education. the board of supervisors per ths willing to push these legislations forward to make sure we have a rent board that is very, very technically strategic about enforcement of those laws, that sets up a record where they are more likely than not to be upheld by the courts. all of these things are so, so critical. you know, finally, i would just say that i feel like i have been as the rules committee chair very differential to the mayor in terms of her appointments. this is the first hearing i have asked for on an appointment where we can review that appointment. in another appointment that i thought wasn't handled very well, i still gave the benefit

to the appointee. that is the way the system works. these are the mayor's appointments. we have the authority to provide the check and balance. this is one of those rare circumstances where i feel like it is incumbent upon us to thoroughly vet this can candidate because -- candidate because the stakes are too high. i today am not able to support or recommend that the board of supervisors supports the appointment of mr. isbell. i would support an alternate seat or any other commission in this city, i would support that. you are an amazing person. i can see that through and through, but i just have to think about my larger constituents. ththe heart breaking cases befoe me every week we hear about

them. i have to make sure that the next rent board appointee is prepared today to take on this huge responsibility in their lap and have the compassion and the technical skill to do so. thank you. supervisor well ton. >> thank you. if i had a voice i would be speaking much longer on this issue, but there are some things that i do want to say. i want to thank ms. marshall so much for all of her dedicated service, all of her hard work. i know that is going to continue to be nonstop. i also want to thank everyone for coming out and showing up for the hearing today and speaking today. i know that everyone here cares deeply about tenants. i don't take it lightly that you took your time to be here today. you know, a lot of people in

this room and i have done a lot of amazing work together, and that is undoubtedly going to continue. i know that the one thing i have promised every one including my amazing colleagues is that we are not going to always agree. in fact, one thing i can guarantee is that i will not always agree with everyone in this room. na doesn't mean we are not fighting for the same things, and it doesn't mean our focuses are not on the same priorities and issues. in this case, mr. isbell is a human being. he is a renter. you know, it is in the equation from testimony with advocates. he is new. i have sat down with him, he is

thrilled to be able to serve and fight for tenants in the city. he is working hard to learn everything that he needses to be successful in this role. he knows the inequities that exist as a renter and member of the r.f.q. -- lbgq community. he knows what is right. he wants to fight to be a real true leader in this fight for tenants. this is san francisco. i don't want to be divisive especially when we have somebody who is qualified and willing. i have no issue with denying recommendations. i have no issue with going hard at somebody who i think is not a fit and not qualified and not ready. i do take issue when we have somebody willing who is not

an attorney. that is very clear. he has worked on so many policies to fight for tenants in the senator's office which i know a lot of people supported as well. this is not a board of supervisors appointment. if it was up to me. all appointments would be board of supervisors appointments. this is not the case, and we don't have control over the mayor's appointments. just like i wouldn't give her the opportunity to have control over ours. i would be fighting fiercely if she took issue to appointment that we were trying to make. with that said, there is one thing that supervisor ronan touched on. whatever happens in this room today, we don't get the

opportunity to appoint ms. marshall or anybody else. we can reject this appointment, but all that does is mean that we go back to the drawing board. would i have handled it different and talked to addvo cat groups, i'm sure i would have, but this is the mayor's appointment. because we have a role as a board of supervisors to have a hearing and have a conversation about whether or not we want to move something forward, then i would rather that happen with the full board of supervisors. therefore i move to move the name forward without recommendation to have this full conversation with my colleagues as well since we have been put in this position. >> thank you. i want to thank everybody who came out to share your perspectives to speak out on

this issue today. whichever side you are on and i want to thank mr. isbell for your willingness to serve on the rent board commission and your many years or decades of service around a wide range much issues in the city and beyond. it is clear from your testimony and all of your supporters' comments you have admirable personal qualities and you would be a great leader in many roles on many different commissions in the city. i do feel after today's hearing, i feel like the rent board and specifically one of the voting tenant seats on the rent board is one particular appointment that requires much deeper knowledge and expertise on tenant issues and longer history of that as well.

you know, i think i have come to that conclusion right now. more importantly, i do want to echo the comments in a number of the other speakers and the bad process that led us to this long hearing today and this awkward moment. i think it was the mayor's office in moving forward your appointment to a voting tenant seat on the rent board without consulting with the tenant are very important and well organized and well recognized tenant rights community here and breaking decades of protocol that existed around thistic appointment. i think that protocol exists because of how contentious landlord tenant issues are in this decision and how

contentious every decision the rent board makes. these are decisions that could affect the ability of community member to continue to live in our city and also they set precedent for future decisions. the appointment, you know, is for the tenant, it is so important. it is my understanding a recent appointment the mayor made for one of the alternate landlord seats was done through consulting with the landlord and real estate groups on putting forward that appointment. i don't understand that. i feel like this awkward situation was a result of broad process from the mayor's office. i would like to make a motion we recommend rejection of the mayor's appointment of reese isbell to the residential rent

stabilization arbitration board to the full board. >> thank you. before we talk about the motions because i know there are legal issues we will clarify. i want to respond to a couple of the comments of my esteemed colleague and supervisor. i want to make clear this is not against mr. isbell. you have committed zero sins. that is not the issue anyone here is talking about. there is nothing wrong with mr. isbell. what i would like to see is that someone coming into this seat has a level of experience i that i do not believe mr. isbell has. does that mean he can't gain it? no. he is an intelligent human being that could. for today going to the seat i don't think he has it yet. i want to make that crystal clear. i wani want to make clear we can

project the appointment by eight votes. i take that control and responsibility seriously. i think you have to use it use disjudiciously. this is as my colleague said itt is uncomfortable. another thing to say to prove this is not about political divisions but about the substance and about care for tenants is that i was a huge supporter of former senator leno for mayor. mr. isbell worked for senator leno. i am inclined to want to support mr. isbell becauses my respect for former senator leno and the staff he always had in his

office. he carries the highest standard for the staff. this is never about that. it is never about politics. it is never about mr. isbell's qualifications. for me this is about life and death decisions to be made every day that are technical, complicated. that i didn'that i didn't realil it was until i came to city hall and started writing the laws and started realizing how little i know about this area of law. i am an attorney. i am not competent to serve on the rent board. i know employment board i do not know tent landlord law. it is incredibly technical. while i don't think you need to be an attorney to do this role, i absolutely think you need years of experience working with these laws to understand their

context, to understand how they relate to one another, to understand the history behind the fights to get those laws passed. so this is a very, very critical and important appointment today with real life impact on thousands of our most vulnerable residents in the city. i believe it is very important that we work -- that we give this utmost attention and critical analysis as possible to protect those tenants. supervisor welton. >> one point. i am clear we have the ability to block this appointment as a period. i do feel that we should make the decision as a full board and have that conversation. that is why i wanted to move the

recommendation forward. >> my understanding is it tonight work that way. we either, and i will turn this over to deputy city attorney. we have to make a motion approving or rejecting the mayor's appointment. is that right? >> deputy city attorney john givner. you have two motions. first, you can move to either to amends the motion before you to either approve or reject the nomination. after that you can send that amended motion to the full board with recommendation or without recommendation. >> supervisor mar made a motion to amend the motion to reject the mayor's appointment of reese isbell. can we take a roll call on that motion.

>> on the motion to amend? vice chair walton. yes. member mar. yes. chair ronan. yes. the motion passes. >> i will make a motion to send this item forward with recommendation. can we have a roll call. >> on that motion. vice chair walton. no. member mar. yes. chair ronan. yes. >> the motion passes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. isbell for silting through this long hearing. thank you everyone for speaking. thank you ms. marshall for your 35 years of incredible dedication to the rent board. thank you. mr. clerk are there any other items on the agenda?

>> that completing the agenda. >> thank you. the meeting is adjourned.e. so i think this is a good shift in the right direction of creating real alternatives, instead of enforcement. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, supervisors, my name is sam, i work at the coalition on homelessness. i want to give a huge thank you to the supervisors for taking leadership on this, and a huge shout out to all the on house people who are here and sharing their powerful stories and

experiences around living in their vehicles on and the challenges that come around that i want to share about someone who we just found out is being towed between the time that we had the rally, and the hearing right now. she told me that she wanted to share this story with you all during public comment. she is someone who recently purchased her vehicle, had to flee her home -- home because of a domestic violence situation and now has to pay $527 just to get her car out of the tow yard, and she is someone who is experiencing homelessness, and cannot pay that fee, and i think it really speaks to why we need this legislation now, immediately, and why we needed it years and years ago, because she will be losing the most valuable asset that she has, and it's likely going to be sold for someone to be bought, and she will either be on the streets,

or waging four to six weeks just to get into shelter, so this is one thing that i have huge support for, and also, the towing stuff that is also in the legislation, but i would love of these offices here's support to help get her car out of the tow yard. the fees will increase i 3:00 p.m. today, and every day moving forward, so if we can help work on that case today, that would be amazing. thank you. >> thank you. fingers are just so much less satisfying. thank you supervisor brown and others. more than two decades ago, a group of people living vehicles coalesced in her were organized calling them selves a residential association. they designed a program, they didn't divide property, even got

funding. the porch told the property, but all these years since, folks have been calling for a safe place to park. it is such a simple request, so simple, getting chased from block to block, terrorized by ticketing and harassment, fear of losing the very last thing they have that means so much, unlocked, a modicum of privacy, a place or belongings -- for belongings. we have a housing crisis. we need innovative responses. we need solutions for a variety of people. we can no longer have a system where we are pushing people out of their housing, chasing them out of cars, and then ripping away their tents once they're on the streets, we wholeheartedly support this legislation. why? does not say let's have a place for a few and then criminalize the rest, no, it says, let's start with a space for a few and stop criminalizing the rest. it does not say, we are going to give help if you leave town, gives people help to stay in

their community, and hopefully, ideally, lead into housing. it does not force people to die or get close to dying before they get help. it stabilizes people before all is lost, so it is now two decades later. this is really wonderful, it is the time, it has taken too long, let's make this happen and pass this legislation. thank you so much. >> thank you. i have one more speaker card? -- too. please get in line. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i work in the coalition on homelessness. first thing i want to tell you guys is about saying thank you for introducing this legislation it has taken us 20 years to pass this legislation.

we have been spending a lot of money, millions and millions of dollars in criminalizing, it is not great. we're supposed to spend this money housing people. i wanted to share this with you. this is specifically about families with children who are sleeping in their fans, and they are feeling threats when the police are coming with guns, and knock knock, on the car. imagine two or three police officers and children, the children and the parents are sleeping overnight, in the morning the police are coming. it is a problem. i don't think it is really great that we have to think about this , so if we really want to solve the problem, we have to bring in the right people, the

right persons to do outreach and talk to the families in the homeless people who are staying in their vehicles because we cannot -- thank you so much for introducing this legislation, and all the people, the supervisors who are supporting. it is time to change this. we are repressing so many homeless people, it is time to change it. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, maria, i live in san francisco, i wanted to say thank you for introducing this legislation. i wish we already had it, but it's great that we are working on this. thanks. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, i am the founder and executive director of the homeless prenatal program as a resident in district five. i just want to say thank you.

this is really important that we have -- i don't want families to live in cars, but it seems to be what is happening now, but if they are forced to live in their cars, then it should be in a safe place, and the reason for getting up is in 2018, in san diego, a psychologist by the name of teresa smith started a program. it is called dreams for change, so it has been done, it works, and she did not started in 2018, in 2018, she got the irvine foundation leadership award, so she is recognized for this work, and it is important that we do it." be great if we could have better places for our kids. he certainly can't cook and cars , but she set up a system that works fairly well for the time being, so thank you for even considering this. >> thank you.

next speaker. >> hello, my name is larry ackerman, i would like to thank supervisor brown and others for working on this -- developing this legislation. i want to tell you about my experience, or what i had learnt about people living in their cars. i had two close friends that lost their income stream, and subsequently lost their apartment. they ended up with their few possessions in a car, and they had problems, mostly because they had to always move, move around, drive around, find a place to park, it was very unstable, there was no safe place that they knew they could park and sleep overnight.

they also had to, there was some issue with the registrations, which i don't think ever got resolved, so they needed help with that legal part and the d.m.v. never had any resources for that, and one day, i also got a call that their car wouldn't start or wasn't running , and i ended up paying for a new fuel filter for them, because they had no other way to deal with this issue, so i'm happy that this legislation addresses some of these at least meekly, and will help the people that are forced into this life in a vehicle. subsequently they left that on the streets. one got into a medical program and eventually housed. the other guy is on the streets. i saw him on the street last night, he sleeps on the sidewalk

or in a park. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i have inserted myself into public comment because i'm not yet accustomed to sitting in the staff dock, but i want to let you know the m.t.a. is here. not just listening, but i want to express gratitude to supervisor brown and others, the m.t.a. has wrestled with this problem for years in a very unsatisfactory way, my board of directors has been very reluctant to move on restrictions, although we have, the agency has restricted streets, but there is a huge reluctance because of the awareness and the effects of parking restrictions and parking enforcement. we are very grateful, not only willing to participate, we are

working pretty closely with the commander and other city agencies and we look forward to wherever this legislation goes, working with this body and our partners, the coalition of homelessness and other folks to find a more humane way to help folks who don't have a choice and are living in vehicles. >> thank you, andy. that is it for public comment. >> we will close public comments thank you supervisor brown, i thank you to everyone who testified. i believe the sponsor would like to duplicate the file, she has unilateral right to do. and what would you like to do with the original file? >> actually -- >> my bad, i did not acknowledge supervisor haney go ahead, thank

you, chair peskin, i will be quick. i want to appreciate everyone who came out and spoke, especially to the folks who have experience in homelessness or are experiencing homelessness. we appreciate you all being here in the work you've done to help shape this legislation, and of course, supervisor brown for your leadership. i am very supportive of this. this is the kind of creative approach that we need, and a recognition that homelessness is experienced in different ways, and we have to be innovative and proactive and how we respond to its. i did want to ask a question, maybe this is best for the director, we heard a bit that there are a number of families that all experiencing vehicular homelessness, and in some ways, that is a little bit of a

different challenge than we face in other types of responses where generally there are places for families, and places which are more for only adults, i would like to know a bit more about how we plan to address the needs of families in this environment, and particularly children. obviously there will be some needs in and around having places to study, research and types of services, or hopefully really accelerated way to get those folks into housing or family shelters that doesn't require them to give up their car. can you speak to how you see this working for families, specifically? >> ideally, thank you, supervisor haney. ideally, what we would do is on the site, also have vehicle storage available, and we would offer shelter immediately to every family who shows up.

however, that may not work for every family, so i think it will require flexibility and partnership with the service provider, whoever is selected to operate the site, but our first efforts will be offered to store the vehicle and have the family stay in shelter. >> that makes sense. and i think that, you know, obviously we want to make sure especially for families, but for everyone who has that option, it would be more ideal than having them stay there. i imagine for a lot of folks they can't give up their car or they have nowhere to store their car, and that can be a barrier to get into shelter. i've heard this from some folks who, for example, may stay regularly at the next door shelter, which is near where i live, and they have a lot of challenges because they have nowhere to put their car and then there is no parking and it creates a whole cycle, and i'm sure that is part of what we

hope to be able to address with this. thank you, again for your leadership and thank you for answering that question. >> supervisor brown? >> i also wanted to respond to mate nietzsche check question that if there is a lot of families, and i know i've talked to people actually need their car to go to work, and they live in it, when they come into the triage center, it will be case by case, jeff talks about that. if they need for work, we will have to make sure they have that available. but thank you. so i would like legislation to move forward, and i would like to duplicate the file, chair peskin, because we need time to work with the sfpd and the city attorney to determine the carve out for the police code for allow for the -- to allow for the programs indicating

legislation. >> okay. let me be clear. you brought up some amendments today, so would you like to first take the amendments, then duplicate the file accent the amended file, and keep one in committee? >> correct. >> colleagues, is their first, we will not duplicate the file, is a motion to accept the amendments that are in front of us? >> yes. >> we will take those without objection. we will duplicate the file, keep one file, and continue into the call of the chair and sends the original file as amended to the full board with recommendation. without objection, that will be the order. congratulations to supervisor brown. >> thank you. >> next item, please. >> resolution receiving and approving the biannual housing balance report, number 8, dated april 1st, 2019, amended as required by planning code section 103. >> okay. it seems like we just heard the last six month report, but here,

time flies, this is sponsored by supervisor marr, mar, i believe his staff is here she presents. we have teresa from planning. >> i will make my remarks brief. legislative aide to supervisor mar. i'm here to speak on behalf of the supervisor who introduced this legislation to ensure this report's timely filing. we recognize that district four needs to play a bigger role addressing the affordable housing crisis. as underscored by this housing balance report. the accumulative housing balance in our district is the lowest among all districts and a negative 260-point 7%, much of this is due to the number of units prudently withdrawn from rent control protection, relative to the number of total

net to you -- new units. district four has a leak built 20 units of affordable housing and no small site acquisition. but his support increases density and building 100% affordable housing and preserving and protecting existing housing particularly through the small sights program , and so do many of our constituents. we are seeing some movement with seven moderate income units in the pipeline, as well as an educator housing project which would bring approximately 130 affordable units to the outer sunset, both of which are not accounted for in the housing balance, but as we deepen our conversations with community affordable housing developers, we are running into structural barriers that prevent us from building the housing. community needs, including a lack of a westside affordable housing developer. if we want to improve the housing balance across san francisco, we need to support the districts struggling to meet the mar. we need to talk about geographic balance and conversations around

the budget, and the affordable housing bond, directing affordable housing dollars where it hasn't been directed. we need to talk about the kind of funding, funding for capacity building, site acquisition and development. various identified by front of the housing developers. supervisors, we hope the housing balance report proves useful to inform you decisions for future affordable housing developments, and thank you to teresa for preparing this report and for your presentation. >> thank you. theresa teresa, come on up. -- teresa, come on up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is theresa, i'm a principal planner with a citywide policy planning section of city planning. i am here to talk about the

health and balance report numbe. this is for your information, and for your acceptance. so what is the housing balance report? in april of 2015, the board of supervisors approved ordinance 50 3:15 to add section 103 to the planning code. this section directs the planning department to monitor and report the balance between newmarket rate housing and the new affordable housing production. the housing balance is the proportion of all new affordable housing units to the total number of net new units. over a ten-year housing balance period. the ordinance requires a biannual reporting, and i will be talking about the reports, which we will submit -- which were cemented to youtube weeks ago, and covers the period from the beginning of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2018.

so why a housing balance? one goal of the ordinance is to ensure that data on meeting affordable housing targets citywide, and within neighborhoods informs the approval process for new housing developments. just a reminder to you supervisors, here are three separate affordable housing production targets cited in the mandate and each has its own monitoring and reporting requirements. the housing balance report gives context to the goals. the housing elements mandated by the state to be updated periodically, sets a production goal of about 28,000 new units to be built between 2015 and 2022. this is commonly called regional housing needs allocation goals. fifty 7% should be affordable to

low and moderate income households. the planet department submits an annual report in the city's progress in meeting these goals to the state department of housing and community development. proposition k., passed by san francisco voters in 2014 set a goal that 33% of net units be affordable. the -- this is the goal that the balance report will be aiming for. to the late to mayor ed lee, 30,000 by 2020 also set a goal of 30% affordable units. the mayor's office of housing and community development prepares a weekly dashboard highlighting progress towards meeting this goal. it we should be noted that the housing elements and in the 30 by 2020 have their own reporting requirements. what is the ten year historic affordable housing production trend? if we are to look at just knew

housing production, affordable housing made up of 25%, or a quarter of net new units built in the last ten years. i would like to add that this is a proportion that has been more or less consistent in the last two decades or more, it is just a tad higher then the last housing balance report the housing balance calculation however looks beyond new housing production, it also looks at entitled and permitted

affordable units, - units removed from protected status. essentially, these are rent-controlled units that are removed from the rental market, either through the ellis act, demolition to conversion, and owner move in evictions. this is collectively called the next affordable stock per -- for the purposes of this report. >> let me just jump in for a second because the three years that i have been back on the boards, i have seen about half a dozen of these reports, and it is a very helpful tool for decision-makers and the public to monitor market rate versus affordable, but when we're looking at the percentage, and given that -- the staff -- the steps that we all throw around, every two units of affordable housing that we are building, we are losing one, that is the common statistic that these

reports have been showing us over time, in the last report had ascetic human which of housing balance about the same as this report, 25%. i really wanted to drill down a bit, and i can do this at the end of your presentation if you would like, into the issue around how we calculate units removed from protected status, and made her stand the board broadens that by adding owner move ins on the theory that they were no-fault, they were -- they removed a unit from rent control , either forever or for an extended period of time, what seems to me like we might want to consider and then thinking out loud here, drilling down into that category of units lost in a more comprehensive, albeit maybe hard to calculate way, which is, the phenomenon of tenant buyouts which are very poorly reported although it is a

requirement requirements, but not a well enforced one, brings about this whole category of units that are not going into units removed from protected status. if a whole building is staff -- sought out and there is no application for a condo conversion, it is still lost from that rent-controlled protected status, and i'm interested in knowing, and this is a conversation for the land use committee and the board in the public to have, whether or not there is a way of once again amending this law to try to add that number. i actually think, anecdotally, that the numbers are not as good as two -1° think they are worse and they are approaching 1-1 and a say that as a district three supervisor where there are a

huge number of buyouts that i know have happened, and i know the people category know people who know the people who have been bought out, but they have never been reported. and those units have been removed from rent control. that does not even get to another body of rent-controlled stock, where people leave, whether or not they are harassed out or bought out or maybe they failed to pay their rent, but that unit which was, i am making up a number, renting for $1,000, is now renting for three and four times that much. they are still subject to rent control, but they have effectively become market rate units, and those don't go into the calculation either. i understand why there is a different thinking around those because they are subject to chapter 37 of the ministry to code, and i'm sorry for delving into this, but it is a conversation worth having, particularly because on the

housing generation side, we include it's and we include acquisition rehab, and while we are all very proud and thankful for these programs and my office has participated in freeing up seismic safety bonds money for rehab and my district has benefited and the reason the numbers look so good and district three is because of the five under 77 units that are 990 pacific and the pangs along pacific avenue, but in reality, while that is a good thing, it is not new affordable housing stocks.

the net new housing built in this figures are again for the 10 year reporting period. this presentation covers the passing balance report, and the net affordable housing stock totaled about 11,000 units. this net affordable housing stock overall most 40,500 units is about the cumulative over 10

year period the same as last year. districts. the housing balances for the board of supervisors districts range from negative 261% in district 4 to 65% in district 5. negative balances are larger numbers of units net new units built overall. while 34 new units were added to district four, 20 of these are a.d.u.s and not considered by the state to be affordable by design to households with moderate incomes. meaning almost two-thirds of the

units added in district four were affordable. however, almost 480 rent controlled units in the same districts were removed from protected status, hence, the high negative balance. in district five, on the other hand, we saw not only new affordable units added. it had units we habs acquisition as well as transfer of the rental assistance demonstration program. there were less represent controlled units removed in district five. districts two, three, five, six, eight, nine and 10 have positive balances. the rest had negative balances. the next slide shows distribution by planning districts. the range of balances range from

negative 270 in the same geography as district four to about 126% in braille heights and 72% in the western addition. the high positive balance is due to the number of units under the rad program in the district. the ordinance also requires projected housing balance, essentially net new affordable housing units as proportion of the net units in projects that received entitlements and have yet to receive building permits. this slide shows projected housing balance 22%. this is 6% points higher than the previous reported period. it is also provided at the board district and planning district levels.

the housing balance ordinance specifies three major multi phase projects that have been entitled but do not have building permits not included in the projected housing balance until phasing moved to applying for and receiving building permits. altogether remaining phases will provide about 21,450 net new units of which 23% will be affordable. i would like to note as well there are other entitled multiyear multi phase projects not specifically called out by the mandate. these include ps70, mission rock and hope sf projects not counted year as these have yet to get permits issued. affordability range from 25% to 40%. also not included in projected

housing balance are projects under reyou. 14,380 units under review as of the end of last quarter 10% affordable. 62 projects with 10,500 units will be subject to inclusion affordable housing requirements. that could mean 1260 new affordable units if built on site. this could change depending on the option developers choose to fulfill the requirement. i will talk about other miscellaneous housing balance matters. the housing balance biannual reporting schedule as stipulated in the ordinance. that will come out on the first of april and first of october. it mandates annual hearing to be conducted before the board of

supervisors each april. the mayor's office of housing and community development and economic and work force development and stabilization board and department of building inspection and city economist will each present these consistent with affordable housing goals at the annual hearing. should the cumulative balances fall below 33% they will determine the amount of funding needed to bring the city into the required minimum 33%. i would like to acknowledge amy chan. bill strong and they are here to answer the questions you may have. the planning department created a website specifically for the housing balance report as required by the ordinance. the current report and previous once can be downloaded from this

site that is all for now. i will be here for questions the supervisors may have. thank you. >> thank you once again for compiling all of this data. supervisors may have questions for you on mr. stron or mr. collins. >> i am looking at the report on page 9. it talks about owner move ins. it says they were not specifically called out by the ordinance included in the calculation. they were added later on. i just want to understand a little more behind that. i don't know if it tells the whole story. >> a little bit the reason for that amendment was that the board actually came to the

conclusion that owner move ins basically took a rent controlled apartment unit out of protected status forever or for a significant period of time because of the way the owner move in law works. that was why we decided that should be part of the loss calculation. >> that was in november. i was going to finish saying i saw that was the intent of the original sponsor. thanthank you for clarifying. what i want to understand in my district the vast majority of housing is single family homes. i want to understand how that calculates in. single family homes are not under rent control as the law is currently written. i want to understand where this 268 owner move ins were. >> there are probably smaller or

duplexes structures. it is not all, and i think mr. collins would be able to answer that. >> i want to see the backup information on the data. the low number of demolition. medium side makes more sense to me. i understand there was some unwarranted demolition that would fall under rent control because you are expanded single family to nonsingle. we have a low number. when you look at owner move in, it is significantly higher than the rest of the numbers on that side. i would like to understand that a little more and where you came to that number, specifically for my district. >> robert collins, assistant director at the rent board. single family homes if built before 1979 are subject to rent

ordinance. however, they may be exempt from price controls in certain situations. if the tenancy began after 1/1/96 and hasn't been under eviction this would not be under the eviction aspect. we get owner move ins for single family. i haven't looked at the online data. >> it doesn't meet the spirit what you are saying. some are and some aren't if they are built fire to that date they don't follow under rent control. >> before june 13, 1979 subject to owner move in eviction. >> i know they are subject to those laws. in terms of rent control they are not. the numbers might be misleading. i want to understand the data more. that is all. >> it is difficult to understand because the numbers are kind of a combination. once there is an owner move in

eviction they are subject to price controls five years. following the owner move in eviction it is a mix. >> if they are moving in we want to insure they are living there and not just telling people they are moving? >> number of move ins are same as net new units. both were 268. >> it was probably coincidental. >> i would like to see the backup data. that is all. >> we could provide that. >> that would be great. thank you for the clarification. i mean just for the record we know we have owner move ins. we know people are destabilized. from the spirit what is written about represent control unit -- rent control units off the market based on amendment in 2016, i don't think that falls in line with what the housing balance is trying to gauge.

that is all. thank you, supervisor. >> mr. collins, if you heard my ruminations about buyouts, i am interested in starting a conversation publicly and with your department and my colleagues whether there is a way that we can either determine or estimate things we are missing as part of what should be subtracted. specifically, i know that in many instances, a notice of a preliminary buyout offer is filed. a final buyout is not filed. there seems to be many more preliminaries and very few finals, as i understand it. at least in the corner of the city i represent, i know those people have left, and i assume they did it with money.

in some instances i have received information people enter into contracts where they contract ali agree they are not going to divulge and if they divulge the agreement is null and void and subject to litigation and what have you. nonetheless, practically speaking, that three or four unit building is now vacant, and what i think happens is that they become tics which we cannot regulate. they are not omi but they are out there to further change the percentage. a, what do you think about this? b, do you have data or can we produce da data to amend the law and calculate or provide or at minimum shall we say at least the buyouts should be part of

the calculation? >> chair peskin, thank you for that question. the last annual buyout report we received 379 buyout agreements at the rent board, and we received 962 preh prebuyout ord. what is missing in this information is as you mentioned we don't how many were not filed, by definition. i think more importantly, we don't know the genesis for the buyout offer itself. the only caution note that i provide is that the buyouts don't usually have a history of how they got to agree to a buyout. they don't have the underlying notice or issue. they have a variety of payouts given as a result. one can infer maybe some were for potentially at fault or no

fault evictions. it is only speculation sth