i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. then expected, and more bay area cities are saying goodbye to fireworks and hello to drones. we'll preview the new show in the skies this upcoming 4th of july. but first, should landlords have to accept renters with pets with no extra charge?

and is it discrimination if they don't? a new state bill explores the heart of that debate. you're watching. getting answers. i'm kristen sze. thanks for joining us. a state lawmaker from san francisco has introduced a first of its kind legislation to protect pet owners looking to rent homes. the bill is in its early stages, but here to talk about why he proposed, it is assembly member matt haney. assembly member haney, thanks for your time. >> thank you so much. it's good to be with you. >> all right. so how did this bill come about and why do you think it's necessary? >> well, odds are most of the people who are watching right now now own a pet. uh- the majority of californians have pets. uh- the large majority. over two thirds of california renters have pets. and if you talk to any of them, what they'll tell you is that the housing crisis is already really bad. but it's much worse for them uh- people who own pets need places to live. yet right now, despite the fact that over two thirds of renters have a pet, if you go onto zillow, if

you go onto craigslist and in san francisco, you'll see that just about 20% of units are available to people with pets that means the majority of renters don't have access to the majority of units. that just doesn't make any sense. uh- we need stronger protections that at least require there to be a reason to reject pets or a pet. if there's a health or safety reason, if there's allergies, of course. but what we're seeing right now is even in new buildings that have no reason at all to reject pets, they just have a blanket, no pet policy or exorbitant pet rents or deposits. this is putting a burden. it's also really exacerbating the housing crisis as we need to build more housing. but we also have to make sure the majority of renters actually have a place to go that doesn't require them to give up their pet. >> so what exactly would ab 2216 require or ban? >> so it bans or prohibits these blanket no pet policies. so if you have pets on on the applications, can you ask. so we

wouldn't allow uh- to ask about pets on the application because what's happening right now is people own pets aren't even being considered. they're often being put aside. but at the lease stage. or of course, when the actual agreement to move in happens, of course, you disclose pets and at that point, if there's a reason to reject a pet uh- either because of health or safety, allergies, size, that can be a no, not on first, not on first pass. >> right? >> not on first pass. >> okay. >> and how pet owners should not be banned completely from being even able to apply for an apartment. okay, um, you can put if you have a rationale up front why certain pets are not allowed, etc. and we're just talking about companion pets. so we're talking about cats, dogs. um, and you can have reasonable restrictions and you can require insurance. i know there's a lot of concern about damages. well, to actually get a damages, you should have, uh, require pet insurance, not just put greater fees and deposits and things that actually just make it hard

for people to be able to find a place. i want to explore that insurance part a little bit more, but i think there are two more provisions in this right, that you want to ban additional monthly fees, known as pet rent, like where you just, you know, added $100 a month or something like that. >> uh, and you want to limit pet deposits. i was wondering what limit means. does that mean no pet deposits or keeping it to under a certain amount? so it should be included in the security deposit? >> uh, that already exists. and so that is still allowed in the security deposit can cover damages from pets, or you can require pet insurance that's fit to the individual animal. uh, and we don't want to see what happens now is often just that two separate rents, one for people who have pets and one who don't. regardless of any particular damages or risk or insurance that may. exist, the pet owner is just charged more than anyone else. we don't do that for other things. we don't do that for when you have, uh, a child or anything else. so more and more burdens and barriers are being put on these folks who actually represent the majority of californians who have pets

and, uh, right now it's exacerbating the housing crisis. that's already worse enough. >> i understand the humane society supports this, of course, but landlords, many do not. the berkeley property owners association opposes it, and i did talk to a few land lords, and they point out having a pet in the unit can lead to actual additional burdens and costs for them. right um, let's say the cat pees in the floor. you can't just sand it down. it gets in there. you have to replace the floor. that's an actual cost. so you compared it to having children. but children, you know, having a children, a child in that apartment may not lead to additional damage. that could, um, you know, lead to a bigger burden for the landlord. but they sometimes argue that having a pet, whether it's the toenail scratching the windows or doors or whether it's the floor that i mentioned, actually often does lead to more damage. that's not wear and tear. what do you say to that? >> well, not not every pet is going to lead to additional damage either. that's not true

for every pet. uh, and for damage as it relates to pet that pet sitters beyond the normal wear and tear, humans can can cause a lot of damage too. i'd say most damage in units may be caused by by humans. uh, having insurance is the best way to be able to protect against damage, particularly in the in the sense of the more significant damage that you described there. insurance is a better way to make sure that it's covered for, uh, you know, right now what's happening is these blanket no pet policies are making it a lot harder for most californians to be able to find a place to rent, and they have to leave further, live further and further away from where they work. they have to, in some cases, abandon their pets. one of the reasons why the humane society is sponsoring this is because most the number one reason why pets are abandoned and they're on the streets or in shelters is because they can't find housing, that they can bring their pet in . so we've got to address this issue. i will say to the landlords, uh, we're just starting this process. i know we'll be in dialog with them,

and i hope that they can come up with us with solutions on this as well. i think some aspects of this bill may change based on input from folks, but we have a real problem here, which is that the majority of california indians who own pets, who rent, uh, can't find a place because they're excluded, because they have a pet. and i think that's just not reasonable. and it's something that really does need a policy solution. >> yeah. i mean, i heard what you said about insurance. that is one avenue to address that for the landlord. but it does put the onus then on them to deal with the insurance companies and for anyone who's ever tried to deal with insurance companies, you may not get everything you think you deserve. and so you're right. i mean, there's definitely discussions to be had. i know this is in the early stages, but i do wonder in terms of the goal of getting more housing units available to more people do is there a concern that perhaps, uh, for optional landlords, that is, you can rent or you don't have to rent out your unit if they. have no way of saying, well, i don't want pets, they

might just take it off. the market is that a worry where you might accidentally, unintentionally, i guess, reduce the inventory very well. so what we're having right now is a huge need to build more housing. >> and some of this new housing is coming online, restricting access to pets entirely. so if people who represent the large majority of california renters who are pet owners can't find a place, uh, that we're just making our our housing crisis a lot worse. uh, for landlords, if they have a reason whether their unit is too small or they want reasonable accommodations, uh, their health or safety reasons, there's something unique about their property that they cannot, uh, allow to be impacted by pets . that would all still be reasons where they could reject pets. they just can't have it. have a no no pet blanket policy with no reason at all. so, uh, for the landlords who, who may have a reason that really is concerning. that would be the make or break difference for them to put a unit on the market or not. uh, that's probably one that would still be allowed to deny pets or certain types of

pets. but what we're seeing right now is just these blanket restrictions and pet owners with these exorbitant fees and rents that really are exacerbating our housing crisis. and i think this bill would do a lot to support that. uh, both humans who need places to rent and affordable places to rent, and they're not going to give up their the pet that they love. uh, but also we have also a crisis of animals being abandoned, animals, our shelters. >> and i'm so sorry. i'm going to have to put a pause on this because we got the president. uh oh. yeah. okay. yes. but fascinating topic, and i'm glad we're talking the dog owner as well, a dog and cat owner, i believe more than one. yeah all right. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. all right. >> president joe biden, dog owner, just landed in san francisco, where he is scheduled to participate in three campaign events over the next day. he's got two here in san francisco. this is a live look at san francisco international airport. you can see in the red suit there, san francisco mayor london breed is there to greet

him. uh, air force one has touched down there at sfo. you can see the secret service. uh, also there, of course, as is custom, we believe that's nancy pelosi. yep. i can only see just a little profile, but that is certainly congresswoman nancy pelosi, former house speaker of san francisco. also there to welcome president biden. he is about to deplane there from air force one. and he does have two events here tonight in san francisco, both fundraising related. and we believe he has one tomorrow in los altos, the bay area, of course, a big supporter of his in terms of just the percentage of the population who lean democratic and are very much enthusiastic about his campaign in his reelection campaign, but also, more importantly, this is an area that has a lot of money to donate. uh, silicon valley donors tend to fund a lot of the elections and campaigns these days. and to be able to connect with some of the donors here, uh, will be very important to him, even though he's starting with a very sizable war chest.

we understand about $130 million already in his campaign. war chest far surpassing what the republican front runner, president, former president trump has right now. so he is in a good position but hoping to add to that total, add to that piggy bank, if you will, for his upcoming campaign and he will be getting off the plane shortly. although the door is not open yet, so i'm going to seek some guidance here about whether we stay with this or take a little break and hopefully catch them as we come back from commercial. what do we want to do? all right, we'll take a short

that's the san francisco chronicle endorsing democrat katie porter for senate over all other options. porter is "easily the most impressive candidate." "known for her grilling of corporate executives." with "deep policy knowledge." katie porter's housing plan has "bipartisan-friendly ideas to bring homebuilding costs down." and the chronicle praises "her ideas to end soft corruption in politics." let's shake up the senate. with democrat katie porter.

i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

will take him over to san francisco, where he's got a couple of appearances tonight. they are fundraisers. you can see the scene there at sfo and this was him from a couple minutes ago as he stepped off air force one, he was greeted by congresswoman nancy pelosi, congressman kevin mullin of san mateo, and of course, also san francisco mayor london breed. all there to welcome the president for the short stay in the bay area. and again, there is marine one. they are going to be taking the president to san francisco for a couple of fundraisers. we'll have more coverage on abc seven news at four, five and six today on the president's visit to the bay area. all right. now we're going to shift to our second conversation topic here. the financial windfall from new express lanes on highway 101 in san mateo county has regional planners thinking about expanding such lanes in the near future. the 101 san mateo express lanes stretched 22 miles from the santa clara county line to the 380 interchange and one lane in each direction between 5

a.m. and 8 p.m. if you want to drive in those lanes, you've got to pay. the amount varies depending on traffic. the stated goal is to reduce congestion and slowdowns, and one year into their full operations. whether the lanes are a success depends on your perspective, but one thing is for sure there are hauling in way more revenue than expected. so will they add more lanes? joining us live now to talk about it is shawn sharp here. if i don't say that right, please correct me. how do you say that? >> did i say charpentier? i did get it right. >> all right. excellent. you are with the san mateo county express lanes joint powers authority and mike swire, a member of the transportation authorities. cities advisory committee. mike and shawn, thank you for your time. >> thank you. chris and we don't have very much time because president biden just arrived in that three minutes. >> but shawn, i'll start with you. why were these express lanes built? we understand, you know, it was in part to reduce congestion and slowdowns. and i don't know if money was a big part of that. but tell us how you think it's achieved. its goal. >> the goal of the express lanes

is to encourage transit and hov uses, and that is our vision to have them be filled with hov carpools, transit and shuttles. and it's been very successful for that. we had what was once the first equity program for express lanes in the bay area. that was one of the first things our board did. and since we have begun operations, we've been seeing a significant time savings by the use of the express lanes, which is one of the incentives to encourage carpools and transit time savings of up to 30. and as such, the public is responding favorably, and we're seeing about 55,000 tolled trips in the express lanes each day. in addition, very importantly, we're expanding on our vision of adding transit in this corridor. and samtrans just added its second bus route that uses the express lanes. the ep route, which connects the equity priority communities in east palo alto, menlo park and north fair oaks to job centers and employment centers in san bruno,

as well as san francisco. among the users of the express lanes. of the 55,000 trips that i mentioned, 40% of those are in the shared vehicle, which is either an hov or a bus, and that is why we believe that they're being very successful to date. and we look forward to continuing to work on making our community benefits program better and serving more low income. um, uh, san mateo county residents with that program. >> all right. because i have to truncate this conversation. uh, first, i just want to show people some of the possible options as you look to expand this idea. before i bring mike in here, if we can pull up the graphic because i understand, correct me if i'm wrong. the county is exploring these three options, right? one in widen 101 to add an express lane all the way to san francisco to convert an existing lane to add an express lane. and three leave things as is mike, what are your thoughts on these options? so uh, the big question is, is whether or not to widen or

convert a lane in order to, um, move to the express lanes. >> and we don't have any data for the future project yet. so it's too early to prejudge. but we do know that previous experience and academic research has suggested that widening highways is a waste of money. it doesn't work. it increases greenhouse gas emissions. it increases air pollution, and it increases competition for, um, public transit, such as caltrain, which is right immediately adjacent to the 101. and we know the caltrain has the worst post-pandemic ridership, recovery and revenue of any transit agency in the bay area. and the question that we need to answer before we move forward with any additional widenings is, did the widening of 101 and the encouraging of more people to drive on 101 immediately adjacent to caltrain potentially result in caltrain having the drop in ridership and revenue that we have seen, and the project that recently happened also has been a failure from all standpoints in terms of congestion management. um, the highway has, uh, backed up to

current levels, i'm sure. um commuters like kristin would know this, and we're seeing just as many delays after spending several hundred million dollars to widen the highway. so we've got so many potholes to fill, so much, uh, so many people who can't afford to pay for transit, so many safety improvements that we need. why don't we spend the money on that instead of spending money on widening the highway? >> john, are you concerned about if the highway were widened or it would discourage people, i guess, from using caltrain, which is something i guess you know, you guys want to see more usage of right. >> uh, in terms of the existing express lanes, part of the goal there is to add additional transit, and that is what we are accomplishing with the new ep line. uh, some of the other transit concerns and challenges that are being faced throughout the bay area have more to do with unusual vacancy levels in central business districts, rather than, uh, what is happening on our express lane? >> all right. >> just due to our time. and i really apologize for this. um when will a decision be made?

and will the public get a chance to weigh in? >> uh, yes. so we are in the middle of our analysis phase, preparing a draft environmental impact report that will look at the options as well as an hov option. and we would hope to have that public draft environmental document for review later this year in the fall. and at that point, we look forward to having a robust discussion on the tradeoffs among the options so we can move forward with the one that best serves the needs of our san mateo county residents. all right. >> i'm so sorry that we couldn't have a full conversation, but just make a few points for our viewers to think about. but sean charpentier and mike swire, thank you both so much for coming on. >> thank you for having next is the boom fading a look at the rise in drone shows and whether they are a solid replacement for fireworks. >> we'll are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for adults with hr positive,

her2 negative metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole. ibrance may cause low white blood cell counts that may lead to serious infections. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs. both of these can lead to death. tell your doctor if you have new or worsening chest pain, cough, or trouble breathing. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are or plan to become pregnant, or are breastfeeding. for more information about side effects talk to your doctor. thanks, mom. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. a pfizer product.

become a thing of the past. yesterday today, the napa city

council approved replacing this year's traditional pyrotechnic show with a drone show instead. drones are quickly growing in popularity and can pull off equally spectacular displays without the noise. or fire risk. cities like vallejo and incline village in lake tahoe have also opted for drone shows. so joining us live now is rick boss. he's the president of sky elements drone shows. rick, thanks for coming on the show for having me on, i appreciate it. i think you guys are talking to napa about doing their show for this 4th of july. is that absolute okay? >> yeah. you listed off all of our clients. they're just uh- second ago. so napa will definitely be one of our clients that will be flying the drone show for the 4th of july. >> okay, i know each show is different, but i do want to just give people a sense for how it might look like. so you shared with us video of las vegas, i think during super bowl week, actually. and also new year's eve celebration in seattle. so take a look at this and explain what we're seeing and what goes into the making of this. yeah.

drones pose have been so much fun. >> we've had a great time flying drone shows all around the country. and a show like that that's actually both going to pyrotechnics as well as firework as a part of it. and it takes quite a bit of time for our team to build this show. so we work with our clients to see what do they want to see in the sky. 4th of july. we can tell the american story. we love the 4th of july, and drone shows really help us tell the story. and it takes anywhere from 50 to 60 hours for a programmer to put together the drone show. so all of those fly perfectly in unison, so you can do it with just drones or a combination of drones and fireworks. >> right? different, different effects. okay, um, is it less exciting, though, without the loud noise? i mean, i understand drones are completely quiet. >> yeah, drones are quiet. we are big fans of both drones and firework. when you can do both at the same time, that is very

exciting. so we like them both. there are some things that fireworks can do that we can't. and there's things that drones can do that fireworks can't. so when you bring them together, it's amazing. but not every community can do that. sometimes development has become so much that they just don't have a place to have the fireworks show or fire. dangers increased more so this year, and so they need to have something that doesn't increase that fire danger, or perhaps the community, the noise. other issues are causing problems and we're happy to have an alternative for them for the 4th of july and for their other events. yeah. >> in fact, just real quickly, i want to remind our viewers, you talked about fire risk. there was a bad one in antioch last 4th of july that damaged a house . and of course, you know, in the bay area, which has been drier, especially during the summertime. and that is something we want to prevent. so do you find that cities, when they talk to you, express fire prevention as one of the biggest factors? >> yeah, it goes from year to year depending on what's happening with drought, what's happening with some of the fire danger. so it's definitely a component of what our clients

are looking for, what cities are looking for, if they can mitigate the fire danger, or some of the risk associated with it, they're certainly doing it. um, so but if there's an opportunity to do both, we have a lot of cities that are doing both drones and fireworks at the same time. >> what about drones? risk that they carry environmental concerns or possible airspace issues? how about that? how do you mitigate the concerns? there >> so yeah, there's a there's a lot of safety that goes into the drones. we work closely with the faa to make sure that we have everything set up safe, and that it runs great. we both handle fireworks as well as drones, and we have safety protocols for both of those to make sure everything goes super smooth and very safe. >> the bay area, of course, is known for having fog that sometimes, you know, oh, can't see the fireworks fully. what about drones? how do they do amidst fog? >> fog is a problem for us too. we've been fogged in several times in the bay area where we've tried to get a show up, and you just can't see it. and

with the faa, we don't fly in fog. so our drone show won't even go up in the sky during a heavy fog event. so we've definitely had that experience in the bay area. so similar to fireworks, you can't see the drones up in the sky. so we don't put them up in the sky. >> all right. we have about 30s, but i'm wondering if you already have some ideas for the napa or the vallejo shows. i mean, for the las vegas one, obviously the football player, you know, seeing that in 3d with the drones, that's really cool. what about for us? what do you think? oh for napa is going to be amazing. >> big patriotic themes. just wonderful. you get to see statue of liberty, see the american flag spread out 400ft wide. it's going to be fantastic. we're looking forward to working with them to even bring more and different images into that show. >> all right, rick boss, you are the president of sky elements drone shows. we'll see you around. thank you so much. >> thanks so much i appreciate it. >> have a great one. you too. we'll take a short break

i see my husband... the father of our girls. i see a public servant. a man who served under secretary clinton in the state department... where he took on the epidemic of violence against women in the congo. i see a fighter, a tenacious problem-solver... who will go to congress and protect abortion rights and our democracy. because he sees a better future for all of us. i'm peter dixon and i approved this message.

the economy is simply not working for millions of hard working families. they're working harder than ever and they still can't make enough to get by to afford food and medicine to even keep a roof over their heads. we need to build more housing that's truly affordable. we need to address this terrible epidemic of homelessness. we need to invest in good paying jobs, union jobs and investments in our future. this, this is why i'm running for the us senate. i'm adam schiff and i approve this message.

next. and i'll see you back here at four. tonight, breaking news. two separate flights diverted over the u.s. two very different threats. one of them diverted because of a threat of a bomb onboard. also breaking, president biden. is he planning to take executive action on the u.s./mexico border? and the horrific scene on a florida beach. >> a 7-year-old girl buried in the sand. first tonight, the trouble in the skies. an unruly passenger tackled during a flight to chicago, allegedly trying to open an emergency door. the other flight, the threat of