have our own hardship, not only tenants. >> voice of translator: when you put regulation -- recollections, you should look over all the situations on both sides. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: we want to rent our units out because we want to make a living , as well as to provide housing to tenants. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: we have contracts and leases. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: in black and white, we will say when is the lease commenced and when they terminate it? [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: we should not waste our time to debate this all over again and again. it is contract. [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] please respect the contract and do not use the unnecessary harassments -- harassment to interfere the contract. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: this subjective reason that will make our committee more divisive. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: this divisive situation will make the landlords scared to wrench their units out and also tenants are not able to find a place to stay [speaking foreign language]

>> voice of translator: this may be a huge potential for my elderly and myself as elderly that control my basic income. [indiscernible] >> thank you for translating. >> voice of translator: they have to take a huge pay lawsuit that has been going on for three years. the landlord has been going through mentally, physically, devastating and bad attacks due to the abusive tenants who have been using a lot of lies to get the lawsuit, and that has been

in the public information, it is becoming very negative information to landlords who are willing to share their rent to the public. that has been very scary for people to share their rooms or their units. >> thank you. next. >> thank you. >> next please. >> thank you so much for translating. >> my pleasure. >> we appreciate it. >> this is public welfare. >> hello. [speaking foreign language]

>> voice of translator: the proposition ten has been defeated and the city of san francisco is using another way of attacking the small property owners who are helpless legally. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: please , supervisors, give us a chance to survive, at least one chance to keep our savings and our retirement funds. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: if there is a reason for the harassments that would be used to apply to single-family homes, we would be very devastated and very painful and helpless legally.

>> voice of translator: we do not rob banks to get the money to buy the investment property. we work days and nights to get our savings and get the single-family home as our retirement his. >> voice of translator: i have been here for 30 years. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: i am saving nickels and dimes to get my investment for my retirement, however my retirement is only a few hundred dollars. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: i do not ask for welfare from the government or the city. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: the law will be threatening as and it is making as not easy to survive.

[speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: once we have a single-family home for rent, we feel so uneasy. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: we have laws and it always goes to one side which is the tenant side. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: we also have a proposition past and then the mayor also gives $5.8 million for legal help, legal consultants for tenants who have no income qualification

at all. anyone can qualify for legal aid under the $5.8 million to tenants only. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: this is one-sided to help tenants. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: we are human beings as well. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: we want to rent a place that everybody, at least tenants can stay in the city. but laws have been suppressing the religious and good landlords >> thank you very much. [speaking foreign language] >> hello. good afternoon. [speaking foreign language]

>> voice of translator: good afternoon. my name is jean. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: my husband and i have been working over ten hours a day to get our savings to buy a house, which is about a million dollars. but eventually, i was sued by tenants that i became -- i am bankrupt now. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: they don't pay rent. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: the bank took both of my properties. [speaking foreign language]

>> voice of translator: my husband was in hospital, was hospitalized because of the lawsuit, that eventually we have to keep our lives so we just have to let go of our property. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: she was saying -- sorry. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: please keep fair laws and do not just help the tenants. [speaking foreign language]

>> voice of translator: the landlords are also working hard to make their living. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: she said the tenants are pretty wealthy. >> voice of translator: -- [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: she said she can link you to people who abuse the system because they are so wealthy. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: they say -- they stay in my house but they don't pay the rent yet they also claim to be single. they have children and the husbands keep coming to the place where they potentially be single and they get a lot of support from the system. what she got is nothing except

that she has to give up her properties because of the abusive system by the abusive tenants. [speaking foreign language] >> voice of translator: be fair to all of us, but not just one side to the tenants. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. any other public comments at this point? seeing none, public comment is now closed. supervisor? >> thank you for this legislation. i think that the stories we have heard in the beginning clearly indicate a reason that it is necessary. i also want to acknowledge other people who have spoken in this room.

i understand all sides of this issue, and i have a quick question about whether or not -- first of all, would prop up cover this at all category if it were to go -- prop f. would only cover eviction cases, right? >> the legal temp council for tenants facing eviction. >> that is right. again, this is meant to close a loophole in the laws that -- very few, with some bad acting landlords are using by raising these extreme increases in rent to push people out without having to go through the formal eviction process. >> okay. >> perfect. >> i get it.

i just want to make sure that was clear. with the tenants then bring this to the rent board in a mediation , or would it be something that they can bring to superior court? >> both. >> i just want to make sure. if it is the rent board through a mediation, the bad faith standard, who is interpreting -- interpretation -- who is interpreting that standard? >> it is a question of fact. it would be -- and i am glad the city attorney is here in case you want to chime in at all, but my understanding is it is a question of fact for the facts to decide. if it would be the rent board, it would be the administrative law judge of the rent board, if it was a superior court, would be the court judge that would determine that. in terms of whether or not there are significant case laws that interprets bad faith, that is a

good question. and i don't know if that's something that our city attorney could answer. >> deputy city attorney, i am not aware, i'm happy to get back to you all before tuesday's meeting. nothing i can think of off the top of my head. as i was outside, i saw you also asked a question about prop f. i'm not sure if that was resolved. >> i'm good. i was just reading through the legislation, and on page 2, line 25, carried over to page 3, line one, it says this ordinance clarifies that these owners, like any owner of any other rental housing in the city do not have the right to harass tenants in bad faith. just the way that this is structured sounds like, they don't have the right to harass them in good faith either. i just think that the way that

that is worded, i don't know. adjust struck me as being a little off. i don't know if you see it that way. i'm fine with it, it just struck me -- are we assuming that they are harassing no matter what or are we -- [laughter] >> it is a good point. i think the reason that we drafted it in this way is because the cases that we've seen that some of what you've heard from here today, it is very rare that from one day to the next, that the landlord increases the rent exponentially usually the landlord tries to do something ahead of the action that they weren't successful in and then because it was unsuccessful, raise the rent as another strategy, and so it really is a bad faith situation. and there is evidence of that

because of the prior behaviour. for example, i don't know a situation where this harassment of tenants in good faith. i thank you are making an excellent point. perhaps we should look at the drafting of that. i think why we were saying that is because there is often good faith rent increases that landlords have a reason to raise the rent and they have a right to raise the rent over the loss, and they can -- it is their right to do that in good faith. what we are specifically trying to do with this is close a loophole that we've seen exploited. again, not often, but enough that it he felt necessary to legislate around it where landlords try several tactics to evict a tenant. it is unsuccessful, and then as it is a last effort to try and harass and push them out of their unit to, the exponentially they exponentially raise the rents. that is a behaviour on the loophole we are trying to close. it is very narrow in this

legislation. and we do want to recognize, and also responding to some of the public comments, that the landlords are right in that sometimes there are tenants that acted in bad faith and want to exploit laws. but what we are trying to control with our legislation is that very small portion of the landlords that are acting in bad faith of evicting the tenants and try to avoid the controls that we have put into place as a board of supervisors to mitigate that impact. for example, with an owner move in, if it is a senior and we have to give them extra time, if it is a kid in school or a school employee, we can't evict during the school year. there are protections we put in place for policy reasons that landlords try to circumvent by exponentially rising the rent and pushing and harassing someone out of their unit and that is the small loophole we are trying to close. >> okay.

i just want to make sure -- i agree. it is something that absolutely has -- you don't want to have to regulate human decency at times but it is probably one of those situations. i think the tenant harassment section does narrowly tailor it in a way that we will get to that and we will not get to the landlords who are not doing it for that purpose. i think that that -- we don't want to lump them in and have someone who says they are in front of the rent board or administrative judge who has a different interpretation of bad faith and beliefs any rent increase on somebody is bad faith. i want to make sure that we are capturing exactly what you are talking about. >> absolutely. we felt that we were doing that. it is sort of the two part test. first has to be in bad faith, and then there has to be some proof of intent to defraud, intimidate or coerce the tenant into vacating a unit. >> right. >> i'm supportive. i just wanted to make sure that

we are having some experience. >> yes. >> if we can spent -- state may be between now and tuesday, we can look at the language and see if we can clean that up a little bit on the one. >> i thank you make a very good point. i think -- we will work on that. >> thank you. once again, thank you to the public for coming out and there poked -- and their comments. so as knowledge, there really are bad apples who are landlords , and there are also bad apples on the other side. i get it. the examples given shows that this is really a bad thing for people to do, and it does hurt the tenants. what this legislation also does is opens it up to people to

interpret and say, well, i am getting harassed. i will sue. and part of it is because i don't know what it means by a rent increase. and i think it's really important for me to have a balanced approach to this, and i think you will feel the same way you don't want to open the doors to the point where it is just -- it becomes inadvertently a harassment to the landlord his. so i'm supportive of the concept but how do we -- for instance, one could interpret because we don't have any definitions, landlords are harassing me because they raised my rent by $100. it is still below market rate. so i'm trying to think of ways to prevent that. at the same time, when people

are using rent as -- actually, it could be their last resort, or it could be their first resorts. for the sophisticated landlords to just do that. >> right. >> i don't know if the deputy city attorney -- is there a way to include into this language to use increases in rent as one of the factors to describe what harassment means while ? right now it has no definition. it is a way to define it better. >> the ordinance -- i'm sorry, i'm not sure. i will i may not give you a satisfying answer. the ordinance is triggered by a rent increase. so it is harassment via rent

increases is what triggers the ordinance. that bad faith rent increase designed to circumvent -- designed effectively to evict tenants. >> i just don't know what bad faith rent increase is. and i am afraid that we -- about defining it. one could use it -- a tenant could use it to harass a landlord by saying here's $50 more. you are harassing me. they may lose in court or whatever. but for the landlord, they may lose money from going to court and having a lawyer represent them. >> through the chair, excuse me, we did consider some additional language to tease out these definitions of bad faith. i am -- we would have to tighten

up the language, but where market value of a unit is a relevant factor when determining whether the landlord has acted in bad faith. that is language that we considered. so at least we have some sort of subjective criteria. even market value is subjective. at least there is some sort of basis of reference for deciding what level of increased -- increase is obscene and what level -- which is most of the cases. they are usually these obscene rent increases that we can add to that end. i was reluctant to do that just because i am not intending to violate costa hawkins. that is not the purpose of this legislation.

landlords have the right to increase rents when there are nonrent-controlled units like single-family homes and condos. we really are trying -- what we're trying to do here, which we have the right to do, is close the loophole where landlords are using obscene rent increases to circumvent our just because eviction laws which is a different thing. i didn't want -- it felt like it may be that will look like we are trying to regulate the amount of rent increase that a landlord could legally do and that to me makes it potentially more confusing to landlords, which is why i chose to draft it the way i drafted it. however, i am open -- i'm also open to putting it back in. it is a judgement call for me on whether that makes it more confusing and less confusing and i welcome input from my colleagues at that point. >> thank you.

>> thank you. i think that that is a good point. when i'm looking at this section on page 3 where it defines tenant harassment at the bottom, does not define obscene, which is what i thank you are trying to get at. we all agree that is something we should get at. at the same time, if you are looking at the language in section five, it says by means of a rent increase that is imposed with an intent to defraud or coercing a tenant into vacating the rental unit. it could be interpreted and without context, to the administrative law judge, whoever might be reading this language that you can possibly intimidate and coerce a certain tenant with $100 rent increases, which could be detrimental to

them, but at the same time, might not be done in a way that is obscene, which we are trying to get at. i do see that concern. i think that we need -- when we pass laws and we want people to interpret them, we need to provide as much context as possible, and i think it may be going back to what you were considering to provide a bit more context to it so we are not putting forth a piece of legislation that is going to have the ability to actually be interpreted in a way that we don't want it to be. >> yes. i definitely see what you are both saying and i struggled with this in my own job to get the legislation. i definitely understand what you are saying. that is why we have this two part test. it is hard for me to imagine there would be a judge that thinks a 100-dollar rent increase will be bad faith and with an intent.

that is just like cost-of-living but i get to where you are coming from very much. i am not opposed to adding that language in if that's the preference of my colleagues. i hear your concern. >> what about something in the purpose and findings in terms of outlining legislative intent so that they can fall back on what the intent of the legislation is >> i think we did that. i think on page 2, section c., we gave these examples of these obscene rent increases, 315%, 250% as sort of the impetus for the legislation that this wasn't a cost of living rent increase. these were these massive rent increases. i think we definitely tried to do that in the findings in terms of the context of where this legislation came from. so i don't know how we could do that any better than we did.

if you have ideas, i am open to hearing them. i am looking at the city attorney in case he has any ideas. >> i am the only nonattorney here. >> i tend to agree that the findings suggest that we are talking about exorbitant rent increases. the operative language, you could amend, along the lines of supervisor ronan suggested to mention rent increases that are substantially above market are somehow connected to the market value of the units as one proof points, as supervisor ronan said , we discussed that off-line

prior to introduction and can work on some specific language over the next week, with your office or any of your offices for the board to consider on tuesday. it seems like the kind of thing that is sensitive enough, probably we shouldn't work out the specific language on the slide here. >> i agree. >> to the chair, if we introduce that language on tuesday, with that delay the legislation? >> that would not. you could make the amendment. >> fantastic. i'm happy to work with the city attorney and both of your offices to massage some language i very much hear you because we very much struggled with the exact same concerns that you have and this is something that my office has been going back and forth with the city attorney 's office. we have done this exercise as well and i've never been fully convinced one side or the other.

if it is your preference and if you feel more comfortable with the latter, i'm happy to work with you on new language. >> it would be my preference if we were to get some language hammered out. i think what i'm suggesting with this additional language doesn't change the intent of this at all , and it does get address -- does address the bad apples on the landlord side, but to me, it is a little bit more clarity for the landlord his and for the tenants, also to understand that , hey, $50 is not going to make a case for you. >> that makes sense. if you would be willing to move this forward with positive recommendation between now and tuesday, we will work with your offices and the city attorney to prepare amendments for the full board, if you would be willing to do that. >> does anyone want to make a

motion? >> yes. thank you. based on that assurance, i definitely would like to forward this to the full board with positive recommendation. >> with the intention -- >> with the intention and working to bring an amendment to the full board. >> okay. no objection then the motion passes. [laughter] >> thank you. thank you so much. >> just a quick -- mr clark, what is the next item? >> item number 6. actually, seven. item number 7 is an ordinance amending the code to require city employees to complete harassment training annually. department of human resources to post harassment prevention training and complaint information on its website to report harassment settlements to the department of the status of

women. the department of the status of women to post on their website reports from d.h.r. and the city attorney. >> okay. unless there's any questions from any of my colleagues, i would like to invite a legislative aide, leah, representing president cohen's office to present. welcome. >> thank you so much, supervisor you. hello, supervisors. my name is alia and i am a legislative aide to president cohen. i am here on her behalf to present this legislation which was initiated by then-president breed and it addresses issues around harassment in the workplace. we continue the collaboration with the department of status of women and the department of human resources on this important piece of -- piece of legislation. harassment in the workplace is a serious issue that results in physical and emotional harm to employees who experience and witness it.

the ordinance before you accomplishes the following things. first, it expands harassment prevention training by requiring city departments to include permanent employees that work at least 20 hours a week and employees that work at least 960 hours over a fiscal year. improving the reach and impact of the training. this shall begin in fiscal year 2019, 2020. the training will also include bystander intervention. training second, in terms of reporting on an annual basis, d.h.r. will post on its website the number of employees that have completed the training. they will also post on a quarterly and annual basis a number of complaints filed with d.h.r. and the departments that were involved in composite numbers. the city attorney was also be required to report annually the settlements of harassment cases to the department of status of women and the department of status of women will then post on a quarterly and annual basis report the settlement harassment and complaints.

the goal is to expand these reporting requirements to include all forms of harassment complaints which will be increasing transparency and accountability. finally, the legislation recommends that the civil service commission adopt a rule requiring d.h.r. to accept harassment, discrimination, and retaliation complaints up to one year after the alleged incident instead of six months. today, i would like to propose the following amendments to clarify start dates and to reduce redundancy in the ordinance. on page 4, line 14, to have annual reports on training to begin on july 15th, 2019, instead of april 15th, 2019. they are highlighted in the legislation. on page 4, line 17-24 to have d.h.r. begin their quarterly reporting on harassment complaints by departments with the status of complaints and disposition complaints starting on april 15th, 2019 and the

first annual report on july 15 th, 2019. on page 5, the city attorney submission of annual reports and settlements of harassment cases to begin on april 15th, 2019, and january 15th each year. the other amendments that are highlighted simplify the ordinance and reduce redundant language. thank you so much for hearing this item. i am available for questions. also here today, are linda, the director of e.e.o. and relief programs on are d.h.r., and we also have president debbie maslow from the commission on the status of women, and the director of -- thank you. >> any questions? seeing none, very good. i was wondering, -- yes.

>> good afternoon, supervisor you, supervisor stefani, and supervisor ronen. and the deputy director for the department of human resources and the city's equal employment director. thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important ordinance. i want to thank supervisor breed and our mayor and supervisor cohen for forwarding this ordinance at this very important time. [please stand by]

-- will be required to take that training. we believe it's important for every employee to know their rights under the law, their rights to file a complaint, and we believe that every employee should have relief from harassment. a recent "new york times" article stipulated that harassment training can only be effective if it includes bystander training, so we are happy that this ordinance includes bystander training. in fact, soldiers who have taken bystander training and also college students who have taken bystander training are more likely to take action when they witness or see or hear any type of inappropriate conduct or harassment. we hope that by expanding the training to include bystander training, that our employees will also be empowered and have the courage to say something or do something if they hear something or see something that is inappropriate.

finally, we agree with the expansion of the filing time frame, so that we're in more alignment with the state and federal laws on filing complaints. thank you very much to everyone, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor yee: thank you very much, ms. simon. come on up. debby? yeah. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you so much for your consideration of this ordinance. i'm debby mezlo. i'm president on the san francisco commission on the status of women and on behalf of all the commissioners, i want to thank president cohen and catherine stefani and supervisor katy tang for bringing this ordinance forward. i want to thank, of course, our now-mayor london breed, who worked with us on this. really, it was our goal to increase accessibility and transparency and make sure all employees, as the speaker before me mentioned, have this training, as well, to double the

time. i'm here to advocate strongly in favor of this proposed ordinance. as you know, the me too movement was launched on twitter in october 2017 and has grown into a global phenomenon. it's touched hollywood studios, soccer, and hotel workers. we have our own movement here in san francisco, including a woman featured on the cover of "time" magazine and pelosi, and we look forward to your leadership helping us change these things at the city level. we have an opportunity today to be here as a leader. i encourage you to please consider this for our over 30,000 employees of the city and county of san francisco, and i really appreciate your consideration and your leadership. thank you. >> supervisor yee: thank you. dr. morasi? >> good afternoon. vice chair yee, supervisor stefani, supervisor ronen. sexual harassment is a serious problem, and i just want to share a few of the findings of a

2017 study funded by the national institutes of health on the impacts of sexual harassment. as you can imagine, there are costs to victims, survivors, and to employers. mental health costs to victim survivors include long-term depression, heightened anger, fear, self doubt, even post-traumatic stress disorder. physical health costs include constant migraines, hypertension, heart disease, sleeping, undereating disorders, substance abuse and addiction and many other chronic problems. there are also economic costs for victim survivors. according to the same 2017 study, sexual harassment is a leading cause of women quitting their jobs. either to avoid harassers or due to frustration at employers' reluctance to deal with the harasser. job loss due to sexual harassment eliminates opportunities for promotions and raises and can easily derail women's careers. economic cost to employers include absenteeism, turnover,

decreased productivity, low commitment to the workplace, and reputational damage. specifically the total number of cases of employment discrimination logged by the federal equal employment opportunity commission was 90,000 in 2015. cases involving harassment numbered 28,000, nearly a third of all cases. these harassment cases were based on age, disability, national origin, race, religion, and sexual harassment. the largest category composing over 40% of all harassment cases. according to the eeoc, between 2010 and 2015, employers paid out $600 million in prelitigation settlements, of which an estimated $240 million would be for sexual harassment claims. litigation settlements are even costlier, as members of the board will know. i would estimate $142 million for sexual harassment cases in 2015 alone. and these cases are only for

those cases handled by the eeoc, just a small fraction of all cases. in 2017, the california department of fair employment and housing logged a total of 20,000 complaints, of which nearly 4,400, or roughly one in four, involved allegations of sexual harassment. what is the situation here in san francisco? according to the d.h.r.'s fiscal year 17-18 report, out of a total of 607 internal complaints, there were 105 cases alleging sexual harassment. up from 48 the previous year, so that's more than 100% increase. i agree with d.h.r. that this enormous increase is less a reflection of actual incidents of sexual harassment than it is of more awareness that merit reporting, which is a good thing. for example, in the same report, fiscal year 2013 to 2014, there

were only 15 reported cases of sexual harassment citywide, so we all know there's a substantial underreporting of this crime. based on data from the city attorney's office, between january and september of this year, the city has paid out over $1 million to settle seven sexual harassment claims, an average of about $143,000 per claim. it's time for the city to become much more proactive on preventing sexual harassment so that these dollars can be directed to other uses. i want to acknowledge d.h.r.'s efforts to expand prevention efforts, including the ones that ms. simon shared. and the legislation further strengthens protections by requiring annual training, by expanding the length of time for reporting from six months to a year, and then i just want to preview a new initiative of u.n. women called "safe cities and safe public spaces." it's a global campaign to make public spaces, including sidewalks, marketplaces, and

government buildings safe for girls and women, including schools. this signature initiative of u.n. women recognizes that girls and women all over the world experience sexual harassment and sexual violence in public spaces, and seek to advance a community of key cities to take the lead in collecting data, changing laws and policies, and transforming social norms. so far hochiman city, capetown, and cairo. new york is the first american city and we hope san francisco will become the second to sign on to the initiative. today's legislation would be a great step forward and i propose support for the proposed ordinance and thank the authors for focusing on this very serious problem. >> supervisor yee: thank you, doctor. any public comments at this, for item number 7? seeing none, public comment is now closed. any comments before i ask

someone to make a motion to set the amendments as outlined? >> supervisor stefani: yes, thank you, chair yee. i want to thank the commission on the status for women on their work on this and ms. simon, as well. it's so important, it's one of the reasons i signed on as a cosponsor and why i was happy to cosponsor supervisor ronen's legislation, obviously, an issue with the me too movement and everything, we need to continue to shine a light on and i will plan to do that as a supervisor here. i think this is extremely important legislation. happy to support it. >> supervisor yee: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: agreed. thank you so much to supervisor cohen's office and the department of human resources for taking this on. i do think it's complementary to the sharp ordinance and this important work we're stepping up to lead in very innovative ways

in san francisco, and so i'm very excited to support this, and ask if i can be added as the cosponsor, as well. thank you. >> supervisor yee: i also want to thank president cohen for bringing this forward. i know i've taken the training, and i just made the assumption everybody took this training, so i was a little surprised when i saw the legislation, you know, that -- what, all these other people are not doing this? this is bizarre. so, yes, i'm very supportive of this. if the other co-authors don't mind having a gentleman be a co-author, i'd like to be added also. okay, so would you like to make the motion? >> supervisor stefani: i failed to thank supervisor cohen for her leadership on this, as well, so i wanted to make sure that is heard and i'd like to make a motion to forward this to the full board with positive

recommendation. >> supervisor yee: amendments first. >> supervisor stefani: motion to accept amendments. >> supervisor yee: no objection, amendments passed. >> supervisor stefani: and move to full board as amended. >> supervisor yee: no objection. motion passes. thank you very much. mr. clerk, item number 8. >> clerk: item number 8 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to increase compensation received by the members of the assessment appeals board to $125 for each hearing or for each morning or afternoon of the hearing, not to exceed $375 per day, except when sitting individually as assessment hearing officer. members receive $125 for each morning or afternoon of service, not to exceed $250 per day. >> supervisor yee: okay. any initial comments? seeing none, i'll invite, once again, legislative aide leah up to make some comments. >> thank you so much. i will be quick. the ordinance before you

increases the compensation received by assessment repeal board members from $100 for each day of service to $125 for each hearing, not to exceed $375 per day. if hearing officers sit individually, members will also receive $125 for each morning and afternoon of service, not to exceed $250 per day. the assessment appeals board is an independent body that resolves dispute between the assessor's office and property owners. currently five counties in california have comparable size and importance, compensate board members $300 for an eight-hour day, or $37.50 per hour, while san francisco's members receive an estimate of $33 per hour. this increase will help with recruitment and retention on the board, which has been an issue, and today i have someone here from the assessment appeals board to answer any additional questions that you may have. thank you again for hearing this item. >> supervisor yee: thank you. come on up.

>> good afternoon, supervisor yee, supervisor stefani, and supervisor ronen. i'm here for the assessment appeals board. i'm here for you today to ask for support in this ordinance to increase the assessment appeals board members stipend from $100 to $125 per hearing. an increase of stipend will be absorbed with the funds allocated for the assessments appeals board and will not increase the budget set aside for this department. the proposed stipend amount is in consideration of the importance of assessment values, risk values, and specialized work involved with assessing unique san francisco properties. all similar counties were considered and evaluated in california, comparing the number of parcels, assessed values, and average assessed values. i would like to share a chart with you regarding the average assessment.

as illustrated, the average assessment that san francisco assessment appeals board members hear is roughly about $1.1 million per appeal, and this is more than $193,000 to the next closest county. and the most recent report issued in july of 2018 by california state board of equalization, the annual assessment exceeded $5 billion. concerned with the tax rate, the at-risk value was over $59.7 million. five of the counties, as stated earlier, five of the counties in california of comparable size and importance, they compensate their board members $300 per hour, or $37.50, while san

francisco assessment appeals board receive an estimated $33.50 an hour. stipend received by the san francisco assessment appeals board members rank sixth overall, and an increase will align with similar counties in the state of california. we appreciate your support in this ordinance and thank you so much for your time. >> supervisor yee: thank you. any other person? okay, any public comments? no public comments on this issue. by the way, when was the last time that was raised? >> 1994. july of 1994. so it went from $50 to $100 back in 1994, and we're asking for it in 2018, so over 20 years. >> supervisor yee: sounds like a well-deserved raise. all right. no public comments on this matter, then public comment is now closed. is there any comments or, if

not -- >> yeah, i'm very supportive of this, and i want to say i'm always just so amazed at the the willingness of so many san franciscans to perform these invaluable services with such low compensation, you know, whether it's the assessment appeals board, or the planning commission, or even the school board, which our colleague, supervisor yee, spent years on. you know, it is volunteerism that's the driving force for these jobs, but being able to compensate even a little bit for people's time in these important roles they play in the city is just crucial, so thank you, again, to supervisor cohen's office for bringing this forward. i think it's incredibly justified, and i appreciate the work. >> supervisor yee: okay. anybody want to make a motion? >> supervisor stefani: i am happy to make a motion to send this item forward with positive recommendation. >> supervisor yee: no objection, motion passes.

mr. clerk, anything else? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> supervisor yee: okay, meeting is adjourned. thank you.

>> everything is done in-house. i think it is done.

i have always been passionate about gelato. every single slaver has its own recipe. we have our own -- we move on from there. so you have every time a unique experience because that slaver is the flavored we want to make. union street is unique because of the neighbors and the location itself. the people that live around here i love to see when the street is full of people. it is a little bit of italy that is happening around you can walk around and enjoy shopping with gelato in your hand. this is the move we are happy to provide to the people. i always love union street because it's not like another commercial street where you have big chains. here you have the neighbors. there is a lot of stories and the neighborhoods are essential. people have -- they enjoy having

their daily or weekly gelato. i love this street itself. >> we created a move of an area where we will be visiting. we want to make sure that the area has the gelato that you like. what we give back as a shop owner is creating an ambient lifestyle. if you do it in your area and if you like it, then you can do it on the streets you like. >> good morning.

today we are here to member -- to remember, commemorate, mayor ed lee. [speaking foreign language] >> there will be a lot of speakers and a lot of people we need to acknowledge, the first off, i want to start with a moment of silence. [speaking foreign language] >> let us pray. [speaking foreign language]

>> thank you, god, for one of the best mares and best people on earth, mayor ed lee. [speaking foreign language] >> so this is a time -- please repeat after me. this is a time of peace. [speaking foreign language] >> joy. [speaking foreign language] >> hope. [speaking foreign language] >> love. [speaking foreign language] >> all right so we have a number of speakers who want to show love for the mayor, deadly. we want to acknowledge his wife, anita -- love for the mayor, ed lee.

we want to acknowledge his wife, anita. [speaking foreign language] [applause] >> our first speaker is sarah wong from the a.p.i. council. [speaking foreign language] [applause] >> hello everyone. on behalf of the a.p.i. council, we are honored to be one of the host today to celebrate the life of the late mayor ed lee. one year ago, we lost the most prominent chinese-american leader of our city. we have truly missed him. as our mayor, he not only lessons, we also took solace and

to build an active role community from the policy and politicscs -- budgetary levels. since 2011, attlee has approved over 15 million in funding to services and new service in asiann communities. the late mayor ed lee was our greatest role model and leader. the councilst is one of the most important legacies that he has left behind. he was a first mayor to encourage us to found this coalition, and worked with us to give guidance and advice on how to best serve our community. it has been challenging this past year to keep up the momentum. but with the a.p.i. council, we are committed to continuous his legacy -- to continue his legacy to serve our community. thank you. [applause] [speaking foreign language]