d-10. [inaudible] >> clerk: thank you. we have 136 listeners with 58 in queue. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is andrea danger. i'm a finance manager, and i live in the mission in san francisco. i've been here 28 years. i'm calling in strong support of this measure. i'm a renter. i would say that 25% of the people in my building, we've been talking about organizing.

about 50% of our building is unemployed. as a finance manager, i just want to point out that the landlord investment model hinges on the fact that you'll be able to meet your mortgage. so to the landlords talking about recovering represent, you're being heartless in a -- recovering rent, you're being heartless in a way that i'm not sure you understand. fob landlords and investors, financial balance is something that you plan out. it's profit-and-loss statements. it's real, but it's not going to put you out on the street and maybe kill you, especially if you're like one of the black and brown families left in san

francisco. [inaudible] >> -- between living in a car or living on a street or moving out to tracy and commuting into the community like people that i know. t this is legislation to try to help people through this crisis; this is a step. i just thank you to the board of supervisors and thank you for hearing our plea. thank you for keeping us safe so we can figure this out together. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, caller. you have two minute to speak, and -- two minutes to speak, and you'll hear that your line has been unmuted? >> has my line been unmuted? [inaudible] >> my name is steven crest

mulverson, and i own a 500 unit building. like many other small business owners, i'm hurting. we're at a deep moment in our country where the most vulnerable among us are under attack. by the most vulnerable, i refer to landlords and other people who own property and make money off that property. we all know that poem that starts with, first they came for the landlords, and i said nothing because i wasn't a landlord. this legislation would divert landlords' attention from the important tasks of property management, namely requests for maintenances, and deciding

arbitrarily whether people should own or not own pets. i urge you to listen to the landlords who are speaking in opposition to this measure and not to the many people who are facing difficulties in this situation. i urge you to side with the landlords and not the people by voting no on this measure. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have 132 listeners with 62 in queue. thank you. next speaker. hello, caller? >> hello? >> clerk: hi. you have two minutes. >> okay. hello. my name is emily, and i work in the south of market community action network, and i strongly support this ordinance. i am also a renter in san francisco that's facing the staple struggles, and i can

always tell so much of what my family is going through. even before this pandemic, renters in san francisco were already struggling to make ends meet. we were having difficult times finding ways to cover expenses, and some of us are still working in the middle of all of this, which is a high risk that we're willing to take, and you know, the risk goes on. these are just a few examples of a situation that we did not ask for. for us, eviction will lead to homelessness and put us at a higher risk of getting sick. if you are against this ordinance, the question for you is why do you choose to make policies and take advantage of a deadly global pandemic that already killed thousands of peop people? for the privileged mom and pop landlords, we're not saying you

don't matter, but your focus should be on the most vulnerable in your community right now. you can always put that money payment in your pockets once things get better, but you can't bring back a human life who suffered from covid-19 because you decided to take away our housing rights in the middle of an ongoing pandemic. in rough times like this, we all deserve better. we want your compassion, empathy, and we definitely need genuine support. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> hi. this is gabe gothman, and i'm a resident in district 2. thank you, supervisor preston, for your legislation. i think it's the least we can do to help the most vulnerable during this time. i think landlords are being a

little miopic here. evictions will lead to further unrest and decreases in property value. i do work with finance, and it's not a job to own a building or property. it's a source of income for some people, but it's an investment, so you're not even providing a good or service, really, you're just making money off of your own money that you invested in a building, and so if you're having trouble making money because just of a small delay in payment with an entering of a megacrisis much worse, quite frankly, than the great depression, there are other things you can invest in. you can sell your property really at no cost, and you can recoup probably hundreds if not

millions of dollars from the sale of your property, and then, you can invest in bonds that are tax free. some of them, for example, you can get from municipalities here in california, and that way, you don't have to worry about covering your incentives or worrying about maintenance or other things related to a billing. but if you don't want to sell your property, should you have some compassion to people that could live on the street and, you know, have nowhere to go. and especially, someone mentioned children earlier. it's devastating for incredibly young people to be sent out -- to be homeless and to not have somewhere to live. >> clerk: thank you. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes.

yes. >> hi. my name is sylvia. i am a property owner, but i'm also -- i own two units, and after that speaker, i just want to let you know, we all live in an ecosystem, and rules like this can have really devastating unintended consequences. i -- i want to make sure everybody's safe. i actually love my tenants, but my tenants make more money than i do. i have to take mortgage applications all the time when i see people in rent controlled apartments that own units, and in fact both my tenants own other properties. but you know what? we've got to concentrate on what's happening with covid, but some of the comments that have come here, really, they don't understand financing. you know, freddy and fannie

flooded the market, and then, anybody that wanted a loan could get a great rate. if you're high balance, which is this part of the country, you can't get cash out or very, very, very expensive. you own a property that's free and clear for $1.2 million, and baby, you better be ready to pay $15,000 to take any money out of that. all i can say is the infrastructure -- i'm afraid for the infrastructure of california. i think that supervisors should take a cut. it should come from the city. we've got to help the tenants. let's get their rents paid, but

to go after 88-year-old women, which, you know, is my mother, who's a landlord, who can barely walk, and then have tenants who make her take out the garbage, you can't say anything to them, that's the positions we're in. so i think landlords are very afraid. you know, i want to be compassate, but i just think this is the wrong way to go about it. i think it's a lie, and i don't have $600 for a lawyer, or the tenants are the lawyer, and that's what they charge. every time you go to the rental board, they go, go find a lawyer or find somebody who mak -- lawyer to fight somebody who makes more money than you. we've got to figure out a way

to help people pay their rent. my suggestion is why don't you try low interest loans? in hawaii, they introduced the mongoose to get the rat? the mongoose was killed, and the rat got the relief. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, you'll have two minutes. >> first, i want to talk about a legislation that must be passed. this is a complete no brainer from a practical and moral standpoint. a bunch of evictions are coming, and we cannot afford to throw a bunch of people in the middle of the street during a global pandemic, full stop. not only is it completely immoral, it's going to produce huge costs, both financial and -- to the landlords, grow

up. you guys are babies. grow up and stop being such sociopaths. not only did dean describe that you're going to get some relief that you don't deserve, it just stops you from evicting, which is a gross thing to do, any way. if you have that much problem, you're awful at running your business, and you should stop doing it. if you can't budget for a few months of potential lost revenue and operating costs, then you're bad at business and you should get out of the game and sell to your renters or something. if you want to make yourself whole, stop glomming onto the right to evict tenants during a global pandemic, and stop evicting people out of their right of a place to live and

get a real job. thanks. i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. hello, caller? ner next speaker, please? we have 148 listening with 48 to speak. >> hi. my name is robert, and i live in district 5. i'm very happy to see this bill from supervisor preston. i think this is the kind of leadership that i want to see from think elected representative. i think it's ridiculous that landlords can say that they need every single month of rent in order to be made whole. i mean, if you are really so strapped for cash, you can always sell your building, which is probably worth a few million dollars, and i imagine

that would put some pennies in your piggy bank at least. if you are a 90-year-old person, and you want to evict people, i think that's probably really a mark of who you are. if you want to evict tenants, you probably should not be a landlord. you should probably sell to someone who wants to take care of your tenants and do the job properly. it shouldn't even be the case that landlords can make money by not having a job. it's -- it's crazy that this is the world we live in. it's crazy that -- it's crazier that since 2012, san francisco's real estate has gained $280 billion in value. that's over $300,000 per resident, and it's not going to every single resident in san francisco, it's only going to people who own property, so i think this is the -- the

tiniest ask that we can give to landlords, asking them not to evict tenants when their land is increasing billions of dollars each decade. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. again, public caller number is area code 415-655-0001. that's 415-655-0001. the access code to join is 1454836716. press pound, and pound again. that's 1454836716. press pound, and pound again. press star-three to lineup for public comment. it'll take you have raised your -- it'll indicate you have lined up for public comment. when your line is unmuted, you

will hear "your line is unmuted" and you'll have two minutes to speak. thank you. next caller, please. [please stand by]

>> they have to pay profit tax and they work hard to get their house and support us. they have a house and i'm enjoying my life and i will

continue living in this house and i will pay my landlord and i don't support the district 5 proposal for the 237 -- (indiscernible). >> the proposal from the district.

>> i'm appalled by the comments by landlords and this is once again pitting tenants against the landlord expose they should be working together. that's what i try to do with my tentants.

this will make it difficult as a property opener to try to keep up with the maintenance cost, the utilities, the property taxes and my own mortgage on my house. and i understand that a lot of people think, well, ok, if you have been a landlord for all of this time and you can't make a go of it if people don't pay their rent for awhile, then i should get out of the business. and i guess that's probably what will have to happen under these circumstances. i don't tend to evict anyone but foreclosures of these properties will also cause a huge displacement of tenants and they

will not be evicted by me but by money-grabbers who will come in and swoop these buildings up and they won't be good landlords. >> thank you for your comment, next speaker, please. we have 135 listeners with 55 in queue. >> hello, caller? you have two minutes. >> hello, ok, thank you very much. hi, supervisors. good afternoon. i'm a resident of district 5 and

first, i just want to thank you for all of your leadership during this time of crisis and in particular, i would like to thank supervisor preston whose leadership has been truly extraordinary. i'm calling you to urge you to unequivocally pass this legislation. the covid-19 pandemic is an unprecedented human tragedy that will have devastating impact on our city and the rest of the word for the foreseeable future and people with disabilities, people who are black, indigenous and who people of colror are disproportionately affected. these communities are vulnerable to housing and security and further loss of wealth during the pandemic, given the dis-pro fortudisproportionate losses ane racial disparities in the security pandemic. even before covid-19, the

pandemic struck, many people in san francisco struggled to pay their housing costs, utility bills, food costs and afford medical care. economic hardship result hardshm the pandemic falls on people of color and indigenous, especially our latina community, people with disabilities and, again, families with children. the covid-19 pandemic has exposed a structural inequality throughout san francisco and the united states. roughly 568,000 people experienced homeless last year in the u.s. and black people make up 40% of that total. despite being only 13% of

overall population. of particular concern, people who are undocumented. please do everything you can -- >> thank you so much for your comment. next speaker, please. your line has been un-muted. >> hello. my name is sam judge and i'm a renters in district one. no one should lose their housing due to a pandemic. we shouldn't be placing people in vulnerable situations in a global pandemic. thank you for your time.

>> i'm chelsea merick and i'm speaking on behalf of myself and mmy colleagues. we're a nonprofit legal service. we're also district 9 renters and strongly support this legislation. nothis pandemic has affected

everyone. no one should become homeless because of it but that is what will happen if we continue to threaten renters with eviction for an economic crisis out of their control. supervisor pretson's proposal was necessary to keep san francisco residents housed not only through covid but in the wake of it.

>> next week, your line has been un-muted and you will have two minutes to speak. >> majority of the people i work with and some rely on help for work and it's not enough. we support this legislation because we know that it's needed in this city that is very expensive and we cannot afford any more families to be on streets because they can't afford rent, not because they don't want to pay but there's to work and no set date to go back to work.

it just takes eviction off the were able and this is the most important step they can take after the state of emergency. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. you'll have two minutes to speak. hi, you have two minutes. >> ok. thank you. i saw a pos(indies indiscernibl. >> prompproperty owners and the

property owners need the income to support themselves and maintain their property. they avoid paying any rent, even if they are able to. (indiscernible). please do not sacrifice the small property owner. we cannot take any more. >> thank you for your comments and next speaker please. you'll hear that your line has been un-muted.

>> hello? >> hi. >> this is lynn and we own a small -- hello? ready? >> yes. >> i'm lynn and we own a small two-unit property in the mission district and i urge the supervisors to pause on this legislation, which is extremely one-sided and wait until you have determined the appropriate protection for the landlord. we can't go get another job and this unit is our income. by having to forgive rent and not be able to collect rent for the foreseeable future, because there is no timing that we know that the covid crisis will be over, i won't be able to pay my husband's medical bills for his cancer treatment and the maintenance expect utilities and the property taxes associated with our unit. and i think that this

legislation is great if you're a tenant and can devastate you financially if you're a landlord. and our family has worked extremely hard in order to have a building that would give us income during our retirement years. we're both high risk and cannot get another job. so i urge the supervisors to step back and come up with a much more bad legislation that has a deadline in it and timelines so we don't have something completely open-ended which means i may not have any income for the foreseeable future. >> thank you for your time. we have 13 139 listeners with 4n queue. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm a san francisco native and other than of an older four-unit apartment building built by my

immigrant grandfather and it's been in my family for generations. it's my understanding the city does not have legal authority to permanently restrict a landlord's ability to recover rent due. that said, i am fe fervently against this ordinance. small businesses are trying to survive and trying to continue the legacy. i am not rich and i take offense to so many people that have spoken today saying we're all rich. small property owners are victims and it's not favour to carry the burden because no one is helping us pay expenses we incur on a daily basis, paying tenants and security deposits, not to mention attorney's fees, just to name a few. i'm working with my tenants who can't pay their rent but i'm worried how i'll pay my past-due bills if they don't pay me back.

the city isn't helping me pay my past-due bills. it's not fair to put the burden on us once again. don't meddle until you can help. this will be lost if you pass an unrealistic and unfair ordinance. thank you. >> thank you for your comment and next speaker please. there's 43 in queue. hello, caller? >> you have two minutes. >> hi. sorry. thanks for giving us time to speak today. i strongly support the eviction protection ordinance. i'm a renter in district 5 and a

paraillegal at legal systems for the ederly an ederly. the economic impact of the pandemic will be so much longer than six month. we can't expect tenants who have lost income because of the pandemic to repay thousands of dollars in back-rent just six months after the emergency is lifted. this proposed ordinance is not only going to help protect much of san francisco from displacement but also all of san francisco's eviction nonprofit which will undoubtedly be overwhelmed by the impending eviction cases. it's important that we pass this ordinance to prevent a surge in evictions and displacement. thank you for listening and proposing this, supervisor peskin. >> thank you, next speaker please. you have two minutes. >> hello.

can you hear me. >> yes, you have two minutes. >> hi. so my name has been in the bay area since the '60's. i've worked in san francisco since i was younger and i'm here to say it's imperative that we ensure the most vulnerable populations are given shelter, especially during this time. landlords and san francisco have georgenjoyed skyrocketing for te last ten years and it's completely unfair to expect the

people who have these landlords make their money off of to, you know, buil build out an investmt they've made in an incredibly lucrative field. this ordinance needs to pass because the way covid affects our population i is preportion yachtlpreportionately harsh andt forgiving rent and making ten cents back-pay rent would be exacerbating the crisis and it would be cruel and harsh. this doesn't make sense to commute the crisis further by,

basically, flailing out landlords instead of tenants. it will cause unnecessary death and suffering if we don't relieve these tenants. i yield my time. >> hello, caller? you have two minutes to speak. >> i think i already spoke. >> oh, great. we'll move on to the next carol,

thank you for letting us know. >> googood afternoon. i'm susan marsh and a tenant of district 6. i'm here to urge you to pass this legislation. as many should have been clued by now, without this legislation we will have a massive wave of evictions with homelessness and the massive suffering, the massive uprooting of community and the amplification of the covid-19 pandemic that will come.

(indiscernible). >> many, many tenants will not be able to pay, particularly those who have already been paying 50% to 70% of their income and who are among the most vulnerable tenants in san francisco. by the same token and even by the appalling suffering that many landlords are exhibiting, here in focusing on their right to be made whole, their right to collect the rent, no matter what, the ironic thing is that for the same reason we will have this eviction, that legislation does not pass the evictions they are seeking to carry forward by defeating this legislation will

not enable them to collect that rent. they'll have a far better chance under this legislation than without it. the important thing is to present the application of the covid-19 eviction. the amount of suffering that comes from the displacement in the uprooting of tenants and that is the important thing and i urge you in the strongest pass terms to pass this legislation. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. to those who need interpretation, we are losing our staff support. he's booked for another meeting, we apologize.

and so, moving on to the next caller. we have 42 in queue. >> hi there, my name is monique. can you hear me? >> yes. >> i live in district 5 and i'm calling in support of the ordinance to prevent evictions. i believe there are already enough homes in san francisco for everyone. there's no reason everyone should be homeless and that landlords are hoarding homes and continue doing to do. do so.

>> call (415)655-0001 for call-in and the access code is (145)483-6716, press pound and pound again and to be added to the queue, press star 3. for the folks on hold, we appreciate your patience and will get to you soon. you'll have two minutes to speak. the next caller, please.

>> there are many people at risk of eviction due to this global pandemic and i'm calling in for them. this is the most that could place mass displacement of residents in our city. and nobody should fear homelessness in the wake of a global pandemic. thank you. i yield the rest of my time.

>> hello, caller? you have two minutes. >> ok, this is unconstitutional. covid-19 does not discriminate whether you are a landlord or tenant. you are blaming the landlord and making the landlord responsible for this pandemic. proof of the income, even receiving edd per week $1,000, $8,000 per month but do not pay the rent. you are allowing them to do that. with this bill passed, they should pay rent and why should they? they shoulthey should not look r solutions and not abide by the mutual agreements to leech on

the society so the supervisor becomes heroes to the tenants. number five, the bill is forcing the landlords to file in supreme court. you district 5 supervisor knows better that anyone that money will not get recovered from the small claim's court because they have go through a legal process to get their own money back and this is a lie to the public and ther.number six, san francisco s spent $364 million on taxpayer's money to help homeless people and the budget committee is not managing the money appropriately, but it's not the fault of the landlords. no wonder the state has

$450 billion. shame on those who talk about the right thing do. they're teaching our kids not to take responsibilities on their lives and that is ok not to keep promises and to be a loop on the society. number seven, if the tenant think they have the right -- >> thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. you'll hear your line has been un-muted. next speaker, please. hello, caller? again, you'll hear your line has been un-muted and you have two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon. this is jean, a san francisco native, long-time tenant in district 11. please vote yes and i support

this legislation sponsored by supervisor dean preston. how can tenants continue to shelter in place if they can not pay rent. prior to covid-19, many renters in san francisco were struggling to make ends meet and many were employed and underemployed. not every tenant has the privilege to pay back months of unpaid rent. they need to be more compassionate to tenants. i have clients laid off as a result of covid-19 and relied on the eviction moratorium for being misplaced.

this is vital regardless if they're under rent control, we must prevent vulnerable populations such as seniors, low-income and working class families from being evicted. this is the most crucial step in san francisco to stop displacement and evictions at the state of emergency. say yes and prevent the further displacement of further tenants in sanfrancisco. >> thank you for your comments. if you wish to speak, press star 3. you will be un-muted when it is your turn to speak and next caller, please, two minutes. >> hello, supervisors. this is ken tray, representing

the united educators of san francisco, the over 6,000 teachers and school staff who work in our schools everyday. this thursday, uesf is hosting an emergency town hall on how the pandemic, the crisis of the pandemic is going to affect the work of educators and the lives of our students. it's clear to educators that the last thing that our students who are now suffering through the pandemic need is to be put in a situation of housing insecurity and potentially homelessness due to the economic duress of the pandemic. so when educators get together this thursday, they'll be brain-storming ways to help our students get through this both economic and health crisis. on top of this, we also

recognise that the students most vulnerable to the pain and suffering of the pandemic and the economic insecurity are a te black and brown students. while we're marching in the streets to find justice for george floyd and to make sure that black lives matter, the least we can do is to provide housing security to our most vulnerable students. we enthusiastically endorse supervisor preston's legislation and we open that the board of supervisors follows suit. thank you. >> next speaker, please. you'll hear your line is un-beautied anun-muted and you'o minutes to speak. >> i'm a district 7 resident and a san francisco native in favour of helping landlords and tenants

work together. most landlords are good and most tenants are good. we have to make sure the majority are not penalized for the minority. i do noii have worked with tenao set up a payment plan on case-by-case victims. they have committed to damage. wilthe first step is forebearane when appropriate. not all hardships are the same and not all are in the same financial position. so are capable of paying rent

and not every landlord is in the position to shoulder that burden. during the shutdown, although it's tough for everyone, renters still enjoy the apartment and landlords have to pay the bills and don't forgive on their obligations. not all landlords are wealthy and some live on that money and need it month to month. what are the suggestions? put in place a mein's testing. landlords need to have a way to get it back if and when it's time to collect. thank you for your time partnership appreciate it.

>> hello, can you hear me? i live in district 5 and i'm in support of dean preston's bill. we need to protect our renters. i have a good renned tha friends in san francisco. he got laid off due to covid-19 and he's not able to pay his rent for the next three month. i communicate with him and he's terrified of losing his rent-controlled apartment he's been in for 15 years and for the money-grubbing hungry landlords that want to evict these people, it's ridiculous. we need to make sure they don't evict. shame on you if you don't and we will vote you out of office.

i'm in support of this and thank you so much for district 5 and i wasn't a big supporter of dean preston but i'm hoping he's pushing this through and thank you so much. >> thank you to for your commen. next speaker. you'll have two minutes. hello, caller? >> we have workers struggling to feed their families and pay rent and many airport workers who work two or three jobs struggling to get by on unemployment which is not enough to afford that high cost of ren. rent. we have many who don't qualify and when this crisis is over,

workers won't be able to pay back month and months of rents, even when they get wanting to b. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. (indiscernible).

>> this is a reasonable proposal and i think there's a lot of information promoted to individual property owners, perhaps by people who testified by earlier. let's be clear, they did not refuse payment of rent. this is not an invitation to not pay rent. this requires establishing substantial loss as a result of the emergency. it doesn't prevent tenants and owners to make an amicable plan.

this is only about evicting tenants who don't have the means to pay. they need to work together with supervisor preston to pass a programme to help address your needs. (indiscernible). >> thank you for your comments and we have 113 listeners with 33 in queue. next speaker, please. >> my husband and i are small property owners of a two-property house, a neighborhood we love for

friendly neighbors and hard-working citizens. we both work and rely on the rent we get to pay our bills. currently my tenant lost his job and we are working together as we figure out a way to keep ourselves financially afloat. without recourse to collect the rent in the months ahead, we will be unable to pay mortgages, property taxes which will put the house we provide in jeopardy. if he's allowed to stay in the apartment longer without my ability to recoupe payment, it will impact my finances and likely cause us to have to sell our property causing hardship to both us and our tenant. please vote for 200375. thank you. >> next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes and

you'll hear your line has been un-muted. >> am i able to be heard? >> yes, you have two minutes. >> thank you so much. i'm a resident of district 8 and i have the incredible privilege of living in a home that was bit by my great grandfather. i am a disabled person and i'm not able to work a traditional job and so i've seen this impossible privilege as my way to give back to my san francisco community by maintaining these buildings and taking care of the properties. and i want to urge everyone who is listening and the supervisors to remember that there are two types of landlords in this city. there are mean live in the city, often living in the homes they are taking care of and who are essential to providing the

service of property management. specifically, that is the job of the landlord. there are landlords who own buildings who are not owned by a single person but owned by conglomerates and investors. these people do not care about their buildings and their neighborhood. and they are not subject to rent control. that is the most vital and glaring issue. and i think to protect diversity in the city and to protect buildings that have people who own the building and people renting and work out things together and have amicable relationships and to support the smaller renters, we don't want to replace, quote, mom and pop shops with giant groups of investors who do not care about the city and have the resources for tonights of lawyers to make sure they are not subject to loss protecting tenants and our city like rent control perform.

i want to thank everyone who shared because i think it's important they listen to each other's concerns and see where each other is coming from and most importantly, making sure that the quality of the city and the humans that live here are -- >> thank you to for your commen.

>> next caller, please. you have two minutes. >> i've been listening to this phone call for an hour and a half, and so, supervisors, why don't we just -- (indiscernible).

>> they go to 16% of incomes for the landlords. and they didn't put that in. and supervisor really want to help, they take a pay cut of 15% and the landlords can keep two month's rent and everybody is happy. otherwise it's just wasting everybody's time. it's not doing any good. i don't think the supervisor has any intention of passing the bill or helping the small -- (indiscernible).

if they ca cannot pay their ren, maybe they should rent a smaller place and they cannot get employment, they should look for help. >> you have two minutes to speak and you may begin.

>> we believe there will be a cruel hoax of renters hit with more rent payments because of the court decision rendering it unconstitutional. we know you as a board have been given this opinion and we ask that you consider it. this is also disappointing to hear the demonization of all landlords by many of the participants of this hearing. most of our community have spent the last month working to help our tenants stay in place, forgiving some and postponing others, but working to keep people where they are. we, too, are people from san francisco and we love the city as much as anybody else and we

want to work to help displaced tenants because of the covid crisis and have been working with a number in your office to do just that. i want to thank show thank those supervisors who have reached out to us and express or concern that the sponsor of this legislation did not bother to reach out and discuss how we could come to some kind of compromise that will hold up in court. and we urge that you consider that alternative. thank you. >> thank you tor you for your c. you'll have two minutes to speak and next caller, please. your line has been un-muted. >> thank you. i'm racquel fox. i'm a native sanfranciscans,

born and raised here and i've seen the displacement of tenants rampant for decades. and now people need to come together and stop further deterioration and homelessness. the people that i represent currently, there's a handful of people thatless their jobs and thethat lost their jobs andtheye cleaners, janitors and some undocumented or unqualified in other areas and they can't go back to work until something changes. some of them, these people are now in a position that they currently cannot pay the rent and if something is not done to prevent enough eviction, there will be more people homeless,

more people infected with the virus that's still rampant in the entire united states and anyone who doesn't believe there's a problem with homelessness, i welcome you to go down hide street writ where e a look out the window at work and i see more and more people there and more and more homeless people, teac people that need h. i fully support them and i think everyone involved in this, thank you. >> we have 110 listeners with 30 people in queue. you'll be notified when your line is un-muted. you have two minutes. >> i'm mohen and i would say my heart goes out to all of the tenants who are affected by the covid-19, but i hope the tenants also think about the difficulty that the landlords are facing.

i'm a landlord in san francisco and i'm against the proposed policy. this is something we have all suffered during the covid-19. we have worried that if we are laid off, we will suffer like the tenants. there is all different kinds of help for them. we can delay payment. however, landlords are not exempt from paying mortgage and prompt tax, not to mention the utilities. how do you expect them to pay all of these when we cannot pay rent? (indiscernible).

>> please consider a way to help landlords. this goes hand in hand and should responsible to help all equally. this could put the burden on the landlords who have suffered huge financial distress during this kuhn. kuhn. covid-19. if we can't pay property tax and mortgage, we will lose our property, too. it may take years and years to collect the debt.

the landlord should step in and help tenants during these tough times. thank you so much. >> next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> hello. >> hi. >> i live and work in san francisco in district 11 and i'm with the unfair housing legislation with over 3500 members and i'm calling on behalf of the 1100 people who have signed letters in opposition of this bill, many who are immigrants and unable to call in. i oppose this and implore you to say no. a lot of people have said that property owners have making a ton of monies and it's often enough to just coverage

maintenance. you hear about forebearance programmes but that doesn't mean the mortgage is forgiven. the money is still owed and due to the beijin bank. if a property owner does not receive rent, the property owner may not be able to pay the mortgage and this will lead to foreclosure and bankruptcy. as a property owner, i am working with my tenants unable to pay. everyone needs help but not just on the backs of property owners. there should be a fund the tenants can access to pay the rent. this needs to be more balanced and the government can reimburse the lost income or the city should stop charging property owners property tax and get banks to forgive our mortgage. this will prevent property owners from losing their home. i urge you to oppose 20075, the

preston conviction bill, thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. we have 111 listeners with 30 in cue. queue. >> hello, caller. >> i'm teresa wall and i'm opposing this bill. a lot of tenants will informed they would be convicted after the covid orders but the rent was due after six months after the order was expired. in general general eviction cast takes one year. so many would call in and why are they are not informing the tenants it will take up to one year? i was just receiving a letter this morning and my rent is one-third of the mortgage.

(indiscernible). >> preston, you've done nothing about this. how dare some of you saying the owner was not good at their business. the owner was being able to pay for their down payment and caused generations of saving. the housing is not only the human right to tenant. this is to the landlord and everybody have to go to work. i am a 1099 person working at the court. (indiscernible). >> i won't pay the upcoming tax.

this will be a longer time than anyone to get my job back. please, do not just think about yourself. think about all of the small property owners. we sell the house, but even we sell the house -- we are the housing protecter and the protecter for most of the tenants. >> thank you. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. two minutes and you'll be notified your life is un-muted and you may begin. >> i am an accountant and have been a resident of san francisco and renter for 37 years here in north beach.

i'm calling to express my view opposing this legislation about the ordinance 200375. i think this ordinance penalizes the landlord for this pandemic, not all of the landlords have deep pockets. so are some business operators. i personally know three landlords who are elderly widows and collecting their rent for livelihood and to maintain their property. they do not own the property outright and so they have to pay their mortgage. if the landlord does not pay the mortgage, she will lose her own house and their own livelihood. if the tenant does not have to pay the rent during this pandemic, the landlord still have to come up with the money for the mortgage, for the property taxes and utilities and where that come from if the landlord is not paid?

they depend on their rent and some people that have called say they can collect back rent after this pandemic is over but if this pandemic will last more than one years as suspected, the loors anlandlords and the tenand be evicted together. the banks will foreclose on the landlords. thank you very much for your time. have a good day. >> thank you. next speaker, please, two minutes. >> can you hear me? i'm jose, a renter in district 8 and i'm speaking in support of this measure. san francisco politicians left to tout themselves as champions of progressive action and as we face the greatest economic

disaster in history, now is the time for drastic and compassionate action. i have heard many landlords speak to the unintended consequences of this ordinance but none of us know for certain what the so-called unintended consequences will look like. we know what mass evictions will look like. it will look like more squaller and devastation on our streets and erasure of our black and brown communities and people who are barely making ends meet. we are all feeling the devastation of covid-19 and landlords are not exempt because of their wealth. buying a home to rent is an investment and investments come with risk. we have heard from so-called mom and pop landlords who believe they will fail into unrecoverable financial ruin if they are unable to collect rent. they are forget this forcibly removes then from their home

through no fault of their home. let's not forget the multi-dollars hedge funds are the biggest landlords in the bay area. $10,000 of back-rent or whatever the case is nothing to the predatory investors or even to the owner of a single million dollars house but an insurmountable economic burden for some people. now, in this climate, where they're advocating the stop violence against black and brown people, we must remember eviction is violence. forcibly removing people from homes is violence and black and brown people will be the victim. vote yes on to proposal. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. caller, you have two minutes.

hello, is there someone on the line? (speaking foreign language). >> thank you, caller, unfortunately our interpreter

for spanish had to leave 30 minutes ago and we don't have anybody to interpret those comments but we appreciate them. next caller. >> you can hear me? >> yes, please proceed. >> i'm a small landlord in district 2, 5 and 8, 40 years, business other than and employer city-wide and 40 year resident of district 8. as a tenant while complying with san francisco soft-story requirements, i'm not pro eventingioeviction, i'm opposeds bill. this has caused a financial crisis for all citizens. the community embraced consequences with a slogan and attitude. as employers and landlords we have kept employees to the payroll working out goodwill

concession with tenants. this mirrors the position of every landlord we represent. the mutual good will was not mandated by the government. when the government pulls together, we allow supply and demand to find balance and equilibrium. there are higher vacancies and rental rates are decreasing upwards of 25%. the community will find solutions if you let them. landlords and tenants need each other. this proposal makes the assumption that only tenants are impacted by covid-19. it is wrong for our mutually elected supervisor to consider a law that addresses only a fraction of its constituents and not all. you have making the assumption the property owners have deep pockets and unless you propose legislation to address mortgage payments, insurance, homeowner, dues, maintenance repairs, property taxes and property owner's income, this law will

not serve all constituents unless relief is provided to landlords as part of this proposal and not by a separate legislation. where does your ordinance address small property owners from foreclosure? they're showing most tenants are receiving financial aid related to covid-19 and amounts that are greater or equal to the earnings prior to covid-19 and have been able to pay rent as agreed. approximately 5% of tenants have received forebearances and rent furloughs. >> next caller, two minutes. >> hi, i am a shaw small landloa mom and pop organization if district 10 and i oppose this. i have been opposed to the humanity behind it and i do think that we're on the right track. people should not be evicted and

families not thrown on the street, especially underserved. but this particular legislation is putting the landlord against the tenant and i don't want to go after a tenant and garnish their wages for however long. the government is usurping and expecting us to be a bank and government. there's got to be a middle ground and i really hope that we work together for the humanity of everybody. mine, landlords are not bad guys. some of them are, but majority of the people you're hearing from are people who are scared to death of losing their house.

don't make us the bad guy. work together as a community to make sure people aren't evicted, that landlords don't lose their houses and that we can work together as a community. so i just hope you consider that landlords don't have the deep pockets most tenant advocates think they do and the truth of the matter is, people should not be evicted, so please find a better solution but let's find a solution because nobody wants to see people on the streets. i personally couldn't sleep at night but at the same time, this whole conversations frightens me to think i could lose my house because they don't want to pay rent any more. >> thank you, speaker. next caller, two minutes.

>> i'm lou and i am opposed to preston's ordinance because it is unreasonable. if the tenants reduce their income due to covid-19 or lost their job, that is not the homeowner's responsibility but the government's responsibility. if the homeowner has to bear the responsibility, then the government, in turn, should assume the homeowner's responsibility -- government should assume for the losses that the homeowner will have to bear. in other words, the government is to be responsible for the homeowner's bank loan payment, mortgages, land taxes and utility bills.

or cancel them all together. and, also, help homeowners pay for home insurance. we homeowners are providing a service to tenants and we have to pay for the house we're living in. we have, out of the goodness of our hearts, to rent our rooms out to tenants. if the tenants cannot pay, how are we going to pay for the house that we're legitimate them rent? that would be the reasonable thing. so the tenants have the right to rent rooms, but what about the homeowner's right to live in their house? where is the fairness in that? >> thank you for your comment.

comments. next speaker, please. you have two minutes to speak. next speaker, please. hello, you have two minutes to speak. >> hi. can you hear me? >> yes. >> thank you, supervisors. i strongly support this ordinance. i moved to the city over three years ago to attend sanfrancisco state university and have since been in district 4 is currently road in district 6. i'm a board member and a member of gsa.

i have had the privilege to remain employed during this pandemic and, unfortunately, my seven other roommates have not. as of now, we owe $24,000 in back-rent. thankfulfully our landlord is sympathetic to the situation. he isn't rich by any means and thankfully, he seiz sees the cut crisis as tenant and landlord issue. we are not divided. i carry about the city and constituents and to me, it does not matter if they are renters, homeowners or landlords. we need to protect everyone regardless and i know that supervisor preston's proposed ordinance is a step in the right direction. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. you have two minutes.

next speaker, please. you have two minutes to speak. >> hi. my name is sarah didn't i live in the district 4 as a renter. and i oppose this legislation. i believe as many people have said, it's partial and i do not support eviction. however, it's also just now equitable. like, when i had to get government cheese and food stamps as a child, the government supported us to have food, also a human right. but it also paid the store owners and at the same time they

provided the service. and i think that if we can come up with a legislation where the burden is taken by the entire community, via the government, with some sort of program like that, it could be acceptable. but as written, it m negates the rights for some and so, i really hope that we can find a better solution, not evict people and not put an unfair burden on owners. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. again, the caller number is (415)655-0001 and the access code is (145)483-6716. press pound and pound to join. you'll need to press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak and you'll be notified that your

hand is rised and muted until we call on you and you will be prompted that your line will be un-muted and you'll be ready to speak. thank you. >> hi, supervisors. i urge to reconsider this legislation. i'm a native person in san francisco, a district 3 resident and homeowner. i'm also on the board of the san francisco apartment association. my family owns 35 apartments in san francisco. six apartments with covid deferred residents. evacuee all been through a lot these last ten weeks and none of us are responsible for the pandemic, not even property owners. you're asking a certain sector of the city to pay for this.

if the city thinks the rent should be forgiven, deferred, turned into consumer debt, the city should find a way to pay the rent or take on the financial burden. the san francisco water department is not waiving any of my water bill. the elevator service bill aren't saying, skip a few monthly bills and we'll provide service even if you don't pay. the tax collector only deferred property tax for 30 days. housing is not free. the bills are due whether or not tenants pay rent. you say the bill will turn the deferred rent into consumer debt if a property owner goes to court next fall and then the property owners will get paid. consumer debt that goes to collection through court judgment has an average collection rate of just 20%. this is not an equitable

solution. what about contract law? you have the right to do this? san jose voted down similar legislation, as did the colorado legislation. oregon has given a 12-month repayment period after the emergency is lifted which is a much better proposal. wouldn't it be more reasonable to have a way for tenants and property owners to work together on repayment plans. i ago tha agree eviction is note answer. we're a co compassionate city bt this is not the solution. >> next caller, please. >> hello. i'm a san francisco resident and

i am a property owner that is in hear for my grandmother who worked as a janitoress who worked for 32 years to my my lie house. i was pushed out and i cannot financially assume responsibility for adult people and take on their financial burdens. it's unfair and not the right answer and absolutely an extreme answer that is very one sided. i don't agree with it and i do not believe that the supervisor sitting there proposing these items would take on the burden themselves. it's definitely not something that i believe is anyone's responsibility to take over

someone else's financial responsibility. why would we be responsible for all of their financial debt? it's not fair. >> next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> hi. i'm tory and i'm a tenant in the sunset and i'm calling in full support of this ordinance. i am not at risk for eviction and understand this is a privilege that so many do not have at this time. like many others have said before, this will be instrumental in protecting tenants from eviction. it's wholly necessary, especially since it affects low income, people of colour and documented and disabled folks.

this can be a death circumstance under these circumstances. i urge you to pass legislations in order to protect those most impacted by the community. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is pauline marshall. i'm a formal member of the housing alliance and i support this. it is a rational and smart followup to the moratorium and . thank you and please vote for

the legislation. >> thank you, for your comment and next speaker, please. again, you'll have two minutes and prompted your line has been un-muted and you may begin. >> hi. i am a single woman, sole proprietor, first generation san francisco, and i have been making a living for the last 15 years managing an airbnb and have had low business since march and continues has no one is buying or traveling. i'm at 5% occupancy for the units i manage and if my guests do not pay rent, i cannot pay the mortgage and i will lose my mortgage. to ithere is hud or the governmt can take my property by imminent toe main and give it away for

free to whomever they want. i bought my property in 1989 and they changed it. i had to reinvent my rental into a short-term rental to stay away from rent control. my retirement plan is all real estate and luckily not all in san francisco. if you want subsidized rent, pay it to the landlord. now you want to take away our rent? i have no new business and the owners whose properties i message are hurting, trying to pay mortgage to properties while renters eat like kings and the owners have to beg mortgage companiecompanies and they haveg and they continue to pay wi-fi, landscaping, taxes and more. please vote no on 200375. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes and you'll be notify ed this your line has been un-

>>: ed. un-muted. >> this is becky in district 4. can you hear me? hello? >> yes, we can hear you. you can begin. >> yes, yes. i'm a small property owner and i strongly oppose no ordinance to 00375. i think, you know, this pandemic is affecting everyone, not only tenants, but everybody, tenants and landlords. so the policy should be more balance so there is -- so the landlord can pay the mortgage. there are property taxes also quite a lot. and so this i i strongly opposet

i hope the supervisor can come up with a more balancing idea. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. two minutes. >> my name is carol and i am a third-generation property owner in district 3. my grandparents bought the building back in the '40s. my mother ran it and now the next generation is a care-taking of this property. i am opposed to eviction, and i oppose this bill, 200375.

i'm not sending in money. my sister is not sending in money. this is her income. if rents are deferred, that's fine, but at some point, the piper has to be paid. we're not running a free house. we have overhead. the city of san francisco has demanded special fire equipment be put into our buildings. we had do a retrofit which has a tremendous loan on our building, which needs to be paid off. these are all things that the rental money goes towards, the overhead, the taxes, the gas electric and the water. those things are not going to stop. yes, it would take a substantial number of our tenants to not pay

in order to -- not be able to pay these things but we're paying them anything. i have to problem in rental plans, payment-back plans and we have already worked out things with some of our tenants, but this is a business. evacuewe've survived the afforde housing act. we have tenants that have lived in our building for 30 and 40 years still paying rent from that long ago. it's not fair for us to have the burden of supporting -- >> speaker's time has expired. thank you for your comment. if you would like to speak press

star 3 and for the folks waitig in line, thank you. you'll have two minutes and you'll be notified your phone has been un-muted. >> hi, i'm john, a rentener renn district 8. i support this, it's essential. i urge the supervisors to act on this to save lives by preventing eviction. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. we have 95 listeners with 25 folks in queue. next speaker, you'll have two minutes to speak. >> hello? can you hear me? i'm a life-long san francisco

resident and i've been a tenant for most of my life. currently i'm lucky to be living in a house my mom bought in the 1990's when things were still affordable-ish. i was evicted my mom and pop landlord to flip our building and i'm not unfamiliar that evictions do happen and happened before this pandemic. when i hear landlords talking about how they're not against the evictions, i hear them saying i'm not against them, but i will do it to you. and so, i think that listening to all of these comments, tenants should be at the center of this conversation. we're having all lives matter and the landlord comments today and it's like we've emphasized to protect the most vulnerable members of our community and those who don't open real estate assets and have been told in reply that landlord lives matter. and i think you should read the room, people. i don't want to see anyone

evicted, including small homeowners, but i'm highly suspicious of their landlord narratives being 25 plus years of tenants evicted at every turn. i wonder where they all were when people were displaced. (please stand by).

>> i'm a resident in district 9. hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, you may begin. >> hi, hi, hi. i'm annie b. i'm a resident of district 9 in the mission district. i'm calling on behalf of myself, my roommate, and my neighbors who do not feel safe enough to push back against

tenants rights and for tenants rights. i just want to talk about the simple bottom line that we're talking about taking eviction off the table. that will give us time to talk about a solution that's best for tenants and landlords. it's completely psychotic and inhumane to consider putting people out on the street during a global pandemic for reasons that they have no control over. i strongly encourage you to pass this bill, and that's it. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. next caller, please. you'll have two minutes. hello, caller? hello, caller? next speaker, please.

hello, caller? >> hello? >> clerk: hi. you have two minutes to speak. >> hello. i am a resident of san francisco living in district 1 examine would like to express -- and would like to express my full support of this ordinance. the opposition to this ordinance from landlords we have heard who supposedly oppose eviction demonstrate their lack of integrity to hold their fellow property owners accountable to value human life over the finances. i want to make it absolutely clear, the potential life or death situation for these disadvantaged communities is in no way similar to the financial discomfort to the several landlords that we have heard

from. housing is a human right, and i urge you to support this ordinance. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you have two minutes, and you'll be notified that your line has been unmuted. hello, caller. you have two minutes. next speaker, please. hello, caller. you have two minutes. >> yes. i am a san francisco resident and owner-manager of 40 apartment units here in san francisco. and because of covid-19, i have five vacancies and i'm not sure if i should rerent these vacancies because of this ordinance. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. you'll be notified that your

line has been unmuted. >> hello, supervisors. my name is chelsea wight, and i'm a renter who has been impacted by the covid-19 emergency. i moved to san francisco six months ago and because of this unprecedented pandemic, i cannot get out of my lease. i am also being threatened by my property manager that they will be coming after me for money owed once the emergency is lifted. i am now in a position unlike ever before in that i am simply defaulting on my payments because i cannot afford them. i simply will not be able to

catch up on my rent. the cost of living in san francisco was exponential before this crisis, and now i, like many others, are in a position pigeonholing themselves because they cannot afford to live in san francisco. i do not deserve to have these financial implications because of a pandemic that was out of everyone's control. this city needs to focus on caring for its residents and making sure that every person has a roof over their heads and to feel safe in their homes. i strongly ask that you pass this ordinance in solidarity with the public's best interest, not for landlords to continue to take advantage of their tenants. their position has been clearly stated on this call, working individuals don't matter or referring to tenants as leeches of society.

they agreed to take on these costs when they agreed to become landlords, and we as tenants did not bring on covid-19, and they need to put public opinion over profit. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you, caller. we have 86 listeners with 12 in queue. again, press star-three if you have not already, and you will be notified that your hand has been raised to speak in public comment. for those still waiting, we appreciate your patience, and we'll get to your soon. next caller, please. you'll have two minutes, and you'll be prompted that your line has been unmuted. hello, caller? next speaker, please. hello, caller?

>> yes, i'm here. good afternoon. my name is robert link, and i am a native san franciscan. i grew up in district 4 and currently reside in district 7. i'm a property owner and a property manager and responsible for approximately 275 apartment units in the, most of which are rent controlled. i am calling today because i am opposed to the ordinance on the grounds that it is overreaching and violates the governor's office by precluding a landlord's ability to recover rent from a tenant through an unlawful detainer process effectively rendering the value down to zero. i think the landlord community sympathizes with hardship that many of our tenants are experiencing right now, and i see, and i feel like many of my

colleagues too -- do, too, see the relationship between landlord and tenant as complementary, and it's something that many other callers this afternoon have not displayed. we as a company have responded to a number of hardship requests. i personally have written 25 to 30 forebearance requests for our tenants and commercial tenants, which only about 10 to 15 we've granted rent forgiveness, 25 to 50% for almost all of them, so there's a huge outreach that's being missed, the outreach of the landlord community to the tenants. and i fear that this legislation is overreaching and

could cause a bigger problem than what we have now. i think possibly an unintended consequence here, if this happens, people could otherwise withhold payment of rent, thus creating a larger problem -- >> clerk: thank you. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes to speak. >> hi. well, i'm here to let the board now that i'm opposed to the ordinance. first, pandemic is actually affecting everyone one way or other. he believ second, there's so many assistance programs for people that lost their jobs, such as e.d.d. and employment, as well. second, there's assistance for small businesses, but landlords, i have nothing.

we can get s.f. water if we apply for, but landlords do not get a break from paying property taxes. tenants are already paying under fair market value, but still, the city want to put the burden onto landlords. i don't think this is fair. some people would say forebearance helps the landlord, but it's only temporary. it's not a solution because the landlord still has to payback the interest with a higher rate. and with this action in the courts, it further divides the relationship between tenant and landlord and the landlord has to assume all the burden. and again, this is not the landlord's responsibility to make sure everyone has a roof over their head. tenants have to work together to build a relationship, and this is also what we have to

do, not dividing them. again, i ask the board to oppose this argument. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. again, press star-three to be added to the queue. for those waiting, please continue to hold. next caller, please. you'll have two minutes. >> hello. my name is andy, and i'm calling in enthusiastic support for this legislation. evictions can mean death in the "best of times," and this time of global pandemic, evictions will mean death for many people in an unprecedented way, and so this legislation has to be passed to help save lives

literally, and to save our community. so i am so thankful to supervisor preston and his staff for introducing this, and i encourage this committee to support this legislation and for the board of supervisors to pass it unanimously because it's the right thing to do, it's the necessary thing to do. and then, i encourage the entire board of supervisors to take the spirit of this legislation and demand it of our national leaders, as well. in san francisco, we can lead the country in this. we should be pressuring our representatives in congress, speaker pelosi, to be caring, supporting on ilhan omar's rent cancellation ask and we can save many lives respond san

francisco, as well. >> clerk: thank you. we have 87 listeners and 12 in queue. next caller, please. you'll have two minutes to speak. hello, caller? next speaker, please. hello, caller? next speaker, please. >> hi, good afternoon. i'd like to state my opinion. i strongly oppose this bill since it's not fair and it's

not representing everyone in the current situation in san francisco. it kind of represents one side. [inaudible] >> -- taking care of the situation, you know, the human right for everybody. the lessor and lessee have their human rights. you know, if one side has problem, you need to step in, helping in those situations, not just for the problem on one side. it's not fair. you know -- [inaudible] >> -- to get help by somebody, so then, they help the lessor directly and for wider

assistance to the landlord, and then helping the tenant. no one wants to evict everybody, so as long as they get fair help from the city hall, they're going to really help the tenant to stay, so just do a balanced, you know, action, please. so consider, you know, put more fair condition. if this bill pass, you know, add the condition helping of landlord to not evict anyone. no landlord want to evict anybody, okay? thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. again, the public call in number is 415-655-0001. the access code is 1454836716. press pound, and pound again. press star-three to be added to

the queue to speak, and you will be notified by the system when it's your turn to speak. we have 85 listeners and ten in queue. next caller, please. you'll have two minutes to speak. >> hi. my name is maria, and i'm a renter in the 8. i support this ordinance because housing is a human right. it is not incumbent upon the city to bail out property owners or to not owe the return on their investment. however, the city must do everything to protect our most vulnerable, which is really working class residents, to protect them from the pandemic.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. again, you'll be notified that your line has been unmuted. >> hello. i -- can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> hi. i'm a property owner and manager of 60 units across three buildings, and i strongly oppose this legislation. we have been lucky that the majority of our tenants that have continued to pay rent, but we do have some tenants who have admittedly refused to pay rent because of the virus. they say their income has not suffered because of the

pandemic, but they refuse to pay rent because they say there's nothing we can do. regardless of what some people think, we are not raking in cash. we would never turn out someone who is struggling, but we are working with several who need rent reduction and forebearance, but i think an ordinance who fore -- that forbids rent is unfair. despite what some people say, we are not monsters, and we are a family run business. we pay taxes, pay sizeable mortgages, by extensive building repairs, trash, new roofs, and we've also completed

the city mandated seismic retrofits. we're good landlords, and we do this because this allows us to live in the city. this is a hard job, and it is not a lot of income. we are not rich. we drive cars that are 15 years old, toyotas, not ferraris. i am not a predatory investor. i don't own diamonds, i do not travel to europe. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller. >> my name is barbara dwyer. i am a small property owner, three rent controlled units, and i am also a renter. i vehemently oppose this ordinance. i am a retired r.n., and my rent is my income. in 30 years of ownership, i've

never evicted anybody. i'd like to make a few points. if housing is a human right, so is food, water, heat, and medicine. all cost money. this ordinance asks small owners to be the bank and to make substantial interest free loans with low likelihood of repavement. small owners cannot spread their rosters across 50 or 100 units. one unit lost means 25 to 50% loss of income. my building was not rent controlled when i bought it, but supervisors have changed the rules in the middle of the game. i worked with it, but this legislation really makes me want to rethink owning property in san francisco. i cannot even occupy one of my

units if the need arises. if more small owners exit the businesses, our properties will be bought by corporations and developers. this bodes ill for the future of affordable housing in san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you have two minutes. you'll be prompted that your line is unmuted. >> hello. this is salman. i'm a property owner as well as property manager for several units in san francisco. i've been on this call for several hours. i'd just like to say that we should all look to ourselves and to not look to divide. we see what's happening with that on the national level with a divisive leader and

administration. first and foremost, this legislation, my biggest concern with it, it's not helping the constituents. some of the other areas, specifically, san jose and others, they say it's not constitutional to enact something like this. if it does go through, we're looking at it'll be repealed in the courts in six months, and a lot of tenants will not have saved up for that rent that they owe, and i don't want to do that in the city of san francisco unless it's absolutely the last option. what i think this board of supervisors is they're kind of creating a plan to make the landlords look bad within a few months, and that's maybe a year, eight months. that's something we don't need.

it doesn't direct the service to the constituents and the people in these homes. the three-day notice is something that keeps policies in structure. by removing that ability for a landlord to do -- you know, a lot of landlords aren't going to do that, but you're undermining the legislative system. it's bad government. going to get redone, and you're going to have a lot of evictions after something we need to avoid -- >> clerk: thank you. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you all have two minutes to speak. you'll all be notified that your phone is unmuted. >> hello. i am a landlord, and i own a

property in san francisco. i rent at a price so people can stay in this people. i wanted to be as a landlord to stop the pushing out that's going on. these laws are going to be the norm of the future. we can't be talking about opposing this legislation without thinking about we are going to have to change the whole system of how landlords and tenants and the banks relate to this whole issue. something has got to change. we have to come together to figure out how we can make housing as a human right and for landowners and landlortena be able to come to a solution together. i am in support of all this.

it's not calling for a whole lot, it's just calling to stop the evictions. i could not live with myself if i had to eviction a young person. the rent pays for my mother's care in a nursing home, so i have a lot at stake. but we have to change the way we are looking because the world is changing around us. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes to speak. you'll be notified that your line is unmuted. >> hello. my name is lisa, and i am a strong -- small building owner in district number 2 in the marina, and i strongly oppose 200375. i take pride in the four-unit building i own, and i always keep it in tip-top shape for my renters. i pay all my utility bills, mortgage bills, property taxes,

and maintenance bills on time. this bill will make it nearly impossible for small property owners like myself to recoup the rent, and it places the financial burden of covid-19 on small business owners who have fixed mortgages, employees, property taxes, and maintenance expenses. it is not fair and equitable to the property owner and puts the burden of this pandemic solely on the owners. the water company is not supplying water without taking payment. the mortgage company is not foregoing payments. owners of rental properties are providing a much needed safe home for so many residents, and this proposal is putting them in jeopardy if it passes. this, along with the closure of the court system, would allow tenants to live rent free till

possibly september 2020 and beyond. to me, this seems to unfair and punishes the owners of properties. i think the board of supervisors could not and should not prohibit housing providers who have been financially impacted from covid from using california law to enforce our rights. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> good afternoon. this is pahan. i am 76 years old. my wife and i had retired, and all we have is social security income, and we used all our savings to buy three condos in the city. they provide us our day-to-day living expenses.

now, if the tenants stop paying rent, we cannot afford to be in our house. in fact, we'll have to move out, and we will be homeless. so my question really, to all of you -- two questions. is it right and is it fair to throw me out of my own house for making an honest living, paying all of my bills? and then, i would ask, the solution i think would be, one, for the city to either come in and help tenants -- and i want to help them. and the second -- the most important question is if all these people who are proposing that the landlords pay for the

rent, why don't they forego their salaries and house the tenants, instead of making some landlord, old people like me, suffer the burden? thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have 83 listeners and nine in queue. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes to speak. hello, caller? next speaker, please? >> hello? >> clerk: oh, hi. hello. you have two minutes to speak. hello, caller? >> hello?

>> clerk: you have two minutes to speak for public comment, ma'am. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me? can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> i'm the owner of a rental in san francisco. i am the first generation who squirrelled away funds for a down payment. i made sure i upheld all of my objections, and i make sure that i'm up to date on all the rentals and maintain the building in the standard that i would live in, which is a high standard, by the way. when the moratorium on evictions passed, i made sure that i didn't put anyone in a bad way, on account of a tenant

not paying their rent. this deferral, by the way, did not require any auditable proof or documentation to verify the tenant actually had a need. the tenant was not required to claim their need under penalty of perjury. for these people, this is a freebie, a no brainer. it's an open-ended delay or forgiveness of rent. as long as i'm paying all the bills and personally putting in all the efforts to maintain and carry the building, i should have a say in whether i forgive or delay rent payments. let me work it out with the tenant if they should need more time to pay their back rent, as i have done in the past. this ordinance is beyond an overreach. i can't imagine how this ordinance has any legal basis to pass, but at a minimum, you

should put in that they are required to put in a reasonable for deferred rent under penalty of perjury and make it a definable time limit. i respectfully ask that you vote know as 200375, and for the commenter who called landlords grubby owners, we provide a service. should small business owners who provide another service also be called grubby owners, as well? >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller, please. you have two minutes. >> hi. i'm a tenant in san francisco.

my landlord is essentially licking their chops because double rent will come due if this ordinance is not passed. i thank supervisors preston and peskin for authoring this, and i support this 100%. as everyone has mentioned, it does not at all say that rent never comes due. it is just a way so that we don't get a slew of evictions that would cause the city much greater harm in terms of financial costs in the courts and the cost in the pandemic.

personally, i lost both of my jobs due to covid-19, one in tourism, and one at ucsf, and i don't know when they will return. so i strongly urge the board of supervisors to pass this actually wholeheartedly. i just wish i had a landlord like some of these folks that have spoken up that are willing to work things out with people. thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. again, the public comment is 415-655-0001. the access code is 1454836716. press pound, and pound again. press star-three to be added to the queue. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is michelle, and i'm the owner of property management systems, which is a boutique property residential management company here in san

francisco. as a property manager for over 20 years here in san francisco, i have often found myself as mediator between landlord and resident during challenging time. no landlord that i work with ever wants to evict a resident, and no resident wants to be evicted for nonpayment of rent especially during times of a pandemic that was not caused by the owner or tenant. this legislation is not the answer. my personal experience over the past ten weeks, we have received a handful of requests from tenants who were unable to pay the rent, and in every situation, a compromise between the parties was made where a portion or all of the rent was waived. i am opposed to this legislation for a number of reasons, but at the core, we can all work together. i have a question for

supervisor preston. if this passes, and there are no more evictions, will you be defunding all of the evictions defense group from our tax dollars that they receive to assist residents in an eviction actions? if there won't be any evictions, why don't you divert those funds to help owners and residents pay their rent? good evening. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> hi. my name is ren. i'm a renter in district 3, and i'm calling to voice my strong support of these protections. i want to thank supervisor dean preston for his compassion and leadership on this issue and this measured proposal, and i want to urge the rest of the board to recognize what many other callers have stressed, that what could stave off a huge wave of evictions and that

will protect low-income and communities of color. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> hello. my name is scott shane. can you hear me? hello? >> clerk: yes. you have two minutes to speak. >> can you hear me? yes. i'm a small apartment owner. i own a duplex in mission district, and i've owned it for a few years, and my wife lost her job, i lost my job, and --

and then, i just found out this weekend one of the renters cannot pay their rent. so everyone needs to pay 50% of the rent, which is very low, and i'm really having a difficult time paying my mortgage, my property taxes, and my expenses to run that building, and pay my electrical bills and my other bills in my personal life. i'm scared now that -- i'm over 65 years old, and i am scared that i will lose my building because i cannot pay --, i wil not be able to pay my mortgage and my taxes, and i've worked a long time, saved my money for many, many years to acquire that building, and i think it's unfa

unfair. that -- i'm opposed to this bill, and i think it should not pass because it's unjust to the landlords. we don't want anybody to be evicted, but we don't want the landlords to have to pay for all of this, and there's no end in sight. it could go on forever, and there would be a bigger problem down the road. any way, i oppose this bill, and i think you should think seriously on it. thank you, and i hope you have a wonderful day. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. hello, supervisors. my name is camille. i'm a six-year s.f. renter and bay area native currently living in district 9. thank you, supervisor preston for the offer of this covid-19 tenant protection ordinance. i'm speaking today in enthusiastic support of this

legislation. i jeecho all the other comment of this bill. this is the difference between life and death for all of our most vulnerable. the he dictieviction pipeline issue that affects us all. it is about saving lives today. i ask you to put tenants over profits, and i urge you to pass this issue. i understand that the greater u.s. financial system has failed landlords, as well, however, they have relief with the c.a.r.e.s. act and further relief. to my understanding, most homeowners affected by the coronavirus pandemic are able to ask for relief, as well.

meanwhile, for renters, there are no rent discount programs. there is no interest only equivalent between national banks, state chartered banks, credit unions, mortgage lenders. there are over 400 banks and mortgage lenders who are already providing assistance to landlords. i'm hard pressed to believe that there is no one willing to work with these landlords with the financial difficulty that they're experiencing today. many landlords and associations already, you never evict, you're a rare breed. we must acknowledge that most landlords will provide no such empathy -- >> clerk: your time's expired. thank you for your time. again, the public comment is

415-655-0001. the access code is 1454836716. press pound, and then pound again to be -- again. to be added to the queue, press star-three. you'll be added to the queue, and when it's your turn to speak, you'll be unmuted and prompted. hello, caller. >> hi, everybody. this is mitchell from the affordable housing alliance. i'm assuming you can hear me. i think this might be a good time to stop and take a deep breath and step back a little more and try to view this proposal from a public health policy and a public health perspective. this choice was already made when the city decided to have a moratorium on evictions or nonpayment of rent during the

pandemic. the die was already cast. the legislation provides a soft landing after the moratorium, and the board of supervisors already passed virtually identical legislation for s.r.o. units. that provides a soft landing also after the moratorium, but renters would be in nearly the same position as they were at the start, and it would have been mostly pointless. if we thought it was a good idea for them to be evicted, we wouldn't have needed a mo moratorium in the first place. tenants will still owe the back rent but wouldn't face eviction for that. the landlord's ability to collect the rent as opposed to evicting is not significantly changed by this proposal. the chances of getting that

back rent is really became. this right handing legislation is not really transformative, i would say, it's just a common sense method to step down from the moratorium on evictions and providing a soft landing on that policy in a way that would help prevent mass evictions with minimal impact on landlords, so we would urge you to support this measure. thank you for your comment. >> clerk: we have 75 listeners and six in queue to speak. >> dear supervisors, my name is michael. i'm a long-time resident of san francisco, a property manager, and a small businesproperty ow.

i'm calling to oppose the ordinance because, again, you are taking a very simplistic approach to this and using logic that all tenants are good and poor, and all landlords are rich and ugly, and it's just the wrong approach. i think that most people that own property are compassionate and live here and want the city to progress. if you are proposing a citywide program where everybody paid into it and had a means test and made sure that the tenants who ask for help really need it, that would be something that i think citywide everybody could support, instead of dividing with this overreaching proposal. thank you for giving me the opportunity. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. again, you'll have two minutes to speak. you'll be prompted that your line is unmuted.

>> hi. can you hear me, please? >> clerk: yes, thank you. >> hello? can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, you may speak. >> hi, thank you so much. my name is nancy levins, and i'm in district 7, and i'm a small property owner. i listened to this about 45 minutes. you poor people have been listening to it all day, but i think one of the things that's been very clear is this is a nuanced situation. i'm a small property owner, and i fall into that category of people that are penalized if i don't get my rent. so how about this: how about going back and rethinking this? how about carving out some provisions for small property owners, say people who own six or less units because we're the bread and butter owners of

property here in san francisco. it's true that there are o out-of-state people that own properties that may allow their tenants not to pay rent, but that brings up that whole other issue. you've got to step back and make this not available to all tenants. i agree with means testing or some proof that people actually are in a situation where they cannot pay their rent. so these are my comments. i'm just asking you all to step back and rethink this. we are not all evil, we want our tenants in place, we like them, and we want to work with them. thank you very much for listening to me. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes.

>> hi. first of all, i wanted to translate for the speaker who spoke in spanish. she was saying that, you know, while people lost their jobs and are worried about homelessness, she expressed her support for the ordinance. i speak spanish, so there it is. i want to thank all the sfusd teachers, and all the teachers have done an amazing job during the pandemic. we all agree that housing is a crisis. we all want people to stay in their homes. what people really need is rental assistance. it is clear from every single call that people are feeling fear, insecurity, and stress. as a preschoolteacher, i know that in order to reduce conflict, we need to reduce stress. many people have mentioned how stressful this city is. there is a lot of hostility on this call. people need help, and this is

not the way to help and will not reduce stress because debt will be building on both sides. this ordinance not only is not the only way we can prevent evictions, there are many other possibilities like san francisco paying rent or offering tax relief. i heard the gentleman hours ago that is working with housing and rent assistance and says they are in dire need for the government help. having consumer debt is not reducing stress. going to small claims court is not reducing stress for all the tenants that have not been able to work. people need their rents paid. tenants will never get out of debt. as mentioned, this will likely end up in court, and instead, we should be paying rental fees instead of paying for legal fees. give direct payment to tenants. tenants should not lose their homes and they should not have to build up debt. i want to read a statement about community. when we talk about helping

community to the breakdown of community, something changes. holding onto the view that community is a set of problems to be solved holds itself in the grip of retribution. at every level of community, we live at a level of retribution. -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. thank you. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> hello? hello? can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, you may begin. >> hello. my name is simon. i'm a small property management company representing small mom and pop owners, none of whom own more than one to four small buildings in san francisco in different districts.

in representing over 1500 units in san francisco, we strongly oppose this bill. none of the owners that i spoke to want to evict their tenants. the ability of a landlord to never recover rent, this is not a good or make sense policy right now. there's a simbiotic relationship between tenants and landlords. operating expenses are already outpacing the cost of living and rent increases. mind you, assistance are already available to tenants, small business owners, and those out of work, but no help is available to property owners. this legislation is basically punishing landlords and basically putting them out of work. if all tenants refuse to pay

rent, and there is no recourse and recourse is protected, how does that help anyone? i think we should reexamine common sense and come up with a situation that helps all. a simple compromise should this ordinance be passed and not work ad planns planned is to s any loss by the landlords is somehow recoverable from the city. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. hello, caller? you have two minutes. >> hi. my name is garrett, and i'd just like to say that the

landlord has never evicted anyone, and i don't intend to evict anyone. first of all, if we were to evict someone, we would have to pay $500, $600 an hour for attorney's fees while the tenant gets free attorney's fees. that's one reason why, but i also like all my tenants, and i work with all my tenants, and i think most landlords do. no one likes to evict, and it seems like most landlords are working with tenants right now, whether it's a forebearance or forgiving rent or partial payment. this is odd -- this is what most landlords do, and there are good landlords and bad landlords, and there's good tenants and there's bad tenants. but this ordinance would allow all bad tenants to abuse landlords, many of whom are mom and pop. we are not rich.

we have to pay tremendous taxes. we have to conform with retrofits, get a loan to pay a retrofits. we have to pay for alarm services, tremendous taxes. there's a lot of cost in becoming a landlord. [inaudible] >> many of my tenants, they own property, too, but they stay in the units because it's rent controlled. one of my tenants has seven properties. another tenant, he kept their apartment for 30 years. she owns several properties. i understand that, but this law is terrible. it's just -- it just -- there's no common sense in this law. you can't just say hey, no evictions at all. no one likes to evict, but this will just allow tenants to

abuse the system. i understand that more renters are hoarders, and i understand that's why the politicians are just doing that. we're just constantly banging the landlords, trashing them. i urge you to vote no on this ordinance. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. you have two minutes. again, your line will be unmuted, and you'll be notified. hello, caller? next speaker, please. >> hello? >> clerk: hi, you have two minutes.

>> hi. my name is lola. i live in district 10, and i've been here all my life, over 60 years. i am a small property owner, which sounds like a terrible thing to be these days. i actually own one single-family home that i rent out, and i'm not in a situation where my tenant is in pain, but there is a huge disparity here among the small property owners, really small, especially single-family homeowners that live in the bayview, black and brown, that are not being recognized, and this ordinance needs to be a two-part ordinance for smaller rental owners for four or less units or single-family homes and not for the huge

conglomerate units that we're talking about in preston's district. we're just not talking about the city as a whole. this is absolutely a terrible, horrible disparity to the brown and black people in the bayview. as a matter of fact, we're so unrepresented -- i'm not in the situation. i'm getting on this line for the poor seniors that i know that live in this district that are not being represented, that know nothing of this meeting, have no way to get on this call, do not have e-mail. it is so unfair, and the division that is being created amongst tenants and landlords is so intentional and so horrible for our government. i think it's terrible what you're doing. we're so unrepresented in this neighborhood, as usual. i'm going to go around and put papers in people's mailboxes because they have no idea what you're doing to our seniors that are on fixed income and have no money, just like the

tenants, as they claim, to take care of tenants. i yield my time. [please stand by] -- the one -- everybody has a point and i think that i do like the idea that there is something

for the landlords because my best friend is a landlord lady in oakland and she is -- she's not going to be able to get rent because of the legislation there for the next few months. and she's not happy about it. but she feels that it's the right thing and she has a small amount of savings that she's kept it in for this short amount of time. so i thank you for this thoughtful legislation. good evening. >> clerk: thank you. next caller, please. we have 80 listeners and 60 in queue. i'm sorry, six in queue. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: hi, you have two minutes. >> caller: is it my turn? >> clerk: yes, sir. you have two minutes to speak. >> caller: hello, my name is

jim hurley and i'm a fourth generation san franciscan and a property owner and there's been many good speakers on both sides. i'm not a great speaker but i would like to weigh in on the side of owners and argue that we need a more balanced solution to the problem that considers owners as well as renters. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes to speak and you'll be prompted that your line is unmuted and you may begin. >> caller: hello. thank you for staying so late and being so thoughtful in listening to our comments. my name is evie commandteer and a volunteer counselor at the housing advocacy committee and i'm here to just to add my support and gratitude to supervisor preston and to all three of you for hearing us.

i am like a deer in the headlights, caught in the headlights. i keep thinking of this situation and i was in this situation and i was a kid, i would have been out on the street. high father would have lost his business and we would have lost our rent controlled apartments, the end. now if the apartment association has found that nearly 97% of residential tenants paid their represent in may, so we're just talking about a tiny thing, but, still, because i know that having grown up with small business that i'm there too and everybody hurts. i'm feeling all of this pain. i was on hold a whole bunch of time but thank you again so very much. that's all. >> clerk: thank you. thank you for holding. we appreciate your patience. next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> caller: hello, hi.

can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, ma'am, yes, two minutes. >> caller: hi. i strongly oppose this ordinance. and so many people that i know, they want to call in to oppose this ordinance but they couldn't because they couldn't be, you know, understood very well. and so we will have a chinese translator and they could call, and where people call in chinese they could call in to kind of protest, please. and another thing that you said is that your system of (indiscernible), and again you are kind of not drop the lie. so i say that you drop the lie (indiscernible) and you say

pound 3 and something else and then people wouldn't miss up, right? so, here, my frustration for the meeting because many people are unrepresented and they're very angry. yeah, and that another thing is that so (indiscernible) they are really bad. they will firstly it's very difficult to get. second, is that -- is that -- second is that you hurt (indiscernible) and especially when you get a job, and not many people out there have jobs. (indiscernible) many people couldn't go back to their (indiscernible) and get another job. it's really bad. so they shouldn't do that. that's what i wanted to say. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. thank you for your comments. and, yes, if you have already

pressed star, 3, you only need to press it once and you will be on hold. if you press star, 3, you'll be taken out of queue. so thank you for bringing that to our attention. so if you have already pressed star, 3, you don't need to press it again. you're already on hold. so next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes and you'll be prompted that your line has been unmuted. >> caller: hello, i am speaking. hello? >> clerk: yes, you have two minutes. >> caller: okay, i'm sharman king and been in san francisco for 40 years. i'm a mentor of the better housing policy. okay, i'm opposing -- i cannot support the measure or the ordinance at this time. because it is really (indiscernible) and you cannot evict tenants. you can say you can raise the

rent, and that means that they don't pay the rent and you have no way to go after this. (indiscernible) so i cannot support the ordinance at this portion. if you put a time limit on it like one year or two years, i think that as an owner we would support it. because i need the rent to support my family. i don't have anything else. i don't have (indiscernible) but most tenants, if they lose their job they can apply for eidl and the government support. and as an owner we only collect rent and we cannot qualify for those government aid. so we need to have a solution and we need to also protect the tenant and the owners too.

so the (indiscernible) with the permanent eviction is not right. so we need to modify it to a time limit. so currently i encourage all of you supervisors to vote no on this ordinance. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. we have 77 listening and eight in the queue. >> caller: so this is amy. i'm a small landlord. i don't think that anyone wants to go through the eviction process. it's the only enforceable tool that a landlord would have to collect and pay rent. and the things happened and the effect of the ordinance will be a lot of housing providers will

not be able to collect rent that is owed. tenants paying what they can without the ordinance, that is not clear -- it is not a lot of evictions. you should have the authority to -- to, you know, to enforce, you know, to -- under the governance order permanently to restrict the landlord's ability to cover rent. so you should not -- it would not prohibit housing providers, we'll have financially been hurt by covid-19 and from using california state law to enforce our right. no, no on this ordinance. >> clerk: thank you, thank you for your comments.

next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes and you'll be notified when your line is unmuted. >> caller: hi. my name is kate tager and i'm a resident. and i work as an engineering major and i'm fortunate enough to be fully employed during this time. on the other hand, at a previous time in my life i have experienced homelessness myself and i have a firsthand understanding of the impact that housing instability can have on secure employment for one's self. and i support supervisor preston's ordinance. we have a crisis of people unable to pay their rent because of a crisis of unemployment. and housing and employ cent is linked. there's barriers for people without housing when they seek employment. if we evict people who have lost employment due to the pandemic it's harder to regain employment once the economy begins to recover. this would not own put hardship on our san franciscans but put down the recovery of all,

landlords included. landlords, yes. even the smaller owners are asking to continue to forcibly pull water from a well that has already gone dry. san francisco, like all cities, is experiencing unprecedented unemployment levels. i put this question to the landlord whose want to evict their tenants. where do you think that you'll find people better able to pay rent than your current tenants anyway? i feel for the smaller landlords that are personally impacted by this and i hope that we as a city can find a way to help them as well. but i do not think that it should be a blocker for the clear legislation that is a clearly needed next step among the many steps that we need to take. we need to increase stability for housing and employment stability as you can't have one without the other. the ability of unemployed people to regain employment affects everyone and it's a critical ingredient in that recovery. thank you, i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes to speak. you'll be prompted that your

line is unmuted. we have 79 listeners with nine now in queue. >> caller: hi, i am aaron dean. i'm a resident of san francisco. and i'm calling to weigh in with support for supervisor preston and supervisor haney's ordinance. i think that we're in dire times. and unprecedented times to say the least, and that requires unprecedented measures. i very much agree with the previous caller, you know, housing instability definitely weighs in on people's minds and what have you, and i'll cut it short. and i encourage all supervisors to weigh in, to vote yes on this ordinance. i yield my time. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes to speak. you'll be notified that your line is unmuted.

>> caller: hello? >> clerk: hi, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: my name is noni richmond, i'm the president of the small property owners and an owner of five small rental units here in san francisco in the western edition. i vigorously oppose the legislation, but i want to agree with something that one of the previous callers said. she said why would we want to evict good tenants? we don't want to evict good tenants. we want a chance to make arrangements with our tenants to repay the rent. not to have them permanently not have to pay the rent. we want a chance to be good owners and good business people and this totally prevents it. in addition, the city doesn't have the legal authority to make this kind of restriction. it's violates the government's orders -- the governor's order, and it's illegal.

why are you doing this? we polled our members and we did not get one letter that said that we don't -- we want to evict our tenants. some have worked with tenants and some have forgiven rent and lowered rent. we want to keep our good tenants but we want a chance to lift out some kind of a rental payment agreement because we have expenses too. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes to speak and you will be prompted that your line is unmuted. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: hello, two minutes. >> caller: yes. my name is francis and i'm from san francisco and i have a rental unit for elderly family members. we would like to have strict opposition to this proposal. it is a wrong assumption that

the landlords must be financially more viable while tenants must be poor. due to the pandemic the federal and the state government are helping. a typical tenant owes over $4,000 for unemploy blunt and in a two-family family it's $9,000. if any tenant can prove that they cannot receive a subsidy, should the city should verify their financial needs and to provide assistance on a case-by-case basis. providing housing is a serious business and a profession. and forcing landlords to pay for the housing costs while tenants can live there for free is discrimination. if you don't want someone to live at your house for free, let's not (indiscernible) and everyone, landlords and tenants the city should make housing

possible, not just the landlords. so please vote no to the proposal. we cannot afford to let anyone to stay at your house for free. the tenants should pay. this proposal is not helping the economy. it does not provide stable housing to anyone. so housing providers would not owe housing if no represent. they pay property taxes and if they have no income and no salary, (indiscernible) and the landlords are doing the same thing. thank you so much for your time. >> clerk: we have 78 listeners and five in queue. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes and you'll be notified that your line is unmuted and you may begin public comment. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: hello. you pay begin public comment. >> caller: i think so.

i'm courtney clarks -- hello, this is courtney clarkson. and i own a small five-unit building in north beach which i have owned for about 25 years. i have great tenants, it's not a fancy building. so far everybody is paying the rent. and i have do have a major problem with this proposed legislation and havinglinned to a number of -- listened to the number of callers over the last few hours it's that all of the landlords are being pointed out as the bad guys. i have owned my building 25 years. all i've done is pour money into the building. i should be making so much money, but that's not the case between seismic and upgrades and things that the city says to do. if i had a problem with my

tenants unable to pay the rent, i would work something out with them because i have great tenants and i get along with them very well. my problems are not with the people that i have rented to over the decades. my problems are with the city. it just never, ever stops. and i think that what you supervisors have to realize is that the way things are going, those of us who are very involved in our small buildings, we're getting tired of all of this -- all of the hassles with the legislation and the city. and pretty soon you're going to have a city that's going to be these huge companies that own huge numbers of units. and could care less. so i really think that you need

to reconsider how you are going about this. not every tenant really should have a test, just like we have one for rent control. not every person -- >> clerk: the speaker's time is expired. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes to speak. you'll be prompted that you have been unmuted. >> caller: hello. my name is peter rice and i'm the executive director of small property owners. no -- i also own rental property in the city. no landlord wants to go through the eviction process and landlords, particularly small property owners that live in the same building with their tenants, work out arrangements so that the tenant can pay half

rent or whatever, and they can repay later on what they can't pay now. this -- with this measure, it makes it nearly impossible for small property owners to recoup unpaid rent because you're talking about living rent free in some cases if you want to game the system from march 2020 to potentially through september and beyond. and once you're four or five months behind on rent payment you'll never make that up. so what you're really doing is you're setting up a system where people will default on rent payments and at some point there will be massive evictions. so might be able to sustain a 50% loss for one or two months and forfeit that rent but if you haven't had rent paid for four months and the tenant said that the amount that i owe is so big,

that i can't make that up, what you'll do is evict. so, please, think about what you're doing here and remember that small property owners are working with their tenants, they live in the same building. they know their tenants, they want to keep them. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: hello. you have two minutes. >> caller: hi. my name is carey and i'm a small property owner in district 3. i would like to voice my opposition to the legislation. i am empathetic to my renters and i have been working with the ones who have had trouble paying. but in a broader sense, if the tenants stop paying rent for an extended period of time i will e to pay mortgage and property taxes and maintenance and my family has been saving and sacrificing for many years.

i understand covid -- and unemployment causes an inability to pay rent i for some but why this this be supported by landlords? we're covid affected too. and housing should be a human right and we should help renters to stay in their homes and it should be society as a whole who support those in need and it's spread broadly and not just a small number of owners. please, oppose this legislation. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. you have two minutes and you'll be prompted that your line is unmuted and you may begin. >> caller: hi, this is (indiscernible) in district 5. i would like to express extreme frustration with this system as i have been in and out of queue due to incomprehensible communications. i would like to have support for

the ordinance. 100,000 san francisco people are out of work. that's incredible. we can't afford to lose all of the neighbors and the people that work in the places that we enjoy. and our friends and neighbors. the only reason that this legislation is at the board of supervisors is because the buck stops here. there are failures at the federal lest, and failures at the state level. san francisco has to take steps to protect our renters. now this legislation only stops evictions and it does leave open the legislation that i know that they want to do which is to have some assistance for the small property owners. the big landlords and many of the small landlords have an option to get at least mortgage

deferment. hey, this is an international emergency. it's not a crime for landlords who want to make money, but it is a crime if you don't have any sensibility about everybody is going through this. and legislation works slowly, but let's say that the federal government and the state had failed and san francisco doing its best right now with a series of legislations. please support this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> caller: hi, thank you for letting me comment on this. my name is benjamin laird, a resident of district 5. a fourth generation san franciscan. i care deeply about this issue. as a family who does own a

number of rental properties here in the city, i want to recognize that we do have some access to mortgage forbearance and deferment and being in a position of being a property owner and we also do have -- we do have some access to some national scaled programs that are there to support homeowners. maybe not necessarily enough because we are all struggling this time. i'm currently unemployed myself. i do not rely on rental income to live. but i want to say that i support this legislation and i think that this is also something that is going to significantly benefit long-term san franciscans and i agree with the previous callers who recognize that this disproportionately affects long-term residents of

color in san francisco. i think that it's very, very important to support our residents of color here in san francisco, given the disproportionate effect of displacement that they have experienced. also i want to recognize too a lot of the small property owners speaking up against this and saying they don't want to evict their tenants. so i think that in this case there should be widespread support for this -- for the passage of this legislation too, because we do not want to evict people and we do want these protections in place against the larger landowners. the larger landlords that might make use of these tactics in the future to turn over -- >> clerk: your time is over. thank you. thank you for your comments. we have 77 listeners and five now in queue. next speaker, please.

>> caller: my name is carlos kwan. i'm a former executive director for the homeownership program. and i'm also the former chairman of the chinese real estate association and also have been living in san francisco for 45 years. and i just want to point out really clearly that this legislation is extremely unfair to small property owners. we -- i have a unit in chinatown that i leased out to the chinese community (indiscernible) center and it helped out a family for the past three years. and you guys here are trying to take away our property rights and put the burden of all of this housing crisis on private property owners which is extremely unfair. and i'll point out one thing and i'll keep it clear and direct

and short -- i strongly oppose this legislation. and i urge the board of supervisors to not approve it. i'm done. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll be notified that your land is unmuted and you may begin. you have two minutes to speak. >> caller: my name is andrew zachs and i'm an attorney here in san francisco. i represent a number of property owner groups and individual property owners that have concerns about this legislation. in 1976, when california supreme court upheld the constitutionality of rent control, it drew a very careful distinction between local ordinances that regulate substantively and those in the area of procedure. the ordinance that is before the committee today is a procedural device designed to block access

to the unlawful detainer statutes for property owners who are not receiving rent. it is procedural. therefore, the board of supervisors does not have authority to enact the ordinance which will deprive property owners the ability to access the unlawful detainer statutes and the court system. to the extent that the ordinance relies on the emergency services act and the emergency that we are all facing here in the world and in particularly in california, that authority is derived from the emergency services act and the governor's order. the governor's order provides authority to the board of supervisors and to the city to suspend the payment of rent during the period of emergency. it does not allow the city to pass an ordinance which deprives the property owners of rent and deprives the property owners of the procedure of the unlawful detainer statute.

if it is enacted it will promptly be declared invalid and the city will paying the attorney fees. they should not enact this law and this community should make a negative recommendation to the board. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hi. my name is michelle chan. i am a member (indiscernible) and we vote no to this bill. that is unfair to the landlord. we also have it really difficult to pay for the house loan. subsidy pay, (indiscernible) house repairs, you know, the house repair is not cheap.

so we need help also. so please vote no for this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes and you will be prompted that your line has been unmuted and you pay begin. >> caller: hello, my name is chuck hadamer and i'm the co-owner of a property management company in san francisco. i want to thank everyone on both sides for their comments and for the board of supervisors to stay to hear the comments. i have been a residence of bay area and we manage 1,500 properties across the bay area and including 200 in san francisco. our owners have one or two properties and many are first-time landlords. this legislation is really just addressing a symptom and not the root cause of the issue. it's true that these are indeed

dire times and 100,000 people are out of work in san francisco. but through the pandemic we have maintained at least a 90% rent collection rate. for those residents financially impacted with covid we have went to rent dedeferment programs and many have reached out how to help. there's zero evictions pending. people are working together and the resounding thing that we hear from our owners and those that have spoken today is how can we help our tenants so they stay in their home. because they need that income. in june we had 85% of tenants renew their leases in a time of year that usually only sees 30% renewals. small-time owners represent the majority of the landlords in san francisco and this legislation adds further stress on the landlord/tenant relationship and it creates barriers for small-time owners to own and operate properties in san francisco. so i call upon the board of

supervisors to at least consider small property owners in the legislation. these owners are a critical part of our community and the economy. they're not monsters. they are our neighbors, our community. 70% of our owners live within 10 miles of their properties and they're an essential piece of the economic machine and many community services, residents, providers, rely on the income downstream. and, you know, i think that this is really just not addressing the root cause of the issue. and the legislation should be targeted more towards employment and helping people to get back on their feet. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operator, do we have any other callers in the queue? >> chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. and public comment is now closed. thank you to all of the members of the public who have been with us since 1:30 this afternoon

commenting on this first four items. in item number one. and i believe that supervisor safai indicated that he had some questions for mr. collins prior to the opening of public comment. supervisor safai, the floor is yours. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. actually i didn't really have any questions for mr. collins. i just said that i'd hold my comments until after public comment. so, please -- i'm going to just jump in and give my comments if that's okay. >> supervisor peskin: please. >> supervisor safai: i want to say that i appreciate all of the people that came out today. i know that this was an unusually long hearing but i think there's a lot of passion on both sides of the aisle. on both sides of the debate. and on both sides of the conversation. this is not an easy conversation to have right now. i think there's a lot of anxiety from both tenants and from

landlords, particularly small property owners. and i think that there's a lot of confusion too. the emails that i've gotten from people had a lot of misinformation. and some of that misinformation included that people would just be living for free and just choosing not to pay rent. i had some really good conversations with mr. zachs and i know that he represents the apartment association. i had good conversations with those representing tenants. and i think that the burden of proof in a situation of claiming a hardship will still be on the tenant. someone is not going to just be able to walk in and say, that's it, i don't feel like paying rent. let's be really clear -- if they did that, they're jeopardizing their credit. they're jeopardizing being taken to court for breach of contract. so let's also be clear that the governor and the mayor of our

city have been very clear about the requirement to not evict anyone during this pandemic. this is a real pandemic. i would never vilify a landlord, particularly a small property owner. my colleague on the board here, chair peskin, is a small property owner. he is a landlord. he has multiple tenants. we have other people on this body that have multiple tenants. i am currently a tenant. and i -- but i have also owned property. and that's okay to have those honest conversations. i think that what's going to happen in most situations is what i've heard from most responsible people is that payment plans will get worked out. and in the cases where someone has really lost their job and really able to produce documents, they will do that.

and for anyone that tries to take advantage of the situation and mr. zachs admitted this when i had a conversation with him, they will be taken to court. and they will be taken to court for breach of contract. and they will jep die jeopardizg their credit ruined if by some chance they're not able to produce. and they were someone that was trying to take advantage. i also understand people that have called and said that they put their entire life savings into these properties and they're worried that they may not have the ability to keep their mortgage going. and so that's a real concern. that's why as supervisors stated that we talked months ago about the need to create a fund that would support both landlords that need it and tenants that might need some assistance. los angeles put $100 million of their recovery money into this. we have put the majority of our recovery money into dealing with

this pandemic and this homeless crisis that we have in our city. there will be another round of money coming from the federal government. and i am committed, i support the amendment that was made here, but i am committed to ensuring and working with our mayor and working with the leadership on this board that there is a robust fund to ensure that landlords can tap into this money, particularly small property owners. and tenants that need it. but let's be clear also that the governor extended the non-eviction until the end of july. the courts have stated that they will not process any evictions for an additional 90 days until after the end of the emergency order. so what we're talking about is there's going to be an extended period of time when no evictions will be happening, with or without this legislation. this legislation is coming forward to say when the emergency order is over and our

crisis is over and we move back to a more stable economy and the emergency order is removed, that people can't be evicted for the non-payment of rent during the time that this emergency order was in place. as stated by supervisor preston. and that time i believe that most landlords -- most tenants will work out payment plans and will have the ability or a pa payment will be adjusted during this time. i think that is an appropriate solution that's going to happen. so we also have our give to s.f. fund. i know that funds have been given to that for housing security. i have made it clear to the administration and i made it clear to colleagues on the board that we need to prioritize ensuring that people can pay their rent and that landlords can get access to money during this time. there's a small amount in there, $3 million or $4 million, but we have the ability to raise more and put more money in there.

and we have ability in the next round of stimulus money to have this fund. and so i appreciate the robust debate today. i really appreciate all of the people that called in. and so i think that it's time that we move this forward and i know that this is a hard conversation to have. but i thank everyone for their input today. thank you, chair. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, supervisor safai. i actually had a number of things that i want to say, i wanted to say, but in the interest of time i will associate myself with the comments that supervisor safai just made. which i thought that were pretty right on relative to what remedies still exist for landlords like myself, big or small. and with that, i'll turn it over to supervisor preston. we have the amendments that are before this committee that the committee needs to adopt.

so with that, supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair peskin. and i want to thank everyone, everyone who called in on both sides of this issue and also to the chair and to supervisor safai for -- for this hearing and for listening to folks, to everyone. and i want to also recognize for the clerk and our staff who make all of this possible, i appreciate the extended period of time here. and i also appreciate chair peskin that she didn't shorten public comment and when we have to have a lengthy comment that is sometimes appropriate. but i think that it's important for people to be heard on this. i think that as we can tell from some of 9 calls that the potential of, viblghtio evictioe issue for everyone. the potential revenue issues. and the situation facing small property owners.

i think that folks needed to be heard and i appreciate you allowing us the time for that. i won't add much or comment much beyond -- but i did want to recognize that as one caller pointed out that right now the overwhelming majority -- close to 97% of tenants are paying their rent. and so this will -- there are certainly people who are not, who are in that 3% or by other estimates, you know, it can be 4% or 5%. but the reality right now is that even with an eviction moratorium that is temporary, that most tenants are continuing to pay their rent. they are working with landlords. and so, you know, there's nothing about this ordinance -- i just wanted to emphasize again that there's nothing about this ordinance that interferes with or prevents the payment plans from being worked out, that

forgives the debt. what it does is take evictions off the table which is absolutely essential right now for those who are unable to pay rent. so with that, i would like to make a motion, chair peskin, to refer the item as amended to the full board as a committee report with recommendation for consideration tomorrow. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, supervisor peskin and we have to vote on the amendments themselves. before we do that, let me also to add the following thing. that the words in this legislation are almost verbatim the words that were in a previous piece of legislation that i actually authored that went to the same committee and went to the full board and passed unanimously on two readings. and it is now law. as it relates to evictions and the use of unlawful detainers in

single residence occupancy hotels. so it would be really impossible for this supervisor to vote against legislation that is virtually identical to the exact legislation that i brought to this committee a few weeks ago. with that on the motion to adopt the amendments earlier offered by supervisor preston, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to amend the legislation as stated by supervisor peskin, supervisor preston? aye. preston, aye. supervisor safai? aye. safai, aye. supervisor peskin? peskin, aye. you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: and now we take up the second motion to send the item as amended with recommendation as a committee report to the full board of supervisors for hearing tomorrow, june 9, 2020. on that motion a roll call

please, madam clerk. >> clerk: on the motion as stated, supervisor preston? aye. preston, aye. supervisor safai. safai, aye. supervisor peskin. peskin, aye. >> supervisor peskin: the item is approved. subjecsent with recommendation a committee report. next item, please. >> clerk: item 2 a resolution to approve the first amendment to the freeway maintenance agreement between the city and county of california and the department of transportation to include the city's maintenance of bicycle lanes and paths and cycle tracks along alemany blfl at the freeway interchange at state routes 101 and 280. members who wish to provide comment should call 1-415-655-0001, the access code is 415, 483, 6716 and press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, press

star, 3, to line up to speak. if you're on hold, please do not press star 3, and continue to hold. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. any public comment on this item number 2? clerk: mr. chair, operations are checking to see if there's callers in queue. >> clerk: you have callers in the queue. >> caller: my name is paula and i have owned two buildings -- >> i'm sorry, ma'am. this is about a caltrans, this is a freeway maintenance agreement and this is not item number 1. this is about the freeway maintenance agreement with

caltrans. >> caller: that's too bad because i have been waiting for five hours and 48 minutes. that's really a shame. i would like to speak. >> i am very sorry. i am very sorry. we waited for the last public comment. i apologize. next speaker, please. >> caller: i have been sitting on this call since -- >> clerk: hello, caller, you have two minutes to speak. this is item number 2 about the freeway maintenance agreement. >> caller: i meant to call for the first item. and i am against the ordinance. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> caller: (indiscernible). >> clerk: hello, caller. you have two minutes to speak.

>> next speaker, please. this is the freeway maintenance agreement with caltrans at alemany boulevard. >> clerk: next caller, please. >> thank you, chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: seeing no other members of the public for comment on item 2, public comment is now closed. supervisors preston and safai, do you have any questions or comments about this quite straightforward freeway maintenance agreement? if so i'll call on mr. spitz or mr. laske. if not, one of you can make a motion to send this item with recommendation as a committee report to the full board of supervisors. >> supervisor, i have one small

amendment. >> supervisor peskin: okay. and that would be -- who is that? >> jeremy spitz, public works. >> supervisor peskin: mr. spitz, this is the first that i have heard about it. but tell us what the amendment is. >> i'm sorry, supervisor, i emailed it last week. >> supervisor peskin: no, we have probably in the last 48 hours, each of us received -- i would say -- colleagues challenge me if i say at least 2,000 emails each. >> so problem. page 1 and it's to remove a blank for the caltrains encroachment -- >> supervisor peskin: okay. so to say under state encroachment permit number and remove the blank? >> under a state encroachment permit. >> supervisor peskin: so insert a -- >> um-hmm. >> supervisor peskin: and then delete permit number and the blank and keep the semicolon and the "and."

>> correct. and the clerk has a calm o copye amendment as well. >> supervisor peskin: okay, when will you make that future state encroachment permit that is not named or numbered a part of the file? >> i think that we -- and matt can jump in if we're wrong, we should get it within a week or two. >> supervisor peskin: madam deputy city attorney jepson, should we say which shall be incorporated subsequently. miss jenson? >> yes. i'm sorry, my camera doesn't want to turn on. >> supervisor peskin: don't worry. >> but my microphone will. >> supervisor peskin: all we need is your brain and your voice. >> well, you have both of those. >> supervisor peskin: do you think that that is worthwhile language? >> yes, i think that works perfectly. >> supervisor peskin: okay. all right, well, then i will

make that motion to include to strike the permit number blank and insert the word "a" under a state encroachment permit. and then add the language that i just mentioned which was -- which permit shall be made a part of the file by -- you can write it between now and tomorrow, kristen, when it goes to the full board. >> yes, that's fine. >> supervisor peskin: i mean madam city attorney jenson. so i make that motion and a roll call please, madam clerk. >> clerk: on the motion to amend as stated supervisor preston. aye. preston, aye. supervisor safai. aye. safai, aye.

supervisor peskin. aye. we have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: and on the motion as amended we will send it as a committee report to the full board of supervisors with recommendation on that item. a roll call please. clerk: for the motion, supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> clerk: preston, aye. supervisor safai. safai, aye. supervisor peskin. aye. peskin aye. you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: next item please. >> clerk: item 3 is a resolution to adopt the hazards and climate resilience plan as the san francisco's update to the 2014 local hazard mittgation plan. the members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. and the code is 1454836716. and press pound and pound again.

if you would like to be added to the queue to speak press star, 3, if you have already pressed star, 3, continue to hold and we will get to your public comment. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: any public comment on item number 3? we'll open up the public comme comment. >> clerk: operations, are there any callers in the queue? >> mr. chair, there are no callers to wish to speak. >> supervisor peskin: public comment is now closed. and given the late hour let me commend to you colleagues and to members of the public this really incredible piece of work by the city administrator's office. and the department of emergency management in collaboration with a number of departments. let me thank our chief resiliency officer brian strong. this is nothing short of a horror story that ranges from earthquakes to tsunamis to

hazardous materials to, yes, even pandemics, droughts, wildfires, urban fires and climate change, air quality, heat waves and i'm only naming a few, but more importantly it talks about our capacity and our strategies and it really is a brilliant piece of work. mr. strong, if you would like to -- or miss mary ellen carol or miss kelly, if you would like to add to that in a handful of words, please do so. >> yes, thank you very much, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: or miss johnston there too. i see miss johnston there. her camera was pointed to the ceiling for the entire meeting for the last five hours. go ahead, mr. strong. >> i'm happy to defer to miss johnston who is going to kick us

off, but i think that we will be very judicious given the day that you guys have had so far. >> supervisor peskin: i've got 36 minutes to get to the store for dinner because they shut everything down at 8:00. so go ahead. >> i will make this quick, thank you chair peskin and safai and preston. there's not much that i can add to that remark from chair peskin. i apologize, i am trying to conquer my (indiscernible) tendencies, but with respect to the plan itself, i would request on behalf of the city administrator kelly and the director mary ellen carol and the resilience officer brian strong approval or recommendation on a recommendation to approve the hazard and climate resilience plan which is comprehensive update for 2014 local hazard miltgation plan. i think that --

>> supervisor peskin: i did actually did read it. i actually did read it and i really like that picture of those people on the side of telegraph hill. but, go ahead. >> i want to highlight that this is impartial with some of our local state and federal requirements. and it really is focused on -- it demonstrates our support of creating a support of resilience and for our infrastructure and our communities and the face of increasing hazards and climate dangers. this is as you know much more comprehensive than the last plan and in that equity was a key principle and guiding principle in the development plan. which also meant that we involved more stakeholders with the department of public hit and the community organizations and representatives of our most vulnerable populations. with that i'll keep it short because i know that it's a late evening and you have 36 minutes now so i'll go ahead and defer

to brian strong and director carol for responses. >> director carol, did you want to say a couple words because you were instrumental in this effort? >> yeah, thank you. and thank you, supervisors. i will be brief. so that the supervisor can get his dinner. but i do want to thank brian and team and the city administrator's office for their leadership in taking this over. this is the first time that we've done these two documents together. and so, you know, we -- in addition it carries forward a lot of work that is already ongoing and the seismic safety plan, the hazard mitigation plan from 2014. the sea rise level plan and other efforts. and it really gives us a kind of a bunch of strategies to move

forward. and i will say that we need this so that we can get federal reimbursements in the case that we experience an emergency. it just so happens that we're in one right now and we spend a lot of money that we hope to recoup. so it is -- the reason that we all waited patiently for almost six hours for the opportunity to present this to you today. it is very important that we move it forward in a timely manner. and i could say that if we weren't in the disaster that we're in and if it wasn't so late i would talk a lot more about climate adaptation which is part of this. before the current pandemic situation that we are in really the last two years that i have been in my position it's been climate adaptation management that we have been dealing with non-stop. and i fully expect that will be another layer to our ongoing response over the summer and

into the fall on top of all of the other things that we're dealing with. so put your seatbelts on for that. finally, i do want to, you know, my final comment is just about the equity component and also the focus on vulnerable populations. if we've learned nothing else over the last three months, we have learned that our assumptions were correct and our focus is >> -- and our focus is righteous on the most vulnerable and on equity because that is where we see the most impacts on these -- of these disasters, and certainly, what we've been experiencing under the situation of this pandemic, so i just want to thank all the effort that went into it. we'll continue to do our work. we still have -- really, there was a lot of work that went into this, but this is a workbook. this was set of -- sorti of

setting us for the record of wh -- forward of what we need to do. we could have an earthquake at any time. and climate adaptation management is going to continue to be a challenge for us no matter what else is going on. so i just want to thank everyone and, you know, appreciate your support of the work moving forward. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss carroll, and i really didn't want to give this short shrift, but i want to acknowledge the incredible work that's been done in the last six years since the previous plan was adopted, and i really do commend this to my colleagues and members of the public. this is a plan that we're going to work with and evolve over the years ahead, not just to keep fema happy for reimbursements, but it is about resiliency as we experienced as

unprecedented heat wave in 2017, as we are experiencing sea level rise as the voters in san francisco pass a $425 million seawall bond, so -- and all of that and more is set forth in the report, and it really is a sign of a sophisticated city, that we are looking at all those potential threats, figuring out our long-term strategies so that san francisco is viable for another 100 years. mr. strong, anything you would like to add, sir? >> yeah, no, just thank you for the comments. i think you were saying it better than i could. just to add -- and we have a presentation that we could submit for the record. we don't have to go over it. i would just say this is a real collaborative event -- collaborative effort. we had 25 departments that participated.

lisa higby is on the line with me, lisa fisher is here from planning, as well, and public health, they couldn't be here today because of other circumstances, but they were also really great partners, and this sort of human side was a real first in doing this. we considered people as an asset. we were looking at how hazards and vulnerabilities would affect people and communities and this plan would reflect that. we also have created a dashboard where you can go on-line, and you can look at the 98 different strategies, and you can sort them whether it's by community resilience, infrastructure resilient -- resilient infrastructure or resilient buildings, you can look at it by department, you with look at the type -- you can look at it by the type of activities that governments are doing.

we spent time with organizations that represent vulnerable communities in san francisco and stakeholders. a lot of what we heard was a desire for communities to have all this information. they don't expect us to have all the answers, but they want to have this information. they want to be aware of the types of hazards that they're facing, and certainly, they want to make sure that the city is doing something about this, as well, so certainly, this is the first step in making a more resilie resilient san francisco. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. strong. this document has knitted all sorts of things that have been out there for a long time. the climate stratly actually started evolving in the 1990's through the department of the environment.

the tall building initiative which lived for a while and was actually put on the shelf -- i think i can blame mayor brown for that but actually came off the shelf from mayorly, and got a lot of attention after the millennium tower started sinking and tilting. as you can tell, this is the kind of stuff that i really like and get into, and i've obviously really sunk my teeth into. i apologize that we don't have time to do the slide deck, but this is work that is going very fully noticed by this supervisor and hopefully the public and other members of this committee and the board of supervisors. with that, supervisors preston or safai, any comments or questions? seeing none, supervisor preston, would you like to make

a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendation? >> supervisor preston: so moved. >> chair peskin: on that item, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as moved by supervisor preston -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: okay. the motion passes. thank you for your participation and sorry for your presentations trunkated. madam clerk, can you call item 4? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide

comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. enter the access code, and press pound, and pound again. please press star and then three to be added to the queue for item number 4. >> chair peskin: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, jesus -- i mean, thank you, supervisor peskin, for calling the item. i was trying to sneak before you, but supervisor preston, you owe me dinner on another day. i'm excited to speak in support of the recommendation for the historic preservation of the royal baking. many consider the building a

remnant of a strong italian heritage, tracing its roots back to the 30s, when the sorrento macaroni factory moved in. although the times have changed, the strong community remains. the original founders of the royal baking company -- and i met the individual that married into the family, i gave him a certificate, the gentleman. he turned 100 years old last spring, and so it's our board of supervisors commendation right next to a commendation from the fopope, from the vatican. and i man did not look like he was -- the man did you look like he was over the age of 70. as a matter of fact, he says, my son lives down stairs. i said, how old is your son? he said he's 75.

the royal baking company, supervisor, has its roots in your district, and it moved to the excelsior in the 70s, and so we're super excited. we don't often have the opportunity to landmark buildings. this is a beautiful example of art deco, and we're excited to have this before us today. just as a side note, the building did go up for sale recently, and we were able to get into the disclosures prior to -- prior to the sale that this process was moving forward, so anyone that was going to buy this property would know that we were proceeding with this without prejudice, and whoever would buy the property would have the idea that we thought that this was an important part. and then finally, we believe that the royal baking company -- we want to give them legacy status, and we're moving

forward on that process, as well. so we certainly hope that you would support this. there's only currently three historic sites in district 11, and i'd be honored for the royal baking company to be the fourth. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor safai, and i was very pleased to be a cosponsor precisely because of the link between the communities of north beach and excelsior that are very nicely set forth in the case report, which is worth reading. is there anybody who wants to make a brief presentation from the department of city planning? ms. mcmillan mr. sucre, or mr. starr? >> i would like to make a brief

presentation. >> chair peskin: ms. mcmillan, please proceed. >> the building is located on mission street in the excelsior neighborhood, and the h.p.c. unanimously voted to support designation on may 6, 2020. the royal baking company building is significant for its relationship with the italian american community, and it's significant for its association with san francisco's important 20th century macaroni and bread pakking city. the period of significance for the building is 1935, and this is encompassed in the building's construction. the date also reflects the establishment of both the

sorren sorre sorrento macaroni company and the breed baking industry. h.p.c. recommends landmark designation. that concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you so much, ms. mcmillan. if there's no comments on this item, why don't we see if there's any public comment on item number 4. >> clerk: mr. chair, operations is checking to see if there's any callers in the queue. >> operator: yes, i have one caller in the queue. >> chair peskin: please proceed. thank you. >> hello. i wanted to say thank you -- >> chair peskin: i'm sorry, ma'am. that was item number 1 on the calendar. this is item number 4, landmark designation, so i'm sorry, but

public comment on item number 1 is closed. are there any other speakers on item number 4? >> operator: mr. chair, that completes the queue. >> chair peskin: public comment is now closed. supervisor safai, would you like to make a motion to send this item with positive recommendation to the full board? >> supervisor safai: what you just said. >> chair peskin: roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated by supervisor peskin -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: okay. the motion passes, and the land use committee is adjourned, and i've got 18 minutes to get dinner. >> supervisor safai: me, too. >> good luck. >> chair peskin: okay. good night, everybody.

good morning, everyone. welcome to the june 15th, 2020, meeting of the rules committee. i am supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. with me on the video conference is rules committee vice chair supervisor catherine stefani and rules committee member supervisor gordon mar. our clerk today is victor young. and i'd like to thank sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. my apologies. due to the covid-19 health emergency, and to protect board members, city employees and the public, the board of s