tv BOS Land Use Committee SFGTV April 11, 2021 10:00pm-12:01am PDT
i'm supervisor dean preston and connie chan who will be substituting for mayor melgar and i'd also like to acknowledge sfgov tv for this meeting. >> due to the covid-19 emergency and to protect board members, city and public, the board of legislative committee and chamber. participants will be participating in the meeting remotely. committee members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting the same as they were present.
sfgovtv.org is streaming the public calling number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 14 -- i have the wrong number. the meeting i.d. is 1872080203. that number is 1872080203 and then press pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please dial star, 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location speak clearly
and closely and turn down your tv or radio. you may e-mail myself, the transportation clerk at email@example.com. if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and made part of the official file. written comments may be submitted to city hall. 1 carlton b. city place. san francisco, california 94102. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda april 13th unless otherwise stated. mr. chair. >> chairman: thank you, madam
clerk. before we move forward, can we have a motion to excuse supervisor melgar for this meeting. i see supervisor peskin's hand so moved. madam clerk, please call the role. >> clerk: on the motion as stated, supervisor chan. [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chairman: thank you. the motion passes. madam clerk please call the first item. >> clerk: yes. item number one is extending six months and modifying interim zoning controls enacted in resolution no 430-19 and 539-19 to require a conditional use authorization and specify fied findings.
members of the public to comment on this item call (415) 655-0001 and the i.d. number is 1872080203. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. please wait until we get to public comment and you will hear a system prompt noting that you have been unmuted. mr. vice chair. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. this item was previously amended on our meeting on march 22nd. and we're joined by mr. billlif from supervisor mandelman's staff. is there anything you would like to share? >> no. i'm available for any questions you have and just want to
convey and thank supervisor mandelman's for those amendments and thank you for considering this item today. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. colleagues, if there are no comments or questions and seeing no one on the roster to speak, madam clerk, let's take public comment on item one. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. javier from b.t. has confirmed there are no listeners and no callers in queue. >> chairman: thank you. with no callers, public comment is now closed. colleagues, any comments or questions. >> supervisor peskin: mr. acting chair, this has been discussed a number of times and we have seen more data and i -- there's no question that this deserves an extension and permanent controls and i hope that planning department staff who have taken this seriously and more importantly, the planning commission will use
these powers to ensure that residential care facilities continue and not in the city and counties of san francisco and i am happy to vote in the affirmative as a committee report. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. and i would just echo. you know, when you read through the materials on this i think we've all commented previously and the presentations last week made it so clear just what a serious situation it is for the loss of facilities. and so i want to thank supervisor mandelman for taking the lead on this. i will be supporting it as well. supervisor peskin, i don't know if that was a motion, but just for the record here, do we have a motion to send this item out of committee with a positive recommendation for the committee report. >> supervisor peskin: so
moving. >> chairman: thank you. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion as stated, [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chairman: thank you. then, clerk if the motion passes please call item two. >> clerk: item two is a resolution authorizing the placement of the leather and lgbtq cultural district leather history corey lewandowski plaques to be installed on the sidewalks at various historic locations within a near the cultural district in the area bounded by. the meeting i.d. is 1872080203. then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. mr. vice chair.
>> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. supervisor peskin, was that -- >> supervisor peskin: it was a mere i would be honor to be added as a cosponsor. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. and, i would like to be added as well and i will now turn it over to i believe it's honey mahogany from supervisor haney's office. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm honey mahogany. just here to speak on item number two of your agenda. at the resolution states the leather & lgbtq cultural district as a local national, international resource and as a
culturally enriched neighborhood and district. san francisco's south of market has been a local and world capitol for leather culture since the 19 sikts as well as the city's most significant and distinctive lgbtq neighborhoods since the fifts. organizations, events, individuals and artists that have been an integral part of our city's cultural richness. olsen street acquired the nickname the miracle mile. codifying it as the letter capitol of the world. and through the 19 sefts and the 1980s, this distinction grew and culminated in 40 plus leather bars, bathhouses, shops, and restaurants serving the leather population. since the 19 sikts, south of market has really experienced extreme pressure from development which has displaced thousands of residents in a
number of small businesses. caused by the rising rents and land costs and to counter this rapid development, the western soma citizen's planning task force was established by this body in 2004. in a collaborative planning process. to form late a plan for sustainable development that would enhance the existing neighborhood rather than destroy it. the western soma community plan was adopted by the board of supervisors in 2015 as well as the soma lgbtq heritage district. furthermore, the importance of leather & lgbtq as well as and the south of market historic context statement of the san francisco planning department. and in accordance with these findings, the leather & lgbtq
cultural district has been working with community stakeholders and the department of public works on a plan to preserve so much rich leather & lgbtq history marking the locations of historic businesses and gathering places. this resolution is in support of these making efforts and we hope that you all will support with your vote and give way your early cosponsorships and that this can be presented to the full board tomorrow. we also have bob goldfarb is from the leather cultural district and available to answer any specific questions as regards to the street plaques. thank you. >> chairman: thank you so much. colleagues any comments or questions before we move to public comment? >> supervisor peskin: my only question is this is being paid for by the cultural district? >> yes. cultural district has an agreement for soma west
district maintenance and they have negotiated some funding i believe to cover the cost of the plaques and this will be included as a part of the olsen street development project. >> chairman: thank you. seeing no other questions or comments at this time. madam clerk, let's take public comment. >> clerk: we're checking to see if there are comments in the queue. if you have not done so, please press star 3. please continue to hold until the system indicates you have been unmuted. d.t., if you can please unmute the first caller. there's nine listeners in the queue. >> yes. my name is david highman and i am on the board of directors of
the leather & lgbtq cultural district. folsom street and its environments play an importance of san francisco community and its culture. folks around the world are fascinated by the ambush, the boot camp, and other legendary sites. many visitors of san francisco including the many who come for leather week and other special events ask about these places. they are not forgotten. but they are in most cases invisible. our cultural district strives to find ways to honor these places and the people who created our culture and sustained our community in difficult and challenging times. we also work to support the businesses and institutions that have survived and those that have evolved in that tradition to be new social and cultural demands. in the after times to come in san francisco, we believe it will be paid to the u.s. restaurants and bars, the clothing shoppings and art
galleries and the social and recreational spaces of a rejuvenated leather town. these plaques, physical manifestations of our pride and respect will help businesses and organizations that call south of market their physical and spiritual home to survive and rebuild. they will also, we believe help visitors to understand and appreciate our community's values. unity through diversity. and a love of freedom and joy. on behalf of the lgbtq cultural district, i urge you to support this resolution and thank you for your support. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker please. >> hi. my name is race bannon and i'm a long time activist in both the lgbtq and leather communities and i cannot do further justice to what honey
mahogany and the previous caller said. but let me just say this is not only appropriate from the historical perspective but i also think it will be a tremendous visit to our visitors as we draw interest to our visiting city. it helps the culture and our economy. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is lex monotio. member of the leather & cultural districts. i want to express my support and gratitude to honey mahogany. i think it's a very important feature that our city needs to recognize. the long standing culture in san francisco.
thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. we have eleven listeners with three in queue. >> hi there. my name is vincent springshow. i'm a 28-year-old leather person and i live their in castro. i wanted to call in support to [inaudible] a huge part of the idea of cultural districts and the visibility is something that drew me to san francisco to begin with and being able to see our history and represented in public and beautifully so is something that really helps draw in visitors with a big factor and the fact that san francisco has these spaces and made it really welcoming for me to live my authentic life here and i know that's true for a lot of people as well. so i think these will be a huge asset to the district and i'm thankful for all the work for the folks behind it have tried to make this a reality and i hope it's approved.
>> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. my name is bob goldfarb and i'm the president of the leather & lgbtq cultural district and i'm here to urge you to support our sidewalk plaque project as honey mentioned, we have had a long history in soma and many of those places that are historic and led the way for our community in soma have gone away and we feel that this will be an excellent way to commemorate those places and soma has become a destination domestically and worldwide for the lgbtq community and this place making effort will give one more reason for them to come to soma and spend more time there and i urge you to support the resolution.
thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. mr. , vice chair, that was the last caller. >> chairman: thank you, madam cleshl. no other callers. public comment is now closed. any further comments or questions from colleagues on the committee? seeing none. do we have a motion to forward this item with positive recommendation as a committee report to the fundamental board. >> supervisor peskin: i'm happy to commit that mr. acting chairperson. >> chairman: thank you. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion stated, [roll call] you have three ayes.
>> chairman: thank you, honey mahogany and supervisor matt haney for that motion. madam clerk. please call item number 3. >> clerk: item number 3 is an ordinance amending the planning code to designate a japanese ywca or women's building as a landmark under articles 10 of the planning code affirming the planning department's determination. the meeting i.d. is 1872080203. then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so, please dial star 3 if you want to speak. the system will prompt and indicate that you have raised your hand.
mr. vice chair. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. i have some remarks that i would like to share but i'm going to wait on those until after hearing from francis mcmillen from the planning department who has a presentation. i do see colleagues on the committee. i saw supervisor peskin's hand first. would you like to speak now or after the presentation? >> supervisor peskin: no. the only things i want to say at the outset is that i would be honored to be added as a cosponsor and i really want to thank yourself, supervisor preston, for being the sponsor of this, but i particularly want to thank planning department staff for the case report and i won't steal anybody's thunder, but it is a remarkable story. it is annettous that even without that remarkable story. i really want to thank department staff for their
incredible work. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: supervisor peskin beat me to the punch. i was going to make the comment that would i also like to add myself as a cosponsor and, again, thank you so much for bringing this forward. it is remarkable and i really look forward to seeing a presentation today. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. and, thanks to you both for cosponsoring the item. we now have francis mcmillen from the planning department who will provide a brief presentation. >> good afternoon supervisors. francis mcmillen planning department staff. i'm here to present this recommendation to designate the jap news ywcawomen's building as an landmark. it's located at 1830 sutter
street in japantown. the women's building is significant for its association with japanese american women who founded the first independent japanese women building in the united states. the building is also significant for its association with the african american civil rights movement as the building served as the san francisco chapter of the committee on racial equality and was the site of numerous meetings, events, trainings and gatherings organized to advance the civil rights of african americans. for its association with the advancement of lgbtq rights. as a building was the center of civil rights leader bier reston's early work in his career. it's also the silent overthe pioneering lgbtq organization, the society in 1954 the
department has determine the building meets the established eligibility requirements. we see the department recommends landmark designation. i'm happy to answer any questions. i'd like to mote that karen chi and donna graves who were instrumental in the recognition of the building's history are in attendance and would like to speak on the history and significance of the property. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, ms. mcmillen and we are happy to hear from them at this time. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is cathy and i'm the executive director of the
isseiwomen's building. which was added to the national register of historic places in early january 2020. it established its first program over 45 years ago in 1975. in 1985, we opened the second preschool site using the space of the san francisco ywca and has been operating ever since. in 2002, ann aless through an out of court settlement of the community of austin. in purchasing the building, we made a commitment to not only use the building, but also for the japanese american community. our agency has continued to maintain and preserve architectural integrity to honor the women from who architect. we designed it. we hope the landmarking of this
building will help pro mote history and significance. the story of the struggles and the establishments of the east is not well known. the history is inspirational and need to be acknowledging. learned from. we're incredibly proud of this historic property which is a significant piece of the historic boundary for san francisco. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you, ms. inamasu. and thank you for all of your work in the community and for your support of this item. did that conclude the presentation, ms. mcmillen? is there anything further? >> no. that includes my presentation. i just want to acknowledge karen kai and donna graves
work. it was the basis for the designation report. and i believe they are in attendance as well. >> chairman: great. are they planned to speak as part of the presentation? >> yes. they were prepared to offer a few words of support on the designation and talk further about the history of the site. >> chairman: great. the floor is theirs. not sure if they are on. if they can unmute and share. >> hello. this is karen kai. and i am affiliated with hamachi little friends and also on the board of the asian pacific islanders and the national historic preservation organization that focuses on
sites that are far too often overlooked within asian american communities nationally. and, i think this is one of the significances of this landmarking. this will actually be the first building in san francisco specifically recognizing japanese americans that will have achieved state, local, and national recognition as landmark quality buildings and thus telling that story and giving the weight of the importance and the significance of our communities of color, marginalized communities indigenous communities that. and i think it is a real tribute to the planning department and the board that the equity efforts that have been taking place are really coming to fruit and
specifically i think we all want to thank francis mcmillen and donna graves and the others through those departments who have put this together. they've done an amazing job and it has actually even broadened our japanese american communities' understanding of the depth of the history that occurred within our community itself. and, i just want to note that this year marks 100 years since the ussei women brought the 1830 sutter property and they had to buy it through the san francisco ywca because of the alien land laws. so, to me, it's very emotional that we're here landmarking their efforts and recognizing them and what they've started for all of us.
and, i also want to note that it is 25 years since the community took up the effort to gain it as a community building and i want to thank all of you for making that possible. it is very important to us all. so thank you. >> chairman: thank you, ms. kai. and was there a final presenter? >> hi. yes. donna graves. can you hear me? >> chairman: yes go right ahead >> i focus on documenting and interpreting histories that have been overlooked or actively erased. i wrote the nomination to the national register of historic places with important support from karen kai. funding for that nomination
came from the city's grant application to a national park service program that was designed to support national register nominations relevant to civil rights history. i talked with shelly caltaroni as she wrote the city's grant nomination. that how the places are critical to showing that the history and civil rights struggles in the united states is not a black white binary as it's commonly understood. i had written the historic and coauthor, the lgbtq context statement for san francisco and i found that 1830 sutter street, it will be on the primary and powerful story for japanese americans. and served multiple communities in their quest for civil rights. francis shared some of what i've found for you. equality, managing society.
during 20 years, [inaudible] american friends service committee also gatherings to discuss a wide range of community pressing issues to the community including prison conditions, housing rights, refugee rights and issues facing indigenous people in california. karen and i and cathy and others are currently working to develop a website in a film about 1830 sutter street and we're finding more about the building's history. places like this that allow multiple communities to see the stories of others that also see themselves there are incredibly precious and i think they're really important to san francisco and the nation clearly worthy of the honor you're giving 1830 sutter street. thank you so much. >> chairman: thank you, ms. graves and thank you for all of your work on this and i will just echo the sentiment of i
think all of us just learning so much from all of your and others research in this and i will say it's one of the wonderful things about being able to respond to legislation. it's something i've learned over the years supervisor peskin who has taken the lead just what an opportunity it is for the community to really learn some history and this building. it's quite remarkable. i don't want to repeat too much of what was presented in the planning presentation or by miss inamasu, ms. kai, or ms. graves. but i do want to emphasize how much of our city has found a
home in this. to address the needs of the community's women and children at a time when no other place existed really serving this population. becoming a true cornerstone of the japantown community and later, again, as discussed in detail as the location of the san francisco chapter of core and the site of all the meetings and gatherings that have been referenced to advance african american and lgbtq civil rights and many related political and social causes. it really strikes me that long before we adopted the language of intersectionality. this place really gave it a tangible horn, a place where
everyone is truly welcomed. where you have pioneers like mayor preston during his time in san francisco organizing in public facilities. housing, discrimination and the first convention. i think this is and has been a safe haven for organizing in activism and culture that really is uniquely san francisco and i think clearly qualifies as a place for landmark designations. and, i'd also add that as we remark on and celebrate the history of the ussei women's building, i think we also need to take into account the presence and account of this building but also this building at large.
no part of our city has been spared by the pandemic in the last year. but there can be no doubt that japantown has been hit particularly hard. the inexcusable racist rhetoric that has accompanied covid has resulted in the targeting of asian american communities. there's a palpable feeling in japantown and elsewhere in san francisco and across the nation across the nation that people of asian dissent are not safe in their own communities. add to that the serious existential threat to the cultural identity of japantown with so many of the small businesses particularly based in the japantown malls that are facing tremendous pandemic hardship. and, i think while we celebrate the history and heritage of the
issei women's building, i think it's necessary to express that we as a city need to take a broad view toward japantown. the historic preservation of the covenants are expiring this year. and so i think there's a challenging road ahead. you know, i hope with the full board that we can take this important step landmarking one of the most historic assets i would say not just in japantown, but also in san francisco. and, i just want to close by thanking some of these folks have been named. but i want to thank the many people advocates who have elevated the importance of this building and brought this effort to the board. it includes the folks we've heard from cathy inamasu and
donna graves karen kai. paul osaki of the japanese as well as city staff and i did want to give a particular thank you to francis mcmillen who spoke earlier, senior planner with the planning department for the excellent work in summary that she has provided on this. so that concludes my remarks and i see my colleague, supervisor peskin, has his hand up. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, acting chair, preston. in addition to the comments i made earlier, i would also like to extend that to ms. kai and ms. graves and the community that you just mentioned. it is remarkable other than the
architecture and the architect ms. julia morgan that a bunch of brave people regardless of the fact that they could not own it raised that money in the community in 1932, 10 years before when everybody was sent to camp. you know, i had questions and i'll ask them and hopefully get them off line as to why when everybody came back from camp the building was not returned in those days. but it was in the hands of the service committee. maybe that's a bright light. but i'm glad to see that the building after that story history of the african american community and the lgbtq community is now back in the hands of japanese american community of san francisco. it is a remarkable 100 year
story and it has come full circle. i generally affix my name to most any landmark that comes before this board and this committee, but this one is particularly special and hats off to everybody that's probably deserved to be landmarked about 50 years ago and i'm glad we finally gotten to it. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. and, seeing no other comments or questions right now. let's move to public comment. >> clerk: thank you, mr. vice chair. d.t. is checking to see how many callers we have a cue. please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. we have seven callers and one in queue. javier, if you can unmute the
first caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. hello. my name is dr. michelle mcgolam. i want to thank the supervisors for supporting the legislation to recognize the japanese ywca as a san francisco landmark. i'm here on behalf of the board of directors karen kai, my vice chair, for the asian pacific islander american organization which has previously supported the building's listing on the national registrar of historic places. our mission is to protect historic places and cultural resources significant to asian and pacific islander americans through historic preservation and heritage conservation. we have highlighted the
japanese ywca building in our first national forum in 2010 in san francisco and again in our 2018 national forum. again, we came back to san francisco. the japanese ywca is a keystone. it's included in japan town and economic sustainability. the japanese americans in historic content statement. it's mentioned in the city's resolution on centering preservation planning and with its listing on the city's legacy business registry. we support the city landmarking. also known as issei women's building which is telling the fuller more inclusive history of not only japanese immigrants, but women, and the lgbtq communities. it's layered history and the continued work on preserving it as a community building is
crucial. particularly as we state issues of racism, sec.ism, massage fi and places with solidarity. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. vice chair. that was the last caller. >> chairman: seeing no other callers. public comment is now closed. and seeing no other comments or questions from committee members. can we have a motion to forward the full board with positive recommendation? >> supervisor peskin: i was deferring to supervisor chan.
>> supervisor chan: move. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> clerk: [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chairman: thank you to everyone involved in that. i appreciate it. the item passes and let us, madam clerk, please call the next item. item 4. >> clerk: item number 4 is a resolution urging the mayor's office of housing and community development to prioritize small property owners and affordable housing providers in the distribution of rent relief through speedy review and approval of timelines, technical assistance, high-quality customer service, and in-language support to non-english speakers and using large corporate landlords to
southerly reserve these funds for small property owners and affordable-housing providers. members of the public call (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 1872080203. then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so, please press star 3 to line up to speak. the system will promptly indicate that you have raised your hand. thank you. supervisor chair. >> chairman: thank you. before i hand it over to supervisor chan with my thanks for leading this effort. i would like to be added as a cosponsor. i believe we have notified your office, but i'm not sure if it has made it to your desk. and i will turn it over to you supervisor chan and i do see supervisor peskin raising his
hand as well once you are done, supervisor chan. >> supervisor peskin: i too would like to be added as a cosponsor and i do have many more words but i will reserve them until after supervisor chan has presented. >> chairman: with cosponsorships from both of your fellow committee members, the floor is yours. >> supervisor chan: thank you so much, chair preston. and i'm grateful to eric shaw from the mayor's office of housing and community development for being here today. he's going to present this. but we also have some amendments to bring to you today as well. and i believe. before i speak to any of the
amendments, i want to talk more about this resolution and why we introduced this resolution and present it to you at this hearing today. san francisco will be receiving $54 million in revenue relief funds from the state and federal government from the sb91 and the c.a.r.e.s. act. but according to a recent report from a budget legislative analyst thanks to chair preston, we now know that tenants in san francisco have accumulated over $100 million in rental debt due to the pandemic. that's twice of the amount of available public funds for rent relief. we need to make it add up. the funds from the state, the federal government are critical, but it's not enough. and we know that to support thousands of tenants in san francisco staring down thousands of dollars in rent debt. so we need to be creative. the reality is in san francisco and really many cities that we have an uneven playing field
for landlords. on one hand, we have an array of small mom and pop landlords. mainly only have a handful of tenants. no staff on their payroll and they're likely to have a mortgage on their property. some depend on this as their either retirement or income for to support their families. in san francisco, really small property landlords often time made up from immigrant working families that have been here for generations and they'll finally be able to have a rental property to support their families. at the same time, especially as we see larger corporate landlords taking up more rental properties in san francisco, these larger corporations are operating houses for hundreds if not thousands of tenants. they have incredible amounts of
capital. they are big businesses with big profit. some have been expanding their portfolios in the middle of a pandemic. these corporate landlords also have the ability to track these new funding opportunities and how to access them. and, sometimes, you know, as we learn too, these corporate landlords, they want to argue whether their corporate property managers or, you know, private investors really all these corporate landlords have the flexibility to provide direct relief to their tenants. and so giving that we know the relief funds from the government are not enough, we need corporate landlords or their private investors while tenants are digging deeper to bring to the table.
to their tenants which we know some of them have done, we need to make sure that they can really help us to allow relief for the smaller landlords who really don't have the ability to volunteer more relief than they already have. this is really about serving all tenants and to do that, we need corporate landlords who have the resources to step up, work with their tenants and forgive their rent directly. small property owners need support from the government. if we don't provide enough relief for these small landlords, there's a huge risk that the small landlords will go under and they will be bought out by large corporate landlords which further hurts the tenants and that really means that these corporate landlords can apply to housing stock and this is why i introduce this resolution
urging large corporate landlords like veritos poser and ballard to use their own resources so that we can limit the public funds and prioritize these funds for small property owners and affordable housing providers. this resolution also calls for mayors of office and housing community development to step up. it's cultural competent outreach to small property landlords and affordable housing providers with the expectation that corporate landlords leverage their existing capital to provide relief for their tenants. now, i want to be very transparent. just right before this committee hearing, we met with veritas and we really want to -- the sole purpose of that meeting at least on my end is really wanting to urge them to really understand this
resolution and our policy position that it is about the tenants and that is including the veritas tenants. what we're asking is for these corporate landlords to again, do the right thing and really discuss with their own investors before they tap into public dollars, they look to themselves really because they do have that means to provide rent relief directly. so i want to be very clear. this is simply asking veritas and other corporate landlords to do the right thing. come to the table with their tenant association with their own rent relief agreement before they dip into public funds. i would like to thank all my cosponsors including my colleagues on this committee including supervisor peskin and
proteston and supervisor ronen and martin. i do have the amendments that i want to introduce, but i would like to have, perhaps mr. eric shaw to present before i make those amendments. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. director shaw. >> hello there chair preston. i'm going to try to share my screen if that's okay. can you see it? >> chairman: yes. we can. >> so good afternoon supervisors and members of the public. my name is eric shaw, director of the mayor's office for housing and community development. i'm pleased to be here today to
present an overview of the rental assistance program as well as an update on the covid-19 emergency eviction protections currently in place. as you're all aware that the pandemic hit, housing instability across the regions greatly increased. the city launched the housing civilization program last spring to over 1400 of the city's most vulnerable households. the u.s. treasury would build upon our recent efforts and ensure financial assistance gets into the hands of those who need it the most. per federal guidelines, cities counties with populations greater than 2,000 for california also received a separate allocation. the city of san francisco received $26.2 million while the state received a total of $1.5 billion of $28.2 million is reserved to san francisco
households. all these funds must be spent by 2022. the treasury dollars come with a set of guidelines in eligible months of assistance, income limits and how payments are distributed. eligible households can receive up to 15 months of assistance. these funds specifically targeted those that make 80% of area income. with the priority placed on households with 15% a.m.i. are below and only if landlords participate. this diagram shows sb91 as they relate to rent. the part of the circle shaded green represents months are une
convictable. if they pay 25% of their rent from this period. september 2020 through june 2021. lastly, the identified months for tenants will not be protected on sb91 as it's currently written. with these protections expiring at the end of june, nonpayment evictions can resume july 1st, 2021, unless new legislation extends it. as i mentioned earlier, our efforts have always been targeted of the most vulnerable applicants. 81% went to black and brown households. 96% went to very low income people and 49% has previously experienced homelessness with 56% being families and children and 71% being primary language spoken at home not being english. once the city's program launches, most grantees with deep ties to the communities they serve will provide any
necessary assistance -- i think i'm a little bit off. i apologize for that. i apologize for that you all. go to slide 13. oh, no. that's not correct. i'm just going to keep going. perfect. so i'm just going to continue. i apologize for that. as i mentioned earlier, our -- to eligible for the city's assistance programs -- let me go back one. i apologize for this, you all. there we go. all right. households must earn 80% am.i. or below. our program has and will
continue to rely on an array of vulnerability criteria to select households for assistance rooted in equity. the application itself will be as low barrier as possible and the financial assistance will focus on april 2021 and subsequent month rent. our program is designed to keep vulnerable tenants in their homes by leveraging eviction protections and maximizing rental assistance. the state's corn curing to make less than 80% of ami but the household must make 50%a mi. 80% of unpaid rent between april 2020 and march 2021 if the landowner is participating in the program as well. if the landlord is not willing to participate in the program,
they'll get 25% directly to the tenant. the diagram here builds on the diagram i shared earlier in this presentation with the months of the state's program covers with the months of the state's program -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt. but there are no diagrams up. >> i apologize. >> chairman: yeah. once you were had some issues around finding your place in the presentation we lost the visual >> all right. let me make sure >> can everyone see it now? >> now we can. >> all right. thank you for that. i apologize. i'm on slide number 10, amy. >> yep. >> thank you very much. the diagram here and the
diagram i showed earlier in this presentation. with the rental assist shaded in. next slide. here is the same diagram once again demonstrating the focus of the city rental assistance program april 2021 through the end of the year. i'll close today by showing exactly how the two programs similar and where they differ. both programs remain the same but with different target populations and different target assistance months. the city's program will continue to serve the most vulnerable tenants applying based on vulnerability and equity factors. i encourage households interested in the space program to apply online at housingiskey.com. once the program launches, most programs will provide any necessary assistance to complete the multi-lingual.
they are notified and provided with other rental assistance resources. with that, i thank you all for your leadership during these turbulent times. this concludes my presentation. i apologize for the screen sharing issues, but my staff and i are happy to address any questions that you have. >> chairman: thank you, director shaw. before i turn it back over to supervisor chan, i just want to -- just this is a minor point in your presentation, but i wanted to either clarify or correct. ment it's minor but probably a $20 million issue. when we look at that wheel, the color coded wheel that you have and i don't know if you want to pull it back up. but the month of september needs to be characterized
differently. so without getting too much into the weeds, you know, the green months there, where we have the complete eviction ban in place locally before the state stepped in and somewhat pre-empted us, bans any eviction for those months, but that actually extends through september. >> okay. >> chairman: so even though these states regime of the 25% payment and so forth purports to start at the beginning of september, it does not, i believe this is not a dispute that the month of september are protections continue to be in place, meaning no eviction for covid nonpayment of rent at all in september. after september is the situation where the state purports to and i'm sure there will be cases testing out to
which this actually is full preefrpgs and so forth. but it started with the october rent. it should either be green or some hybrid, but those protections of the city law we're still holding in place. >> thank you, supervisor. we'll get additional clarification if needed on that. >> chairman: great. thank you. and supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: mr. shaw, i'm interested specifically in as to how landlords apply and it's my understanding that tenants have to apply in tandem and it's further my understanding and you can confirm whether my understanding or supervisor chan can confirm my understanding that the large corporate landlords who have a lot of resource and legal help
have already applied whereas mom and pop landlords like myself albeit thankfully all of my tenants have been able to pay during the pandemic so i'm not in a position personally of having to apply, have not applied. can you address that kind of structural issue. who has applied? who needs to apply? how do they apply? do tenants and landlords have to apply together? that -- i mean, anybody who's watching and these supervisors and the folks we can communicate with, that's what i'd like to understand. >> yeah. thank you for that, supervisor. the only rental assistance program that we currently enact or thats rwas enacted was through gift usf and that was a tenant-based program. because we picked an option called "option c" that the state has requirements through
sb91, the state will be receiving -- so the city program is not yet launched. we're waiting for the acceptance of those funds and for the state program, the state is receiving application, but has yet to distribute funds pending the alignment of our two programs, the city program and the state program. so to date right now, there may have been applications in the queue to the state program, but there's not an application for the city program. >> supervisor peskin: as to our $26 million? >> as for the $26 million, sir. that's correct. but to give to sf, that was focused exclusively on the tenant to apply for the assistance. and so, the way that we're sort of thinking about the extension or the continuation of gift usf, those protocols on the city side, it will be a
tenant-based -- a tent-focused application as well. but then, generally for the state program, landlords can apply on behalf of their tenants, i believe, to the state program, but we have not seen from the state who has applied for that assistance because no assistance has been distributed because our two project -- because our program is not yet launched. so they're contingent upon each other. >> supervisor peskin: and the state is not making that information available or we have not asked for it? how does that work? >> so there is an order to have our programs run concurrently. there is a requirement for m.l.u. for data sharing that's happened and we're in the process of negotiating that to make sure that we don't duplicate tenants applying for the same funding. >> supervisor peskin: so it may be that the larger corporate landlords have
applied to the state, but we don't know that yet. >> and it would not have received funds disbursed because we don't have a data sharing m.l.u. yet, so the state is not disbursing funds through their program yet. >> supervisor peskin: and, presumably, the state can go and bail out the corporates and we could do what we want? how does that work? >> so i think in both instances, it's important that we understand that they are tenant-focused in both instances. just the way that the state platform is set up, it is easier for landlords to apply an aggregate if there are multiple tenants who were multiple tenants who needed assistance. the landlord can apply on behalf of the tenant, but i believe -- so in that instance, we were talking about this before with some of you offline is that, yeah, there is -- the
state platform allows for applying in bulk in a way that's easier than our program. so there could be multiple applications from any landlord if they have multiple tenants that need rent assistance. >> supervisor peskin: and do they need their tenant's permission to apply on their behalf? >> i will get the answer on that. yes. they do. i'm looking at my team is sending me on this. yes, they do get permission from the tenant. >> supervisor peskin: so is that why veritas green tree is in the process of abusing their private e-mail addresses? is that the reason for that? >> so i'm unaware of any actions being taken by landlords at this time.
we are now focusing on education. >> supervisor peskin: we are. we're highly aware. there's some crazy abuse by a small or large landlord that i've ever seen. i mean, it's like uber misusing their customer information to take their customers who they have their e-mail addresses because they want to ride on uber and utilizing and harnessing that private information to political ends. it is. i don't know. actually, i do know who the political consultants are for veritas green tree. it's one of the remarkable pieces of bad advice i've ever seen given. >> supervisor peskin, i'm going to just jump in to turn the floor back over to supervisor chan. i'm sure you may have other questions and comments. i do as well, but i also want
to make sure supervisor chan can follow up on the presentation. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair preston. i think supervisor peskin has pretty much, you know, kind of pointed to the direction where i was going to go. you know, i think the amendments that you're going to see or you probably have already seen is that i'm going to read into the record is really specifically addressing the situation that we're aware of the fact that we may have some sway over our local city program, but we're aware of the challenges about the state program that we're rather limiting and we want -- and so in the language, we do want to urge state agency to consider again, you know, that they will prioritize tenants, but really not just the needs, but also considering small property landlords over the corporation, the corporate landlords.
we know that things are still a work in progress and that we would like to have the mayor's office to come back not necessarily in a hearing format, but really sent us as the board of supervisors a monthly report about the funds that are distributed to the landlords so we know who is receiving funds for the entire $54 million both from the state funds and the federal funds through the city program so we can hold corporate landlords accountable. and i think with that data that will help us and drive us for followup legislation that we may be able to push forward to see what we can do. also thanks to chair preston with the rent relief that is going to come forward that we really hope that we can help the tenants and prioritize tenants and, again, like what can we do to deter corporate
landlords from tapping in to public dollars. you know, i have great reservation. corporate landlords like veritas will be in any way -- it's really how they make money. right. and i just have a lot of reservation that they will not try to tap into public dollars. they have done so with the paycheck protection program and i think even when our own speaker urged them to return those loans, they refused. so i don't think that they will be coming to the table. but, if they do, i will be pleasantly surprised and i have urged them to consider and i think this resolution again is
our way publicly at them. i think there's a clause specifically urging them to provide rent relief directly. the think mayor's office of housing, i think eric and his team, i know that they're put in a situation where they're trying to figure out, you know, logistics that can really distribute those funds efficiently and really help our tenants because after all, they are the priorities in this situation. but i also appreciate the fact that he and his team understand where we're coming from as policy makers. you know, i have learned from tenants. they spoke in our press events last week. some of the tenants have talked about their experience with small property landlords. how their relationship with property landlords in this town was just way better, you know, because it is their property and they have a personal relationship with their property and their tenants and so the way they care for the
tenants and the way they care for the properties is really different than a corporate landlord and we knew that this was a problem even before the pandemic with corporate landlords like veritas. with this now is that we do not want these type of corporations to again get into public funds. we have seen this time and time again and i don't mean to side track this conversation, but, again, during this pandemic billionaires and corporations have got a lot of tax credit and bail-outs. there's no need for a corporate landlord like veritas and posers and ballot to get rent roadway leaf. that should really be helped small landlords and property tenants. eric, i feel like you kind of
talked about really the difference between the state's program and the city programs. but could you kind of just give us a little bit of a timeline about the m.l.u. for data sharing that you expect to have? i think you talked about may as a time when you really are going to distribute the funds. but can we anticipate to see that m.l.u. any time soon and is that possible to share with the board? >> in that instance, the m.l.u. right now is focusing on the deed ensuring there's not a duplication of the resource for the tenant. right. so in this instant, if someone applied, some people may have decided to apply to both, we need to make sure in that assistance that those two things are there. so the focus in the end is not on the landlord, but on the tenant receiving the assistance is that space. and so, i'll check with the city attorney. i think it should be public,
but i'll double check with the city attorney around the m.l.u. once again, i think for our program, if we were able to run the money and the program ourselves, the focus of ours is that similar to give sf, the funding will be focused around community nonprofits who are doing the diligence around the necessary information that was needed. any additional counseling that was needed to conduct the screening through the screening tool. so that happens right now on the city program. they will be focused that way with the funding being focused -- being distributed through community based partners. for the state program, they have a state contractor that's reviewing those. if it meets a certain guidelines, it goes through the system.
if it meets those thresholds around income, then the assistance will be distributed that way through the state program. and so it's the same amount of funding, but the screening methodology is different and the scale is different in that space. for us right now, it is waiting for the acceptance on the part of the board for the $26 million and that will allow us to stand up the program because we'll have the funding to distribute through rental based funding assistance. >> supervisor chan: great. i think that's where we are too. the reason we're having this hearing today and would like it for to be sent for recommendation to the full board as a committee report and also knowing that they grant resolution is coming before the budget committee on wednesday. so we would just like to state opposition before that we move
forward and accept the grant and the $26 million. if i may, would it be all right if i go ahead and make the motion and read my amendments and make the motion to approve those amendments before public comment and the public can actually also comment. we don't have to vote right away but i would like to read into the record on the amendments. >> chairman: yeah. go ahead and read the amendments. >> supervisor chan: great. so the amendments that have been circulated to the clerk and the committee members and the city attorney also have confirmed that the city attorney has confirmed that they are nonsub dent. on page 1, line 18 to add the word "allegedly" because i have to. and in the first resolved clause starting on page 2, line 23 at the word "state and city"
so that again is to clarify that we're also -- that we understand it's both the state sb91 program as well as the city program. and we're state and federally funded to clarify that the board supervisors urge the mayor's office of housing and community developments and any other state and city agencies to work together to prioritize small property owners and affordable housing providers in the administration of the city, state, and federally funded rent relief program. on page 3, 9, 12, a further clause to add a monthly report on the amount of federal rent relief funds received by each landlord in san francisco until all funds have been distributed. so those are the amendments that i propose. and thank you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan.
i had some questions and comments. i did want to see supervisor peskin. i think i cut you off to move things back to supervisor chan. i wanted to know if you wanted to go first or if i should jump in with questions? >> supervisor peskin: you can jump in with questions. i think the policy direction of this resolution as it relates to the mayor's office of housing and, i mean, if necessary, supervisor chan, we can do this by ordinance which is within our charter powers is abundantly clear and i think that mr. shaw gets that as a matter of admonition and public policy. i can drill down more, but i think i've said enough to the intimidation and misuse of customer data by veritas
greentree but i think i have said enough about that. so i will turn it back over to you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. i had some questions. i guess comments and questions all mixed in one. i'm trying to -- you know, director shaw, we've talked about this extensively trying to as the landscape has been constantly changing and let me just say i feel for you all and most of you trying to navigate these tens of millions of dollars programs with things kind of changing in real time. and i think frankly with some of the tools that are most important not being one that ufocd or this office or the board of supervisors actually control. and the biggest one of those is the eviction piece. right. because if we could as a city continue the complete ban, the
permanent ban on evictions for any nonpayment related to covid that we had in place until the state stepped in and pre-empted us, we would be holding more of the cards as a city and you structuring these programs could be demanding far greater concessions from these landlords. but i wanted to make sure that i fully understand and the public understands in these two sources of revenue, federal money coming directly to the city and federal money coming through the state. in which situation a landlord is giving up anything to get the funds. so i'm going to say what's my understanding and you can correct me if i have this wrong. i believe that the situation is that for the money that is coming through the state, the
sb91 money, that the landlord will receive 80% of the rent at issue. >> that's correct. >> chairman: and they basically have the option to opt in for that. they get 80% and then they're waiving the 20%. and so the concession basically the landlord's giving up 20%. let's look backwards. 20% of back rent in exchange for getting 80% and then the debt is gone on the state administer, the money flowing through the state. is that right? >> i believe that that actually i'll double check if it converts into consumer debt. it may not be fully waived, but i believe it is waived. i'll double check with that. but you're correct. there is an 80% payment from the state through the state program. >> chairman: and i think it's waived and just to step back so
everyone understands, there were no programs requiring this -- the landlord to give up anything and give to sf and know that they got 1 publication% >> gift to sf, we paid 25%, that was the amount that was needed so someone could not be evicted. if someone paid 25% of their rent, then they could not be evicted, so to stretch those dollars, it was 25%. >> chairman: got. but the rest of the money is still owed by the tenant. there was no requirement of the landlord give up the' portion. they just couldn't move forward we conviction because the 25% was paid by gift to sf. >> that's correct. >> chairman: so enter then prop i and the regime we passed at the board which was an attempt to force landlords given there were no relief funds out there to give up a
little more, 50% to 65% they would keep, they would waive the rest. right. then the state takes that model and of course as they do in sacramento, they take that model that we pioneered here locally to and they basically recreate it in a more landlord friend leeway. so instead of giving up 50% of the rent or 35% of the rent if they were small landlords, now the state regime, the landlord only has to give up 20% of the rent to get public money. here's the interesting part. the money that's coming from the federal government direct to the city, the landlord makes no concessions to get. whether they are understand supervisor chan's resolution, whether you're prioritizing small landlord or the current situation where any landlord theoretically can get that money. but regardless of who gets it,
it's that money is structured where the landlord receives 100% of the rent for any period that's funded. there's no concession required of the landlord. am i right on that? >> i think that the goal of that because i mean we're still finalizing the project details. but we anticipate a concession because the thought it we just want to -- the most vulnerable tenants, their rent paid. so once again for us, any gap that can be discussed has been -- so our goal has been right now just to provide 100% of what's needed for the tenants. so the answer is, "yes" there's no concessions. >> chairman: and this is the part and forgive me because i think i make this point whenever this comes up and, again, it's not mocd and director shaw who write this rule but i think the point for
federal policy makers need to understand and with this rapidly constantly changing environment, we can't make this point enough. in order for us to require more concessions from landlords, we need true eviction moratoriums to take eviction off the table period. in other words, if gavin newsome tomorrow issued an eviction moratorium in the state of california, then we would work to restructure that program and we could make that money go further. the federal money >> $26.2 million. >> chairman: we could make that go that much further because we could actually say, you know what, bigger landlord, you only get this percentage or
-- right. or any landlord suffering. every business is taking a hit in the entire city and county of san francisco. and right now, the only one being proposed and should take a hit is getting federal money. but it only works that way because at the state level and the federal level, we don't have true permanent eviction moratoriums for rent during this period. so, you know, i can't emphasize that enough because we should be -- we should not be any a position where we have to give landlords 100% of back rent when every other business is hurting and they think they can get 100% of back rent and we're forced to facilitate that because we can't get a true state or federal eviction moratorium that's permanent regarding nonpayment of rent during this period.
a couple other things. on the 80% of ami eligibility, can you clarify what period of time the income is relevant? i know it's come up in the stimulus or the survival payments like the federal government using old income data even though people have lost their jobs. so i'm just curious, has mocd figured out are you using current information or last year's information? how's that going to be dealt with? >> you know, that's a good question. i know that it's actually the a.m.i. is set by h.u.d. and affirmed by h.c.d., but the
need that you have to show the covid impact. so if your impact has gone down to zero, that's the priority that does it versus the a.m.i. itself. i can get the following information for the time of that, but the act that triggers the sort of eligibility and the funding is you being able to show a covid impact. but i'm assuming if you make 200%, 300% of a.m.i. -- >> chairman: i think what i'm getting at and wondering is what happens to the person earning 90%, 100%, 110% last year and then has lost their job in covid, so this is a lot of people and now earning 80% or less. are we testing them somehow
based on 2020 income or something like that. that's what i was getting at. >> i can double check. but i can tell you that given the resources that we have. so we're going to use the income at the time of the application. i think we're going to look at it in terms of clarification. before the pandemic -- allow the very low income and low income will probably be prioritized because they have multiple vulnerabilities. formally homeless. i have other situations like
those with. >> chairman: but it sounds like it's income at the time. >> that's correct. >> chairman: and supervisor chan, thank you for your amendments on that. and i'm concerned on the landlord side data or any other info. that information i know has not been collected on the gift to sf funds and i believe the indication from your office is,
well, i shouldn't say that you won't because there hasn't been a commitment to gather that kind of information and i'm wondering if you can elaborate can we require and get. it seems really key to the spirit of this resolution of trying to prioritize smaller landlords, not the big corporate landlord that that kind of data is really key so we can look and see what we're using the funds for. can we get a commitment to collecting that kind of landlord data or is there a barrier to that? >> so i can answer two sides of that question. the first is we're trying to make sure we understand the properties with them. the portfolio. once again, understanding the most vulnerable and 100% affordable housing are our
portfolios to understand how assistance is being deployed and that's just for us to line up all of our policies together. i know that in talking to supervisors previous of this, we are trying to understand what city attorney in particular this becomes identifying information for who's received rental assistance. so if there's one person in the building that we need to find the appropriate balance because while it's not public record, we generally don't want to put out there who's receiving this assistance. and so generally, we don't look at it in terms of owner. we look at it in terms of building is generally how we collect information or by units. so going back to who's owner, that would be something that if the owners are applying through the state portal, they once again are looking at the information to make sure it's not duplication of tenants.
so i don't think even in the state protocol that they're looking at landlord or looking at applicant because the landlords are applying on behalf of the tenant. so there may end up being a mismatch in the data because it's focused on both sides. the collection of data between the state and us is for not to duplicate the tenant and the only data we're trying to look at are 100% affordable portfolio. so we just have to reconcile that to see if it exists with an m.l.u. or it is possible at the state level and then two to make sure it doesn't end up producing identifying information for those who receive assistance at a resident level.
we're trying to be mindful of that. >> chairman: well, there are a couple things with that. first, there's other money flowing through the state and there's other money coming through the city. you know, the $26.2 million. but i just really want to emphasize this because this is not the last time we're going to be having this discussion we all and expect there will be another round of federal money. my fingers are crossed knocking on anything remotely looking like wood behind me. we hope this is not the last of federal money coming in. we also know that we have an ongoing source with prop i. revenue that the board has stated our intent to be allocated half of that to rent relief. we're going to have two significant pools of funds and
one of the things we're going to make sure is we're learning from this first round of funds. just like we've learned from gift sf. we can't learn those lessons if we don't know the data. and there's just, i cannot see. look, if there's a privacy concern we need to deal with with the city attorney, let's address that. i don't think there's a privacy concern telling the landlord who is getting 100% of their rent paid that they need to check a box or put a number as to how many units are in their building and how many units they own in san francisco and just some basic intake questions. that's the least we can do. and so i just, i guess my question is obviously there can sometimes be legal barriers to privacy or other. i don't see how they apply here. >> i mean -- >> chairman: my question, director shaw, is short of a legal barrier that says, we cannot collect a certain piece
of information will mostly commit to getting us this kind of data not just on tenants, but on landlords, on the number of units. they have size of buildings and so forth so that we're in a position to analyze this program and with the other source of revenue that hopefully will be forthcoming. >> yes. i think we all agree we need to figure out the best way to analyze the efficacy and i think you and i have spoken about how we can learn from the future funds coming in. so i'm not sure what the requirement is on the state side as for how that application looks. so they have the standardized application. i'm not sure. i think you're urging resolution. we can see on the asking side for that and i think for us on the tenant side once again because tenants are applying on
the city side and not the landlord, it may end up being a aggregate, we see how many tenants apply and what that looks like retroingively. it's going to take some work on our side based on a trend. so if we see that 20 tenants apply in a building, we want to know for multiple reasons like what is it about that building that makes it vulnerable, but then a different question would be who owns that building. but we're not, the city program tenants are applying for it, not landlords and we can send the urging resolution and see how the state is asking the question on the landlord side. >> supervisor chan: chair preston, sorry. could i jump in to follow up with that question. director shaw, the payment is actually made to the landlord,
not the tenants, correct? >> right. >> supervisor chan: so i think that my question is and just kind of wanting to understand is what i am thinking in terms of data and the report we should be seeing is specifically how that money is distributed. so, yes, i get the tenants are going to have maybe some type of concern whatever it is, but my assumption is if any landlord, small property landlord or especially corporate landlord, they have to file tax and if they're receiving payments, this should probably be part that they are showing that they have received any public dollar in this case, federal relief and even through the state fund. so and that payment itself is directly going to the landlord. so my assumption is we've got to have some kind of tracking mechanism where the money is going to because we're making a
check out to them. >> and i appreciate that supervisor. we've been knee deep in this program saying tenants versus landlords, state versus city. so on that distribution mechanism, i can figure out how we do the existing rental assistance programs and figure out the way to collect and aggregate that. so i will talk to the team about that because i believe that is possible in that way and, you know, i told you we've just been thinking about this a very different way and i really appreciate you bringing this insight to us on that. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: just a couple brief comments. comment number one is and i'm not a computer wizard, but you can go to the planning --
>> i went ahead and did the math and more than 30% of the units in my building are vacant and that's never happened in the 20 years i've lived in district pride. please make sure this project equitable and encourage the state and all forms of donors to please keep this fund going because it's so needed. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, in a pandemic, you need to be precise and se synced. you talk too much. it's boring. let me get to the point. resolutions cannot be imposed.
ordinances can. and we can have laws made in supplemental which can adjudicate the cases. supervisors, the legislative branch they like to represent the people and people have died. they have died. people have got strokes. people are suffering because the landlords are demanding for the rent and you're going round and round talking about a word here and a word there and hoping that the mayor's office of housing will do something. in this pandemic, when it comes to the poor that is smart businesses, the people that needed money, they did not get the money on time. this type of conversation should have been had months ago, way back in july.
so see that the landlords are mandated and told they result that 10% back. and that they're suffering most that ya'll will do what ya'll can do so ya'll can give them some relief. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is gabriel medina. thank you supervisor peskin, chan, and preston for hearing our public comments today. selected as one of the providers when the pandemic started.
director shaw including [inaudible] have demonstrated great leadership in their work in this program. so quickly so we can get these critical funds in the hands of those most vulnerable in collaboration with our staff here. miguel aguilar and my predecessor miguel maldanado. our mission is to address the unmet needs of the latinx community and resources of school self-sufficiency leadership and participants are some of the most vulnerable in san francisco. we know about the elevated unemployment rates for latinos. we know about the disproportionate infection rates. these firms are critical and helping present another latinx crisis in san francisco. so, please, we want to continue
the work with these rental subsidies and we've done over $1.3 million so far for about 600 different folks that we've been able to provide subsidies for and these are really critical to continue to keep san francisco and our essential workers in place. thanks. >> clerk: next speaker please. hello, you're on the line. you may begin your comments. >> thank you. i'm the program coordinator for social services and i was in charge of the program here the community resource center. and i am calling to support
direct relief funds and i'm also a case manager. so my work is very direct with the people that we serve and i can tell you that our community was one of the hardest hit when the pandemic came in terms of food and in terms of housing, in terms of domestic violence, child abuse. all of these things that sometimes get lost, you know, and we group everything in housing. the inability of our families to have access to digital venues, you know, so the kids to learn school, all of that has put a tremendous burden on our families. most of the people that we serve, they work in
restaurants. they're housekeepers, they're janitors, they're dish washers and that as we know was the industry that got hit the worst. i can tell you that just receiving one check made a huge difference in so many families and so many children that i cannot even imagine, you know, not having extra funds to help this community. also, the way that now they are being hit by covid -- >> clerk: your time has elapsed. thank you so much, ma'am. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name -- can you hear me?
>> clerk: yes, ma'am. you may begin your comments. >> great. hi, my name is libby stobb. i'm a resident of north beach and i became a veritas tenant in 2018. i'm also a member of the veritas tenant association and i'm here to strongly support supervisor chan's vote to sb91. i also want to disclose veritas is collecting financial information and saying you need to get a reservation in and also using intimidation to have their tenants fill out all their paperwork to collect money. basically because i have no work, i have time to volunteer and i've been helping trying to figure out how to get their p.p.p. loan, we started with the p.p.p. loan to try to get
their money back. i've learned a lot about what's been going on in my neighborhood of north beach and lots of businesses are suffering, closing, having -- trying to crowd source while they try and pay their rent. and, yeah, the corporate landlords are clearly profiting from the loopholes that these funds have provided for them. case in point was veritas getting the $3.6 million p.p.p. loan. they're clearly going to do the same with the state funding and as we've been negotiating directly with veritas to get a more comprehensive loan and better relations overall and the conditions they have put their buildings in. i strongly support supervisor chan's resolution to sb91 as we
deserve to be recognized as a tenant association and the small landlords need to be served first and i support it becoming an ordinance. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. mr. vice chair, javier from d.t. has confirmed that was the last caller in queue. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. and, hearing no more public comment, public comment is now closed. supervisor chan, any concluding remarks before moving your amendments? >> yes. i do want to add to the amendment and also then add to the motion is the technical part that i forgot to mention is also amending the title of the resolution it is and adding the report. i want to make that on the record as amending the title adding the reporting from
m.o.h.c.d. and i think that's the technical part. after all, i have said it before as well. i think when we introduced resolutions, we have really thought about what can we do to give it some [inaudible] to what we're trying to accomplish. we recognize it's complicated because of sb91 really at a later that we see challenges for distributing the federal funds. but i look forward to working with supervisor peskin and supervisor preston here in this committee and to see how we can overcome those challenges and with better understanding and bet data collective by mohcd
and i am looking forward to hearing more so we can understand what we can do locally. like i said earlier too, that this issue with veritas has been ongoing even before the pandemic in terms of preserving the housing staff, preserving the affordable housing in san francisco, ensuring tenants' rights in san francisco, but with the public dollars now that these corporate landlords are trying to tap into perhaps some mechanism to put in place to like chair preston mentioned, you know, what can we do to make sure they have some type of concession in order for them to tap into these funds or utilize these funds. i think that through this -- through a lot of conversation with this resolution that the
tricky part has always been at least for me is that how do we make sure that all tenants are protected including the tenants that do live in veritas building and that, you know, but i think there are ways to go about this and i think that small landlords in this town also have at least for some of those that we come to know and learn about really also have been trying to support the tenants in this town as well. they have done just as much if not more with the limited resource that is they have, that the corporate landlords. that's my remark and i appreciate your cosponsorship for this legislation, but i really look forward to your help and support. we can give it more moving forward as an ordinance.
>> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. and let me just add two things. one is i do want to recognize and thank mohcd for working with our offices to figure out the path forward here. as i mentioned before, i think the landscape has been changing pretty quickly and i think director shaw is open to working with us. i just want to reemphasize it. we've got to get any piece of data we're legally able to get to get so we know how to move forward with these funds and future funds. and the other thing and supervisor chan just referenced, supervisor peskin, you asked about this, if there are attempts to nifty to improperly gain access to private information of tenants, and i don't know that it's an "if." i think we've seen some of these requests. like at some point when we're
looking at how we give teeth, at some point, a corporate landlord should not just be able to avail themselves of public funds, give no concession, and violate a tenant's rights all at the same time. i understand we want to protect the tenants in those buildings and that's you challenge, is to figure out how to draw some lines, where if they cross them, they do not get these public funds while still protecting the tenants from displacement and, to me, that's the next chapter. you can't do this with your hand out to the government while you are abusing tenant rights directly. getting government money and abusing tenant rights all in the same breath. totally unacceptable to me and both of you as well. any final remarks or shall we
-- why don't we go ahead >> good morning. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, april 8th meeting of the public safety & neighborhood services. i'm supervisor gordon mar, and i joined by stefani and matt haney. [inaudible] >> thank you to clerk john carroll. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, thank you, mr. chair. in order to protect the public, board members and city employees during the covid-19 health emergency, the board of supervisors chamber and committee room are closed. this is taken to all various local, state, and federal orders. members will attend the meeting through v