addresses concerns raised by the g.a.o. committee and this change can be made at the staff level. since the goal of the mills act spram to provide an incentive for rehabilitation -- [coughing] requiring minimum scopes of work such as seismic work, accessibility will see improvements when it ensures that all properties hold a contract of rehabilitation. others go to work beyond the minimum and fi for discussion of the h.b.c. or board of supervisors and this policy change can be made at the staff level. the current mills act application allows property owners to include scopes of work that have been completed in the last year. requiring that scopes of work not be completed before the contract is in effect demonstrates the need for a tax benefit.

if an owner was able to successfully complete their project without financial subsidy, there is no establishment need for granting a mills act contract. it it encourages future rehabilitation work. this change can be made at the staff level. [coughing] the proposed amendment would require that scopes of work be required during the first 10 years of the contract. requiring scopes of work can be done during the first 10 years. contract -- 10 years of the contract. this policy can also be made up at the staff level. and this last amendment proposes that a c of a for scopes of work identified in the first three years of contract must be filed and approved during the mills act process. [coughing] excuse me.

must be completed can prior to tend of the 10-year contract. this prioritizes certain scopes of works and demonstrates to the city the property owner's commitment and this policy change can be made at a staff level. so based on h.p.c. discussions today, staff will reformat and update the. application to reflect your comments and work with the city legislative team and g.a.o. on final amendments. any amendments will return to the h.p.c. for review and comment. thanks. [laughter] [s coughing] >> thank you for getting through that. so why don't we take public comment on this item. any member of the public wish to speak to this matter? if so, please come forward. >> the contract and proposal that she is -- >> i'm sorry. do you mind speaking up? i'm having trouble hearing you. thank you.

>> the proposal that she's indicating, we must understand that we have to utilize the protocol, the importance of what type of proposal it is that we are reviewing. and if we don't have a subtitle to it, then how can we justify it in the order of implementing or revising the proposal itself. now the le -- the proposal that she is indicating, it is a feudal concept where funding is going to create a big, more expensive [inaudible] investment that we will basically lose more than we put in. so when we utilize protocol, it isn't in this fashion. she asked the question. we do it in the a different form. and the way you do your proposalles is we must have

more enlightenment. we must have more in depth. and we must be able to understand the importance of the proposal. this way we can make a better judgment of the decision in regards to how we're going to come to terms on that specific proposal. if we just hear it and for biased reasons, i don't like it. but if we give for favoritism and allow it, then we serve no purpose for our own ability to remain as the board members. but we must understand we have to change our ways where excessive spending and, again, we're focusing on housing. renovation and who is going to be the contractor. the contractors, we have to look to that because we don't want to just pick specific contractors because these days contractors do not utilize the codes -- the building codes and they just don't have [inaudible].

so the important something we have to review it in more depth. she has one year from december 1 and will propose it in may and -- and december 1, and then we can make the decision on that. and we have one year to do so. now the importance of what we need to focus on is that funding that is being spent with about the crack in this building. when i indicate put the inspectors in there and inspect if these buildings are being secured and built properly for safety and security for the citizens and the enterprise corporations. but you haven't. and that's important. now it is going to cost more money to fix it. so we have to have inspectors go in there before we provide any further employment to enter the [inaudible]. so that we can secure them and the building. i don't need to be rushed. >> thank you. your time is up. >> again.

this is my -- >> your time is up, sir. everyone gets three minutes. >> [inaudible]. so we must make sure -- >> excuse me, sir, your time is up. the three minutes is over. >> the appropriate spending. >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner pearlman? >> hi. i hope you'll -- [laughter] thank you. i do have a question about -- one of the criteria, the one about distinctiveness. i was thinking about 2355 webster today that is on -- that we approved today and it seems like that one is -- while it is a historic resource because it fits in with the webster street district, in and of itself is not significantly distinctive from others. it's a rather ordinary example of that time of house that's in the district. so, would that be the kind of

nraonlt -- project that may not be accepted in this criteria? >> i guess not prioritized. but what does that mean when you say not prior tieed? i mean, do we have so many that we're knocking some out? >> [inaudible]. [laughter] >> it may be -- it may be the case that that property in itself doesn't qualify under the distinctiveness category. however, it may qualify under some of the other priority considerations. i think as a city, we still have an obligation to bring all applications forward to this commission and to the board of supervisors. again, this will justs be information that we propose -- or show you and show the board in its deliberations and so, you know, maybe it applies during the year in -- where there is not many applications

and the board says while it may not be distinctive, it does seem necessary because they have to rebuild their foundation. and, therefore, you may want to grant that mills act -- >> out of necessity. >> exactly. i think lit -- lit depend on looking at these priority considerations and totality and balancing them with you and with the board to make that final decision. >> and is there -- when you say there is a year where there is not a lot of application, have we had that year yet? is there a limit? >> there's not necessarily a limit. however, you know, we've had some year where is the numbers have been closer to 12 to 15. other years are about half of that. last year,s as shannon remarked, the board decided not to grant two act mills act

applications. somewhere aligned with these priority considerations, we think that if you -- if this sxhition in general agreement about these considerations, we think the board of supervisors will as well. some years may be approved. but other years-will have like last year just to reiterate three of the applications were limited to 10-year contracts so there may be some contracts that weren't their perpetuity and maybe some contracts where the board wants to see a finite savings within 10 years on that property. >> something like san carlos probably wouldn't make it because all the work was done two years ago. >> that was a major raised by the g.a.o. last year is where is the financial need if they were able to finance restoration prior to the mills act. certainly in next year's cycle, that will likely be a big

factor for us and our recommendations to you. >> thank you. commissioner matsuda? >> to finish up on commissioner pearlman's questions. let's say a historic property doesn't meet the priority considerations. does that mean that that property can continue to come back and back? >> mm-hmm. >> and then my second question is like what you shared about several mills act contracts not being approved. so what kind of appeal process is available for them. do they just re-apply again or how does that work? >> they would have to re-apply again to be reconsidered and last year one of those contracts was an -- was a reapplication. it was for the philberg street cottages which again they applied two-years in a row. it was very small. but it was not compelling enough for the board to grant that contract.

>> so, when a mills act contract is not approved, does that come with rationale as to why they haven't approved so they can readjust their application or rereview the contract the next time around? >> that was the thinking. certainly after the first go-around is the g.a.o. and the board gave specific comments about what portions of the rehabilitation were actually being factored into the savings and, as a result of that, the assessor office modified what that actual savings would be, eliminating some portions of the building that may be seen as being reconstructed or new or a new addition. unfortunately it was not enough for the board to desire to contract the contract. but they usually state their reasons. at least at the committee recommendation. so, we do have a sense of why

they decided to -- and that way we can talk to the property owner about what their next steps ma i be. >> and then just one more question. under how it would be a category about not allowing people to ask for reimbursement for things retroactively, it would justs be proactively. is there any notice for people who are in this middle part where they are before this retroactive thing come in? -- comes in? >> we will be promoting the new application -- >> but you're saying prospect if we write -- so you're going to give kind of a timeline. so, those who are in process now and whos have retroactive bills. will still be eligible to receive -- >> sure. that is still a decision by this commission, by the board and i think that is a great example of why we decided to bring oak street forward is

because we're in this transition period. as shannon could attest, we receive mills act questions throughout year and start working with applicants all the time during the year just for this cyclele. so we have been letting them know about these changes for the last year. >> are you saying that going forward we would not include work that has been complete? that would disqualify those dollars that have been invested already? >> i think the property owner need toss make a decision. either to, one, not include that work in the mills act contract or, two, is to postpone that work until the mills act contract is granted. i think, you know, and that is just based on the comments we heard last year like the waller -- was it waller street?

the one in davos park? which one? the facade for this year. what is the address? >> 567 waller. >> thank you. so, that facade restoration, we think, has a much better chance at receiving a mills act contract versus the oak street project because the work has already been completed because they are able to demonstrate a need to the board and showing that that facade restoration, which is easy to argue is a public benefit will be funded by the mills act savings. >> i would like to see some period of work that has already been done a year or two years. because this should be an incentive, not a reward -- or a reward but incentive.

>> i believe that it's up to -- it's now a year. >> currently it's a year. and that can include work that has been complete in the last year. i think what the g.a.o. was concerned about is that all of the work on some of the projects last year had been completed. the building had already been rehabilitated. similar to the san carlos property this year and that was their concern. >> but if it is an emergency repair, you can't wait. >> correct. >> until the mills act contract is approved. >> correct. >> before that work is done. >> it is my intent to apply for the mills act and the property owner wants to proceed with the work. i don't think they should be penalized for doing that, especially since this is a yearly program and didn't make the deadline, it would have to wait a whole other year. >> we're happy to put in some language about -- one is to allow for -- tell me if this makes sense, to allow for work

happening within that calendar year or happened within the calendar year to qualify and then two is perhaps a section where they're able to explain or justify the necessity of that work occurring prior to the mills act application. >> and then can fall under necessity. >> exactly. >> i see. >> mm-hmm. >> because if something falls on your roof -- >> right. >> and you have to fix your roof because it is raining. that's like a necessity. >> we're also asking the applicants to complete, to submit the work that they're proposing to the h.b.c. during the mills act process. right? so you have to hire an architect or consultant and they have to do the work. you don't know at that point whether you get the mills act. it's like a chicken and egg thing here. you have to do this application and spend all this money on something which you might not be able to do.

>> maybe there is a way to flag the project. >>'s like you hire enough money to hire the architect. >> that is exactly the point. i don't think we want to create a situation where a property owner is waiting because they have to get this approval. but if they choose to proceed with the work, regardless of whether the approval comes or not, they shouldn't be penalized. >> yeah. yeah. >> and maybe that's on their application. maybe it is a simple intents. intend to submit these with our mills act applications so that the intent is identified and we can actually follow, instead of coming back with someone who has a $5 million home, which is above the limit anyway, but doesn't really need the tax relief. >> i think that it sounds to me like it will be two thing.

one, our application needs to have a check box there to say this is our intent for this work to qualify under our current mills act application. and the second we put in some narrative in the application to clarify exactly what that means. >> i have a question about the priority consideration criteria. this is in the property contract packet. it says properties with previous violations for deferred maintenance would not meet this criteria. for necessity. but what if it's -- you happen to buy a house that the previous owner had done this. >> i was about to -- >> it should be -- yeah. obviously if you're the owner and you have all of these violations for different maintenance, that you should -- you would not meet this criteria. but if you bought a house that had a really bad owner previously, that shouldn't be penalized. i'm wondering if we can fin --

finness the wording of that one. >> you sell it to your sister -- [laughter] and then you buy it back. >> or the sale of itself is creating violations. >> yeah. on the previous violations, i understand from your report last year about why that was put in. but it always struck me as a little bit odd. because the property that hasn't been kept up and, therefore, is in violation seems to me to be one that needs to be rehabilitated and fixed up and so it ought to qualify because that's what the city wants to do. that is how it's property is fixed up. i've always been -- i thought that is one of those things that sounds like crusading but when you get down to it, goes

against what we are really trying to do. >> this comment just, commissioners, your point is well taken. and this was in response partially to some comments the g.o. gave us and also the general public. there was a concern that if deferred maintenance is somehow considered as part of a priority consideration that it may incentivize some negligent property owners and basically letting their property run into the ground knowing oh, well i can get some money back from the city to actually help me pay for that. whether or not that's actually occurred, there's no proof. but that was a comment -- >> like a big stretch. >> [inaudible] amount of work that people have to go through to get one of these contracts. >> exactly. and the cost. if you are someone who's let your property run down for so long, the incentive of getting 30, 40, or 50% of what you are going to have to spend is not an incentive. so that seems like a far

reaching stretch to -- as a rationale. >> but i also think there's a distinction between deterioration of a property through lack of finances and someone who knowingly goes about altering, those are two different violations in my mind. there should be a distinction made. it's not ok to rip off the character defining features f. >> we had one today. 903 minnesota was one of those cases sfj that's right. >> i do think that is an important distinction to make. right? some of the -- i think most of what they're trying to get at are deliberate code violations. people who do things in direct violation don't gate permit or whatever. that is a very different thing than lack of maintenance that might result in a code violation over time or something. >> there some way of redefining

those two things? >> and knowing -- [laughter] >> not that i would have any idea how. >> it's certainly challenging and i think we understand the direction you'd like to see that go. so we'll work on something. >> because i think the point that commissioner woolford made about, somebody buys a property because it is deteriorating and it's like great. i have a project. now i want to fix up my house and shouldn't i be incentivized to do that and not penalized because of it. >> commissioner? >> i have another question i wanted to get to. but this brought up another question. are ellis act evictions? not going to be allowed? >> it's not -- it's not a factor that this commission considers. it is certainly that something that the board of supervisors brought up last year. but because it's not directly related to this benefit, it

seems like we're on shaky ground . >> there are other issues. other topics and questions. >> the accessory dwelling unit. so, the repairs to convert to an accessory dwelling unit is added into this? >> yes. [all talking at once] >> the policy. [laughter] >> doesn't seem like that is a restoration -- >> typical rehabilitation scope. >> yeah. it seems like it is muddying it. >> no. we did see there. this is something that was also added to the delegation this year is that we saw there being a benefittor and a way to add densities to historic propertis to make them more feasible for

those property owners to maintain and provide this tax incentive. we sawle that to be actually a closer overlap than maybe -- >> i think a lot of -- we're getting a very unexpectedly high number of a.d.u. applications, something on the order of 500 a year. and over half of them are a result of the soft story retrofit. which means that what we're seeing is situations where garages are removed and facades are restored. so i think -- i think the idea that because -- i think the idea to incentive a.d. use because the interesting something that if they're in a building that is subject to rent control, the new unit could be subject to rent control as well. >> i just had one comment about the timeline. that's in the document. there's a few graphic issues with it.

like items 16 and 18 aren't showing up. >> we'll definitely make reformat -- >> it is a little confusing the way you're going around the circle. sfr*k start to send? >> is yeah. it goes around it and then it is slightly confusing. helpful to have this whole timeline. but just the graphics of it. needs a little work. so, are we -- is there an action on this? yes. review and comment. >> this is review and comment. i think your comments have been really helpful because we do have some time between now and the next cycle. what we will do is present this to the government audit and oversight committee as well and likely bring it to maybe in january or so. just to show you what the final looks like that will be released to the public. >> ok. we've closed public comment. but do you wish to make public comment? i can re-open fit you wish.

>> [inaudible]. >> ok. i'll re-open public comment. >> i own the property at 2253 webster street and thank you very much for [inaudible]. >> ok. >> i wanted to say that i really appreciate you approving it because although it seems like i'm able to buy the house, why shouldn't i be able to maintain the house. however, just to give you an example, there's no hand rail in the front of my -- in the front of my house but in order to install the hand rail, i have to make it of period style. i can't just put a hand rail. if i were able to put an iron hand rail, it would only cost me $1400 to do it. but as of right now the quotes

that i've been getting to get the drawings and to get the hand rail made of period style cost me about $25,000. and so the difference between $1400 and $25,000 is very substantial and i think property owners should be rewarded for what they do to their house. like, for example, my house -- my corner does a tour group that comes through every single day. and there are people who come by our block and they carry the [inaudible] and they look at our properties and they're constantly taking photos of our properties. and if people were to do that, they would stay in san francisco perhaps a little longer. if they stay one day longer, they spend more in meals and

spending more on hotels and spending more everywhere. and this act is fully worth it and i really -- when i bought the house i wasn't aware of the mills act. but when i started having problems with renovations because of how expensive things are, because when you have a victorian not only on the outside, but on the inside. all the stories are taller and skinnier and you can't just go to home depot and buy a door. i just wanted to say that i really appreciate what you do and i hope you will continue doing it. and my neighbors wanted to apply for the mills act together with me. however, they decided to hold it off and see how it goes with me because their houses have been renovated and they go through hardship. you know, paying for the renovations and paying for the meticulous painting and to some degree i think it's not fair to penalize them for having done the work.

i know i'm going over time. but i really want you to know they really appreciate iflt and in particular to my property, it's a corner so i have a lot more spaces that i need to maintain than other people. >> thank you very much. with that, we'll close public comments and that was extremely helpful in pointing out. >> perfect testimony of why the mills act is a successful tool. >> yeah. and critical. with that, the hearing is adjourned.

>> supervisor tang: good afternoon everyone. welcome to october. we are at our october 1st, land use and transportation commit committee. jim supervisor katie tang along with jane kim and supervisor safai. are there any announcements before us? >> clerk: yes. silence all cell phones and

electronic devices. fill out speaker cards and any documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on the october 16 board of supervisors agenda. >> supervisor tang: thank you. can you call item numbers one through seven consecutively. >> clerk: yes. [reading items one through seven] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. we have francis mcmillan from planning. >> good afternoon supervisors.

francis mcmillan. i have a presentation. thank you. items before you today are the article ten and article 11 designations. today's designations includes three individual art ten landmark designation and new pullman hotel and hotel utah. one article ten is proposed for today. the article 11 items include addition of two properties to the kearny market district, the designation of the mint district and change in designation of 26 individual building. each of the items was supported by the historic preservation commission and planning commission in march through june of this year. the surveys conducted over the

last several years are examples of property with architectural design. their statements serve aztec any cal studies used to inform the development and protecting -- as, technical studies and used to reflect the industrial and artistic feel of the neighborhood. the new pullman hotel is significant as one of the few remaining and best examples of the residential hotels. it is also significant for its association with seasonal and african american railroad workers including pullman porters and maids who established the first all black union in the country, contributed to the development of the african american middle class. the property is the only known

property in san franciscan stanning strong associations with pullman porters and maids. the pile drivers bridge is associated with post disaster reconstruction era. the union hall at 224 and 226 guerrero. this is a striking example of architect commonly employed in the design residential hotel building constructed during period and the hotel is notable for having survived a large scale redevelopment of soma during the mid-20th century during which much of the building stock was raised. the last article ten designate

nation is named for the -- designation is named for the two story warehouse building unique to the district. it is significant because it is representative of 19 century development of the south of market area and maritime commissioners a-- commerce along the west coast. it was developed in the 19 industry and continued through the 1906 earthquake and fire reconstruction. it is one of the last remaining enclaves of main stream building following the 1906 earthquake and fire. the first of the two designations before you is the addition of two properties to the kearny market district.

55 fifth street, and 1923 hotel. their heights, scale and massing along with the renaissance detailing share direct relationship with the architectural character and historic context, making them natural additions to the district. the mint mission district is co comprised of industrial properties. as a reminder, article 11 building are classified with numerical rankings. buildings one and two are significant and contribute to categories three and four are smaller scale and possess less ornate detail. the district is rare with this mix of building types and

representative of the post 1906 earthquake and fire reconstruction period. the 26 properties proposed for a change in article 11 designation best represent the neighborhood. they include examples of the industrial and commercial hotel properties that were once common to soma. the majority of the properties are not currently rated under article 11 or classified or category 5. as outlined on this slide, throughout the development of the central soma survey, multiple outreach efforts were conducted. through recent notification we have received several inquiries from property owners with a mix of questions and concerns related to designation. department staff has held a number of meetings and spoken with owners to discuss their concerns, including the

transferable development rights and using the california building code and certificate of appropriate requirements. in closing, the article 10 and 11 designations included in the soma plan policies include supporting the preservation, recognition and well-being of the neighbor's resources, protecting heritage properties, designation to article 11 of the planning code and supporting the features that shows the art of the neighborhood. this concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much for that presentation. colleagues, any questions or comments? okay. seeing none, we will go to public for items one through seven. any members of the public who wish to speak on the historic designation items? >> this technique of conserving

and preserving historic building is an example how you can preserve buildings in area owned and controlled by nationality of white people. when you have historical building in areas that is predominantly black and hispanic, latino, people of color, you never come through talking about you want to preserve the building. you want to tear it down and build a brand new building and jack up the expenses of rent and move the original people in the area out of the district. and you do it all the time. every time you do it, i'm going to check you. and by the same response, i'm going to step outside just to conference of taking care of business in city hall because this is not the correct place to take care of these kind of problems with the way your

administration is. i have to get you in front of a federal district judge with the price fixing and price gauging and you get trillions and billions of dollars to high-tech companies that don't need a damn blink. i'm tired of it. i'm tired of it. about you talking about i'm being decisive. pitting minds of people against each other when i speak up for every nationality. [bell] >> i don't appreciate you talking to me like that. a black person come here and tell you he had two cancer surgeries because of the radiation in your district and you slam the door in his face. female tell you how 13 people have died because of the cancer causing materials in your district and you hang up the phone. do not come through and how black people have been discriminated for years in san francisco.

[bell] >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members of the public who wish to comment on items one through seven? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagueses can we get a motion on these items? >> supervisor kim: i would like to move forward items one through severalen with recommendation to the full burden. >> supervisor tang: we are missing our colleague, but do we need to roll call then? >> clerk: sure. on the motion to send this matter forward as recommended, supervisor safai? absent. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: aye. >> clerk: there are two eyes. >> supervisor tang: thank you. these items will proceed. item eight, please. [reading agenda item]

>> supervisor tang: thank you. we are joined by supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. it is in response to multiple fires we have seen in the city over the past few years that have led to property damage, massive tenant displacement and some instances loss of life. there were 252 two-alarm or greater residential fires between 2004 and 2016. the most horrendous fire in my district was 22nd and mission in 2015 where 58 men, women and children were displaced. access to fire escapes were locked and that the alarm system didn't work.

many of these survivors are low income families with young children. one person also tragically died. today this building is nothing but a hole in the ground and people have not been able to return to their homes or community. this legislation provides the city with a strong mechanism that will help keep our most vulnerable building safe and hopefully prevent tragedies like the one at 22nd and mission in the future. while there are many upstanding building owners in the city, what this legislation does is focus on those who have a pattern of negligence. the legislation will be triggered when a building owner has been issued two or more notices of violation for violation of fire safety requirements and any fire hazard continues to exist or reoccurs after abatement. the violation must also be so extensive or of such a nature that the health and safety of

the resident is endangered and the property owner has failed to abate the violations. in these situations, the city can issue a fire life safety notice and order, which can be signed off by either dbi or fire in consultation always with our fire marshal. this order will make clear that not only must the building owner resolve their outstanding notices of violation, but they will now also be required to do so through one of the following. either install a new sprinkler system, install a new fire alarm system or make improvements to either one of those systems. this legislation amends the housing building and fire codes and the admin code because it makes clear that the landlord will not be permitted to raise the rent on tenants to pay for the installation. landlords will not want to incur

the significant price and be incentivized to keep their building safer and up to date. we have added one more provision to this legislation which is reflected in the version before you colleagues on page five beginning on lines 13. once building owners receive a notice of violation related to fire safety, they will be made aware of the consequence for not abating fire safety violations within the specified time period and be made aware of this new law. in addition, once a building owner has reached two or more notices they will receive a warning letter letting them know they are a recipient of the order. negligent landlords need to understand if they don't take life safety then there are clear and serious consequences. i would like to thank many people who worked on this

legislation starting out with the incredible rosemary who is now retired for developing this idea together with my chief of staff, caroline who have worked on this for many years and are really the brains behind this incredible piece of legislation. thank you caroline and rosemary. i hope you're watching. i also wanted to thank the fire marshal, dan decosio. jamie and bill from dbi. and then a huge thank you to anty displacement coalition for help in developing this legislation, especially justin and tommy from the housing life committee and rose maria from the tenderloin housing clinic. i want to thank charlie from the

san francisco apartment association for reviewing this and providing feedback. thank you so much. with that, in my colleagues have any questions or comments. >> supervisor tang: i think we just wanted to see the amendments and maybe we could look at them while comment is going on. >> supervisor ronen: it is in the packet you have. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we can just go to public. >> supervisor kim: i wanted to say something. first i just want to thank supervisor ronen and her office for their really incredible work on this ordinance. i know when we had a number of major fires in district nine but also district six, many of us were wracking or rain or a legislation that would be appropriate to addressing this without doing a city wide requirement on every single multi-unit apartment building. it is obvious a great deal of work went into it. it is a very elegant and sump

solution that help -- simple solution to help and protect lives and housing of our residents. i just want to thank you in advance because redid require springi springi springing -- sprinklers. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. >> supervisor tang: each speaker will have a few minutes. i will call a few names to line up on the side. julio, joseph, anna, raquel veronica gomez and i will call some more after we hear from our first speakers. >> public: i agree with this and also move to expand it. the ordinance prohibiting

landlords from increasing rent to cover the cost which is supposed to be paid for by the owner of the building in the first place. normally i speak up for people in low-income and very low-income brackets and people with disabilities both mental and physical. but there's a unique time where i came to speak up for people in high-income brackets who are being discriminated against and involved in rent increases based on general routine maintenance. you claim that the rent ordinance prohibits landlords from increasing rents. i believe my last comment the rent stabilization board is not supposed to be price fixing and increasing the rents when they are supposed to be maintaining rent control. the same response has been studied by the university of

berkeley pertaining to how rent control will stable out the displacement of low-income, very low-income and fixed income and people who are retired on a fixed income. by going and taking care of the business the way you have been doing -- the study produced information by professors at berkeley both law school -- [bell] >> public: san francisco, bayview district and san francisco has lost thousands of low-income black households where lower income prices were already established. you incorporate situations per any expense that is supposed to be liable to the owner and pass it on to the tenant and undermine the tenant that is not aware of their rights pertaining to housing. you signed a contract with the owner. [bell]

[microphone cut off] >> public: good afternoon. i have been working with sf tenants since 2017. i'm here today to support the legislation. i have been working with tenants who have been displaced by fires in the mission and what often goes unmentioned in this conversation about fires and housing units is the difficult process of tenants returning to those units or their homes. housing units are supposed to be temporary displacements but they turn into permanent displacements. the fire -- they are supposed to be temporary until the proper repairs are completed. so, the fire life legislation before you can help ensure the

safety and well-being of these tenants and reduce the amount of impact it has on the building and the tenants that live in the building. please support this legislation as it will help reduce the impact fires have on the san francisco tenants. thank you. >> public: hi. good afternoon. my name is leticia and i'm one of the lead housing organizers. i have been working with tenants in the mission and other neighborhoods across the city since 2013. and i'm here today in support of this ordinance to amend the building and other housing codes to ensure landlords take the safety of their tenants seriously. i can share as an organizationer -- organizer, i have worked with

tenants and i have conducted building inspections and outreach when tenants have horrible repairs. i have worked with families displaced by fire including tenants from the 22nd mission street fire and i have seen the gaping hole there with no hope. so, we really believe that this legislation is vital in protecting the well being and safety of tenants. and although i can say that we work closely with inspectors from the department of building inspection to get landlords to obey these code violations, in the tenants unit and in the common areas of buildings, those repairs can take anywhere from six or more months to abate. so, my hope is that with the amendment of this housing code -- [bell] >> public: slum lord will take

the notices of violations that are issued to them and actually fix the fire code violations rather than paying fines. and the sro hotels have sprinklers and i don't see where landlords have ignored multiple fire code violations shouldn't be held to the same standard. please vote to support and move this legislation forward. thank you. >> public: hello. my name is raquel and i'm a housing advocate at the housing clinic. i'm part of the code enforcement outreach program and i'm a mission native. i support this legislation because every building deserves to have a fire sprinkler system that are working and up to code. as you may all know, the mission has had many fires in the last couple of years which have displaced many families. in particular, one building my friend used to live in which was

on 22nd and mission. it was his senior clear of college and because of that fire, he lost everything. growing up, my mother would take my sister and i to the markets to buy produce and when we would get good grades, she would take us to popeyes. when i walk by i can think of the memories i had as a child. i will never forget the night when that building caught on fire. there would be nights i would have a hard time sleeping because i was scared my building would be next. by passing this legislation, not only are we helping families stay housed, but we are keeping memories and stories that we grew up so we can pass it on to the next generation. can you imagine in that building would have had sprinklers, it would possibly still be here. thank you. >> public: good afternoon. my name is angie saunders.

as of a month ago i was living in the mission hotel sro. i now live in a private apartment. i believe this gives the department of building inspections the legislation would potentially benefit. i believe this gives the department of building inspection and sf fire department enforcement tools to hold negligent landlords responsible. this legislation is a step in the right direction for private apartment tenants like myself towards fire life safety prevention. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you so much. >> public: [speaking spanish].

>> public: i'm going to translate for her. good afternoon supervisors. my name is veronica gomez and i live at 642 hyde in a private apartment. in january 2017, after christmas, 2017, we suffered a great fire that impacted myself and my children, my three children. it was a very tragic situation and we had to relocate our whole

lives. although this situation did not impact us physically, the trauma of this event can still be felt. even today, my children get scared when they hear the sound of the fire trucks and firemen coming. i don't want anyone else to suffer as we did. for this reason, i strongly support the legislation and i ask that you all do as well. thank you very much, supervisors. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> public: good afternoon supervisors. my name is anna g. and i'm with the code enforcement outreach program. and i'm here to voice those ten other private apartments in our neighborhood, the tenderloin, that couldn't make it here to this hearing today. they are very happy that this

legislation is going to hopefully pass. i'm just here to say thank you and support for the legislation. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> public: good afternoon supervisors. joseph from the richmond district housing rights committee. speaking in support of the fire safety legislation before you, i want to thank caroline and supervisor ronen to hold landlords accountable and for building the apartment association together with the d d displacement coalition together. fire safety is seen only as an issue that effects the heart of the buildings. these are seniors like the ones who call me every day because they are still waiting to get

back into their apartments in a four-unit building after a fire that happened nearly two years ago. the tenants in a 16-unit building who are scared because there are constantly electrical problems that the landlord refuses to fix or many tenants displaced this last year throughout the richmond. so many that it is hard for us to track down all the tenants once they have been displaced. having a better system of accountability is essential. once a tenant is displaced by fire it often takes years for the owner to fix the damage so the tenants can move back in. the additional fire safety notice and order is a huge step in the right direction. so, we in housing rights committee are in full support to make sure they are working together to make sure tenants don't continue to live at risk of displacement or having their possessions or lives threatened by fire that couav