i'm here to express the hardship application that tenants apply for on seismic increases. the rent in san francisco has been increasing here in san francisco and tenants are paying more than thirty percent in their rent. for rent burdened tenants the threat of any kind rent increase will be the for about that pushed them out of their home or city. it's giving them an easier process and not having to pay a higher improvement cost. fighting the pricing out of our tenants and this policy is a

needed step. i want to commend all the supervisors in making sure our tenants in san francisco are able to stay in san francisco and we start taking look at the increases in rent of all types. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker please. next speaker >> any - >> (calling names) you don't have to come up in that order. >> come up. >> i was retired at the time and i was in something about o shock i had to pay for the roof $23 a

most times 10 years. my father was with me at the time and that's a big church and i am here because i think i should get it back. he had 3 roofers the first and second one didn't complete that right and i don't know what happened to the third one. i shouldn't be paying for their mistake, for his mistake. i really think that this capital improvement is an on the range. i remember him saying if i was low income i wasn't supposed to talk to the attorney the attorney had his staff call the owners. it's a outrageous and that's something i shouldn't have paid

anything. thank you >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello richard may i tenant applicant. first of all, i would like to say it's a great thing that the city recognize that are many structures that need to be retro if i had so that's a good thing your maund that. and second fall supervisor kim hit on it when she talked about how many people are virtually infinitely and can't afford this even though it will be a mandatory expensive for they're part. but i think it's a great there's a probability this process could be streamline. again she made mention of the fact that even though people were eligible for the subsidy

they have to wait many months to get through that process and in the meantime they have to pay the rent or so some 3 day notice. even though they would be inadmissible for rent are some kind of expectation they have to come up with this money. i want to point out many people that pay this year on fixed incomes. i urge you to pass so the people who are eligible will get the benefits of this quickly. >> thank you. next speaker. >> so i think the supervisors that are here annoy don't remember over 12 years ago the lombard police department had an absolutely phenomenal pass through. there were 4 buildings there.

there were quite a few of the number of senior people there. i don't know what happened but it was an incredible amount of money so i think it's very good you're going doing something for people who they come upon those buildings >> thank you. next speaker. >> greetings supervisors. i support this legislation and the thing say, i want to say from my experience working with a bunch of clients low income that seniors the process is very cumbersome and the process is backlogged so during that time some of the advocates mentioned earlier they either have to pay or pay the test group or they might get some kind of 3 day notice.

so i think the streamlining process would help the cumbersome process for the tenants. also the portion in regards to making the notice so that tenants are aware they have the right to appeal based on hardship. the third thing is besides spooepd up the process for the board and some of those folks for example, some of the tenants who are on fixed incomes that in itself if there are programs for me, i think it's a a lot less cumbersome if they're able to get processed and for the process to be more stream lines it would be good to have many options. it's a financial burden to get

to the rent board and it presents a lot of folks intimentd. i support to streamline the process and to make it because right now the attendance are paying astronomical rents and other parts but this will really help. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello (speaking foreign languag language). >> okay my name is pinking and i'm the tenant in an old

building. i'm here to support this legislation about the capital improvements >> (speaking foreign language). >> most of our families have low income and most of us having to worry about capital improvement that would raise our rent or expense of our pay is a big burden. >> (speaking foreign language). >> in this way we would see a

quicker process of see who's qualifying for the capital. >> (speaking foreign language). >> i'm glad that the legislation is here to consider the building on we're low income families and also particle for income families also. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> (speaking foreign language). >> so greeting supervisor i'm a peer organizer with the

collaborative. >> (speaking foreign language). >> so as part of my job i often go visit our families and see how they're doing and oftentimes they're not aware of the for example, the pastor issues and a lot of times we're the ones who educate them and let them know. >> (speaking foreign language).

>> and a lot of times even if their faced if the opportunity it apply for financial hardship the process is cumbersome and it's times intensive and sometimes they choose not to go through with it. >> (speaking foreign language). >> so if this passes it would help make the process smoorther. >> thank you. >> hello, i'm with the housing rates committee. we're in support of this legislation. beak we see this legislation as being a simple motivator. it streamlines the board process so those who quality already for a hardship get one in a timely

manner. this is really important especially for people on limited income and i see them everyday in my officer who barrel pack pay the rent and the medication and everything else they have to pay. especially seniors. for them to have to wait for o a 5 most process is a hardship. it's a psychological hardship because it is resident actual would be back to the date so this is a lot of pressure on somebody who is already having trouble making ends meet. as i said i see them all the time. even paying $50 center a tremendous burden and maybe keep

their apartment or guch a prescription or food cutting back on food. and i think this is unfair that anybody should have to make a decision like that. we ail believe in safeguardingor facility but it wouldn't be cruel if safeguarding our people to displays people. so i urge you and i hope you'll not only pass this legislation but pass it out with a favorable recommendation today. thank you very much >> thank you, ms. new. >> today, i'm with the san francisco apartment association. i have some comments on the legislation. we have some concerns about the lack of due process that is

built into the legislation. in other words, it's an or in has concerns about the hardship we believe that they should get a hearing at the rent board. it shouldn't be left up to staff discretion but in the rare curtains or the curtains that the owner wants a hearing they should believable to have that hearing granted. the other thing is on assets we understand that assets are exempt from the calculation on income. but we were wondering if this year's committee might entertain an option of putting a threshold amount in there. we believe that assets should be a part of income or clarification for whether you get a hardship or not but we're willing to compromise if we

could request a certainty threshold amount where assets aren't looked at. in the legislation itself on page 2 section 4 there's a date of february 21st, 2003, in there i don't think that's a correct date that needs to be fixed. eaten page 3 line 12 i was going to ask for some clarity from this body or the city attorney on what this meant on the stay. so if you get a stay on payment if the board goes in favor whether it's registered or not registered that's the question i

have >> president chiu. >> if i could ask the st. first of all, on the date on page 2 i don't think we're tending for everyday 2013 so i want to ask if there's a recollection was it 2013? >> not take i don't expect - unfortunately, i was here then horrible chair and committee members. that date is actually the date of what we call the other ordinances that set aside the proposition h lawsuit and basically amended a 50/50 split important the larger buildings etc. this provision required us within 5 most of the passage of

those amendments to implement an outreach process which we have we have 6 contracts to do outreach around hardship. this just excuse me. as opposed to the effective date of this ordinance put february 2012 but we know what that date is. it doesn't change anything and so we're just assuming this requirement moves on. and then to the city attorney that was raised around the state of payment do you have an answer to that >> i wonder if this is a question regarding stays in the current ordinance. >> currently when a tenant files a hardship application it says is a pass through for 60

days this is usually enough time to adjudicate it and sees if the tenant qualifies but it will be stayed until the board comes up with another acquisition but currently it is stated and no one has at a pay until it's decided by the board and we make sure we do that within 60 days. however, it's been powered if that's proved it's retroactively back to the first day. even if they don't have to pay for it but they would have to come up with the sums >> as i read it we shed capital the tenant application so that's

a technical clean up. why don't we go to our final public speaker >> i'm with the san francisco tenancies. i want to thank the board of supervisors for follow-up through. when the service safety ordinance i had concerns we neat to protect those buildings but many tenants were going to be displaced for the rent increases for the service work. we comprised tlbld a 50/50 split and with the mayor's office came up with this hardship provision and this will exempt low income and tenant seniors and those on fixed incomes to having to pay

the service bond costs and will keep them in their homes and keep a lot of san franciscans who are having a difficult time when landlords are expiating every loophole they can to raise the rents. when the bond is going up and when we've had higher electric payments. so people with a fixed income 20 or 40 increase is enough to push them out of the city so thanks to the supervisors and mayor for addressing those concerns >> thank you next speaker mr. turner. >> good afternoon. i'm brooke turner. many of the concerns that the organization have or had are

addressed by ms. new. one that wasn't addressed was our concern about the hardship exuding of non-liquid assets. you may have a tenant who's cash poor but own property but don't have the cash, of course, to address or to pay for that rent increase. we certainly understand by is that something that's part of this legislation of people who may be somewhat weight would be given a havrp because their cash poor. that's a question i have important you >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker,

please mr. collier. >> good afternoon. i'm with the toirpd housing client. the same assets for standards would apply and those standards are already laid out in the mayor's office of housing protocol and i don't think you can oppose property and retirement accounts should be exempt because people won't have no retirement money and get evicted for not having the rent. so we're going feeling in a time of rising rents. my history of doing this for 26 years in an upward climbing market we see more and more passengers passing through the rent board.

it targets bigger building upwards of 10, 20 units and with the service requirements that could be more so. we need to afford accountability by stopping evictions but we need to protect the rising rents and bigger buildings and capital improvement passage is a major way. we support the legislation and hope for its passage >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> gooets i'm barbara skinner. i want to make a comment that people should remain the incentives. folks who build large building

that some of it will be set aside for affordable housing. i think with certainly with propose 13 i happen to be living in two different areas and on the east coast. it should be remembered that property owners are benefiting from propose 13 and their ben already. that needs to be understood and oftentimes people forgot that >> any additional public comment on item number 5. seeing none, public comment is closed. timing chu >> city colleagues again, i want to thank the members of the peanut butter public who have support this. first, i have a couple technical amendments as clean up language

that the deputy city attorney as proposed. on page 1 line of the language should read to acquire the rent board to provide notice not the landlord just delete the word loaned with the rent boards. on page 3 on line 19 the word determined should be determines. on page 5 line 14 the word landlord should be struck so is it notices tenant applications. as we were talking about ms. new on page 3 lines 12 through fourteen there are a couple of words on tenant hardship

applications with capital letters on each. first of all, i want to move those are clean up amendments if we can >> can we take those maementsz without objection. >> amendments b are adopted. >> i have one question for the rent board. there's a preference to do a hearing mooivendz if the rent board needs to do one necessarily they'll do one >> as you know there's always a hearing. it would not be if those 3 criteria were met. the loaned has a right to request and hearing but it's not automatic. bead be making a determination based on the evidence or the

documents provided by the tenant and the observation that the landlords has raised and any documents. i'm a little bit like porter stewards definition of porn because we'll know it when we see it. and whether or not to grant the request for the hearing >> those are standards that are fairly clear but if there's any issues that you would move with the hearing. >> i think we would error on the side of due possess. i think that make sense. when he were discussing the service legislation this year, the tenants understandly asked for the consideration of the 50/50 pass there is no. but i think we agreed upon we'd

work together to help streamline the hardship application process which this legislation reflect. that may not have everything that everyone wants but it is reasonable on the understandings and because of that those issues were sdusdz for a number of months i think we should move this forward with the minor technical cleans up we've made. and if there's other issues we need to look at it from a taenlt or landlord prospective i know my colleagues will be working with the rent board and you'll let us know if there's any language that needs to be addressed but with that colleagues i'd like to move this out of committee >> and can we take that motion

without objection and a madam clerk call item number 67. >> item number 67 the amendment code for the maintained retrofit earthquake program and to report the building code records. >> thank you and i'd like to thank the gentleman from the mayor's office. >> good afternoon supervisors speaker when we sat here in the same room earlier this year we knew there was going to be trailing legislation for some other minor amendments. the amendments are proposed amendments to the chapter 34 building code. they've not changed the code those are minor applications. they fix a technical bfrn mark

and we want to make sure that if someone eyes retrofit a and c they have the same sizeable earthquake sate. the construction organization who worked tirelessly for the bench mark study. this was approved naems by the full code advisory committee and by the building inspection commission. it adds discolor requests to basically add two questions the first question was this building part of the retrofit program and simply was the work done. a very