Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  September 8, 2018 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT

4:00 pm
safety mechanisms. we also want to work with these companies to undertake efforts to prevent firearms from being stolen from distributes, dealers or being conveyed to individuals not legally permitted to own firearms and we're asking these companies to establish a gun repurchase or trade in program that would reduce the number of its products sold secondhand on the internet and through private sales and to also ask what safety products, if any, do these companies include with the guns sold in this country. colleagues, i would love to--we will be distributing this letter to all of the offices this week, and we would love to have you sign onto this national campaign so that san francisco can also participate in holding our gun manufacturers accountable when congress has not. thank you very much, and the rest i'd submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor kim. madam president, see no other
4:01 pm
names on the roster, that concludes the introduction of new business. >> president cohen: thank you very much, madam clerk. so let's go back to items 16 through 19. madam clerk, could you call items 16 through 19? >> clerk: item 16 through 19 comprise the special order for a public hearing of persons interested in the certification of a final environmental impact report for the proposed central soma plan issued by the planning commission on may 10, 2018. item 17, 18, and 19 are the motions associated with that public hearing. >> president cohen: okay. thank you very much. so colleagues, we have before us today four peaappeals on th environmental impact report for the proposed central soma project which is home, housed in district six. before considering these appeals, i'd like to give district six supervisor, supervisor jane kim, an opportunity to say a few words. >> supervisor kim: thank you, president cohen. i will be asking colleagues
4:02 pm
today -- i will be making a motion to continue these items to the following week of september 11. we did have a request specifically from one of the appellants to as today is the day after labor day, and folks wanted additional time. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. so should we take public comment on these items? i'll take a second on the motion to continue. supervisor yee has made a second on that motion to continue. thank you. so we still need to take public comment at this time as to whether or not we can continue. so if there's any member of the public that would like to come up and speak on items 16 through 19, come on up to the podium. just as a reminder, you'll have two minutes of speak time. you'll hear a soft chime indicating 30 seconds remaining on the balance of your time. welcome, sir, the floor is yours. >> david chiu with the south of market community action network.
4:03 pm
just wanted to say we're in support of the continuance. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. are there any other speakers? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i have a motion to continue these -- may i have a motion to continue the appeal? made by supervisor kim. and seconded by supervisor tang. thank you. and the board of supervisors will hear this meeting on september 11, 2018. is that correct, supervisor kim? you in agreement with that? okay. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: madam clerk, let's go to the next special order. >> clerk: items 20 through 23, comprise the 3:00 p.m. special order of hearing of persons interested in a final mitigated hearing declaration under the california environmental
4:04 pm
qualification act. >> president cohen: colleagues, we've got today an appeal for the proposed declaration. our consideration of appeals involved our analysis of the adequacy, the accuracy, and the sufficiency and completeness of the mitigated negative declaration. so without objection, we will proceed as follows. first, we will have up to ten minutes for the appellant to come and to describe the grounds of their appeal. that will be followed by a two-minute -- two minutes for public comment to speakers that are in support of the appeal. up to ten minutes for representatives of the planning department to present their analysis for the mitigated neg declaration, and up to ten minutes for the project sponsor. up to two minutes for public commenters to speak in support of the affirmation of the mitigated negative declaration, and then, of course, finally, the appellant will have up to
4:05 pm
three minutes for a rebuttal argument. colleagues, if we can move forward without objection. thank you very much. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: all right. this hearing is now open. i'd like to acknowledge supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam president, and i just want to start by congratulating the national park service and the port of san francisco and the city of sausalito for their work to deal with the city of sausalito's concerns. the appeal, i think for some technical reasons, because sausalito wants to reserve their rights pending this board's tula professional of the alcatraz contract as passed by the port commission which will happen hopefully later this month. and also, today i introduced but did not speak to during roll call for introductions that i have introduced a separate piece of labor harmony legislation that will help
4:06 pm
unintended smooth the stormy seas in this matter. but -- so the appeal is still before us, and i think we'll briefly hear from the appellant, but as the chair of the county transportation authority, i can say that we are all committed here in san francisco to working with our sist sisters and brothers over transportation in the county of marin and sausalito, and i'm very happy that the alcatraz contract is moving forward, and i want to congratulate the director of the park and remembers. >> president cohen: all right. seeing no other names of my colleagues on the roster, i'll ask the appellant to come forward and make their presentation. welcome. >> my name is mary wagner, i'm the city attorney for the city of sausalito.
4:07 pm
i think supervisor peskin summarized our position very well, so i'll be remarkably brief. i'll ju we are in a bit of a procedural catch 22 where we can't unconditionally withdraw our appeal because the project agreements aren't final until approved by the board, and the board can't take action on the project agreements until the appeal has been dealt with. that being said, sausalito's mayor is really looking forward to coming to the hearing next week so that she can express the city's appreciation both to the park service, the port commission, and to this board, and the hard work that's been done to get us to this resolution. and with that, i will answer any questions that the board may have, but our concerns have been addressed. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. all right. seeing that there aren't --
4:08 pm
seeing that there are no other names on the roster for questions from colleagues, i think we need to open up the public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to come and speak on this item? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. thank you -- i'd like to pivot to the planning department now for their presentation. again, ten minutes. >> good afternoon, president cohen and board members. i'm julie moore, principle environmental planner on the project. the item before you is an appeal of the final mitigated negative declaration which i'll refer to as the ceqa document, prepared for the proposed troz ferry ambarkation project. as you've heard, given sausalito's position, i'm not going to go into great deal in my response. all of the information is
4:09 pm
summarized in your pact. in summary, sausalito's concern regarding transportation and public safety, there just simply are no significant environmental effects of the project, and we believe that the ceqa project description and end project analysis are adequate, and that the appellant fails to provide any substantial evidence that would indicate the proposed project would have a significant impact on the physical environment necessitating the preparation of an e.i.r. reared, the ceqa document provides significant evidence that there would be no substantial environment impacts of the required measures. therefore, preparation of an e.i.r. is not required. for these reasons we recommend that the board uphold the final mitigated declaration, and that concludes my presentation. we'll be available for questions if you have any.
4:10 pm
>> president cohen: thank you very much. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i would like to move the item for approval and table items 22 and 23. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. thank you very much. that was quick and easy. all right. we'll take that motion, and it was seconded by supervisor ronen. colleagues, is there any other discussion? seeing none, without objection, passes. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: i should also congratulate the port of frisk and miss forbes for their work. congratulations, miss forbes. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. madam clerk, next item? >> clerk: items 24 through 27 kpriez the third special order today for a public hearing of persons interested in the certification of a conditional use authorization for a proposed project at 143 corbett avenue to legalize interior alterations and horton tall
4:11 pm
additions at the rear building walls, bay window, and decks and the addition of a unit within an existing single-family dwelling. >> president cohen: all right, colleagues, we have the project at 143 corbett avenue which is in district eight. before considering this appeal, i'd like to give our supervisor rafael mandelman the opportunity to supervise some comments. >> i and my office have been in contact with the parties. i am hopeful that if we can get these parties into a room together. we may be able, together, we may -- together, we may be able to work out something, so i would ask to continue this until september 22. >> president cohen: okay.
4:12 pm
before we vote on this, i'll open this up for public comment. is there any public comment? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: all right. moving that to the meeting of october 2, 2018. madam clerk, i've lost track of the agenda. >> clerk: public comment. >> president cohen: all right. ladies and gentlemen, it's that favorite time of our agenda where we all come together and listen. is there anyone that would like to come and address this board during general public comment, please step in line. please step to the right of the chamber, to my left. just as a reminder, you'll have two minutes for public comment. you'll hear a soft chime indicating 30 seconds on the balance of your time. mr. jones, welcome, the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, board members. it is my understanding that there's a september 19 hearing -- a committee hearing to address the issue of black
4:13 pm
city workers and how they're being mistreated. this would not need to happen if the san francisco human rights commission was doing its job. i'm sure we all know that the human rights commission was formed in 1964 expressly to help fight discrimination against blacks at the time, and almost 50 years later, it was being head -- directed by teresa sparks, a white transgender. she was sued by thomas willis, a subordinate, and the city settled for $250,000. why did he sue? it was because she discriminated against him
4:14 pm
simply because he was a black heterosexual male, and i'm saying it is outrageous that we have a human rights commission that has -- instead of helping the black community has been indifferent to their issues. i think that it is reprhensible that this teresa sparks was not only not reprimanded for her conduct, but she was promoted three years later before she ultimately retired. this is outrageous treatment of the black community. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is rachel heiden.
4:15 pm
i'm the executive director of san francisco transit riders. i'm here to invite all of you to participate in san francisco third annual transit riders week. this week is about celebrating transit and all of those who ride it and drive it. it's the one week of the year that our organization works together to bring riders and driver's together and thank them for doing the right thing: for keeping or air clean and keeping our community safer. i'm here today to invite all of you to participate in our transit week challenge, which is to pledge to ride transit at least once every day during transit week. i also would like to invite you to participate september 24 and ride along with your constituents, so we'll meet at a location in your district, and we'll meet at the steps of city hall. i want to go ahead and thank --
4:16 pm
supervisor brown has already pledged, supervisor mandelman, and supervisor peskin, i've been working with your staff to reserve the steps of city hall. if you are going to participate with us this year, i ask that you either sign or scan and return it back to you to me by september 7, and thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. peter dreckmeyer. just want to start off with a quick pop quiz. where does your water come from? hetch hetchy. we did a survey back in the spring, and we found that 75% of san francisco voters could identify hetch hetchy as the source of their water, which only 10% could identify the true source, and that's the tuolomne river. our survey showed a really strong commitment to the
4:17 pm
environment in san francisco. 93% of san franciscans conserved water during the recent drought. of those 93%, 71% saying it plaied a major role. 97% support for san francisco bay, and 97% for protection and restoration of tuolomne river even though people didn't know it was the source of their river. it's a really special water. it drains the northern half of yosemite national park. there's a world class white water run just downstream of yosemite. the upper 83 miles of the tuolomne of wild and scenic as of 1984, and back then, the sfpuc did not support wild and scenic status, but the board of supervisors did, so thank you to your predecessors for that. the tuolomne provides water for 200,000 acres of prime farm
4:18 pm
lance in stanislaus county. it's a very hard working river. only 20% reaches its confluence with the san joaquin. we are working on the bay delta water quality plan. would love your engagement. the board of supervisors in the past has done a lot to support the cause. there is a resolution in 2008 to support moving forward the water system improvement program without diverting more water from the tuolomne, and i'm out of time. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is will henshaw, born and raised in san francisco. i'm a renter, and i want to speak on one as expect of prop 10, vacancy control. i think it's going to be very costly to the city and bad for the tenants in the long run. the city will have to create a new division of the rent board to manage landlord vacancy
4:19 pm
reporting and control, costly and time-consuming, value of apartment buildings, rent controlled buildings, especially, and residential income property is determined by current income and future income, putting have a can'tcy control in place would immediately -- vacancy control in place would immediately reduce the possibility of increasing rents over time, and as rent controlled tenants leave units. reducing property value nz this way would seriously reduce the city's annual tax revenues from the sails of apartments and other residential properties such as single-family homes that don't currently fall under rent control but may under prop 10. i'd ask you to consider berkeley before costa hawkins for rent in place. many landlords ended up charging a number on paper while the vast majority would
4:20 pm
give preferential selection to tenants who gave them cash under the table. this would put financially renters at a greater disadvantage than they already are, and this under the table cash is money that could be taxed by the city in the form of market rents. berkeley's rebtales was in shambled because there's no incentive for landlords to upgrade the units, so you'd be left with a housing supply that is limited as well as decaying. thank you for your time, everyone. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> all right. by now, you know good and well how i am speaking up for other people that's most vulnerable and on the receiving end of discriminatory practices, and also the way i speak up for
4:21 pm
females. this time, i've got to speak up for females that happens to be the big boss. i'm representing her, speaking up for grounds that she's a target of the u.s. attorney general and the united states federal district. i'm talking about you, breed. you've already completed the first set of requirements and elements in order to sustain a rico act corrupt and organized enterprise against yourself and people who's agreeing for you with that safe injection site. you made a press conference and gave an announcement on what you want to do. then, you completed the next step by going to church showing the booth and the location where you're going to have addicts use illegal drugs, narcotic that's called heroin. you further completed that step by using the paraphernalia and the drugs that you are financing to supply for the addict. by doing this, i'm speaking up for you on the grounds that's
4:22 pm
illegal in violation of federal law. here's the front page of additional information, explaining how you're in violation of the law that took place in 1986, where you're running a drug house. this section here explains that you're eligible to be put in a feder feder federal pen for 20 years and you're eligible for $500,000 fine for each individual, and additional $200,000 fine for running a corrupt enterprise. that's called the rico act. i don't want to see you go out like that. as a result i move for you to consult with both city attorneys, gascon and herrera to get a stipulation to advise the document -- [inaudible] >> clerk: thank you, mr. wright. thank you for your comments.
4:23 pm
next speaker, please. >> my name is mayna young. i'm a long time san francisco resident and a homeowner. just wanted to let you know that the two numbers in san francisco for rental market has been going down. the $390,000 units and 400,000 currently in the ken suspect has been increased from 36,000 a couple years ago. the reason why is because the unreasonable rent regulation in san francisco. with the prop 10, i can trust that the liberal politicians here will make sure that more of the rental unitslike taken out of the market. the 1995 legislation help today restore -- helped to restore
4:24 pm
some unit nz rental. looking at berkeley before 1995, and you'll see a lot of the dilappidated properties. we don't want to go back to the way it was, and costa hawkins has been able to help us restore some housing supply. so please say no to prop 10. thanks. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is gloria. i want the supervisor to say no on proposition 10 because the publ publicly owner also need to protest. please say no to proposition 10. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.
4:25 pm
>> hi. good afternoon. my name's winnie, and i'm a small property owner, and i -- i understand, you know, like, both sides. before i rent my house out, i didn't feel that way because i wanted to -- i treat them right. i treat them very nicely, and now, the rent regulation is getting worse and worse, and my -- my daughter -- even i gave a place for them to live there for free. they said mom, i want to get my house back. they took it back in february because they don't want it to get touf regulations. and they said i worked so hard to get my house and try to help me out, you know, something. but i want to go out, you work again, and you help me baby-sit.
4:26 pm
i'm retired already, so i -- also, my son already planned it, this september, going to take his place back because of regulation, because also, the same thing, costa hawkins, and it might cause them more headache and more trouble and now, lots of lawsuits. they feel it's not fair, and now punished, we have a place to help ourselves, help the tenant, and we feel like we pay a tax, and right now, we feel that the regulations on the tenant's side, and we don't want to be punished as small property owners. we provide place for tenants, and not every owners are bad. and you know, i hope everyone -- you think about the owners' side, too. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.
4:27 pm
>> it's absolutely impossible that man should have written the bible. in the book of leviticus, there's a command by god almighty, that they were supposed to let the land rest every seven years. god promised a triple crop to take care of the seventh year, the eighth year, and the ninth year. it's impossible. now, 24there's 47 words that t profit enoch said. behold, the lord cometh with 10,000 of his saints to execute judgment upon all and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed. and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him out of the
4:28 pm
abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh, you talk about what you're interested in, and on judgment day, the basis of the judgment will be not only on the words and the motives, but the words that are spoken. i told the officer back there, mark my word, something big time is going to happen april 20. it has been 8,202 days from the end of the times of the gene l gentiles, and the start of the 40th jubilee. 9-11 was the sixth trumpet, and i expect late it's be 6,430-days from 9-11 to judgment day or something really, really big for the kingdom of god. now i think that i should be listened to because as far as i know i'm the only man that can look back at an event that i
4:29 pm
predicted that actually came to pass. i made this statement 30 -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. [please stand by]
4:30 pm
this is our property right. housing law. take our property rights away. we are working together so the housing prices not continue.
4:31 pm
so please vote no. thank you, so much. >> president cohen: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. h>> i am small property owner ad so many years, you know, we've been very good relations of all the tenants. since the regulations came out, the crisis on the housing, rental markets, everything. we are thinking of you guys treating us like a communism party. punished those hard-working people and benefit the lazy people. those people, they don't want to work. even if they work that amount, they say they need to pay tax if they don't have the money. they get the housing benefits from the government or the
4:32 pm
medical. everything. how can we work so hard and be still, you know, forced by those rental laws. those are the ridiculous renter regulations. please, save the rental market. no on proposition 10, please. >> president cohen: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is christine pelosi and i'm here on behalf of proposition 10, which gives us an opportunity to take a look at housing as a human right. you've just heard a few things about your constituents. they are lazy and they don't want to work and they are dem onizing homeowners. they're taking away the rights of property owners if they want to pay fair market value for their rentals. so either you think of housing as a human right or you don't. you want local control or you want sacramento to control what
4:33 pm
we do. either you stand with the men and women of organized labor here the day after labor day, who voted overwhelmingly to endorse proposition 10, with the california democratic party, that voted nearly unanimously in july to endorse this, and the many, many, many, renters and property owners who have said, we want local control. we want local decisions to be made. if this proposition passes, and i believe it will pass what's do we know will happen? we'll go to court because that's what happens in america. and we're going to talk about the fair return to the landlord and it's important and obviously it's a concern you should make improvements on your property and have compensation in the form of the rent you are allowed to charge. however, to say that in this day and age, when our increasing homeless population is pushed
4:34 pm
out due to hir to higher unaffoe rent we shouldn't take a san francisco solution to the problem is to take a tool out of our arsenal. i would recommend a yes vote on prop 10 and a very thoughtful conversation about what we can do here locally in san francisco to solve the housing crisis. i do believe, as i hope you do too, that housing is a human right. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> i second what that woman said. and i'm 100% behind mayor breed trying to find safe-injection sites somehow someway. the city needs it. let's bring our government back home. 10 years ago i started rolling
4:35 pm
into this building. the last year of the eastern neighborhood's plan. four or five young adults spoke about reducing the amount of alcohol-to-go stores in the area. they spoke very well. better than i will. they got their way. last session here, a month ago all 31st, supervisor peskin represented chinatown saying we don't want anymore dispensaries supervisor safai said the same thing. that's what he was supposed to do. president cohen decided to change her vote. i thought that was a nice day of doing business in this room. last week also, at public comment, a young woman spoke and said she was against hiring 200
4:36 pm
police officers. we need crisis intervention teams. i should have said i second her motion. the problem with crisis intervention teams is we don't know where to hire them. we have to create them. a diploma may not give that to you. we need natural talent that can talk down or diploma that can talk down people in emotional crisis, mental crisis, whatever. finally, the american legion, for the first time of my life i want to give a shout out, for the first time someone in the veterans in this country stuff a sock in president trump's mouth that made him back. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> thank you. good afternoon president cohen, ladies and gentlemen of the board. my name is win. prior to the inter session, i
4:37 pm
spoke to you about a supreme court case decided in 1990, washington versus harper. in that carrying as case, as ie majority opinion was set beyond harper did not have a due process right to refuse the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, because he was a prisoner. and for no other reason. now i'd like to read to you from justice stevenson's decent in that decision. let me remind you, the majority ruled the way it did because a prison is a violent institution and antipsychotic medication was viewed as essential to a controlling that violence. here is what justice stevenson says, forcing psycho tropics on harper also provoked counter productive behavior. e.t., i.d., book eighth,
4:38 pm
december 16th, 1982. harper's assault on a male nurse and damage to a television were quote in the context of his complaining about the medication side effects. over all, the issue of involuntary medications and side effects is a major issue in his management end quote. semi colon, october 7th, 1983, therapists report harper indicated he is going to destroy unit property until the medications are stopped. he has recently destroyed the inmates stereo as an example of this. what the justice is trying to say, antipsychotic medications causes violent behavior, it does not control it. his point has since been born out. to everyone's satisfaction in the mark author risk analysis that showed that in fact, though i think not to a scientific level of certainty. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> before the speaker begins, if there are members of the board
4:39 pm
whpublicwho would like to addree board, please, lineup. >> good afternoon. my name is ma. i live in san francisco. i am a poverty owner. i wanted to talk to everybody now. we are a small property owner. i work very hard. we need to pay the housing property tax -- a lot. right now the houses are needing fixed a lot and it takes a lot. we are working very, very hard. i want to say to the no
4:40 pm
proposition 10. please. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is wendy wong from san francisco coalition for good neighborhoods. thank you so much supervisor peskin to help the china town to get free marijuana and thank you to the supervisors support. in terms of the housing crisis, supervisor tang is trying to help the mayor to have the assets unit. i understand we have good intention to help housing crisis, especially to release the rental units. especially in inlaw. however, we need to face the root cause why we don't have enough applicants to get these applications. it's not the process. it's the law that is not
4:41 pm
protecting the landlords. when we are putting the two-room downstairs, it cost $170,000 for a decent unit. that is why we are putting the money into the lawsuit, potential lawsuit. yes, we don't have law to protect landlords who have reasonable rate of return and also they put the savings into their inlaw to supply additional housing. we have 30 to 40,000 units available but then we do not femalfeel comfortable renting it because we get lawsuit after lawsuit and we have $5,800,000 to help tenants only but the landlords, who are mom and pop store owners, do not have any legal advisors and they have supervisor kim, did mention something, $350,000. this is only one half of the lawsuit that is already throwing
4:42 pm
the whole resources. please, put no on proposition 10 because it will create more housing crisis and it stops supplies of the developers coming to san francisco. and san francisco will be old and filthy town. there's no developers. >> thank you for your comments. >> next speaker, please. >> if you stand at the other microphone. >> my name is lynn. i live at the san francisco. i oppose proposition 10. i am here in u.s. for more than 30 years. i have three children and they're working hard in the last
4:43 pm
30 years. i'm a mal small property owner. i have a rental unit. i work until 65 years and get retired now. i oppose to repeal hawkins. i also oppose the restricted rent control in san francisco. i oppose the city to use the public funds $5.8 million to
4:44 pm
support tenants only to sue landlords. i hope the city has fair laws. we need free legal advice to landlord as well to balance it out i oppose proposition 10 and try to save the costa hawkins. no proposition 10. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.
4:45 pm
>> good afternoon. i'm ken law. i'm a san francisco owner. last week was a holiday labor day holiday. i still have to work for the last three days. the reason i work for the last three days is because i want to help one of the single mothers with four years kid. they have no place to live because they have the family problem. i want to clean it and let them move in as soon as possible. not to mean i want a few more days of rent. because they have no place to live. that's why i want to help them. we would like to work for with the tenants and also we would like to the tenants to work with the owner and same as our supervisor. i want all of you to work with
4:46 pm
us, tenants and owners. thank you. and als. >> president cohen: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to address the board during general public comment? madam president. >> president cohen: seeing there are no members of the public that would like to address this body during general public comment, i'm going to close public comment at this time. madam clerk, could you call the adoption without committee reference calender. >> clerk: items 30-34 were introduced for adoption without reference to committee. unanimous vote is required for a resolution on first reading today. alternatively, any supervisor may require a resolution to go to committee. items 30 is on second appearance. so it is no longer unanimous, it will just need a vote of eight.
4:47 pm
>> president cohen: thank you, i believe supervisor peskin will speak to that. your name is on the roster. >> i'd like to severe item 30. >> president cohen: thank you. any other members would like to sever any other items? seeing none. call the roll on the remaining balance. >> items 31-34. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> ronen. >> aye. >> safai. >> aye. >> tang. >> aye. >> yee. >> aye. >> brown. >> aye. >> cohen. >> aye. >> exercis fewer. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> thank you, very much. with that objection these items pass unanimously. madam clerk, could you please go back to item 30.
4:48 pm
>> clerk: a resolution to support proposition 10, the affordable housing act on the november 6th, 2018 ballot and reaffirm the city's appeal of the rental housing act. >> president cohen: i'd like to recognize supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam president and colleagues and thank you for considering this matter, which i actually think is the most important measure, other than maybe proposition 6 that we just voted for, the gas-tax repeal that is before california voters this november. by way of background, prop 10, which was actually pu put on by popular signatures, hundreds of thousands of signatures throughout the state of california would repeal what i think was one of the more egregious pre 'emions of local prerogatives that was passed in 1995 and for over 20 years has deprived cities of the ability
4:49 pm
to even discuss potential tools to deal with local housing crisis. particularly in san francisco, where two-thirds of our residents are renters. i say that as a small, proud, landlord with rent-controlled properties in the city and county of san francisco. i know there is concern about vacancy decontrol but costa hawkins does many, many other things. it limits the period of time to which rent control can apply. cities that would like to extend rent control beyond a certain date cannot do so because of costa hawkins. it really limits local cities and counties from being able to implement a host of tools. i want to reiterate a vote for prop 10 is not necessarily a vote for expanding rent control
4:50 pm
or instituting vacancy control and while i happen to believe that rent control really builds stronger and more stable communities, by keeping tenants in place and as humane, repeeling costa hawkins does not mean that rent control will expand. it means that we can start to have conversations that we have not been able to have for 23 years. i commend it to you. i think it is remarkably important. i think we are responsible -- and we can come up with good fixes here in san francisco. you will hear from supervisor kim about one of the most pernicious aspects of costa hawkins and if that doesn't get
4:51 pm
you support prop 10, i don't know what will. i'll yield the floor to supervisor kim. >> supervisor tang is next on the roster. >> thank you, very much. i actually absolutely greece witagree withsupervisor pose kia conversation on this topic is important. that is i didn't suppose sorted the previous resolution before this pop decision even qualified for the ballot back then. that was before this board of supervisors. given that though, and now that proposition 10 has qualified, and knowing the district that i represent, it has been a very challenging conversation, especially as someone who has benefited from rent control as a tenant. i have cringed when i have even received rent increases of $50 a month. and i can't even imagine what people go through when they see their rent increase by thousands of dollars. however, in my role, i have to separate myself and personal experiences from my role as a supervisor. one of the things i come across
4:52 pm
regularly over the course of the years as a supervisor, is that when i ask people, you know, why are you not creating an inlaw unit in your home? why are you not doing this or that? the answer i always, always get is can you please change rent control. i say i cannot do that. but that is, unfortunately, one of the number one reasons why ththe deterrent for property owners, especially in my district. why they don't even put units out on the rental market in the first place. i think that we are missing out on opportunities for potential rentals because of some of the fears, whether founded or not, on rent control and how it would apply if you legalized inlaw units. also, i think that just speaking to what supervisor peskin said is that some of the details are not in place yet. i think that also causes a bit of concern for some of the residents that i do represent, which is they don't know if
4:53 pm
costa hawkins or rent control will apply to single-family homes moving forward or not. whether there might be a mass wave of evictions for small property owners and are concerned about the future. i won't be able to support it today. not again because i don't personally support rent control or that i don't believe that there should be a dialogue around this. i think there should be. but given the district that i come from and represent, i think i do need to take this position today on this particular resolution. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i have supported proposition 10, long supported proposition 10. i do believe we need to overturn the costa hawkins state legislation. that was only further consolidated for me. a few days ago, when my friend, 20 days after the passing of his
4:54 pm
spouse, received a letter from the lawyer representing his landlord, stating exactly this -- dear mr. -- let me offer my condolences on the loss of your wife. we know this must be a difficult time for you. we wish you well. due to her passing, the ownership has the right to establish a new rental amount for your unit under a state law known as the costa hawkins rental housing act. with regret, this letter provides you with the attached notice to establish terms of tenancy which establishes the rental amount to increase by 1,146.54 starting december 1st, 2018. we apologize for the formality of this notice, which is required by-law. we are confident the long period of time between the date of this notice and the date upon which the new rent takes effect will be helpful to you. please let us know if you need any repairs and maintenance.
4:55 pm
it's with regret under the circumstances of your wife's passing the owners serve you this notice. we trust you understand. i cannot express the rage that i and many of our friends felt a 20 days after the passing of his spouse that a landlord would send a letter such as this. in many ways, we have moved in a direction where a ruthless economy, which benefits the few, is taken over the common welfare of the greater community. i think there are a number of things we must do to protect landlords and i certainly understand that it is a two-way street. but i think the costa hawkins over reaches in terms how it is impacted so many of our constituents and friends. this is only one example of a letter that i saw a few days ago. i think that we have countless stories that display how
4:56 pm
difficult this state law and we have seen the ruthlessness of this law used to away from their communities from places of support and it's important that the state of california and this housing and affordable housing crisis take a strong stand to overturn costa hawkins this november so i hope that the board is able to support that we move forward. i think that many members of the board would be the first to stand up to say that we need to create balanced legislation at the local level that both protects tenants and landlords and costa hawkins is frankly hampered any of our abilities to create a law that would fairly protect tenants and landlords. i hope we can all support the resolution today. >> thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor safai. >> thank you. this is not an easy issue.
4:57 pm
we're dealing with a lot of different multitude of factors when trying to approach this issue. i heard a lot of the public comments but i also take the heart with the reading, it's a gut wrenching situation to be in and the situation that you just lost a spouse to receive a rent increase, it's almost like being kicked in the gut or spit in your face. that is just despicable. i am a supporter of rent control. we need to attend costa hawkins. it's something that has hampered our ability. at the same time, there's a lot of concern in my district. we have 70% of my district is owner occupied single-family homes. those individuals are mainly the only asset they have. a lot of elderly aging in place. they're house rich but cash poor. often times will make the decision to have informal relationships where they have in-laws or elderly individuals,
4:58 pm
a lot of them are women, will move to the downstairs and rent the upstairs and then even if they do, a home, for instance, this is an extreme example, but the lady across the street was 96-years-old when she passed away, there were three siblings, they did not want to sell the home and they chose to rent t it was the first time in 58 years it had been open to any other person in their family. but they chose to rent that. what worries me about this conversation when it pertains to single-family homes, a lot of family chose not to participate in the rental market. single-family home in my district rents for $3500 to $4,000 a month, still extremely high. but comparable to a one bedroom in other starts of the city. so it is an affordable for families and multitude of people. i worry that option would be taken off the table. i worry that people would not and do not formalize the in-laws in the district because of the
4:59 pm
worry of rent control being applied on a single family home. for all those reasons, i have not taken a position on proposition 10 and i think this resolution is premature and so i will not be voting in support of it today. >> supervisor peskin. >> i'm sorry -- peskin you already spoken. >> i just wanted to add my voice to this discussion and i appreciate the way that supervisor peskin framed the discussion in the beginning because while i am a big proponent of rent control and believe some form of vacancy control needs to happen if prop 10 passes, come costa hawkins gs above and beyond a vacancy
5:00 pm
control. i want to add a couple of examples that i've dealt with while i've been on the board as a supervisor, when the former supervisor compost tried to increase relocation payments for tenants that were evicted under the ellis act, one of the issues that came up in that case and a law was overturned in the courts, was that they didn't allow the board to set in a appropriate relocation assistance amount so that people could have a chance to continue living in san francisco after being evicted, often times when their apartment of decades. another example is another piece of legislation before us right now that would prevent landlords from grossly increasing rents sometimes 100,