that we defer for a few minutes just go on to another item. >> the remaining items are fairly significant so i probably prefer to wait if it's only gaga going to be a few minutes or defer the whole item and hear supervisor jane kim's ownerships. >> i suggest we amend the 5 year to apply to a popcorn who is suffering from a life he threatening illnesses as specified by the he or she physician or who is disabled as defined in administrator code section 37.9 i. >> that sounds fine to me.

i'm sort of looking at the items in case anyone has a comment. mr. collier if you have any additional thoughts i'd like to hear them >> i'm sorry i don't have the ordinance in front of me but we have the language disabled or ellis act who have lived there 10 years or longer we're not removing them because basically, the defines of the disabled is a prosecution against ventilation so the realizing i ellis give us extent tenancy. so but those for the purpose nevertheless, suffer from a disability and need preference so as long as those people get it for 10 years and are indicate

tropical ill to get it that's fine but to be disabled to the point you can't work and suffer from life-threatening illnesses that max makes you indicating trop tropicly ill and nate's that's why the time period is shortened to 10 years. i want to make sure people still get the preference >> just so i understand things clearly all the folks for 10 years for individuals who have been suffering from a life-threatening illnesses as a physician says to add another thing the 5 year look back would occur for folks suffering a life-threatening illness or under the mission code so it's

more inclusive not less. >> any other feedback. gentleman. >> i think this is what steve was getting at. i would suggest using the language of the debt in the ellis act. the distinction in the oilsz lapsing is 15 years ago a walkness of all the distinctions if this made senses to use ellis >> let me ask the rent board is that a suggestion that makes sense. if you wouldn't mind speaking on the record >> i know the destines which is

unable to - >> it impairs a life-threatening activity it's much boarder. >> i would sunken we defer this item i want everyone reading from the same page. i'd like to ask city staff to circulate language out to the reads and hopefully in the next hour >> i want to make a brief comment we have different languages i wish we could consolidate and have one language it didn't make sense to debate between the distinction.

>> it's because the ellis provisions are stable. >> i see. i - anywhere else. before we defer i want to say i support this legislation and it's really not just about it is, of course, help people who are in great node of housing given the situation with evictions in the city right now and in the future. but there are a lot of people not currently being evoked but understandably acquit anxious if they're living in a rent control unit paying below represent and the bulk of the tenants are paying below what could happen

two years from now and knowing there's help would help with some of the understandable anxiety that people are experiencing right now given how completely insane our housing market has become. so i think that's another important aspect of this legislation. i do have a question for mr. chow. and i know that president which you the mayor tomorrow in question time that's about the production of lack thereof of affordable housing. i know there's some discussion about president the housing produced more quibble. we have the affordable housing trust fund that's flowing but particle around senior howard's

we want to see a lot more just in general a city with a lot of folks getting older because of eviction or financial six they have an affordable housing unit but can't get up the stared anymore can you comment in terms of production >> know i can only imperative limited comments as i - i'm not familiar with all the exciting pipeline priority. we continue to place the priority open our seniors unit do have to say that our production now - our pipeline now is in a little bit of a gray

zone as we're still awaiting word from hud how much assistance we'll be getting for our public housing units and the amount of subsidy we get from hud will impact the non public housing units in the pipeline. i'm happy to report back to our office in terms of what that pipeline looks like but honestly we'll have a better sense in a month or so once we get the allocation from hud >> i'd be interested in knowing that information. it's a real i know frustration obviously we want to take care of our public housing it's in an

after all condition. it's good we're vichlt in that but building more senior housing is critical. i you know when you go into some of the senior housing buildings they're just it's wonderful. some of them are well done. people are, you know, it's terrific that it's there are and people have that safety net >> you i'll be happy to report back to you. as to the status of current pipeline >> thank you, president chiu. >> i think we're close to the resolution from the city attorney around the ellis act vs. local laws and i'd like to ask our city attorney and mr. chow from the mayor's office if you think we're at where we

ended up. >> so supervisor chiu i'm looking at the different dings i think for the easy of today's process we'll recommend forwarding the version we had overwhelming and as we review it i think the city attorney has offered we can substantially amended the act through legislation rather than try to compare the existing versions today that is not consistent with the other version. it's an opportunity to make them

- >> i think it was clear we agreement the lapsing to add an additional around the life-threatening illness around the physicians so if you want to restate that language for the record. >> i'll do my best. it's basically, the amendment that you and i discussed 5 minutes ago i said i read in and which is that you maintain the current - if the tenant can verify that he or she is suffering from an life-threatening optimums from he or she physician or disabled under the administrator code 37.9 i. this version would prevent the

more expansive defines you'll hope for and conditions to help the individuals protected by the ellis act this would be the final version we may not have to include the state language >> which is just to be clear if we agreement it around the disability that doesn't preclude united states tomorrow at the full board and not subjecting that to come back to committee but still have options we can come up with. and from what i understand because there are 3 depictions we didn't want to future confuse issues but it would behopeful us to step back and found a way to streamline all the dings to take

care of all our seniors. we want to include that language referencing administrator code 37.9 i >> i'll take that as a motion can we take those without objection? . >> and just the last thing i want to say hopefully we'll move this out of committee. i want to thank the leadership all of you who have worked with us our this year tablet leadership has worked with my colleagues in making sure we have 10 protections and worked on legislation to streamline work board legislation to make sure there are more monies for

pro-bone services. we need to do more. i want to thank all my colleagues. many of us continue to look at another issues to address the changes our city is fatiguing right now. so those of you who have been put in impossible situations we'll hopefully pass to legislation out of this legislation today but the fight will continue >> thank you. okay. colleagues is there any additional - any comments or questions. so, now we've adapted 3 different amendments item 4 interest is there a motion to forward the committee report with few recommendation can we take those without objection? that will be due order >> madam clerk, call item 5.

the zoning controls in the boundary of second and south van ness streets >> supervisor jane kim is the author of item 5. >> thank you there's a theme in the land use committee there's an incredibly 0 steep incline in evictions in our city. many of my colleagues are working jointly or solely on different legislation to figure out how we can stop the bleeding in many cases. in district 6 the will district i represent in the mid-market neighborhoods our office started fielding any phone calls from residents living in zoned commercial building that have been legally conferred to the

arrange outdoors and so they couldn't convert them to commercial use. now that the economy is heating i those property owners are beginning to evict artists and who were famously featured on market. our office had been working very closely with the mayor's office in particular jeff buckley. director tom from department of believe inspection and director of planning john ram 40 who discussed the issues. just in two buildings alone on market street we could see the potential evocation of one hundred residents many are protecting that are part of making san francisco san francisco. we started working closely with this committee to allow tenants

to stay in those residential unit many of which have been incredibly affordable and part of our affordable housing stock. i do want to thank all the departments for working closely with our department that will allow the city to have a better handle on many building h that are dwelling units. so working closely with dbi we've drafted this proposal we want to address some issues in the process of working with the tenant in those swaksdz. the buildings are required to notice the tenant about work. and commercial buildings don't have the same requirement. under no circumstances present the resident with a hotline to call the planning department if

their building is under going major renovations. we also have buildings that have been in previous commercial use the department will have to determine the new use will be relooked at. those requirement are posted for 15 days in a conspicuous place in the believe pardon did noticing requirement will be applied for crumble or architecture work in the commercial buildings that were built prior to 1979 valued at $15 or more. we do have director john ram here from the planning department to speak about the legislation and to answer any questions william from the department of building inspections. i want to thank the departments

for working so quickly and thinking of how we can stabilize so many of our tenant and thank you for your efforts >> thank you supervisor kim. i'm john with the department. we think this legislation is a way to protect long established housing without slowing the permit process. as we know given the pace of the construction we must respond to the housing and eviction process. we think this helped to undercover affordable housing in market. quickly if i could show a couple of maps. this is where pits bounty by market street open the second street and division and south van ness. it includes many of the buildings in this city. secondary i want to show you

since the legislation applies to buildings built before 1979. the red areas are where they were built before 1979. the blue area after that. united states bout of this proposal. there are both since 2000 there are 13 thousand permits in this area for tenant improvement so their internally improvements. but so there are a large number of permits issued at any given time. given that fact the control substance don't add planning review or additional forebodes you wouldn't otherwise be required.

instead, they increase public awareness about potential displacement so a public hearing would be required prior to the reinstatement of a commercial use and the potential loss of a dwelling unit. did mechanism limits our ability for the permits that protect the housing staff. i want to thank dbi and tom we're going to be implementing the hot like that and dbi will help by notifying the applicants. since planning wouldn't be looking at this because their internal tenant improvement. i want to say thank you for staffing the hotline. i do understand the number of

amendments i want to ask ann marie rogers to go over those >> thank you members of the committee i'm app. those are technical clarifications that we've worked out. the first one is on page 3, line 3. it said those controls are applied to commercial buildings we had some questions about the controls of one hundred percent commercial buildings or to other buildings that have residential uses and the supervisor wants those applied to any building with commercial outdoors. that doesn't have to be a one hundred percent commercial building only the use in the building. also on page 3, line 21 buildings built prior to 1979 it would be hard to ascertain when

the building was built but we have information about when it was first - it indicates the issuance of certify of okaycy. on page 4 lines 3 and 4 this year's references to those shall require through or a conditional use and a conversation with our staff every application should require application use and certainly the threshold for authorization those require cu plus prop m review. and those are the changes thank you very much. thank you, ms. rogers >> so if there are no further questions i'd like to open this

up for public comment. >> okay. we'll now open this up for public comment. we have four public comment cards (calling names) i apologize if i mispronounce anyone's name, please lineup on this side of the room you can walk there this way no node to walk around. come on up >> good afternoon my name is karina i'm a san franciscan native and a resident that this legislation is targeting. since the 1990s they've been renting those out and those apartments are modest for retirees and those have been a be 125bd force in the neighborhoods for decades.

ross the changing real estate market and now that they favor the real estate market they - we have no right to raise objections and those residents even long time ones where their homes were converted without getting the city's prescription. they should not be effected those homes. those diverse tenants a voice in action to stop the risk of losing our homes. to help with the success of the efforts of the city we need our neighborhoods protected. thank you for considering this legislation >> hi, i'm a tenant in 1067

market street. and while our building is currently didn't have eviction no's it's at the same landlord and it's likely we'll be the next in line. i wanted to come down here and say thank you for your effort to the board to stand the tied of the evictions that are happening and i appreciate our efforts on this matter. thank you > >> next speaker >> hello, i'm ben i'm a resident of 1049. i want to express my appreciation for the legislation. i believe it's very important and i do hope it passes. it's addressing a situation that has cause a number of people a lot of stress and visible upset.

i want to see that it pass and it's not repeated in the future. thank you very much for the legislation >> next speak >> next speaker >> i'm willing ma parker i'm a artist. as you know this is a very difficult city to make art in that makes you poor. i represent no one and i stand for myself. when i moved to the neighborhood it was did rough it to be imagined. it took me many years to understand it has not recovered from the 06 street and market street neither. it's argue beginning to start. when i was south of market it of the like a retaliate zone.

i'm tlierld our governor in his wisdom has ended redevelopment. you see the infusion of local money. we're we can't hold out against all this global money it's time san francisco open it's doordz. i would not want to put a lot more restrictions obtain an area that is developing. this is an opportunity not to make it difficult we might as well butt put the old theatre and maybe get some of the old sailors to watch the porn she's again >> next speaker . ted san francisco at that particular time union.

this is an important union we're seeing lots of evictions. one is the residential use of commercial buildings being convert back to commercial in order to capture the high rents that the tech companies can pay. we're seeing this in the midgets and elsewhere so we should look at expanding this legislation we're asking a lot of ejections of artists and activists we need to stop those and all evictions. thanks >> next speaker >> hi, i'm cash i live on market street about 24 years. i've about that putting my life in making this city a better

place i'm a san francisco bicycle coach. i came home today and found a note of eviction and the landlord is reviewing to take the full months rent for next month. this effects we personally. i support the legislation and hope you pass it >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi, thank you. when i came to this hearing i had a little bit of misunderstanding what was happening with it because as a selma business person recently, we acquired a building about a i don't know we we've been getting permits and going through a lot of jumping through a lot of hopes to get the