at. we do cordon off in our app as well, places where riding is strictly forbidden. like on the promenade in santa monica, or other places, we put a big red mark on so people know not to ride there. but as far as the g.p.s. knows, it needs to get along further. >> co-chair blacksten: we're running tight on time. i know there are more questions. is there anymore from staff? let's go to the bridge line?

>> i want to thank her for the fantastic presentation, hit every point, nail on the head perfectly about the concerns that the new products are raising. as someone who uses a wheelchair, i've been impacted by more obstacles on the sidewalk. and i'm just very concerned with how this program even launched. i think it was in very bad faith, just littering the sidewalks with hundreds of these things. i've only seen people ride them on the sidewalks. and i agree with miriam that locking them up, having like the way the ebikes are locked up, for the equipment, and i really am concerned that a lot of this is being pushed onto the drivers

and not onto the companies to be held accountable for what is happening here. because i don't think users are going to just magically change. i mean, the government has been spending millions of dollars to get people to quit drinking and driving, yet 10,000 people a year die in drunk driving accidents. that's a high number. so this is a problem for the companies that are introducing into the public streets, which they are littering this new product. and the burden should not be placed on the consumer. i want to say, i also notice there is no helmets, pads and i'm very concerned about the people that are paying to use the scooters, even if they're riding in the streets, are taking a great safety risk in san francisco. i would like to see the companies do something about that. but i think miriam really laid it all out. the issue of equity and accessibility for people of all

financial brackets as well, is another concern with the product. and -- concerned that another obstacle to -- and we're going to be -- on us to report -- [line breaking up] -- more obstacles. >> co-chair blacksten: let's allow them to respond. >> no, they don't respond. >> co-chair blacksten: i'm sorry. >> just to clarify, the council has the opportunity to work with the presenters to help provide response to those responding to public comment. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you for clarifying. that's what i thought. can we have a response? if you care to. >> you know, addressing the issue of helmets, i know that is a state law that everyone is

required to wear a helmet while riding and they offer helmets free to all users in the app. i have one myself. and speaking of somebody who actually lives in santa monica and was a little frustrated with the way bird launched there, too, when it came out. part of the reason i joined the company, just two weeks ago as a matter of fact, i believe they were reaching out to me, the shared street activist, because they're working in good faith to learn from the initial bumpy ams takes to improve what i believe personally can be a genuine asset for someone like me who doesn't own a car and doesn't want to. and have what i'd like to call, an ecosystem of diverse transportation opportunities for people of all abilities and

financial backgrounds. that's where we can be heading with this and that's why we're all here today, to make sure that's where we go. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you very much. if there is not any more comments from the bridge line, we want to thank you for your presentations. this was great. now we're going to public comment. >> tiffany from diverseability. >> hi, my name is tiffany, two quick things here. if the scooters aren't allowed on the sidewalk, why are they allowed to be parked there? because they're free standing, can they be parked on the streets similar to the scooters from that company scoot? and then the second thing, if they're going to be treated like bikes, there are so many rules that were outlined in the mta presentation around all of the places they can't be parked, but can we just limit it to they can

only be parked in the places where bikes can be parked? >> co-chair blacksten: thank you for your comment. i think we have a second one. >> we do. >> hi, everybody. golden gate regional center. my question is first it feels like education, community engagement, accessibility weren't weaved into the fabric of the business plan from the beginning. it sounds like the companies know that government and legislation is slow, so you just did things and then asked for forgiveness. is this the first conversation you've had with the city, with disability communities? how many of these conversations have each of you had to gather feedback before launching? >> co-chair blacksten: we appreciate your comment. are there any more comments from the public?

>> no. >> co-chair blacksten: all right, well this has been a great time to have a conference with you. we expect to continue this conversation going forward. so i think that's going to conclude the 8 information item on scooters and now let's proceed to number 9, information item. improving the quality of muni/bart elevators at powell and civic center stations. our presenter is tim chan. welcome to the mayor's council on disability. >> hi, thank you for having me. my name is tim chan, i'm the acting group manager for bart in the station planning program. so this is my baby. this is my project. we worked really hard in

partnering with sfmta and hunters point family to deliver this project. i'm going to tell but it and what we have heard and some of the data we received from the first three days. it's no surprise, right, to anyone what goes on in the elevators and it's been going on for a long time. much to the frustration of our customers, both bart and muni, as well as the staff. the minute our cleaners come in to clean it, right behind it, someone goes in and does stuff. it's never ending battle. so we were really inspired by the pit stop program. that is run by public works. and i meet with them on a very regular basis to cover all issues around the bart stations in san francisco. and so as i learned more and more about first the program, the successes around the program, and then also the partnership with hunters point family, we started to have

conversations maybe we need to do something similar with the elevators as a pilot. and that's what we did. so we had many meetings with sfmta, they're a funding partner for this pilot. and then probably the eventual rollout of the program, but then also with hunters point family, we wanted to make sure that the organization was going to deliver what it's reputation is with the city. and in fact, they have. so essentially the scope of the pilot is that we have elevator attendants, they're in the elevators at all times. they are operating the elevator. they're the ones pressing the buttons at the street level and also at the platform level. they don't exit out of the elevators unless there is a specific need. so for example, if our cash handling people are coming in, they step out, allow the cash handling staff to go into the stations and then go right back

into the elevators to operate it. they're there from the moment the station opens around 4:00 a.m. in the morning to the time it closes at 1:00 a.m. and their job is to do a few things. first, they greet our customers, bart and muni. they greet the customers and take information about the types of customers that are using the elevators. they do an actual count, every time someone comes in. and record that information. so first, i'd like to give you data and then i'll tell you about the responses we've heard from many people. so we have always known the elevator was well used, i don't think we had a sense of how well used it really, really was. and we think with all of the promotional and the marketing and the stories around the elevator attendant, that increased that number. but i am happy to report, so the first three days, we saw an

average at civic centre, almost 1900 users. so your jaws can drop, because mine certainly did. we also did capture different types of users. we cover people with bikes, people with strollers, luggage and ada. i want to be clear, we don't ask people if they're disabled. we do not ask that question, but if they're obviously physically and visually impaired, and mobility-impaired then we note that. so when i give you a number, average is 192 civic center, know that there could be more than that, because we don't capture all of that number. that's what we're seeing at civic center. and at powell street it's almost 1800 users and of that number, about 128 are clearly ada. so we're incredibly encouraged

by the numbers. and what it does, it makes the case to our executive team, to our managers and then also to the board that this is a service that is so critical and desperately needed. so we expect it to continue. our budget goes for adoption to the board i think on june 14. so this for a full year, will be included in the budget. i don't think our board is going to reject it. i think it's going to continue all the way through fiscal year 19. and then from there, we will also look at rolling it out for future years as well. now, we do -- we have already received questions about whether or not it can be rolled out, expanded to other stations. and that's a question that we're going to have to really figure out. we've already had early conversations. nothing identified or confirmed. but know that the cost of delivering something like this

for a full year, it's about $1.2 million. that is not for bart staff charging, that is not for sfmta bart staff charging, that is for a hunters point family to deliver all the support they need for the program. so $1.2 million, that's for two stations if we were to roll out to other stations, we have to double that, or triple that. and that means that bart and mta have to have the difficult conversation about what we're not doing. and it's not to say it's not worth it, we know it's worth it. we have to have the tradeoff discussions. the feedback we've gotten has been tremendous. through social media, all the e-mails we received, sent to our customer service. it has been overwhelmingly positive. yesterday i wasn't to see the folks over at sfmta to give a

similar presentation. i don't get applause very often, but certainly people there were happy and they did applaud this effort. i don't think they're applauding me, just the effort. i'm just so happy, at a time when public transportation and our projects and conditions are so challenged in the city, that we've got some wins going on and it's really making a big difference. i wanted to share that with you all. and i'm open for questions. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you for the presentation. that's great. alex? >> council member madrid: thank you for coming. i have two questions. one is that when you said about the cleanliness of those two stations, right now it's very

clean around are they going to continue to clean the elevators? because when i -- staffing maintain, because it's pretty clean so far. and the second question is, i ride bart and go to 16th and 24th street, and it's pretty disgusting. >> oh, i know. >> council member madrid: i'm just being blunt. have you guys, i understand the money issue is tight, and the

question is, how come those stations are not included for this time around? and the last question is reaching -- possibly thinking about adding this muni and bart budget to maintain this program? >> ok, so i think the first question is, the answer is yes. i mean, even though -- so our aten dapts, part of the negotiation with the unions, they were not going to do any union work. and so that's why we limited

their scope in terms of really just saying hello, how are you, greeting the customers and then doing recording, but they're not supposed to do any work that is associated with our system service workers, our janitorial staff, custodial staff, station agents. so they're not there to clean. in the event there are incidents around safety, security and cleanliness, their job is to immediately notify the right people who will immediately dispatch the safety security, our police officers, our community service officers and then cleaners to address the situation. you know, in terms of the pilot, we wanted to not be too ambitious, right? so in a pilot, we wanted to make sure we keep the scope relatively tight. we did identify civic center and powell as the most challenged of all the stations we have, so it was a no-brainer to select those two. that's why we didn't do 16th and 24th.

however, we're already having conversations and we know the elevator cleanliness challenges at those two stations. and that's part of the tradeoff discussion, how much more is it going to take, probably another $1.2 million, to cover 16 and 24th and what is it we won't be doing as a result of that? and bart, our system is 50 years old and i think you know we have challenges. we're delivering new rail cars, they're not completely funded, we have rail cars to think about and a bond program, but that doesn't pay for cars. we have a lot of deferred maintaenance we have to start taking care of. there is a lot of stuff that is part of the mix. and that's part of the discussion at the staff level, executive level and board level. know it's on the radar. so don't think we haven't or won't forget about it.

>> co-chair blacksten: fantasti fantastic. >> i wanted to make inquiry about a thing that happened in the station with the drugs, how is that received by the people of san francisco and by -- >> i'm sorry, with the drug, with the recent stuff? yeah. so it's been very, very well received. and so what happened, last week, there was a walk-through with the mayor, three of our bart directors, as well as our general manager and other staff to really look at the conditions of civic centre. they already have seen the video, right? they've seen that and so they did a walk-through and it was really fantastic to hear the mayor, you know, acknowledge the challenges that we face at that station and the station area. and really to dedicate police

staffing to help bart. we are short almost 30 bodies in the bart police department. we are desperately trying to hire high quality candidates, but it's very difficult. as we are continuing to try to hire, we need help from the san francisco police department and that's what the mayor and chief scott has helped us with. on wednesday, i was there in the morning doing site visiting and immediately, i saw san francisco police department at the top of the top of the entrances and patrolling in the concourse area. and i started to receive lots of compliments from people. they're cheerful, just again, adding that positive energy we desperately need at that station. this will continue. we had a follow-up meeting with the mayor and his team. this partnership is going to continue with sf police department and we're excited about that and it's going to be fantastic for our customers.

>> co-chair blacksten: sounds good. any more questions? >> council member mcdonald: i don't understand how it costs $1.2 million to service two stations. i mean, why does it cost so much? >> they are paid $15 an hour, so we start with that. they're not $3.50. but there is also a fair amount of administrative support costs. so it's not just the attendants, it's the site supervisors, the project managers, the executive staff. and they're not charging full-time, but they are spending some time on this. there are people entering information into the computer. there are uniforms we need to purchase. there is a lot of other direct costs and administrative support costs we had to add to the attendant program. we're staffing about 35 attendants right now, because

we're talking about 21 hours. so we have i think five people doing 7-hour shifts and there are three shifts. so you can begin to see why it's about $1.2 million for the whole year. >> co-chair blacksten: really appreciate the clarification. if there is no more comments from the council, i know it's about quarter to 4:00, i need to go to staff. any questions from staff? >> hi, thank you so much for being here, i'm nicole bohn. on behalf of the mayor's office -- i want to applaud bart. >> don't forget mta. >> the civic centre space is a portal to our office, so we're appreciative. my question is around some of the data and wondering a couple of things. it might be too early, but i'm

wondering with the attendance, if you're seeing breakdowns happen less frequently. and as a follow-up to that, i'm wondering if part may be able to consider using some of this data you're collecting. >> first of all, i'm happy to report, so we are tracking that metric. multiple metrics. we've collected it before we rolled out the pilot, and we're going to keep tracking around elevator availability as well as cleanliness. so the number of service calls that are needed each time. and so we will be able to start reporting that 6 months to a year time frame. i am also very excited to report and this is something i'm working with sfmta and the

transportation authority. we know that if one elevator is down, that's it. we've heard time and again from our frustrated customers where they have to backtrack and go to a different station and pray that elevator is working. that's just not acceptable. so we're working with the other agencies on putting together a design study to identify -- and we've done station modernization plans, so we have a sense of where the redundant elevators are going, we just need to take to it the next level of design. the plan is to put an extra street elevator on the other side of market street somewhere. and then at the concourse level, we have like civic center and at powell street and montgomery, they're serving both bart and muni. not only that, it's not easy to get to. so what we're doing, those

elevators we're going to enclose it in a bart paid area. and we're going to identify a new muni-only elevator in the muni paid area. and what is going to happen, on the bart side, that elevator will also serve muni in the event of emergency or repair or something. and then the muni-only elevator will serve bart for the same reason. but know there is always going to be redoneredundancredundancy. but it's so needed and we're moving forward with that. >> thank you so much, that would be another great presentation when you're close to that plan. i know we're short, but it's really important to ask, what does bart need to terms of letters of support, or advocacy to continue the program do you think? what would be most helpful? >> you need money, that is

always helpful. [laughter] so anything you all can help us with in terms of identifying potential grant opportunities, that would be fantastic. being our biggest advocate is also great. but when we do the grant stuff, is when the letters and all that really comes into play. you know, it never hurts to write letters to our general manager, to ed riskin, to our board, bevan, nick, latifah and just letting them now how happy, thrilled you are with this and love to see the program continue. i think that would be fantastic. >> thank you. >> co-chair blacksten: all right. >> thank you so much for coming. i called you last minute and you jumped at the opportunity. as a regular bart customer for the past 12 years, coming from

west oakland to san francisco to civic center, i personally want to thank you, because i've gotten way less sick since you started that program. there is also this area, it's also high employment area for people with disabilities. and we also are beginning to realize that sometimes we have to wait in line to use the elevators because everybody else wants to use the elevator. so it's no longer just a disability access point, it's a universal access point. we have seniors, we have bikers. so now up until that program started, nobody wanted to use the elevator. and it was not just the cleanliness, but also the safety. over the last two years, i've been assaulted, i've been sick, i've been pickpocketed in the elevator. and based on where it's located

for the elevator, there is areas not patrolled by bart police. tripped over individuals who were passed out, injecting. it was pretty horrible. so, i would say, as you're beginning to think to calculate tradeoffs, really start thinking about the safety issue that you're taking care of. and the potential lawsuit. and liability that comes with that. for many of us, we have no other option but the elevator. it felt like we were on the bottom of the food chain. and you know, thank you so much for that program. i had an opportunity to talk to director and there are other issues, but the safety is a huge

one. >> thank you. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you. all right, let's go to the -- if there is no more comment from staff, let's go to the bridge line. >> anyone on the bridge line? >> yes. zack here, i'm going to have be to the odd person out, i do not share enthusiasm for this project. i'm very -- bart has a very poor track record for the disabled, i'm a wheelchair user in san francisco. i cannot buy a onetime disabled pass to get on bart. many bart stops don't have restrooms which is why people urine ate in the pel viator, but -- elevator, which bart police have targeted and i don't

want to see people being brutalized more because they need to relieve themselves and they do it in an inappropriate way. i'm concerned whether or not these people, in the elevators are going to be armed. i do not feel safe with bart people who are armed with their track record of shooting people in the back. bart has a poor track order of taking disabilities into account. there have been elevators not working continuously, there is always one elevate that doesn't work. this is constant. and this is just an example of how much bart does not prioritize people with disabilities. and again, like i cannot buy a disabled one-time pass, getting onto a bart train. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you

for your remarks. >> -- so i'm very skeptical about the goal of this. i do want cleaner elevators that people have mentioned, i do want safer elevators as well. i'm concerned at the motivations here and i would like to see restrooms at more bart stations at the same time as something like this is considered. thank you. >> co-chair blacksten: thanks for your comment. all right, so we have one person, public comment here. >> >> hi, just a quick comment. i think what is great, you are creating jobs and i would urge you to actually hire people with disabilities as the attendants or people experiencing homelessness. given the fact it costs half a million dollars for each station, i'm curious if you're looking into other alternatives like increasing video

surveillance, et cetera. >> co-chair blacksten: i want to thank you for the comment. for the speaker, i want to just simply say to you, this is -- you're doing a lot of greet work. we want -- great work. we want to continue having a conversation with you, collaborating with you and i want to simply say from my perspective, as a guide dog user, there is an additional safety hazard for me. i have to go to the civic center, bart station quite often. we walk across needles and many other things. and it's a risk to her. so you need to be aware there is a guide dog user community out there, and we have to deal with it, too. and so, you're doing great work, thank you. i'm going to close this item out. great discussion. that's all i can say. all right, so now public comment. are there any comments from the

public that is not on the agenda today? >> brief comment. i just want to thank everyone here today for the time. i think there has been great discussions. i want to provide my e-mail. totally looking forward to hearing from people and continuing the conversation. and lastly, i just want to ask, to mod in a general suggestion, concern, for local organizations, i'm really concerned about the response time for a request, a communication request around accessibility. as well as request to speak to a supervisor. i bring these two issues up, because i've had many experiences where i've waited weeks or months for a reply from sfmta and other organizations.

and have sometimes been refused to be able to speak with a supervisor. so i'm just kind of wanting to follow up on that. and that seems not right to me, so i would love to work with mod staff possibly to look into those issues. thank you. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you. we'll make note of your suggestion. and move forward accordingly. are there any more public comments? we always want to hear them. all right. not hearing any. let's move on to item number 12 -- i forgot correspondence. >> there is not any correspondence at this time. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you. now we go to council member comments and announcements. are there any from my colleagues on the council? none. no comments.

i don't have any either right now. you'll hear further report from me next month. this has been a great meeting. i appreciate you all coming. if any of the presenters are around, i'm sure you may get questions. we want to continue collaborating and talking with you. with that, i think, hey, we're right on time, just about 4:00. do i hear someone to adjourn? >> i move that we adjourn. >> co-chair blacksten: all right, we're adjourned.

this meeting will come to order. welcome to the may 18, 2018, convening of the special meeting of the rules committee. i'm supervisor safai, to my left is supervisor stefani and joined by sandy fewer. our clerk is john carroll and i would like to thank leo and

michael from sf gov tv, who are staffing us for the meeting. clerk, do you have announcements? >> thank you, please make sure to silence all cell phones, completed speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the june 5th agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor safai: great. please call item number 1. >> clerk: number one, ordinance aexding the administrative code to prohibit landlords from seeking rent increases on existing tenants due to increases in debt service and property tax that have resulted in the change from ownership. >> supervisor safai: thank you, i'm going to hand it to supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, supervisor safai and thank you for scheduling this special

meeting. i introduced this legislation after tenants made me aware of the operating and maintenance petitions being filed at the rent board, the vast majority from corporate landlords. i was not aware of all of the passes available to landlords that allow us to pass tenants cost -- costs onto our tenants. there is a flaw in your rent ordinance that allows landlords to pass through debt service and property tax increases that they have incurred since simply purchasing a rent controlled building, not for maintaining the building, but just acquiring it. tenants should not be burdened because they have a new

landlord. allowing the landlord encourages speculation and causes anxiety and insecurity for the people who call that building their home. they have more say in the building being sold -- no say in the building being sold and see no benefit from paying the increases of the landlord. landlords rental property can write off 100% of their property taxes. whereas tenants cannot write off any of the rent increases. i know, because i own rental property and i write off my property taxes. as landlords we write off depreciation and other costs associated with maintaining the building. tenants do not. i want to clarify this legislation will not eliminate the upgrading and maintenance petition. i think there has been a lot of misinformation going around that

landlords will no longer be able to pass through increases about water if they do capital improvements, such as fixing the carpetting or painting the building, that is not true about the legislation. this will not prevent landlords from passing through water service, garbage service, janitorial service and any other operating and maintenance expenses. this will not prevent landlords from passing through capital improvements costs or the property tax increases that result from a capital improvement. this will only remove debt service and property tax increases that result from a change in ownership. my staff and i have met with property owners who have expressed concerns about the legislation being retroactive

because some property owners relied on their ability to pass through the debt service increases at the time they purchased their property. i have taken these concerns to heart and in response, i amended the legislation earlier this week so that landlords who purchased a property on or before april 3, 2018, and relied on this at the time of purchase, can still be granted this pass-through. april 3 is the date this legislation was introduced. and i am willing to make this compromise to address the concerns of these property owners. moving forward, investors will no longer be able to use the prospect of this rent increase in their calculation for purchasing a rent-controlled building. i'm happy that apartment association brought some ideas forward about expanding eligibility for tenant hardship waivers and other ways to protect tenants from the

bundling of multiple pass throughs. i want to thank everyone who has waited with -- weighed in with their ideas and i want to thank chair safai for getting this scheduled as quickly as possible. i want to thank supervisors peskin, yee, ronen, sheehy and kim, for consponsoring this. i also want to thank the sro tax force for endorsing the legislation and the rent board being here to answer questions today on such short notice. thank you, colleagues, i hope to have your support with a positive recommendation. we have a report from the rent board.

thank you. >> thank you, supervisor fewer, i'm robert collins, director of the rent guard, i want to introduce sandy and joey, who are administrative at the rent board. all three of us are here to answer questions, but sandy is really the expert and she will be presenting to you the presentation from the rent board. if we could have the slides. >> can you hear me? thank you for inviting me to attend this meeting and provide data and background from the rent board that pertains to the legislation before you. as you know, the primary day-to-day basis of the rent board is to ajude indicate rent adjustments. landlords come to request rent

increases and tenants rent decreases. in order to get this approval for this type of rent increase, the landlord has to file what is known as operating and maintenance petition, or an omm petition. this has increased over the past ten years. between 2008 and 2012, we received 21 per year. in the past 12 months, we've received five times that many o & m petitions. they are filed by new owners who recently purchased a property and the main factors driving the majority of the petitions are increases in debt service and property taxes resulting from the transfer of the property. up on the screen is part of the presentation, you can see the history for the last five years of the number of o & m petitions

filed and the numbers of unit effected. we're looking at the last 12 months exactly. we had 103 petitions affecting 1061 units. i thought it would be important just to do a little bit of explanation of how an operating and maintenance rent increase is calculated. the way the ordinance is written and the rules and regulations, we look at operating and maintenance costs for two consecutive 12-month... periods. we look at maintaining the building, water, property taxes, pest control, and other maintenance. the way we actually figure out how much a rent increase would be for tenants, we determine the difference between the cost of year one and two. in most cases filed by new owners, they're demonstrating costs for the year prior to the

purchase compared to the costs in their first year of ownership. we take that difference, we divide it by the number of units in the building and then we divide it by 12 months to get the monthly o & m increase per unit. the problem is, that many times this increase exceeds a tenant's base rent by the upper limit of 7%, so we deduct first the amount of the annual increase from that because the annual increase is meant to cover ordinary operating and maintenance expenses and what is left over, up to a maximum of 7% can be passed through to the tenant as increase. it's a permanent rent increase that is part of the tenant's base rent. that is your primer for the day. in the past year, we've issued # 7 o & m decisions. because we were on short notice, we're only going to provide data

fort past year. based on the data that seems consistent with what we've been experiencing, 91% of the new petitions have been filed by new owners and in every one of those cases, 100% of the units were granted 7% rent increase. because this legislation proposes to eliminate debt service and property taxes, i was asked by supervisor fewer's office to determine what the rent increases would have been if debt service and property taxes were not considered and in 60% of those cases, there would be zero increase from the tent. some landlords who are not new own understand, do file the -- owners, do file the petition because they've experienced increases in insurance, repairs, management, water, sewer. and in 100% of those cases in the past year, we've been

granting rent increases but none have reached the full 7%. this is just a little chart to show you what 7% rent increase looks like. we've got a variety of rents. as you know, rents in the city vary widely. we went from 500 to $3,000. 7% goes from 35 to $210 if you're paying $3,000 for rent. supervisor fewer mentioned tenant hardship. i wanted to give you information. back in august 2016, the rent board regulations were made it amended to make it easier to seek relief. we went back and looked at the number of tenants who filed for hardship relief from the increases and in the past 21 months, since the legislation went into effect, 124 of the

1781 units that were subject to o & m rent increases did have their -- did file and of the cases that have gone to decisions, 92% have been granted. finally, there was also mention in supervisor fewer's opening remarks there are many other types of rent increases available to landlords. i think it's important to put this in context, so i made a little chart to hopefully make it easier for you. i just want to talk briefly about each type. by the way, about 70% of the landlords who have filed o & m petitions in the last several years, have imposed some or all of these increases in pass throughs. the first one is the annual allowable increase, this is the automatic, everyone gets it, tied to the increase in the consumer price index and this is

to cover ordinary ions -- increases in expenses. there is no -- this shows up on the property tax bill, a general bond pass through, it's a separate pass through. the property tax bill contains recharges by bonds passed by the voters. there is a formula that the board of supervisors passes every year and we put out the worksheets. they don't need prior rent board approval, but it is based on the net taxable value. you'll see when we come to rent increase notices, the general bond pass through increases as well. we have a separate pass through for water revenue bonds. they come on the water bills and

50% of costs attributed to the revenue bonds can be passed through to tenants. many landlords take advantage of this. there is hardship relief available for tenants who cannot afford it and landlords do not need prior approval from the rent board for this. utility pass throughs are based on increase in cost from one year to the next. this is not showing up that much with landlords filing o & m, but we have hundreds of these every year, some of which require a petition and some of which require them to file a worksheet. the rent board fee is also included in the property tax bill. it is a charge of 50% of which can be passed through directly to tenants. it is bankable, back to 1999, so if an owner or previous owner has not taken advantage of this, they can charge this to the tenant and a lot of the rent

increase notices that we've seen where landlords are banking this, it's a onetime charge for one month, it can be a larger amount, but then drops off. it's part of the tax bill. currently the rent fee is $45, so tenants play $22.50 a year, but it has changed over time. the pass through is the bread and butter petition for landlords. we receive over 400 petitions a year for capital improvement and landlords can increase costs for windows, doors, roof, painting, seismic retrofit, new boilers, things that directly benefit the tenants and they can pass through the costs. there are certain limits how much of those rent increases can be imposed at a single time, but we also have found that many, many landlords who file o & m petitions are also taking advantage of passing through the cost of capital improvement,

which is their right. finally, the operating and maintenance pass through. it is the only permanent based increase, everything else is temporary and eventually gets discontinued. there is hardship relief as there is for capital improvements. i thought it would be helpful to take a look at a couple of representative rent increase notices so you can see what tenants are facing when a landlord is asking for an o & m petition. you have a tenant with base rent, $1020, they have annual increase totalling 3.8%, so a new base rent. in this particular case, they've got their proposed operating and maintenance pass through several years of general bond, three prior capital improvements and water bond pass through. so a tenant is looking at a base rent of 1048 and a total rent of

1568. this is a two-pager. i guess i included the second page so you can see in this particular case the landlord did impose rent board fees even though is 2017 case, they were able to increase what could be charged to the tenants and that was one time charge of $279.50, but will be discontinued. the next two samples of rent increases are from the same building and i chose one where the rent was low, which is the first one we're looking at. the tenant base was 847, the landlord had not increased the rent since 2013 and gave all the increases totalling 6.7%, in addition 7% o & m increase, so the tenant's rent was going up

to $963. the owner never passed through the cost and did the whole banking here. you can see they were very small amounts, but once the building changed hands and the property was reassessed, the general bond pass through, which is reflerkted in the property tax bill, does go up significantly. the last rent increase notice, same building, but it's a tenant who is in the middle to upper rent district at $2500. and you can see that when you're doing the same annual bank and the same 7% o & m increase, the dollar amounts are much higher. this is a tenant whose base rent is going up $342. same thing with the general bond payout. finally, i've included a report of o & m petitions that were filed in the last 12 months. the reason for this is i was

asked how many of these are small buildings of 1-5 units or buildings of 6-plus units? and if you look through this and analyze it, i will tell you the answer. 15% of the o & m petitions were filed by smaller property owners of 1-5 unit buildings, the other 85 were bigger. that's it. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> supervisor safai: what we're going to do because there is a lot of people that want to do public comment, we'll ask our questions after public comment. so if anyone would like to speak for public comment, speakers have one minute. please state your name, speak into the microphone. if you have documents you'd like to leave, hand them to the clerk. if you can please clearly state your name. and we can line up. i'm not necessarily going to call people. people can line up to the right if they want to speak, but i can call names. brian, leslie, becky, marcy --

and if people are coming together as part of a group, if you wanted to have one person represent you, that would be helpful. anyway, please proceed. >> i'm coming here to demonstrate that those demonstrations that you just heard from the rent board is price-fixing. these increases in rent is a conflict with the income of the tenant. if the tenant income does not increase, the increase of rent should not be applied to the tenant. that's price fixing. as far as attaching expenses and repairs to the tenant, the tenant is not part owner of the building. [bell ringing] the owner of the building is responsible for all repairs of the building. that rental contract is a contract pertaining to corporate law and pertaining to implied warranty under landlord-tenant

law. the landlord, the owner is responsible for all repairs of the building, so that's a false narrative of passing on the expenses to a tenant to repair a problem of a building that you own. [bell ringing] >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hold on. i just want to remind everyone, there is no audible support in the chamber. if you have anything that you want to express support for, yuz you're fingers, but there won't be audible support tolerated. it's not part of the decorum in this chamber. next speaker, please. >> i'm brian klein. i'm resident of san francisco since 94, living on a fixed income due to long-term disability. i'm here to support the legislation. i've lived in the same rent-controlled flat for three-unit building since 94. i'm here to tell you this loophole is not only used by

large corporate landlords, it is also used by small individual ones, even in owner-occupied buildings such as myself. my unit, my building was put on the market in 2015 for a 2.2 million. it was purchased for $2.8 million, $600,000 over the asking price. the new owner placed the o & m for the 7% increase in my rent in addition to the rent ordinance annual allowable rent increase. and this was based solely on the debt service and property tax, no other legitimate o & m work done on the building rose to the level that would have increased my rent a dime or increased the value of the property. [bell ringing] >> clerk: next speaker, please. good morning, i'm a tenant an geary street, so on behalf of the tenants of this building, i

ask the board to pass the legislation without any amendments. i'm here today because my building caught fire in the basement with with the dryer that was not up to code. my unit has flooded with inadequate piping systems out of my kitchen sink. bedbugs, numerous other issues. so really i would appreciate it if they could get their operating and maintenance up to par before they pass that along to me. thank you and please pass this. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. >> i live at 240 cumberland street, 30-unit building, speaking on my behalf, and the other tenants, i'm in support of supervisor fewer's legislation for the reasons she stated. it strikes me this is not a radical alteration that is being proposed, but a reasonable adjustment of the benefits and burdens of life in san francisco. in the direction that any reasonable supervisor ought to support. thank