>> we're very briefly into a recess we're having a little restroom break at the moment.

>> okay. our recess recess as come to an item. call item 5 >> it's at the ordinance to mitigate adverse impacts for the tenant rerecognition avoidance payment. >> and this was amendment last protect supervisor campos. >> i want to note a couple of

points one we have some follow-up information from the controller's office specific from ted egging can the chief environmentalist in the calculation terms of the rental differential will be made. i know ted will be here to testify on that. and i wanted to if i may have a followup a brief follow-up with the executive director of the rent board. in specifically to talk about the issue of landlord hardship and i just want to be clear for the record that, in fact, there's a process that's been

fold by the rent board in determining that while the standard may be different than a tenant hardship that stated exists. i want to use this opportunity to ask that is wolf to the chair come up >> yes. ms. wolf. >> executive director of the rent board supervisors. i hope that you received the decisions that i've forwarded to you via e-mail how the department has dealt with the landlord hardship we've dealt with it less frequent than the attempt hardships. while we don't have the same standard for tenant hardship were we use the hud delores that tenant should not be packing

paying more than 33 percent that didn't work for landlord hardship but the the landlords must receive a fair return that's our guiding principle and what we do is we take a look at the landlord situation and obviously, the goal is to while we want to prevent tenant displacement but we don't want the landlord to lose the building i forwarded the hardship application where the landlords give us their expenditures and income there from their property and we want to it didn't make the liability go away but we have a payment schedule so the landlord is not

deprived of the things of life >> thank you for being here and a clarification i have looked at the hardship levitation and i'll say i support increasing the ellis act relocation assistance but i'm interested in the hardship issue despite some of the claims we can there know there are so-called mom and pop landlords and even if they're a tiny moisture of what's happening they still deserve fair treatment they don't have to be a sizeable number. and so i looked at the applications on the tenant and i'm a speefrt of the tenant process where they have to list

their >> may i ask you to turn your cell phones. >> i'm a supporter of the process to list their householder income and their assets including retirement little and non-lick i didn't do account like furniture and cars and like for landlords they have to list in addition to their income they have to list their assets and liabilities and it doesn't include like in addition to checking and sales tax they have to list their retirement accounts like the 40 one k and

the real property and cars and clothing and furnitures and art. >> this form that police station is not that different from the tenant hardship application that we used to ice prior to the recent changes in our tenant hardship application procures that got rid of most of the categories that only changed for capital improvements the tenants if their filing for a hardship increase the rent board will have them file expect for real prospected if someone is an art collector we don't care.

>> delegating we want to know the process so nike question is given this application we have here that currently requires landlords to list their real property and audible and art and furnitures which of those will be on little new application especially for this micro mom and pop you know the retired person that maybe live in one building and rents out the other unit would the rent board expect them to sell assets. >> nobody is expected to sell one building. >> if they have 7. >> if people have expenses that

look moderate but remember the deferral is not going to make this go away. with your to have tenant for relocation expenses to remain in san francisco it's against balancing the act >> absolutely. i agree with that so will the new application not contain those. >> certainly we'll take combines from the board but we've used this nonetheless there's tremendous assets we came up with their liberates and assets. >> but the applications does have those indications it could leave someone with the impression they're to have to be expected if their assets are the

40 wyoming eon k or their jewelry or the the act it's acting to be listed it's relevant. >> i think we should change it to other liquid assets. there's a difference you've corrective stated like our income going to housing but i think in terms of what assets are listed it should be the same for both. and - >> except that our board has not currently changed the rest of our hardship provisions to conform to the capital hardship provisions because no one knows how that is going to work it's

extremely limited you wouldn't be able to find out about the other landlords buildings. the b m r unit cap it's $60,000 if they have more than that they are precluded >> i'm not saying it's identical but would a landlord be expected to put a mortgage on their property to afford this this is not about the larger buildings but the folks who own one small building. >> i can't imagine that would happen but i see extreme six. the lard the smaup small landlord is going to have to pay half of his relocation amount and if the landlord is going to

claim hardship we'll looking at that but they'll have to come up with a sum. the amount of time that the tenant rent differential it over a it year period so it doesn't make sense to a spread it out longer than but not to deprive the landlord facing them to take out a new mortgage on the property. several we'll be looking to you for guidance >> and this is i'll recognize supervisor campos to respond but this question is to the calculation for mr. egon as well as the hard of hearing by the rent board this legislation defers quite a bit of

flexibility to agencies i'm not suggesting we should be micro managing that they should have neglected to administer those but those are policy questions that's why i suggested the policy should be more detailed in terms of the hardship and determination and in terms of the calculations otherwise i have respect for the agencies but could implement the law in a way that may or may not be consistent with the intent sorry supervisor campos. >> thank you, madam chair. you have to be careful how you strike it balance. i don't think that anyone can sit up here and say that under

us a specific scenario would be clued. you want to give enough direction but provide flexibility. i trust that the rent board will go back and look at the form and figure out what's reasonable and to the extent p there are people who have suggestions i hope they're open to that so the department association and altercating others have ideas we know should be on the form. i'm sure there's an openness on the tenant side i think the idea is to come up with something fair that didn't hide the ball but gives certainty and ultimately provides the opportunity for the mom and pop landlord that you wish referencing to really provide

all relevant information. i want to be careful not to say certainly types of information is not admissible because that could be helpful to a mom and pop or tenant. we need to find the right balance and we're trying to follow the gowns of the city attorney to the level to have guidance but at the same time, you know, letting. adjudicate certainly cases. if there's a specific suggestions i'm open to them. >> supervisor campos i appreciate it i agree it's a balance. it sounds like this process is not going to require the small

mom and pop landlords to start liquidating 40 one k or selling jewelry or furnitures to pay for this. again one could look at this application that lists the items and says why is that there if you're not take into account >> those things are there to get a full picture of the persons situation that's not how we've applied it in the past that's not the goal of this sponsor but we have to make sure that the tenants receive enough the relocation compensation to remain in the city. >> one of the cases involved a landlord that had a seat in excess of $500,000 including

property and in this case there was still a finding of hardship that shows the reasonableness of how the rent board approaches those issues. to my knowledge there hasn't been a successful legal challenge how to adjudicated landlords in the past. that's because of the balanced way it's been approached and so to supervisor campos since ms. woods has indicated she's deferred to you as the author would it be your intent like aublts and furnitures and jewelry would not be part of the determination >> it's might intent for the

rent board to follow up on what they've done before. >> i personally find that to be odd what's the value of your clothing and the car you drive and the furnitures in your home. >> what if someone was an art collector. >> i didn't include art if someone is fabulously wealthy by in terms of the furnitures. >> i think we can take a look at this but a 40 one k you can't get in bankruptcy or have a tax loin against it. i appreciate if you take into account that apparently, the author is to the discretion of

the rent board so someone who's supportive of the ellis act the relocation i would request that you not include those things >> i want to provide context there's clearly there are some issues where you have some of the mom and pop landlords that will be impacted that's why it's appropriate but i also think we are losing sight of what's happening out there. the reason why this legislation is important is because you have so many people displaced out of san francisco and the existing relocation costs is inadequate. how we talk about those issues is important you can spend so much time on the preefrty some

of the locations but you lose sight of the big picture. there's hardship but the hardship is not just focused on one individual landlord that has a specific set of characteristics. the issue is what's happening to the tenant that are being displaced and where's the emphasis on that >> i agree we have to keep our eye on the picture i support the ellis act relocation but this is an important legislation i think it's appropriate to make sure we're getting the details right in terms of how it's going to be administered. i think it's important to focus on the details