control. i want to add a couple of examples that i've dealt with while i've been on the board as a supervisor, when the former supervisor compost tried to increase relocation payments for tenants that were evicted under the ellis act, one of the issues that came up in that case and a law was overturned in the courts, was that they didn't allow the board to set in a appropriate relocation assistance amount so that people could have a chance to continue living in san francisco after being evicted, often times when their apartment of decades. another example is another piece of legislation before us right now that would prevent landlords from grossly increasing rents sometimes 100, 200, 300% in

single-family homes because costa hawkins would prevent that. we're going ahead with that law but in a much milder form because of costa hawkins. the way it impacts our ability to protect tenants in the city is endless. i think we pushed it in ever creative direction that we can as a city because we have so many renters that are being pushed out and it is such a crisis ever single week. i kid you not, every week i have tons of e-mails right now about it. when units or buildings are put up for sale in my district, the tenants are terrified because they know that that's just the first step from them being kicked out and displaced from their home in the neighborhood and city they love.

we have to be able to do more to protect our residents. we should have that ability. what proposition will do, is it will allow us to start that conversation. to strike that right balance between protecting tenants and protect landlords. we can have that robust discussion, which will happen here. it will be one of those discussions where we're battling it out to the very end. we need to have that. we can't have it until proposition 10 passes. so i appreciate you sponsoring this resolution, supervisor, peskin and i'm proud to be a co sponsor. >> supervisor brown. >> thank you. i signed on to proposition 10 because when i first came on and i was looking at it and study it. i fell it was the right thing to do. over my 10 years of being on

some sort of aid, i can't tell you how many times i have thought to try to keep people in their places to keep renters from being evicted, wrongly evicted, or their rents going up or going into a unit that was previously a decent price and they knew that, because they were their friends' unit and coming in and having a having ia price they would not be able to afford. what this does, as supervisor peskin had said, it unties our hands. we can sit down with people, with property owners, small property owners, with the tenants and really try to find what we can do. it's not always a stick. we can also look at things that are carrots that will bring people to be able to rent out their units for fair value. where people can afford to live in this city. i just think it's really important that we look at

securing people that are renting and are vulnerable. i feel it's so important. i feel like this gives us a pathway to do that. it doesn't say we're going to come down hard with a stick to ever landlord. it means it gives us a pathway to have these discussions. we have not been able to in the last 23 years without getting sued. everything we've done we've been sued. this way, it gives us a chance. i just want to reiterate my support for this. >> supervisor mandelman. >> i come as a former local government lawyer. i remember a number of years where costa hawkins made it impossible for local governments to enable inclusionary housing ordinances to regulate the rents of a portion of market rate developments. which is something that most of us in this room think of course local government should be able

to do it and took an act of the state legislature and signature of the governor to allow the local governments to do that. if proposition 10 passes, we'll have a difficult conference about a difficult conversationabout ar to costa hawkins, city was not able to enact vacancy control. i don't know whether there's a former havin vacancy. i do know that sack ra mean toet tell us we can't protected the spouses of people whose spouses have died and has no business telling us what kind of inclusionary housing we can adopt. this is a relatively easy question for a local government official and i think that we should be supporting the repeal of costa hawkins. >> supervisor fewer. >> yes, thank you very much. as supervisor tang said, at the district she represents, well in

my district, 65% of my constituents are renters. i have the second most evictions in san francisco. i want to say also, i joined the ranks of supervisor peskin, i also am a landlord and a small property owner. so i under there is attention between the small property owners, as we heard today, but there is also a very big difference between large property owners that own 250 apartment buildings and those that own two. i think with proposition 10 if it were to pass, we would have those types of conversations. which we are not even able to have today. when they talk about, when the small property owners come forward and they speak, i understand their fear of it and i understand their frustration,

however, there is no remedy that we can even discuss if we still have costa hawkins. our hands are tied. and i just think that with every municipality we have a different issue around affordability and the housing crisis and it just so happens that san francisco is suffering under a huge, huge crisis. and so, you have bylaws that are situations different from someone that owns two or three buildings, such as supervisor peskin and myself i am in support of this resolution and proud to be a co sponsor with supervisor peskin because i do believe that it's time san francisco had control over our policies and the state doesn't dictate and how we can have this conversation between landlords and small property owners and

also the tenants. this is a town where the majority of people are tenants. and i do think that housing is a human right. i do think that it's been too long that our hands have been tied and we have not been able to even have a conversation about this and to remedy some of the housing crisis issues and acknowledge that what we're doing isn't working right now. we need to actually have a conversation and how we can fix it. so i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this forward and i am a proud co sponsor and i ask my colleagues to join me in this vote because i actually think, as legislators, of san francisco, it is our job to legislate. it is our job to legislate locally. with something finds our hands that we cannot do that, then we need to fight that. we are responsible to the constituents of san francisco.

>> president cohen: before you get acknowledged, i wanted to step off and ask supervisor yee and come and ask you some questions. is that ok? you will be able to speak. >> good afternoon. first i wants to point out this is the reason why items like this need to go to committee. we have this debate in a thoughtful way. we're coming off and we're just starting to get into this -- this is a first time we've actually had a long conversation about it and i just have some more clarifying questions. let me just give you a profile. i represent the southeastern part of san francisco as you know.

you may not know but it's the highest african american home ownership. this is a community that also aging and aging in place and i hear real concerns about their foundation changing, about can they afford to live in san francisco. how the city is changing all around them. the other fact that i want to help put out there for the profile is that the second largest -- the district 10 has the second largest home ownership in san francisco, over 65%. 60% of home ownership. so for me, it's a matter of clarity. i am trying to understand how this impacts homeowners. i have a clear understanding of how it helps apartment and rent control apartments. i am hesitant to be -- i'm frustrated because i'm in a position to have to make a decision and frankly it's just a resolution, it's just a statement saying we're supporting or opposed to something. really, is there any analysis or study how this impacts

vulnerable communities. you've been in san francisco a long time on this body, know the state of the african american community, vulnerable communities that are just barely holding on trying to survive. as well as new community members, largely chinese and spanish speakers. i am not clear how a supportive vote for proposition 10 positively effects my constituents. so i will put it backout there. supervisor kim, i know maybe it's clear for you but it's just not that clear for me. i understand how it changes the dynamic and the conversations with large property owners, but again, i'm coming from a community where there are small propertproperty owners whose ret

plan is contingent on their home ownership and love to better understand it. anyone can speak to it. >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you if i made it through the acting present to supervisor cohen attempt to respond. let me preface it by acknowledging the work of former supervisor david chu who repealed the state ledge tuesday of costa hawkins. due to the lobbying powers of the real estate industry, he did not succeed. as happens, when legislators failed to legislate and there are a need, people went to the court of last resort and that was the initiative process and that's how prop 10 ended up on the ballot. to put it in local san francisco historical terms, and i don't

say this, but the late angelo sanjackomo who in the 197 '50's, ends thousandowned thousands ofa large rent hike across the board, it was the classic displaced people of all colors and of all ages and the san francisco board of supervisors and even mayor diane feinstine supported a rent control law in the city of san francisco. as that was popular, the real estate industry went to sacramento and passed costa hawkins, which was sweeping in its pre 'emion of local government's ability to the exact question you are asking to a single-family homeowner, none of this means anything, right.

because if you live in your home, you are really not effected by costa hawkins or by rent control but relative to the community and the stability of the community and surrounding neighborhoods that have a mix of tenants and rental properties, having rent control is a lifeline to the most vulnerable communities and communities of more means. particularly in a time when i have to say as a small landlord, it is, when i see what you can rent a unit for, i mean, it's almost embarrassing. these are windfalls that are being made by small property owners, large property owners. if costa hawkins was repealed the kind of internet stance that supervisor kim addressed we could be deal with by unanimous vote of this board that the

spouse, the widow would not be able to have a massive rent increase. we've had to do costa hawkins work around and supervisor tang is very familiar with this, in order to do excess ore units. the bred of what costa hawkins does is uncon schenn able. uncon schenn able.i put it on te i thought it would be like proposition 6. i thought it would be easy. i mean, if san francisco can't stand up for it, i don't know what city can. and i guess if we don't have the votes here today, i guess we'll send it to committee and bring it back and vote on it again, i guess. >> supervisor kim.

>> i just wanted to add my words as well. first of all, i think most of us are very familiar with the state law because we grapple with it several times a year in this board chamber. one of the reasons why i also thought this was appropriate as a co sponsor to bring adoption is this is a state law we're all familiar with that we discussed and debate because we often have our hands tied behind our backs as we try to work around this state law to keep tenants in place in their homes and also to make housing more affordable. we've also had several months to review this state proposition. it is one that i know tenant activists had started beginning to campaign for in january. they brought it to the democratic party convention a couple months ago where the delegates voted to support over turning rent control which became the state proposition. and i know that since july, prop

10 committee campaign members have been contacting me to ask me to sign onto the initiatives, gave me the legislation to read it and so it other appeared that many of us have months to consider. given all the discussions we've have on eviction 2.0 we understand how costa hawkins has tied our hands. very specifically, repeeling costa hawkins is repeeling the state's able to manage the power of california cities to regulate our own markets. nothing magical happens the day after the passage or proposition 10, it allows this board of supervisors to pass ordinances that we've been talking about for years, including legislation that would protect tenants like my friend, whose wife passed away last month and it would certainly ease a lot of our

negotiations around mandating or even increasing voluntary contributions to our markets if we didn't have to create automatic of these elaborate contracts to get developers, who actually want to build affordable housing as part of they projects developments here in san francisco. i just think on balance, it's important for us to state our support as one of the most progressive cities in the state of california for the repeal of this measure. it's very important to distinguish homeowners and landlords. if you are a home own living in your home, costa hawkins doesn't havdoesn'thave an impact on you. i'm reading this book late but my summer reading was "evicted" which say book based on evictions in the city of milwaukee. while the narrative is focused on the city of milwaukee, it's the story of america. evictions which, you know, 50,

60 years ago would cause entire neighborhoods to come up in uproar when one of their neighbors would get evicted is so common place. it happens on a regular basis in cities across the country. the most evicted group, of any group in this country are african american women. it is said that african american women are evicted at rates similar to or higher than african men are incarcerated in prison. i just think that as we talk about evictions and tenant rights, this is a national narrative. it is deeply impacting the city and part of the reason why we have not been able to address the eviction crisis in san francisco is because the state law. it's over reaching in its protection. it doesn't mean that all of these things fall away. it means city legislatorses can protect their tenants and i

think we should have faith in this body that we would pass legislation that is fair to both sides. and if we don't see the repeal of proposition 10, we will not be able to do that. >> eddie: do w >> do we have any comments? >> i have one follow-up. >> supervisor kim, how would the repeal of costa hawkins, if it were not in existence or we amended it, how would it have a positive effect on the recipient of the letter you received? >> our hands are tied protecting a tenant who lost a family member who is the main lease holder of a unit. and so, currently, we can't pass any legislation. let's say we thought the appropriate amount of time -- this is very appropriate for

discussion. should we permit six month or one year moratorium on rent when a member of a family or household passes away to restrict a landlord's ability to raise their rent because their name was not on the lease. it's something i could introduce next tuesday if costa hawkins wasn't in effect. costa hawkins ties our hands from introduction that legislation and having a debate on that. landlords and tenants would come to us at that point, expressing their thoughts, their feedback, this is what works and it's the role of this body to sal evaluaa fair balance. whatever that might be at the end of the day. costa hawkins prevents us from even having that dialogue at the city level. and so it is the pre descriptiveness of costa hawkins in tying the hands of city legislate to bees and protecting our constituents.

i think there are many elements we would want to keep. i don't want a state where landlords don't feel comfortable wenting their units on the market. that does not work for us either. and second, we need certainty. in any business that you want to go into, we know that business owners need certainty and how they're going to make money from the business they run. so it makes a lot of sense in terms of the criticisms of prop 10 that we're sharing today but that's the role of the city to provide that for our constituents, our tenants and our landlords. >> thank you. i'm going to pivot to supervisor tang quickly. can you articulate the small property owners perspective of what they're fearful of? >> through the chair. i think supervisor kim mentioned it earlier, we don't want to hit the other extreme which is what i think i experienced

representing the district. a lot of people, the number one reason for why they don't even put current units out on the market or don't engage in building a.d.u.s is because of the fear whether it's substantiate the or not, their home would be subject to rent control. i think that over the years, what i've heard is that just that potential of the repeal alone has been such a deterrent for so many people to want to rent. i think that we talk about all these potentially thousands and thousands of units that are available that are not being rented out to tenants and it's the case in the district. we have a lot of people who are fearful and it's all they talk to me about. these small property owners. and so that is a challenge. no matter how much i work on trying to remove barriers to permitting for a.d.u.s, for example, i don't know we're going to see that uptick in creation because of this idea of the repeal.

as i mentioned earlier, without knowing the details of what local law and how that will change as the result of a potential repeal, it's hard for me to even talk about what those impacts might be but there's a huge fear right now. this fear is grounded in a fact or any data or is it just fear? a perception of not understanding how the system works? >> through the chair to president cohen, so, right now there is a reality that people in my district, small single-family homes, they're not renting out. they're currently not renting out units that could be available to tenants. they're not create being new inlaw units, own though they have an illegal one, they're afraid to legalize or they don't have one and would have the space to create a new one, they're not because they don't want tosh subject to rent control. >> i understand they don't want

to be subject to rent control. we kept pivot being back to fear. i'm trying to understand this fear. there's an example or a a behavior. i'm using this as an opportunity to understand. i hear small property owners don't like -- they would rather keep their units vacant that bring it to the market. i don't understand why? what are they fearful of? a tenant from hell coming? >> we all w deal with situations with a landlord or tenant behavior badly. maybe they have had tenants that haven't behaved well in their roles. again, we see situations from all sides. i think some have experienced bad situations with tenants and they feel that they have to pay thousand and thousands of

dollars to reoccupy the units. whether it's an owner move in or what have you, right. so i mean those are the laws that exist right now. unfortunately, again, the number one reason that is cited to me is that they don't want to subject their units to rent control. >> thank you. >> ok, supervisor ronen. >> yes, president cohen, i just wanted to also comment on that question because it doesn't make sense to me that they're fearful of being subject to rent control because they're a single-family home so they're not representativing. they're fearful if they add an a.d.u. that will cause eviction. whether you are a single-family home or two unit, it applies. so i don't really understand. to me it feels like there's confusion over this fear of rent

control. what i have heard many times is if a tenant turns out to be irresponsible or isn't paying their rent that it's so costly to evict someone. but that's about just cause eviction that applies not rent control. i want to make sure we're talking about the right law. >> through the chair, thank you. i agree with you. that's my understanding. supervisor tang represents a large handful of small property owners that have articulated their displeasure in the refill of costa hawkins and i'm trying to understand. otheother than i'm a small propy owners and i don't want the repeal, i don't understand the fear. >> supervisor kim. >> first, i just want to point that these property owners are not renting today, not the passage of proposition 10. second, what i would articulate is the fear is that the board of supervisors would go crazy and

implement all this legislation that would only protect tenants and not landlords. that is conceivable. however, in my 18 years following this board of supervisors, i think given our vote count and the fact that we need housing on the market. i mean my guess would be this would pass legislation that is balancedment we're one of the more progressive cities in the state of california. so i would think that we would be on the cutting edge of any type of tenant protection ordinances beyond any other cities. that is the real fear is that we'll go crazy and establish all these laws that i don't know, ensure that tenants can stay in their units no matter what they do. i just doubt that this body would do that and my experience at least through my 18 years watching this board, is that we are moderated how we move forward because we represent stakeholders and it would not

benefit us to pass legislation because we would lose housing on the market. developers would stop building if we extend rent control to new units. there has to be a certain period of time -- i agree there should be a period of time new construction is not limited by rent control, for example. because we want to make sure that those that are investing in these new developments make their money back before we bring them in under rent control. it would be a rolling rent control year to allow owners and developers to kind of see the investment of their money come back to them. there has to be a level of faith in the legislative and democratic process and of course the public would come out and explain to us, how things would benefit or hurt them. repeeling hos ta hawkins allows us to have that dialogue, which we cannot have today.

>> i appreciate that. >> i will allow supervisor safai. >> i'm going to add on i want to tell you what is happening in real time. there's a lot that talked about african american homeowners we have the second highest amount of african american homeowners and the second highest aging in place. you have multiple family members that some family want to return to the city. there's more of a flexible understanding. you have a rental agreement with a tenant, the tenant might live there. i bump into people that have lived in these homes for a number of years and they have a good relationship with the tenants. what i have also heard and the homeowners, what i have also heard is if it were a situation where rent control were imposed on a single family home, they would no longer want to participate in that. but what is also happening because they want to have the option of having a family member

or a child to come back into that home and as supervisor ronen said there's different legal remedies and processes to go through but the idea of imposing a single family home, that's where the consternation lies in my district. the other thing i wanted to say through the chair, i wanted to ask deputy city attorney, i don't at this there's as much apprehension about this body but there could be apprehension ta taking it to the ballot. if we pass proposition 10, is it conceivable that people could take it to the ballot and circumvent through the board and impose whatever version of new rent control rules they could if costa hawkins were repealed. >> the voters can adopt any ordinance the board of supervisors is empowered to adopt. so the voters could adopt an amendment to the rent ordinance and a petition circulated.

the vote voters have adopted different ballot measures over the years and the rent ordinance which limits this body's ability to amend the rent ordinance. >> i agree with supervisor kim and her presentation that we tend to be more balanced in our conversations here. i think the fear i have heard in the last couple of months is i've gotten feedback is the idea of this going to the ballot and causing the level of consternation to our district and single-family homes. >> thank you, chair. >> president cohen. >> president cohen: thank you, very much. this conversation has been really enlightening. for the record, to the best of my knowledge, no tenant advocate has reached out to my office to educate us. it's only been years of serving on the land use committee that i have rudimentary understanding. it's interesting because i feel like the tenants advocate committee go to this go-to people which is why you heard from them. that's also an example of what

concerns me about a little bit to the point that what ashia was making. people go to their friends first and if you are not friends and you have a tepid relationship you don't get firsthand information. i don't know if it's true or accurate and for me that is where the uneasiness lies is i don't have total faith and confidence. i have faith in this body on the thought process and how we just have processes put in place besides as you know, an item can get on the ballot. we have seen in recent past, i think some legislation that passed for housing for teachers that was a voter initiative that got on the ballot and it's tied up in court because of, from what i understand, i don't if this is a fact or not, because of writing. when you put an initiative on the ballot, there's no

flexibility to make changes or tweaks unless it's written in. so that is a little bit where my uneasiness is. however, i like the idea to have the conversation. if we can't have the conversation if costa hawkins is in place. i think also this uneasiness what we're seeing playing out is speaking to how the politics place in san francisco. where people just don't trust each other. and that has to deal with bad relationships and burnt relationships. as an elected official, i live in a rent control unit but never have earned support within the tenant's community because they just don't identify with me and they think i don't identify with them and that is really hampered the conversations in this city, this level of fear that is ratcheted up only because you

don't play for my team and i don't play for your team and i think it's hurting us. i can see both sides to the benefits of costa hawkins. i want to be able to restart this conversation. we restart the conversation and then next thing you know, perhaps it goes too far and over sell us advocates start putting measures on the ballot. i don't know that would hurt the constituents i care for. i don't know the right answer. i'm sure you are nodding and understand what the dilemma of where i am. i just use my own experience on how proposition 10 came to the ballot, who came to speak to me and who didn't come to speak to me. up until today, supervisor peskin has been thoughtful in his approach but all through

august i didn't hear from anything. christine pelosi did reach out by i wasn't in a position to articulate questions at this time. that is where we are today. the executive board and the democratic party took public positions on it but i believe the folks that were in favor of it did a due diligence of educating, connecting and reaching out to people and they didn't do that with me. so here we are, i don't know if i am a swing vote in this but now i have been forced to make a decision on the fly when i've had a limited amount of information and understanding given to the details. i want toe know detail wise. supervisor kim, thank you for being so knowledgeable and sharing your knowledge and supervisor peskin thank you for meeting with me and to ronan and tang for sharing your request perspective on what you are seek on the ground. everything that you just all described is a culmination of

what i see on the ground every day rail time for my district 10. what's interesting is i have not heard from a number of constituents one way or the other. so, mr. supervisor over there, acting chair, acting president. >> would you like me to act like the president right now. i could ask for a vote. >> absolutely. >> roll call, please. >> item 30, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> peskin aye. >> ronen. >> aye. >> satisfy a. >> no. >> stefani. >> tang. >> no. >> yee. >> aye. >> brown. >> aye. >> cohen. >> no. >> supervisor fewer. >> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> there are seven ayes and

four nos, with supervisor safai. >> madam president, i'd like to defer -- >> the resolution has failed. supervisor peskin. >> what i'd like to do is make a motion to rescind the vote and send it to committee or radio introduce it and send it to committee but it would be easier if we vote to send it to committee. >> supervisor peskin has made a motion to rescind. seconded by ronen. motion has been rescinded. madam clerk. >> motion made to ascend to committee. i don't believe that it needs a second. >> it does. >> ronan has sent it to committee and we will take out the matter further in committee. can we take that without objection. >> without objection. thank you. democracy at its finest real time. good job, everyone.

madam clerk, what's next. >> >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the follow beloved individuals on a motion made by supervisor safai for zelma wills. a motion made by supervisor yee for william yonge. supervisor peskin for the late mary gallagher and linda peterson and a motion made by supervisor kim on behalf of the entire board of supervisors for dr. don mabalone. >> president cohen: thank you. madam clerk that brings us to the end of our agenda. >> yes, madam president. >> thank you. is there any further business before us? >> it concludes our business for today. >> we're adjourned. thank you.

cp >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco planning commission and health commission joint special meeting for september 6, 2018. i would like to remind the public the members of the commission do not tolerate any outbursts of any kind. please silence any electronic devices that may sound off during the proceedings. i'd like to take roll for the planning commission. [roll call] >> clerk: