Skip to main content

tv   BOS Land Use Committee  SFGTV  October 3, 2020 7:00am-7:31am PDT

7:00 am
[gavel]. >> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors, joined by acting vice chair dean preston,
7:01 am
soon to be joined by actual vice chair ahsha safai. our clerk is miss erica major. miss major, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. in accordance with governor newsom executive order declaring a state of emergency starting the covid-19 outbreak and mayor london n. breed's proclamation declaring a local emergency issued on february 25, 2020, including the guidance for gatherings issued by the san francisco department of public health center,
7:02 am
members of t officer, aggressive directives were issued to reduce the spread of covid-19. on march 17, 2020, the board of supervisors authorized their bhoord and committee meetings to convene remotely and will allow remote public comment via teleconference. watch the sfgovtv website at to stream the live meeting or to watch meetings on demand. members of the public are encouraged to participate remotely via detailed instructions on participating via teleconference.
7:03 am
members of the public may participate by phone or may submit their comments by e-mail to all comments received will be made a part of the official report. >> chair peskin: thank you. would you please read items 1 and 2 today. >> clerk: item 1 is ordinance amending the administration code to establish the social housing program fund for the acquisition, creation, and operation of affordable social housing developments, and item 2 is an ordinance amending the administration code to establish the covid-19 rent resolution and relief fund, to
7:04 am
provide financial support to landlords whose tenants have been unable to pay rent due to the covid-19 pandemic. members of the public wishing to make public comment may call the phone number streaming across your screen and enter the meeting code. >> chair peskin: thank you. and it is my understanding that supervisor preston would like to continue these items one week. >> supervisor preston: yes. >> chair peskin: okay. and we've been joined by the actual vice chair, supervisor safai, so supervisor preston, you' you're demoted to member of this committee at this point. so just so that we are clear, the agenda next week is
7:05 am
remarkably long, so i would ask your indulgence, supervisor preston, either to continue this to the call of the chair, or if anything falls off of the next agenda, we could get it on or alternatively, i could schedule it for the meeting in two weeks. but we've got a super hairy, five-hour -- probably four-to-five-hour agenda next week. so what is your will, sir? >> supervisor preston: well, so my concern is -- we will be introducing amendments next week which will require further hearing. we are trying to move the funding from the upcoming ballot measure, so i -- you know, our hope through the
7:06 am
meetings that we're having with stakeholders is that we are hammering out issues before next week, but it would be our hope not to have a marathon meeting on monday, but i would say we are sensitive to the timing on this. >> chair peskin: and thank you for your sensitivity to that. it sounds like you're going to be introducing amendments that are substantive that would require a continuance. to the extent that proponents of these items could comment once it comes to the committee for a full consideration, cosoe can make next monday's calendar as efficient as possible given the number of items that we
7:07 am
have, let's continue it to next week for that. let's open it up for public comment. >> clerk: yes. >> i don't know why you have to put social in front of everything, but i think public sounds better. i yield the rest of my time. >> chair peskin: hello. next speaker, please. >> hello. this is anastas
7:08 am
anastasia iovannopoulos, district 8 resident. thank you for continuing this for letting us look at them and moving them inform a future meeting where they'll -- them to a future meeting where they'll be voted on. >> chair peskin: is there any further comment on item 1 and 2? >> clerk: that concludes the comment. >> chair peskin: if there's knox, supervisor preston would like to continue these items for one week. that motion made by myself, the chair. a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated --
7:09 am
[roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item 3 is a resolution supporting california state proposition 21, keep families in their homed on november 3, 2020 ballot. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on item number 3 should call the number streaming on the screen. that's 415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. 146-956-9029. press pound, and pound again, and press star, three to enter the queue. please wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted
7:10 am
and provide public comment. . >> chair peskin: thank you. this item has been sponsored by supervisor ronen and cosponsored by supervisors preston, haney, walton, and myself. is there a representative from supervisor ronen's office? >> [inaudible]. >> supervisor safai: i can't hear anything she's saying. >> oh, no. how is this? >> chair peskin: much better. >> thank you for allowing me to speak today. this item is a resolution supporting california state proposition 21, keep families
7:11 am
in their homes, on the november 3 ballot. prop 21, when passed, will significantly amend the california civil code section now known as the costa hawkins rental act and rename it to the rental affordability act. specifically, what it would do is allow local governments to adopt local rent ordinances with exceptions for housing and condos owned by natural persons to own no more than two single-family units, and it would allow local governments to prohibit landlords from proposing more than 15% rent
7:12 am
increases in one year in the city. while anecdotally, there are stories of rents dropping due to covid, the rents are still out of reach for many. a minimum wage employee would have to work 57 hours a week to cover average rent if they didn't spend a single penny on food or anything else. 44% of san franciscans are still spending more than 30% of their income on their rent, with a disproportionate amount of those being african americans.
7:13 am
[inaudible] >> it has distorted our housing market into becoming just another commodity for corporate speculators [inaudible] long-term commitment and investment. two years ago, this board formally endorsed proposition 10 through resolution offered by supervisor pesk kin. prop 10 was disputed statewide after some of the nation's largest rental corporations spent $60 million on a cynical and misleading ad campaign, but a majority of san franciscans voted in favor. the california secretary of state website reports that the california apartment association has already poured nearly $28 million into the californians for responsible housing measure. the measure is a balanced
7:14 am
approach to allow cities the flexibility to consider local community housing needs and legislate appropriate protections. on behalf of supervisor ronen i ask you to support today to move it forward a committee report. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss bynard, for a thorough presentation. >> supervisor preston: i would just like to thank miss bynard for bringing this forward, and the resolution in support of then-proposition 10. i think it's really -- i just want to add, you know, it's very important that folks understand, when we're dealing with these state measures, is all we're seeking to do is takeoff the handcuffs that are, right now, on our city when it
7:15 am
comes to addressing rising rents and a history of gentrification. whether it's the ellis act, costa hawkins act, things were created because of real estate special interests and significantly restrict us as policy makers in the city and county of san francisco to extend protections to folks who are struggling. so we've seen that balance in the state and power give a little bit in the context of the pandemic, where we had seen the state government willing to give us a little more power. san francisco peskin, you led on the commercial eviction protections, where the governor said in the pandemic, that as a city, we could do more than what we would be otherwise
7:16 am
allowed to do. but i think this prop, proposition 21, really gets at the heart of not just what's going on in the pandemic, but beyond. are we going to be able to protect folks from high-rent evictions or not? and will we have the choice? and right now, that choice is made by the renters association and the state government, and this would return the power to us so we can craft some protections. it's narrow in scope, as miss bynard pointed out, as there were fewer things that were controversial than in the former version. i just want to say i fully
7:17 am
support this. i also hope the entire board sends a unanimous and strong message that we as a city are behind prop 21, and it will give us power to address those things. it does not dictate how we will address those powers. you can bet that ensuring protections for renters in san francisco will have to come back through this committee with a full opportunity at public comment before those changes can be made. >> chair peskin: thank you for those comments, supervisor preston. supervisor safai, anything that you would like to add? >> supervisor safai: yeah. can we have a conversation at what happened at the state level and in that conversation? i think assembly man david chiu
7:18 am
did something. and i think it would be good to get on the record the differences put out -- there's a little conversation put out, but what's different between previously and this time. the ballot went down in large part because there was a lack of understanding of how, talking about bringing rent control to single-family homes and how that played into a statewide conversation. i think that's removed this time, for sure. supervisor preston talked a little bit about smaller property owners, but i think it would be good to get some of the main differences on the record and what was talked about at the state level. i know that the governor signed the ability to control rent statewide, but i'm sure that for many places, that's still not enough in people's minds,
7:19 am
so i just wanted to get that on the record, as well. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor safai. before i turn it over to supervisor ronen's aide, miss bynard, let me offer a few things. it gets into the state exemption over what has historically before the purview over local governments such as our own, and costa hawkins significantly changed that, and we've been struggling with that for a long time. what is profoundly frustrating about this is prop 10 did not need to be on the ballot, and prop 21 did not need to be on the ballots. had the democratic assemblies not taken the steps to return these conversations to local governments -- because what's happening in san francisco is
7:20 am
very different than what's going on in fresno, and we all have to wrestle with that on a local level. this has been a profound failure by the state legislature because it is under so much pressure from lobbying. even though we are still under democrat super majorities in both houses, they are still under pressure from the statewide rental industry. yes, prop 10 did not succeed. prop 21 has made some adjustments. i want to express some profound disappointment in the democratic majorities in both houses that have failed to actually made modifications to costa hawkins, which was enacted by the state ledge lay
7:21 am
tou -- legislature, and they can amend to return power to the cities, if they want. with that, if you would like to respond, miss bynard, to supervisor safai's questions, the floor is yours. >> i think the two that he brought up about the two described, those are already in the records. with record to assembly man chiu's a.b. 1482, a.b. 1482 limits the state increase in rent to inflation plus 5%, which is quite high. it's great for places that have none -- have no rent control, but it's very high, and it's very high controlled with san francisco's rent control ordinance, so the potential, again, as supervisor preston was mentioning, what -- what
7:22 am
the passage of prop 21 would do would be to allow this back to the local legislation process -- legislative process, and for this city and this board of supervisors to be looking at what's appropriate for this city and the rental market here, and not to defer to, you know, what has been kind of a safety valve for places that have no rent control but really is not the solution for san francisco. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss bynard. why don't we open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we have six listeners, with five in queue. if you can queue in the first caller? >> yes. i'm, quite frankly, appalled by
7:23 am
this resolution. the board of supervisors, in my opinion, has no place here. if you want to support something on the ballot, go out and vote for it on november 3. you know, chair peskin was complaining -- not complaining, but pointing out that next week's meeting is going to be, what, like five hours? don't waste your time on resolutions that do absolutely nothing. you say that san francisco supports this? you will see that on november 3. this is disgusting. i yield the rest of my time. thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker, please. i will not even waste my breath responding to that. thank you. >> this is theresa flandrick, senior and disability action.
7:24 am
i am calling in support of this resolution. we did vote on prop 10, and the majority of san franciscans did want and need this back then and need it even more so today. again, having local control so that we can do what we need for our residents, for our city, just as other cities should have that same right. so i hope that all supervisors will support this unanimously? it is about time, so thank you so much for bringing this forward. the champions of actually taking care of san franciscans as well as the small property owners who are also san franciscans, i really like that that is part of this ordinanc,. so thank you again. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, chair peskin, vice
7:25 am
chair safai, and supervisor preston. this is jeremy shaw, d-5. i think this is a modest compromise solution to afford some rent control. as an aside, this title of this resolution is supporting keeping families in their home. i'd like to point out that the chair has to the -- committee has to the call of the chair resolution [inaudible] and i would like to urge that you take that matter back up. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, this is lorraine petty. [inaudible] i'm calling in support of this very important resolution. i'm in support of [inaudible] keeping families in their
7:26 am
homes. i think this is a fair and measured proposition. this extends to local jurisdicti jurisdictions the ability to craft protections and improve current protections for tenants. [inaudible] and in other loc e localities [inaudible] wildfires, lost incomes, the racial and social injustice, and particularly the effects of the rampant speculation and dislocation. prop 21 goes a long way towards [inaudible] i'd also make a nod to the brilliant legal minds of
7:27 am
[inaudible] thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. this is anastasia ionnapoulos. i'd like to ask every one of you to support this resolution. we need this throughout the state. this is fair to do to property owners, and i think the only people that are opposed to it are the big money people. thank you for introducing this resolution. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on item number 3? >> clerk: that concludes the queue, sir. >> chair peskin: seeing no other members of the public for public comment, public comment is closed, and i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with
7:28 am
recommendation as a committee report for hearing tomorrow. on that item, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> chair peskin: all right. the item has been sent with recommendation as a committee report. is there any more business before this committee? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> chair peskin: we are adjourned. [gavel]
7:29 am
7:30 am
good morning, and welcome to the september 29, 2020 meeting of the vision zero committee. i am commissioner norman yee and i will be chairing today's meeting. i'm joined by vice chair commissioner stefani and commissioner peskin. the committee clerk is britney milton. and will you please call the role? >> yes, c