it comes back on, we can start. okay. good morning, everyone. we're going to start our september 23rd rules committee meeting. i am supervisor walton, and this is supervisor gordon mar. chair ronan will be here in a little while. so i'm going to go ahead and start the meeting. our clerk today is victor young, and i would like to thank jesse larsen and matthew from sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. >> completed speaker cards and copies of any documents tob included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted on today will

appear on the october 1st board of supervisors' agenda unless otherwise state. >> chairman: thank you. can we call item number one. >> item one is the ord nan and the administrative code to add a preference and city affordable housing projects for tenants temporarily evicted for rehabilitation work, to provide evidence of complying with the tenants' right to reoccupy such tenant rental units. >> chairman: thank you so much. i forgot to announce we have our guest, supervisor peskin, who is here to talk about the substantial amendments for item one. i'm going to pass this over to supervisor peskin. >> thank you, supervisor walton. and i want to thank you for waiving the 30-day rule. this is a proposal to amendment the housing preference policy to

accommodate tenants displaced by temporary capital improvement conditions, which is quite pronounced in areas of the city that have older rent control housing like the corner of the city i represent. san francisco's existing rent law a allows landlords to evict tenants temporarily in order to provide capital u78 improvements, and sometimes they are mandatory, and sometimes they're voluntary improvements that the landlord undertakes. i think many of us have heard about the phenomenon of remolding evictions, and in some cases, the gold plating, with capital improvements, that are not just about safety and inhabitability, but are really aimed at driving out tenants. under the rent ordinance, these capital improvement temporary evictions are

indeed intended to be temporary, and the tenant is entitled to return when the renovations are completed. and the law, as it exists, generally requires that the work should be completed in three months. but the law allows landlords to extend that period without limit. for example, one project you'll hear about in district 3 threatens to displace four long-term households, most of them seniors, for at least a year without any increase insistence or offer of replacement housing. and there are many such evictions pending city-wide, as well as in the northeast corner of the city, and as you'll see on his heat map i'll wave at us colleagues, there is a header map that is happening in the city, and they happen throughout the city, but are concentrated in districts 3and 6, and there have been so far 400 of them since 2017. so given the challenges of finding housing for even those at the top of the

income scale, for many working families and retired seniors, a temporary capital improvement eviction notice is a disaster and often leads to -- just the threat of them can force buyout situations. so the proposal that is for you would make tenants facing capital improvement evictions eligible for inclusion in a new tiers for displaced tenants. with this reform, tenants receiving capital eviction notices can apply for affordable housing without having to wait years for a unit. i think the support would not require any additional subsidy because the tenants could utilize the relocation assistance to cover increased rental costs. and eligibility would be temporary because when the renovations at the original places are complete, the tenants would be required to go back to their original unit, and those units in existing affordable housing would be freed up.

so we need to develop more comprehensive reforms to protect tenants from these abusive practices. in addition to the neighborhood, but the preference policy, i'm offering some amendments, which i distributed to you. first on page five, at line 24, in the eviction clause, at subsection 11 at the bottom of page five, you'll see the insertion of the words "that work would make the units hazardous, unhealth, and/or uninhabitable while work is in progress." on the next page, page six, this would cod fee codify existing policy at the rent board by the insertion of the words "the landlord will only require the tenant to vacate the unit for a minimum time required to do the work." at page six, further down

in subsection "a," i would ask the committee to consider adding the language, a subsection 3 there, and provide the tenant a form prepared by the rent board that the tenant can use to keep the rent board apprised of any future change in address. on the same page, subsection "c," and this is quite important language, is some direction to administrative law judges at the rent board to consider whether the landlord has delayed in seeking the extension the reasonableness of the landlord's time estimate, what work is reasonable and necessary to meet state or local requirements colonel safety or inhabitability, and whether any tenants have objected that the cost of securing alternative housing would cause them a financial hardship, and other extraordinary circumstances. the board may grant or deny an application or may approve a shorter time based on the considerations of the

facts of the case. so this is direction to the a.l. j. and finally, further down on page seven, there was language that i initially proposed that i am now proposing to strike with regard to the requirement that no certifcate of final completion be approved until the landlord has provided the tenant an offer to reoccupy the unit. and the reason for that is that many of the types of work that are done don't require a certificate of final completion, so that language need not be in there. so those are the amendments that i'd like to offer. i would like to thank a broad coalition of folks who have brought this to my office and contacted other members of the board of su supervisors, ranging from the town community development is center to the san francisco tenants' union, the housing rights committee, and others who

you will hear from during public comment. >> chairman: thank you. with that said, we will now open item one up to public comment. if you have public comment, please come and line up to my left, your right. and you have two minutes. >> good morning. shelby, housing rights staff attorney at the asian law caucus. the asian law caucus supports supervisor peskin's proposal for three reasons. >> first, it will support those cleent clients are particularly vulnerable to evictions. when our clients receive temporary eviction notices, panic sets in.

our clients have age and disability-related needs, as well as cultural needs, that create tremendous barriers to finding appropriate temporary housing. it is critical for our clients to remain in san francisco, and a preference will make it more likely they'll be able to find safe and affordable housing in the city. second, we support the preference because it is temporary. preferences will not solve the affordable housing shortage in san francisco. but the creation of a temporary preference that supports tenants while their lan landlords complete renovations, will increase the extension. a landlord who seeks to displace an elderly tenant living on a fixed income should not be authorized carte blanche to spend an entire year doing work the

that to tenant's unit in if means that tenant will be homeless for that year. we strongly support the amendment that would require the board to consider hardship when the renovations are not mandated by applicable law. i also have written assumptions that i will give to the clerk. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors, i'm marilyn knight of north beach tenants committee co founder. we founded the committee because in 2013, there were 20 plus of us who were being evicted on one block. i urge you to support supervisor's peskin's amount for the relocated tenants in the preferable ap affordable housing programme. there has been prolonged rehab projects that have

forced tenants to relect relocae to other cities, far from their jobs, medical and social support and other support systems. this move is particularly hard on seniors and families with school-aged children. three blocks from my home, a six-unit building is set to undergo a major rehab project. many of the tenants are seniors. and this would mean a relocation of who knows how long because, though, technically it is three months, it can go on for a year or more. susupervisor peskin's legislations, making them part a performance of the preparational affordable housing program gives them stability and allows them to stay in san francisco while their homes are being renovated.

then to return to their communities, thus ensuring they did not become relocation refugees. the stress of relocation is great, even if it is one's choice to relocate. through supervisor peskin's amendment, we can make relocation less traumatic for our residents who have contributed so much to our city, our beautiful city, although very expensive city. thank you. [buzzer] >> chairman: thank you, ms. knight. >> hello. my name is hannah chum, and i'm a housing staff attorney at api legal out reach. being displaced from your home temporarily is more than the issue that is being presented now. the way the ordinance is written, there are not enough protections or resources for tenants.

for example, if a tenant is being displaced for 12 months, and the rent board is allowing these extensions without any room for additional location or resources for affordable housing, it makes it very difficult for tenants who have been living in the bay area, and in san francisco specifically, to be able to stay here. these tenants are being displaced from places they've called their homes for 20 or 30 years. and then they're expected to pack the majority of the their life in a matter of 60 days and somehow find a temporary place for potentially a year. we support this because this is temporary, and also it provides families, who have elders or individuals with disabilities, or tenants who are monolingual speakers, to have additional resources. in most cases, landlords are including additional repairs that should have been done previously, but they wait until it is too late and then there is a violation of the building. this increases the supposed amount of time

tenants are posed to be displaced. we support the amendment by supervisor peskin so tenants will not have to be displaced longer than they should be. thank you. [buzzer] >> good morning, supervisors. my name is rose beriessa, and i'm a navy san franciscan, and i've been a teacher for 20 years. i'm here to support my brother david, who has been living in a veritas apartment in the civic center for the past 23 years. he was given a temporary eviction, and he actually did ask for some assistance from veritas, and they moved into a temporary housing in the tenderloin. he, at that time, went to the corporate offices and signed a good samaritan lease, which said after six months his rent could go up to market value. this doesn't work for him. and that is coming up in

october. while extensions continue for work being done, which were capital improvements that needed to happen on this building. so this particular legislation is not only helpful to my brother, but to anyone else in a situation like this. he works part-time. he supports the arts in san francisco at playing piano, and needs to be in a central area, and he lives on a limited income. so something like this is so very helpful to support everyone in this situation. thank you for your time. and thank you, housing rights and the tenants' union. bye-bye. >> hi, good morning, supervisors. my name is pak ing. and i'm here on behalf of my parents. my father is 92 years old, and my mom is 87 years old. they both have been living

at 819 lombard street since 1979. they were earlier given this temporary eviction notice, earlier this year, to move out from their half of the building. and the rent board authorized the landlord a one-year period of time to fix all of the violations. however, they -- i mean, because the assistant housing program is so limited, they were not able to find anything else. and they contacted the assisting housing program of the city, and they told me that because they were temporarily evicted and not permanently evicted, they were not qualified for the assistance housing program. i think this resolution is very useful for the situation like what my parents are in. because the rental market

nowadays, they basically cannot find anything out there. their income, both, totaled, is less than $1600 a month? where can you find housing for that amount? [buzzer] >> i think this program will help. thank you so much. bye. >> good morning. my name is steven way. i live at 819 lombard street, apartment "a," and we the tenants who live in the building, were served temporary eviction papers so the landlord can do repairs on the building. the prospect of relocating, even if it is temporary, it is nothing, if not a near im pocket in impossibility in my estimation. the reason i say that is because we're all on fixed income, and there is nowhere for us to go unless section "a" would be available.

i'm not on section "a," and more than had of my income goes to rent, which they're trying to increase. it has been a hardship on myself and everyone because of the lack of repairs that were supposed to have been done, but now is delayed and now it is causing the situation where they have to do the work. i think that supervisor peskin's legislation would be very helpful to us, to everyone. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you. >> hello. i'm the interpreter for mr. lim.[speaking foreign language] [voice of interpreter]: good morning, i'm josh lim. last year i had a stroke, and now i've become disabled. i'm 56 years old today.

i rely on my $180 for retirement. i live on lombard street. since 1975, and it's now 44 years. my landlord turned my safe home into a different building and tried to evict us. i only have $900, and i can't afford to rent somewhere else. and all the places we reached out to, said it is complicated for us and not convenient for us to live.

and because we are poor, it is very hard for us to go to the tenant house, because we're so poor, we can't afford to buy somewhere else. we hope the government can pass this legislation to help tenants like us. and i also hope that the government not allows the landlord to do repairs for a very long time. if it has to be 12 months, we have to be homeless, essentially on the street. i don't know what to say.

thank you so much for your hearing. [end of translation] >> she just wants to show up and support the tenants. and she also lives in the building, sorry. [voice of interpreter]: and i don't know what to say. >> chairwoman: you can say whatever you want, but thank you so much for coming.[speaking foreign language] [voice of interpreter]: i hope that you can help us. thank you. >> chairwoman: and thank you so much for raising such an incredible son. thank you.

>> good morning, everyone.[spean language] [voice of interpreter]: my name is kim lu. i live at 825 lombard street. i lived there 21 years. i'm a senior. my landlord tried to temporarily evict us. and it is very inconvenient for me. the rent, outside is very expensive. i hope this legislation will stop these temporary evictions.

i hope you can help us. thank you very much.[speaking fn language] [voice of interpreter]: good morning, supervisors. my name is rita. today i'm here on behalf of c.t.a. "dear supervisors walton and mar, the tenant association fully supports supervisor peskin's proposal. they claim that the evictions are ti temporary, but the effects can be long-lasting. finding other housing is often impossible for immigrants, families, and seniors on fixed incomes. the problem is made worse because too many landlords are improving buildings, only to attract the wealthy. we are losing too many

friends and neighbors because of the evictions. susupervisor peskin's proposal will help provide temporary housing for seniors and families. we strongly support this proposal. the tenants' association. and for myself, i have seen cases that the landlord has been renovating for over two years, and it is now going on. and the tenants can't sign papers to leave because the rent is too high out there, and the tenants are literally living on the construction site. so i hope you can support supervisor peskin's proposal so we can make sure that tenants can have a safe place to stay and not get evicted because of the construction. thank you." [end of translation] >> hello, my name is sarah, and i'm here from

the housing rights committee. speculators and sleazy landlords are using renovations to terrorize and harass tenants in so many different ways. you all and other orgizationorganizations have mat hard to evict tenants, which is something you should celebrate, but some of these landlords are using these tactics while they fancy up a building so they can make a lot of money once they get tenants out. at the same time, they stretch out the work for a very, very long time. and if a landlord makes it too hard for a tenant, they think they're going to leave. and sometimes they do. and for seniors and for other tenants with health issues, this can be deadly. i mean, how can you find a place that might be for three months, but might be for six, that might be for

a year? how much stuff do you know you can take? where will you be? this is why housing rights committee -- this is an imperfect fix, but we're really happy, supervisor, that you took this on. this is really important. thank you. we really support this piece of legislation. >> chairwoman>> we've been concd for a while about temporary relocations being used as a tool for permanent displacement, and we've been in conversations with some of you for several years, trying to come up with ways to semifinal this problem. solve this problem. we strongly believe we need more affordable housing, and not just a reprioritizing who gets it and who doesn't. we believe in this case a temporary preference sees

this rent control union in the long run. when a tenant knows they can come back, it greatly removes the stress. and it removes the incentive for the landlord to day, to see whether or not -- and to test the waters of the tenant, if he was a good tenant, if he is able to make it back or not. and with that removal of uncertainty, the tenant -- this degeneratio legislation wod remove the fear that tenants have that is leading them to take buyouts before the renovations even happen. we've been calling these renovations evictions. it is one more way that landlords can scare tenants into leaving. we're hoping with this legislation, as well as the amendment, to consider hardship when giving extensions of time to landlords to make these

renovations, that we'll finally see a reduction in this kind of eviction. thank you. >> ken fujioka, from the adult center. thank you for this hearing, and thank you supervisor peskin for bringing it forward. i wanted to address three topics that thus far were made. perhaps emphasize them or perhaps that haven't been covered. i would want to emphasize that the city currently that has no safety net for tenants who are being displaced by these temporary evictions. many times -- and there are different forms of these displacements. some of them may be for legitimate rehab and upgrade purposes. in fact, they may be advancing a public purpose, such as the seismic ordinance, or for that matter, some of the

evictions are being motivated that owners will add a.d.u.s, and they're going to displace other tenants in order to support that project. the city is not owning the fact that those policies are actually displacing tenants. and there is no safety net for tenants, except for the mi minimal paultry elections. i know there are concerns about how do we make our affordable housing program pick up the slack? and speaking for the part of my organization that does affordable housing, we understand this is a challenge and i've talked to our staff, but we understand in order for us to address and mitigate some of these hardships, we need to step up to the plate. so we want to do everything we can to address that issue. finally, i wanted to underscore this issue of the threat. because there have been 400 of these eviction notices served gins since

january 2017. some are short, and some are long-term. and behind that are also fraudulent evictions that are not being actually filed with the rent board. they have landlord notices -- [buzzer] >> chairwoman: can you finish that thought and then i have a question for you. >> sure. it is a tactic of some landlord attorneys to issue an unfiled notice, claiming a temporary eviction, and i have a copy of a letter from a landlord saying we're going to evict you for nine months. you've already rejected a buyout. you have one week to accept a buyout, because we're doing capital renovations, and the tenants took the buyout. >> chairwoman: a quick question -- i know that is happening, and it is happening in the mission district constantly, so this is a really important piece of legislation. but i just want to

understand what happened. so the person gets a preference, moves into an affordable housing unit through that preference, and then their original unit, the capital improvements are done, and the landlord does the right thing and offers it back to the tenant. >> right. >> chairwoman: does that person then have to move in or lose the unit -- can you walk me through how that is going to work? >> sure. this will require an amendment to our leases so that it would need to provide for affordable housing unit when the tenant gets a preference and they move in with this temporary preference. it would need to be a condition of the lease -- there is a policy that you can haven't more than one rental unit, if you have affordable housing. if you have another unit offered to you, it is a legitimate condition of they're having a temporary unit, if the original unit is offered back to you, you need to move back, and there should be a

reasonable time to move back. that tenant would be provided reasonable time. then the relocation assistance that is being provided can be used for what it should be, which is moving in and moving out, but not having to pay exorbitant rents. >> chairwoman: so it would be a condition of the lease that when their original unit becomes available again, they must move back in? >> yes. >> chairwoman: and that is allowed with tax credit, funding these temp prairiprairietemporary leases. >> we wouldn't call it a temporary lease. there are quite a number of units where the tenant never gets the original offered. those tenants, they can't moved out and -- if they can't get enough out -- it really is an intent to clear a building, and their ace in the back

pocket is okay -- so sometimes they never get the unit back. some tenants do not get a unit back that has been reconfigured, so they can't actually move back in. for whatever reason, tenants don't always get to move back. my colleague noted she has a case which has been going on two years now, and they haven't been offered the restored unit back. so when somebody gets into an affordable unit, they're not saying i'm going to stay here for a lifetime, but i'll stay there for the period of time i need the unit. so it will be a conditional lease. there is nothing, as far as we know from discussing with our counsel, that prohibits a lease provision which would state that if they have other housing available, that becomes available to them or is restored to them, that they would move out, and that would be a condition, a term of the

lease. currently all leases do not have it, so currently we don't do it. we do not know of a prohibition in the lease to be able to do that. >> i was going to add the operative language on page five, which sa temporary displaced tenant may occupy an affordable housing unit until the earlier of one: the tenants reoccupying the unit, or, too, the tenants declining or failing to accept an offer to reoccupy the unit within 30 days of receipt of such an offer. >> chairwoman: i was reading that language, but it was very confusing. the preference is gone, but they're already living in the unit. so that is not a preference. it's a lease. >> mr. fujioka and i spoke about that. would you like to elaborate? >> we would need to have an addendum to our lease, which would say it is a good cause. basically what the tax

credit law is that you can't evict without good cause. but a provision of the lease -- if you're breaching a provision of the lease, a condition of the lease is that is grounds to terminate. >> chairwoman: if the tenant prefers their new home or has gotten used to living there, we would have to initiate eviction proceedings? >> and that is not something that we are in the business of doing, but when we have to do it, we do it. so -- and so -- i want to add, so the, um, we understand there are questions that have been raised, particularly with respect to tax credit projects. it is important to note that a good many of the units that are available are inclusionary units, which are not subject to the tax credit laws, so we can write the laws as we want them, as long as there is good cause. we have an equivalent in

our good samaritan law. so it is -- so we need to be able to think this through in order for us to accommodate the numbers of tenants are being relocated, that need temporary, or long-term, sometimes -- temporary to long-term housing, but it is not without a term. >> chairwoman: okay. the problem with adding new preferences is it doesn't add additional housing. it just bumps someone up the list. i agree this is a major problem and we need to fix it. i'm just a little concerned about how this would work. in practice.

and if we would end up having to evict someone, and given that it is 400 people in two years -- with the four preferences at this point, we don't have affordable housing for people that don't fit into the preference. >> if i may to the chair, not all -- you have to still be income-el available. eligible. and not all 400 would be income-el jaifnlt aneligible. and we slipped this in as a fourth tier. so the formally homeless and neighborhood preference -- all of that is still further up the list. >> chairwoman: i understand that. it's just -- i don't know what an alternative solution is, and i agree this is a major problem. i just could see us being in the business -- unlike good samaritan, which are

private buildings, these are projects that are city-funded, and i can see people getting comfortable in their units and not wanting to leave, and then having an eviction, or if the rent is raised legally because of the capital improvement -- it doesn't feel very clean. but i understand that i can't think of an alternative, either. >> if it helps, there are two other elements to this. >> chairwoman: right. >> it shall be noted that the move-outs -- when somebody moves for a cab tacapital improvement, in most instances, most of their belongings still remain in the unit. their unit is uninhabitable, but they haven't completely moved out. it is, in fact -- there home remains. they just can't live in it because of dust, debris, etc.

so it is, you know, a move out, but it is not like you might have imagined. >> chairwoman: right. >> the -- and at the point where they are -- i think that the reality is that tenants will have -- let us assume that tenants will make rational choices in their interests. and you have a rental unit, which is your home, is being offered back to you. and if they do not accept it, then they lose the unit, that is for sure, right? if they're being offered their unit back, they lose their unit unless they accept it within a period of time. so, yes, they may be looking at this dilemma of a unit they know they can move back, it is their former place, it is still their home, many of their

belongings are still there, and then they have a unit which, if they stay and pass up their old unit, they're basically abandoning their home. and i think that in most instances, i would argue, perhaps in the vast majority of instances, people will want to move back. that's the rational choice. >> not to use one of the families that testified today, but the reality is if you've lived in that unit for 44 years, and it is proximate to all of the services, whether they're medical, in your community, and then you take a temporary place, which, by the way, is probably not in the neighborhood, particularly if you're in the northeast corner, where there isn't a lot of new affordable housing that has been built, but a lot of rent-controlled housing stock, you might end up in another part of the city, where more is being built, district 10, for instance, district 6, for instance, and you probably, at the end of that year, want to

go home. >> chairwoman: thank you. i understand those arguments. a question to the city attorney. i read the language on page five several, several times, and it wasn't clear to me that that meant what mr. fujioka and supervisor peskin was saying, which is there will be an addendum saying that a just cause of eviction will be being offered back your original unit. can you confirm that's what that language says? >> deputy city attorney john gibner. the ordinance provides that the preference only applies during this period. and once the tenant begins to occupy the affordable housing unit, the tenant's right to occupy that unit ends when the tenant reoccupies the former unit, the rental unit, or refuses -- or declines an offer to return.

the mechanism to make that work will be a lease term with the affordable housing provider. >> chairwoman: maybe what is making me -- what is making this hard for me to understand is that the preference then -- i've interpreted the preference as that's how you get the unit in the first place. but the preference lasts with you throughout the entire tenant tenancy? >> there are two different sentences. one says the preference only lasts for this period of time. and the second sentence says once you've exercised the preference and you're in the affordable housing unit, one of the conditions of your particular preference is that it is a short-term occupancy. >> chairwoman: okay. thank you. i appreciate it. thank you, mr. fujioka and supervisor peskin for

explaining it to me. i'm so sorry. please come forward. >> withou i'd like to add that construction delays are often the result of lengthy permitting process, whether the construction is related to residential, commercial units, or seemingly interminable public infrastructure projects. in the private sector, this is really notable and most visible where there has been significant fire damage to infrastuctures. to structures. they typically are uninhabitable for a period of years. >> chairwoman: thank you. is there any other member of the public that wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor peskin. >> yeah. i don't want to in any way cut off a member of the

committee. i can wait. >> chairwoman: supervisor? >> just a couple of things. one -- and thank you because this is an important preference. i just want to make sure we're 100% clear that this is just specific to displaced tenants -- >> temporary displaced tenants, as compared to the existing tier for folks who have been l. s.'d or o.m.i'd. >> and the language talks about the reasons why a landlord can ask for an extension. but do we have anything in here -- and i didn't see it -- that guarantees that the landlord takes care of payment for that additional time for tenants? >> you are, through the

chair -- supervisor walton is putting his finger on an area of policy that this legislation does not address that i think is worthy of a policy dialogue. right now the amount that an individual or a family gets is fixed, regardless of duration. it is a thorny area of public policy that i think we have to grapple with. this legislation does not do that. what the additional language that i'm offering today in the bottom of six and top of seven do, is actually give the administrative law -- so right now, if you do a temporary displacement eviction for more than three months, there is a process by which the landlord has to go to an administrative law judge under the rent board. and there are certain things that at this point they do not consider. so this would add a whole number of things that the a.o.j. would have to

consider, relative to hardship, relative to necessity, relative to time, that currently -- if you look at the vast majority of these cases, if somebody comes in and says, hey, the project is going to take a year, generally the a.l. j. says okay, it takes a year this is giving them some other things to consider. but the larger part that you're talking about i'm interested in exploring. >> i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this important proposal forward. and thanks to all of the tenants who shared their stories today, and all of the tenant advocacy organizations that have highlighted this serious issue and this trend in sort of tenant rights that really needs to be addressed. i do have -- i do share some of the questions that

chair ronan and supervisor walton have raised about some of the specifics of this important proposal. i just had a question around -- i see that the tenant advocacy groups, or perhaps the city and the mayor's office, or the rent board, had come up with the documentation of 400 temporary eviction notices with the rent board since 2017. i just had a question about -- a few questions about that figure. and how many -- actually, one question is: do we know how many of those cases were extended beyond the three-month standard temporary eviction period? >> so i don't know if shelby wants to speak to that.

i think she is the one who prepared this. if you know the answer to that... [inaudible] >> you'll have to come forward. >> sorry. >> the rent board doesn't keep that data, but some of it is retrieveable to the extent that it is through an owner petition. not every owner petitions for more time, they just take it. to the extent there is a petition, we can provide that by the next hearing, which i understand there will be. so i think there is an answer to that. certainly -- and you can speak to your case -- >> yes. >> we do have a sense of -- i mean, they are granted. if that's the question. >> uh-huh. >> and if you have questions about the -- the number, there is no --

there is no record except to the extent that a landlord will petition, and we can get that data by the next meeting. would that be okay? >> if not a specific number, i was curious about the proportion of the cases that go from the three-month sort of standard temporary period, where there is a request to extend -- >> we will gather that information for the next hearing. >> thank you. because that seems like that is a really serious part and aspect of this problem. so thank you. i also had another question -- >> if i could just interject, i know rent board staff has been involved with my staff. i don't know if there are any staff here who would like to answer supervisor mar's question? no. >> i had another question, maybe it is to the mayor's office of housing, following chair ronan's questions around how this

additional preference might -- would impact the -- our overall sort of affordable housing program, and the long wait lists we have ready for community members that don't even qualify for preferences to get into affordable housing. i had questions about how this would impact it. it looks like we might expect 100 based on the data that was presented, 100 or more temporary evictions happening per year, and a good portion of those, you know, would be able to be eligible for this new preference. how would that impact the existing preferences and the broader pull of community members that are applying for affordable housing? >> amy chung, mayor's office of housing community development, thank you, supervisor peskin for bringing

forward this legislation. we currently have four preferences. the c.o.p., displaced tenant, and the neighborhood preference and the preference. most of the occupants of our affordable housing come through our portfolio through utilizing one of these preferences. most of the preferences do see high utilization. and the neighborhood preference in particular is almost 40%. we set aside 40% of units for the neighborhood preference, and we see almost 100% utilization of that preference. we do see some capacity in the displaced tenant housing preference. we reported to the board earlier this year on the utilization of preferences. and we did see some capacity under d.t.h.p., which is why we worked with supervisor brown and supervisor peskin to include tenants that would be potentially displaced from expiring affordability projects to be rolled into that preference. in terms of adding another preference, it does mean

that there is, i think, less units available for the union public who do not currently qualify for one of these preferences. of course, it is a policy question of who we should prioritize in our affordable housing portfolio. because there is a d.t.h.p. preference already, and there has been some capacity under that preference, we would ask that the supervisor consider this preference rolling into the d.t.h.p. preference. obviously, that changes the order of where it fits, but that is something we think would be better in terms of ease of implementation. but we do see some capacity in d.t.h.p., but, overall, if you don't have any one of these preferences, it will be more competitive for an applicant to apply for our affordable housing units. >> thank you so much. and just one sort of

followup question. do you have any sense, like, what -- if we did move ahead and enact this really good proposal and create this separate preference, what would be the likelihood that somebody having this new category preference have to access affordable housing opportunities, given that you said that most of the affordable housing opportunities that have opened up, the b.m.r. units, are filled already with people in the first -- who were in the first three preference categories. >> i think the way that the legislation reads currently is that preference would apply to 100% of the units, considering, like, compatibility with, like, the tax credit program and other financing programs that we have to meet those requirements. but, for example, d.t.h.p. only applies to 20% of the units.

and neighborhood preference only applies to 40% of the units. i think in this legislation, the preference would apply to 100% of the units, like c.o.p., and it does come before the levers. preference. so applicants applying for housing under this preference would be more competitive. more competitive than those under the other preference, and obviously those who do not have a preference at all. i think there is obviously opportunity for tenants who are applying for this preference to be housed in our universal sphocial housing. affordable housing. we share supervisor peskin's goal of wanting to house tenants who are displaced from these renovations. and our desire to really tackle displacement is a priority for us. through preferences as a tool, through preservation as a tool. something that does live outside of our scope of work is this temporary housing. we really strive to create

and preserve housing so that residents can live in those units permanently. so i think what we would appreciate is just further discussion about how to implement this kind of program given the possibility that a household potentially may not want to relocation back to their original unit. many may, but some may not. and we would -- it would be a very difficult situation for us to be evicting a household who does not want to leave permanent affordable housing that is built for permanent occupancy. so that is something we would appreciate further discussion on. it is something that we don't currently do, and it lives outside of our scope of work. thank you.

>> 819 lombard is actually a perfect example. part of what sparked that project and part of the benefit was the additional of three adus. so while on the one hand we're trying to incentavise the building of new somewhat affordable housing, we are ending up actually losing existing affordable housing. and so part of what i think the community and the supervisor is trying to do is to create some impediments, where bad actors are disincentive vised.

disincent vised. and a some point that tenant is going to be able to come back, there is a financial disincentive for them to keep that unit open as we have taken care of that family for six months or a year or year and a half. and, yes, it is a policy choice because the pie is getting a little bit smaller. there is no question about that. and that means that some folks are waiting longer in line. but it also means that we are saying that that rent-controlled unit is going to remain a rent-controlled unit at its previous rent. there are legitimate reasons that people have to temporarily displace a tenant for major work. some of the mandatory work. i get that. but there is also a group of folks who go about, many of them speculators, keeping units off the market as long as they can, knowing that that tenant is not going to

return. to the extent that we (a) say we're going to own it and have a place for them because we actually do have the capacity within our inclusionary and 100% affordable stock, and we have these additional findings that the a.l.j. has to make, and ultimately we're in the business of preserving existing rent-controlled housing at its current non-vacated rates. which is the whole reason for this. i want to thank the asian law caucus and c.d.c., and the tenant rights committee for pushing this supervisor on his legislation. i would hope that the committee would adopt the amendments and then we would have to continue it. there are other amendments that are being discussed that might require additional con contuances.

>> chairwoman: i'm wondering if we should add tenants replaced by fire -- >> they're already in. it includes o.m.i.s, fire, and -- >> chairwoman: okay. because sometimes, when the unit -- when a fire doesn't require demolition, they can come back. but i guess they would fall under the first preference, where it wouldn't be temporary, and they wouldn't have to -- they wouldn't have to give up the unit once their new unit was offered to them? >> i now understand, and am happy to talk to your office in the intervening week. yes, i get it.

>> chairwoman: okay. great. i'm happy to make a motion to accept the amendments, if that's okay with my colleagues. can i take that without objection? without objection, that motion passes. and then we'll continue this item. supervisor peskin, would you prefer to the call of the chair or to next week? >> i think one week, and i will have hopefully only one more amendment next week -- maybe two, now that you've got that idea. >> chairwoman: okay. so we'll continue this item for one week, to the next rules committee meeting. >> thank you colleagues. >> chairwoman: without objection, that motion passes. thank you. thank you, everyone. mr. clerk, can you please read item number two. >> item number two is the ordinance under the administrative code to change the name of the mental health board to