silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. could you please call items 1 through 3 together. >> item number 1 is a resolution declaring the intent of the board to order the vacation of the sidewalk portion of streets on the south side of mission street to allow a structure upgrade of 301 mission street high-rise building known as the millennium tower and setting the hearing date sitting as a committee of the whole. item 2 is an ordinance ordering the vacation of sidewalk portions of streets on the south side of mission street to allow a structural upgrade to 301 mission street, high-rise building known as the millennium tower, rededicating the area to public use and adopt the appropriate findings. item 3 is a resolution approving and authorizing a trust exchange agreement with the california state lands commission that would remove the public trust from certain transbay streets and impress the public trust on certain fisherman's wharf street and adopting appropriate findings. >> thank you, ms. major. so obviously all three of these pieces of legislation have to do with the sinking, tilting millennium tower at 301 mission in addition to river a from public works and from the port, we have deputy city attorney john to answer any questions that we have. i believe that public works has a presentation. so mr. rivera, the floor is yores. >> good afternoon. from the department of public works. the department of building inspection has reviewed a proposed design to structurally upgrade the 301 mission street tower. it was determined that the structural upgrade will require infrastructure to be placed under what is currently public right of way along mission street and fremont street. this piece of legislation is really more of a legal exercise than a standard street vacation. when streets are typically vacated, the vacation area is removed from the public right of way and it becomes a city-owned parcel that can be retained by the city or conveyed to a third party. when the city retains ownership, the city has the ability to grant a lease or an easement over all or a portion of the vacated area. this street legislation or this legislation approves three phases. first, portions of mission street and fremont street will be vacated, starting from the sidewalk level down to a depth of approximately 300 feet. this will split off city-owned parcels below grade while keeping the above portion in the current street status as shown on the screen right here along mission street and fremont street. the second portion of this legislation will be an easement that will be granted from the city to the inner of 301 mission street over portions of the below-grade vacated street. the easement areas can be seen on the screen and on file on pages 2 and 3. each one, page two, shows mission street's easement area, and page three shows the fremont street portion of the vacation. finally, after the easement is recorded, the vacated property will be restored to public right of way with subject to the easement. the street vacation was processed as required by local and state law. no objections were received from the city agencies, public utility companies or private fronting property owners. it is important to note that this is a conditional street vacation, and it will not become effective until the board of bof supervisors has approved the following three items. first, the vacation area is currently right of way that is subject to the public trust doctrine. the public trust exchange legislation must be approved and effective. second, the settlement ordinance related to the 301 mission street litigation must be finalized and effective. this ordinance will be introduced at a later date to the board of supervisors. finally the board of supervisors must approve the easement for the structural elements in the vacation area. this legislation will also be introduced at a later date. if you have any questions concerning the vacation process, i'm here to answer them. >> thank you. are there any questions for mr. rivera with regard to the vacation below ground? the construction period will last how long approximately? >> i believe the last i heard was 18 months, probably two years. >> if there are no questions for mr. rivera, would you like to come and tell us about the public trust exchange? >> i'm with the port. i want to talk briefly about the trust exchange. the port is requesting that the board of supervisors approve trust exchange for property in the transbay area, streets in the transbay area as well as the fisherman's what were area. the trust exchange would relate to the project that was just described. it would allow for the construction or improvements for the millennium towers project at 301 mission, but it would also allow for the consolidation of the site for the transbay transit center. so let me focus more in that since you've heard the presentation about the millennium tower. brief background, the transbay authority was created in 2001 to build a new transbay center. in 2010, the caltrans transferred the original caltrans term gnat site to the tjpa for the construction of the facility, but it did not include air and substructure rights for fremont and mission street. so the city could not transfer the entire site to the tjpa. so related to what's being requested now, we are talking about an exchange that would permit the consolidation of the transbay term gnat site in addition to the towers development. but the streets are subject to this. the property is transferred originally to the city based on the act approved by the state in 1968. and so the port owns title to those streets. and the burden act does not allow the city or the port to transfer any interest in those streets without state approval. and so to consolidate the site or to make the permanent easement available to the millennium towers association, the trust would have to be removed. now, the state does allow for the city to remove the trust. there are a number of conditions. the primary condition or key condition is that the property that's being swapped or transferred into the trust must have a value equal to or greater than the property that's being removed from the trust. so the fremont and mission streets, that land must be -- can't be more valuable than the streets that are being swapped into the trust. in this case, that's bay beach and hyde streets and the the fisherman's what were area, those streets allow access to the waterfront and will be a positive addition to the port and to the trust. the streets that are getting removeed, they are cut off from the bay are no longer of value to the trust, and that's the reason we are proposing this swap. square footage, and this was the basis of the port commission action, the square footage of the streets in the fisherman's what were area that would be coming into the trust, 152,000 square feet that would be removed from the trust, 143,000 square feet. the original apray sal process that's going on -- appraisal process that will verify the values. at the time the commission took its action on january 14, that appraisal hod had not been completed. so the commission took their action and on january 14, approving and authorizing the executive director to sign a trust exchange agreement between the port, the city and the land commission subject to the board of supervisors approval and of course subject to lands commission approval. this map, if we can show the map on the computer here. >> on the overhead or the laptop? >> it's on the laptop. >> here we go. >> this map is showing the streets that will be removed from the trust. they are shown in red. again, it's fremont and mission streets. i'm having trouble getting to the next map. okay. the streets in green here are the streets to the fisherman's what were beach hyde and bay, they will be where the trust would be applied, and these would be part of the trust. >> and what are the lands transferred to the united states of america and retained by the city? in parcel r? >> this map is showing more than the trust streets. i'm not sure why that area is listed there. i don't know if the city really has any idea about that area. >> the streets totaling the 34,000 square feet plus 119,000 square feet >> is what's in green, and that's what's being swapped into the trust. >> john, do you understand what these retained by the city, transferred to the united states stuff is? is that from a different swap? >> john from the city attorney's office. to be honest, i'm not exactly sure what that area is. i think it's down near the aquatic park area, there's some federally-owned land. that's the way i've always read it, but i don't have a specific answer for you. >> okay. but they are not implicated, even though the legend says, the key says proposed trade-in lands, and then there's these other two categories that don't seem to be the act lands. >> right. it's just an adjacent property. >> got it. any questions for mr. rhett? if you have any questions you can come on up and testify. we will open up public comment. >> not for this but to help me understand, when the port takes over a street, does this mean that any businesses that operate on that street have to get permits then from the port to do, like, get a new plumbing thing in for their restaurant? or how does that work? >> i would love to explain to you the history of the public trust doctrine and why it is that these lands as a matter of development of land use history in the state of california are lands of the people of the state as opposed to lands of the city and county of san francisco. but in 1968, john burton was able to pass legislation wherein those lands are, that historically were state lands, they are still state lands, but they are stewarded by the port of san francisco in trust for the people of the state of california as parts of the public trust. but as a practical matter, not to engage in dialogue and get in trouble with the city attorney, it has no actual effect on the adjoining property owners and is merely a paper swap. so with that, and subject to approval by the state lands commission of the state of california, ms. jennifer presiding, there are a couple or members of the public who would like to testify on items 1 through 3? seeing none, we will close public comment. there are a couple of housekeeping matters in item number two, the piece of legislation that is before you, this is the street vacation matter refers to a yet to be introduced settlement ordinance. and the amendments which are on pages five and pages six, you will see, strike the words, the settlement is on file with the clerk of the board of supervisors and replaces it with language as language that says that this ordinance will not be operative unless and until the board approves the yet to be introduced settlement. so those changes are set forth on pages five and six. and then with regard to item number three, while the public notice was technically sufficient, i thought that it was important for the public to know that as we have discussed in this hearing, that item number three is correctly related to the millennium tower settlement. and so i have -- i would like to make an amendment to item number three to clearly show in the short title and the long title that is related to the millennium tower matter. so i would like to make a motion to amend items two and three as i've just discussed or moved by supervisor safai, we have been joined by supervisor safai who has made those amendments which we will take without objection. and then, colleagues, i would like to send item one, which is the resolution of intent for the street vacation to the full board. >> mr. chair? >> yes >> we need to add the committee of the whole date to item one for the resolution. >> thank you, ms. major. and we have an amendment to item number one, which is the resolution of intent for street vacation, which of course will require a board of supervisors hearing. and what date, ms. major, should we insert for that? >> march 3, 2020 >> so we will include the hearing date of march 3, which will be a committee of the whole, on march 3, 2020. and we will add that to item number one. that amendment we'll take without objection and send item number one as amended with the march 3 date to the full board with recommendation as a committee report for hearing tomorrow. and items two and three as amended will go to the full board on february 11 without objection. >> mr. chair. >> yes? >> item two will need to be referred without recommendation. >> you are right. because item number two requires the public hearing. so we will send that without recommendation. and item number three we will send with recommendation without objection in the normal course of business. madame clerk, would you please read the next item? >> yes. item four is an ordinance approving an amended and restated land disposition and acquisition agreement with 2000 marin property l.p. for the city's transfer of real property at 639 bryant street under the jurisdiction of the san francisco public utilities commission in exchange for real property at 2000 marin street, subject to several conditions, including the reimbursement of certain transaction costs. >> mr. carlin. >> chair peskin, supervisors, i'm here on behalf of the san francisco public utilities commission. i'm the deputy general manager. this item we have been working on for several years. it's an exchange of our brought at 639 bryant street which for exchange. it is based on fair market values. there is no cash being exchanged but there are other considerations part of the development deal with the developers. there will be tenant improvements at the port. there will be moving costs absorbed by the developer. and he's helping us to secure a tank site for hydrogen peroxide tank for border patrol and our sewers. so i'm happy to answer any questions, but it's pretty self explanatory in the material that was developed for you. >> are there any questions for mr. carlin? this has been discussed by this committee and the board in the past and was actually once considered as 2000 marin as the temporary site for the flower mart, but as we all know, they ended up with a different proposed site. supervisor safai? >> i just wanted to point out to the clerk that the item on the screen is not representative of the current item >> that is true. and that is actually sfgov tv, because item 4 -- item 5 is -- they keyed up the wrong -- >> thank you. >> thank you for that comment. you are right, we are on item 4, amended and restated land acquisition agreement, exchange of 639 bryant for 2000 marin. are there any members of the public who have any comments on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and colleagues, if there is no objection, we will send this to the full board as a committee report with recommendation, without objection. madame clerk, please read the next item. >> item five is an ordinance amending the administrative code to classify certain types of unlawful detainer settlement agreements as buyout agreements, require the rent board to provide more information on the disclosure form that landlords must give to tenants, require landlords to give the disclosure form to tenants a certain number of days before the buyout agreement is executed and allow tenants to invalidate any provision of the buyout agreement in which the tenant waived their rights if the landlord did not timely file the buyout agreement. >> thank you. this legislation is sponsored by supervisor ronen and cosponsored by any number of supervisors including myself and supervisor preston. and from supervisor ronen's office, ms. amy is here to present. and we have robert collins from the rent stabilization board. if we have any questions for him. and i know ms. amy has a couple amendments which i am handing out to you for your review, and we will discuss. the floor is yours. >> thank you so much. legislative aid, supervisor ronen's office. good afternoon, chair peskin, vice-chair safai, supervisor preston. the legislation before you today will amend admin code section 37.9e to tighten the regulations on landlord buyouts of tenants and protect tenants from being subjected to high pressure to get them to leave their homes. with speck at a live rents and sales continuing to rise, landlords have a powerful incentive to remove and replace long-time tenants. no-cause evictions are allowed under the state act and move-in laws but some landlords see a cash buyout as a way to get tenants to move out quickly and avoid restraints on condo conversions. supervisor passed a regulation in 2014 which established annual reporting. there was 379 buyouts in neighborhoods throughout the city but some advocates estimate there may be as many as three untracked for every one that does get filed. we need to be sure the laws are being followed. what this legislation will do is the following, it will ensure the tenants are informed of their rights. currently, we are seeing landlords deliver required disclosures to tenants after start of negotiations or not at all, the amendments will require a landlord file a declaration under penalty of perjury prior to commencing negotiations providing evidence of disclosure and method of delivery. it will give tenants time to decide landlords often use high pressure, take it or leave it deadlines that leave tenants no times to reach out to legal support or their advocate assistance. the amendments set a minimum of 30 days between the initiation of buyout negotiations and the execution of an agreement. it will phosphorus landlords to file. they sometimes file in order to recharacterize a buyout agreement and bypass the filing in subsequent condo conversion restrictions. it is filed within 120 days as a buyout agreement, subject to regulation. lastly, the amendment will push landlords to file by waiving any waiver of tenant rights if a landlord does not file on time with the rent board. so we submitted several amendments, actually at the request of the regular board, and each of these together are intended to help make sure the recording is done in a way that's easier to track. on page one, lines eight through 10, it will note that we now require landlords to include in the final buyout agreement identifying information about the location of the unit, same thing continues on page four, lines two to three, it specifies the agreement will show the parcel number. on page six, line six and seven and nine, reiterates the same, and lastly, page nine, line one and six we've deleted the march 1 operative date so it becomes effective 30 days after enactment. we have heard criticism from some interested parties that this legislation will discourage buyouts, and that is in some way, disadvantaged to tenants. on behalf of supervisor ronen, we want to make sure the goal of the board should be to preserve tenants in rent-controlled units. tenants who quote ask for buyouts are usually misinformed and terrified. it's not the job of the city government to enable buyouts which would essentially spell the end of the tenants ability to end in san francisco. i would to say thank you so much from robert collins from the rent board, our city attorney and from the advocates who we have worked with closely to structure this amendment. so thank you. i'm here for my questions. >> anything you want to add? >> thank you supervisor peskin and safai and preston. , no, i wanted to thank amy and supervisor ronen for taking into account amendments that we requested which go to making sure we have the correct unit identified. that's been a challenge that we have had that was brought up from staff. so i just want to thank supervisors for taking those amendments into consideration. >> thank you. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item? please come forward. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is sarah. i'm here from housing rights committee of san francisco. by also pushing out tenants who want to stay in a unit and stay in san francisco, we've made it hard in san francisco to just evict tenants for no other reason beside that you want more money. it isn't impossible. but it is -- we've made it a little hard. but we have tenants coming to our office all the time with buyout offers saying that they have no other choice beside take this buyout. a lot of tenants want to stay. and the tenants who take the buyouts, often the money is gonna couple years with the new expensive rent, first and last, for tenants who are on disability benefits or other benefits sometimes it's counted against them. most often tenants come to us way too late. they've already signed the buyout agreement. they've already largely in the process. they've already had months of landlords and their landlord's lawyer lying to them, harassing them, threatening them, bullying them. tenants who get a call every day with the buyout and will they take it. tenants who receive letters saying if they didn't take the buyout, they will be hearing from the lawyer. sometimes with a sample ellis act attached. thank you. i have a tenant i worked with on market street who took a buyout thinking told have to leave and ended up living on the street in front of his build building that he used to live in as a rent-controlled tenant. tenants we get to are more able to stay. this legislation isn't enough ultimately, but it is a big step. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jennifer and i'm a tenant at 1900 jefferson street. and reside in supervisor stefani's district. the building was sold in 2018 to someone and is managed by jim and carol of peak realty. after the sale, construction began to convert all units from one bedroom to two bedrooms to increase rent from approximately $3,100 to $5,200 per unit. since the sale, tenants have been embroiled in a rent eviction nightmare, and some have been approached for buyouts by jim and their attorney andrew zacks. tenants were given deadlines and told by not taking the buyouts or relocating to other buildings, their rents would be raised. in one case the lawyer insulted the tenant's responsibility as a parent for not taking a buyout. this harassing and threatening behavior is unconscionable. this is why i support legislation to strengthen tenants protections against buyout bullying and harassment from attorneys. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm born and raised in the mission. i'm organizer and counselor of housing committee. we get a lot of tenants who come to the office telling us they've gotten a buyout notice, and they actually see the buyout as an eviction notice. and many tenants are scared, they feel threatened. these are tenants who are part of the most -- population, tenants who have been there for 30, 40 years, and they're scared. and they tell me, they say i'm only being offered $5,000. what can that get you in san francisco for $5,000? it's really -- they're scared, they get threatened by ellis, they get threatened, some of these buyout notices, they are not even notices, they are actually verbal conversations with the tenant saying you have to leave, we are offering you this amount of money. they are selling the building, it's coming into san francisco to our community to take over that building and displacing that tenant with the merely pennies in comparison to how much housing costs in san francisco. it's very crucial this legislation is not -- it is going to support the tenants. we need something more to help these tenants out. tenants who have no voice in san francisco. tenants who are born in the mission, living in drastic conditions where that buyout might be, but it's not. they are displaced to the east bay, they are displaced to down across the state. we need to keep these tenants in rent-controlled buildings. please support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, our efforts to provide anti-eviction representation to those who need it still remains a work in progress. i have a lot of empathy for, i do, i'm at the housing rights commission a lot with a lot of issues. i have a slightly ancillary approach to this. i imagine there might be general comment to this committee, but there is none, so i'll do it here. it does go with this insure. what i noticed is there isn't any committee assigned to global climate change. one of the biggest issues of our time. and of course this committee is the closest thing. global climate change is connected to land use, the same thing as our housing jobs linkage is. and i'm wondering if we could do something, maybe get it put in the name or somehow -- if we had a better understanding of how land use affects to meet our need for global climate change, in our land use issues like this one, we would start to see a lot more land use issues but that are resolved in favor of antigentrification and in favor of neighborhood preservation, and we are not seeing that, and this certainly is one such issue. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. if you know me, and i know you do. i'm an advocate for other groups of people and i never thought i would be in here advocating for myself. my name is sherry lord and i live in north beach. i've lived there since december 2009, and i'm 71 years old, not sure how that happened but it's true. and i'm disabled. in the ten years i've lived in this building, it's been sold four times and we've had six property managers. in the building is tenants who are disabled, and they have been there 30 years. they had the flu and couldn't come today. the last two years, we have been through owners that have wanted us to leave with a lot of pressure. in august of 2019, the building was purchased by hans. his first act was to enforce the tenant to move out. he offered them $35,000, and justin had been there ten years and moved. did the owner move in? no. did he file an owner buy out with the city? no. he put the building up for sale. the tenant at the same time the owner offered the tenants, myself and the two elderly people in unit a buyouts. and we both said no. and then he kept at it and at it. it got to the point where he would call us weekly and say i have a buyout for you, and then it got to be daily, and then it got to be the day before the sale of the building, he called us that day and we said no. so the new owner is starting the same tactic, and he's only been in here since november. i think i got lots more but i'll leave it at that. i'm not sure what to do at this point. but when i was advocating for homeless, i never thought that i would be homeless myself. i may not be better off after all. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm a long-time voter from district 5. and i'm a member of senior and disability action. i'm here to support supervisor ronen's legislation on behalf of many seniors. seniors, we are highly vulnerable, we have very few resources, very few options, very limited incomes. we live in isolation. we have no plan b. what does that mean? pretend that i'm 85 years old. i live alone. i've been in my rent-controlled apartment 40 years in an old victorian. my husband died, my children live thousands of miles away. my friends have died. the shopkeepers i used to know and talk to every day, they're gone. i only go to the grocery store, maybe on a good day. one day, the new landlord knocks on my door. i've never met him. he says he has to have my apartment. he'll give me $10,000 or he'll take me to court. he says i have ten days to decide. all i know is what he tells me. all i know is what he tells me. supervisors, we need you to support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is marvin green. i have lived at the residence intent in the san francisco bay area for the past 30 years. in the past several years in the mission district. these stories you hear are just the tip of the iceberg. for every one person that's here there's probably 200 people who have stories about how landlords and how speculators abuse, bully and use the system against them. what this bill does is help to level the playing field. on one side, you have speculative real estate people who have years of sophisticated, years of legal training, years of legal support. and years of planning to do this against people who find out about it ten days, two months beforehand with no real sophistication, with no real estate background in most cases, and with no support system. what this does is helps to tighten up the loopholes that the sophisticated, well-background, speculators are using against citizens of san francisco. so i urge you to pass this bill and refer it to the full board so they can pass it so that we can try at least a little bit to level the playing field to give those of us who rent and live and contributed in san francisco an opportunity to at least stand up for ourselves. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> hi. good afternoon. my name is letica and i'm the ss lead housing organizer with just cause. in the mission we offer counseling for tenants facing eviction, harassment and these verbal buyouts that we keep seeing which we see often in our clinic. and i am here in support of these amendments, to close the buyout loopholes in the legislation. like i said, we see tenants coming in with verbal buyout offering on a regular basis. and landlords are simply not following the law by issuing the prebuyout disclosure forms. and when they do share these forms, it often comes with serious threats of eviction if the tenants refuse to negotiate a buyout agreement. just a couple of weeks ago this past month in january, we had an entire building come in from the mission for counseling support, because a landlord invited them to a meeting on a saturday, surprised them with a presentation for a verbal buyout and threatened an ellis if they did not agree. they received a prebuyout disclosure form after the meeting, not before. and when they came to our clinic, we supported them with a letter refusing to negotiate a buyout, and then they got issued an ellis act eviction. so tenants, when they are exerting their right to say no, they are being seriously threatened with these buyouts, i'm sorry, with these evictions whether it's ellis or owner move-in, and it's not in good faith like the notice says. so we support this amendments to strengthen tenant protections. until then, tenants are going to be harassedd with buyouts and with evictions unless we are able to enforce that landlords file these buyouts. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. kelly hill with united to save the mission. first i want to thank hillary ronen's office for bringing this important legislation to you. today i want to talk about my own story, which is kind of a harassment displacement story. in early 2000 our landlord put our building up for sale, a two-unit building near hayes. we lived through two years of harassment. back then it was a little harder to get ahold of legal help. it wasn't financially feasible. we lived through two open houses a week for two years. we had just started our business. we eventually took a tiny buyout to get out from under the harassment. basically that small buyout barely paid for the moving expenses and a couple of months of the rent increase. we lasted six months at our next place and that trajectory led to years of housing insecurity. this legislation is super important. i have a couple of things that would make it more of a dream legislation, some of these things may not be possible. we have firsthand knowledge of the predatory behavior taking place in the mission. we are tracking case studies two blocks from my house of multiple buildings being harassed in this exact same way. we are seeing the same serial predators, people like michael camp sini and the big time folks like veritas changing the landscape. i would love to see a longer deadline of giving people to decide. is there a way to prematch tenants with counsel before the negotiations commence, remove the stress. i've seen this. we help with tenant work when we know their buildings are going to be predatory upon. is three a number of hostile attempts by the same people? we live in an age with no horizontal mobility. our rent is going to triple for people all over the place. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. supervisors. district 8 tenant anastasia. a rental unit that's been vacated is worth more to a landlord or real estate speculator than a building that's empty of tenants. and a building that's empty can fetch a higher price in today's speck at a live housing market. it's vital to preserve our city's rapidly-depleting rental controlled housing stock and keep tenants in their home. to this end i fully support today's legislation that will close tenant buyout agreements including classifying certain types of unlawful detaper settlements, agreements as buyout agreements and requiring the rent board to provide more information on the disclosure forms landlords must give tenants before buyout negotiations commence. tenants need to know they are not compelled to agree to sign the disclosure form or agree to a buyout of their tenancy that they can seek advice and have time to consider the buyout offer or to reject the offer. and landlords must file all required forms timely or tenants would be able to invalidate any waivers of rights agreed to. i'm so disheartened by the taxes a developer investor miller used to force my neighbor, a retired legal secretary, to give up her rent-controlled flat on chattanooga street. she got a disclosure form two weeks after he bought the building in 2016 and then had sac's law firm send a letter telling her she had to move out because the landlord was constructing an adu below her, which was b.s. because he hadn't even gotten the permit approved. then he harassed her with phone calls and raised a noise campaign above her till she finally got -- >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you for having this hearing. i support hillary ronen's legislation. and we can make it even stronger in making howing as a human right. and we should not be treated like a commodity. i live ad 698 bruce street. this property in december 2019. and i was hearing a conversation between a prospective buyer and a real estate agent, and he was telling, oh, you buy this, we can get rid of these old-time tenants. and i hear it, you know? and they didn't know i was listening to them. but this is their model. now, veritas sold the building to another speculator, russ, he was my landlord 30 years ago, and he bought it again. and i know what his game plan is. i heard have a real estate broker talking to them. and this eviction is imminent. and i've been there for 48 years. and i came in that building when i was full hair and now i'm losing my hair. and i want this legislation even stronger. and i would like to see we have a tenants rights people here. i would like to bring this in the city and county here so we can even make it better. thank you very much. >> thank you. good to see you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with our mission no eviction. i'm a volunteer with housing rights committee. and i'm here to support this legislation. but to echo that it doesn't do enough. and one of the things that i think that should be amended in this legislation is the time period between the notification and the agreement. 30 days is just not enough. and i'll tell you why. i just recently worked with a woman who had been given a buyout notice. she had been in her unit for 48 years. her mother had died in that unit, and she was terrified. she had a nervous breakdown. she had to get on medication. 30 days does not allow enough time. it took -- she wanted to fight. she got a lawyer, she's still in her place right now. but to do all of this and to organize tenants in the building, 30 days is just not long enough. and i know that you know the difficulty, the number of lawyers that we have can't even keep pace with the number of tenants that need assistance. and then i also want to echo the concerns that kelly raised. we are seeing neighbors in our, just our block, we think we have lost close to 70, that are being evicted under the table. they are threatened to take a buyout under the table and then when they leave, the places immediately are serial permits are used to completely renovate the spaces and to be leased at market rate or flipped. and we need to do something about this situation, because we are losing our immigrant neighbors at a very rapid pace. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is scott weaver where the san francisco tenants union. i'm sure you are all aware of the vulnerabilities of the population that is subject to these buyouts. and the shock that they feel when they receive a letter from an attorney saying we may ellis the building, my client is considering owner move-in eviction. immediately, there's one foot out the door. immediately. and that's why we need this 30-day cooling-off period so that we don't have people making sudden decisions, so we have people who have the ability to go to counseling organizations to be able to do that before being scared so much that they will sign an agreement. i think as we talk about buyouts, we underestimate the displacement effect that buyouts have. if we were to count the number of buyouts that really happen in the city, they will exceed any single cause for eviction. they probably exceed any two causes for eviction combined. this is a big deal in terms of what is happening right in front of us. and landlords have been very open about not filing these things with the rent board. almost to the point of bragging about it. and if we are going to actually make this ordinance enforceable, then we have to prohibit or invalidate any waiver of rights that a tenant will have in a buyout agreement if a landlord doesn't file with the rent board. that's the only way to put some sting into it and to allow tenants to file with the rent board. and that's the only way that this city is going to get on any kind of profile of what -- >> thank you, scott. next speaker, please. >> hi. from the san francisco tenants union. thank you, supervisors. and thank you so much hillary ronen for putting this legislation together. every month in our coalition, the antidisplacement coalition, we review the biggest threats to tenants in the city. and almost without fail, buyouts makes the top of the list every month. and we've also known the buyouts are the primary way we are losing affordable housing in san francisco for years. this is why we introduced the original buyout legislation. it was actually hillary ronen was the aid who worked on it with us. so she was our natural choice to lead this effort to fix the gaps. what is a buyout? it's when a tenant sells their rights for the sake of a bit of money and a bit of certainty about the day they have to move. sells their rights. basically they are giving up the chance to enforce the rights they have that you all passed, that we passed as a city of san francisco to protect their housing and to protect this affordable housing for everyone here. i don't blame individual people who do that, because they are scared, but it is our responsibility to make sure that that is as hard to do as possible and that we save that housing. in the intervening years since we originally passed the legislation, we were able to -- it worked to a point. we were able to track some information, we were able to incorporate that information about buyouts that happened into the housing balance report to show us how much we were losing. knowing we were losing a lot more than that. but we knew we were falling way short of what was going on, based on storying we were hearing in our clinics, reports from the courthouse about fake lawsuits being filed so people could get away with not filing. and from tenants about their own neighbors. this legislation has been designed to fill those gaps, to stop the fake lawsuits and raise the stakes when landlords break the rules. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is peter. i'm a proud member of north beach. my family established residence there in the late 1800s. i live at 646 lumbar street. my wife, directly across from me. i'm in the pool five days a week, 5:30 in the morning, because i'm disabled. i have a good work out there and i can't stay on my feet. i've been there for 23 years my aunt rose, lived there 21 years before me. i've seen a lot of changes in north beach. and i don't like what i see. aaron peskin has stepped forward and put a big effort to help us out. my wife and i, we don't want to move. i don't plan to move. i'm a north beach boy, and i'm going to stay a north beach boy. my grandfather, i was born in the house, 165 165valpraiso. he built two bungalows there in the early 1900s with his little 28-foot fishing boat. i was born in the family house in 1940 by the county midwife. i'm a true son of the beach. thank you. >> [laughter] thank you. good to see you. next speaker, please. >> i'm peter's wife gail deluca. we got a new landlord. this was the third since our wonderful john passed away who lived in the front unit. [please stand by] -[please stand b >> since they've been in, we were offered a buyout which we turned down, but we were given, like, i think about 10 days for us and the tenants below us to either accept or reject the buyout. once this started happening, i can't describe the kind of turmoil, the fears, you know, and you can't think. you know, you don't know where to turn. it's just all so sudden. in responding to the buyout offer, i basically said we would need more time to move out. they've given us three months to -- >> you've got to wrap up. >> [ indiscernible ] -- >> gail, i'll tell you what, i'm happy -- you know where i live. you know where my office is. we can meet offline. i'm happy to continue talking with you. >> good afternoon. theresa flederick, senior and disability action. i live in north beach. i know of 39 households within four blocks of where i live. and within two blocks, 39 households are being asked to take buyouts. i know of on alta street, for example, the senior there, diane, was not given the seven-page pamphlet on her rights. she was asked to take a buyout which she declined, and then she was told they could l-sat her. she's lived there for 50 years. another man because of the flu he was extremely disappointed that he couldn't come today. and, in fact, he sent me -- if i could have the overhead, he sent me this image in a text, saying that he was so sorry that he could not come because he so wanted to speak and tell his story, which is that they lived there for over 33 years. both him and his wife are disabled. asking them to take a buyout, and they said, no, we're going to decline that. this is the second landlord in the last nine and a half months. he said, no, we don't want to move, we want to stay here. the new owner said, i will lsat you or i could move in a relative is the other thing. what i know is this is happening all over. i know that people are threatened. there is a harassment through sudden renovations. i hear these stories all the time. this legislation is going to fix a lot of those loopholes that have been used, abused, and hurting so many people. we also then lose these affordable housing as these units are turned into luxury units -- >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that could like to testify on this item number 5? seeing none, the matter is back in the committee's hands. supervisor preston. >> thank you. i would like to thank all the folks that came to speak on this. this is a big step forward when the buyout legislation was initiated. it was the first buyout legislation of its kind in the state, if i'm not mistaken. some other jurisdictions have followed suit since then. but i want to thank supervisor ronen and others for their work on this measure. i think there is -- probably nowhere there is a bigger disconnect in the housing world between what academics, media, and other pundits look at around evictions and the reality that folks who are working on the ground, like a lot of our speakers today are, in terms of perception and numbers of evictions. as some of the speakers noted, this is the leading form of eviction. buyouts are essentially de facto evictions. this is not just in san francisco. i personally as a tenant advocate for the last 20 years have done state-wide and national research on evictions. you realize when you run those numbers, you're dealing with a tiny fraction of the number of people who are actually displaced. in more cases it's more advantageous for a landlord to threaten they are going to drag a tenant through the eviction process and get them to surrender their rights without going to court. in san francisco it is the same with the eviction notices that are served. two aspects i want highlight on this particular legislation that i think are really essential. the most common thing that i hear from tenants in san francisco, particularly in district 5, are that they are given these false, very threatening and scary deadlines. we will give you this much if you respond by monday or in a week. these are entirely false deadlines. you just want to be clear for folks that are not here and are watching this on tv, when you get buyout offer, you have absolutely no obligation or requirement to respond. usually the threats that those offers will go away are false and usually taking the time you need is to your advantage. so i think the -- providing the 30-day window here is absolutely an essential part of this legislation. it's going to have a big impact. and the other side is the attainment process. and the previous legislation, the bou buyout legislation, we landlords would get creative. one of the bad-faith ways is to try and dress up buyout efforts as a part of litigation in order to avoid obligations to go ahead and file these. so i think closing the unlawful detainer loophole here and forcing landlords to file those buyouts as well is absolutely essential. i'm going to be supporting this and thanks to supervisor ronen for her leadership on it. >> thank you, supervisor preston. i concur with those statements, which is precisely why i am a proud co-sponsor and also want to add my thanks to the community and supervisor ronen for bringing this forward. we have some minor, non-substantive amendments that are before us as to lot and block numbers spread out. can we take those amendments without objection and then, as amended, we will send the item to the full board with recommendation without objection. colleagues, i have been informed that there was actually an intended small amendment to the previous item, so if i could make a motion to rescind the vote on item number 4, we'll do that without objection. and then add on page 11 a subsection b that says, within 30 days of the amended agreement being fully executed by all parties, the sfpuc shall provide the final amended agreement to the clerk of the board for ininclusion into the official file. so that language we will amend into item 4 and then send the item again as amended with recommendation as a committee report. madam clerk, could you please read item number 6, our final item. >> clerk: yes, item 6 is a planning toad ordinance amending the planning code to enable the use of development project sites during the project approval and entitlement process by authorizing the planning department to authorize certain interim activities at development project sites as temporary uses for up to 36 months, subject to extension at the discretion of the planning director in increments for up to a maximum possible total of 24 additional months; adopting the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and making findings of public convenience, necessity, and welfare under planning code, section 302. >> thank you, ms. major. we have heard this repeatedly. we had an amendment that the city attorney deemed to be substantive, so it required a one-week continuance. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, can we send this item that has been heard repeatedly -- wait winning supervisor preston, do you have a comment? sorry, i didn't take you down from your last comment. to the full board with recommendation without objection. that wll be the order and we are adjourned. ♪ >> about two years ago now i had my first child. and i thought when i come back, you know, i'm going to get back in the swing of things and i'll find a spot. and it wasn't really that way when i got back to work. that's what really got me to think about the challenges that new mothers face when they come back to work. ♪ >> when it comes to innovative ideas and policies, san francisco is known to pave the way, fighting for social justice or advocating for the environment, our city serves as the example and leader many times over. and this year, it leads the nation again, but for a new reason. being the most supportive city of nursing mothers in the work place. >> i was inspired to work on legislation to help moms return to work, one of my legislative aids had a baby while working in the office and when she returned we had luckily just converted a bathroom at city hall into a lactation room. she was pumping a couple times a day and had it not been for the room around the hallway, i don't know if she could have continued to provide breast milk for her baby. not all returning mothers have the same access, even though there's existing state laws on the issues. >> these moms usually work in low paying jobs and returning to work sooner and they don't feel well-supported at work. >> we started out by having legislation to mandate that all city offices and departments have accommodations for mothers to return to work and lactate. but this year we passed legislation for private companies to have lactation policies for all new moms returning to work. >> with the newcome -- accommodations, moms should have those to return back to work. >> what are legislation? >> we wanted to make it applicable to all, we created a set of standards that can be achievable by everyone. >> do you have a few minutes today to give us a quick tour. >> i would love to. let's go. >> this is such an inviting space. what makes this a lactation room? >> as legislation requires it has the minimum standards, a seat, a surface to place your breast on, a clean space that doesn't have toxic chemicals or storage or anything like that. and we have electricity, we have plenty of outlets for pumps, for fridge. the things that make it a little extra, the fridge is in the room. and the sink is in the room. our legislation does require a fridge and sink nearby but it's all right in here. you can wash your pump and put your milk away and you don't have to put it in a fridge that you share with co-workers. >> the new standards will be applied to all businesses and places of employment in san francisco. but are they achievable for the smaller employers in the city? >> i think small businesses rightfully have some concerns about providing lactation accommodations for employees, however we left a lot of leeway in the legislation to account for small businesses that may have small footprints. for example, we don't mandate that you have a lactation room, but rather lactation space. in city hall we have a lactation pod here open to the public. ♪ ♪ >> so the more we can change, especially in government offices, the more we can support women. >> i think for the work place to really offer support and encouragement for pumping and breast feeding mothers is necessary. >> what is most important about the legislation is that number one, we require that an employer have a lactation policy in place and then have a conversation with a new hire as well as an employee who requests parental leave. otherwise a lot of times moms don't feel comfortable asking their boss for lactation accommodations. really it's hard to go back to the office after you have become a mom, you're leaving your heart outside of your body. when you can provide your child food from your body and know you're connecting with them in that way, i know it means a lot to a mommy motionlely and physically to be able to do that. and businesses and employers can just provide a space. if they don't have a room, they can provide a small space that is private and free from intrusion to help moms pump and that will attract moms to working in san francisco. >> if you want more information visit sfdph.org/breastfeedingatwork. ♪ ♪ >> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪ >> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough. loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important. ♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪ we will come to order. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements?