tv San Francisco Government Television SFGTV June 13, 2016 4:00am-6:01am PDT
people engaged and educated about how it is we care for our trees. i just want to thank you for that. the visor yee >> supervisor yee: thank you. i want to thank-actually i want to thank both supervisors weiner and avalos for coming forward with these ideas on how we would be able to find the caring of trees by the city. one of the things that i agree with supervisor tang about is that we really needed to keep our word and have the city secure these trees that we had promise and we know things were happening while i was coming, almost coming into to be a member of the board four years ago. i thought was a bad idea at the time. especially, when i was able to talk to so many people on the streets and in particular, those that are on fixed income, for them to be
stopped with such a high bill was really ridiculous. so i'm glad were going to be looking at these revenue measures to see how we can fund the potential for the city to finally take the trees back. so i'm looking for to that discussion. >> supervisor farrell: okay. thank you supervisor yee. supervisor yee 51 asked the department to come up >> supervisor wiener: i just want to first technology supervisor avalos have been conversing about this issue for a number of years now and i think we really--i think we have exactly the same goal. it's always good to have different ideas out there and i'm very open to the carbon tax. this is a general measurement i think the good thing. i know the funds can be used for a number of different terrific user. this is one of them. one thing i do just want to make sure is i think
whatever we move to the ballot, i think it needs to 100% rock solid fix the problem. what i don't want to do is go to the ballot and have the voters think within a fixed the problem but it doesn't fix it. so, if we don't have enough funding dedicated funny, associated with the reversal or relinquishment the problem will not be fixed in people the trees will come back to the city the city will not take care of them because i've seen this movie too many times in this building just terrible on trees. that is because trees just don't compete well with public health and public safety and homeless services and affordable housing etc. so, we just want make sure we fix it that is really job one here. i will say that this concept of a dedicated parcel tax conditioned on the city taking back the trees, even though we introduce it this year we have been extremely public about the fact that we are formulating this proposal for a think probably five years now. we
took our time making sure we do the urban forest master plan which recommended taking back the trees and having a dedicated funding to pay for it. we then, spent frankly through dan flanigan president of the urban forest doing outreach. mdm just did yeoman's work going out to all the neighborhood groups, the property owners groups making sure were really reaching out to the commercial buildings owners, to the large apartments owners, to the small property owners, the people who are going to be paying the tax. having community workshops on this. then convening a community stakeholder group that was very large and diverse we had i believe three large stakeholder meetings to captivity not and this proposal then came out of that group. so, we did this the right way.
it's probably the most thorough three-legislative outreach process i've ever seen and i feel really good about how solid this proposal is. so, with that, mr. chairman, i did just distribute the minutes i described the $5000 cap as well some smaller technical amendment that the city attorney has recommended. so, now, i would like to call up our presenters today. starting with john sway from the planning department followed by , sure from public works and then amanda freed from the treasurer tax collector's office and then dan flanigan from friends of the urban street for good i want to thank each of these departments for participating and helping in the controller's office as well. >> testifier: good afternoon.
speaking public was good this was the one on you a little bit good we just have a brief presentation that of give a little bit of context to how we got to this point and then a brief overview about with this program will look like it if we could have the overhead? the first thing i like to do is remind everyone that trees are green infrastructure there one of the only assets that actually appreciate in value over time. most assets the minute you drive your car off the part about it starts to go down in value but trees that they grow and become more mature provide more ecosystem services, provide more social benefits to the city. so, they are really good investment because we get a higher return on our dollar. but the urban forest really needs our help. we have extensive canopy decline over the last few years. were not able to keep up w mortality rates of our trees. we also see property owners who are unable to care for trees in overtly can and up devastating the urban forest. because we don't have long-term maintenance putting in place we were very limited place in
planting per annum. we only plans about 375 replacement trees annually because recently don't have the resources to care for them as they are growing. and we have an existing and growing backlog sidewalk repairs due to tree roots that have been damaged the sidewalk because were unable to repair them in a timely manner that backlog rose and the damage it grows every year. the supervisor weiner noted, resources for tree maintenance have stea declined over the years and as a result, the average number of years for a cleaning cycle has increased. so, the industry standard for pruning of street tree is about every 3-5 years and we are currently on a 10-12 you're crooning cycle. as a result of the resources declined for tree maintenance, the department has undertaken over the last several years the tree relinquishment or tree maintenance transfer program. as are all well aware, this is
not a popular program that would emphasize that public works undertook this very reluctantly. was a result of our lack of resources to care for the trees for which we were responsible. that lack of maintenance can result in cuts to public safety and property from those property damage of sidewalks and also failures from trees. unfortunately, because the lack of resources that upon and felt this was a necessary but certainly not ideal program. just to highlight some of the challenges of the program, property owners with them given responsibility for trees. they were unable or unwilling to care for. they faced new cost. never planned for good one of the concerns that nearest and dearest to my heart is the actual loss of our urban forest because property owners don't necessarily have the skills or the financial resources to
properly care for their trees. so, these two images are a direct result of the tree maintenance transfer program. the property owner who believes he was going to receive responsibility to the pruning that you see on the right side of your screen and it killed the tree. the other thing is we lose the efficiency of scale because we have on property owner is putting montréal one day of the week the neighbor may be paying someone to prune a tree three days later. so it's a very inefficient process. all handed over to my colleague john could >> testifier: good afternoon supervise that my name is john sway the planning departments that. i'm also the manager of the city's urban forest master plan could which was really developed to address and find solution to many of the issues that college is described. this was a two-year community planning process we undertook to develop a long-term vision and strategy for the city street trees. the final plan was unanimously adopted by the board last january. so coming
research is part of our plan work we looked at a number of other cities what we discovered was that cities who took care of their own trees at higher standards of care and healthier urban forest and cities that a property owner maintain trees did not. so when we saw the direction the city was moving in the plants of the vision of setting exploring, what it would be like if the city explored creating a municipal program for street trees whereby the public works department would take over responsibility for the maintenance of our 100,000 street trees in san francisco. in addition, another goal of the plan was to increase the forest canopy in san francisco by 50000 new st. trees over the next 20 years. this is a map that shows the green dots, the darker green dots are street trees. the green dots are street trees come up but this is after the relinquishment program. the green dots will be with the city is maintained
while the majority will be maintained by property owners this is the vision of the plan we would have citywide street tree program. manila: talk about a little more about the aspects of this program. >> testifier: so the program really is, transit and it's looking at all the various elements are required to the healthy urban forest over the long-term life cycle of a tree. so it includes maintenance for all street trees on a three-five-year cycle. as i noted earlier, were currently on a 10-12 year cycle. this would bring us in line with the industry standard. in addition, it funds the repair of tree related sidewalk damage. which is it important to make our sidewalks more accessible for all our residents and visitors. it's very exciting to me it also plans for the care of an additional 50,000 new treated allows us to grow the urban forest responsibly and ensure we have a long-term maintenance funding to care for those trees as they mature over time. it would include a program of annual inspections each tree would be inspected on an annual basis by our staff who are certified arborists which then allows the city to take lightly paltry related claims. if we
are successfully inspecting those trees on an annual basis, we should be able to avert many of the problems we currently have with women failures and sidewalk damage. it also allows funding for care for trees within the school district site. this is important is when you research about how children learn much better when they have just visible access to trees and vegetation. the concentration improves. their ability to absorb information improves. so we want to include that in the program as well. >> testifier: the next question we asked ourselves what we have a great idea about how program could work in san francisco, but how would this be funded and what would the
financing mechanism available to make this happen? so we commission economic study to look at identifying all costs of the municipal street she program though take back all the city's trees and also repair tree related sidewalk damage. we estimated the cost, annual cost of this program would be about $19 million in the study recommended a parcel tax is on the street frontage to fund that. in the meantime, after that study was produced, supervisor scott weiner convened a working group street tree on is working group comprised of property owners, different community groups and organizations to weigh in on this proposal. two of the things we heard loud and clear from this working group with the cost burden shou not rest solely on property owners as was recommended in the finance study. data city financial contribution is necessary for the group and the larger public they believed to support a revenue measure. so, we went back and revise the proposal to create an urban forest of $19 million bill be comprised of an 8 min. other city contribution and 11 the dollar parcel tax.
so, in terms of a parcel tax the way it works no matter how big the parcel is, they're taxed the same rate regardless of size. so, a large new building or the new transbay tower would be charged the same five dollar parcel tax that this small residential single family home would be charged. the proposed parcel tax in terms of trees, the goal is to district cost more fairly. so the proposal is for progressive parcel taxes based on the street frontage properties. so large properties that are more street frontage with more trees, more capacity for trees would pay more in smaller properties with less trees would pay less. so according to our calculations, under this proposal, about 80% of parcels in san francisco would pay less than $50 a year on this parcel tax. as supervisor mentioned, a typical 25 foot residential lot in san francisco would pay about $35.50. here is the full
table that shows the big on of all the different property types. the parcel taxes structured with a flat rate for condos in very small parcels of $29.50 for small and medium parcels is a linear footage rate of dollar $.42 per linear foot. larger parcels received a rate of two dollars per linear foot. so, as you can see here even the ultra large parcels which we were just discussing account for less than 1% of the torah parcels under the tax. karla is concerned about how this compares to actual cost. >> testifier: as we noted property owners have been burdened with us possibly for caring for street trees and we want to just put a little context to it this parcel tax would cover and the cost property owners face today. a single pruning job of a street tree customer in the range of 300-$1000. if the property owner also has to repair the sidewalk in front of their property, that can range from-this based on our average amount of damage and the
average cost to repair the sidewalk-in the range of 2700-$3500 for a single repair. so this would be one single repair could equate to the lifetime of this parcel tax. in addition, the liability is something we can't really assess the cost for this removes the burden of liability off the property owners returns it to the city, but also protects the city because would be able to do the necessary repairs and inspection and pruning of trees to reduce that liability overall. by contrast the benefits property owners as we've already enumerated. they would have much lower cost associated with maintaining those trees. they no longer have the actual responsibility to either maintain the treat or hire someone to do it. they lose that liability that i currently have for trip and fall or damage from a tree limb
. they would not be facing fines for improperly pruning a tree. we issued citations to property owners if they damage street trees. they those property owners are not intentionally damaging the trees they either hire someone who doesn't know what they're doing with it try to do it themselves and end up inadvertently damaging the tree. so this would virtually eliminate all. would certainly make the unintentional fine. then they also don't have to pay for those tree related sidewalk repairs which we just noted would be a very large bird. the benefits before it. you would provide for maintenance of existing street trees all existing synergies, not just those for which you currently have maintenance responsibility but also as i said, allows for the responsible growth of the urban forest. we would increase our street to population about 50,000 almost 50% over the lifetime of the parcel tax it would have the funding to care for those trees as they grow.
that is built into the model. in addition, it allows for cleaner and healthier tree canopy, both street trees and school district trees as we noted with that, bigger and healthier tree canopy, with greater ecosystem services could we have public health benefits as well as social benefits and a more livable city. so, the program timeline. we are in the process currently of completing the citywide street tree senses. we will know exactly which trees are out there in the sidewalks and we can plan for their maintenance based on the species, the amount of pruning the species requires in the most efficient way to go about it. we hope this fall there will be about a measure that would sustainably fund urban forest and over the winter and spring would be developing that maintenance plan. so were gathering information not just on the trees and the tree species that also where sidewalk damage is located which we can then overlaid with where we have senior centers and bus stops and schools so that we can make the most strategic approach to repairing sidewalks and assessing and pruning trees. then, in july of 2017 all st. tree maintenance would revert to the city under this program. so, that
concludes our presentation at we are available for any questions. >> supervisor wiener: thank you very much and thank you for your many many years of work on this issue generally on the urban forest master plan and working closely with us on this parcel tax and charter amendment. i do want to note we been working very very closely collaboratively with a number of city departments, planning dpw, treasury and tax collector, controller and the mayor's budget office was involved in our meetings as well so we really try to do this in a big tent kind of way as possible addition of all the community groups property owner groups so, think of next, i want to call up amanda freed from the tax collector's office.
>> testifier: good afternoon supervisor. amanda freed from the treasurer's office. i'll keep my remarks very short since mine is not the most exciting part of this proposal and just here to say should the parcel tax be approved by all of you and the voters, our offices ready to implement and administer the tax could i do just want to note for all of you that this administration is a bit of a departure for the role of our office. we are very used to billing and collecting for property taxes, but in this proposal would also be processing exemptions for seniors and managing the customer service inquiries and requests for refunds that come in. to that point, were working with the assessor's office sfusd, controller and dpw make sure we design a process that will both customer friendly and cost efficient. also maintaining good control carried i didn't want to add efficient passer november, we would come back to you to seek a budget supplemental to cover staffing and technical startup costs that we do not assume in our 16-17 budget. that so that we be ready for july 1. think.
>> supervisor wiener: thank you very much. then tomorrow final speaker for we have public comment, one of invite up dan flanigan from friends of the urban forest and i want to thank dan. i think he's been around 35 years now and i believe-came into existence based on city also retrieved from tree maintenance, which start i guess in the late 70s and so doug has done great work overall but also in getting the word out on this idea. so, dan. >> testifier: thank you supervisors. thank you supervisor scott weiner pursuing was how my presentation. before i start with my remarks, i want to think the supervisors for giving me this for addressing this problem. it's been incredibly long saber san francisco and it's exciting for all the said friends of urban forest to see so many supervisors really caring about this. i want to especially
thank both scott weiner and supervisor avalos gradually starting this whole conversation about five years ago. i remember very clearly in a meeting room on the other side of this building you brought people together and assume we started coming together around trying to find a solution to this problem. i want to also underline what supervisor avalos was thinking we had friends of urban forest of planted more trees in his district than any other district in the city and it still is district that desperately needs trees, and we believe if we do pass something some kind of legislation along the lines that we are proposing, we can address the inequities, covers aye anyway my remarks. this is what scott just stole from in 1981 the board of supervisors removed funding for the care and planting of street trees. the total 105,000 street trees in san francisco without committees together to transform the words together by planting 50,000 of those
105,000 street three. simply put, the san francisco public policy around street trees is broken. public works and friends of urban forest on a daily basis have to do with a system that makes absolutely no sense. each of you have heard countless complaints from homeowners on this subject. it is been the dream of our organization and our 18,000 members to fix this bug once and for all. we believe the time is now. several weeks ago i was invited to a meeting of community groups by the mayor to speak about the quality of life issues in san francisco with hopes that in his upcoming budget, would reflect the investment and address those very important issue spirit folks openly spoke and supervisor avalos was at the meeting-folks openly spoke about crime, lack of police support homelessness and health issue. picking to my turn to
talk i said that i thought this meeting was a microcosm of the discussion that's taken place in this building for countless years. when it comes to street trees, the investment and their care simply-trees simply do not compete in the budget process. the current system gets tree funding against these very important issue did ours and oakland solution to a address this very issue. as you see from john sways and karla shores presentation, a great deal of time and analysis thinking, has gone into coming up with an equitable solution to fix a broken system that we currently have. i've spoken with many of you over the years about the disastrous policy of relinquishment get public works has been forced to give back 21,000 trees to adjacent property owners. this is not the first time they've done this. homeowners are being forced to take responsibility for trees that they do not rant , do not want, and now are liable for the expense of the care and maintenance of those trees. this simply does not
make sense. the one thing i've learned over the past eight years working at friends of urban forest homeowners want a cleaner and healthier city, but this is a really big but, they do not want the liability. i find it extraordinary we been successful planting about 1200 trees a year in the face of our broken system. years ago, mayor gavin newsom announced the planning of 20,000 trees in the city ironically, along the same time the money for the care of those trees and many other trees/. many of those trees planted died. the san francisco urban forest is in dire need of a dedicated funding source and a long-term plan. fluctuations
in the budget led to the clients and are already small canopy dangerous trees, thousands of broken sidewalks, an unfair burden being transferred to property owners. we now have both an equitable funding mechanism and a plan to expand our urban forest while ensuring that all the wonderful benefits that trees have can be spread to all parts of our city, not just some of those parts. please, do not lose sight of the fact was half the money on a yearly basis that's being raised by this parcel tax will go to be fixing a huge backlog of over 6000 broken sidewalks. one could almost call this a sidewalk parcel tax but then my members were not agree with that. additionally, there's a desperate need to transform our san francisco schoolyards. which of many look more like a prison than a school. currently, there's absolutely no money to get first we are trees. this proposal finally gives them a budget to care for trees. as this plan was developed friends of the urban forest visited over 50 or neighborhood associations over the past four years in all 11 districts to seek input and support.
resoundingly, we heard our solution addresses a need that many residents have been struggling for years. were also part of the working group of city hall with stakeholders. we conducted polling, focus groups, met with city departments, spoke to you elected officials and consulted with other nonprofits. so what have we learned from this process? this is an issue not just about trees but it's about environmental justice and social justice. it's about pedestrian safety. it's about accessibility for seniors and disabled community and it's about good governments. with the input for both professionals and this community, this plan will address the needs of both our urban forest and all our san francisco residence. we believe this pressure is good for trees. it's good for citizens but we hope that you will support this issue. thank you. >> supervisor wiener: thank
you very much mr. fun. one things colleagues, i forgot to mention at the beginning is we do have a cosponsor on this economic on but supervisor mar has signed on as a cosponsor of this measure. so, mr. chairman, i don't know if these are previous comments or print comments speak out colleagues any questions or comments bring up. i know we have a lot of supervisor tang >> supervisor tang: really quickly i neglected to think public works could honestly given time to do so much without the funding that's really necessary to carry out all this the department has been nothing short of amazing whenever we ask for any help on any issues with the private property owner or business that struggling to maintain a tree so i want to call the public work staff. >> supervisor farrell: okay supervisor jim and i think that does. >> supervisor wiener: okay so mr. chairman will open up for public comment >> supervisor farrell: let's open up to public on.
>> supervisor wiener: public comments will be 2 min. i will call cards we have. >>[calling names] >> testifier: may i start? okay. first of all thank you the time. i be brief. i'm here to talk about why funding should be provided for the street trees. it's obvious your public utility and she treated as such. so spreading the cost of utility should be spread across everyone as opposed to a jabber owners have the most adjacent to the property. this allows for systemic management of the trees which means is more efficient from a cost perspective the split and overwhelming cost on owners essentially randomly and unluckily very near the street
trees that provide an overall public benefit. i hope you will vote yes for this measure. thanks. >> supervisor wiener: next speaker, please. >> testifier: my name is karen can see no i live in the western addition. in the early 80s am a i led the effort in our neighborhood to enter a treeplanting contest and we one. planting 100 trees in our community. i also served as the 84-85 mayor urban forest task force. skipping out to 2014, i began badgering the city departments because the very poor state of the median trees on visit arrow. the outcome was found that both the city and the private contractor had been negligent because every 90 day reports for three years-they were supposed to go for three years-stipulated we are not done. the trees do not receive adequate water for 40 years.
for four years. i want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to encourage you to have san francisco joined the other cities that recognize the importance of the green canopy. every citizen benefits healthwise from a healthy green canopy and save sidewalks. every citizen should contribute to that funding. on property owners can barely responsibility along with property owners in financing our urban forest. it's been so sad watching the signs go up with people now having to be responsible for the tree in front of them. we all benefit from the trees. we should all fund those trees on and i also want to include the sidewalks. i would very much like to add
something that there be a citizen task force for oversight built in to the measure because the city often does not do what it should be done. thank you. >> testifier: hi. thank you my name is teresa pratt and i'm a resident. when i moved there a few years ago i kept seeing these reports on it would cause about trees falling down. crushing cars and falling into houses in blocking the streets for several hours and i could not figure out why this was so, and every few months i would read about this that i found out it's because these trees which are very very public actually the responsibility of
private citizens. it made sense to me because not every private citizen has resources as many of you have noted financial or otherwise to take care of those trees. so, to me again many of you know this but this is an issue of economic justice just as much of an issue of environmental justice. the current plan requires citizens who never signed up for that tree care to the money with the knowledge to do it. that is causing lots of problems. so, we need healthy trees and we need save sidewalks and we all need to get the collective need and collective benefit so there should be collective responsibility to fund the. again, the atomic benefit the substantive it was mentioned but it's also a huge issue of economic justice that we all care for this. thank you. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good afternoon supervisors. my name is susanna russo and i would like to thank my supervisor district 8, scott weiner and also supervisor avalos for sponsoring this much-needed proposal. i am a 13
year volunteer for friends of the urban forest. i moved here 13 years ago the first thing i wanted to do was to plant a tree and i was told that this was the go to organizations could well, i.e. am here to say it was and still is. several-not several years ago actually, last year, i had the misfortune to witness a catastrophic death of a 35 foot eucalyptus tree on generate street just across from me. there was huge property destruction. the homeowners residence, a car, sidewalk, fortunately nobody was killed, but it was mind-boggling to see this massive tree that simply flopped over into the street. this is an all too frequent occurrence in san francisco. i
have proved more than a dozen small sidewalk trees in my glen park neighborhood at the request of my neighbors. i have been teaching and training others to prune and care for street trees. it is time for the city to create a dedicated sustainable funding proposal for our declining urban forest and i strongly believe that this special progressive parcel tax is a way to go. thank you very much. >> testifier: good afternoon. i just would like to speak to my personal experience. starting with the experience of the schoolchild in another city, close to 60 years ago, my schoolyard have a small plot of lawn with beautiful weeping
cherry shade trees. we used it every day and i remember it to this day. on the other hand, i've had a number of unfortunate personal experiences talking to neighbors who remove trees on this one short block. [inaudible] because the abutting owners thought they were too much trouble, to escape they do not know how to take care of them. i property damage when a neighbor planted in inappropriate tree that damage my-both myself and personal friend suffered injuries from falls on uneven sidewalks. personally, i am not -could have led to a liability problem. then, the social, psychological impact of having a shaded beautifully tree-lined street,, and there's a stark
contrast from a neighborhood mostly on the northern side of the city that has tree-lined streets. and other neighborhoods that do not. so, this is-a tree just elevates the community in every aspect of its residents lives. thank you. >> testifier: that's a nice thought. good afternoon supervisors and him were cannons for staff and sf usb pen. i'm thrilled about the success of measure which is a parcel tax for wetland restoration in the bay. especially because i think it shows people are willing to support a healthy environment trust public agencies, and are willing to tax themselves to
pay for the many benefits of a better environment. we know as previously have said, as many many public benefits that flow from urban trees addictively mature ones that are well taken care of. this measure, as the community has been working on it for five years and more, provides for shared responsibility of both baseline and tax measure so i think it is fair. as previous speakers also noted, sustained funding is the only way to reverse loss of trees and grow the urban forest. we've planted over 50,000 trees and it's over 30 year history, but to make this investment-abroad neighbors together to do that planting so it's not just forest rebutted community forest it. i think to make this investment last and continue to benefit all san franciscans, especially our youngest ones, we need to have a sustained source of funding this measure represent a great consensus in the city around one. so i think you for your support and for 40 and is measured to the ballot. thank
you. >> testifier: good afternoon. my name is peter fortune. i'm a resident of the marina since 1984. on the past president and sit on the board of san francisco beautiful. i also sit on the board of the community association but most importantly, for 20 years i've been wearing a green bracelet that identifies me as a tree hugger. i would like to support and thank supervisors weiner and avalos and karla schwarz and dan flanagan for the comments. i would say ditto to them. i was sure mention one thing about how homeowners were not take care of the trees could i have to trees that frame my driveway. a year ago we spent $1800 having them taken care of and fixed and into years before that it was $1100. i can imagine people in the city spending that kind of money to do it. we're fortunate we been able to do it so we now have a way to fix a problem and i urge you to support it.
thank you. >> testifier: to supervisor on zara kelly a resident for 20 years in san francisco good i am a homeowner, taxpayer, mom, and i'm a big supporter of this ballot and i want to thank you especially scott weiner and avalos for putting this forward. i heard to echo today all of us supported. you understand the idea about trees but i'm really here to urge you to put an end to the disastrous trade transfer policy we have in our city which makes absolutely no sense. please remove the liability of the trees back to the city i urge you to improve safety for residents and pick sidewalks for all including for our seniors, disabled, or use, and i urge you not only to support this ballot measure but do your very best to make sure it is done well what it is promising
and it's rocksolid in the work gets done as soon as possible. if you want to grow the urban forest the city has to take responsibility for it. there's no other way around. i know there's other measures that are competing with this, but i don't think it can keep compete with one of our best natural entities. are trees. the work they're doing forth. beautification, the air they give us the carbon sequestering. the habitat they preferred the place for kids to climb and see nature in the middle of the city. the amount of gallons, millions of gallons of water that it cleans. i really want to continue this conversation it keep that in mind that we are it falls on our environmental values and how really the city within the list of to do for the city are trees as an asset we should protect our assets, not continued to disregard and damage it. thank you for listening.
>> testifier: good afternoon supervisors. my name is marilyn carman's. landscape architect and eight san francisco native. in the late 80s i was on the citizen advisory open space committee but i've not spoken before this body since then. for 30 years i worked with an urban designer in montgomery county marilyn could i also worked in paris am now here in san francisco. in maryland, i was montgomery, maryland i was in charge of several urban streetscapes such as in bethesda and marilyn. i also wrote at the same time about urban open spaces and the streets of paris, new york san francisco and shanghai immensely architecture magazine. nowhere, i repeat, nowhere,
else have i seen the planting and maintenance of street trees and the building of public space, public sidewalks, but two were relinquished to individual property owners. as you know from your planning and public works staff, planting and maintenance of the urban forest takes as much knowledge, a series and science as does the development of the rest of the public right-of-way. i urge you to take that this responsibility could you have a staff and a great partner in the friends of the urban forest. thank you for all the support of this excellent measure. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. any additional public comment? mr. chairman they would close public, >> supervisor farrell: public comment is now closed >>[gavel] >> supervisor wiener: collies, thank you for hearing this item today. as you can hear we went to a great process. it's been a long conversation. in a long overdue fix that i think we can be proud of. as i noted at the beginning, i'm asking the
committee to make a few amendment and distribute it those amendment and will actually, mirrors like to make a motion. i want to move the man rocks speak up in a motion by supervisor weiner. >> moved and seconded. any questions or objections? without objection so moved. >>[gavel] >> supervisor wiener: now mr. chairman they can move to continue this item to our next budget committee meeting, which is june 16 >> supervisor farrell: so i like to entertain a motion. >> moved and seconded. to continue to the 16th and will do because the first day of full budget deliberations will do that item person knock it out of the way. so we will.. we will take that without objection as well? >> supervisor wiener: yes. if i could make is a member of the public, although of course anyone is welcome to come to the meeting to make public comments, we are the good public comment today. the rules committee will ultimately be the committee that will send this determine whether to send
this to the full board, so folks of course are welcome and have a right to come but we had good comments today so it's not essential. thank you. >> supervisor wiener: >> supervisor farrell: without objection he can take it >>[gavel] >>[clears throat] item number 14, please >> clerk: item number 14 a resolution approving the interim budget treasure island about authority this clear 26 in heaven 17 and 2017-20 team >> supervisor farrell: thank you. this is the treasure island budget mr. rosen interim budget. >> staff: mr. chairman mercer the committee then rosenfield controller. my make sense to call all three of the interim items together. provide general background on what they are. >> supervisor farrell: let's do that. ashley dalby 14 through 16-217. okay mdm. clerk 14 to 17 together we pick
>> clerk: item number 14 has already been called. item number 15 resolution approving interim budget of the office of community investment and infrastructure operating as the successor agency to the san francisco redevelopment agency for fiscal year 2015-27. item number 16, propose interim budget appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and estimated expenses for department of the city as of may 31, 2016 for fiscal year ending june 30, 2017 and june 30, 2018. item number 17 proposed interim annual salary was enumerating positions in the annual budget and appropriation works for fiscal year ending june 30 27 and june 30, 2018 >> supervisor farrell: mr. rosenfield >> staff: thank you. as you know you begin your deliberation on the mayor's proposed budget when you have a false ao annual
corporation ordinance in the annual salary corridor in front of you. our charter establishes a budget process with the board of supervisors really adopts a budget at the end of july. of course the mayor is required to approve that budget no later than the fifth day of august. as you know our fiscal year starts on july 1. so, with the what looks in front of you is bridge that period with the fiscal year that we are now ending on june 30 is exhausted and yet the new permanent budget for the city for the new fiscal year is not yet approved. that approximately 30 friday period in july our charter calls on the mayor and the board to adopt an interim appropriation the covers that period that's what these items are. provides a continuation of the current year budget allows the government to continue to operate and pay bills will you finish your deliberations in july. so that's really the purposes of these items. they're largely administered oh and action. mr. rose is a report on. i can respond to his
report but that's the general context >> supervisor farrell: thank you. any questions? mr. rose go to your reports fred leaf give 16, 16 technically >> staff: yes. specifically, regarding item number 16 on page 10 of our report, we report that section 31 is a new provision of the administrative provisions of the annual appropriation ordinance authorizing the controller and the board of supervisors has previously pledged 100% of the property taxes generated by and infrastructure financing district. to the ifd to transfer funds in a corporation authority between and within accounts related to the ifd to meet accounting and state requirements, infrastructure, financing plans, and bond confidence and increase increases or decreases in appropriations to match the actual property tax increment
revenues received for the ifd. we have a recommendation regarding that on page 11, and that it specifically regarding item 16. we well, this pertains to both 16 and 17. we recommend you amend section 31 of the administrative provisions of the annual appropriation ordinance to clarify that any increase to the appropriation to the ifd or the infrastructure financing district, would be considered with the infrastructure financing plan. it would be consistent with the infrastructure financing plan previously approved by the board of supervisors, and we recommend you approve the fiscal year 16-17 and 17-18 interim annual provision ordinance file 16-0626 as amended and to approve this cool year 16-17 and 17-18 interim annual salary ordinance in that file 16 0627.
>> >> staff: out is that we concur with mr. rosen on this item. >> supervisor farrell: thank you. sorry about that it mr. rosen any questions or any concerns on this proposed amendment >> testifier: makes sense must be felt one with that will open up to public comment with items 14-17 get any questions or comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. so >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: to clarify that applies to both items? >> staff: yes, does >> supervisor farrell: one proposed minutes in item 14 to 17. can i entertain a motion to except as proposed amendment 16-17? >> moved and seconded.
>> testifier: i stand corrected it just item 16 that would refer to. i apologize. >> supervisor farrell: think. so, a motion to except the minutes for item 16? >> moved and seconded. without objection >>[gavel] befell been a motion 24 items 14-17 including as amended number 16 to the full board at her next record scheduled meeting >> moved and seconded. can we take that without objection? without objection the motion passes. >>[gavel] >> supervisor farrell: mdm. clerk to a variety of the business be forced. >> clerk: no more business. >> supervisor farrell: thank you, everyone. we are adjourn. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >>
>>[gavel] >> supervisor peskin: good morning and welcome to the government audit and oversight committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm the chairman, supervisor peskin board and i like to thank the folks at sfgtv for live streaming this meeting. mdm. clerk, any announcements >> clerk: yes be sure to sound all cell phones and electric
device. complete speaker cards to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the court. items after the will be on the june 14 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor peskin: thank you . please read the first item >> clerk: yes, item number one resolution approving sfmta eight 2016-17 paratransit broker in operating agreement with-services incorporated >> supervisor peskin: thank you. is there a representative hear from the mta to address this item? >> staff: annette williams. before you today is a new contact or paratransit services will provide door-to-door transportation for people with disabilities unable to use muni. for the past 35 years, and i note you been here for many of those years, and contacting san francisco paratransit services and we went through a competitive bid
for this new contact. when out in november with drs p and we had an evaluation made up of panel of disabilities and seniors and experts and paratransit that a valuate of the proposal. were their recommendation, mpa staff negotiated a contract with-for a five-year period and five-year option. some of the new things in this contract are mobility management activities. we are going to revenue information and referral center for seniors and people disabilities to tell them about all the transportation options that there are in san francisco. we are also going to expand the travel training program for people who may not have use the system before and could benefit from that. we also have some new technology related projects in the contract. one is the integration of the debit card. this is the taxi debit card with flywheel so customers will
be able to call a cab using electronic technology, which we think will be a huge benefit, especially to wheelchair users who can differentiate between accessible and non-accessible vehicles. in addition, we will have software that allowed the band customers to do their scheduling, canceling, tracking of rides using technology as well. so, we can both of those are going to be new and good additions. i'm happy to answer any questions you have. i'm glad to be here before you again. >> supervisor peskin: it's good to see you here i'm amazed mark soto is still running the program and you're still doing it for the mta. all these many years later. ms. newman, on behalf of the budget analyst, you recommend approval of this item. any comments >> staff: through the chair, supervisors, yes, debra newman from the legislative i would just note that the mta did
issue a request for causal in november 2015, and then in december 2015. the board approved a ordinance require the sfmta eight to include prevailing wages and worker retention provisions in the new agreement. so if you look on table 1, on page 4, of our report, it doesn't show the various funding sources that will be used to fund the 142 million dollar agreement over the next five years. we would also note the proposed agreement for the first year for fiscal year 16-17 will cost approximately 25 $20 million, which is about 2 million, or eight 8.6% higher than the fiscal. about 22.7 million, and
we just note the primary reason for the cost increase is related to the higher salaries associated with the prevailing wage provision that we do recommend approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. newman can supervisor breed >> president breed: thank you. ms. williams, i just had a question you during the process, can you provide me with information of who did it on the contract as well as who was on the selection committee and tell us a little bit about the process? >> staff: sure. we had three firms that came to the pre-bid for the rfp selection process and that was zapt, first transit, and secure transportation. we had two options that the firms granted under option a or b. one was doing administrative services get the other one was administrative and some of the transportation services. so any from the bit on both options.
we had two calls from one firm, so only one of the three firms transbay, elected to bid on the trunk contract and they did under both options amd. the selection committee reviewed both of those proposals i made up of three people with disabilities, to organizations that serve people with disabilities, a paratransit expert from outside of san francisco and a paratransit expert from san francisco. >> president breed: thanks. >> supervisor peskin: i want to welcome vice chair the committee supervisor norman yee was joined us that other any members of the public would like to testify on item number one? seeing none,, we will close public almonds. >>[gavel] >> supervisor peskin: supervisor yee any questions for ms. williams relative to the the contact with zepp?
>> supervisor yee: i reviewed it and it seems fine to me. >> supervisor peskin: that we have a motion to send this item to the full board with a recommendation? dylan do want to add anything? okay. moved by supervisor breed without objection will send this item to the full board with a recommendation. thank you ms. williams. good to see you again. >>[gavel] >> supervisor peskin: please read the next item >> clerk: item number two, resolution retroactively authorizing san francisco business commission to accept and expand increase the grant from the united states department of education. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. supervisor yee this is your item >> supervisor yee: this is always nice for the city to be the seed funding from the federal government. particularly, with this type of funding for [inaudible] and i believe tracy-is here to present >> staff: i'm tracy-phone for the commission. this is a additional $300,000 for a grant that began in july 2012. this
is the federal dollars passed through to the california department of education for our early learning quality improvement system which is also called quality rating and improvement system. what this fund is, not only assesses the prequel classroom, but also workshops, training, technical assistance, and other developmental support. like mental health and inclusion. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. long. ms. newman, any comments? you recommend approval i noticed. any questions from committee members? are there any members of the public would like to testify on item number two? seeing none,, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> supervisor peskin: is there a motion to send this to the board? >> supervisor peskin: i the
motion to send this to the board >> supervisor peskin: motion to the send this to the full board with a recommendation. without objection, that will be the order. >>[gavel] >> supervisor peskin: please read the next item >> clerk: item number three 81 examining the administrative codes require housing platform to residential unit is on the city registry prior to listing. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. we've been joined by the chief sponsor of this orbix david campos and i want to thank supervisor campos for his leadership on this issue as well as the coalition of housing advocates, homeowners, tenants, public safety advocates, hotel workers, the hotel council, the apartment association, the tenants union, for lending their support to this very reasonable and long-overdue piece of legislation intended to fix some of the loopholes in my predecessors well intended but
yet evolving and still flawed legislation around short-term rentals. with that, but he turned it over to supervisor campos >> supervisor campos: thank you. much mr. chairman. i want to thank you and your staff for working so closely with us on this item. i am proud to be cosponsor of this piece of legislation with you. colleagues, i want to thank the committee for their attention to this matter. i am handing out a amendment that we would be introducing to the legislation, but essentially, where we are and what is before you today-i want to thank all the members of the public on both sides of this issue who have come out-for this item -what is before you today is a very modest and very simple proposal that is aimed at helping here in san francisco reserve the very precious housing stock that we have
them and we know that we have a housing crisis, and what we are doing through this very modest amendment is simply closing a loophole in our current short-term rental law. i would like to once again, thank supervisor peskin" which and that is been working on this for quite some time. i also want to thank for their cosponsorship supervisor mar and supervisor avalos. this legislation mandates that web platforms support, not hinder, the enforcement of our current short-term law here in san francisco. let me be very clear. this is not about changing the existing law. it simply about making sure that this lot that has been in effect for 18 months or so, that this little lot is actually enforced. it's ultimately about corporate
responsibili, about an industry that has made and continues to make tens of millions of dollars in this business, in this line of work, taking responsibility for the negative impact that they're having on the housing stock. why is that important? it's important because we have been facing for the last 2-3 years, a housing crisis unlike anything that san francisco has seen. again, this proposal is about enforcement and the proposal specifically mandates that have housing platforms like b&b verify that a host has actually registered with the city and county before they actually advertise their short-term rental on their
website. it's that simple. if a hosting platform fails to do so, we believe that hosting platform has a responsibility to be a good citizen. that hosting platform under this amendment would be penalized up to $1000 a day. while the current law has set rules for hosts stipulating that all posts must register with the city and county and post-registration number, as of today, more than 75% of the 7000 , plus bmd house 7000 with bmd alone, have not registered, and yet, what we see is platforms like b&b allowing those folks knowing they are breaking the law to advertise on the platform. to budget and legislative analyst reports as well as extensive reporting by the san francisco chronicle of all entities, show this industry continues to exacerbate
our worsening housing crisis by taking even more units off the market. last year, the budget analyst did report that found that bmd alone is responsible for taking up to 2000 entire units completely off the housing market for the purpose of engaging in commercial short-term rentals. this is why we need to bring the hosting platforms into the regulatory scheme by making sure that they have a role in helping enforcement. this is something that planning department staff, as much as the maid tried to walk away from this comments, planning department staff when asked about how to enforce this law have recommended in the past and will also-have made it very clear as has the budget and
legislative analyst, that the changes we are making is consistent with what is required for proper enforcement. the weakness of the current law is the fact that corporate accountability is nonexistent. corporate accountability is not part of the equation. we believe that when, after two years, we still have 75% of folks out of compliance, that it shows the law is simply not working. again, i law, this amendment does not change anything about the rules that are in place. it simply ensures that hosting platforms follow the law and help the city not hinder compliance. let me say this. i met with many in the home share and community. i support hosted i support the mom and pop goo are using this as a way to make ends meet. we
have no problem with that and we made a very clear them and there is nothing in this law that actually places any burden on those hosts. but, left unregulated, this industry will continue to exacerbate the housing crisis and as much is bmd and platforms may try to hide behind the mom-and-pop castle host, those are not the target of this legislation. at the end of the day, this about enforcement and compliance. some have claimed this legislation would force platforms to please short-term rentals. let me just say, that is a ridiculous notion. if you are a rental car agency and you make sure that a person has a license before you let them rent a car from you, does that somehow turn you into policing the folks who rent cars from those entities, those companies? i don't think it
does. likewise, it doesn't do that with these platforms. i'm a huge supporter of internet freedom and we work carefully with the city attorney's office to make sure that we follow the very letter and spirit of the law and what the law provides. as mark rosenberg, executive director of the la privacy information center has said, if you're operating a business on the internet and providing business related information, pursuant to a license activity, it seems entirely reasonable that you comply with those obligations. this law, once again was carefully written so that it does not come into conflict with federal law that we are not forcing web platforms to edit hosted content in any way. we are simply saying that with a platforms must be that they have to be responsible actors and not facilitate unregulated activity which is the very
problem that we have here. that facilitation is happening. unscrupulous whammo seven abusing the loopholes in our law robbing san francisco's residence of the affordable housing they need, and bmd from our perspective to take the analyses further, poke seven robbing residents of that housing and bmd has essentially been driving the getaway car could this is government stepping in and saying, enough is enough. this has to stop. again, want to think the broad range of people worked with my office on this legislation. supervisor peskin, his chief of staff sunny and cool, san francisco tenets unit, local two, choo-choo, tenants together the san francisco apartment association, you can see it's a very interesting gathering of people were not usually on the same page.
senior and disability action. share better, housing rights committee, and many more good i also want to thank the city attorney's office, especially rob catholic for his phenomenal work on this legislation. i also know that kevin guy, the director of the office of short-term rentals is here and we want to thank him and his staff for the input they have provided, but before i turn it over to rg cosponsor supervisor peskin i do have a question that i want to to the chair asked the city attorney. people have been raising concerns in the past about the communications decency act, and there's a lot of posing on the part of bmd and others that they have a winning legal case, and as an attorney and someone
who's litigated many cases before, i know that people tend to do that, tend to say that and boast about those things. but i want to just directly asked the city attorney, if you can address that issue because this is not any layperson simply saying this is a legally defensible. we want to be are directly from the city attorney. >> city attorney: good morning. at your direction supervisor, we drafted this ordinance in a way that minimizes any issues under the communications decency act. the law that you mentioned. this ordinance does not regulate the content of any posted information on the website, the hosting platform. rather, it relates to business activities as you said, supervisor, of the hosting platform. so, essentially, it extends the type of information that they must collect in
order to engage in booking services and doesn't regulate the content of the website. >> supervisor campos: thank you much mr. gibner and we want to thank our city attorney. this is an office that has a stellar track record of event defending challenges to city law and a successful record and that will continue should've the litigation here. i will just close with an expiration of the amendment that i ended out. and at some point i'll ask the committee to amend the legislation along with those lines but the amendment does the following. one, it clarifies the definition of a hosting platform. second, it clarifies what happens the first day the law goes into effect just to have as much clarity as possible. did it
clarifies privacy protections for people registered with the city, and finally, it actually streamlines the compliance process. this is actually a amendment those made at the request of the office of short-term rentals. with that, colleagues, i look forward to the discussion and respectfully ask for your support. again, thank you supervisor peskin to you and your office and to carolyn guzman in my office whose been work on this long time. the peskin thank you supervisor campos. i know there's many individuals here there would like to testify. i got huge stack of speaker cards so we are going to limit testimony to 2 min. to that everybody will have a chance to testify. i also want to thank the office of short-term rental in the city administrator for offering the opportunity for anyone in this chamber coming this building today, might want to register. there is a table outside that is being staffed by li mei lu and anybody who would like to fill out an application to register a short-term rental can do so.
out this door my right, your left, so feel free to avail yourself of that opportunity, if you wish to do so. with that, i want to start by acknowledging that we have two members of the planning commission here and would like to give them an opportunity to address this body. the planning commission actually did a very conference of review of the short-term rental regimen in san francisco and made a large list of recommendations, some of which the board talk in 2014 in october, when the original short-term rental legislation was passed, and some of which were not taken among including the legislation that is before us today. so, i want to welcome commissioners dennis richard and catherine mar. he like to address this panel and after that, we'll go to members of the public. don't be shy.
>> commissioner richards: i think i've been on record as saying i'm everybody in the room and supervisors, there's a definite benefit in the city short-term rentals. i think from a cultural exchange point of view, from a business point of view, in terms of additional business for local businesses, local small businesses, especially my and for the people who are trying to make ends meet in san francisco. so, i don't think short-term rentals is anything evil. things actually kind of nifty interesting right that folks naturally use their asset. their extra bedroom went on vacation, their flat, for reasonable period of time. i remember the morning that i was on the planning commission in the september of 2014, i remember making a couple calls to a couple of board of supervisors that i knew, a
couple of the board of supervisors and i said to them that morning, you know, the way the law is written as is, you need some type of a better enforcement mechanism. you need the ability to actually figure out who is renting and who is not and was renting towards the time of and who is not writing about the time limit. i made this case. i made that case in the planning commission. when this was heard i believe twice the horror the force even a staff report indicated that requiring the registration number was a linchpin and i quote in the report, of actually making this law work and make it effective. i sat through a hearing here before but was supervisor weiner chaired it in entertainment such as, hey let's let this law work and i think enough time has gone by good we are now in june of 2016, 15 months afterward. the law went into
place with 75% compliance rate i think everybody can agree that it's really not working. i know there'd been playing around but it's too slow to get registered, is too complicated, but i'll be honest with you. the office of short-term rentals streamline the prospect i support streamlining the process, how. however, let me make an analogy. the compliance rate of about 25%, i likened that to greece, the country of tax agrees etiquette can you imagine if the homeowner tax and self that combined rate here was only 25%. within a real deep hurt. i think it's a fair this issue to get that too many many host. host web and following the law and actually was supporting a ballot initiative last year that did not win, but in my conversation with every host, everybody largely registered said this is a fairness issue. why do i have
to go through registering through the process and do the reporting a lot of people don't. i likened that to jumping turnstiles on the subway. a buddy starts jumping turnstiles on the job subway the what is going to be. the other thing i want to talk about was the loss of tax revenue. that is yet to come up in this discussion. it's great d&d this company and entity has an agreement with san francisco to remit taxes on behalf of its host. however, all the other platforms don't. if you're not registered as a host and your platform does not remit taxes, were losing that tax money. so, that's by the equation is that nobody is talking about is the elephant in the room is probably in the millions of dollars. as to the spurious argument about d&d our the coasting platform becoming a police entity, let me remind you when i opened up my checking account yesterday at the bank, they asked me for a social security card. was
nobody from the iris there at the bank. the bank legally had to require me to pull out a social security number. no different than a registration number. the other thing that i was asked yesterday when i went out for a drink and the bar asked me for my drivers license because they can want to lose their license. they were carding everybody because they serve minors they get punished by getting suspension of the license and they could go out of business. so what's the difference between that and what were asking for today? the other thing yesterday when it went to safeway i gave them my credit card and asked me for my license to verify it was actually me making the charge. again, it wasn't these or mastercard standing there. it was equally. acting as the agent. lastly, the whole issue around any privacy concerns around a registration number, let me remind you of this. i drive around in my car with a license plate on it. it doesn't tell people who im. it doesn't tell them where i live. it
identifies me and for appropriate law-enforcement agency, that's exactly what we need. can you imagine folks with 75% of people do not drive around the car with drivers licenses. it would not make any sense. i believe this is a common sense that the government piece of legislation in a 1% supported and asked the supervisors vote unanimously to approve it. thanks. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, commissioner. >>[applause] >> supervisor peskin: commissioner moore anything like that animal go to public comment? >> commissioner moore: since commissioner richards took more than 2 min. oh make it simple get my position about this is quite clear. i'm in support of where you are and my simple comment would be without the ability to enforce the laws and we've come to that point. >> supervisor peskin: thanks. with that, we'll go to public comments. i will call sets of speakers in the water i received them. [calling names].
>> testifier: good morning. the real question is, why should be in the be allowed to lift unregistered units on the platform. the current system of enforcement that relies on neighborhoods to turn in neighbors. i'm the president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i often hear stories about things like this with air b&b. i think one thing to look at with the platform is first you are asking for an arbitrary number of $1000. i say, why not 10,000 , one not 50? they are
breaking the law. they're breaking the law legally. the neighborhoods believe that the [inaudible] siphoned units from the unit driving up prices and tightening availability. the existing system is ruining the character of our neighborhoods throughout the city and creating many empty units as stated earlier. all air and b&b rentals should have a valid san francisco registration number before posting them online. from the city rentals would seem illegitimate to listing services would be required to respond with details about these properties within one business day or face big signs.
thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: hello. my name is ed bell. i live in san francisco for almost 60 years and have lived in my own home for over a third. my home is a very special place to me. it's where my only child was born, where i raise my child, where my mother spent the final weeks of her life before passing on sushi to be surrounded by people do love to. in short, my home has a life [inaudible]. as with many seniors my income has decreased substantially over the last few years and about a year ago i told my wife got him very happy to tell you my house is not pursuing the only reason it's not for sale is because the income i generate through air b&b. instead of two old people tottering around the house reminiscing about the good old days, unfortunately share mine with interesting
adventures, were getting satisfaction from seeing the city my wife and i have love for a lifetime. i've been fortunate in anyways. i'm very familiar with computers that use computers at work i can tell you i'm completely air b&b compliance. however, many of the air b&b hosts are seniors like myself and are intimidated by computers. i know many of my senior friends would really like to become air b&b hosts and share their homes but they do not because they cannot deal with the computer requirements. i don't mind paying taxes. i make money on air b&b and i think i should pay taxes on that money. however, i am upset about all the forms i have to file them in computer-generated forms, it really cost more to figure out then the income generated. so, in short, please take my wife, my friends, other seniors like me into account when you make these decisions. thank you for your time >> supervisor peskin: thank
you. next speaker, please. and after [calling names]. >> testifier: good morning. my name is jordan davis in the material from from the tenderloin and i urge you to support 1604 23. which would actually hold short-term rental houses and platforms responsible for gentrifying our neighborhoods. this care if the need was machined has been scared passing new regulation has been saying that is fine too job i took it and apocalyptic propaganda [inaudible]. as lgbt primark has just begun let's reflect this new pride in gentrification let's think about the disabled transgender woman who needs double and the
black payment among any of these others and how they could end up homeless and possibly incarcerated were dead because of rich techie man children and then go to think becoming and innkeeper is more profitable. i do not know how many lgbt people have been displaced by these but [inaudible] in our former homes as we support air b&b's lies and you're no better than her lgbt people than donald trump or pat mccord. please, go vote yes on this important bill. it's very reasonable and we depend on it. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good morning. i'm doug nielsen. i'm a home share host with one bedroom one bath private unit in my permanent residence. which i live full-time. i'm one of the approximately 3000 people registered. i think we all
agree in the fact that this number is too low. i'm an unacceptable. it's also known the process is very cumbersome. it can be as long as three months, it takes up to three months or more to get registered in some cases. this is also unacceptable. the city must find a way to simple five this prospect there's no question about it. by now, there's another obstacle that has surfaced that makes the registration process and legalization of a business and issue. that is, as one whose registered and the other 1300 that have have received a 571 r that was sent to already starts asking them to submit a list of all the furniture, all equipment, everything they have in their units. the date they purchased it, the price they paid, the specific items and for me, i did this. turn it in,
the total came to about $3000. i've items in my house in that room that i acquired back in 1984. items that have been gifted to me. so, the value came to about $3000. now, i am trying this and in with the depreciation this inmate get that saves was about $1000 in a garage sale. they're going to get $10 out of me and if you put that apply that to the other 1300 registered and get $13,000 for the city. this is not spending the resources and time and energy that made the city should do. so what i am suggesting is taking a money applying to the registration process to improve it make it better but don't spend the money and resources on sending out these types of forms. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.
>> testifier: good morning. my name is kathy. i may san francisco voter and a member of the debtor housing policy. as an organization need up of both renters and homeowners, we are tired of the political games that do nothing to address the housing crisis. this amendment is not the solution we need. they only create more red tape for the renters and homeowners who want to do the right thing. the city permit process needs to be streamlined to adopt 12 people are using online services like eight air b&b. if the average processing time is at least a month the current system is too burdensome for huge amounts of people rent a room in their house for two weeks or two weekends a year. that's what's fixed the process
first. if you want to see more registration. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. and after, [calling names] >> testifier: good morning, chairman peskin president breed and supervisor tammy and 10 cameras that my name is kelly powers and him representing the hotel counsel san francisco. the hotel council is a nonprofit trade association that represents the hotel industry in san francisco. the hotel council supports the short-term rental legislation that is being discussed today. we believe required hosting platforms to verify that each of the units that listing on the site have a valid registration the city and county of san francisco. it is reasonable and necessary. it is
reported that most unregistered short-term rentals are not renting their primary residences as the existing relations require. renting units in condominium buildings for homeowner associations do not allow short-term rentals tenants renting apartments without owner permission. the regulation being proposed were hoping sure that only legal short-term rentals will be included on hosting platforms. again, the hotel council supports the short-term rental legislation that is being discussed today and we encourage your support as well. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. powers. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good morning cannot major in manila. either or both days with illegally operating twist hotel and this amendment would've avoided this situation by requiring them to register the most they cannot do because they're not eligible. i stayed there. on
air b&b they offered to-i went back in and abstain for more than a year. i problems with hotel management or consulate trying to turn over rooms in order to rent them to torres and not taking care of their other responsibility to the resident tenants that were there. one of the issues they use the hotel management system with key cards, so you're automatically logged out if you didn't pay your bill every weekend 11 am which is against the rental code in san francisco. also, they charge me 15% hotel tax i paid more than $4200 over the course of a year in tax on what is supposed to be rent and i still have not been refunded that money. requiring air b&b to check their registration would've avoided this for me and other people. in addition to reserving those units which were supposed to be sro units and not poorest units for
people needed them. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: thank you my name is angel sanders. a couple points i see beneficial to this. first of all, where i live, one of my neighbors is renting out his units and without him registering there's no way for me to bring up to the board that he is not doing so. so having this in place would help a lot of people like this could also, another benefit would be having people register if i'm looking for a place to move into, i can at least find out how many of the units around the are doing so. what i currently have come, like is that people are doing it on unlawfully and it changes the dynamic of a community. so, i think having this register would benefit everybody. also, used to do uber and i was in uber driver you can't just slap a u on a window and go drive
around. this apostate i think this is kind of the same thing were you get a processing unit was doing what. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you mr. santa cruz. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good morning. mine is karen casino and i'm a registered host. there are two reasons i think not to pass the legislation now. that we don't make the same mistake that we did last year, before there's time to assess the results of the current law, and the second, i think it is scares many host again to not register out of fear of what is to come. just like last year. in the meantime, the board could set up a short-term rental task force with major players coming up with recommendations for the board to consider. such as, differentiating between different types of short-term rentals. low use. for those
hosts that only maybe do like someone said, a couple of weekends were maybe two weeks a year, they are not registering because that the registration cost a lot of money and they're not using it very much. also, there are people who are going sabbaticals were going extensive volunteering events and they may be old weight more than 90 days but san fransco is still the primary residence. there is also people who are work related absences like drivers, airline host, performers, and they may be a weight more than the 90 days due to their job hours, but there were still residence of san francisco. these categories could be created and legislation simple five bringing in more register house and also beef 14% hotel tax. i
know that those with little faith in city bureaucracy are in very early thinking way too complicated for staff. well, i think san francisco could show the rest of the country how to do it right. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: my name is-and we registered very early taken there was a right thing to do. i still think it's the right thing to do, but i think that the city is making the process tremendously intimidating in so many ways good most recent move by the assessor's office on 571- r having to itemize every item in the room or in the house, and the value and audit and one was obtained, etc., seems a bit
ridiculous added to all the other things that the city has done up to now. to discourage people from listing. again, i repeat we were amongst the first to list and we were encouraging people to register, and i'll be damned if i would tell anybody to register now. i'll be damned if i registered under the current information that i have about the city requirements. criminal penalties supposedly [inaudible] $1000 a day, etc. seems a bit exorbitant and again, intimidating. having to for seniors having to deal with computers, i'm semiliterate computer wise, but even that in itself is difficult for a lot of seniors who are involved in this air b&b or other platforms.
it seems that picking on air b&b platforms were other platforms are being ignored,, other platforms that are ready to sue rather than comply is very unfair. i believe there is too much hate being made out of politics rather than well-thought-out policy by too many of the supervisors. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, sir. next, [calling names] >> testifier: good morning. my name is eric and [inaudible]. my husband and i are hosts and register. but we feel very strongly that the registration
as many as many on unintended consequences and [inaudible] to be prescribed. we believe in strong legislation for housing residents and to those that abuse the system from causing harm. we want to see other forms step forward to do more to help the city. there needs to be more time to make that happen. we also believe the city should simplify the process for hosts who rent that space just a few days a week a year. we encourage the city to develop a one step online registration process for hosts. the ever-changing rules and perform only confuse the
process of more. including the newest tool that hosts must create an inventory of all their belongings right down to sheets, silverware, [inaudible]. i filled out my online form for my business license, which was due on may 31. [inaudible] license was issued in favorite. the form did not contain a phone number to answer questions of which i had several. i worry about the future of sharing and the proposal is passed. we fear it will only be to only more confusion for host. [inaudible]. it tramples critical online attraction and conflicts conflict with important federal laws. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good morning.
thank you for lending your effect on kevin craigie district for voter and redshirt host and we have a new law and her in-laws stay out when they visit and the rest of the we host and really enjoying the experience i believe like others everybody should get registered and they should agree with a lot of your intent of what your time to compost. you know, threatening imprisonment in the county jail to move the housing crisis from our homes to the jail, that's one point. i think it just basically extreme in my opinion i think when he to work on solutions were the high-tech innovation and social tech capital of the. let's work with us which look for solutions i welcome to talk with anybody from vegas two, gated a issued a think this is just a bit extreme and were kind of the top tier industry of san francisco our hospitality and
information communication technologies. i think some of this legislation is basically attacking the top-tier industries of our city. i could go on and on but i'll leave it at that. i would appreciate your peers and hope we can find solutions working together. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i just want to point out to folks the section of the law with regard to criminal penalties to my that is actually been on the books since supervisor chiu, my predecessor, past the law. that is not in any way changing the legislation. that is the force. the legislation that is before us only adds hosting platforms to that provision in law could so, in addition to holding hosts accountable what supervisor campos legislation does, is also hold opposing
platforms accountable. the civil and criminal penalty statute is the same statute that supervisor chiu introduced in 2014. thank you. next speaker, please. >> testifier: hi. my name is esther ricci. i'm district for voter. i'm one of the many who went through the painful and time-consuming process of registration to be in compliance with the city. i read this legislation and i find it very disturbing and highly punitive. it is basically and intends to implement proposition f which was defeated by san francisco voters last november. i don't see how somebody who has more than one listing because is renting more than one room in the house into going to jail regardless of its david chu
were a new one, is going to encourage anyone to register. were demanding to have public information. there's many hosts, a single woman or retirees, or divorced that they don't like to have their information to anyone public. this legislation doesn't offer any solution to solve the housing problem. san francisco is known for being progressive and open minded, this legislation is very regressive and conservative jerk we should be a model of innovation and [inaudible]. please, do not pass this legislation. it is going to hurt many decent people who could not be in the city if it were not for renting out empty spaces. the of the
actions have been going down since short-term rentals are up. i never heard any direct you to get person in these two years i have been coming here for the short-term rentals. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. [calling names]. >> testifier: hi. my name is jessica mullen. thank you for your time this morning. i live in sunny side and supervisor yee's district with my family. the law as written let us down. we need this legislation to address the problem weeks. personally. moved to sunny side several years ago and her neighbors were longtime san francisco family could overnight they were forced out by the landlord we found our
selves living next-door to an illegal hostile wizard on air b&b. even imagine living next-door to someplace renting out room beds, individual beds at $30 a night 4-6 is a room in 1000 ft.2 house, with key goes on the door, no keys, no host anywhere to be found. they rang the doorbell in our house at all hours of the night waking up our young son which all parents know is really the worst. i called dbi, they cannot help it they told me they could not help me. i contacted ospf. they tried but they said they could not help me because they could not catch the host in the act. those were pulled on the listing during the day so city staff cannot find him and i be able to observe it again at night. my spirits is exactly why this legislation is needed. air b&b shopping list illegal units especially illegal hospitals cramming an individual residents in residential neighborhoods in the first place to complex permitting is a red herring. i
appreciate all the legally redshirt host were here today, but frankly, this legislation is nothing to do with you. section 230 of the cba is a post and scared sat there at the city attorney pointed out at the beginning of this hearing. i also want to point out that any proposal from other supervisors to add provisions that apply to hosts a poison pills and i urge everyone to reject them. this legislation is great as is. it's needed. i urge you to support it. it's fair. it's practical. it's a minimum we should ask our citizens here in san francisco, including and i think especially, most bondable corporate citizens two bye-bye. please stand up for regular san francisco like me. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. malone. >>[applause] >> supervisor peskin: i want to it knowledge your bravery and leadership in appearing on the nbc bay area investigative units exposé on the abuses of short-term rental such as you experience. that was a i think,
a helpful piece of public information and you did a public service in doing that. next speaker, please. >> testifier: jennifer-i think you know we are very supportive of this legislation already. i've even become friends with the apartment association staff while crafting this legislation. so, i think that is significant and shows the broad support we have. i know that air b&b set up an e-mail generator to expand and it was a very bizarre e-mail that said hosts would have to count all the forks in their houses and was no mention that this legislation is retargeted at the platforms themselves. it also didn't state the we know changes for current hosts. so if b&b continues to feed us lies and hide behind it hosts
and this legislation will actually be good for the legitimate house is oh, cut out the bad actors. help more hosts will rise up and told the company to stop using them like ponds. i have a anecdote. we posted on our facebook page of a picture of a flyer that was posted in san francisco's chinatown those critical of air b&b. we normally get like 3000 views if were lucky. this 1.6 million views. there's 10,000 comments on it. went around the work it was all the comments were negative against air b&b ready my point is, the whole world is watching you guys today. i hope you use your discretion and finally pass meaningful enforcement. >> supervisor peskin: thanks. i'm delighted this matter brought the tenants and landlords and the hotel owners and hotel workers together. next speaker, please. >> testifier: good morning. thank you for this legislation did my name is tessa wilborn long-term san francisco resident. we love our visitors, but we need to have taxes paid
by appropriate parties. websites sold merchandise for a long time before state sales taxes were imposed on them. it's not fair to brick-and-mortar businesses to have sales taxes apply to them but not to where businesses. this analogy here. the san francisco can use all the money it can get and i would also like to point out this legislation only affects website host platforms, not individual hosts. who managed to find on their way to use the computer to put on their listing all kinds of photos and other things. but another key issue for me is the loss of rentals. three fourths of the affordable housing that-well let me start over. so, we have an a for the housing crisis. we
build units, but we are seeing housing units to the addictions, to no-fault evictions, to use by short-term rentals. three fourths, if we can never build our way out of the afford the housing crisis if people continue to remove housing that could be rentals did so, please, support this legislation and get the income for our city that we need an police the web. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thanks. after the next speaker, [calling names] >> testifier: good morning. teresa philanderer. thank you so much supervisor campos and supervisor peskin for bringing this to my for creating this. it sounds like we can finally say, if you want to do business here in san francisco any and all platforms, you have to
follow the law. you cannot do false advertising of it illegal units if people have not registered. as a staff member of senior disability action, i also speak for the seniors who i know have lost their homes in those homes have indeed become short-term rentals. i've only to think of the 22 units that are still being used as vacation rentals in my neighborhood. we are actually talking about one block, 22 units, and those are free of the buildings were there had been [inaudible] seven years ago and this is a way to bring in the platform to hold them accountable and to stop our seniors from being evicted for greed and so, i want to really support this and i hope