You are unmuted.

Okay, good afternoon, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the July 17th, 2023 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Dean Preston, and Board of Supervisors, President Aaron Paskin.

The committee clerk today is Erica Major.

I would also like to acknowledge Kalina Mendoza and Sue Enos at SFGov TV for staffing this meeting.

Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, the Board of Supervisors and its committees are now convening hybrid meetings that allow in-person attendance and public comment while still providing remote access and public comment via telephone.

Public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda.

Those attending in person will be allowed to speak first, and then we will move on to a remote call in line.

When connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and listening mode only.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, those joining us in person should line up to their right near the curtains, and those joining us remotely should press star three to be added to the queue.

Please remember, if you're on your telephone to turn down your television and radio or all listening devices you may be using.

You may submit written comment to me in two of the following ways.

You can email me, the land use and transportation clerk.

My email address is ERICA.mAJOR at SFGOV.org.

And you may also submit your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to City Hall at 1 Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit Place, room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

Finally, items acted upon today are expected to be heard on the July 25th Board of Supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

Please call the first item.

Item number one is an ordinance amending the administrative code to provide that tenant occupied units and buildings that will be receiving either low-income housing tax credits or tax exempt multifamily revenue bonds shall remain subject to the rent ordinance as long as any of the existing tenants continue to reside in the unit, or unless all the tenants in the unit agree otherwise in writing.

And for any such units that may have previously become exempt from the rent ordinance since 2018, restoring rents to the levels allowed that the rent ordinance continuously applied.

Those joining us remotely, your now is your time to press star three to be added to the speaker line.

Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Madam Clerk, uh Supervisor Preston, thank you for introducing this legislation.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Melgar, and thank you for calendaring this for today and getting this on a busy agenda.

Um the ordinance before us today seeks to close a loophole in our city's rent control policy and to make sure that residents are not unfairly deprived of rent control protections under Chapter 37 of the administrative code.

This loophole was brought to our attention by residents of uh Frederick Douglass Haynes Garden Apartments, F.

D.

Haynes, a 104-unit affordable housing complex in the heart of the Western edition.

Um D.

Haynes was built in 1972 with financing secured from HUD.

In 2014, the HUD mortgage was paid in full, and the former landlord entered into Section 8 contracts with HUD for 84 of the 104 units.

The remainder 20 units were not under Section 8 agreements, and without any government subsidy, these units uh became subject at that time to the rent ordinance and to rent control.

In 2019, uh the ownership applied for and received multifamily housing loans in order to finance repairs on the property, and as a result, the rent board subsequently determined that these remaining 20 units that had rent control lost their protections under the rent ordinance.

Um as a result, some of the families uh at FD Haynes saw astronomical rent hikes and continue to see astronomical rent increases.

One family uh has lived at FD Haynes since 1977, saw their rent jump last July from 1,408 dollars to $1,921 a month.

Uh, the first annual increase on July 1 of this year, the rent jumped again, an additional $513 just for this year, and there are projected further increases of a similar order of magnitude of about $500 a year, such to such an extent that by 2026, their three-bedroom apartment will cost $3,973 per month in this affordable housing complex, uh, a 182% increase in monthly rent over the course of five years.

Simply put, these rent hikes at FD Haynes are completely unacceptable.

No one should have their rent control ripped away without having any say in the process, especially long-term African American residents of my district.

Under this proposal, in the event a property owner gets multifamily tax exempt revenue bonds to finance repairs.

For FD Haynes residents, if passed, the legislation would restore their rent control protections and revert their monthly payments to the previous amounts plus allowable annual increase increases that would have been allowed under the rent ordinance.

The legislation builds off previous efforts that I was involved in nearly it's almost 20 years ago now with uh now president, then supervisor, I believe then supervisor, although it may have been then president as well, uh, Peskin.

Um, when I was a tenant attorney at the time at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, and we had learned of a situation uh like this where long-term tenants, in that case on Post Street, were facing massive rent hikes after a developer had received uh state tax credits to finance repairs for affordable housing.

Uh Supervisor Peskin at that time wrote and passed legislation clarifying that residents don't lose their rent control protection simply by their landlord getting tax credit financing.

So, what the legislation that's before us today does is it builds on that effort by adding uh multifamily revenue bonds to the categories of public financing that does not result in loss of rent control protections.

It's narrowly tailored.

Uh this ordinance came about because of the situation at FD Haynes, but also prevents this kind of practice going forward.

Um, and in order to make sure this legislation is not over broad and doesn't have any unintended consequences, I will be offering a non-substantive amendment uh as recommended by uh Mayor's Office of Housing uh Council and our city attorney's office and after consultation uh with affordable housing advocates and that change is um on page two line 16 uh there's a reference to IRS code section 103.

I'm advised this is a code section that deals broadly with bond financing and then a more specific code section 142 uh parentheses D deals specifically with multifamily revenue bonds.

So I'd like to move to uh strike both references to Section 103 and replace those with Section 142D.

Um I would also before those amendments are taken, uh, like to duplicate the file.

Um and let me just close by saying this in a city with uh over $14 billion budget in the midst of having I think a necessary and very productive conversation about reparations uh to the black community.