those factors into account as to where we resource and put more bikes. >> thanks. >> thanks. >> thank you. colleagues, seeing no further comment, is there a motion to forward item number 5, the resolution to the full board with recommendation? >> so moved. >> okay. and can we take that motion without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> mr. clerk, can you please call item number 6? >> item number 6 is an -- >> madam clerk, excuse me. >> item number 6 is an resolution approving the grant of a tieback subsurface easement on assessor's parcel block no. 192, lot no. 035, to the chinese hospital association required for the chinese hospital replacement project; adopting findings that the grant of subsurface easement is consistent with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code, section 101.1, and environmental findings; and authorizing the director of property to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. ~ >> thank you very much. supervisor farrell is the lead author of this legislation. supervisor farrell. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank everyone who is here and stuck around today for this legislation, including my colleagues. this has been a long road to get to today. i want to thank supervisor wiener for your support in this legislation.

we introduced this legislation last year in 2012. and since that time we have had numerous ongoing meetings with all parties involved in these discussions. i want to thank the tic advocates as well as the tens advocates who sat down over the course of the last few months and certainly last week, as well as supervisor chiu and norman yee who are introducing amendments today. about two months ago, both sides sat down over a multiple week span and had some encouraging and not so encouraging discussions. nevertheless, important, but given the two sides have not spoke men years, that we had that dialogue. last week alone, i met with the tenants advocates in my office and spoke with them over the weekend as well as met with numerous times ~ with the tic advocates over this weekend, the past few weeks, and even this morning in my office. from the outset and my goal in create thing legislation was three fold. first of all, provide relief for current tic owners who in

my mind represent the face of middle income families here in san francisco. we've heard over time that police officers and the teachers that are tic owners, they're being forced to pay interest rates that are currently double the market interest rates here in our is city and across our country. and to provide a path for them for secure ownership here in our city. second of all, to protect tenants in tic buildings. it is very important to supervisor wiener and i when we introduced this legislation, we [speaker not understood] tenant protections in tic buildings by providing lifetime leases and also providing a pool of money for affordable housing if here in our city. it is one of san francisco's greatest challenges and this legislation will create a large pool of capital for affordable housing projects here in san francisco. ~ legislation that would satisfy these goals and principle i would support. as a former tic owner, i understand the issues involved with these buildings and the toll it takes on middle income

families here in our city, and i want to do everything possible to support them. in terms of the amendments to the legislation that are being offered today, i just received them a short while ago. so, i really have not had the opportunity to walk through them in detail. but i did have a chance to speak with the tenant advocates about them last week as well as supervisor yee, and i spoke in his office last week about them. and i do believe that in principle we are close to a compromise. specifically, allowing an opportunity for all current tic owners to take advantage of the condo bypass legislation. this is a critical piece. suspending the lottery based on a formula of how many people take advantage of the bypass, something, again, i think we should wrap our arms around and support. and excluding buildings in the future that would have encouraged speculators to displace tenants for profits, that's something i never supported, never will. these are all things that i very much agree with.

ultimately, the devil is in the details so i'm going to reserve full judgment here until i read the text of these amendments in detail. but i do believe that we have a framework to move forward and do so quickly. again, in my mind, this has been the product of months of discussions and i think that where we are is a great place to leap forward. i also want to mention something supervisor yee and i spoke about briefly. it's a concept of introducing trailing legislation to make sure that the $20,000 fee is not a hindrance for property owners that potentially cannot afford it right now, and we will look to create mechanisms to make sure that that did not get in the way of people taking advantage of the bypass. in terms of the compromise, my hope in these next two weeks while the amendment is in the committee is to find a full compromise to bring both sides together 100%. [speaker not understood] is a far cry from where either side started in our discussions and i believe we are close. and i know that both sides are very passionate about this

issue. and for me forging a middle ground so we can have legislation that hopefully passes 11 to nothing at the board, but also avoids heading to the ballot, which is a real potential with this issue is the goal. i appreciate the tic's advocates willingness to come back to the table and as well the tenants' willingness to meet after these amendments are introduced today. my hope is that in two weeks we can have consensus and accomplish what nobody thought was possible when we started this process. thank you very much. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you. first of all, i want to thank supervisor wiener and farrell for even making an attempt to address this issue. today i'm going to be introducing amendments to basically mold our visions of the t it ic condo conversion further. when i first started looking into this issue of tic condo conversion, it was clear to me

that any compromise needed to focus on two basic aspects. one, i wanted to address -- i wanted to address the issues that current tic owners face today. number two, i wanted to address the risk of speculation that might ensue with a large number of tic being allowed to convert to condo and what effect that could have on our affordable housing stock. i believe these amendments strike the right balance. they allow current tic owners, whether they had applied to the lottery or not, to convert through an expedited process that will allow those who are in a difficult situation to convert the tic and hopefully be able to refinance. at the same time, i believe that this proposal protects our affordable housing stock by linking the number of units

converted from tic to condo to the number of units of affordable housing we produced. i want to really highlight this. we recognize as a board that we want to protect our affordable housing stock, and therefore, we recognize that by losing units through the conversion process, we are committed as a city to replace those units with affordable housing. in this legislation, we want the length of the suspension to be directly linked to our ability to build affordable housing, creating a shared commitment to affordable housing. we also want to curb speculation by sending clear rule that protect tic owners that reside in their units by requiring a higher threshold of occupancy for future conversion. in the future, we want to limit the conversions to 30 buildings of four units or less, and require higher occupancy levels

for these same buildings for a three-unit building, two units had to be occupied for owner. for a four unit, three units need to be occupied by owners. i think it is important for decision makers to listen to all parties and ultimately make decisions that seek the best interest of everyone, and i think that this is what we are doing today. thank you. >> thank you. president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair. and first let me start by thanking all the members of the audience for your patience and not just today, but over the last few months in getting us to where we are today. as supervisors yee and farrell alluded to, i will be introducing amendments to the proposed bypass legislation. and i want to take a moment first to thank the many tenant organizations that have worked with my office and our supervisors on this from the san francisco tenants union to

the affordable housing alliance, ccdc, to the housing rights committee, the tenderloin housing clinic, just cause, and many other organizations that have been passionate on this topic and have really helped to shape i think many of our thinking on it. i also want to take a moment and thank supervisor farrell for his leadership as well as the tic owners and representatives at the real estate community. i believe that they have worked in good faith in the discussions that we've had in recent weeks and i do look forward to the discussion we'll have today as well as in the coming weeks on this. and i want to also thank supervisor yee for the work that he and his staff had done with my aide judson true and i to move this forward and i also should thank our city attorney john malmud who has spent many, many weeks and many, many hours particularly over this weekend in getting the amendments that we have in front of us today. so, as far as sort of a high level on what it is we are trying to achieve with these amendments, as i've said

before, i appreciate the intent of the legislation, which is to try to address the plight of tic owners in very challenging financing situations. with that being said, i think many of us have been concerned if we allow the current generation of tic owners to convert, we will quickly replace them with the new generation of tic owners after additional real estate investments and evictions lead right back to the debate we're having today. the amendments that i will be asking to move forward will protect san francisco's renters while addressing the plight of tic owners that are currently in the condo conversion system. the basic and the heart of these amendments are quite simple, to allow the existing condo conversion lottery participants to convert over the next few years with the payment of the fee that was proposed in the existing legislation, but to also ensure that as we expedite these conversions and we expect at least 2000 or more tic owners to convert, protect tenants by suspending the lottery for new participants for at least ten years. what i'd like to do,

colleagues, in the next few minutes, is to summarize the specific amendments. there are really 7 elements to the amendments that we're offering. and i'm going to give to our clerk copies of the legislation that i'm introducing as well as a summary of them that members of the public wish, if you could please put that on the front table, folks wish to pick them up. so, let me just go through the amendments. first of all, similar to what supervisor farrell's proposal had put out, we will be creating an expedited conversion process, although it will involve a slightly larger class than what supervisor farrell had entailed. it would involve 2012 and 2013 lotteries who could convert by paying the proposed $20,000 fee with discounts for years in the lottery over a two-year period. lottery participants who have been owners for five years or more would be eligible for conversion during the first year of the expedited program. and then all other lottery participants would be eligible

for conversion in the second year of the expedited program. but then beginning with the third year of the expedited program and continuing through year 6, any tic as of april 15th, 2013, today, that mts