>> the april 15, 2024 rules committee meeting. i'm supervisor ronan, chair, i'm joined by supervisor walton and committee member safai

should join shortly. the clerk is victor young and like to thank jamie from sfgovtv for staffing the meeting. >> public comment will be taken on each item. when public comment is called up to speak. you may submit public comment in writing e-mail to myself, the rules committee clerk at victor.young@sfgov.org. if you submit public comment via e-mail it will be for warded and included in the file. you may send to u.s. mail at 1 dr. carlton b goodlett place. room 244, san francisco california 94102. please silence cell phones and electronic devices. documents should be included should be submitted to the clerk. items are expected to appear on board of supervisor agenda of

april 23, unless otherwise stated. >> thank you, please call item 1. >> item 1, ordinance amending the public works code to streamline the enforcement of vending requirements and restrictions, clarify vending permit application and compliance requirements, require certain vending permittees to register with the tax collector and pay related fees, prohibit stationary sidewalk vendors from vending in residential districts as defined in the planning code, limit permissible vending times, and streamline approval of vending regulations; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. >> thank you. colleagues, the mayor and i introduced amendments to the public works code to strengthen the permitting and enforcement of our sidewalk vending program. street vending has been a rich part of the culture of san francisco and especially neighborhoods like the mission. our permitted vendors sold

small goods, flowers jewelry celebrating latino it culture and bringing vibrancy to the streets. for the past two years however, street vendors have under attack from illegal operations that commit theft and sell stolen goods. these made life unattenable for vendors. threatened and assaulted the public works enforcement team officers leading them to wear bullet proof vest. large group of people with stolen goods block access to sidewalks making unsafe for residents to get by. transit users to feel safe getting to bart and muni and small businesses to attract customers. in order to deal with the street conditions, we are a number of measures including implementing a temporary street vending moratorium on mission street and working with our state partners to improve the enforcement of laws banning the

sale of stolen goods. the local legislation before us today is one component of this broader health and safety strategy. it prevents the sale of transfer of vendor permit adding their photograph to the permit. it also includes the vendor permitted hours of operation. second, strengthens public works enforcement of the vend ing law removing written warnings prior issuing a notice of violation and required unpermitted vendors to clear out the merchandise. the public works enforcement found multiple written warnings are ineffective at deterring fencers from selling stolen goods. also, when a public works office determines a person selling goods needs to vacate because of safety hazard or emergency or lack ofveneder permit, fencers take advant js of the undefined period for clearing out to move at a

snails pace. one person can take up to a big chunk of enforcement officer time, valuable time that could be used insuring the street vending program is running properly. this legislation defines the time period for clearing out as 10 minutes. it allows public works staff to make adjustment to the operating regulations as conditions change on the ground without having to go to the department commission. the commission sets policy directives, evaluates department performance established contract and approve the budget plan establishing operating regulations has been the responsibility of the department. finally, it reiterates key measures the san francisco public works already requires administratively. it requires vendors to have receipts and aused and new items they sell. reminds sidewalk vendors they can not operate in purely

residential zones. and vendors are required to by law register with the san francisco tax collector. following conversations with the mission street vendor association i like to make a non substantive amendment that restores the portion of the sentence stricken from there code. on page 14, lines 13-14, we will add back into the legislation the line, and shall urge the vendors to make every effort to remove the items, or cause the removal. i want to thank a number of people who have been working extremely hard on this issue and numerous ways. i want to start by thanking the vendors who have come out today. i want to especially recognize rod rigo lopez the president of the vendors association.

it has taken non-stop work to organize the vendor population, to reach consensus what vendors want and then to negotiate with our office and the city and the mayor's office to come to agreement. this is not easy work, and rodrigo and vendors have participated in good faith fighting for themselves, but also understanding how difficult this is for the city. knroe knroe i know we are not always on the same page, but say with hundred percent respect how much i appreciate your leadership and appreciate working with you, even when we disagree. it is okay to disagree, but it's a pleasure to have someone that is honest, that truly represents the voice of the vendor community to be able to work with, so i just rodrigo especially to you want to thank you so much for your leadership

and all the vendors. i want to thank you so much for working with us and our office and latino cultural district and the mayor's office, it really is a honor to be able to work with you all. thank you. i also want to thank--and william. i want to thank latino cultural district. i want to thank bobby lopez, particularly from the mayor's office and andres powers and a massive thanks to my former legislative aid, santiago now at department of emergency management and special thankss thooshealy chung higen who spent countless hours on this issue and done so with such care and compassion in a very working on a very difficult

problem to fix, so just want to thank the whole team who has been working on this. last but not least, i want to thank dpw, michael lennon and the whole team who not only are working on the permitting side of this issue, but also on the enforcement side, and again, this has been not easy, so this has really been a huge team effort. all parties are not always in agreement, but all parties have been very respectful of one another and i appreciate that. i want to turn it over to michael lennon from dpw to give a overview of the legislation. >> good morning. thank you first of all. as you mentioned it is a difficult matter to navigate and so thank you for your ongoing engagement and leadership on this-there are

many stakeholder interests to consider. there is state level legislation that doesn't always align or allow us to go in the direction that we see the need to go in, and then we are also exploring a new frontier of interagency coordination, like dealing with traditional jurisdictional boundaries and enforcement that used to be with another shop, so it is ongoing evolving matter. i think these amendments are intended to improve the safe use enjoyment of the public right of way. i don't think there is a madgeer wand where there is a overnights fixes and conditions on the street of all hours are going to be perfect, but these are common sense regulations that will help us both from the permitting side and then help us be more efficient in our use of resource s and ability to cover more ground when we are doing the enforcement in the

field. so, i think you touched on most of the legislation, the changes. the photo requirements will help us better associate the permit, make sure what is being sold out there is sold during the hours by the people who are supposed to be out there. the plot sizes. keeping it down to a smaller footprints is essential not only for having somewhat expedient interaction to move to the next issues and also to keep the sidewalks clear and accessible and open for the safe use and enjoyment of the public. i think that's the high and low. it will les us hopefully be a little more efficient in use of time and limited resources, but i'm available for questions if there are any. >> yes. so, i think we worked on this a

few years ago, supervisor ronan when this was first coming out and sorry i missed your original presentation, but what i think is one of the most important things other then-really important to create space for the vendors. i talked to a lot of them couple weeks ago in the mission. those that have been there for years doing work were not the ones we were intending to displace or punish or be punitive in any way. created a parking lot they are able to work out of, but that still caused quite a bit of hardship they have been doing and supervisor ronan's office has been working hard to mitigate that in every way possible so appreciate that. unfortunately they had to bear some othf brunt of the illegal activity. what i'm concerned on the illegal vending side, besides

creating spaces where it shouldn't happen at all and someone in the mission very often at 16th and 24th i have seen a significant drop in the vending. what we talked about when we first wrote this legislation was proof of ownership or proof of purchase or proof of some type of way to say that these goods they had were not stolen. i don't know if you touched on that supervisor ronan, proof of ownership or proof of purchase or proof of receipt. >> that is already in the law, yes. >> right, but what was not effective is, if people dont have is the actual receipt of proof of owner ership and given a warning and opportunity to pack up and move on, so i just wanted to touch on that particular point. have you thought about that and i know we talked about that in the past. is there any changes in the legislation that deals with that? >> you want to answer michael?

>> yeah. so, i believe the requirement to provide a warning still remains, so the initial interaction isn't a public works employee isn't to snatch somebody's items. there is the warning requirement, but the legislation has done away with trying to paper them as well, because a lot of the interactions, the people will disclaim the goods and walk away and won't stand around to have a administrative citation issued to them. >> of course. >> so, it does streamline the process and engagement, but there is that threshold interaction with we have the initial discussion over are you aware a permit is required? you cant be here to vend and then we give them the opportunity to vacate. >> i know that is something we had discussion with the city attorney and i'm of the belief that that actual initial

contact and i know the city attorney had some difference of opinion, but i think if we want to capture all the illegal vending that then that initial conversation is a warning and if they are not able to produce that proof of purchase or proof of ownership, we should be able to -the people illegal vendors there, they have been doing this for years. this would not impact them in any way, but the ones on the ground that are constantly selling stolen items, you give a warning and they pack up and move on, so at some pount -point they will tired having the warning issued to them, but i don't know if that is really--i like to just talk about that for a minute because i think that is something that in the future should be considered as tightening up or something we can amend, because as far i'm concerned if you are out there and have stolen items

and can't produce it on the spot that is a warning. >> i wouldn't say i disagree with you on that. if somebody has gotten a warning every day a year, the 366 day isn't going to be the awakening for them, and we can enforce it in different ways, but i would say at the-for a lot of enforcement evolved to the point even though we do the known bad actors, it evolved to where they are just fleeing from the site of the neon vest, so some of the bad actors we see out there every day, we are not necessarily having those initial interactions with them anymore, it seems to be a cat and mouse game with they avoid police and us, so those interactions have been minimal, but what you pointed out is definitely accurate. >> can i ask a question to the city attorney? >> sure. >> just wanted to have the city attorney weigh in.

we had conversation with the city attorney office about the initial warning in the past and think there's some room for interpretation on that initial contact and whether that initial contact is the warning itself. particularly, if you have a repeat individual out there doing the same-- >> ann pierson. i haven't been a part of the conversations so don't know what advice has been given on that topic. i would be happy to take that question back and get back to you. >> that would be helpful. that to me i think is the crux of in a lot of ways helping accelerate enforcement itself. someone is given a warning they pack up and move on, but if it is the same entity and same stolen tools out there and they pack up and put in the box and i think there is a way we can tighten this up a bit and i

appreciate all the hard work. >> but michael, can you explain how it happens now? so, you approach someone who is selling, you ask if they have-right now on mission street nobody can vend, so they have to leave, but let's say before or after the moratorium, you approach someone vending and ask for oo permit, and they don't have a permit, you say then you cannot vend and you have to leave. they pack up and leave. later that day you see them again on the street with the stuff and say we have already gaveen given a warning or gave a warning and remove the items is that correct? >> if we are out there and someone has been ammonished-they have been warned and the interaction is

like, i told you, you have been issued a warning, i'm now impounding your goods and if you want to have a opportunity to claim them, here is a notice of violation and impound law that gives you the opportunity to contest the enforcement action and reclaim the goods if they have the receipts. >> what if you give someone a warning today and then tomorrow you see them again? >> i believe the guidance is, if it is in the same day, we give them the warning, so it is a day to day type situation. we have in terms of a lasting stay away order or lasting directive. we haven't had any timeline placed on it for longevity. >> who is giving you the guidance? which city attorney? >> i believe chris tom has been our advice council for public works, but i know there's other representatives involved now from department of public

health, port, there is a lot of different people involve d. >> but, but, so, what supervisor safai is saying you are saying isn't how it works on the street? what is happening is people see you and they run? >> the game evolved from where we were two years ago when the legislation first implemented. there is a lot more stationary vendors and lot more things laid out and set up on plots. because of our continuous presence and enforcement action, everybody that we see out there, they are now traveling with suitcases. they have bags or blankets and thinks like that where they evolved as enforcement evolved, and as we are approaching they are kick to -quick to close up and on the move before a lot of engagement happens, so we are trying to circle back on people when we give the warning and trying to mitigate that aspect of it, but it is more or less a

daily battle. >> can i ask another question? sorry. i know supervisor walton you are on there, is it okay to keep going on this point? i know he's been waiting. you are good? what about it a area that is already identified as a area that you can't vend at any time? are you required to still give a warning? >> we are still giving them the warning and order to vacate. if you are in united nation plaza within the footprint of mission street corridor, we are still informing of the need to vacate and permit requirements receipts and all that stuff before going to enforcement. >> okay. i won't belabor the point, i just think it would be really helpful through the chair to city attorney, if we can get-this is something we engaged with supervisor ronan's office with on last year as we have been going through this and i think the warning itself is probably the area that i like to get the best set of guidance on.

i know a lot of times we have best intentions and i understand people see they are moving and now longer allowed on plaza and gone over to like 14th and 15th on the side streets and set up all around that area, so--right? they are constantly moving and so i think if there is a way that we can tighten up that it would be really helpful. did i hear you say you are documenting? doing more documentation as they show up and taking photos or did i just mishear that? as a way to see who the repeat items are and-- >> repeat people more so items, the items move, so you see the same people out there routinely, it isn't the same items. >> knroe i know a lot of inspectors came up and this is

difficult work, a lot are threatened and mental health is involved in that. i know it is a entire collaborative effort, so i appreciate the hard work your office has done and your office in particular supervisor ronan. obviously we have been involved in this together from the beginning and we can zero in on that point i think it will make a big difference. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor walton. >> thank you chair ronan, thank you for noting the changes. just a question, when we are talking about the area enforcement, it states dish pose of items that may cause public health safety or infestation issues. are those items defined or is it clear to people anywhere? i don't see it necessarily in the ordinance so wondering how

people know what we are talking about. >> we dispose of perishable goods so any perishable goods, soiled contaminated items, so it is usually items we are able to donate to sate partners and non profits we retain and store that donate. >> definitely seems reasonable and clear to me, but just wondering if that is vague? >> i dont know if it is defined in legislation. i know we have a internal policy that explains to inspection staff and personnel how to handle impounds and what to retain and dispose of. i don't believe that is reflected in the legislation though. >> i think it may be helpful for enforcement to be able to describe actually what we are talking about. thank you. >> thank you. thank you so much michael. we'll open this up for public comment.

>> yes, members of the public who wish to speak should line up to speak by the windows. for each speaker, you will be allowed two minutes. there is a soft chime when you have 30 seconds left and a louder chime when time expired. anyone who would like to comment on this matter at this time? you can line up by the window. you can proceed. >> hi. my name is gym sweeney incharge of the sales at momo, second and king street across from oracle park and been in business since 1998. last april, a number of unlicensed vendors without permits began setting up on second street right around the corner from momo's. thaif were selling unlicensed san francisco giant merchandise

before it the home games. since then our business consisting of licensed merchandise is down 40 percent. when we found dpw was in charge of enforcing illegal vending, we contacted them last august. they came out to second street last september and issued warnings. dpw came out shortly and attempted to confon skate the merchandise. oneveneder threatened dpw workers, enough so they feared for their safety. dpw contact the san francisco police department and both came out the next day and followed through on confiscateing the merchandise and issued citation. the same vendors was once again very threatening and mentioned he was going to pget the guy at momo's as thought we were responsible for the enforcement.

as i came to work in the follow days, i spent more time worrying how i would escape if they came after us. there have been 7 games so far this year and merchandise vendors all without permits have been lining second street for all the games. dpw has been down there twice and since none of the vendors have permits all were already shut down for the day, but sure enough they all return. these illegal unlicensed vendors with no permits who are probably not paying any business taxes are destroying our legal license business. it is one year since they have been in operation and they are bringing down our business. we plead with you to continue enforcement of these illegal unlicensed vendors. thank you.

>> good morning. my name is rodrigo lopez, street vendor association. we are here to say we want to city to continue partnering with us and the community against working for the change. we believe that the only together we'll be find the right balance to solve problems we are facing. because honesty, we are--we are experts on our community and vending. we partner to bring the best outcomes. as a president of mission street vendor association, i want to uplift the pain our members are feeling. our members are now month behind on rent. some lost homes. some have lost--many lost their savings.

the economic devastation caused by the city ban is hurting as vendors and family loved one we support. the only thing that can help is continuing negotiation for immediately return to mission street as vendors. we want to try to save the future. we change, we work together, we help to be the best i can for the best all partners involved. thank you. >> [speaking spanish] >> good morning supervisors. my name is lopez, one of the

effected vendors. >> [speaking spanish. waiting for translation] >> so, what has been challenging is i'm not able to sell despite having a permit. i'm conscious we also need to have some changes. thank you so for working with us to figure out a way for us to be able to return on to the corridor. thank you. >> [speaking spanish. waiting for translation]

>> hello supervisors. my name is juan mendeza, a effected vepder that has a permit. i'm here to say, we may not be experts on all the regulations, but we recognize we need a change. san francisco needs to be able to bring back order. >> [speaking spanish. waiting for translation]

>> so, as authorities

implementing the law i want to share with you a reflection i have when i was reading the bibleb. bible. there was a man and said to god, you don't need to make me rich, please dont make me poor, please sustain me with bred. i'm a 5 9 year old man that never had problems with the law, we are asking for the ability to support our families and pay our bills. thank you. >> [speaking spanish. waiting for translation]

>> hello supervisors, my name is--i have been selling in the mission district for the past 21 years. i never had any can problems with the law, never gone to jail, about now we have this real big challenge of not being able to sell on thstreet despite having a permit. i leave it in your hands that hopefully in the near future you will allow us to return back on to the corridor. >> [speaking spanish. waiting for translation]

>> good morning supervisors, my name is manuel, like colleagues have shared, it has been challenging for me not to have permission to is elon the street again. we do need to make the changes in order to make san francisco more secure. thank you. >> [waiting for translation] >> and i also want to thank the supervisors and the mayor for their support and their help with all of this. thank you. >> good morning supervisors. my name is alma, the director of clecha and i want to start by saying thank you to the sfr supervisor allowed the vendors to come here and express their

selves. thank you supervisor ronan, thank you sheila. thank you to raffa and [indiscernible] oewd office who have been immense support. bobby lopez from the mayor office, so dpw as well for supporting. clecha is here in support of the street vendors. we have allocated the space, which community is aware on 18 and mission. if is coming to close as of 24 of april. in support of them, we are here to ask that any changes that are made are just made in the positive for the legitimized permit holder vendors. i also want to clarify on the narrative, i want people to understand that the mission street vendors are permitted street vendors, so we understand that everybody is

doing what they have to do and they aware changes need to be made and we are all with the changes and understand it is for the safety of the community and we just want to make sure that they are the forefront of everything is everybody is keeping in mind that we are with the change, we just want them to be positive changes for them. thank you very much and we appreciate all your hard work and dedication to the community. thank you. >> any other parties who would like to comment on this matter? no additional speakers at this time. >> public comment is now closed. again, i just want to reflect for a moment about how difficult this situation has been, because on the one hand, we have legitimate street vendors who are permitted who

have been selling their goods in the mission for decades, and who have lost the ability to sell on mission street where they were able to earn the most money, because of the chaos the fencers brought in, and so, we have been trying to get rid of the fencers, while keeping the legitimate vendors afloat and it has not been easy, and we have not-it is not perfect, it isn't a perfect situation, but we are in the process right now of trying to figure out a way to bring the legitimate vendors back on the street of the mission or on mission street, while we are able to maintain and hold the street from the fencers, and because we have limited dpw staff to enforce the law and we heard from the

owner of momo's that the mission is not the only area in the city that is being impacted by this problem, and so, we have limited dpw enforcers, and a whole city to enforce in, so my office has been advocating with the mayor that we increase the amount of enforcement officers in dpw so we are able to do both things, stop the vending on the street and allowing the legitimate vendors make a living from items they make or purchase legally. this is the hard task we have in front of us. we will-this legislation will make it a little easier for enforcers to use the time wisely and enforce all around the city, while at the same

time, we are working with the state to amend legislation, so that police officers can also enforce the law. right now under the state law, police officers are prohibited enforcing the law which is why dpw work ers must do it, so we are working on many levels to address both sides of this complicated issue, and we will continue to do so. again, thank you so much to the permit vendors who came out today who suffered a lot during this time and who have been really respected honest partners in trying to figure this out and do right by everyone. so, with that colleagues, i ask for your support. i do want to make a motion to make the one amendment that i spoke about earlier and then would ask that we send this item to full board with

positive recommendation. >> yes are, on the motion to amend and recommend as amended- >> sorry, can i just pause right there? sorry i didn't see your name, supervisor safai. >> i want to add one point. i appreciate the gentleman from momo's coming out. we'll convey that information to public works and police department, because the season is beginning and we need to respond to that as well. very different conversation from what we are talking about here today, but enforcement officer is there for that department and we will also circle back, thank you. thank you supervisor ronan. >> on the motion to amend and recommend as amended, vice chair walton, aye. supervisor safai, aye. chair ronan, aye. the motion passes without objection. >> thank you the motion passes

unanimously. please read item 2? >> item 2, ordinance amending the administrative code to provide that the general obligation bond passthrough from landlords to tenants shall be calculated based on the amount the property tax rate has increased due to general obligation bonds since the tenant's move-in date or 2005, whichever is later; and to allow tenants to seek relief from general obligation bond passthroughs based on financial hardship. >> thank you so much and i want to welcome president peskin to the committee. president peskin. >> thank you chair ronan, and thank you for your cosponsorship, together with supervisor safai, preston, melgar and chan. as the clerk just read, this ordinance would modify how the controller calculates the pass-through rates to tenants for general obigation bonds, and by way of a little bit of

history, and what i am trying to solve for, is a mutual interest between property owners and tenants in the passage of general obligation bonds we put on the ballot time to time for capital improvements from the city ranging from the rehab of fire station to is street repaving to our general hospital bond, to our recently passed affordable housing bond, our sea wall bond of 2018, and there is decades of history around this and my-since i was first elected a quarter century ago i witnessed some of it in the old days hundred percent was pass-through and then there

was a period of time when we moved to 50/50 pass-throughs sh seems fair and solmonic. there was that supervisor amiano which first elected in 2002 actually did the 50/50 pass-through for general obigation bonds. thing s change in 2005 and we are catching up in many ways when the city at the urgeance of my then colleague, now chief of staff to the mayor, shawn elseburn got us to create a capital plan and that capital plan was underpinned on the notion that we would not--when we went to the voters asking for 2/3 super majority approve by the electorate, we would not raise our marginal property tax rates because we would retire

as much old debt as we issued new debt, and in deed, for the last all most 20 years every general obligation bond the voters voted on we have subsequentially sold have not raised our marginal property tax rates because we had adhered now since 2005 to that capital plan. so, this ordinance in many ways really catches us up, and let me say not by way of full disclosure because everybody knows it is on my form 700, i am a small landlord in san francisco, and i fundamentally understand and believe that my initial-they are all rent controlled unit-my initial rental price is designed to capture and pay for the expenses that i incur as a

landlord. maintenance expenses, insurance expenses, property tax expenses, and those property tax expenses, the rates have not changed, and so the notion that i would then pass-through additional money, obviously every year the rent board tells a landlord how much is the allowable rent increase based on cpi and their formula, but the notion that i could then pass-through additional dollars even though my property tax rate isn't going doesn't seem fair, so this is legislation to address that, and rather then using the standard pass-through rate for all tenants based on the cost of bonds under repayment, landlords identify a specific pass-through rate for each tenants. each pass-through rate is how

much the portion of the property tax rate that pays for general obligation bonds issue bide the city and school district and college board, those interest the three bonds issuing entities increase between the current year the year the tenant moved into the unit or 2005, whichever is later. this goes back by the way--i was saying this actually has nothing to do with the politics of our november election, this actually goes back to 2018 when the mayor and i combined forces to put the $425 million sea wall bond on the ballot, and at that time, a number of tenant organizations brought this issue of increasing pass-throughs to me, and i to be honest didn't understand it

and i said, if our property tax rates haven't gone up i can't see how the pass-throughs have gone up because there is nothing to pass-through. i took that to the controller ben rosenfield who agreed with the concept but pas-throughs had gone up even though property tax hasn't gone up and that put a hardship provision in the 2018 sea wall bond. when we came along with the affordable housing bond thankfully the voters passed by super majority of 70 percent just last month, this issue came up again and i wanted to solve the problem once and for all. it was my intention to do that before the march election, but it took a while to draft it and get a modicum of consensus, which frankly we don't have total consensus here, but-and hence, that is why this is

before us today. it was my original intent to get it done before the march 5 election. we have here today the rent board, mrs. varner who has a presentation as well as jamie whittaker from the controller's office that would be tasked with actually doing the pass-through calculation. so, i don't know if there is questions from colleagues, if not should we start with mrs. varner? >> let's do that. good morning mrs. varner. >> good morning. are you able to see the presentation? >> yes. >> i'm here to present about rent board tenant financial hardship today in relation to what supervisor peskin has just framed.

so, tenants may seek deferral from specific type of pass-throughs and increases, so capital improvement pass-through, operating and maintenance expense increases, water revenue bond pass-throughs, utility pass-throughs and as we discuss today, general obligation bond pass-throughs. they may seem deferral of these pass-throughs on three different grounds. so, the first ground is that the tenant is receiving means tested public assistance, which includes ssi, cal fresh or food stamps, ga, cal works, and pays. this conversely does not include social security retirement, ssdi or medi-cal. secondly, tenants may seek deferral based on income, so there are three prongs to this.

firstly, that the monthly rent they are paying is greater then 33 percent of their monthly household income. that the assets do not exceed $60 thousand and and income is less then the limit, so $6700 for 1 individual and $9600 for a family of four. the third ground less frequently used is based on exceptional circumstances, so for example, a tenant has exceptional circumstances such as excessive medsical bills that makes payment of the increase a hardship. here is information about relief from general obligation bond pass-through and what we have seen at the rent board since this went into effect. we have 107 applications filed and of the 107, 56 of them have

been granted, so that is a rate of 98 percent. of the 56 the vast majority are based on the tenant receiving means tested public assistance. there were 39 of those applications with 18 based on income and there were none for exceptional circumstances. just one of the applications was denied, and so just a 1 percent or so denial rate. 17 applications were withdrawn or dismissed before decision issued, and we currently have 32 pending, but 30 percent have been filed. the pass-through amounts i think is what one of the items that supervisor peskin brought forth, which is average general obligation bond pas-through

charged by the landlords is approximately $20.66 per month and that would be over the period of 12 months. the average amount of general obligation bond pass-through differed is $2.12 currently. currently, only the portion of general obligation bonds attributable to bonds approved by voters after 11-5-19 are eligible for deferral. there is no deferral before november 2020. it is a little bit of the universe there, if that is helpful for you. please let me know if you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. whittaker. >> good morning. i'm just going to try to explain the math as it exists

today and what the proposed ordinance would change it to. my name is jamie whittaker, i work in the budget analysis division managing the property tax unit. we work between the assessor office and tax collector treasurer office determining what the tax rate is, in this case the tenant pass-through rate. levying the tax so determining how much tax is to be collected by the tax collector and then after the tax collector collects payments as they did last wednesday in volume, allocate those monies to the tax entities and other direct charge entities like community benefit districts or other items that appear on our tax bills. september is when the board usually sees the tax rate resolution and are also included in that resolution is

the tenant pass-through related information. we basically use general obligation bond dbt service that appears in the annual appropriation ordinance, the budget, and also assessed value the assessor has determined is secured as of july 1 for that new fiscal year. as supervisor peskin mentioned earlier, the tenant pass-through is applicable to select bonds between november 1, 1996 and november 30, 1998 authorize the bonds-the bonds may not get issued until later in different traunchs. hundred percent pass-through for those and 50 percent pass-through for bonds authorized by the voters at other election dates. i'll focus on the bottom half. the top half is just a very basic, here's how you tax rate

is determined, at least for the city, the school district and the college district general obligation bonds. bart [indiscernible] contra costa and san francisco. the bottom represents what happens today, so for 2023-24, there is about 237-00-0000 of the debt service that fits into the criteria in the administrative codes as it is written today and dividing by the secured value of property as of july 1, 2023 is what came up with the 7.26 cents per hundred dollars of assessed value that may be passed through to tenants by landlords

and applicable across the board. the proposed ordinance first takes into account the move-in date and tax rate for those three entities that was applicable at move-in, and the current year, so when september comes around, does the tax rate increase from what the comparable rate was when the tenant commenced their tenancy. if there is a increase, the secondary consideration is a ratio of the eligible general obligation bonds, the hundred percent between certain dates, 50 percent for other dates. the ratio is multiplied by that difference and i just provided some examples. it is important again to

restate the reason for the 2005 as serving a catch-all for tenants who began their tenancy in 2005 or earlier is that is when the capital plan began the policy of keeping the city go bond property tax rate not exceeding the .12 something percent that existed in 2005-06. and the final slide, if the proposed language were applicable this fiscal year, these are the rates y. have fiscal years just to keep it short for indicating the dates, but those are the dates the tenant moved in initially, so if they moved in let's say july 1, 2010, then it is the .0015

percent, fiscal year 2010-11. that is my presentation. if you have any questions, i would be happy to address them. >> i do not mr. whittaker, but i want to thank you for your help and expertise along the way and acknowledge deputy city attorney [indiscernible] for his help drafting this legislation. >> thank you so much. any questions or comments colleagues? i just want to thank you supervisor peskin for bringing this forward. this makes so much sense and didn't think about it before you brought this legislation forward, so i want to appreciate that. >> i also want to say one of the criteria i always look at in pieces of legislation like this that many people will work with, be small landlords or large landlords is that

impmentable and in talking i dont think this is extremely bond complicated. there is a bond pass hch through worksheet filed with the rent board and my understanding it is not burdensome and easily accessible to every day people. >> thank you. supervisor chan, thanks for joining us. >> thank you and just again want to thank president peskin for this legislation. i have a brief question. i am trying to understand the difference between--and just i think for a little bit more i would i'm a lay person trying to understand still a fairly complicated issue and about the pass-through, meaning the landlord can pass through the property tax increase on to the

tenants and in this case, we are just trying to make adjustments to it. could we just dive a little deeper between the difference between the city and county of san francisco issuance versus the city college and unified school district issuance? >> i would say the main difference i'm aware of is that there is a policy for the city county of san francisco capital planning that keeps the rate capped. it is voluntary policy but has been observed since when it was implemented about 20years ago. for the college district and for the school district, to my knowledge there is no such cap, however i think it is probably a good practice among financial professionals in public finance to try to keep a relatively consistent tax rate year to

year. >> so in the legislation starting on page 5, line 24 we are starting to indicate about first defined eligible bonds. through the chair, that we also indicated the issuance entities and which the issuance entities as continue to go to page 6, that it is really the issuance entities aside of course we have a self-imposed regulation, rules that we are not going to pass beyond the 2010 property tax rate, while city college and unified school districts do not, however they could in the legislation when they issue their bonds specifically about to address the issue around pass-through. >> yes, i believe it would have

that option. >> within this legislation? >> oh, i believe for each independent entities- >> they could already? >> within their governing group take on such policy decisions, but we can't-i don't believe we can dictate to the school district or college district they have to observe a similar policy. >> thank you. thank you chair. >> through the chair to supervisor chan, interestingly enough, the school board has been as they are contemplating a general obigation bond for this november are been gravitating to the city 2005 policy and it would appear that-i don't want to put words in another government mouth, but they are going to also create a self-imposed constraint like we have. >> through the chair, i am

pleased to hear. given the fact we do not have jurisdiction over the unified school district. city of college of san francisco went for $850 million bond in i believe 2018 and it was actually increase to the city property tax, but again, it was not within the city's jurisdiction to restrict that increase. even though it was very very small of increase, but just given the fact that now we are continuing to have these regional-these conversation about regional bond issuance or potential in 2026 seeing more regional tax measure, i just wanted to put it out there about just to-differentiate between what city and county of san francisco have control over and we are doing self-imposed

maintaining the tax rate, but we do not have control over other jurisdiction. thank you. >> thank you. if no more comments from colleagues, we can open up for public comment. >> members of the public who wish to speak should line up to speak at this time. each speaker is allowed 2 minutes. there is a soft chime with 30 seconds left and louder chime when your time expired. if you like to make comment on this matter, please approach the podium and line up. you can approach the podium. >> i heard about this hearing last week and i called every number on the supervisors list at their office and no one picked up the phone.

specifically supervisor melgar, whatever her name is, they are on vacation, so there was no way for anyone to pose this general obligation bonds pass-through. directly to your offices, there is never a avenue to talk to you. you just push through the legislation and don't care about what we say in a hearing or not. okay? of course you would have a hearing on monday, tax day, april 15 in the morning no less. the people paying property tax here, they are the ones at work right now. why are you continually attacking our right to provide housing on a constitutional basis? have you nothing better to do. you statement aaron peskin saying property taxes have not gone up and general bond has

gone up? are you serious? our properties taxis increase, 2 percent and all the parcel tax that is added. that is a completely false statement. you missed a fundamental issue here assuming people are paying rent normally. your colleague disallowed payment of rent throughout the pandemic and landlord can't get that money back. so, you are the reason why people are no longer making their properties available for housing anymore. i demand you vote no on this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning supervisors. my name is ingrid-- >> you mind pulling the

microphone down? >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> good morning supervisors. my name is ingrid and i am a tenant in san francisco. i urge you to support this legislation. for years huge real estate companies are been exploiting these pass-through with property tax increases because the bonds have not been going up. the city has had a policy to limit property tax increase, but me, neighbors and thousand other tenants and veritas-big landlords have gotten pass-through raises our rent. the rent increase is often more then annual rent increase under rent control. this is a loop hole exploited by big corporate landlords. please close it. thank you. >> good morning supervisors. my name is arm mondo rodriguez

a tenant in san francisco. i urge you to support this legislation. here's the deal, for years tenants like myself have been paying these pass-throughs for the cost of the landlord that never incurred. this is a scandal. this reasonable legislation doesn't order landlords like veritas to refund the money, it simply brings the rent ordinance into compliance with the city existing policy on bonds. but let's be clear, this is a scandal. veritas and other corporate landlords have been passing on rent increases to tenants claiming property tax increases due to bonds that never happened. i urge you to support this legislation. thank you. >> hello. my name is--from the san francisco tenants union, also a constituent in san francisco

district 10, so there is a bit of confusion i hear from property owners. they are saying my taxes have gone up. specifically referring here to tax increases tied to general obligation bonds. that has not happened in all most 20years. this pas-through is tied to that. this is not-they want to keep a mechanism incurrings coming from other places and it is just really inappropriate. a lot of bonds we passed have increased property values for property owners without asking them to pay more property tax and yet, more rent is going to the tenants. i understand wanting to have as many mechanisms as possible to increase profit, but this is non sensical, oversight, not legitimate so we should really fix this problem. thank you. >> thank you. i quickly want to recognize and say hi to saint vincent de paul

school who came to visit us in city hall. thanks for visiting us. i hope you learn a lot about local government today. thank you. >> my name is--small property owner and property manager in the city. i find the legislation troubling. it seeks to cause division and no accountability between tenants and landslord. the way it is set up now split 50/50. while we hear increased dollar amounts, please understand 50 percent is paid by the landlord and 50 percent by the tenant so $20 per month per unit, the landlords payed $20 month. it is split cost and helps share the burden between both partsies and keeps united and helps as a community hold each

other accountable so when we vote on things, or vote of on bonds we are not putting all the price and cost on one group of people, we are not trying to isolate and cause division between people and that is what i feel the legislation does, because now the system is split 50/50ism there financial hardships. m tenants can't apply for a physical hardship. we have a great system as set up now. if it ain't broke don't fix it. those are things we got to think of when we pass legislation. how does it effect the whole community split 50/50 holds all accountable. this is just a slippery slope. that is one thing i wanted to bring up when we pass legislation like this it is a slippery slope and god forbid, sorry to use the g word, but

you know, what if we stop passing bonds because people are opposed to it because it will effect some sort of tax base and we have a crumbling city? that is the point of not having these things. we have mechanism in place with the rent board. thank you. >> good morning supervisors. community housing organization here to express support for this legislation. bond financing is the most significant consistent source of revenue to finance or city core infrastructure needs. the voters of san francisco passed proposition a, which is a critical step towards building the long-term investment in affordable housing san franciscans need. we want to make sure when we pass new bonds, landlords and tenants are fairly shaping the burden of property tax increases that result from go bond debt. since 2006, the city hasn't

raised property tax and new braunds only issued as old retired. landlords are eligible to get a pass-through for property tax increase that hasn't happened for 18 years. this legislation updates to match the policy of no property tax increase for go bonds and urge you to support the legislation to insure that landlords and tenants are fairly sharing additional cost in a manner that are consistent are our city debt management policies. thank you. >> good morning. my name is kyle here with housing rights committee of san francisco. i want to start saying the way the language is written is broken. for years we have seen corporate landlords like veritas and mauser use the loop hole to pass cost to tenants they are not incurring.

the tenants have to pay for the costs the landlords don't incur. it is growing increasingly difficult for working class people to live in the city. a cook at the largest union hotel that has to commute from san francisco from stockton every day because he can no longer afford rent in the itisy. san francisco is a city of working class people, not corporate landlord that come and go. i urge you to support the piece of legislation because working class people in san francisco should be able to afford to live in the city they worked so hard to build. thank you. >> good morning. i'm deepa varma at tenant together and from the san francisco tenants union. when i was asked they struggled to support a bond pass-through

measure even with good causes like sea wall or paying for schools because we saw rents go up with bonds pass-through every year, especially from big players like veritas. we kept told by folks at city hall those bonds were not going up and rents shouldn't go up but we see it happen anyway. we realize something lfs broke within the system and talked to you about supervisor peskin and i'm glad to this is finally fixed. so, we are now-this was going to support both tenants who are struggling just to stay here, but also going to help community groups come together and pass-come to agreement about how to tax and spend for the city to build a city we want to have and support infrastructure and give people they need. thank you so much for finally coming through and doing this

for us. >> good morning supervisors. i'm with community action network. we work with tenants, workers and families in san francisco. the city approves go bonds to fund critical infrastructure. it is used to raise property taxes to pay for those bonds, so a pass-through was created for landlord to share the cost of some of those increases with tenants, but since 2006, the city hasn't raised property taxes for bonds. new bonds are only issued as old ones are retired. yet landlord are still getting a pass-through for property tax increase that hasn't happened for 18 years. this legislation will update the rent law to match the city policy of no property tax increase for go bonds. it is time for tenants to stop paying for property tax increase that no longer exists.

please stop adding hardship to low income working families that are holding on to stay in san francisco and urge you all to support the legislation. thank you for your time. >> good morning supervisors. my name is--d5 resident and also work at song can. i ask you to support the legislation and prevent landlords passing through cost to tenants for fictitious property tax increases. as board president peskin already explained since fiscal year 2005, 6 the city adhered to no tax increase policy in the capital plan issuing new bonds, meaning old debt is retired before new issued. that means go bonds in particular have not increased property taxes since 2006 and yet some landlords exploited a loop hole in the rent law to pass through property tax increases they have not

incurred from go bonds. we ask that you support the legislation so that unscupural landlords stop exploiting tenants for extra rent. thank you. >> hello supervisor. my name is theresa with south of market community action network and resident of district 6. i am here to actually as a tenant seek your support and request please that to update and reform the rent laws provision for pass-through property tax increases due to passage of the go bonds. since 2005, the city adhered to no tax increase policy. articulated in the city capital plan issuing bonds. simply put, the city does not raise property taxes for go bonds, and it is hard for us tenants. i have friends who left the

city working class residents left the city because they couldn't afford to actually stay here. tenants have been paying for increases in property taxes to the issuance of city and county go bonds since 2005, 2006 there is no such increases. please help us. i am blessed i live in a san francisco community land trust building, but what about the other tenants who do not know their rights and do you believe $18.07 is enough to actually live here in san francisco? we are blessed as tenants because our landlord has been transparent to us, but what about the other tenants? please, i urge you to support this legislation and thank you so much for all your hard work.

>> thank you for those words. amazing. good afternoon everybody. my name is--i will take my mask off. i am a tenant in a veritas building in district 3 and organizer at housing rights committee. i support this legislation fully. i have been impacted in pass-throughs. rents raising to get arounds rent controlled building. i have seen veritas and large corporate landlords use this business. this is stealing. convincing going through covid we are still struggling to get through. i do urge to support this legislation. thank you. >> good morning. my name is--i am a-sorry, i get

nervous public speaking. multigenerational d10 renter, and also a housing rights community advocate at asian law caucus and provide direct service to families and seniors in san francisco, many non english speakers. support the update and reform of the rent law provision for pass-through of go bond property tax increases. this law eliminating a double charge on tenants for a cost of the lands lord has never incurred. if a bond does not result in a property tax increase as it has long been a city policy, landlords should not increase rent under the guise of pass-through and city should not permit it. a pass-through should only be used to recover actual cost incurred after a tenant moves in. these pass-throughs serious impact low income and extremely rent burden tenant ability to pay for housing utilities food

and necessities in san francisco where the average rent is 2 and a halftimes the national average. reforming the provision is a step we can and should take to make tenant lives easier. the burden should not be on tenants to seek relief from a unfair pass -through. please keep our tenants housed and pass this. thank you. >> hello supervise ers. my name is ramon. i wrote a lot but not going to repeat what everyone mentioned. i am going to skim through my-what i was going to say today. good morning. my name is ramon, a d6 resident and worker and here in support of the legislation. so, yeah, this legislation will update the rent law to match the city policy for no property

tax increase for go bonds. it is time for tenants to stop paying for property tax increase that no longer exist at this points. pass-through is to recover increase in cost that has occurred since tenants first move in [indiscernible] first rented to the toneant. many tenants are facing double charges for cost landlord never incurred. this is completely unfair and unjust. we have to update adequate provisions for 1996 to reflect the realty of the last 18 years. the city does not raise property tax. go bond does not create a property tax increase to pass-through and tenants should stop paying for fictional increase. i urge the board of supervisors to please pass this legislation

and put a end to this bad practice by some landlords and thank you for listening to me. >> good morning supervisors. my name is brad, housing right committee of san francisco and joined colleagues before me urging support for this legislation. it helps address pass-throughs which have been documented over the last several years as a parnicious business practice of large real estate investment firms to maximize income, not for cost recovery which was the intent. i have a notice here from issued by veritas to long-term tenants rent increase dated march 25, 2024. the largest charge on the notice is for the general bond

pass-through. the total rent increase including the annual rent increase, which is only 1.7 percent actually comes out to 7 percent for this tenant because of the addition of general bond pass-through and another water pass-through, but the general bond pass-through is the largest charge. while the conversation has been how to bargain with a company about these charges or get them to wave them, the conversation also now becomes this is just fictitious and double dipping by large investors and investment firms who are exploiting and frankly making a mockery of the regulations, so i urge you to pass this and thank you again. >> good morning. molly, the director of san francisco an tis displacement

coalition and we are here in support of this legislation. as you heard so many colleagues speak so effectively to already as well as president peskin in your experience as a small landlord, i think this is a pretty simple and straight forward fix. what we heard from the rent board today that there is a average $20 little more then $20 a month pass-through to tenants for the go bond, amounts to nearly $250 a year tenants are paying for cost landlords didn't incur. when you scale that up across the city, particularly in the portfolios of these large corporate landlords we look at massive amount of money coming out of pockets of working class people in san francisco to benefit large scale corporate landlords and investors.

it shouldn't be a surprise vast majority of people making public comment are speaking of the action of corporate landlords. this is utilized by corporate lands lords who have been trying to make a business practice out of seeking out loop holes in our tenant protections and rent ordinances to extract as much profit as possible from our community so thank you for your support of the ordinance and working with us to make these simple solutions possible. >> hello. my name is craig. i'm with the management and ownership at 640 mason street is in san francisco. the family has been managing the property there for decades and it is eye opening. thank you for having the hearing and allowing everyone

to voice their positions. i think one position i'm hearing from rez sidentss is concern about mega corporate owners who maybe don't have long time roots in the city and trying to exploit opportunities and a second issue is i want to discuss is administerability. on the mega landlords issue, it seems to me like the kinds of folks appearing here at the hearing aren't mega landlord corporations, so perhaps if there could be a carve-out for the family ownership folks who have been rooted in san francisco for decades and maybe who have fewer then hundreds of units under ownership. and then, that would be a way of kind of answering everyone's concerns on both sides at the

hearing today. moving to administerability, so, when i'm filling out the go pass-through form, i just use the form provided and me it is much more administerable and easy to have a across the board form and are not to have tenant by tenant changes. each month when i fill out the forms it makes it a lot easier, so with that carve-out for long time management team s, i think would be a lot more administerable to have across the board approach while mega landlords could have a more nuanced pass-through . thank you. >> good morning. mitchell with affordable housing alliance and i so appreciate your attention to this issue, which is

interestingly both complicated and also not complicated at all. i think there are two things you need to know. the landlord sets the rent when the tenant moves in to cover their cost. so all the cost including property tax and the portion of property taxes that go for bonds. we have pass-throughs when landlordss need to increase cost because they had capital improvement, increase for inflation. there is a number. one is if the property taxes went up because of go bonds. back in the 1990 property taxes were going up because of go bonds and that is why we have a pass-through for the go bonds of 96 and 98 and 2002 added go bonds going forward starting in 2003 i believe. but then the second thing is something new happened. in the city adopted a capital plan for 2005 and 6 and has followed and not raised

property taxes for its go bonds. so, we have-we are catching up the rent ordinance because we had pass-throughs for phantom increases. what this ordinance will do is to the extent which property taxes do go up because of go bonds, there is still a pass-through. we don't know what city college and school board are doing, but it will also reflect the pass-through is much smaller because it reflects the fact city and county is no longer raising property tax to handle the bonds so that is what the legislation actually does and as you see, it is not that complicated. thank you very much for your support on this. >> good morning. charley gauss with san francisco apartment association. f i come before you today to

urge a no vote on this legislation, which fundamentally changes the way in which city residents pay for general obligation bonds which pay for public investment and infrastructure improvements all city residents benefit from. this represent a departture from the rules in place more then 20 years and represent somewhat a solmonic compromise. the late 90 go bonds measures were defeated by sfaa and other organizations. in november of 2000 the voters approved prop h. sfaa sued against prop h and won. a settlement agreement--tom amiano agreement and ordinance existing law has been mischaracterized or misunderstood today.

the ordinance provides when voter s approve go bonds which create a change in the property tax rate there is 50 percent pass-through to tenants. got a visual here. there is a lot of talk how the property tax overall does not go up and you can see that's true. it doesn't exceed.12 percent on the chart, but what you can also see is each band here is a change in the property tax that is related to the general obligation bond that is captured by the settlement agreement is and existing law. the existing law says that change should be shared by owners and tenants. we ran the numbers on this proposal, it reduces the pass-through on the sample buildings by 90 percent and eliminates for many residents the controller staff ran the pass-through and found reduces by 80 percent. we urge you to vote now today.

>> any other speakers on this matter? i believe that that completes the list of public commenters. >> public comment is closed. supervisor walton. >> thank you chair ronan. i are want to be added as a cosponsor. >> colleagues, any other comments? president peskin. >> let me start by going back to the lawsuit i think filed in 2002 and i think settled in 2003 legislation that i voted for at the time. first of all, proposition h and the litigation dealt with-i think it is important we understand that there are a number of different pass-throughs. general obligation bond pass-through is what this legislation addresses but they

are capital improvement, electric, water pass-throughs. this is a segment that. much that had to do with capital improvement pas-throughs, but the world profoundly changed in 20 o5 when the city of san francisco created the capital plan and imposed a constraint that our .12 rate would not go up. matter of fact, it is actually over the intervening 20 years gone down by a tiny bit. this is really only dealing with that slice, and again let me--in talking to the association we had a good conversation last week, we see the world very very differently, which is that i see the world as i said at the beginning of this discussion as a landlord charges a rental

rate in the beginning that presumably recoups all that landlord's costs and presumably has profit on top that, and in rent control, every year there is a allowable actual rent increase. this year 1.7 percent and that deals with things like the fact that as somebody indicated, or acsomebody mischaracterized, the property tax rate has not gone up, but the value of your property under prop 13 has gone up so the amount of property tax you pay does get higher, even though the rate has not changed because the valuation changed, but that is covered in that allowable increase that the rent board allows every landlord of rent controlled property to impose on a annual basis. i think we see this very very differently. i think this is fundamentally a issue about fairness in a world

that changed 19 years ago and i think it is long past due and i don't think-our hands are not tied by what is called the quig settlement of a generation ago and with that, colleagues i have one very miner approved as to form non substantive amendment that i respectfully request the committee make on page 4, line 16 in section 37.2, definitions subsection q to add the words, pursuant to this chapter 37. >> wonderful. thank you president peskin. supervisor safai. >> i want to ask the controller office to come back up. there is a lot of discussion today about double dipping and

landlords imposing pass-throughs that did not actually impact them. can you talk about that? >> i don't know that i can. >> okay. >> the assessed value, if there is a new owner of a building, prop 13 allows reassessment and perhaps that's at play, but otherwise i don't believe i have a knowledge of what is happening there. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you. with that, i like to make a motion to amend the ordinance as stated by prez sident peskin and send to full board with positive recommendition a. >> on the motion to amends and recommend as amended, vice chair walton aye. supervisor safai, aye. chair ronan, aye. the motion passes without

objection. >> motion passes unanimously. thanks so much. can you please read item number 3? >> yes. ordinance amending the administrative code to require departments seeking board of supervisor approval to enter into contract for emergency repairs to provide a estimated cost of the proposed emergency work and upon completion of the repairs and summary of the actual cost. >> i introduced the ordinance in response to concern. we see emergency repairs contract coming before the budget committee. the administrative code allows department to proceed where emergency repairs when the cost is below $250 thousand. when above $250 thousand the department must receive approval from mayor or commission that has oversight and the board of supervisors. this ordinance simply requires the departments to estimate

cost for repairs when they come before the board for approval. this way we have some ideas what the repair looks like, but also particularly for the budget committee to have some ideas as we track our budget. of course, we must perform these repairs, but i think it is important to best manage our budget. we include language should final cost exceed estimate the department provide a report back to the board documenting that for inclusion in the emergency declaration file. this final report is standard operating procedure for department at completion of project and ask the department to file the final report to close out board file on item. happy to answer any questions you may have on this item. i just ask for your support for

today. thank you. >> thank you so much. colleagues, any questions, comments? seeing none, we'll open for public comment. >> any members of the mub public who like to comment you can approach the podium at this time. there does not appear to be speakers on the matter. >> public comment is closed. motion to sends to full board with positive recommendation. >> yes. on the motion to recommend, vice chair walton, aye. supervisor safai, aye. chair ronan, aye. the motion passes without objection. >> passes unanimously. thank you. can you please item number 4? >> yes. item 4, ordinance amending the

campaign and governmental conduct code to update and clarify the conflict of interest code's form 700 (statement of economic interests) filing requirements for “proposition q filers” (departmental purchaser initiators and approvers); add the children and families first commission and the enhanced infrastructure financing district public financing authority no. 1 to the list of filers who file with the ethics commission; and make non-substantive corrections to the conflict of interest code sections for the department of public works and the public utilities commission. >> supervisor chan as the author back to you. >> colleagues grateful you are willing to schedule both items today. the second legislation i'm here for is miner amendments to the campaign government conduct code for form 700 filers required by annual update that i'm sponsoring on behalf of the ethics commission. these amendments propose to first, add as required filers members of the children and family first commission and the newly created enhanced infrastructure public financing authority number one. and second amendment is to streamline and simplify the process of proposition q filers which are people destinated by their department as they delegated departmental purchase initiator or approver. then the third amendment is to make non substantive corrections for the sf public

utility commission and public works on require filers. i ask for your support today and recommendation to full board. we have kyle kennedy manager in the engagement and compliance division of ethics commission here if the committee has any additional questions. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? comments? none. thanks for being here though. mr. clerk, can we open the item for public comment? >> yes, anyone in the room who would like to comment you approach at the time. there are no additional part ies in the room. >> public comment is closed. i like to make a motion to send to full board with positive recommendation. >> vice chair walton, aye. supervisor safai, aye. chair ronan, aye. the motion passes without objection. >> the motion passes

unanimously. mr. clerk, do we have any other items on the ajenna today? >> that completes the agenda for today. >> the meeting is adjourned. [meeting adjourned] government television. >> my name is kevin roger tang one live owners and at a 2 owe 50 that's it avenue in the sunset so the bayview original hip hop store we have music so

every purchase counts for either the charts and the tri work chart that is acquired by 3 best friends we love k pop and why not share that and would the community here in the bay. and originally supposed to open up an eco but unfortunately, the covid hit by the we got creative with the social media and engaged and bring in people within the being sure like pop and the instagram live or hip hope to bring that connection with the bayview k pop community and we grow. and hello we're a collective store so the cc around us within us has the cards people like to collect and

try to collect limited edition mr. sincroy manufacturers like a state university or memorial and we have which is a venue for people to kind of make new friends and open up they're a goods and invite people to stay and oftentimes see the context we're very, very fortunate and everyone is super sweet and loveable to sum up i guess two words is a second home (background noise) and a lot of people visit. >> and connect this place even if it is really cool. >> san francisco is a city known for music and art and we at the pop store we to go show

the k love and added to the diversity of music and the way of the community. >> it is safe place it is a great way to dmrofr new things and any friends and it is saying hello 2050 carville from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and followup on the >> (music). >> hi, i'm emmy the owner of

emmy's spaghetti i offers working that with some kind of fine dining and apron and feeling stuffy and in the 90s in san francisco it was pretty pretense in a restaurant in the restaurant scene i want to it have a place to have a place for my friends to guess i started the restaurant a no better place the outer mission spaces were available that's when i opt in two 10 he start with all people and work with them and the events they create one of the events we do every year and backpack give away and give

piaget away and a christmas part with a santa and bring 5 hundred meatballs and pa get and we're like in the mission not about them knowing where the food comes from but a part of the community. and my restaurant emmy's spaghetti and fun banquet and san francisco not the thing that everybody knows about we stay under the radar we show the showcase i take it food and we started to eat we wanted to have comfort food and that a claims friend from i take it and helped me create meatballs and dealing

evolved over the years in the beginning one plate of spaghetti and a meatball we tried to make the portions as big as they could be. and now we have quite a few types pasta dishes with a la begin and meat sauce or have a partition to a lot of food we are at a point with all the favorites i don't change the menu often 0 i eat here so much but everything is fresh your cocktail menu is the best it's ever been one thing on the menu our magazine ghetto we change the flavor one of the fun things it is served in the historically we're known emmy's spaghetti as

a friendly place and when i opened i wanted my friend to be welcome and other parents to be welcomed and it is very for this is a place for families especially in san francisco and this is where though hold their celebration important i mean you're coming to a family restaurant and you're coming for o to a fun place i love being the owner and pretty sure my life i enjoy running the psta spaghetti place i hope to be here a while we'll see how it goes we everyone is a friend we're hoping you'll be a (laughter). >> hi, i'm pilipinas chi chai

mateo and am the artist here. i'm current working on a title meaning together and the reason why i choose that theme because celebrating the legacy of some of the latin tennis especially with the power that put us together as formed when he come together and before us putting for our recognition and housing. but through our art culture and we see that today which we're together and it is always a hope for the generations after us. >> here in this district where

we revising the languages and culture but in yes or no answer why we do this i get to see kids come out of this kind mr. ryu rattle where they came from and we are here. such an honor to be part of this legacy of togetherness and those opportunities have painting a mural such as this but teaching different skwashgs and learning more about my culture i thought i already knew but so much more to this is beautiful we have so much to give each other and we're also willing to work

>> good morning. and welcome. it is a glorious day here in san francisco. my name is mia, meeting place manager san francisco. i am thrilled to be here today as we welcome part of our meeting place here at san francisco. this is a really special moment for all of us. i coulden be more excited to be here together with all of you. at inca centers we are committed to transform this beautiful beautiful