first time and that 80% are from san francisco. we all know well that rent has been sky rocketing adding pressure and incentive for owners to ellis act and engage in the 1, 2, 3 process of evicting current tenants buying them out or getting around the condo conversion or alternatively converting the building to tics generating immediate profits with the clear plan of converting to condos down the road. this process forever reduces rent controlled units. to suggest that the nominal fee proposed in this legislation would somehow place an apartment is beyond cynical. even the maximum fee of $20,000 would build what, a small bathroom? i am sincerely appreciative of the [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, jennifer friedenbach, coalition of homelessness. i also want to speak as a resident of san francisco. right now san francisco you're all very aware is at a critical

juncture. right now we have such a severe housing crises, rents are sky rocketing. we have 2200 children in san francisco unified schools that are homeless. just last year, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of households were displaced. we need to draw a line in the sand. we need to halt it and we need to try to preserve as much as we can every household in san francisco. the fact that during this time that this legislation was introduced was frankly pretty flabbergasted. i want to talk about just my block, and i actually wrote, you know, put together a graph that was so crowded with information it was unreadable. i'm going to try to summarize it a bit. on the 2700 block of harrison on just the east side of the block, we've had four households that were bought out. we've had one ellis act eviction and those buyouts were under threat of ellis act. we've had four households that

were tic'd. all nine household were people of color. almost all of them were families. the ones that weren't were elderly, and all nine were replaced by caucasians, two with children. none of them i would call middle income. that is kind of a floating definition, but none of them were called middle income. the effect on homelessness on the situation is profound and i wanted to talk about some of my neighbors that i've lost. one was an elderly man that had been there 43 years with his wife. he was ellis act evicted after several attempts to get him out. his wife was in laguna honda. he had to leave his beloved wife and go out of state to live with his son because he had nowhere to go. another household, a young single mom who raised her children [inaudible]. >> thank you. next speaker.

good evening, supervisors. my name is melli [speaker not understood]. we are facing a housing crisis in our communities. rents are sky rocketing and [speaker not understood] are increasing. [speaker not understood] we know will reduce the supply of department when we need more. it is wrong policy at the wrong time. supervisor chiu, [speaker not understood] and supervisor norman yee, please vote no on any amendment, and do not send this to the full board. thank you. ~ supervisor jane kim. >> thank you. the next speaker, i have one more card and i'm sorry i cannot read your name. but you know who you are. you can come on up. go ahead, sir. hello, supervisors.

i am a minority here because i am a property owner and i'm also a landlord. i just wanted to say that i'm happy to be a landlord. i do appreciate the hardships the tenants have under these circumstances, but hardships are not only for tenants. property owners can also have their own hardships. right now i'm very happy to be a landlord, and this legislation does not really even affect me, but there is one day i would perhaps want to get out of the business of being a landlord. it's not always the easiest thing. and i just feel that people that own property should have a little bit of say so of what they do with their property. and not have the city of san francisco dictate everything that they can do and not do with property. again, i appreciate the hardships that happen with

tenants. i would be the first person to say -- to do anything to alleviate that. but, again, i would like to have a little bit more control of how i use my property. thank you. >> next speaker. supervisors, good afternoon. i'm fernando [speaker not understood] with could ~ council of housing organizations. [speaker not understood] the condo conversion ordinance that was before you. we had a series of recommendationses. and the amendments that are being proposed go a long way towards answering a lot of those questions. it's a little hard to talk about policy questions after the heart rending hearings that you've had. but let me just say a few things. one, i think these amendments

actually deal with the issues, somewhat with the issues of the tic owners that face some burdens in refinancing as the banks changed their guidelines. however, you know, as my mom used to say, money might not solve all our problems, but winning the lottery would certainly help. and winning the lottery for those folks i'm sure would help. but the real heart of this is what are we doing to maintain rent controlled housing. objective through the city's housing element says the primary way of maintaining the city's affordability is maintaining the rent controlled stock. we cannot lose that by suspending the lottery. and, so, what these amendments do is to tie any suspension to the development of affordable housing. and it does this in a very particular way. we are developing affordable housing primarily for the new workers that are coming into the city. we cannot allow that housing that we are building to be

replacement for what we are losing. however, as we build more and hopefully all of the folks here and all of you supervisors will work even harder to get the city to build more affordable housing, we'll be able to use that to replace any housing. and, so, that is what the suspension is linked to. we look forward to seeing these amendments passed forward with no changes. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is nadia [speaker not understood]. currently our organization is helping sex families in the [speaker not understood] fight ellis act eviction. [speaker not understood] about the constant harassment and fear an eviction process causes the family and the neighborhood is traumatic. the moratorium of condo conversions, the affordable

housing reconstruction tie-in, the restriction to the type of units that will be able to be converted in the future and the lifetime leases are a small reparation for the years of displacement that our communities have faced. the amendments are a start to changing the priorities in our city, to begin to support working class residents. the real estate industry does not need any more or immediately [speaker not understood] the process to make profits. please support the amendment to this legislation without any changes, and help us begin to curb the real estate speculation that is -- the real estate speculation that has caused displacement and is destroying our city and neighborhoods neighborhood by neighborhood. >> thank you. next speaker, mr. [speaker not understood]. good afternoon, supervisors. early evening.

peter cohen, council committee [speaker not understood]. as my colleague fernando mar teen mentioned, we submitted a letter back to you in january. just want to point out, we're talking about the city's existing rental housing stock and the slow erosion of that stock through condo conversion and the 2009 housing element places great emphasis on preservation of the affordability of the existing housing stock. ~ what we do in the affordable housing committee is produce net new housing, we're creating new housing. bmrs through the inclusionary housing are also creating net new housing. last year the success of the housing trust fund, i would argue, is because it was primarily based on production strategies which could then make everyone happy. it was production for homeownership, for rental, for mod income, for low-income. the lottery for condo conversion has at least historically provided a pacing for how we convert and, therefore, lose our rental housing stock, allowing some

head room for affordable housing to try to at least keep up at a minimum. therefore, any bypass of the lottery as is being discussed and is now before you with an amendment must recognize this linked relationship between preservation of existing housing stock or its conversion and then on the other hand, production. and we have to stay whole. in fact, we have to stay ahead of whole because we have a net increasing population and we always have unmet demand. so, we really do emphasize that. we look forward to the hearing coming up on the amendments we see. thanks so much for the leadership. >> thank you. ms. short. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm sarah short with the housing rights committee. i wanted to really thank supervisor chiu, supervisor yee, and supervisor kim for working so hard, tirelessly on

drafting legislation that seriously took the concerns of both the tic owners who had stated that they were in financial dire straits and the renters and the tenant advocate groups who were alarmed at what damage the original legislation could do. i think it's remarkable what they came up with. and the reason it's remarkable is because i think it cuts through, in terms of not being drafted in a way just to address a certain industry's agenda or a certain, you know, politician's political agenda. but rather to meet the actual stated needs of, again, the tic owners who won't have more refinancing options available to them because of this, but in

a way that protects tenants and ensures that by opening this door we are not sending a message to speculators that the party's on. so, i think we have crafted something that is really -- actually meets the purported intent of the original legislation in a way that we can preserve our rental housing stock and prevent against evictions. and, so, i just want to say that we need to now i think work hard to make sure it stays in the place that it is and that we don't allow [inaudible]. thank you. >> thank you, ms. short. mr. gulligson. [speaker not understood] gulligson with san francisco tenants. i want to thank the supervisors who worked so hard on this.

this has transformed a piece of legislation which was extremely dangerous and was going to result in increase in conversions to a [speaker not understood] [speaker not understood]. we are getting some significant reforms to condo conversions moving forward that we had in many, many, many years. we'll see the stock of buildings eligible for condo conversion reduced significantly by eliminating the possibility of converting five and six-unit buildings into condos. we will see thousands of rent controlled units taking it out of risk. we will see thousands more tenants taken out of risk of being evicted. that is very significant going to the condo conversion law. and by not having a lottery for at least the next ten years we will have a chance to reassess this whole tic business which has resulted in out of control

condos and irresponsible sales to these tic owners by real estate speculators and take more advances in rent control housing stock. and i, too, want to reiterate that we have heard today from supervisor farrell that he would like to support these amendments, perhaps with some tweaks, that these are as far as tenants can give and we need to see these amendments adopted as is right now. and again, thanks for all your work, supervisors chiu, kim and yee who is no longer here. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker. hi. i'd like to first of all just say that tenants are in need at this time. and i just really feel like tic owners knew what they were getting into when they purchased properties. and if they felt like they

needed to have real estate financing down the line, that maybe they should have bought more modest investments. and that's just the way i feel. i'm sorry if i'm unsympathetic. i'm also worried about how this ordinance could be subject to abuse by developers. and i think that the amendments that i heard today from supervisors chiu and kim were really encouraging, the part that capped the maximum of four-unit buildings to be eligible. and i'm also afraid because i know that, you know, there can be straw man tactics and i was shocked to hear from some of the other commentators about different types of tactics that are used, you know, with the declarations and all that. just very shocking. yeah, i'm also concerned just about the general depletion of rent control units in the city and the cultural changes that

that would cause. my one last concern was that when i read the ordinance, i saw that there was a clause that if any preemption would occur, that that would -- that the rest of the ordinance would stand despite that preemption. and i feel like that's very dangerous because the part of the ordinance that is most subject to abuse is the -- am i not right in that? well, anyway, the preemption of the lifetime leases is a real risk and i just want to [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good evening, supervisors. eric burks representing the green party and grassroots organization in our city. i applaud supervisors chiu and yee and supervisor kim for stepping forward with important amendments that make this thing

so that it's not an absolute disaster. but i have to say that we need to get back to the days of when we created rent control in the first place where we weren't just going to put a bandaid on an artery bleed, but we were going to completely revolutionize how we handle housing in the city. the reality is, especially these days, i don't know how many of you follow the way finance capitalism has mushroomed and how it works, but this is a global -- this is happening because of a global capitalist phenomenon that's happening in capitalism right now where you have more and more basically expansion of what can only be called monopoly money on a global level and on wall street that just -- the bigger it gets, the more it has to find someplace to put this essentially

counterfeit financing into something new. that means tear things down and build them higher. 20 years later tear them down again, build them up again and it's devastating the city. it's going to tear the city apart. this process is never going to end until we step up to get rid of the ellis act, to get rid of costa hawk in, to get rent control in san francisco. for small businesses we get rent control on those and vacancy rent control for small business commercial property. we need to get serious about this or 10 years from now we're just going to have exactly the same conversation, kind of like when an alcoholic says to their partner, oh, honey, don't worry, this is the last time. we hear the same thing about these condo conversions. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on item number 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, the matter is in the hands of the committee.

i know that president chiu and supervisor yee have introduced an amendment that we have before us. and then supervisor kim has introduced an additional amendment. and i have a question to the city attorney, mr. malmud, in terms of whether these amendments are approved as to form by the city attorney. >> john malmud from the city attorney's office. the amendment that supervisor kim passed around earlier has not yet been approved by the city attorney's office as to form. >> and how about the amendments by supervisors chiu and yee have been? >> yes. the clerk has the signed version before her. >> okay. and in terms of -- president chiu, may i ask a question of supervisor kim?

actually, to mr. malmud. >> i can actually address because we actually just chatted just now. what i'm going to do is i'm going to make a motion to what we would like to see go in as the amendment. and then mr. malmud has agreed to work on it to ensure that we have it ready for the public by the time the agenda is noticed on thursday at noon. so, we're going to spend the next day and a half working on that language. so, that is the motion that i will be making. >> and i think, just for the sake of the public, the idea that's been proposed is that there would be an amendment to address the issue of the sale or contract for the sale of the unit in advance of the subdivision in order to ensure that a tenant protections from the lifetime lease provision. >> mr. malmud, do you believe that this amendment can be prepared in a way that you can approve it as to form? you don't have to answer that

definitively. i know you need to work on that with supervisor kim. >> thanks. i do want to point out one other thing, is that the amendments that are before you do create a certain preconditions to resumption of the lottery. and as a result of those preconditions, i believe that it should go back to the planning department for purposes of environmental review so they can give clearance to the new program. i don't know if that's something that they could respond back in advance of -- there was some suggestion the hearing might be next week. i don't know their schedule. >> okay. is supervisor farrell aware of this or he'll be hearing this for the first time? [multiple voices] >> supervisor chiu's office has been made aware of this. >> about having to re-refer this -- to refer this to the planning commission for new

environmental clearance? >> planning department. >> planning department. >> i'm sorry, you're talking about the legislation that i'm proposing, that that would have to go back to planning? first, this is not actually a hearing event. >> the legislation today, there is a provision in it that indicates the planning department has given environmental clearance for the legislation. that is already in hand with the clerk's office. with the amendments that are proposed, the planning department has not seen those in terms of giving environmental clearance yet. >> so, the resumption of the lottery intent here would implicate ceqa, is that what you're saying? >> it's not the resumption of the lottery. it's the condition that if the certain amount of new affordable housing is created under the proposition c guidelines, that the lottery could start sooner than the 10 year provision. >> and -- >> that's not what the

legislation says. we're saying that the minimum is 10 years, the maximum is the formula of the number of units created divided by 200. but what happens with the production of housing, that could bring the maximum number closer, if not, to be 10 years. so, we're not saying that it would necessarily go below that. >> that's correct. maybe i misspoke. but it's to address the scenario in which you're counting newly created units that the city creates under proposition c. ~ as being tied to the resumption of the lottery. >> there's a formula that -- i think it's 3,000 new units or something ~ in addition to an offset for all the units that have been converted through the interim, the six-year program. ~ >> so, if i may, what would be the process for the consideration of planning of this provision?

have you spoken to planning about this topic? >> it would go to a hearing review officer. [multiple voices] >> [speaker not understood] has been forwarded to the planning department. >> i believe it's received, if i'm not mistaken, with a categorical exemption before. okay. so, it may be another cat ex. >> i guess in terms of the timing that we are potentially looking at here is if we adopt the amendments today, and if we continue it today, it would be heard again in land use next monday if it were to be put out of committee that day because we do not meet the first week in may, it would come back -- excuse me, on the 30th, it would come to the full board on may 6th. so, we do have several weeks. so, the question is if we continue it to next monday and if the new environmental clearance is not obtained by then, can we put it out of committee that day? >> in, in the past, based on advice from our office, there

is not environmental clearance for the matter, the committee -- what we've advised is that the committee cannot make a recommendation of approval to the full board, but they could procedurally pass it on, we believe, if that does not -- by passing it on does not constitute an approval. however, that matter is currently under litigation today. >> okay. so, if we make the amendments today, continue it one week, then it's possible that we would have determination by the planning department next monday. if not, we could continue it again, or potentially put it out without recommendation. >> correct. >> okay, thank you for that clarification. president chiu. >> as i said at the ceqa hearing before, this is why ceqa is my favorite four-letter word. [laughter] >> people have unending surprises. >> so, let me first start by again thanking the tenants who are here and their leadership for all of their work and

advocacy, particularly on the ideas that were provided to my office and to supervisor yee that are embodied in the amendment that i have of the whole. and i also want to say i very much understand and empathize with the frustrations and the heart rending stories we heard today from some of our tenants which is why i have opposed the original legislation that has been in front of us today. but i want to address some of the comments that have been made. i hear from some a desire to simply vote down the proposal in froth of us. and i have been prepared to do that, but i think the challenges our tenant leadership understand if we simply vote down the proposal, we will continue the existing system of 200 conversions happening every year, 2000 conversions over the next decade, as well as additionally hundreds if not thousands of new tics that will still be purchased to continue the speculation that we have had issues with in recent years. and the amendments that we have in front of us that i'm proposing would replace both the current system as well as

the current proposal that farrell-wiener proposal in froth of us proposing a decade long moratorium for a condo purchase today to be converted. i also want to address a comment today during public comment. what happens during a legal challenge is that no one would be able to convert their tic to a condo until the issue is resolved by the courts. so, it would simply put a halt to the system on expedited conversion until that happens. let me also say i don't think either side believes that any proposal, my guess is, would give everyone what everyone wants. we have heard some miss givings today by tenants. i can assure you that the other side of this issue i believe has many more misgivings. but i would suggest we not allow the [speaker not understood] to become [speaker not understood] particularly on a topic we have debated for many, many years. i will say with supervisor farrell here i was a little surprise today hear him say he was opposed to allowing the amendment for the original legislatev asian.

i want to explain to the public if we do that, the version he proposed will no longer be before us for consideration. at this point we could be discussing a solution well embodied by the amendments we have that i think protects renters, addresses the situation, the plight facing current tic owners. ~ but says to future tic owners and real estate speculators that they will not see any conversion windfalls for at least the next decade. to me, i think that is a solution that makes sense. and with that, colleagues, i would like to make a motion that we move my amendments as amendment of the whole to replace supervisor farrell's version, and that obviously we need that to sit for the next week for additional public scrutiny and deliberation for us to consider next week. >> i will second the motion. >> okay. supervisor kim? >> i am also going to make a motion. so, a little bit different from what i had initially proposed, i will work with the city

attorney on language that would require recording prior to contract option to sell or transfer any tenant occupied unit or any interest in that tenant occupied unit prior to the contract. or prior to the contract. so, we'll work on that language over the next day and a half, and i will make sure that our office also sends that language out to members of the community that have been working on [speaker not understood]. >> can you restate that, the amendment again as revised? >> yes. so, it's to require recording prior to the contract or option to sell, or transfer any tenant or occupied unit or transfer interest in that tenant occupied unit. what i had proposed was we would prohibit any contract or option to