>> welcome to the february #, 2021 meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of

supervisors. i'm supervisor myrna melgar, joined by vice chair preston and supervisor peskin. the clerk is erica major. and i would like to acknowledge sfgov-tv, thank you for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, due to the covid-19 health emergency, and to protect the board members and the employees and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will participate remotely. this precaution is taken to the stay-at-home order and declarations and directives. the committee members will attend through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if physically present. public comment will -- [broken audio] and sfgov-tv.org are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker is allowed two minutes to speak.

comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period and are available view phone by calling the number 1-(415)-655-0001. again, that number is 1-(415)-655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 146 646 6079 again, 146 646 6079. and then press pound and pound again. when connecting you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be in mute and listening mode only. when your interest item comes up press star, 3, to be add to the speaker line. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your radio or tv. and you can submit by emailing myself eicca.org... and if you submit public comment via email

it's forwarded to the supervisors and made part of the official file. written comments may be submitted via u.s. postal service to city hall 1 doctor carl goodlet place, san francisco, california, 94102. and finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisor's agenda of february 9th, unless otherwise stated. madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. please call the first item. >> clerk: yes. item 1 is an emergency ordinance to restrict landlords from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent due to the covid-19 pandemic. to provide comment call the number on the screen, 1-(415)-655-0001. and the meeting i.d. is 146 646 6079. and then press pound and pound

again. if you have not done so already, dial star, and then three to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. madam chair? >> supervisor moliga: , supervisor preston will you provide your remarks? >> supervisor preston: thank you for getting this on the calendar and this was an emergency ordinance and very time sensitive when introduced. i would like to do -- to address it and i will be making a motion after remarks to continue the item to the call of the chair. before today, madam chair, and the emergency ordinance to extend the eviction protections for non-payment of rent due to covid-related financial hardships. we introduced this item on january 19th, i was at the request of the tenant advocate

community, who are expressing that the renters that were impacted and the folks they were counselling, were understandably terrified that the existing protections that were laid out under the state bill a.b.-38 were to expire on january 31st. yesterday, and although there were ongoing discussions of extending the state-wide protections there was a palpable fear that that would not materialize before the february rent and months of back rent became due. and so in response we have introduced this emergency ordinance which sought to extend by 60 days the local eviction protections that we currently have in place in san francisco to cover rent starting february 1st. then on monday last week, we learned about the new proposal sb-11, the state level, that would extend the state-wide eviction law through june of this year.

as well as create a program for rent relief. this bill was unveiled really at the last minute, negotiated primarily between the governor and leadership of the senate and the assembly without tenant advocates participating to a large extent, as far as i know, without a lot of input even from our s.f. san francisco legislators and delegation in the capitol. this was a leadership deal, left no time for amendments, no real opportunity for public input. no hearing such as this for the public to call in and to be heard. it was passed on thursday last week and then signed into law by the governor on friday. this news i greet with mixed feelings. in an immediate sense, the state bill provides some peace of mind for impacted tenants that are worried about what would happen today on february 1st, when so

many folks had their rent come due. so there's a five-month window before evictions are allowed to move forward and that is certainly very important and good news, particularly in parts of the state that don't have a city council or a board of supervisors that has been passing protections against evictions where these state protections are the only protections that exist at all. so given the proposed 60-day effective period of the emergency legislation that's here before us in committee, and given the length and the timing of the state-wide extension provided by sb-91, and given the state preemption -- and i will address this a bit more in a minute -- but the state preemption of any further covid non-payment protections locally, i don't believe that our legislation needs to move

forward today and as such as i have mentioned we'll make a motion to continue it to the call of the chair. before i do make that motion, i just wanted to share some additional thoughts on these developments and, obviously, things have been moving quickly with good news and bad news across the board here. but, you know, i think that broadly speaking, it is a positive step for the state to step in with a proposal to have protections and rent relief in california. but i see three real problems here. one is the limited nature of what was passed. and the second was how it was done. and the third is the actions by the state in tying the hands of local government. so from the first point, what was done here is just not enough and it does not meet the needs of the moment. the state has the power to issue a complete and comprehensive

eviction moratorium. the governor's press releases since early in the pandemic continue to inaccurately to portray his actions as if there is a broad eviction moratorium in place in california. and the problem is that the reality hasn't really matched up with those public statements. the governor has not and apparently will not issue a true eviction moratorium, nor has the legislature in california stepped up to pass that kind of true protection for folks who are struggling during this pandemic. as for the rent relief part of the program, that program is voluntary. it will do some good in some cases but for most vulnerable tenants, the bill will leave them on the hook for 75% of their rent. better than being on the hook for 100% of their rent. but it's not relief and the state needs to step up in a more

robust and bold way. second from my discussions with state-wide advowicates and i alluded to this earlier, the -- the tenant advocates were completely shut out of this process, despite months of dedicated organizing. and to wait to the last minute and then fast track such important policy decisions, to do that without the folks who represent those most vulnerable and have expertise on evictions, who for months have been demanding to be heard in this process, i think that it's a textbook way to make poor public policy. and i think it shows in the resulting policy, which will leave most tenants vulnerable and in growing and massive debt. and, third, and perhaps worst of all, the initial reading of sb-91 indicates that efforts to provide stronger local protections will be preempted by

the new bill. so even if after recognizing these potential shortcomings in the state law, san francisco wanted to pursue additional stronger local anti-displacement measures to protect tenants who are unable to pay rent because of covid, it appears that our hands have to some extent been tied by state. and i just want to say because we become a little numb to what some of these words mean and we hear them all the time -- preset. ion and state versus local -- you know, it's really outrageous i think that the state government would be acting to stop localities like san francisco from going beyond what they're providing in state law when it comes to protecting our own residents. it is one thing for the state to set the floor of minimum protection. and we could criticize whether they went far enough. but they set a floor.

and to allow cities to add to that locally, that's what the states should have done. it's quite another for the state to create some protections, but then wrap up in those protections bans on local legislative bodies taking additional steps to protect their residents. and i strongly object to that. and really i would say to the governor and to the leadership in sacramento, shame on you for including any preemption provisions in a bill of this kind as we're all working -- i would hope all working -- to try to prevent displacement and alleviate rent debt that tenants are struggling under. the final thing, my office has also introduced legislation similar to what's on our agenda today that's not an emergency ordinance. it's a permanent amendment to the administrative code, a regular ordinance. and that will come before this

committee in the future and i do intend to -- to use that as a vehicle really to explore every opportunity to protect our most vulnerable tenants, including protections that extend out beyond the state preemption, which runs through june. so with that and just relative to the items before us today we would like to make a motion to continue the item to the call of the chair, thank you, chair melgar. >> chair melgar: thank you for your astute analysis and comments as always. supervisor peskin, did you have some comments of your own? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. i wholeheartedly associate myself with the comments that you just made. i am highly reluctant to score

any recall of any kind, but i do believe that this governor is completely out of touch. i am quite despondent that there was no communication with the cities like san francisco, and other similarly situated cities. this notion of preemption that i think that you did a remarkably good job of explaining, you said it just right. it should set minimum standards. this city, along with many others that has been fighting for repeal of the ellis act, which the real estate industry got their way with in sacramento, mostly folks like us get elected to local government to make the best and right decisions for our local population which in the case of san francisco even during covid remains a two-thirds renters'

town. and the fact that the state of california is using their powers to preempt the city and county of san francisco and other similarly situated governments is as you have said truly outrageous. having said that, i will support just as a function of what has happened relative to sb-91, the continuance of this matter but i stand with you. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. madam clerk, do we have any public comment? >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. we have two listeners and one in queue. and we have mr. koe assisting us today with the callers. so if you could please unmute the first caller. >> caller: hello committee, i

wanted to thank you for letting me speak and thank you madam chairperson. i'm justin goodman, an associate attorney with zachman and patterson and i'm here representing the san francisco apartment association and the small property owners of san francisco. what i wanted to share with the committee which, obviously, the committee is well aware, is california sb-91 was signed into law last friday and has immediate effect and we agree with the statements of supervisor preston that it supersede the local authority in this area. while you're speaking on this, we had particular concerns with -- i know this is an emergency ordinance, but like the rent increase moratorium it obviously could be extended and this was written in an open-ended language to allow further continuances, particularly with san francisco's smaller property owners. we thought that it was overbroad in including section 37.9, sub-b of the administrative code that

is an exemption on the provisions for owners who rent bedrooms out of their own apartments and we thought that impaired our small property owners' right of privacy. but in general this is something that needs state-wide attention and unfortunately has gotten it and we appreciate that sb-91 has sought relief for landlords which is something that is absent from our local regulations in this area. and, again, particularly with the small property owners, many would have had difficulty meeting their own costs, including mortgages with lenders now suggesting they need to pay or they'll be in default and lose not only their rent units but also their homes when they have not received rent for a year. so we appreciate that california has enacted what we perceive as a more balanced solution to this problem. and, certainly, there should be and can be more voices at the table in future legislation, but in the meantime we believe that this occupies the field and preserves section 11.7905 of the code of civil procedure that has

the supremacy of state law in this area and we urge the board, obviously, to understand what supervisor preston has pointed out in that for the time being that there's no local authority to act in this area. thank you very much for your time. >> and, madam chair -- >> chair melgar: thank you, mr. goodman. yes, supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: i'm not going to engage in a back and forth dialogue with the last speaker, but i will note for the record that in the early months of the pandemic, the san francisco apartment association repeatedly reported -- what is my personal experience as a small landlord in san francisco, that the vast majority of their tenants were paying 100 cents on the dollar. so we've seen less of those reports from the apartment association, but i believe that the comments of the last speaker are not actually supported by that. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin.

do we have any other public comments, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. can you confirm that there aren't any other callers? again, if you would like to be in the queue you would press star, 3, and you would see your number on our side and we can admit you. >> madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> chair melgar: great. so with that, public comment is now closed. and there is a motion on the floor. madam clerk, do you -- i'm sorry -- yes, vice chair -- >> sorry. i did want to comment briefly before we vote and just in light of the comment. you know, i just want to -- to make it clear that when -- when there is a reference by one of the leading eviction law firms in the city to go about the more

balanced approach taken in sacramento, what that means, i just want to be very clear and make sure that the public understands that i as someone who has spent quite a bit of time working in our state capitol on tenant rights issues, there is a dynamic in our state capital where our state legislature and our governor refuse to act on landlord/tenant matters to protect tenants unless they get consent of the landlords they are regulating. that is the dynamic in our state capital. where our san francisco board of supervisors is willing to adopt policies that protect tenants, even when at times those policies are opposed by landlords that we feel that it is our duty to do that and to prevent displacement and that occurs locally.

and that occurs in other city councils and board of supervisors in cities around the state. it rarely occurs in sacramento where the landlord industry is given a virtual veto power over tenant protection. so when we have a behind closed door deal and then we characterize that as if there were a balanced approach taken in sacramento, what is really meant is that what was adopted is fine with the landlords who approved it and who were at the table when tenant advocates were not. it's no way to make policy, we need bold leadership right now to address the issues that i know that you, chair melgar, and you supervisor peskin, have led on for years and years in san francisco. and it is a sad day when we see this kind of weak policymaking at the state level. and as i said though, the

problem is not that sacramento has not solved all of the problems with this bill. i don't think that any of us expected that. but for them to then tie our hands is inexcusable. we will find every way that we can to get around that, to pass the protections locally that we need to, and, frankly, to work with our state legislators and we have been in touch with assembly member chu who is continuing to work on his bill, which is not the bill here that passed, right. and he is continuing to work on his bill with tenant advocates to take effect when these current preemptive measures expire in june. so this is not the beginning of this conversation, not the end of this conversation. probably the middle of this conversation. but it's a very disappointing time for the state to come together to pass some protections, but then to use that as an opportunity to

actually stop cities and counties from protecting their residents. thank you. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor preston. madam clerk, supervisor preston made a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. would you please call roll. >> clerk: yes, on the motion as stated by supervisor preston [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> chair melgar: thank you. are there anymore items on our agenda? >> clerk: that completes the business for today. >> chair melgar: thank you so much, so we are adjourned. thank you.