Remarks by Caroline Torosis
127 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 6
And could you potentially work with the Conservancy even to come up with historical context?
Right, thank you. Okay, we do not have any more questions. We're going to go ahead. We have two public comments. We have Shanna Epstein and Denise Barton. Oh that's not I'm sorry did the applicant have a presentation that was not made clear to me how much time do they have apologies apologies do you have a presentation applicant okay great well you are entitled to that it was not told to me but let's yeah We would have heard your presentation first if we knew there was one. Apologies. That's okay. And how much time do they have?
Oh, my apologies. We have two public comments. Now we will hear from Shana Epstein and Denise Barton. My apologies.
Well, if you want to provide additional staff direction, you can.
Okay. I don't see any other comments in the queue. So we can go ahead. Yeah, we have a motion and a second.
Okay, thank you all so much for that. Okay, moving back on to our agenda. Council Member Raskin, maybe someone, if they see him out there, he can come back. He's coming in. Great. And then we'll move on to 10A.
Thank you. That is very true. We have item six, which is public input on the remaining agenda items, and then there's another public hearing, so that will, we will take those agenda, excuse me, those comments separately. We now have Denise Barton. It's Shauna, not Shanna, right? Shauna, sorry. Shauna Epstein, Morgan Hunter-Gross, Karen Mielek, Zoe Moutonier, and Denise Barton. Oh, Denise Barton's on here a few times.
Thank you. Okay, that concludes the public comments on these items, and we will now hear 10A, which is an ordinance.
Can I ask a question? Sorry. So I just want to make sure you basically stated, I think, the clarity system is going to automatically verify that this tenant acknowledgement form has been submitted before a permit could be issued? Is that what's happening?
What about, can we make that same requirement for the means and methods assessment that all the rent control tenants are supposed to actually have happen before any construction happens with their buildings?
Okay, just checking I would say that this is an amazing upgrade because we know that there are a lot of construction Projects happening in these renter occupied buildings that where the renters are given no notice and this is used as a form of harassment So we can be able to use this to actually track. I mean, can we help our city attorney as well? Just tracking where? Construction is happening and what's happening in these tenant harassment cases. Okay.
Wait, sorry, can I ask you a question, though? Don't we want some sort of notification going to the neighbors? Like, why would we pause on that?
This seems like a net positive. I just didn't want to put pause on it.
Which makes sense, because if it's not actually a project and you're notifying people about something that hasn't yet been submitted, that freaks them out for no reason.
What exactly are we incorporating into the administrative guidance that makes it better?
We're so excited. Thank you. Moving on now to item 11, oh wait, sorry, hold on. I already did that. 11a, yes, the affordability agenda.
Yeah, okay, go ahead. I have a question after.
Okay, I have a couple of questions. So isn't it true that the draft ordinance determines that this is someone's final paycheck? It uses the word final paycheck, does it not? And that's due when an employee quits, correct?
Yeah, so you are basically requiring an employer to make a determination that an employee has quit when they could have been Temporarily detained and could be returning back to their employment. Is that correct?
So the employer has to decide that the job is ended before the ordinance could apply here. Correct. Yeah. So I find that to be problematic. I'll just say that. And then isn't it true that under the labor code 1555, employers already have to offer this contact form for employees? I technically someone I mean my understanding and having researched this and I'll just say I talked to a lot of different both labor groups and business groups about this is that effectively the state already covers this.
You don't need to defend this. I'm asking a question.
And don't we think that we should be concerned if we're handing out a voluntary form to employees from their employer and asking them to fill this out when it's clearly targeting people who might be victims of ICE, that we are actually potentially scaring people off and creating some presumption that someone might have an immigration activity by asking them to fill this out.
No, no, because I'll just say that worker groups have said folks are not going to use this because they're too scared to designate this to their employer.
But it's voluntary as to whether or not they turn it in. Yes right so couldn't we potentially do this in a more effective way by working with like worker centers rather than putting this burden on the marginalized employee and the business there are probably other options out there that we could explore if council wants to give us that direction we are bringing back what we understood the direction was and so if you want us to look at other options we're happy to do that and also wouldn't cover people who get direct deposit correct
Okay. And then, sorry, I just want to go back to something that you said. You said that we've only recovered $115,000 in unpaid wages over 10 years.