on page 410 through 13 if the rent board grants the landlord address to withdraw the unit before the tenants move out of their unit in other words, a tenant in the future would have the protection if the tenant after receiving a ellis act is fortunate enough not to be evicted arrest on page 5 this is to add that the board of supervisors shall hold a subject hearing within 3 years in which the rent board shall report incomes for at that particular time preference system. the purpose is to educate us who this is legislation that is

working and if we need to make adjustment we can go forward and do that. let me ask the city attorney and department is there any thing else you want to add to those comments >> mr. chewing i'm with the mayor's office housing development. the only item that might be taken up for additional discussion we are that going to clarify the language in the proposed legislation regarding the requirement that tenant can violative if their suffering from a life-threatening disease they can live in the opt up to 5 years. this is for our office because it seems as if that standard is slightly different from the

standard currently administered by the rent board for people disabled from the move in. i understand it's a different kind of ellis lawns it looks like their language for someone that is disabled is slightly different. for us it's a policy decision whether or not we want to create the same decision. i wanted to bring that to the committees attention to for the protocol if it's slightly different for ellis standards just a possibility to become slooithd confused that was the only item for reflection. so mr. chewing that was a new issue b.a. but can you restate right now the standard is for a

at that particular time that has been surviving from a life-threatening illnesses can you talk about the move in evocation we should use one standard >> looking at language that was i think quite early it was rent ordinance section 29 he says that the landlord may not recovery possession if the tenant is either 60 years of age and older in the unit 10 years or more or disabled in the meaning of the section and boy and girl residing in the unit or is ill and a disabled person is disabled whether blind or a

catastrophely ill tenant is a popcorn who is disabled as defined by this section and suffering from a life telling me issuance. so there's a slight difference in the overlapping of the language. it's a decision to not make it in alignment but for the purposes of administration we wanted to be clear that we understand what of the intended >> i guess from my prospective i stated you've laid out in the different part of the code i hope those are tenant we can take care of. i'd like to ask the city attorney can we reconcile the language to make sure it covers all the individuals? >> executive director of the

rent board. i believe has mr. chewing pouts this is the 0 mother expansive standard it has a diagnosis of catastrophic illness like with hiv. on the other hand, the other standards are less restrict active because the diagnoses is along with the person being disabled. it's a question of limited resources how expansive do you want to be >> so you're saying the language now is the most expand. >> the cat tropic. >> i'd like to look at other folks that we take care of those individuals that are suffering from a life-threatening illness and that's a boarder category than defined. >> it's a slightly complicated

issue as was mentioned. for example, in this case the life-threatening illnesses can have a doctor giving you a letter with a hiv illness. so if it's the intent to allow someone with prostrate cancer who is not sdblthd to oversee the 5 year special time for those individuals diagnosed with a life threatening illnesses with a disabled. let's talk about other issues mr. city attorney on the 0 substantive language >> i'll recommend dealing it in

afternoon. you can scale back to where we're at today. i would say on mr. chiu's. basically that you've got two did i understand the current defines in our ordinance for people with life threatening illness and then the rent ordinance there's a different definition not everyone - at any time possible that everyone who has a life-threatening - not everyone who has a life-threatening illness is disabled and not everyone who is disabled has a life-threatening illness. you may want to amend our originals or ordinance to provide that year back up applies to or a that meet the disability defined in the ordinance >> i was literally about to

suggest that is there any way we can include that language right now and rectify that. why don't we take a few minutes to do that. i don't know if you have any proposed language but i want to have clarity between the two ordinances. >> understand your purpose intent is to create the most expansive defines to be as inclusive as possible. >> yes. i think the hope it we're saying that if you receive an ellis eviction and you've lived in your home for 5 years or have a life threatening illnesses or disabled i think that would make sense. >> all right. let me step

aside. in the meantime, i ask we adapt the two technical amendments i proposed beforehand >> for those two amendments ca can we take those without objection? . those amendments are adapted. >> and then why don't i suggest 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 dbil