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 - they have other remedies. >> actually, the new eviction doesn't apply to new construction none of our law. >> this wouldn't apply to federally controlled housing this is optional for the city of san francisco. >> it wouldn't apply to section 8 but individually to individual basis is subject to the

ordinance. >> thank you very much. i think i'm in favor of that. i might have mentions this is on a if you discussions ago i said the city should be give-up did preferences to people who have been evicted under the ellis act situation. so far as the time period the 23 to 6 years i favor 3 years with the caveat if you're subject to the ellis eviction you have to state our tension to get into the system to obtain housing have to get in the list in the could you. it is stated accurately that we don't know how soon this should be coming up but we 140u7b9

imperative folks 6 years to take vandal of the situation that displays others who have been in line but i think that years would be more than enough time for an individual to make a declaration of wanting to be part of the system. i'm not sure in that's part of the legislation or actually obtaining the affordable housing or stating our intention for affordable housing. >> i'm from mo h t d. it's true that the legislation does not address the time limit haiti at which the applicant nodes to apply for the modification the 6 year period prices to the time in which an eligible applicant can submit

their paperwork for the affordable housing. in a comparable program is certify program we current administer open on behalf of the displaced folks there's no time limit for the people applying for a certificate. nike do believe we will not set up an internal rolls of pressure like 5 years or 6 years out but that will be addressed by another agency. >> well, i, understand that i know your other preference situation is people who were displaced from generally, the western acquisition but that was the 60s and you're dealing with a small pool almost all of them

have long since relocated so that's why the number of people who take vague is very, very small but this is a current situation. i think that someone is being evicted because of an ellis thing they should know early if they're to take advantage and i think that years is enough time if i'm reading the legislation correctly. urging to relocation smoefrl or you're going to get into the program. they've got to make a decision sooner 6 years. thank you very much so that's my feeling on the 3 and 6 deal. and it maybe hard to track in theory where the 20 percent as

one speaker brought up there's a lot of other folks that have been in the system for a a long time and try to keep this to 20 percent what timeframe we are going to use i don't know maybe within a given year it has to be no more than 20 percent of those applications from the ellis act. and the other thing no sunset or no look back is okay >> commissioner borden. >> i remember we heard there are preferences for people from the

base point and there's more section 8 things that may be different but i want to understand the wait list how it works and there was a reference 17 people moved forward and i want to understand that process a little bit more. >> yeah. let me clarify. so the members that you were given that 3 thousand 48 is a combined total of 17 lotteries >> so each project has it's on lottery. >> yes. (laughter). >> so for example, for ownership units when there are fewer applicants we might have ownership units that are if available maybe we have more

applicants. we had 4 hundred and 60 something applicants >> are you the person that oversees each individual lottery or does the project sponsor themselves have the lottery. >> it depends upon for our inclusionary below market projects the mayor's office oversees these lotteries and for the one hundred percent rental units the project sponsors oversee those lotteries. >> i've been concerned about the marketing i saw the new projects on market. i'm concerned bmw how people get the information if you're on - how do you get the information

for the lotteries to register for >> all the inclusionary projects the project sponsors have to submit a marketing plan it's approved by our office as part of the closings of the deal so to speak. those market requirements include san bernardino information in all languages a number of the marketing cigarettes. our office has our own e-mail distribution list be probably 10 or 11 thousand members. >> the mayor's office of housing doesn't have that list. >> we actually have those lists. sometimes those people asked to be on the list >> i mean separate and apart

from this legislation i think there's a mediate for the office to mistake this more superficial listed. all the details i'm concerned we're not able to adequately track to help the people who need help. i think we should add a creation of a central listed way to track people and you could send out the lottery in realtime how many units you have and people not knowing about the lottery and the particular projects seems accidental. that's what i find confusing.

only 17 people exercised the preference what is meant by that thought people that were certify holder and you notify all of them? >> we currently have a list of 6 hundred individuals plus many people live outside the state they were displaced 40 or 50 years ago, however, they want to be left open the list. most often we don't get 10 or 12 individuals applying. we've had some opts in the western edition and most of those people are elderly and they only want to return for a specific reason >> that's interesting people

have been on the list for 50 years. >> even now we're receiving applications from people that were maybe 2 years old when we were displays in 1971 and there's a affordable housing opportunity you coming up. >> they've not been sit on the list for 50 years but have been actively looking at. >> we ask them if they want to stay on the list. >> that's another subject maybe we'll talk about at another time. so if we put this in place i want to talk to the rent board are you going to update the list i know you said there is a filing that the landlord have an

intent will there be a bulletin >> when the landlord has an file for getting out of the rental business we have a list how to get on the list. >> that's how people get a list. >> when the landlord file a permit to withdraw they get a packet. >> that's another question we had an earthquake and buildings were destroyed when the housing it rebuilt is that considered rent control. >> that's to be considered it could be covered if the structure is completely demolished it would be rebuilt

from new construction and exempt from 9 rental control. >> people weren't scared before. >> in the earthquake we lose a lot of our retrofitting ordinances. we have provisions if a building were partial demolished there's a pressure with the landlord s can file an exception where they spent 75 percent of the costs itself idea is to bring unit back on the market but not under rent control >> wow. that's sobering. i can't imagine this is in place so it up for your time. i'm supportive of the legislation i think it makes

sense. most of those ellis evictions people are given a year; is that correct? for ellis act how much time are people allocated >> it's a year for elderly and disabled. >> and so what's the time. >> only 60 days. actually one hundred and 20 and unless there's an extension from the elderly >> good questions commissioner borden. i think it starts to possess more questions. commissioner hillis

>> i support the ordinance in the recommendations just a couple questions for mr. chewing. the population when with your building new affordable housing for the affordable housing we've built where are people living now are you - have you studied where people are living now? >> no, we have not done any formal studies. we do have the requirement that for them to be role competitive they've got to live in san francisco many of them do and depending upon their income and staying are relatives some days they're living with those. sometimes, we have applicant that are living in shelters at

the time their applying. oftentimes they're living in overcrowded quarters so their sharing houses with families that are in homes too small and maybe there are two many kids in the unit over time >> i got a little bit convulsed over the timeline. you get a notice from the landlord this skurdz for - you have 6 years where you have this preference sthashl. >> not preference would be valid from the momentum that you received the notice from the london of the intent to remove the unit to 6 years after you receive that notice to 6 years of application. >> that makes sense.

and why not o m i evocation if people are in their unit for 10 years i think that o m i was the issue we were dealing with 10 years ago why not when they've been displaced? >> again according to the recent budget analyst report he know that ellis evictions are the highest increase in evictions over the 10 years and also based on the budget analyst report that more than 40 percent of the lsds are folks that are citizens and folks of lower income are impacted. so we're responding to an intense growing need that's impacting a population that

vulnerable. the legislation is targeted in who we want to assist. again, it's a problem that's not only in our district but all throughout the city. you could make an argument we could include other types of evictions but we're trying to target the folks who are the most vulnerable. we understand there's limited supply of affordable housing that the city manages that subsidies and controls. we're trying to target the folk who need the affordable housing the most and trying to balance the needs in the city. that's why we're talking about 20-year cap and 6 years for new units. so we're trying to put in restrictions to make it fair for

all folks in the city but really expediting the affordable housing for the people who need it. you've heard from the defense services there are ways very few things we can do on the local level to change the law here. we want to do what we can to make sure that folks are not open the street when he steve comes and we're evicting the lee families and other families. so we can make an argument been extending the population for housing but to assist the folks that are the most vulnerable >> i know people intend to

evict because people are paying much lowering than mashlt rate. so i think we've managed to decrease the numbers but for low income for 10 years it's a smaller amount of folks >> that's why i know the one year and the impact of the program as well as the 3 years to see the impact and we adjust if elliss are going to go significantly credits and o m i's are going to increase that's the time to revisit where that's needed but for now, the policy goal is to really address this intensities problem that's happening right now. >> just a followup question for

ms. wolf. when you get that notice of intent to ellis could there be a buy out >> once the owner files they can only bow out can happen before that. >> we should look at ways to kind of i mean it's hard to give the benefits that are buth out and sometimes, people have no choose but to buy anti. >> the buy outs maybe loneliness. >> if you get an ellis notice that can't think resented you the landlord can ask for the board to is he render but they

have to prove to us that nobody was evicted during the ellis process. the o m you are higher than the numbers. under o m i seniors and disabled persons who have lived in the unit it can't be trumpeted unless the owners family is elderly. there are no protected classes accept seniors get a year instead of 1 hundred and 20 days. i know that two forensics have

an illegal unit in the believe and that person they don't accept the rent from and they accept the bow out. so you wouldn't know in there's an illegal in the building and that person takes a buy out. it's hard to track that they won't tell us about it if the landlord gives them the relocate expects >> commissioner moore. >> i'm in support of the legislation as it stand up. the question i have in the house preference has distributed is there a specific reference to seniors as limited. what did that apply i'm not sure the ones that have the hardest

time because of language difficulties and lived in the places for so long don't know about the market battles to find something. they need to be income eligible to occupy the units but there's no reference to the age of the tenant >> i would codify be interested in having small business consider that. because at the moment by defining vulnerability the elderly are more vulnerable than someone who was trod the payment and getting into the list etc. >> so if i'm understanding your question correctly commissioner is that we target seniors or people with sdabld and the city

attorney can address this. under the state and a federal housing laws we can't give preference over protected classes we have to broadly apply it to all protected classes. we add in a 10 year occupancy legislation as a form of procure to target the folks who have lived in the unit long-range. we said that the budget analyst report say that a lot of the folks that get evicted are the seniors so we try to help the vulnerable population. we can't imperative perch to one protected class over another one >> i want to bring that back to

the issue of aging and place. this is one of the things for the city to see that the general population is aging. there's different parts of the discussion that includes with specific reference to seniors for income and the design component for all components so on but it's the board issue of the city impartial and practical speaking about protection in place. we hopefully, will >> the clerk will read the journal from the previous day add this as we move forward i want the department as well as the supervisors office to spend more time on discussing exactly why 3 or 6 years vs.