we recall item number 2. ms. rogers? >> thank you. amy rogers from the planning department. excuse the delay. i found another section you're referring to. it's on page 283 of the ordinance and it describes how the error that happened, as you'll recall, the chinese hospital when that project was reviewed, special use district was created. and that special use district is considered to be an overlay district and not actually the zoning district. the underlying zoning district should not have changed. in this case there was a mistake where the underlying zoning districts was listed as the chinese hospital sud and it should have remained the chinatown residential neighborhood commercial district. and, so, this is just removing the reference to the sud which is still going to be an overlay and noting its underlying zoning remains. >> thank you. that's exactly the explanation i was hoping to put on the erred. >> thank you, ms. rogers.

~ record so, we have already taken public comment on item number 2. so, there are amendments authored by supervisor tang. colleagues, can we take those amendments without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> and can we have a motion to forward item number 2 to the full board with recommendation? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> okay. without objection. [gavel] >> okay. item number 4. >> item number 4 is an ordinance amending the subdivision code, by adding section 1396.4, to adopt a condominium conversion impact fee applicable to buildings participating but not being selected in the 2012 or 2013 condominium conversion lotteries only, subject to specified requirements, including lifetime leases for non-purchasing tenants; and adopting environmental findings. >> thank you. and supervisor farrell and i are the authors of this legislation. it is a request that the item be continued for two weeks given there are ongoing negotiations. president chiu? >> i was about to reiterate what you just said. six weeks ago when this item was first brought to the committee, i want to thank supervisors wiener and stakeholders on both sides of the issues for agreeing to

enter into negotiations over this topic. there have bp a lot of good ideas that have been forwarded and at this time we do need a little bit more time to continue to vet them so i'd be happy to support, i'll make a motion to continue i believe for two weeks. >> thank you. and if there are no other initial comments, we'll open it up to public comment. and it is the intent to entertain a motion to continue this for two week. you may comment today on the underlying ordinance or on the motion to continue, and there will be full public comment when this comes back to committee in two weeks. so, i have four public comment cards. bruce alison, laura guzman, gill crizwell, and ernestine weiss. if i have not called your name and you'd like to comment, please fill out a blue card. first, someone would like to just come forward. public commenters can line up.

bruce alison, port magazine. presently there are 32,000 vacant units that are laying vacant. if they go into these -- some of these are being listed to go into condos. i know of 25 personally from my investigation. why would you leave them vacant to 25 for another year or so to a person buys these units? these people, they left them and they decided to sell them. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. ms. guzman. [speaker not understood], laura guzman, from the [speaker not understood] also co-chair of the local homeless board. i know [speaker not understood] are going, but we are urging the board to really think thoroughly whether or not to do a conversion at this time in

this city. and for reason is the local homeless board, we are really working to prevent any evictionses whatsoever as homelessness continues to rise. as we are doing policies that are driven by the federal government and we're doing as a community the five-year plan, we also would like legislation like this to come to a local homeless board. we are your advisory body. so, i'm going to recommend this item keeps going -- is brought in april to a local homeless board so you can have our best advice about what's happening in the city. as well as the homeless center i can tell you right now the numbers continue to rise, including people who are not getting replacement shelters and, of course, supervisor kim can talk about it because she's helping us with our shelter access. putting that aside, the prices are going up at this moment, make it impossible for someone who is on ssi disability or otherwise poor to find rentals anywhere else. so, it's not a good time for conversion and i'm coming to

oppose it. thank you. >> thank you, ms. guzman. next speaker. and let me call, i have two additional cards. michael lion and marion wallace. next speaker, please. my name is mary wallace and i'm a renter in san francisco, long-time, over 30 years. and i think the rent control is very important in san francisco and any unnecessary legislation which endangers or chips away at rent control is a detriment to the city. now, many people may have prudently not bought a tic due to the known difficulties. people who did buy a tic knew of the difficulties and knew that uninvestment is a risk. there is no reason to put rentesers in a home to ease those who took that risk. people who buy a renter's home should not be able to move to more easily displace people

from their homes. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. my name is ernestine weiss, and i'm here to object to any conversions of apartments in the city of san francisco at a time when affordable housing is priority one. what is wrong with you supervisors? you don't get it? people cannot live here. my grandson had to move to canada. he's a teacher. young man, can't afford to live here. in canada, he has health care, he has housing, a reasonable amount, and he's happy there. why should he have to leave the country where he was born in california because of your priorities being backwards? this is unfair to a lot of -- most of the people who rent. i live in a rent controlled building. my landlord is trying to harass me, and i won't put up with it.

i mean, it's disgusting and you guys voted to 8 washington behind my house? which is behind my house? it's ridiculous. how dare you, how dare you cater to the developers instead of to the people. we should learn by obama's election. he got voted because he was for the people. you guys don't get it. when are you going to learn? thank you. (applause) >> next speaker. ♪ i'll be there to shake your house hand and i'll be there to share all your land plans when you make the, the impact make the impact fee city now, city now city now i'll be there to shake your hand and i'll be there to share your impact plan when you can make the impact money fee shake your city hand

share the plan share your city hand share all your city good plans >> thank you. next speaker. michael [speaker not understood] for the san francisco gray panthers and senior disability action. we are completely opposed to any kind of plans which allow more conversion of tics into condos. it's an incredible incentive to [speaker not understood] depictions, speed it up when there is a huge crisis of homelessness among seniors. it's going to increase rents all over the place. it endangers rent control. do not do this. >> thank you. next speaker.

gilbert crizwell. i am here from new district 8 and i'm not going to repeat the streets that i represent, but i stand with the renters of new district 8. and i think this is a banking issue for the tic owners and they should be heard in government audit and oversight committee. the bankers and mortgage lenders that have conned the tic owners, that seem to be a problem and there should be a hearing on that. and i'm against opening up the lottery for more condo conversions. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. you can just hand the card to ms. miller. hi, my name is christin henry. this is my son. and we're here to say we support this legislation. we live in a tic, we have lived

in a tic for three years and we pay really high interest rates. it's a 7% interest rate with a prepayment penalty for paying your mortgage off early so, you can't refinance. i know that when we bought the tic we knew these were the terms and we agreed to them. but there is legislation on the table that would give financial relief to families like me. i've lived in the city 15 years, i work at a nonprofit. having an interest rate -- right now i pay my interest to michigan bank. there are only two banks that give mortgageses to tics that are fractional, one in michigan and one in ohio. the fact we're paying these high interest rates, all of these monies are not being funneled into san francisco, but out of state. a bank in ohio and michigan were the only one that would give a fractional loan. they're getting the extra money. there are ways we could talk about solving the problem, but i support this legislation. >> thank you. are there any additional -- any

members of the public who would like to make public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> president chiu, you have made a motion to continue this item by two weeks. >> two weeks to i think the 25th of march. >> okay. is that the correct date, 25th of march? great. colleagues, can we take that motion he without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> madam clerk, are there -- is there any other business pro forma the committee? >> there are no other matters. >> we are unshed. adjourned. thank you. [ adjourned]

>> good morning everyone, welcome to the supervisor's budget and finance subcommittee, for march the six and, thank you for your your

delay today. >> i would like to thank the sfgtv as well as the clerk of the board, mr. victor young, do we have any announcements? >> question, silence all phones and papers should be submitted to the clerk, items after today will appear on the march 14th, supervisor's agenda unless otherwise stated. >> could you call number one. >> resolution to authorize, recreation and park department to retroactively accept the expend the cal recycle tire derived product, grant in the amount of $150,000 from the california department of resources recycling and recovering from the purpose of

tdp materials for the various cities park sites for the period of june 2, 2011 through march 31, 2013. >> my name is tony maran and i am with the capitol division, the item is a recommendation to accept and spend the grant in the amount of $150,000. >> this is administered by the california resources, recovery, i am sorry, resources recycling and recovery department. they promote the purpose of materials that are derived from recycled tires, from recycled tires. the park has been awarded $150,000 and we would like to use that money to offset costs that have occurred in the playground projects this is used in a cushioning layer of plate ground resurfacing as well as synthetic fields.

and we have identified three playgrounds and five synthetic fields that could benefit from these materials. the grant will expire march 30th of this year and we are hoping to get an extension to spend any unallocated grant funds and i am available to answer any questions that you may have. >> supervisor mar? >> thanks. >> i wanted to ask you if the other alternative to recycled tire rubber are being considered also for some of the synthetic fields, whether it is cork or coconut or shell, and i know that came out in the synthetic field task force and other reports that i have seen, are we looking at other sources for the sponginess of the fields. >> this grant was originally awarded to the ocean view, athletic field. and they are considering the alternative for that project. so right now, we are looking

at, using these materials at sin synthetic fields that be already under warranty and require the use of crumb rubber. >> thank you very much, any other questions, colleagues? >> okay, seeing none, thank you very much. we don't have any budget analyst report for this item. so this point i would like to open it up for public comment, any member of the public that wish to comment on item number one, step forward? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> callings? to make a motion to approve item one >> so moved approval. >> and we have a second and we can do that without opposition. >> mr. clerk, could you please call item number two? >> resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to retroactively accept and expend the grant in the amount of $776,500 from the california department of housing and community development for the recreation and park department's boeddeker park

project for the period of november 28, 2012, through june of 30, 2016 >> miss moran? >> i am here to ask the committee to recommend that the board of supervisors retroactively accept and extend the parks grant. in the amount of $760,500. this is administered by the department of housing and community development. the program is designed to encourage the cities to develop affordable housing, by providing grant funding for park-related projects. and grant funds will be used for boeddeker clubhouse and a portion will be in the housing for the promontory park project which is being developed in hunter's point. at this point, those projects are in construction. i am happy to answer the

questions and the staff from the mayor's office of housing is on hand to answer any questions related to the promontory park project. >> colleagues, any questions here? >> okay. seeing none, thank you very much, miss moran. we also don't have a bla report, at this point we open to the public comment, any members of the public that wish to comment. i believe that i do have one card to show on item number 2? >> you can use that one. >> yes. >> it is still on, excuse me. >> maybe they can't. >> sorry about that. >> good morning, supervisors. i live in the park, i mean i live in the part of the city that boeddeker park, where the money would be going for the park, which is boeddeer park and i would appreciate if you would send the money so that it

could be retroactive for the park because i need a park to sit in and read a newspaper and drink coffee, because the neighborhood that i live at on turk between tailor and joins we have no parks, for me to sit in at least as an adult. i can sit in the alley. i think that somewhere in the alley, but i would have to go south of market or union square. so thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> any other public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> motion to approve item number two? >> so moved. >> we can do that without opposition. >> mr. clerk, could you call items three and four together? >> yes, item three, ordinance proesh ating $3,194,677 of fee revenue for the planning department in the physical year 2012, 13 to reduce the backlog of planning cases and building

permits required review. item number four, ordinance and amending ordinance number 1 65-12, to reflect the ad dish of ten positions in the planning department to focus on reducing the backlog of planning case and building permits requiring review. >> thank you, very much. we have a number of speakers including mr. john ram, the head of the planning department. welcome and the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisors. we are here to ask for a supplemental appropriation request of this year's budget of $3.2 million in general to reflect the dramatic increase in permit application and volumes that we have seen this year that are well beyond the current appropriated budget. >> this chart gives you the case in the trends over the last few years and the last decade. you will see the low point in the o8 and 09 recession and it has been climbing steadily since then.

in the department, 12-13 adopted budget, the over all volume was projected at 3 percent and we have met that volume, we met that case volume, that the original revenues have gone up substantially because of the size of projects that have come in. many very large projects have come in for approvals. i should point out that the construction that you see in the city right now when projects that were proposed a few years ago. it is a new round that are coming. we are experiencing because of this a fairly substantial backlog in our caseload and because of the time that it takes to actually bring people on board, i am hoping to get this done quickly so we can move this forward. and so we are asking for about ten ftes in this fiscal year. that would carry over into about a two-year period where we would hire a temporary staff to specifically address the

backlog. we are projecting about a 4.3 million dollars of additional fee revenue. again, beyond what was projected in this year's budget. what i said is primary factor are the new large projects that are coming in for approvals. we are proposing ten positions and it is primarily planners to deal with the backlog and the admin staff to reduce the load on planners and help to move that backlog forward as well as some technical and kind of logistical help to help with the 400 projects that have not done any work done on them. we are looking at things besides the positions the office space configuration, to accommodate the new staff. we are looking at additional corridor for looking at digitizing our records and we are looking at, improving some

of our sequa procedures and some of our preservation work in the goal of looking at the backlog as we move forward. a couple of smaller items related to the permit and project tracking system which is on-line to go live later this year. and the funding for the central corridor plan eir as well. in terms of, the total we are requesting $3.2 million. i will say that we have been working with the budget analyst office on this supplemental and we do have a disagreement about a couple of positions. what we are trying to do is move all of these positions forward so that we can get a handle on this backlog in light of the fact that the longer we delay in getting staff on board, the more the backlog

does move forward. we will be looking at next year's budget closely in the next couple of months to see if the friends continue in terms of new value increases. but at this point, we do think that it is important that all ten positions move forward and we would like to request your support of moving those forward at this time. thank you. >> thank you very much, colleagues any questions for director ram? >> okay. supervisor mar? >> actually, i would like to hear the budget and legislative analyst recommendations on why they feel 8 positions are sufficient. but i did want to ask mr. ram, i know that the housing analysis tool the dashboard is being implemented and many community advocates are saying that there are other positions within planning that should have a high priority as well. and is this, i think that there is definitely the need to reduce the backlog and i see the need for this. but i am wondering if you could talk a little bit about how your prioritizing the need for

data analysis, unit, and the implementation of the housing dashboard? >> thank you. >> yeah, that is a good question, we talked a lot about that. we initially pulled some of those position into his this request as well. but in discussions with the mayor's budget office and the budget analyst office. we thought it more appropriate to focus this particular request in the supplemental in the backlog in getting that addressed. what you will see in a couple of months is our proposed budget for next year, which is does have additional positions for public out reach for the data analysis group to do those monitoring groups and that sort of thing. so we are proposing that in next year's budget. but there was a feeling among all parties that this proposed supplemental should only address the backlog. >> and will you be meeting with the advocates that brought the housing dashboard, the community advocates that can have some input into to ensure that there are strong staffing for the implementation for the dashboard?

what happens what mr. demartini as well? >> sure. >> absolutely. >> thank you, any other questions for director ram? >> okay, seeing none, do you have something separate that you want to talk about? >> okay, at this point we will go to the budget and analyst report. mr. rose? >> mr. chairman and members of the committee. first of all, let me comment that the budget analyst office is totally supportive of reducing the backlog in order to expedite the permit process in the system. we understand that problem. and we are totally supportive of that, as stated in table, or shown in table 7, on page 11 of our report, we are recommending approval of 8 of the ten, posted tenure positions and we recommend disapproval of two of the ten positions. with respect to the one planner position... so we can recommending eight of the ten. 80 percent. the one planner position that

we are recommending approval of is very simple. there are 3.28 vacant positions. we believe that any department, not just the planning department, but any department should first fill their vacant positions before they go to the board of supervisors and ask for new positions. if after that is done, and the department can still justify additional positions, of course, we would look at that if that is referred to us by the board of supervisors. and recommend approval if it is justified. but prior to not filling 3.28 vacant positions, and our professional judge. makes no sense and that is why we are recommending the approval of the one planner position. with respect to the clerk position, the director just stated that he was only asking right now for positions relative pertaining to the backlog, well, in fact, the clerk position that we are recommending disapproval as absolutely nothing to do with the backlog that is why we are

recommending disapproval of it. so our recommendations supervisors are on page 13 of our report. and we recommend that you amend the annual salary ordinance for 12-13 that all limited tenure positions are limited tenure positions whatever number you approve for no more than 2.25 years. secondly, we recommend that you amend the annual salary ordinance and consistent with what i just stated by deleting one 1401 clerk in the city-wide planning division and one 5291 in the current planning division and we recommend that you amend the supplemental ordinance and that would be a saving of $420,453 and our recommendation is to reduce it by $1 million, and we recommend that you approve this legislation as amended. >> thank you very much.

any questions for mr. rose, colleagues? >> okay. >> seeing none, we appreciate mr. ram, giving the opportunity to come back up. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the budget analyst discussion of this. on paper is he correct, it looks as if the clerk position is working in the what we call the city-wide division and is not working on the backlog. in reality what is happening is the city wide division is down to a half of an fte in their clerk support and admin support and that division is pulling from the admin support from the other parts of the department which are working on the backlog. the idea is to get this division the support it needs to free up time from other folks. i also appreciate the idea that you should not be filling positions when we have open positions. three positions out of 150 or 155 i would argue is not a huge amount. and given the length of time that it actually takes to go through the budgeting process or the hiring process, i should say, we feel it is important to get these positions approved so that i