to be doing, save the citizens. i hope that you do your job that time. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors, chair safai. i just want to thank you for having this legislation come up and want to urge you to pay with no amendments. my name is cynthia and i've been a renter in san francisco for 17 years. my first landlord in the city was city apartments. you may be familiar with them. city apartments is essentially old school green tree. you know these type of predatory speculative landlords and i urge you to protect tenants from getting these costs passed through, which is basically the cost of doing business in san

francisco as a landlord. these are not unknown expenses and renters should not be made to pay for essentially money-making off of predatory landlords. thank you so much. >> thank you, supervisors. san francisco tenant union. we know that running a building costs money. we know that, that's why we pay rent. but we should have rent control in order to have predictability in our budgets and stability in our homes and lives. it sounds like a lot of the objections raised by the landlords are against rent control and that is not what is before you. what is before you is a narrow category of pass through that happens, it increases the uncertainty to tenants. and that pass-through is basically a speculator subsidy. it's only for debt service and for property taxes. these are both expenses that

only new landlords face. and these are only -- they're -- these changes are not going impact people who already own buildings, who are speaking today. if people need to make -- they're going to be able to do that. [bell ringing] >> co-chair: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm an investor in rental property in this city. i don't think this legislation is necessary. the rent board has the authority to ajude indicate each one of these rent increases and petitions. if it was purchased for $3 million and now today it sells

for $7 million, of course the base rents have to change. you have to have a different -- you have to have an economic reality or people are not going to invest in rental property. this city needs more rental property. we need to attract big donors and small donors to solve our housing shortage. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is dave wasserman, i've been a small property owner here 24 years and sit on the san francisco rent board as a landlord commissioner, i'm here today to oppose the measure, because you're legislating against the perceived misdeeds of one landlord. that's not right. it's not good legislative policy. the real problem here is why san francisco is now the second most expensive city in the world to construct property and to build things. that's the real problem here.

not one landlord who allegedly is doing these things. lastly, i would add the more you strip away from owners, the less ability they have to improve their property and to make this city one of the most attractive and beautiful cities in the world. most landlords try to help their tenants, do the right thing and should not be punished by this punitive law. thank you. >> hi. all supervisors. i just want to let you know, please there is fear for the other tenants and landlord. not only one side. it's not fair. please vote no. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> [speaking spanish] >> translator: good morning, everyone, my name is raymond. i live 270 turk street, apartment number, i think he means 806. he is 65 years old, speaks mayan, very little spanish, so i'm attempting to translate for him. sorry, he does not want to continue. he did want to express he supports the legislation. him and his wife are both 65

years old. they have certain illnesses that i will not disclose. they have been through several lending crisis, including an operation and maintenance increase which is also included on this list of $67. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> can i be the first to wish you good afternoon. my name is mitchell from the affordable housing alliance. i'm going to say three things in support of the legislation. number one, the legislation does not affect a single existing landlord, large or small. number two, this legislation does impact and will protect tens of thousands of existing san francisco tenants who are at risk precisely because they are existing long-term tenants whose buildings are targeted for purchase and will raise the rents and make a lot of extra

money. number three, we already responded to the opponents of the legislation and made a major change in the legislation. changing the effective date to the detriment of many of the tenants in this room, i might add. please pass this today, before more people are hurt by this practice. thank you. >> good morning to all of you supervisors. my name is maria, i live in apartment 602, i urge this committee to support this legislation and subsidy for speculative behavior. i ask you to pass is this legislation without any amendments. what i could say is, i would like the property management,

they increase my rent any time they want to. and then i'm not talking on my behalf only, i'm talking also on the behalf of all the low-income tenants here in the city. it's a big impact for all of us if we cannot afford to pay the high rent. again, on behalf of tenants on this address, i argue to vote yes. on this legislation without any -- [bell ringing] >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is kim. >> translator: i am san francisco resident. i don't have any property for rent.

i think this legislation is not good and not fair for all san francisco. the renters have difficulty finding a place to rent because the rent control law is too harsh on owners. so a lot of owners just hold their property and not renting them out. now we want to resolve this rental shortage problem.

i hope the supervisors will incentivize owners to release the rental units to take care of this shortage problem. and i also urge you, don't keep on punishing the owners, thank you. >> good morning, committee, i'm of the housing rights committee of san francisco. i urge you to support this legislation today. i want to provide quick information regarding some of the comments on the small

property owners. starting in 2018, there was a federal law passed called the tax cuts and job act which depending on their income, landlords may be able to deduct up to 20% of their net rental income and it's possible that many of the owners are not aware of the deductions. more broadly, i think it's a shame that the contest today is between small property owners and tenants, when i believe the shared concern is not to be around the speculation, but that caused by the large corporate landlords and that ought to be the concern today. thank you so much and i urge you to support this without any amendments. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i work with the housing clinic with the outreach program. i see a lot of tenants come into our office with many, many rent increases, many of these tenants

are already retired. they're not getting extra income. and they're just so afraid they're going to be displaced. so i urge all the supervisors to support this legislation. thank you. >> good morning, my name is rosa. i work with tenderloin housing clinic. i've been in the tenderloin housing clinic for five years. in 2014, i started to see several tenants come in with operation and maintenance petitions wondering what is this huge increase? those rent increases came from green tree, some of them from small property owners. they were an incredible hardship for tenants and very confusing for tenants. i'd like to highlight someone who was up here. mr. wasserman, who sits on the rent board, who also is a small property owner. he is the main attorney also for

green tree veritas and a big corporate landlord. just make sure you all know that. for the small property owners, i want to let you know ben again, we're not doing away with operation maintenance. what we need to do away with is the speck la tory debt service -- [bell ringing] >> clerk: thank you. i want to focus on property taxes and keeping the property taxes in the equation. we agreed with you to take the debt service out, but property taxes are important to keep in. one reason is, in 2018, you'll no longer be able to write off a portion of the property taxes under donald trump's administration. he's changed the tax code to punish california property

owners. also, you want to incentivize small owners to hold onto their buildings and allowing them to pass through the cost to keep the building. please keep the property tax in, let people pay their mortgages and stay in the rental housing business and not sell off to speculators. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is cindy. i live in the san francisco. i'm owner. [speaking foreign language]

>> translator: i am an owner, san francisco rent control law is so harsh, that make us owners always live in fear. if we are having a very difficult time supporting ourselves. all this legislation that you come up with always against the owners, so whenever their tenant moves out, we're just not going to rent it out.

you make us owners feel like criminals. you make us not want to rent it out. so you need to balance your law for both tenants and owners, otherwise the rental market will be very terrible. [bell ringing] >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> hi, my name is sue. [speaking foreign language]

>> translator: please don't come up with more legislations putting hardships on property owners, small property owners, who work very, very hard to keep up with the cost of living to maintain the ownership of the building. the rent controls is one of the strictest in all. there is lots of increases in all aspects of costs. with maintenance. whenever you don't have funds, you pick on property owners.

like property owners can just print money to come up with the new tax. and to continue to pass laws that take more money from property owners. please don't spend more time to put more restrictions and laws on property owners. the retired people -- [bell ringing] >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. my name is jed. i've lived in san francisco

since 1999. as someone who does not work for a profit-making entity, i am one of the many individuals who is constantly skating on the edge of having to leave san francisco. i think a lot of what the homeowner side is saying, there is a lot of restrictions and rent control is great, but you know what, it doesn't make the difference we need it to make, which is why we still have the horrific housing and displacement issues we have to the city. it's clear whatever we're doing is not enough and i hope you support this legislation to keep people like me in town. thank you. >> hi, i'm reading a statement from my neighbor at 643 powell street. veritas property, i urge this

committee to vote yes on today's legislation and this benefits speculative behavior. we urge you to support the legislation without amendments. for myself and my child, this legislation represents a small form of justice. after veritas began construction and demolition in my building, my son and i began experienced respiratory problems. my son has chronic lung inflammation and i'm going to have cultures done to find the source of my cough. after this time, my building is set -- [bell ringing]. >> i would venture to guess that the shrinking middle class is largely composed of small

property owners and that the individual pensions of retired pools of civil servants may be greater than the individual income of the landlords paying the majority of taxes. if the property appears to be worth millions, you should consider that the dollars worth less than four pennies and congress is toying with the idea of eliminating mortgage tax deduction which benefits -- is that three minutes? >> 30 seconds. >> which benefits large corporations to the detriment of small competition. >> clerk: thank you. any other members of the public wish to comment on the item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: thank you. let me say something in chinese. [speaking chinese]

>> supervisor yee: [speaking chinese] >> supervisor yee: so i tried my best to say something in chinese. there are a few left here. earlier there were many chinese speakers that were -- that sort of made comments that confused me a little bit. so i wanted to clarify whether

or not some of these things they were saying in terms of maintenance, such as increases in -- increases in janitor services, insurance and just routine repairs and maintenance. i want to make sure that in this legislation, those things we still -- landlords can still pass through some to the tenants. so supervisor fewer, can you clarify that. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, supervisor yee. i think there is maybe some misinformation. i know that when we say operating and maintenance costs, that people do think it is about maintaining your property. actually, you can still write that off. you can still pass that through.

if you have -- if the water bill goes up, you can still pass that through. if there is increase in utilities, you can pass that through. if you paint your building, you can pass that through. if there is an increase in property tax, you can pass that through still. it is only two things that we are trying to eliminate today. and that is when you buy a new building. so this is not affect anyone who currently owns property, who is buying property -- this concerns people who are buying property after april 3rd. this is not a debate about rent control. this is an ordinance that now will eliminate the ability of

new property owners to pass-through their debt service which is their mortgage and also the new property tax. so for the speaker that owned his building for 15 years, this does not affect him. if you are a property owner now, it does not affect you. i am a small property owner, too. i own my own home. and i own two pieces of income property. it does not affect me. i can still pass through increases in the water bill. increases in the garbage bill. if i paint the building, if i get a new roof on the building, i can still pass those things through. i think there is just -- i just want to apologize that i do have

a chinese speaker in my office, but she is on maternity leave now. because i understand that this is complicated. but i want everyone to know -- and especially the small property owners and especially the chinese speakers, that this -- i yoent want you to -- don't want you to think you cannot pass through those things anymore. if this passes, you can still pass through all those operating and maintenance expenses. it is just two items. and this is only when there is a change in ownership. so if you were to buy a building after april 3rd, yes, this would affect you. but if you bought your building before april 3rd, this is not -- does not affect you. >> supervisor yee: [speaking chinese]

>> supervisor yee: i'm glad you clarified that, because i thought this was the case and that's why i cosponsored this. let me make a couple of comments. this is really, to me, sensible location that is trying to again counter some of the things we're seeing that is impacting tenants, which are the speculators. and, yes, things will go up in terms of taxes and so forth. if you're buying a new building. but you know, people don't buy buildings because they want to lose money. they buy it because they know

they can gain money. whether or not the old thought of 50 years ago where the rents can help pay for the mortgage, that doesn't make any sense anymore because now people -- what people didn't talk about today is that when you -- if the money -- when you buy a building, you factor in things like, by the way, i think this property is going to go up 10% every year. if it's worth a million, it's going to be worth $1.1 million. that's what is happening. it's not like detroit where you can buy a building for $1. if you want that, then go ahead and -- go ahead and have fewer people live here and the property goes down and then the rent goes down. but that's not the case.

so when people talk about -- talk about the cost and so forth, please also consider that the property value goes up. what was worth $1 million 15 years ago is probably worth $2 million. so i want to say that. for those that want to buy the building, if indeed, it's going to cost you more for property taxes, you'll offer less. that's what you have to do. so what we don't want to do is have, again, people make profit in terms of speculators who are buying property now. just to resell it. so you have their profit margin be done off the back of renters. >> supervisor safai: i have questions. so thank you, everyone, for coming out today. thank you, supervisor fewer, for

putting forward this important conversation. i have a lot of questions, but i want to focus in on one. i want to focus on one line of questioning right now. so, the categories on page 2 that you list out, garbage, insurance, debt service, repairs, elevator service. do you take all of those into consideration at the same time? does a property owner put forward all of those categories at once when they're asking for a pass-through? >> yes, that's required. >> supervisor safai: so if you were to take out debt service -- like i heard from the speakers and we've gotten information that no other locality in california allows debt service, if you took that out, is there a threshold that needs to be met for an o & m to be approved? i mean, how you factor determining -- water, they just raised the water rates, the garbage rate, could someone

separately put in water and garbage and say we want this pass-through. is there a threshold that that has to be met. >> we look at the aggregate cost of maintaining and operating a building. the only separate pass-throughs are the ones that i listed for the general bond: >> supervisor safai: when you say aggregate, what do you mean? >> we add together for a 24-month period, two consecutive 12 months, we add together an owner cost for -- >> supervisor safai: all of the categories? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: and is there a threshold that has to be met? >> in order to receive a pass-through you have to have it exceed the allowable increase and anything -- >> supervisor safai: so the annual increase is determined by the body. >> it's actually determined by your body, but yes. >> supervisor safai: 60% of cpi?

>> yes. >> supervisor safai: so if the -- in this proposal, we eliminate -- if we eliminate debt service and we eliminate property taxes, what is the likelihood that those combined will actually increase above cpi at 60%? >> so, just looking at the decisions that we've issued in the last 12 months, which is all we had time to do -- >> supervisor safai: just for clarification, when you say you only had time to look at those, the legislation -- excuse me, members of the public, there is no audible discussion. when you say you had only a little bit of time, the legislation was introduced in april. >> right, but we were not asked to make a presentation until earlier this week. >> supervisor safai: ok, got it. please stand by.

>> supervisor fewer: actually, the majority of them are large property owners, and that's what we've seen here. and so the small property owners makeup a very smaller percentage, is that correct, of people who actually file for this -- the l.o.m. exemption of -- where -- the debt service and the property tax, is that correct? >> of the 103 onm petitions that were filed in the last two

months, 15% were filed by owners of buildings with one to five units. the other 85% were buildings with 6-plus units. of the cases that we decided in this past 12 months, 9% of them were for existing owners, meaning, they didn't have the big jump in the property tax and debt service. all of those were approved but none of them reached the 7% threshold. >> supervisor safai: okay. got it. and that's also on page 3 at the bottom. >> all right. >> supervisor safai: there's a lot of numbers. >> and thank you for the clarification. >> supervisor safai: thank you for getting this done. i didn't know you didn't have a week. supervisor fewer, anything else? >> supervisor fewer: yes, i just want to say a lot of these property owners don't file for these pass throughs. i know many small owners are

family members who don't do these pass throughs at all. so i want to know is what the rent board is seeing is the rent board's seeing that the majority of these o and m pass throughs are, just for the record, large property owners and not small property owners? >> we don't really define property owners as large or small. we look at the size of the building. so the majority are filed by owners with six or more units. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you. >> supervisor safai: i have a few questions. some of the things that we've heard today as well as some of the information sent to us, i'm just curious how it would affect the numbers of o and m being taken. if someone were would have a

hardship, how that would overall -- obviously, it would go down, so you would define how you would be able to do retroactive -- like, one of the suggestions that we heard was if someone were to lose their job but an o and m were done three years ago, you could go back -- i know you don't have in the law now, but that's one of the things for that's up for proposal. >> we do have that system in place for capital improvement pass throughs. >> supervisor safai: you can go back retroactively? >> well, you can come in and say this was approved three years ago, five years ago, and i'm still paying it, but it's a financial hardship for me. going forward, i can't afford to pay it. for a hardship relief for operating and maintenance, we ask -- the rule is you have to file within a year of the

effective date of the increase. part of it is it gets wrapped up in a tenant's base rent, and it's just sort of for everybody, but that's the way the rule was written. >> supervisor safai: and then if you were to codify that you were to do one onm for the lifetime of the tenant. does that mean if you did that, it wouldn't mean if the property changed hands or it wouldn't matter what information they were providing to you. i'm trying to understand that a little bit further, but that's one of the things that we've heard and how that would impact the current tenants. >> in the past, there was another large property owner that did -- this was involving parkmerced. they had several rapid turnaround in ownership, and they had done back to back onm's. the law was amended by the board of supervisors to say

that the same landlord of large buildings, meaning buildings of six units or more could only kboes an onm increase once every five years, so there's already a limit for that, but if there's a change in ownership, then, the new owner can ask for an onm increase. >> supervisor safai: but if you were a tenant for a lifetime, it wouldn't matter. if an onm had been done in this five year limit, you would say, however long you live here, you can only be impacted by one onm. i guess that's one way to look at it. let's see...what about the idea of onm's being able to not be done at the same time with other pass throughs. can you talk about how the pass throughs happen at once? i know you gave some scenarios, but some of the things that we've heard, someone couples in, they buy a property, and i heard that in the presentation

today that somebody has all these years of bankable increases, they have bonds, so there's all these things. and then, the onm, and all of these hit at once. i think in one case, a person's rent went up by 27%, can you talk about that a little bit? >> sure. other than capital improvements and some temporary pass throughs, like the water bond pass through, the utility pass through that are temporary and get dropped off, capital improvement pass throughs can be imposed any time of the year, but the other ones all have to be imposed at the same time as the annual increase. they're all what we all anniversary date increases or pass throughs. >> supervisor safai: can you say that one more time? i'm sorry? >> so for the annual allowable increase, for example, that can only be given once every 12 months, and the date that it's given is called the tenant's anniversary date. an onm increase has to be on

the tenant's anniversary date, as does every other pass through, except for capital improvements. i think that's one thing when you see these notices, they all come out at the same time, but there's no limit on how much a tenant's rent can be increased in any 12-months period. if a landlord is eligible for all of these increases at the same time, they can impose them at the same time with the exception of capital improvement pass throughs, which have their own annual limitations. for example, if you're one of these 6-plus unit buildings, and you have a capital improvement that would be 20% of a tenant's rent, you can only impose 10% this year, and then, next year, you impose 10%. but if there's other pass throughs going through, there's no limit to the amount you can impose on a pass through.

it's just a cap on capital increases. >> supervisor safai: i think there's been a lot of really important information brought through today. thank you, supervisor fewer, supervisor yee for your line of questioning. and there were a lot of people that testified today. i think it's unfortunate when you have a large kind of speculative corporate property owner that has taken advantage. it seems like the information that you've given us, where you look at the number of these, and they've increased exponentially just in the last few years, that it has a dramatic impact, and it's coincided with the housing crisis in our city, where you have a diminishing number of affordable units in a industry that's under extreme housing pressure. so it is -- it is something that's adding to displacement. and can you talk about that a little bit in terms of what you've seen in front of your

body and has there been any number of -- has there been any explanation other than what we've heard here today, in terms of the number of increases and -- in these applications. >> i'm not clear what the -- >> supervisor safai: in 2014, you said there were 44 petitions -- gl yes. >> supervisor safai: and in this past year, it was 120 to date. what other explanations can you think of, other than have people just become more aware of this? are they just deciding to do this? is there pressure just when they buy this, they see this as an opportunity? what is it in your opinion? >> i think it's all those things. >> supervisor safai: okay. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes, i just want to thank everyone that came out today, tenants and landlords, to have this discussion at this hearing. in this severe housing crisis and in this astronommically

affordable city, this will help tenants be able to stay in their homes. again, i'd like to emphasize this is a pass through that is only allowed when there is a change of ownership, so if you currently own your building, it does not affect you. you may still pass through increases in property taxes, increases in the water bill, increases in sewer. if you do capital improvements such as painting or putting in a new heater. it does not affect you unless you have bought a building after april 3, 2018. when this legislation has allowed, though, it has allowed, for example, one speculator to, for, in 2003, own one apartment building and now own over 200 and -- because of these pass throughs. as i said before, i'm a small

property owner myself. i know that it is difficult to be a small property owner in this city, but i also know that these large corporations are the majority of people who are using this pass -- pass through. and so i asked my colleagues today, in light of everything that i have said about the housing crisis and affordability in san francisco, we can do one thing. this is -- we can do one thing to help stop the speculation. and many of these speculators are buying up these large apartment buildings and adding these pass throughs through so at the pointants are moving out, and they are now doing corporate long-term housing, which is two and three months, instead of renting them out to renters. so i ask my colleagues for support in this so that we can bring it to the full board. i'm hoping we can pass this out of committee with a positive recommendation.

thank you today, again, to my colleagues here would have set aside the time to hear this important piece of legislation. and also, to all the tenants and the property owners that came out today to have this very important discussion. >> supervisor safai: supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: so i'd like to make this motion to pass this out of committee with positive recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor safai: okay. before i say that, i just want to say a few more things. and i think supervisor stefani, did you want to say something, as well? >> commissioner stefani: yeah, just really quick. first of all, i've been meeting with tenants. i've been getting e-mails that i haven't, but i just wanted to let people know that i have been meeting with them. i know we all agree on the debt service issue, and that's been said by others and everyone in this room. i just had a quick question about people have talked about the property tax, and always i'm thinking about unintended consequences of legislation. is there ever a situation where if we didn't allow for, like, a

small property owner -- i'm not talking about the big investors that we've all heard about. is there -- are we creating a situation where maybe a small property owner would -- where it would be difficult for them or maybe they not watch to purchase a multiunit building because they wouldn't be able to pass through the property tax? i'm not making a judgment on whether or not that's good or not. my question is whether or not if we are -- if someone would make a decision not to purchase a piece of property on that because they couldn't do this to afford it, would that, then, allow for the big companies and the big investors to sweep up those properties? so i'm just trying to think through it a little bit because everybody has been talking about that property tax. i know other cities do allow for the property tax pass through, so if i could just understand that a little bit more. i don't know if you have any more comments to the rent

board. >> i suppose it's difficult to comment on that. it's -- i think somebody is looking at property is looking at a variety of factors, and i think there would probably be better people than us to comment on that market and how people with making those decisions. i don't think we're at commonly versed in that. we're usually handling the back end of rent increases, so i don't know -- but i'm sure those are all factors that would be taken into account. i just can't weigh whether that means another property owner would come in that's a different size. >> commissioner stefani: and so when these are going through the rent board and you're approving them, is it just purely administrative to make sure all the paperwork is there, or is there any humanity inserted into that judgment whether you should grant it, taking into account some tenants may be displaced if you

do grant it. >> it's all rules based, so we would cake that into consideration if there's a hardship. so there's a hardship process. we can't take that into consideration when making the original decision in the onm, so it's either granted or denied based on the numbers. but after that if there's a hardship application, then, we have a different hardship process. >> commissioner stefani: and exhibit 7, was a letter from green tree informing someone that the rent was going up several hundred dollars. there was nothing in that letter that the tenant can seek a hardship waiver. i did see a letter from someone that spoke at public comment that there is something like that. so i'm just wondering, are you requiring -- when they give a letter to a tenant like this, that tells them that their rent is going up, are they then telling them that you can apply for a hardship rate, and are

they telling them that they understand? >> very good questions. when we first mailed the o.n.m. petition to the tenants, we mail a memo out in four languages, informing tenants that this is an onm petition, and what it's about, and if they could not afford to pay it, they should contact one of six tenants' rights organizations who would be able to help them go through the hardship application process. we set forth what the hardship process are. in addition, every single one ends with if this payment would be a hardship, you can start a hardship process. here's the decision. if this causes a hardship for your household, you can file a financial hardship petition, again, giving the information for the six tenants rights organizations, and that is in four languages. >> commissioner stefani: and so that is required -- so the letter that you have in your packet, and it's page 7, it's

not on that, it's something separate. >> every landlord is responsible for drafting their own rent increase notices. they're not required in our law currently to do anything like that, but we are putting that in memos to tenants when we -- the two things that we mail out, we do give that information to tenants. and many -- many landlords, including green tree, at the very bottom of their notice, states that advice regarding the notice is available at the rent board. they're not required to put that there. they are required to put that on an eviction notice, but many landlords put that on their rent increase notice. >> commissioner stefani: okay. >> supervisor safai: supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: i wanted to respond quickly to supervisor stefani's question about whether or not this would prevent people. i actually -- so when i bought a piece of property, you actually factor in a lot of different things. you factor in how much your

down payment is going to be, how much what the rents are, what -- the condition of the building. there's a lot of different -- but now, what we're asking, if this were to pass, we're now saying to these large landlords to say that now, you cannot factor this in. like, this is not part of the equation anymore. and so again, i just want to say that we had heard from the small property owners, and so we did make an amendment that this would be effective april 3, when this was introduced. so again, this does not affect anyone unless you have bought property after april 3. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. and i'll just say, just to add onto what i was saying before, i -- i also met with a number of different parties and met with the tenants' union and a lot of representatives from housing rights committee and others, as well as folks from the apartment association. and when i first saw this

legislation introduced just as a kind of a gut reaction, my response is if you're buying a piece of property, you go in knowing what some of the costs will be. you know what your taxes will be, you factor that. you know what debt you have. i was actually surprised that debt was something that we allowed. but i understand in the larger context, there's probably history for everything in terms of how things were -- would factor in, so when you isolate one or two of them, they might not make sense. when i heard back on taxes, it did make sense to me. the argument did make sense that we all benefit from taxes. and if you're in a situation where taxes are at one level versus another. and then, we had a discussion about some of the things that i listed out to you, in emergency room its of the some of the things that folks that are smallen property owners and others were interested in putting on the table.

but this conversation is happening, it seemed a little bit late. but i have committed, and as chair of this committee, we're going to get this out of committee today. we're going to hear this at the full board. but i would encourage those that came here today, the small property owners, folks from the property association, continue the conversations because i think it's important that we get this legislation as right as we can, the idea of one onm over a lifetime, such as maybe not all the pass throughs at the same time. i understand what the history is. i understand the idea of moving the retroactive date because from what i've heard you say today, it's 24 months worth of paperwork that needs to be put in place, so it takes time to put that together. so it would be hard to change the process midstream. so i think that was a good amendment. so again, i think there's some very compelling arguments all the way around, but the most important thing for us to consider in the context that

we're in today is that we have a rapidly changing city. people are being displaced at a rapid rate, and there's a lot of pressure on every single aspect of the housing market. so i want to thank everyone for coming out today on all sides, and i encourage them to continue the conversation. and thank you for presenting the information to help the conversation move forward. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: i guess i should modify my motion. >> supervisor safai: yeah. >> supervisor yee: to pass it out of committee. [inaudible] >> supervisor safai: sorry. go ahead, supervisor. >> supervisor yee: so i want to modify my motion to be that we pass this out with a positive recommendation out of committee to full board as a committee report. >> supervisor safai: okay. can we do that without objection? okay. without objection. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor safai: any other matters in front of us today?

>> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor safai: thank you. we are adjourned. it. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill

and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming

and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to all

>> supervisor fewer: this is may 18, 2018 regular meeting of the san francisco local agency formation. i am sandra lee fewer chairman of the commission. i am joined by commissioner cynthia pollock on my left and hillary ronen on my left. i am also joined by alisa romero the clerk. my apologies for starting late. i was in another committee meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you. madam clerk, can you please ca