tv [untitled] December 5, 2013 5:30am-6:01am PST
lists. the lee's were applying for tenant space and only had one year and were not close to getting a place. the people needing residence are in need we need to keep people in their homes as opposed to trying to help them out after the fact. we need to stop those evictions and curtail them such as probable. as jean noted we'll be coming forward to the board with new pieces of legislation we think will put a severe dent in the number of evictions. right now we are fully in support of this legislation. thank you supervisor chiu and co-sponsors >> next speaker . >> i want to say i support david
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> so i'm mrs. lee i'm here today because you know i was also a victim of ellis eviction. my landlord used the outlines to evict me i found a place to live with my family. i'm glad for the community support and the city government and also the board of supervisors. i'm really here today to not talk about myself but those still out there still being evicted and displaced. i recommend and suggest that in the city we really need to think and to look deeply in how to address the eviction issue.
for a lot of people that applied for the applications those are people we need to think about because when it comes down to it i don't believe the ellis act should be used by landlord as a way to evict tenant. in particular our city we need to take a course of objection action in that regard. there a lot of seniors people that are disabled have a hard time finding housing. at the same time, they have tripod so hard to apply for themselves. i support the legislation and preference for those who are displaced. it's an tuesday night to get into those units faster. at the same time, you know, not only do very have that but the
stress level and anxiety is high because time is limited and precious. this is the inclusionary city and that beauty in itself is really about the people and public and the diversity or regardless of the class you're from. thank you >> thank you. any additional public comment on item 4? >> good afternoon, supervisors brooke turner with the coalition of better houser. i'm here to support the idea of allowing people to come to the front of the list from the ellis eviction. it's a way to address an issue in a thoughtful manner that we can get behind so thank you very much >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on item 4.
seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues the item is back in the hands of the committee >> president chiu. >> thank you all for being part of this legislation i want to thank mrs. lee and her family for stepping up and your encourage talking about all the stories that are happening around the city. thank you for all who stood with the lee families and all families facing eviction. i speak for my colleagues, we're hearing way two many stories like beverly upton and the stories thought the decide. we know during the affordability crisis we have to make sure that the city of fantasia moves
forward. we have to provide relief from the holidays. i mentioned colleagues, i have two brief amendments to the legislation. the first is on page 4 of the legislation to essential address what might happen if it turns out a landlord resends a notice we want to make sure any tenant in that situation can have the protection in the future. 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 serv.