that still require -- what? >> rescinding them? >> rescinding them next week. >> deputy city attorney john givner, your question if you want back to the language as proposed today? >> correct. we have imperfect information. we don't have all the information that we need in front of us to really understand the economic impact of today's proposal versus what we had in the legislation coming to us? i want to be able to move the conversation forward and hopefully next week not delay moving this out to the full board. >> if you make the amendment today, you can rescind the amendment and go back to the current language next week without additional. >> why don't we do that? >> okay. i won't be supporting the amendment today, if there are further conversations over the week, that may change, but i hope that my colleagues on board will respect the feelings of the constituents.

>> being no further comment, madame clerk will will you call the roll. >> on the plosion of amendments, supervisor chiu? >> aye. >> supervisor kim? >> no. >> kim, no. >> supervisor wiener? >> wiener aye. >> there are two ayes and one no. >> that motion passes. [ gavel ] >> then i guess regarding the final peace on grandfathering, is it better for us to take the amendments today and rescind them the following week as we get more information? i just want to make sure that as supervisor wiener said, that with both issues actually that we're able to still consider that as we get more information? so with 340 11th street, i want to respect the process. the i appreciate the property owner taking the time and i feel that the conversations have been fruitful and i am hoping that we come to consensus by next monday.

as planning is going through its global negotiations around a u, so leaving that decision to planninging in its negotiations and kind of grandfathering in just the cu. >> the question is again if you make the amendment today, and then rescind it next week? >> what would be your advice? should we do today to potentially rescind or next week and continue in committee? >> if you want to leave the option to send it out of committee next week, you should make the motion and leaving open the option to rescind it next week and pass it out of committee then. if you don't make the amendment today and decide to make it next week, it would require additional continuance. >> thank you. what i will do, but i will process what the statement that i will make a

motion to amend on grandfathering. one is to actually the opposite option, not to grandfather in 340 11th street and i want to be clear that we are not doing this to preempt discussions with the property owners and venue owners. it's been a great and productive discussion. i would like us to get this out of committee, since the community has been waiting so long for this to move forward. so i will make a motion to do that and a motion to grandfather au pending a final answer from planning or city attorney whether this would impact the negotiations or not? which i assume is the main considerations that the committee members would consider. and i can divide those into two motions. >> i think i would appreciate it two motions. i would support the purple building. i think it's appropriate.

with regards to aau, as what i understand as was repeated before, there were conversations around a more global settlement around the different issues, given there has been numerous enforcement and other issues alleged here. and i would feel more comfortable defering that until that more global settlement occurs. and i think at that point it would be appropriate to move forward. planning code changes such as the one proposed here, to move forward as whatever gets decided as part of that. >> since you split them on the 11th street motion, it sounds like that is unanimous. you made two separate motions, correct? so why don't we take the 11th street motion to remove the grandfathering. can we do it without objection? >> sorry, supervisor. >> yes. >> it's not actually on this motion, but on the previous fee change. i just wanted to throw out for

everyone's information, the change in the fee may require an additional notice. and we'll figure that out with the clerk's office and the planning department as soon as we can. i can't determine on the fly right now whether it will be. if it does require additional notice, it would trigger a two-week delay instead of just one week. >> what would trigger a two-week delay? >> when the board is considering new or increased fees. the clerk's office is required to publish a special notice. and so i can't say and it sounds like -- >> is this in regards to chair wiener's? >> yes. >> [kha*-eur/] chair wiener's actually reduces it. >> it sounds like it's not entirely clear. it reduces a to b is a reduction.

the deleted sentence potentially increases the fee. and so i guess bottom line is that we can figure that out. and we will after this meeting. i just wanted you to be aware you, and we would just have to confer with department about the actual effects. >> and we would know the answer to that presumably shortly? >> yes. >> and if that impacts anyone's view on the matter, that a change could be made next week. i don't think a one week versus two weeks is that big a deal, but if it were to be an issue for someone that can be dealt with next monday? >> the other thing i would suggest if we could figure out and maybe we continue this to the call of the chair, so if it is two weeks you could schedule it two weeks from now. is that part of thinking? >> i would defer to supervisor kim and if it require another week, we could always continue it again. supervisor kim? >> i would feel more comfortable having it scheduled

for next week, but i am happy to let our community know it got continued, so they wouldn't waste their time and come out. >> whichever you do prefer, supervisor. >> i do prefer one week. >> back to the removal of the grand fathering for the 11th street property. colleagues can we take that out objection? that will be the order. [ gavel ] and i want to acknowledge supervisor kim and her staff for spending an awful lot of time on that one parcel and i wanted to express my gratitude for that. i know you and your staff took that incredibly seriously. thank you. now to the academy of arts university property. i guess my take on this issue is if it's the case that this can be considered as part of the settlement agreement and

resulting presumably, with a department agreement as president chiu said. if on the other hand for reasons that i'm not aware of and it's the case it would not somehow we possible to dole with that as part of the settlement agreement, then i may have a different position on this. because as i understand the history here, this is currently in use as part of the educational -- as part of aau. they are always had the ability for a long time to go in for a cu to legalize it. they did it without permits. they then went in a year-ago and applied for a cu and the current zoning as proposed would end that cu process for them. i am a little uncomfortable permanently eliminating their ability too use that under the

current law they do have the ability to get a cu, they should have done that a while ago. so it's important information for me to know whether this can be resolved in the settlement agreement? right now, with the legislation saying "no grandfathering." supervisor kim's motion is to grandfather. so if we were to not grandfather today, but to grandfather next week, that would require a continuance next week? >> that is right. >> so i would be willing to support the grandfathering today pending getting further information and if that information is that this can be dealt with in the settlement agreement, then i would be in favor of stripping out that grandfathering. but given that it would be -- just so we don't have to have

multiple continuances. >> that is fine with me. i would like to hear from the city attorney's office whether or not that is possible. >> i think i have gotten mixed responses and i am comfortable also going back to the planning commission's original recommendation, if it doesn't impact a global negotiation. that is really my primary intent. if the answer is that we won't impact that negotiation, then i am comfortable going back to the planning commission and just making that motion today. this week, just so we don't have to continue this plan anymore than we have. so i appreciate that support. thank you, supervisor wiener. >> so on the aau grandfathering, colleagues can we take that amendment without objection? that will be the order. [ gavel ] . okay, any additional amendments? colleagues? no? any comments? >> i will get a chance to thank a lot of people, but i forget to thank danny at my office, who came in midway through the process as april

went on maternity leave and has done a tremendous job the last months, picking up this plan and tieing up the loose ends, but i will take time to thank him and the other folks at the next land use and economic development committee. thank you. >> i wanted to acknowledge the work of the task force. i know for anyone that goes through a long process and going to the board of supervisors and supervisors have opinions that may not always been consistent with the task force and i know it's frustrating and we're all just doing our best to make good policy for the city. so i want to acknowledge and thank the task force, especially mr. niko for the money years of work that we might v. for all the years, i am grateful for those who take that time move their communities in a positive direction. colleagues is there a motion to move this to one week?

>> so moved. >> can we do that without objection? that will be the order. [ gavel ] . >> madame clerk is there any other business before us? >> no, there are no other matter matters. >> then we are adjourned. >> good morning. i will call this meeting of the

san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee to order. i am scott wiener the chairman of the committee and to my left is supervisor david chiu, member of the committee and madame clerk, are there any announcements? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices, and documents included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted uponed to will apea on the march 5th board of supervisors' agendas unless otherwise stated. >> i want to acknowledge and thank sfgovtv, who are broadcasting today's meeting. before we start i want for anyone who is here watching in terms of what is i think going to happen today. this meeting was noticed for 10:00 a.m. however there are two items, excuse me, there are five items, items 2-6 that we will take up at 1:30 p.m.

so we will be calling item no. 1 now, and at the request of the lead author of the legislation, supervisor farrell will be entertaining a motion to continue the item, about the condominium conversion to continue that item to march 11th, but we'll be allowing public comment on that. madame clerk could you call item no. 1. >> item no. 1 is an ordinance amending the suck division code for buildings participating in the 2012 and 2013 condo conversion lotteries. >> okay. >> colleagues by way of background the last time this item was at land use, the topic of the proposal around tic conversions, i requested of the legislative sponsor and both sides of this matter representing tenants on the one side and tic owners and real estate interest on the other to

enter into a negotiation which supervisor farrell and i have convened in recent weeks. there have been several topics on the topics that have been substantive and ongoing, but as supervisor wiener pointed out i would like to make a motion, which is also at the request of the legislative sponsor supervisor farrell that we continue this to march 11th. >> i will open the item up for public comment either on merits of the measure or the motion to continue and just to be clear, there will be a full hearing on this on march 11th. but the public is welcome to comment today s. this any member of the public who wishes to comment on item no. 1? if so please come forward to the lectern and public comment will be for two minutes. >> [ inaudible ]

>> hi my name is chris fallis and i live in the western edition and kind of a dilapidated building, the kind of building that would be really atractive to a developer who wishes to convert to a tic or condo and the history of the west is of massive evictions, and i feel like i'm in the group that might be getting replaced now. and i would like to stay as a worker in san francisco. i would like to be able to continue renting in the building that i live or another building somewhere in the city that is is affordable to me. >> thank you. >> my name is kristen henry and i have lived as a renter for 12 years and owner for the past three years and i support

this plan because as a owner of a tic we face high interest rates. my interest rate is 7%, given the current market of 3.5% you can see that is really high. i have a pre-payment penalty, so i can't refinance my property to get the current interest rates and even if i could, there are only two banks it that will give you money. i have two children and i live in the city and i don't want to move from the city, but if i could refinance and we couldond convert i could refinance my property. i am sending money out-of-state to a bank in michigan for interest payments. so i support the measure. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is

closed. [ gavel ] president chiu, i will say that sometimes we have many hours of public comment on an issue and sometimes having two members of the public comment can pretty perfectly encapsulates the quandary that we're facing in terms of very articulately and succinctly presenting the two sides of the coin and i want to thank president chiu for working with supervisor farrell to come up with a compromise that achieves awful all of our goals for tenants, as well as owners and make sure that the city can continue to be diverse and embrace all of our residents. president chiu without objection can we take the motion to continue this item to march 11th. that will be the order. >> mr. chair, the march 11th is the regular meeting time of

1:30? >> that will be at 1:30. president chiu, did you intend anything else? >> i believe that is correct. >> 1:30 on march 11th. at this point as i mentioned we'll be hearing the remaining items on the agenda at 1:30. so supervisor chiu, can we have a motion to go into recess until 1:30 p.m.? >> i will make that motion. >> we will take