understood] american government without any exception. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment on this item is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor kim.
>> i just wanted to clarify again the point that was made by a memorandum beryl of our public, it is actually required by state law that these affordable units be built within the transbay area plan and they cannot be off-sited to a different neighborhood like the tenderloin or something that we explored initially, but we can't do it via state law. ~ member of the public again, we have 120 units for the formerly homeless in the transbay area plan already. it's all built, the individuals have already moved in. and it's great to be able to build a mixed income neighborhood, but i do understand the concerns about individuals being able to shop in the neighborhood that we're in. we do have a specified agreement with tndc and related. i know that there are concerns that these affordable housing units would not be built and that it was a commitment by the developer that this money would be spent or go towards the city's jenna fordable housing trust fund and that was reported in the news. but that is simply not true.
these dollars have been allocated specifically for a project two blocks away and that project has -- that project agreement has already been execute and had that project will be built. thank you. >> thank you. colleagues, on these items, 25 and 26, can we take a roll call vote? >> items 25 and 26, supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. there are 11 ayes. >> these ordinances are passed on the first reading and resolutions adopted. [gavel] >> and with that, madam clerk, why don't we go to roll call. >> first up to introduce new business, supervisor kim.
okay, supervisor mar. >> i just have something really quickly to give to my colleagues. i think the clerk is going to give them to -- my dad used to give us baseball [speaker not understood] on them. i have a ball that -- with my first base man's mitt. i know the game has started 10 minutes ago. my dad wrote on this one in 171 when i was the all star first base man for a little, little league team. and i still carry this around 40 years later ~, but let me give this to colleagues. [inaudible]. and the rest are going around. ~ 1971 it's not going to everyone because some of us have stuff to do outside of the board. there's the even numbered supervisors and the two, one of which will be in the assembly on december 1st. so, to my colleagues, i just wanted to say good luck. we butt heads on many issues, but i think today as the giants are playing, 6th game in the
world series, we're all a team. let's remember that. [speaker not understood] let's be a team as we move the city forward. also really quickly, halloween is coming up and i have a couple of quick announcements. in the richmond district we're riding to work on saturday morning halloween, meeting at the bell a rouge cafe. meet us if you can. bike to halloween day for many in the richmond district. also from 2:00 to 6:00 p.m. on friday halloween, clement street merchants association sponsoring trick or treating along the clement street corridor. join us if you dare. also scary, scary haunted house, it's a tradition, i think it's one of the scariest in the city, [speaker not understood] is pretty good-bye rec and park, but this one is at 22nd and california at the market. it's a basement, you have to slide down into it. it's pretty creepy. this year's theme is "the lab." so, there will be a lot of interrupting experiments down there in the lab.
it's free admission. it goes from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. also harte baker one of our great bakeries on 15th and clement avenue is hosting a haunted house from 6 to 9:00 p.m., their first year. a brand-new business, please support the haunted house there 6 to 9. lastly 7:00 p.m. balboa theatre on 37th, 38th and balboa is showing -- they've been showing scary movies, but this one is a real scary one. it's trina lopez's documentary of second final rest, the history of san francisco's lost cemeteries, pretty much in my district. it's a history but also scary. it's also short films and other surprises. there is a charge to that, but you can get information from the western neighborhood's project at outside lands.org. the rest i'll submit. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor tang. >> thank you. first of all, thank you, supervisor mar. i have to say i'm pretty touched by your gift. thank you so much. that was very sweet of you. first of all, i wanted to
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on