CC MIN 06-08- to 12-21-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) r.r�f Bobbina A. Weber, 707 Leahy, Apartment 322, tenant, reported she obtained her apartment four years ago after spending some time on a waiting list; that she cannot afford to buy; and that she wishes to continue as a tenant. Phil Burns, 707 Leahy Street, Apartment 112, six-year tenant, observed that no new rental units are being constructed in spite of the need for them and urged Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Frank Calleros, 707 Leahy Street, Apartment 104A, tenant, said that he cannot afford to buy his apartment and would like to stay there. Karen Klinger, 707 Leahy, Apartment 107A, three and one-half year tenant, observed that if people wish to buy condominiums on Leahy Street, several are available now, and urged that the tenants of Leahy Square not be deprived of their rental units. Louise Butao, 707 Leahy, tenant, suggested that many tenants might not qualify for a home loan even at the prices offered to them for their units. Richard Bowles, Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, attorneys, 555 California Street, San Francisco, representing the appellants, commented concerning the monthly fees for maintenance, etc. which had been developed for the prospective homeowners association, and how the anticipated increase in property taxes would affect buyers. Discussion continued and Mr. O'Mahoney commented and replied to questions regarding homeowner fees, property taxes, the condition of the roof; the fact that all units would have new kitchen floors and some walls painted in connection with meeting City requirements to allow conversion; the fact that no cosmetic improvements for their own sake will be made in apartments of tenants who decide to buy; the fact that the building owners Imor will provide a two-bedroom apartment/office for a resident manager at no cost to the tenants; and the fact that the prices contained in his letter are for tenants only, but prices to outsiders will be higher. (Council recessed from 8:50 to 9:02 p.m.) Discussion continued and Mr. Bowles, Mr. O'Mahoney and City Attorney Schricker commented and replied to questions concerning the intentions of the owners if Council does not approve the conversion; the fact that the building would probably be sold; the fact that the new owners could charge the market rate for apartments; the fact that under the HUD loan program tenants may be charged for improvements to the building through amortization and that rent increments are permitted to allow for inflation and profit; the fact that the HUD loan expires in 1982; the fact that HUD approval is not required for the proposed conversion; the fact that tenants would be able to upgrade their units by purchasing carpeting, etc. at cost when the building is renovated and the cost can be included in their purchase price. Mr. Bowles summarized the position of the appellants; stated that the Planning Commission minutes indicate the owners have complied with the City's requirements for condominium conversion; and suggested that a good opportunity for home ownership is being offered to tenants. Mr. Majeski summarized also, stating that to allow the conversion would be to deprive the community of more than 100 needed rental units and that there is no justification to change the present housing balance in the City. Mayor Biagi invited anyone else who wished to speak to do so. No one wished to speak. "" M/S: Chandler/Britschgi to close the public hearing. Carried unanimously and public hearing closed at 9:25 p.m. �++ Reg.Mtg. 11/23/81 Page 3.