i'll comment on brooks hall. i think civic center will be a more passive rec rakes, but it'll be good to have active recreation. i think it'll be good to have. i think a recreational use would resonate this, but like commissioner moore, i would like to see us advocating, but you can't necessarily do that unless you have something that looks great that we can advocate for so thank you very much for this. commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: yeah. wanted to echo the other commissioners. i do want to emphasize the importance of that civic spine. i know that the market and vanness muni stop is closer to city hall, but i think we

should all want to get off at the civic center stop and make that breath taking walk towards city hall and we've got the space and the ability to do that, so i think we should take advantage of that. just off the top of my head, i was looking at the plaza promenade options just because it's less traffic and more walkable open space which i think is the objective here. and then, for the civic center plaza, i like the public platform. and then, for the fulton street, i like the sanctuary, and then, the plaza, i like the platform again. but whatever might have the most potential for many more uses, whether it's a comedy show or a pmx skate competition or maybe a music concert. also, this is the ending for a

lot of our parades. whatever gives us the best ability to showcase ourselves, our historic very important buildings would be, i think, in all of our best interests. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: it's interesting. this union square, etcetera, it seems like every generation, something new emerges in terms of how we relate to the public spaces and, you know in the 60's, we put garages underneath and dug it all up, and the 90's, and the same in union square. one of the questions i have -- and this is good. it's going to take us into the future. i attend workshops, and we have stickers and all kinds of stuff. in the in person intercept surveys, was the question ever asked of how people feel when they're in these spaces, and what did they say? i know how i feel when i

walk-through civic center? >> i asked th-- we asked that. >> just in a general sense. >> yeah, not very happy about the spaces. >> yeah, it's big, cold, and uninviting. feels unsafe. >> it's what you would expect, given our own experiences. >> commissioner richards: it's so big you need to kind of connect it so that when people are walking from one end to the other, you need to connect it. it's such a big space, maintenance is key that's going to keep people coming back. >> definitely. and that's a huge part of the consideration that we're working with, to try to develop a plan that can evolve over time as we add more features to the spaces.

>> president hillis: director rahaim? >> excuse me. first wanted to thank nick. he's bb leading all the efforts here, so i really want to thank nirk and the consultant team that are here. i also want to reiterate something that what mr. haas. this will not come cheap. this will be expensive, and there's a lot of concerns where we're going to come up with millions of dollars to do this. i do want to reiterate what he said. we actually have to have a plan in place in order to do that. we have found this repeated loo he -- repeatedly in our work, that we have to have a plan in place before anyone would be remotely interested in funding it. so i do -- i mean, it's critically important that we have a plan and that that plan include kind of maintenance and stewardship and activation over time. and one of the challenges among the many that nick mentioned was the fact that these -- the

buildings around the -- most of the open spaces do not have active uses, evenings and weekend. it's not retail. it's basically a 9:00 to 5:00 environment. so one of the overlays of the plan is how to create longer term activation within the spaces. and i would also just remind us that not only is hayes valley on the edge of this, but we have something on the order of 8 or 9,000 units of housing coming in the hub, of which this will be their primary neighborhood open space as well as the tenderloin which is -- this will be the biggest open space -- this is the biggest open space for the tenderloin today, so those three neighborhoods really come together around this space, so this needs to function for all of those purposes. it took us a long time to get here, to get the funding to get this going, but i'm really excited that we're here and at this place in the process.

>> president hillis: commissioner melgar. >> vice president melgar: so thank you. i think every one of the options is beautiful, and thoughtful and exciting, so i'm looking forward to seeing how this develops. my question was how the plan that you are developing interacts with the other plans that directly affect it? so i'm thinking specifically of the b.a.r.t. station at civic center. and then, you know, the development of, like, the arts hub on the other side of vanness. so there -- you know, when they closed off that entrance to the b.a.r.t. station, you know, there was all of this talk about well, patrons can't come, but we had to close it off because patrons don't feel safe in the first place, going to the symphony, the opera. so we are investing a lot. the conservatory of music is building their new space.

the school of the arts. there's a lot going on on that other side that directly relates to this space. so can you talk about that. >> i'd be happy to answer that question. b.a.r.t.'s on a different timeline than this plan is. they're moving a lot more quickly with adding canopies than civic center station. we are coordinating with them and we're trying to have an informed process staying abreast of what they're doing and making sure this plan is reacting to it and offering input when appropriate. one example is they are proposing for their environmental for the cap owe pea structures, putting a canopy on u.n. entrances main entrance, and if we are able to complete this plan and get funding, they'd swap that out and instead we'd work to build a building that is more like a building instead of a canopy.

with stichk things lithings li conservatory, i'm keeping abreast of those private development projects and making sure they're developing -- >> vice president melgar: yeah. so my question is not about the individual projects. there is a plan to did he vel vel op that area into an arts hub, and -- develop that area into an arts hub, so there is a life, you know of -- and traffic that goes through. so i guess my question was how are we thinking about that interaction, not specifically by project? >> sure. the main focus for that particular topic has been on grove street, and we've heard very strongly from the arts -- the leadership of the arts institutions how important groev street grove street is for them, so that's why one of the main focus area for the planned street design work is the two

options for grove street. today i just showed the block in front of civic center plaza but the plan it for the entire corridor and how we might create a flexible space between the opera and the symphony and might be used so thags ae definitely something that's one of the top priorities on the street design side from the project's perspective. >> vice president melgar: thank you commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i think when i go to the people's farmer's market, and i see the vibrancy and diversity of the city there, i really think that you've carried that spirit into the design. i also think that we as a community desperately need spaces where our communities can come together, interact with each other and have conversations with each other. i think this could be an important and exciting space to really bring the services and conversations that happen on public buildings and in city

hall outside, and so i'm interested in just as the project develops seeing how we can kind of play with bringing city hall into the community into this new civic center. that's it. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> i just want to find a way to make the backside of the symphony hall, the backside of the war memorial, not just backs of buildings, but they are basically the bridge to hayes valley because the restaurant entertainment world of hayes valley which comes to the edge has been there for decades is as important to connect in order to really make this a whole. it's not just about creating a stage set with historic buildings bordering the space, but it's really the engaging of buildings from all sides to make it a district which is comfortable, safe, and attractive from all directions no matter on which street you

walk. i just want to make that pitch. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much for this. it's exciting, and commissioner moore was probably kpoj rating about having this every month, but i -- exaggerating about having this every month, but i want to see this be strategic and be advocates. as you look for funding, we want to be there with you and see it through the process. >> clerk: commissioner, items 13 a and b. [agenda item read] >> clerk: please note that on april 19, 2018 after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to this date by a vote of 7-0. so there will be a reduced presentation from the sponsor and a limited time --

>> president hillis: three and one. >> clerk: three and one. very good. >> good evening, commissioners, kri may of planning department staff. on april 19, the planning commission heard a presentation -- [inaudible] >> after hearing and closing public comment, the commission continued the item to allow an opportunity to clarify whether the partially reconstructed building is taller than the building that was demolished, an issue that was raised by a neighbor to the north of the subject property. the project sponsor has provided a photo of the subject building prior to its demolition which shows that it was two stories in height and planning staff had provided some aerial photos taken before demolition. the commission will be continued the item to allow an opportunity to determine the rent controlled status of the subject building and to explore the feasibility of ensuring rent controlled status for the

two reconstructs units. the project sponsor has contacted the rend board, but the rent controlled status of the subject building remains inconcluesive. the planning department continues to recommend that the commission approve the project on the basis that the project would reintroduce two units long removed from the city's housing stock. the project is in compliance with all other applicable requirements of the planning code, adheres to the policies of the general plan and meets the general intent of the residential design guidelines. this concludes my presentation, and i am available for any questions. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, mr. may. project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. i am rodrigosanchez. as we stated last time in our april meeting, we want to thampg mr. christopher may for the kprens -- thank mr. may

for the comprehensive review of our project. we have made every effort not to intensify the nonconformity conditional building, including removing or eliminating some of the exterior elements of the building, that means providing additional space between the existing three unit building on the front and the rear cottage. we have made every attempt to reconstruct the building as the original condition that is 22 feet wide, 25 feet in direction and 27 feet on the other side, so it's a total of 1,330 square feet with 640 square feet perunit with an internal staircase that provides access to the second floor. we have pictures that clearly define the height of the building, which is 22 feet, consistent with the original preconstruction, all the vacant

building that did not have any occupants for approximately 15 years or so. i'm available for any -- any comments. again, i'm the structural engineer. the architect could not attend. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just a question. maybe mr. santos, you may or may not be able to answer this. the question about the rent control, we had asked for the owner or project sponsor to go to the rent board to let us know whether the reconstructed units are subject to rent control or not. >> we have the property owner here, so i'll let him speak to that. >> commissioner richards: okay. great. >> thank you, mr. richards.

>> good evening, commissioners. so on tuesday last, i got a call from christopher may to go to the rent board to check it out, and i did. and i asked them, could i get a documentation to show that this is a rent controlled building, and their stance is they don't do that. if i had documentation to show that it wasn't rent controlled, then it would be a different scenario. so basically, they gave me a project information that it was built in 1907, so therefore, it is rent controlled, and i don't have documentation to say that it's not rent controlled. so everyone is under the assumption that it is a rent controlled building. >> president hillis: i think the issue is, you know, you're demoing the old building, right? >> i so -- i asked about the front building. that's what i -- the back building is a new building, so that is -- the -- on the last

hearing, there was discussions whether or not the city attorney could make it rent controlled. >> president hillis: or you could make the rear building because you're demoing the rear building, which was rent controlled. >> that's correct. >> president hillis: would you agree to make that new construction subject to the rent ordinance? >> you know, it was up to the city attorney whether they can enforce rent controlled. i have no issue with rent controlled. i have other issues, i went through the whole process of impact fees, new construction fees, i went through all these processes, so i got, you know, dinged pretty good already. and now, you wanted rent control, which, you know, i'm okay with it. it's okay, but it was up to the city attorney. >> president hillis: right, right, right. city attorney, or mr. lindsey. >> thank you. david lindsey, department staff. just regarding the rear building, it was filed -- it

was considered to be a tantamount to demolition project because it was partial partially demolished and then partially reconstructed. it was filed as a perform three, as opposed to a demolition-new construction. i believe that the department of building inspection would still see it as an alteration. >> president hillis: i believe you're right. if it's not an alteration, it would be a demo -- tantamount to demolition. rimpds richards i make a motion. >> second. >> clerk: commissioners, there's been a motion that's been seconded. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously

6-0, and places us on your final item -- oh, thank you. >> i'll be inclined to grant the variance with the standard conditions. thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, that'll place us on your final item tonight, and just for anyone who may be here for item 15, it has been continued to june 14. [agenda item read] >> good evening, commissioners. i'm mary woods, department staff. the project before you is a demolition of an existing one story commercial building and a construction of a new 11 story mixed use building 112 feet tall and approximately 60,000 gross square feet containing 55 dwelling units and seven on-site below market rate units. there will also be approximately 1600 square feet

retail commercial space on the ground floor, 21 parking spaces, including one car share spaces, and 61 bicycle spaces. the project would require conditional use authorization for a boat exception, a wind current exception, building a building over 50 feet tall, and street frontage greater than 50 feet wide. the project also requires an administrative zoning administrator modification of the rear yard requirement pursuant to planning code sections 243 and 307. since last week's commission packet, staff received one letter from the alliance for a better district six, stating that they are neutral on this project. the department's recommendation is to approve with conditions. this concludes my summary of the project. i'm happy to answer any

questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss woods. project sponsor, welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is john hymdal. i'm a project manager with the project sponsor. i'd just like to start by introducing who we are. j.s. sullivan has a long track record of creating modern mixed use urban in-fill projects in the city. as a firm that focuses solely san francisco we're passionate about helping shape its future. since fall of last year we have completed construction of two condominium projects while beginning construction on 719 larkin and 1433 bush. also, we are slated to begin construction on 244 lombard and in the fall which was approved

late last year. today we are pleased to present to you our latest project, 555 golden gate. it's a culmination of a collaborative design. mary woods and david winslow of the planning department were instrumental in guiding us through this process, and we'd also like to take a moment to thank the numerous neighborhood groups, coalitions, and concerned citizens whose passion and insights helped to shape this project as the project you see here today. 555 golden gate is located in the civic center on golden state currently between vanness and polk street. the site's central location and proximity to multiple mass transit options make it the perfect opportunity to create a dense urban in-fill building. this will provide the area with badly needed housing and commercial spaces. the proposed project is an is

11 -- 11 story mixed use building. our project will add 55 units of housing as mary mentions, seven of which will be bmr's provided on-site. 38 of the 55 unit does are family side multibedroom units. with 21 automobile spaces, we're only providing parking for 38% of the units, which is well below the 50% we are allowed. 555 golden gate's focus on larger units for family are in line with the city's focus. with the additional housing retail spaces and increased pedestrian presence, it can be a catalyst for growth in the neighborhood. and i'd like to introduce the project architect who will

discuss the design. >> thank you. >> president hillis: we can do the other one. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. thanks for the opportunity to present the design. if i could have the computer. so i'm the architect for the project, and i'd like to talk to you just a little bit about the design elements of the project. i think first of all as john mentioned, it's noteworthy that the project has the high two and three bedroom rate of more than two thirds, and the building also has a majority of compliant open space that's private open space, which is a nice feature for the project. the building is basically -- it's -- we were thinking of this as somewhat of a transitional building, and it's a transitional lot. we were dealing with i avery tall building to the east of us and a shorter building to the

west of us and beyond, and so therefore we looked at this building as a way to mitigate between these two different significant heights. and furthermore we looked also at the building from an arc tech ral standpoint, we have glassy buildings to the east and more solid buildings to the west, and looked at that building as transitioning between the different architectural languages. here's some more detailed views of the building, and you can see how we're stepping from the larger puc building down to the shorter buildings. and this building really has a lot of depth to the facade. there's sort of this pushing and pulling on the facade. and i think it's also important to recognize that we've treated both facades for -- we have a tl

through lot, and we treat both facades with equal 'emphasis, the redwood side has a similar approach to the golden gate side, and we've got not only the tall commercial spaces that activate the majority of the commercial spaces on both sides of the lot, but also we have a voluntary set back on the golden gate side that creates somewhat of a patio space that can be shared with the commercial unit at that level. so here's a rendering of the building. and again, you can get a sense of the depth even from a straight on rendering and see the transition from the glassier building that's on the left and to the more solid structures on the right and how we've juxtaposed those types of materials along our building. again, looking at it a little

more obliquely. where the interior, we have a court, and the court really serves a lot of functions and i also want to thank miss woods and the planning staff and the urban design team for helping us formulate a solution that i think really helped this building. this building -- we've meant to use narrow floor plates or relatively narrow space in the building to create units that have frontage -- get their exposure from the street front janls but also have bedrooms at the rear of the unit. it helps us maximize density and create the more dwelling units in a really functional plan, but often this results to make this work, you use nested bedrooms or you have corridors that pass by the units, and we've avoided that with a series of bridges that i think is going to be a special experience with within the court. they're going to be translucent and allow light and air to filter through. the materials are high quality

glass and fiber cement panels that are integral color. and these are materials we've used on other recent projects that we've had a lot of success with. going through the plans briefly, we have all of our services underground, too, and it's part of the reason we're able to activate the spaces to well. i think i'll cut it short there, and obviously, i'm available for any questions. >> president hillis: are you done in. >> i wasn't quite done. >> president hillis: we'll give you a quick 30 seconds. >> quick 30 seconds, just walking through the plans, coming through the second floor, you can see how we have the units in a kind of clearly organized way, and we have the abundance of two bedrooms. you go up the building, you can

see how the balconies adjust on different parts of the facade to kind of create this more variety and that whole pushing and pulling and the solid void relationship. we also have a sky terrace that encompasses the remainder of our common open space which is on the 10th floor, and then as you go up, we have additional three bedroom units. i think that concludes it for the most part. >> president hillis: great. we'll open this up for public comment if there's any. no? great. what are you all doing back there? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: 'cause we're just talking about the civic center, i think this billion is a great example to close a positive discussion because if the alley's transforming itself, i think this building is sensitive to

the scaled rendition. i think the solution with the internal bridges which avoid corridors being like motel like running along the bedrooms and have basically bedrooms which are properly lit and ventilated is a great solution. so i'm all in support and move to approve. >> commissioner richards: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. >> president hillis: all right. meeting's adjourned. thank you.

>> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san

francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss proposition c. the city collects a gross receipts tax from many businesses which receive revenue from the lease of commercial property, such as office buildings, warehouses and retail spaces. the current tax rate ranges from.825% to 3%. businesses with $1 million or less in san francisco are generally exempt from the gross receipt tax. several other businesses are also exempt including some banks, and nonprofits. proposition c would impose an additional gross receipts tax of 1% on the revenues of business received from the lease of warehouse space in the city, and 3.5% on the revenue

the business receives on additional leases in the city. it would not apply to revenues received from leases to businesses engaged in industrial uses, some retail sales of goods and services directly to consumers or arts activities. this additional tax would also not apply to revenues received from certain nonprofit organizations or from government entities. the city would use 15% of funds collected from this general tax for any general purpose. the city would use the remaining 85% of this additional tax for quality early care and education for children from newborns through age five whose parents are very low-income to low-income. quality early care and education for children from newborns to age three whose parents are low to middle-income and do not currently qualify for assistance. programs that support

emotional, cognitive for children newborn through five and increased compensation for people who provide care for children from newborn through early age five. if you vote yes, it means you want to kboes a new gross receipts tax of 1% on revenues a business receives from the lease of warehouse space in the city and 3.5% on revenues the business receives from the lease of commercial spaces in the city to fund quality education for children and other purposes. a no vote means you do not approve this tax. we're joined by lisa rhenner from the san francisco republican party and an opponent of the measure. i'd like to start with miss remmer. why do you believe this

proposition is so important. >> just like housing costs, our commercial rents in san francisco will railroad high. and this 3.5% tax will be passed onto the tenant, the businesses, who will then pass it onto their staff and onto the consumers, us, making the cost of living in san francisco -- the high cost and shortage of child care could be contributed to the administrative costs of opening a child care business. city hall can help working parents by easing regulations and fees, allowing more child care centers to open. what is a crisis is the city budget of $10.2billion, and the $88 million deficit for this coming year, rising to 800 million in three years. we just paid 77 million for a child care three years ago. in terms of value of child care, well, the u.s. department

of health and human services reported the head start benefits have all disappeared by third grade. >> miss buck land, why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> parents need child care so they can support their families, and children need early care so they can vehemently start their life. child care and early education is expensive, costing $20,000 or more peryear on an after-tax basis. it's often a family's biggest expense after housing. over 50% of san francisco families live in eligible for state child care subsidies. unfortunately there's not enough slots for all families to qualify. every month, there are 2500

children on the waiting list for subsidies in san francisco, two thirds of them infants and toddlers. a third cause is low wages in the child care sector. due to the work of the city's office of early childhood education, we know what can cost san francisco families. we need to spend 300 to 400 million peryear. >> how will the voters be affected by this 3.5% commercial tax as proposed in proposition c? >> well, i think this tax is actually good for our city. my understanding is that our current commercial rents tax is lower than in other cities, and i believe that helping families pay for child care is a critical need in our city. we hear a lot about the struggles that families are having, particularly struggles paying for housing, but frankly, as i said before, housing -- child care is a bigger expense than housing, and i personally being helping

families pay for child care is a housing strategy as well as an economic strategy for our city. when families get help paying for child care, they can work, support their families and are contributing to the city's economy. and when they get help paying for child care, they also can afford more for housing. >> same question to you, miss rhenner. how will the voters be askd by this proposition specifically by the 3.5% commercial tax. >> the 3.5% commercial tax can immediately get passed onto the tenants or the businesses. your doctor, your dentist, your grocery store, and they could end up cutting employee pay, cutting staff, closing shop, so do we really need more closed storefronts, and mostly it will be passed directly onto consumers, raising the cost of living in san francisco. what we really should be doing is lower the regulations

required to open a child care business from head start, with 2400 regulations to be complied with to all of our local zoning and licensing fees. this 3.5% tax -- and none of it helps homeowner's, just makes the city more expensive. home enners are already paying for the last tax in 2514, 014, just think it's going to make people move away and make the city cost more. >> a second question, which we'll start with you, miss rhenner, what are the advantages or disadvantages to a universal child care program in your view. >> in my view, the benefits of early child care have disappeared by third grade, and the claims of high quality child care are highly exaggerated. there's ten studies that have been cited.

only half of them have been used randomized control. only three found positive, long-term results, and these took place 48, 58 years ago, with treatment groups very small, mostly children. they focused on infants, toddlers, not pre-k and had huge in home family visits which seemed to work out well. the teacher to student ratio was 33 to 66% higher than what students will be getting in the proposed programs, teachers all had bachelors agree and experience in these programs, and moms all had i.q.'s under 85. the treatment wasn't random. the moms stayed at home and dad worked outside of the home. the treatment groups and the ntro co group still only earned under $12,000 a year. they both had approximately 50% arrest rates, yes, 6%, less

than a semester more in school, no i.q. differences beyond the differences actually shown among the children. the best results were with the moms with an i.q. under 70, and the younger moms with less school. the mothers actually in the treatment groups showed the biggest gains in lifetime earnings, even looking at ages 26 to 60, compared looking at the children 21 to 65, the mothers' lifetime earnings were estimated to be twice what the child's were, so yes, teen moms need child care while they finish schools, but we already fund these programs. >> same programs to you, miss lessman. what are the advantages and disadvantages to universal child care programs in your view. >> so i'm not quite sure what, lisa, you've been reading, but the research -- there is a growing body of research that shows the short and long-term

benefits of quality child care for families. it's been nobel economyist james beckman about investing and the out comes in early childhood education, about the need to provide special education and quality education in long-term earnings rates for families, the involvement in your criminal justice system. there's no shortage of studies that show the really important outcomes that come from early quality childhood education. for us, we have a situation in the city where i believe that this is really the key to ensuring that san francisco is a city in which diverse families can thrive. we have -- as i cited before,

we have a 50% of san francisco families are living below the self-sufficiency index. it's affecting kids of color. you know, lack of access affects children of color, and it's really important that we want to -- we want to provide equitiable outcomes for children in san francisco and ensure that all kids are ready to learn when they come into the school district, and we want to make sure that all families can thrive in san francisco. >> thank you, miss beckman. we're now going to start with the closing arguments, and we'll start with you, miss rhenner. >> the 3.5% tax will be passed onto us, the customers through the businesses, and i think that that will make san francisco that much less affordable. again, the child care, the value of child care, the effects dissipated by third

grade, except in these totally different, different studies with different groups of people, and they've been highly contested. i've read all of these studies. testing moms with less than i.q. of 85, that's totally different. again, i do think the teen moms need totally free child care while they finish school, but we already have this. let's not raise the cost of living in san francisco with a tax that just gets passed onto the consumers. >> thank you. miss beckman? >> thank you. i believe prop c is a critical investment in the city's future. it'll raise more than $100 million a year to support early care and education. most of that will provide access to low-income families that are struggling to make ends meet. parents that can't afford to go to work are relying on family, friends, and neighbors, catch as catch can in order to be able to do that, to be able to

work. we -- it will also help us increase the wages for our early educators, ensuring we can actually have classrooms open to serve san francisco's children. prop c will help people pay for care so they can work and support their families and support our economy and long-term benefits for kids. prop c is endorsed by a majority of our san francisco supervisors, the harvey milk democratic club, san francisco labor council, and many others. i hope you'll join me in voting for prop c to ensure that our city is -- remains one in which diverse families can live and thrive. thank you. >> thank you both for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this or other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website at sfelections.org.

remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7, starting at 8:00 a.m., and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote, starting on may 5th. thank you. >> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss prop e, a measure that will be before the

voters on june 5th. in 2014, the supervisors adopted a resolution in san francisco that prohibited the sail of cigarette products. a rhenendumb was filed requiring that the ordinance be submitted to the voters. the ordinance will not go into effect unless a majority of voters approve. proposition e is a refer endumb to pass the ordinance passed by the board of supervisors prohibiting the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a yes vote means you want to prohibit the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a no vote means if you vote no, you want to allow the sale of flavored tobacco products in san francisco. i'm here with dr. lawrence chung, past president of the marin medical society. we're also joined by star child, outreach director of the

libertiaryian party of san francisco. thank you both for being here. i'd like to start with you, star child. why do you feel it's so important. >> well, it's an expansion of the war on drug dos, and we shd know that the war on drugs has been a massive failure. it didn't work with alcohol, it didn't work with cannabis, and it won't work with tobacco. this will create a black market in san francisco for purchase of cigarettes on the streets where they won't be checking i.d. it's already illegal in california for people under 21 to buy tobacco products, so the opposition's claims about oh, it's about kids being able to buy tobacco, well kids can't buy tobacco now. this is about not fringing on adult choices. it's going to lead to more crime, it's going to lead to more retailers closing.

controller's economic office estimated 50 million lost in sales. vaping stores and other retailers that are highly reliant on tobacco sales will close. raping actually helps people quit smoking. it's less harmful. vaping and e cigarettes are included under this proposed ban. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you for asking me to be here? i'm here not only as a concerned physician but as a father. i have two wonderful nine-year-old twin boys and girls, and i am worried that this is allen assault on our k. canny flavored tobacco has only one use, and that's to hook kids into tobacco. this measure is all about protecting our kids, our community, and i feel very strongly that we should uphold this ban on tobacco that has already been passed by a unanimous decision at the board

of supervisors level. so please join me and the san francisco marin medical association, the california medical association and the american medical association in upholding this ban on candy flavored tobacco, vote yes on prop e. >> thank you. i'd like to ask some questions, and i'm going to begin with you, dr. chung. do you believe that this proposition, a ban on flavored tobacco is the best way to fight youth tobacco use. >> yes, i believe this is a very effective way to fight youth tobacco, because we know that four out of five kids who start smoking start with a candy tobacco flavored product, four out of five. so if we ban the sale of these candy flavored tobacco in our stores, we will effectively keep them out of the reach of our kids. it's all about our health. >> and the same to you, star

child. >> absolutely not. as i mentioned, the kids already can't buy tobacco in stores. what this will do is drive sales to the streets or on-line where i.d. check is less effective or in the case of on the streets, it won't take place at all. if you buy things on the street from unregulated sources, he don't know what's in them. we all know the case of eric garner in new york city who was killed by police there. he was selling illegal unlicensed cigarettes on the street, so that's an example of the kind of violence that can be produced by this, and it's not going to be effective at preventing kids from smoking. i mean, kids get tobacco know. i mean, it's a parental decision. keep your nine-year-olds from smoking, absolutely, but prop e won't help make that happen. >> thank you. our next question goes to star child first, is do you believe

proposition e is too broad, there have been some arguments that in addition to it covering candy and flavored tobacco in that sense, that it also covers menthol cigarettes and hookah use in the middle eastern communities. >> we would be against it even if it were only covering a very narrow segment, because your question is does your body belong to you or the government. all of us consume various things that are unhealthy. if we all switched to a raw food, vegan diet, we would be much healthier. does that mean that anything that's not vegan should be criminalized? no, but that's the way that some people want to go. big government, unfortunately, they already make more off of the sale of a package of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do. they're trying to make money off of it on both ends, fining

it from the sales, and criminalizing it on the other, and all the apparatus, there will be air cost with enforcing that, and we've seen with the war on drugs and putting people behind bars, especially with low-income communities and communities of color, and this is the wrong way to go. we know proceed hibitihibitionr on drugs is the wrong way to go. >> dr. chung? >> absolutely not. again, most kids start smoking through candy flavored tobacco products. these flavors are added for a reason: so make smoking easier and to make more pima ikt didded. we know the more you smoke, the more it'll call you to have harm, cancer and eventually death. i like to do whatever i can to keep my kids safe and to keep my community safe. i do believe this ban will be effective in reducing our kids from smoking, so i'm a

proponent of this proposition. >> and we'd like to have our closing arguments. we'll start with you, star child. >> well, first of all, i wanted to point out, for one thing, there's medical health professionals and people who care about kids and reducing death on both sides of this argument, so please don't be misled by the fact that my opponent has the word dr. in front of his name. et he et -- he's a dermatologist, not a health care researcher. the fact that kids may start by smoking flavored tobacco, that has nothing to do with the reality that everybody likes flavors. they're acting like oh, just because it's flavored, it's going after kids. nonsense. i like different flavored when i eat products. i don't smoke cigarettes, but it's something that people should have, again, ultimately the right to choose what to put into their own bodies, and this

is not going to reduce smoking. history shows it's not going to reduce smoking. the belief that it will somehow flies in the face of reality. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you. again as a practicing physician in san francisco for over ten years and having represented san francisco marin medical society, the california medical association and also the american medical association on public health policy, i can tell you that all of our organizations feel that this proposition is the right thing to do. this proposition simply is to uphold the ban on candy flavored tobacco. big tobacco is waging a war, an assault on our kids' health. they try to get a new generation of children to be addicted to tobacco products that's going to increase our health care costs down the road. nod to diseas-- in addition to diseases and deaths, so please vote no on proposition e. >> thank you. thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> no on prop e. >> we hope that this discussion

has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website at sfelections.org, remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7th, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and if you don't vote early, remember to vote on june 5th. [♪]

>> hi. i'm here with a san francisco league of women's voters. i'm here to discuss proposition acts. it will be before the voters on tuesday june 5th. the city and county of san francisco funds and nonprofit organizations that provide free legal representation to some of san francisco residential tenants who face eviction. to evict a residential tenant, the landlord must give the tenant a written notice of eviction. of a tenant does not move, or landlord may file a lawsuit asking a court order eviction. proposition acts would adopt policies that san francisco should provide legal representation to all residential tenants facing eviction. it would provide the city to establish, fund run a program to provide legal representation for all tenants in the san francisco facing eviction and provide a lawyer for tenant with 30 days following an eviction notice or immediately upon receipt of a lawsuit seeking a diction --

eviction, whichever comes first. the lawyer would provide legal representation for the tenant through all stages of the process until resolved. and implement this program within 12 months after the measure is adopted. proposition would not require the city to provide legal representation to tenants who reside in the same dwelling units with their landlord. a yes vote means if you vote yes, you want to require the city to establish, fund and run a program to provide legal representation for all residential tenants in san francisco facing eviction. a no vote means if you vote to know, you do not want to create this program. i am here with john snider and a proponent of the proposition. welcome. >> we are also joined by the san francisco apartment association and an opponent of the measure. thank you for being here. i'll be starting with opening statements and let's start with you, charlie. why do you believe this proposition is so important?

>> so the apartment association is recommending a no vote on it and there are a number of reasons why. but mainly, that's the proposal, as currently written as overly broad. so when you think about providing city funded eviction defence for tenants it sounds like a good idea. and then you look at potentially tenants who are evicted through no fault of their own. what we call no-fault evictions. but that's not what this measure does. this measure provides eviction defence paid by you and i as taxpayers, for high income tenants and tenants who are creating a new sense for other people in the building, you are not paying their rent for months or years at a time, and who are safety hazards and allowing it to persist in apartment buildings. on top of that, the measurers is an unfunded mandate, what that means is this expansion of government will draw away and

necessary resources from our general fund. the general fund we used to build affordable housing, homeless services, clean our streets, those sorts of things. at the measure is just too bro broad. >> why do you believe this measure is so important? >> well, as a noncontroversial statement to say that san francisco is facing a massive displacement crisis. rents are skyrocketing. over 40,000 people have faced eviction in the past five years. one folks are evicted in san francisco, they often have to leave the city in it's entirety or they end up homeless and on our streets. in fact,, a recent study showed that 71 % of our homeless folks on our streets were actually housed here and san francisco in the past two years. and one of the reasons that that is true it's because there is a massive power imbalance between tenants and landlords in the city. nationally, the statistic is 90 % ofnd