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 havent more than one rental unit, if you have Affordable Housing. If you have another unit offered to you, it is a legitimate condition of theyre 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 wouldnt call it a temporary lease. There are quite a number of units where the tenant never gets the original offered. Those tenants, they cant moved out and if they cant 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 cant actually move back in. For whatever reason, tenants dont always get to move back. My colleague noted she has a case which has been going on two years now, and they havent been offered the restored unit back. So when somebody gets into an affordable unit, theyre not saying im going to stay here for a lifetime, but ill 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 dont 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 theyre already living in the unit. So that is not a preference. Its 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 cant evict without good cause. But a provision of the lease if youre 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 longterm, sometimes temporary to longterm housing, but it is not without a term. Chairwoman okay. The problem with adding new preferences is it doesnt add additional housing. It just bumps someone up the list. I agree this is a major problem and we need to fix it. Im 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 dont have Affordable Housing for people that dont fit into the preference. If i may to the chair, not all you have to still be incomeel available. Eligible. And not all 400 would be incomeel 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. Its just i dont 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 cityfunded, 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 doesnt feel very clean. But i understand that i cant think of an alternative, either. If it helps, there are two other elements to this. Chairwoman right. It shall be noted that the moveouts 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 havent completely moved out. It is, in fact there home remains. They just cant 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 theyre 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, theyre 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. Thats the rational choice. Not to use one of the families that testified today, but the reality is if youve lived in that unit for 44 years, and it is proximate to all of the services, whether theyre medical, in your community, and then you take a temporary place, which, by the way, is probably not in the neighborhood, particularly if youre in the northeast corner, where there isnt a lot of new Affordable Housing that has been built, but a lot of rentcontrolled 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 wasnt 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 thats 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 tenants 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 ive interpreted the preference as thats 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 youve exercised the preference and youre in the Affordable Housing unit, one of the conditions of your particular preference is that it is a shortterm occupancy. Chairwoman okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, mr. Fujioka and supervisor peskin for explaining it to me. Im so sorry. Please come forward. Withou id 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 dont 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 were 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. Id. And the language talks about the reasons why a landlord can ask for an extension. But do we have anything in here and i didnt 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 im 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 youre talking about im 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 Mayors 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 threemonth standard temporary eviction period . So i dont 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] youll have to come forward. Sorry. The rent board doesnt 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 thats the question. Uhhuh. 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 threemonth 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 dont know if there are any staff here who would like to answer supervisor mars question . No. I had another question, maybe it is to the Mayors Office of housing, following chair ronans 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 dont 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, Mayors 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 dont 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 preferen