tic owners would in the future would not be able to get into a lottery that is into the past, which did not make much sense. i think one of the things that we need to all agree on is who we are trying to support and i think it is very telling that we did not see very many tic owners posed in this legislation, in fact it is what... >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is ron smith and i want to vig yusly support what has been proposed. as a walked from the castro i passed four huge construction projects under way, one, 115 modern luxury condos and i also passed 2 people who were

struggling up the grade toward the recycling center with their push baskets overloaded with recyclables. i passed in the option of, i passed in the afternoon, i was for lunch and i was sitting there having a bowl of soup, three people got up from the table next to me and started to leave. and a man came in from the street and immediately started scoop up left overs from their plates and he was immediately taken away. it is difficult, i passed 27 other people who would be classified as homeless in this city, i am a retired teacher and i know and i have read the statistics about the numbers of

children who are living with their familis in cars, now. and i'm saying to you, that we definitely need restrictions regarding the kinds of rental properties that are available to us. it is something that we cherish and i would like you to consider that and for all of those people who are down and out and unable to be here for themselves. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> i also wanted to say that i actually marked my car and i am kind of confused i want to mark it support the amendment for it and against the tic conversions and also, (inaudible) for the sake of this argument

(inaudible) affordable housing from san francisco and what we need is rent control housing and $500,000 and now $800,000 for a median home and ranging beyond for those people and some of us can afford to rent if it is rent control and so if i would like to have the rent control to stop and i also wanted to address what the previous speaker said and something that you said about that she has never seen a tenant out and i have done it and we don't wear labels. and i don't know how she will know if we are tenants and also to force the land lords to force to keep up to you like they should. next speaker. i am a counselor with the san francisco union.. san franciscoan woulds say that they love the city and it was

diversity. as counselor with the san francisco tenant union i am a diverse group and i must say that i disagree with the comment that the tic owners are the true middle class, it is true that the middle class is shrinking but i can tell you that if you are most concerned about protecting that group you will find them among the tenants in san francisco. along with the groups they are the victims of bogas evictions and it saddens me when i see productive, talented responsible citizens that are driven out by the attacks on the affordable rents. and we elect our supervisors with the hope that they have the wisdom and the vision to preserve the city that is loved by citizens and also others all over the world. >> today we ask you to be the supervisors for the true, san

francisco. not the supervisors for the real estate speculators. preserve the essence of san francisco, and keep our city diverse, and by stopping the loss of affordable rent and support the amended legislation, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> members of the board, i am with the china town community development center and i want to speak to a couple of the issues that supervisor ferrell raised and address the issues that was raised. first off with respect to the ten-year, minimum suspension, the reason that we need the suspension is because we need to cool out this market. the purpose is not related to the number of converted units. we need the suspension, even if there were no converted units. we need the testimony earlier today by tenants who are being evicted and the seniors who are

being displaced by the evictions that are used as a direct result in the defects in that law which allow to the creation of the tics without respect to the number of condo lottery slots that are created it is an unsustainable path of growth that tic speculators have created. that is why we have more than 2500, a backlog of more than 2500 units in the current lottery. and so, we have a speculative investment real estate market which is generating more and more tic sales and based upon the evictions of the tenants that we need a ten year suspension is to clear that market out and send a message that they will need to wait a while before they are going to be able to convert. secondly with respect to the increased ownership requirements. we need this, we need to, it is very clear and also because of this current buffer, that we

cannot allow the number of tic, and continuing on the creation with the existing cap on lottery, we need to target the group, and the purpose of increasing the ownership requirement is to direct, future condo conversions to ownership units that is the very type of ownership that mr. ferrill promotes. that is why we need the two protections, a minimum ten year and narrow the future lottery. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> can you hear me from here? >> it would be better if you could pull that down. >> great. >> so the people on tv can hear you too. >> good afternoon, supervisors miem the jessica layman and i am the senior director of seniors action, we build together the people to build a

voice for those community and we are very concerned about the loss of units and the rise of evictions we hear about people who are being evicted or it seems like the popular thing is to harass the people until they leave so-called voluntarily, it is nobody choice to leave a unit that they have lived in for years when they feel like they have nowhere else to go. >> so many of the seniors and people that we work with don't have other options people are talking about having to leave san francisco and that is where the support networks are and get the resource and services. we need to protect the communities by protecting the rent controlled units and so we are concerned about this and the condo conversion. we do support the compromise and we think that it is meeting the needs of the people involved and looking at protecting the poor people and the tenants in san francisco who desperately need affordable

housing, we urge you to support the compromise. thank you. >> next speaker. >> housing and (inaudible) committee of san francisco. when the original legislation was first introduced we were told that the purported intent was to assist the thousands of tic owners who were in financial dire straits and needed us to have access to convert to condos so that they can refinance and not at this time when the market is so hot, that we are

seeing a rise in evictions and displacement. and people said, well, what are we going to do? these things are mutually exclusive. we heard even a tic owner who is working closely on this legislation saying that there is a lot of skepticism about getting where we could achieve both goals. i will not say that it is magic, because i witnessed the brilliant minds and commitment aamong so many that worked on this, including chiu and yee to craft something that low and behold, allows tic owners to convert, sooner than the current system would allow, and also preserve our stock and

also, has an enforcable lifetime lease provision so that the current tenant woulds not be evicted. >> and i am surprised as to why everyone is not jumping on board because it is the great compromise that everybody is looking for. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, ted, san francisco tenant union we have been hearing a lot about soaring rents and rising evictions during this dot, com crisis in an ideal world we will be sitting here or standing here and talking about a ten year moratorium just to cool off the market and to take a step to see what we can do about all of this. and we are willing to work with the people in the real estate

industry and some supervisors to craft a solution to the problem that some tic are having in a way that they can see the speculations and conversions addressed in the future, it is very important that a keystone of this compromise is that ten-year moratorium and we need to preserve that. it is important to give us room to be in on working on the ellis act and we are seeing the movement towards a moratorium tenant legislature and so this ten years is extremely important to us and we urge the supervisors to move this to the board and to pass it out to the board without changing any of key components. and thank you for your work

>> is there any additional public comment? >> yes, welcome? >> good afternoon. supervisors. i'm joy bounce and i am with the fta, senior disability action group and i was faced with eviction and i was fighting for one whole year. and i won my case. and i am still living there with the help of support systems like the senior disability action and i would like to say that in my building of 48 apartments and 7 storefronts. they are taking a one bedroom and making it into a 3 bedroom. and without permit and making a studio, which is 400 square feet and making it two a two bedroom or a one bedroom or whatever you want to call it

and it is totally, ridiculous, and i could not even fit in there and i know, that mr. weiner would never be able to fit in this house. >> you would be surprised. >> this system that is going on is ridiculous, because you have to be a pretty small person to fit in there and there is no place to put your clothes. but aside from that, i support the moratorium. and i thank the supervisors for doing it. and i hope to see that you understand the situation. >> is there any additional

comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> and just in the hands of the committee, is there any commentary? supervisor or president chiu? >> thank you. again i want to thank all of the members of the public who have taken part in this lengthy discussion over the years and the months and i want to take a moment to thank the tenant advocates who i do think have come around to what i think of as a really novel and a well thought out way to move this difficult discussion forward. the fact of the matter is that we have over 2,000 folks who are currently in the lottery, and it would take them under the current system over ten years to convert. and what the tenants have agreed to is over the next two years, everyone who is currently in the lottery, can go through and convert their tic into a condo. and at the same time, doing this, with the protections for tenants and i do this in a way that is hopefully going towards a number of folks today to cool

off the speculative market so that we could right and over the next ten years we can continue all of the work that we have been doing on the affordable straggy to make sure that san francisco is affordable to all. i look forward and i would like to make a motion at this time to move this legislation in front of us out to the full board with the recommendation. >> supervisor kim? >> i will second that motion and i do not want to repeat everything that has been said. this item if anything, we have heard many, many times, i think that this may be the 7th hearing on this. i have not been able to keep track. >> it is going to beat ceqa. >> so. no position on this has been clear since the beginning. if we could address what the tic owners are going through and the housing stock which

impacts the current tenants and to find a way to support that. and i do want to acknowledge many of the advocates that works for weeks and days and hours trying to find a solution to this and i think that what we have before us is quite an elegant solution. the goal was to figure out a way to remedy the current owners and not encourage more ownership in the future. and we also want to help people that actually owned and occupy the units. if this really is about encouraging home ownership, we want the folks that actually live in those units and not just using it for rental properties themselves i will be supporting this, it is a compromise from my perspective. because most tenants never want to touch this lottery process. this was viewed as a compromise from decades ago. and so, allowing this bypass was viewed as kind of a, an alm in some ways to the current

owners which i think is actually a step in the right direction, but in the future, i think that we have to be thinking if home ownership is something that we as a city want to support and encourage for the middle and the middle and upper class familis in san francisco, then it has to be affordable, it has to be housing production. we can't pit folks that want to be owners against tenants that can't be the dynamic that we set up. and people have said that this is not about helping one or the other. but we are creating a system where we are pitting those two groups together, when we allow tic as an option for home ownership. and so looking forward to, and i hope this conversation does not end today in terms of the home ownership conversation. because it is clearly not just about tic. but happy to support these amendments and send it out with a positive recommendation. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> so, i want to thank everyone who spent a lot of time in

negotiations around this. even though i am a co-sponsor of the legislation because of the brown act and president chiu's involvement i was unable to participate in those discussions consistent with my obligations under the open government laws which is unfortunate because i wanted to be involved in negotiations and the discussions. you know, it is this, and however many other hearings that we have had have really brought to the forefront a lot of the very, very legitimate and understandable anxiety across the spectrum, in terms of home owners, fee owners and tenants about the affordbility crisis in our cities. unfortunately and this is not true for many of our public commentsers, but we have some commentary about this legislation on both sides. where the other side gets

demonized. tenants are viewed in a certain way, tic owners are viewed in a certain way. and you know, the fact is that whether you own a tic or a condo or a single family home or a tenant we are all san franciscoans and as i said in the past hearings, many of the tic are long term renters who manage to scrape together a down payment to purchase a home. whether that was a wise move or not a wise move, that is what we have. and i appreciate the sentiment to help these tic owners and that is a sentiment that i share. and of course, we have our fundamental problem in san francisco, that we don't have enough housing, for the people who want to live here and it drives up the prices and it has been interesting to hear some

of people who are maybe against this legislation, also saying that they don't want to see any housing built unless it is affordable. even though that would be great, that we could spend our good chunk of our budget on building affordable housing. and we would not be building nearly enough. we also you know, see a lot of resistance to any different ways of looking at the kinds of different kinds of housing, in terms of sizes, and we see the resistance to legalizing inlaw units and i think that is a huge mistake for our city to not acknowledge the importance of inlaw units. so we see a lot of people talking about we want to have more affordbility and more options but every option has the pile on and it gets dragged down and so here we are with a market that is not working for anybody in this city, unless you are a home owner who bought a long time ago or a renter who

is fortunate enough to have rented a long time ago. >> i am hope to the changes to the lottery once it resumes again. i do not believe that we should be making changes that impact the current tic owners, which i think that those occur under the current legislation. it is one thing to have something where changes are purely prospective and i don't think that is what we have today, and i also do believe that it is a moratorium should be key off of the actual number of people who participate in the bypass because we do not know what that exact number will be. and i think one of the final speakers talked about that and one has nothing to do with the other and we know that the

moratorium has to be a minimum of ten years under the current proposal and can be higher than that depending on how many people participate in the bypass and so the two are link and i think that they should be linked and i don't think that there should be a minimum as there is today. so, i am hopeful, that in the next few weeks, there can be a continuing dialogue, i don't think that it is going to take a lot to get this into a form where i can support it. i think that there are a lot of good things that were put into this legislation as a result of the amendments last week. and but i can support, i can support all of it. so colleagues we, have two choice and do a roll call vote and put it out with no recommendation and i am open to either option. >> president chiu? >> this is not... i think that i would like it to go out with recommendation if that is possible, just so that folks know that there is real support for this.

i do understand supervisor weiner your concerns and had also heard from which you were ferrill's comments a lot of the same concerns, but i do think that given how many problems this legislation does address, i think that it is important to go out with some sense that there is real support from this committee, but i certainly appreciate the perspective that you raised. >> i would say given that if the motion is with the recommendation i will be voting against it, i want to be clear that that does not mean that there are not changes that can be made and perhaps not necessarily revolutionary changes but there are changes that can be made that i think would earn my support. also supervisor ferrill and i are co-sponsors of this and we agree on a few things, people should not assume that we agree on everything. and so, with that said, if there are no additional comments, madam clerk, will you please call the roll.

>> on the motion, item three as recommended. chiu. >> aye. >> chiu. >> kim. >> aye. >> weiner. >> no. >> we have two ayes and one no. >> the motion carries. >> madam clerk will you call item four. >> the resolution finding the development of sea wall lot 337 and pier 48 adjacent to at&t park, feasible and we will wait one second to allow everybody to clear the chambers.

>> we are on item number four and just i believe that my understanding is that we will need to continue this to the call of the chair and then president chiu will be transferring this to the budget committee to the termination of this hearing. >> that is my understanding from the conversations that my staff has had with the project sponsor and with the city departments >> thank you. >> and so, we will turn it over to phil williamson from the port. >> phil williamson, (inaudible) 48 development opportunity. and i am pleased to be before you today and thank you for having us and to make a

presentation to you about our see wall lot, 337 development project. my job today is to give you a brief overview of how we got to this state. introduce the team and layout for you what you will be hearing over the next 15 minutes. >> recognizing the hour and how long you have been here and we will try to keep this as short as possible and turn it over to questions and public comment >> this started ten years ago when the port looked at its needs and its assets and came up with a plan for developing some of our water front sea wall lots. there was a great deal of public process to come up with a combined rfq and rfp process for this site. many have come up with the objectives for those rfq and p, processes selecting 337 associate with llc and in 2009 entering into a exclusive agreement with that entity to

begin working on a two-phase, ena that we are almost at the end of phase one. and which will culminate in the board's hearing of the term sheet and the fiscal feasible in the coming weeks. once phase one is complete and we have that term sheet in hand and the feesbility in hand and we will commence the entitlement phase of the exclusive negotiation agreement and we anticipate that to being a two to three year process and we entitled the project and continue to meet with the public and continue our out reach to hone the out reach and to be responsive to what we are hearing from the community and all of the while fulfilling the port's goals for this site, a unique site and positioned to generate revenue and badly needed by the port to fulfill our capitol needs and need the city needs and basically to be responsive to the needs of the

community. going forward from here, i would like to just talk briefly about our team, and we have as you are aware, been working with the office of economic and workforce development along with the developer and initially it was a unique partnership but i think that it is becoming more common as we proceed with big projects on the water front to make sure that they are done in keeping with the city's needs as a whole. and today we have myself representing the port, mike martin, representing the office of economic and workforce development and the developer represented by jack bear and fran wilder from the giant's teams. and i would like to hand it over to talk about the structure and the development team after that. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors mike martin, office of