tier a and b that you are tier a is a lessor intensity and their inspected by the health department and pay a fee. tier b is more intensive they get inspected yearly. i believe that none of this food can be refrigerated so it doesn't have to be kept in a certain temperature. >> so what's the dividing line between the two is the quantity. >> there's a $130 fee for one

time to review the application. >> is there my kind of tax on the product being produced. >> i'm sure there is still sales tax. >> local tax. >> safkdz. okay. thank you that answers some of my questions >> commissioner borden. >> i thank you. i know the challenges of some of these. the businesses have and i think it's great we are madam clerk, our code and trying to be less riefk for the code around the space. i appreciate your clarifying this the fees i mean, that's not part of this legislation it's not for us to decide on but it seems like a modest fee.

and putting those into a law is not ashy and smart but i move to approve >> second. >> on that motion to adapt a recommendation for approval. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner moore. commissioner wu and president fong. and that places you on case 13 fourteen amendments to the any of us code to provide residents for the affordable housing programs. >> good evening president fong and members of the board. the ordinance proposed by

breeding, cameron's and mar will have a new standard for residents placed under the eviction standard. it's approved with conditions. i'll cabin my presentation by explaining the lottery and preference program and how that will be amended with the draft ordinance and i'll finish with the departments 3 recommend modification. a gentleman from supervisor chiu off or when they arrives 53 she can speak. san francisco affordable housing programs are defined in the planning code. an affordable housing are for lotteries. they occur for new developments

and as unit become available for resale or rental as tenants leave. currently there is one existing preference program for occupying units. the first currently tenant; right who are displaced in the hunter point through the city's redevelopment programs have lotteries for affordability. those folks are given certifies of preference and when people are interested in occupying the units there's a lottery held for the certify holder. after unit have been looked a second lottery is conducted for the remaining units. in the exiting program for the preference holder is small it is

just over 3 thousand lottery planters for the new building 17 applicant were hordes. after the preference for the co p holders the new preference is for applicants eligible for the housing who were evicted pr tenants must live in the unit for 5 years. the new developments for the evicted tenants would last for 6 years and unit for resale or rental the preference would be extended for 3 years. as proposed the preference would be plausible to 20 percent of new development and for all unit that are available for resale or rerental. the department supports the ordinance and supports the

efforts to help tenant who are displays ease supportive of the ordinance with 3 recommended modifications. our first recommended modification is to reduce the eligible period in new developments from 6 to 3 years. as prototype the draft ordinance talks about 3 pertdz one for redevelopments and their occupancy stage and the second for resale unit. new development represents the overwhelming majority of the unit in the inclusionary programs. as compared to 39 units that have become available for rerental. we recommended limit the duration in 3 years as noted and

filed. the department you reviewed the preference program as an emergency response to a value actually situation. the second modification we're proposing is a cap at the 20 percent of on units for new development that are dedicated to the new preference and for unit on resale. that cap is built into the ordinance. as the inclusionary program lotteries are popular 3 thousand plus applicants participated in the last year. the application of the preference to 20 percent to unit through new construction there were one hundred plus units that were dedicated to the ellis preference. the same is for units that are

made available for rerentals. there have been rerental units available for resale and with the preference program it's likely that all units that become available will be dedicated to the new ellis perch. by capping 20 percent we can help to occupy exiting units as well as those evicted. our third modification there with a review of the whole program before the board of supervisors after 3 years. the existing allocation program functions as a lottery given the low impact of the program. there are 17 of the 3 thousand mr. president, that experienced a preference.

the proposed application could give preference to long-term tenants who are evicted because of the ellis act. without creating a permanent preference for one class among others that would provide a planes to look at the program again in 3 years. and the provision for review would mirror the sunset provision for the program which is schedule no 2016 unless the board expend it. that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them and i'm sorry and amy is here from

commissioner chiu's office >> hi, good afternoon. i'm amy i'm a elective aid for david chow. thank you for allowing me to speak. supervisor chiu introduced this with sxhifrz kim and mar and breed to help people who are facing eviction. the ellis act has been interpreted broadly to evict tenant to go out of the rental business. you might have heard of the lee families the adult daughter and folks who have been evicted out of their home where they lived for thirty years because of the ellis act.

this represents any household and we have a need to help folks who are getting kicked out of their homelands. we know that the board of supervisors budget analyst report that the nuke of ellis evictions are rising. specifically in the past year we've seen in the report one hundred and 45 percent increase in ellis you filings which is the highest increase compared to any other type of eviction. the legislation that the supervisor proposes would allow tenants who have occupied their places more than 10 years to help with the priority with the 71 san francisco. i'm not going to go into the details of the legislation since you've heard the components from the planning staff but i'll take

a moment to respondent - respond. from the eligibility from 3 to 6 years we've created this timeline for the tenant. we believe that a long-range time period it necessary to access the housing opportunity and we don't want them to exterior until the tenant finds permanent housing. on the 20 percent cap to the exiting units we understand the existing resale to other populations for people who interthe lottery but we want to respond to making the cap

moreover not every tenant who receives an eviction is going to be eligible like age and income would reduce the size of the pool of tenant who would be eligible for the preference and finally, putting the cap on the eligibility there's a currently system that manages all the applications for existing affordable housing project. and the 3 years legislation while we don't agree with adding a sunset to the legislation we have no problem with adding 3 years on top of the existing evaluation of the program.

if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. thank you >> thank you sxhirgs. i wanted to let me know as well that brian chewing is here from the affordable housing committee and he'll be happy to a answer questions >> open this up for public comment. >> sorry i'm dan i'm the policy director at the choibdz community center i have a letter in support of the legislation and addressing the i'll handicap this to the clerk. briefly i think it's i won't get into the urge node for this legislation and role the

critical node to assist the residents who are being displaced. currently there's no program that the city has to adjust the folks who are evicted by the ellis act. 60 percent are elderly or disabled and they're currently paying rent well below market there being a displaced from the city. we feel like it's urgent our city can't stand by and let those families be at a loss. we appreciate the staffs support. first with respect to the reducing the time period i think from 6 to 3 years for the new construction i think it's important to note we - that that

6 year period begins with the issuance of the notice to the tenant for a tenant whose received the nose as a senior they have a year to move out they might fight the eviction but when they get evoked that's the point they need the housing. the reality t is - the legislation roles back to evictions of 2012. give the pipeline from the mayor's office of housing we don't have a lot of housing coming up. so those tenants who are in the process right now of being evicted their sunset is going to be 2015 and if there's no pipeline those folks don't get housing. we need an extend period of time

because of the gap in the pipeline for affordable housing. let me briefly address the issue of the existing housing units at any time important not to put a cap on that it's a different you set of housing. those units are accessed individually through developments and they're not mechanism for us to track who gets which unit. and tenants are going to have to go out and find the developer and apply. that will create >> sir, your time is up. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner wu. i'm sorry >> one more. >> my apologizes.

absolutely. >> i really question giving preference not because there is no not a terrible node for those people to be helped but because there's so many people who have been waiting already. i've known a woman for example she won the lottery she'd been living from her daughter she doesn't get along with and i was evicted myself i'm not saying this senate well intended but we need to do other things to make it harder to evict people under the ellis act but we need supply. we're meeting not increasing the supply. when he was evicted for example, it was a very unfair situation.

the developer it would the ellis act he was 0 going getting rid of everyone in the believe to go get more money. i had 89 evict noticed and he wrought a developer to one of the hearings and i knew i had to go because i was fidgeting the developers money. but should i have beenable, you know, to go ahead of everybody that had been waiting for years were not that those people aren't suffering. and from the other people who are being evicted as henry explained to you but what the author of to legislation wanted

this instead; right? >> and that's what you approved instead of approving up to 56 units two there the supply of housing like henry was arguing for you to do at the location near these ellis act evictions. t nc times to blt build is a methodists want it. people within the methodist church are trying to found out how those decisions are made but you essentially foreclosed that. we have to use every opportunity and i'm certainly in the neighborhoods like this not necessarily in the tenderloin and marketed south of that. thank you >> pardon me.

i'm the executive director of the collaborative. i do agree with staff and the shoppers of this legislation this is a crisis for the folks who get ellis notices it's difficult to defend. it's an initiative that doesn't broadly to out the people on the waiting list. i wanted to highlight how necessary those folks ellis vooeks evicted people node this. and role they've been target this population. thank you >> is there additional public comment. okay public comment is closed and commissioner antonini

>> actually commissioner wu was up first. >> you're right commissioner wu. i agree >> i think this is a good one. as to the question to the 3 amendments. i would support the 6 year period on the first amendment. i think that affordable housing development as all development is difficult and so sometimes there's not that many opportunities to apply for it if you don't catch the koiblg i think the 6 years is the right amount of time. as to the second suggestion by staff are i think that there are more opportunities than just the inclusionary program. the inclusionary program allows for the people within a larger building but there's all the

housing that nonprofit builders build and that doesn't have a centralizeed system. there are more ellis eviction folks who can get housing. i think the inclusionary program i think it's important to try to think through this. i did want to ask it's not that anyone who is ellis can jump the wait list. you can only get the preference when a certainty entity is accepting applications; is that correct. you can't apply to housing without being notified >> i'm with the housing and community development. i think you're correct.

there are a couple of instances we're talking about hero. the inclusionary units low market rates each separate project will have a separate lottery and a separate list a created for the affordable housing there's a separate lottery for each now lease up. and there's a fairly well put together system for the new of new buildings, however, for the rerentals of the one hundred percent affordable buildings the system is not as sophisticated. not that we don't want the system to be more organized i think it was more organized it would be easier for all

individuals to have access to that building. as it stand now we have a certificate program for the replaceme replacement folks. we have that for our inclusionary ownership and the new lease ups for one hundred percent rerentals. they're a little bit harder to track so i wouldn't be able to say that we wouldn't like to help folks but it may be that the desolation of this program any desensitive cities those projects. usually every project has a separate list >> thank you.

i think that goes to say it would be difficult to regulate a cap. this is a toward pieces of legislation to allow people to have a preference at the time the plagues are being submitted. open the third recommendations by staff i think a 3 year review is a great idea but not necessarily the sunset >> commissioner antonini >> yeah. i have a few yes, sir. for staff. the first question i realize this wouldn't employ to someone who's displaced because of nuisance or a breach of lease but you how about the renter leaves with the negotiated settlement without the use of

the aisles e ellis act. the owner says i'm going out of the rental act and he never has to invoke the ellis bylaw act because he pays the tenant money. >> i'm with the planning staff. the preference mridz when the notice of intent to ellis it filed. so whatever happens after that, the preference starts before when the process starts and perhaps it would be helpful if ms. will from the rent board explains the process there's two no's that are fidelity but the perch starts with the first notice >> that's good to how far. >> indian is the legislation

wouldn't apply to buyist because the preference kicks in with the landlord files a notice of intent to wraut withdraw from the market and that's the official ellis pressure and they file a notice with the tenancies of the office. but with the bow out the landlord approaches the tenant and offers money and they won't have to file with our office and the tenant takes the money and runs. and this legislation didn't apply to those paents tenants it's difficult for us to track those. it so you would their private agreement and if those people

are included your double dipping because you've been cut a you sum of money and you'd be eligible for the relocation for the housing >> those are not as high for the market but they're separate agreements fairly entered into. >> and my question along the lines if you have a hybrid that some of the tenants in the building agree to this and they've begun and taken the money and agent tenant won't so the ellis act is revoked. you mined is it would not >> thank you that makes sense.

and i'm sure there's a means test. there are many folks in rental housing that are making substantial amounts of money they go outside of san francisco and buy homes. this is someone who would be eligible for the avon our normal income test >> you're correct commissioner they have to satisfy all the inadmissible application rules. thanks that makes sense. and small business talked about rent control but this could apply to any housing. if a person had a house built over 1978 and they could still ellis act it would city apply >> it won't have to they could still