fundamental misunderstanding of some of the points that are raised in this proposal and i do worry that we are not going to have enough time to have a meaningful analysis of what each proposal means going forward. so i am worried, i am worried that we are talking about coming back in early may. when i do think that there is an actual disconnect between how the planning department is reading what is being proposed and what actually is intended to be proposed and there is a difference of opinion between that and the city attorney. so, really think that this is a very critical time in the history of san francisco and the very question that is before us, goes to the heart of who gets to leave live in san francisco. we may think that we are talking about it. it is fundamental question, if we don't do this right, in five

or 15 or ten years that the city will look different than what it looks like today. >> thank you supervisor campos. i have a couple of comments. so, campos, i agree that people are not stopping me on the street and in the grocery store to talk about sequa reform and talk about the appeal process. but i will tell you what people do stop me on the street and the grocery store and elsewhere to talk about, is a deep, deep, frustration about how community benefiting projects, parks, libraries, bike improvement, pedestrian safety improvement, affordable housing. a deep frustration about how incredibly long and how expensive it is to get these communities benefiting projects done. it is the people are deeply frustrated. what they do stop me about is

why isn't my park getting fixed up so quickly, i voted for a bond, years and years ago and it is still not being improved. why is my library in north beach, why did it take so long for that project to get under way? why don't i have bike safety improvements yet? why did that take so long? it is not about sequa specifically, it is about the process that we have in place to make posive changes in our community and that is what the people are frustrated about and what people stop me and i am sure all of us about in terms of that frustration. so let's not pretend that this is just about sequa. it is a process that we have that we have in place around projects that have potentially huge benefit for neighborhoods and for our city and i don't think that it is accurate to just refer to it as ceqa, as

opposed to ceqa that effects all of these important things that people care about. >> i agree with supervisor kim that it is not about making the life easier for the planning department or reducing the work load. of course the staff has to do the work that they need to do and they have the staffing to do whatever work is appropriate. it is about coming up with a process that works for our community. and i happen to believe that you know allowing appeals of categorical exceptions, potentially, multicodes, where

we need to have better and more comprehensive noticing. and so what i don't want to happen is to do some changes around ceqa noticing and then wash our hands and pronounce it as solid, it is not. it is a broader discussion. and finally the number of exemption appeals, and we don't have to reduce the number of appeals. my goal has never been to cut down on the number of appeals, in fact the planning department has indicated that we may see an increase in the number after peels ppeals. >> but, the fact that so many

people on all sides have been so passionate about this debate, says to me that this is important, this is not a solution searching for a problem or whatever the phrase is, some people have used. how we deal with these appeals matters everyone's view. and so it is important. so, supervisor kim? >> thank you. >> i was about to just add a couple of quick things, first of all our legislation is going to the planning commission this thursday but what we are required to be heard by is the historic planning commission and so that will be heard on may 15th. because they don't have a may first meeting in may. so if we could continue this to may 20th that would be ideal because those legislations will be ready to be acted upon, whatever the legislation is for at least there will be that option that would be out there. and the second thing is that i really hope that during this time period, we will be able to explore what we can do on the

front end, again, to support the projects that we as a city seem to informally agree with the priorities whether they are the bike lanes or the affordable housing. >> while largely, it has not have seemed to have been an issue the last three years and we had one affordable housing. and one bike lane pedestrian safety exemption appealed in the last three years, there is a perception that we are not doing enough to support these types of projects. i would like to say that i think that there are other processes in place that actually hold these processes up. while they are reforming ceqa we might as well figure out what he can do to expedite the three projects that uniformty throughout the city that we would like to see move forward. hopefully during that time period, we can explore how to include that legislation that moves forward. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> so, is there, we have now

amended the legislation. >> we make a motion to continue this to the next land use meeting which i understand is may the 6th and i understand that we will have many conversations with the public on this and look forward to that discussion. >> the motion is to continue the item two weeks to may the 6th which is our next land use meeting and we do not have a land use meeting next month. so, supervisor kim? >> well, i support the continuance, i would like it to may 20th. not just because my legislation will be ready for action at land use, but also because i really would like the time to explore what has been suggested recently, which is that we include ways of expediting projects that we all care about, pedestrian safety, affordable housing, through this legislation as well. i am sure that if we can get there in two weeks, but i think that additional time would be helpful. >> i will be supporting the

motion for a continuance. in terms of that specific point about how we prioritize different projects. that is i think is a very significant discussion about the planning department resources and a lot of people will have an interest in that including folks in the affordable housing community and folks in labor and others, and so that strikes me as a discussion that may go beyond the legislation, but it certainly is worth talking about. >> do we need a roll call vote? >> would you call the roll on the motion to continue? >> item one as amended to may 6, 2013. >> chiu. >> aye. >> kim? >> no. >> weiner? >> aye. >> mr. chair we have two alicia winterstein two aye and one no. >> the motion passes.

could you call number three? >> what action on two? >> continued to may sixth of this year. i am sorry you are right about that. so, on item number two, i suggest that we also continue that to may 6th. >> yes. >> so, item number two, which is an informational item on supervisor kim's legislation it is our motion to continue that to may 6th as well. >> yes. >> and could we take that without objection? >> that will be item two is continued to may 6th. >> thank you. >> item three? >> ordinance amending subdivision code to adopt the condo conversion impact fees amply able to certain buildings that would be permitted to convert during a six year period and subject to specified requirements... >> super

supervisor ferril,. >> i appreciate those who are here on this item. i know that the item is continuous to the amendments and will going to the full board in the early may meeting. last week i agreed with the sponsor to amend into my original legislation under the ospices and the hope that we can work together and find common ground, both the advocates as well as tenant advocates. again, to repeat, some of my comments from last week, but my goal in this legislation has always been three-fold. one to protect and help vulnerable members in san francisco that in true regards as to what supervisor campos mentioned earlier represents the families here. and they need our support in city hall and continue to fight for them through the legislation and otherwise. >> second of all to protect the

tenants that are in these buildings, and i know that there has been a lot of commentary about addiction and that is not something that i support or any of the co-sponsors do not support. and to create a large pool of money for the house ng san francisco. as has been commented that is one of our dire needs in our city and this legislation will do exactly that. however, we have only had a chance in the last week to meet once, together, and on both sides and as we can do more but regardless we have time between now and the full board meeting and my still hope is that we continue to meet together to find a resolution that avoids lawsuits and ballot issue and really in particular continues the spirit of working together on the home ownership side and the tenant advocacy side here in san francisco to attack what

is our largest issue in terms of housing and that is affordable housing going forward. it is something sha we demonstrated as a community and something that i would hate to see fall apart and i hope that both sides can come together. however, to be clear in its current form, this is not anything that i would support and i would be voting against this at the full board in may. and to highlight a few issues in particular, there are a number of them. that both sides are speaking about right now. but, i want to highlight a few of them. first of all, it is contrary to what we are trying to achieve. >> and having the 200 and the number of years that the lottery is suspended in the future and to me it is something that makes sense on the both sides and a lot of people that take advantage of the legislation and then there is a longer legislation on the back end. both parties either way win. >> if there is a shorter, excuse me, if there is a

smaller group of people, then a shorter suspension moving forward. >> the number of the advocates in san francisco, is that if you put so many restrictions as we have done on this legislation, and minimum more tore um what you are doing is basically creating a tile where note as many people are going to take advantage and you have a moratorium in the future. to me as well as to a number of the advocates this unworkable and something that we should not be getting through on the legislation. first of all, we can see the requirements moving forward. i support the requirements in three and four unit buildings which will be included in the lotteries going forward once the suspense lifts and however, to mandate three occupants continue to maintain

eligibility throughout the lottery to me is a back doorway, and it is not something that i would support. and lastly, in terms of the current population of the tic owners, the legal legislation reads right now in years one and two the current lottery applicants will be divided between years one and two and be allowed to be taken advantage of the bypass and all other current owners will be allowed to take advantage of the bypass, however, and to increase it to 6 years instead of the current three years, we are changing the rules of the game midstream for the people that boat the tics over the past number of years and again hope to convert and if they are going to take advantage of the bypass or want to take advantage of it will not be allowed to do so. in addition anybody who bought tic in the last year, dating

back to april 16, 2012 will not be allowed to convert under the current system. i am not pretending that either side was going to have what they want in the legislation and i think that it is something that both sides will have to agree to find a middle ground here and something that i support and continue to work in good faith and make that happen but the way that the legislation right now it is not something that i would support, thanks. >> thank you. supervisor ferrell if you could silence your cell phones. >> president chiu? >> and i want to take a moment to thank the members of the public who have engaged very heavily on this in recent months and years, but as i have said before, i did not support the original version of the

legislation that was in front of us. i certainly appreciate the intent of the legislation to address the part of the tic owners stuck in the challenging financial situations and want to thank supervisor ferrell for the work for move this forward but from my perspective the first version created the wrong incentives for investments and i want to thank all of the tenant organizations and leaders who worked with my office and with others, to help move forward, the version that we have in the committee today. i think that the version that we have in front of us really not only helps to protect our san francisco owners and help to address the plate of tic owners who have been stuck in the system without creating additional incentives for future real estate speculations that i don't think that anyone thinks has been good within

this market. so, with that, i obviously do support the version that we introduced last week. i do understand that there are ongoing conversations between the organization and supervisor ferril's office and look forward about whether those conversations lead to any additional information or changes, but at this point, i am very supportive of the version that we have in front of us and hope to move it out to hit the full board on may 7th. >> thank you, supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. chair, i am not on this commit thank you by i wanted to make a couple of comments before this hearing proceeds. as i noted earlier i happen to represent district nine the board of supervisors. and we are seeing a lot of change and challenges for many residents in my district, especially in the mission.

and in my general respect, the intent behind the original legislation that supervisor ferrill and weiner have introduced. but i you know respectfully, and fundamentally disagree with whether or not allowing for more tic conversions is the right thing for san francisco right now. for many of us, who have been fighting this issue for so many years, our preference from the beginning has been that no change is made to the existing system. that said, i do think that the proposal and the compromise that has been put forward by president chiu and supervisor yee and has been worked on by many members of this community, it is a compromise that truly reflects the very best effort that the community can make to find that middle ground and i believe that this compromise goes pretty far, in fact, father than i think that many

people want it to go. and so i will support that compromise as it is currently written. but i think that if that compromise changes, you will find the situation where many people who are here today, and in support of this amendment and this proposal will not be able to support it moving forward. i do believe that this is truly the community saying that we want to meet you as far as we can. and i want to thank chiu and yee for making those changes which i think really reflect the very much last offer from this community. and so in that spirit i will be supporting this compromise and hope that we get to a point where this is (inaudible). >> thank you, supervisor campos, i would just briefly note that when we set the amendments last week, we did so, saying that we were all

going to take a look at it and there are aspects of the amended legislation that i think are very positive and i think that i can definitely support. and i do have some concerns as well. including as he mentioned that the suspension of the lottery will be a minimum of ten years regardless of how many units participate. and in addition to changing the rules for lottery, participants or tics and instead of giving them the option of staying in the lottery or bypassing changing the rules for them and so, i have some concerns there. so i looked forward to the public comment and the discussion today. and i hope that whatever happens today, i hope that we can come to a true resolution that both sides can accept. i will say that in the past

week, i have been contacted by quite a few tic owners who would be eligible for participate who have expressed deep concerns not for their benefit because the amended version benefits them or allow them to benefit but because of the broader issue about how other tic owners in existence today would fare. i look forward to a discussion. >> colleagues, if there are no additional comments we will move into public comment. do we have an overflow? >> we have an overflow and we

will bring people up when there is space available. >> susan whies berg and mer vin wo ng, tina change and i apologize in advance for miss promounsing names. lorenso lastana. patty lee. and derek sorata. >> go ahead and it will be two minutes. >> thank you supervisors. my name is susan wisberg and i am a long time renter and rent resident of san francisco. san francisco does not need more condos, contrary that home ownership is the american

dream, many people do not want to own homes or cannot. over the 43 years that i have happily been a renter i have seen the renting become more and more impossible for the people who have made the city the diverse place that it has been. one of the ways this has happened is the loss of affordable rental stock to condo conversion. this leads to evictions followed by tic converted to condos. >> next speaker? >> hi my name is mer vin and i leave in the building in the

district eight with my 75-year-old disabled mom. and recently they speculate a call (inaudible) bought my property and (inaudible) they said that i received a letter from the attorney, stating that they intent on converting my building. and (inaudible) issue a notice of violation so far nothing has

been fixed. (inaudible) no intentions to fix anything and every intention to put more money into their pockets. when i read the (inaudible) and the lady who leaves just a few blocks from me, (inaudible) and provide public accountability for buildings. and looking to the business practices. (inaudible). >> thank you, next speaker.

>> (inaudible) [ speaking in a foreign language ] >> good afternoon i represent the asian association, our members are elderly tenants living in parts of san francisco. we have 30 members present today because this is an important issue for us. we are concerned about this legislation because it could jeopardize the existing rent controlled housing that our city desperately needs to preserve. >> [ speaking in a foreign language ]

>> we have 100 and opening up the flood gate is like putting more gasoline on fire. (inaudible) they will be (inaudible) allow that separate tenants are low income and will not be able to afford other places, i have done this before and we need to be sure that the families will not be forced to

move away from the city. >> [ speaking in a foreign language ] >> it will limit the lottery requirement and reduce the incentives for the tent ants will slow down the stock. i urge the board to take the renter's needs into consideration and the amendments that will not hurt the tenants thank you. >> thank you.

>> next speaker? >> (inaudible) i lived in the mission for about 40 years as a renter. i was evicted twice in the 80s and 90s but it was devastating but at that time you could find affordable house and now it is not possible any more for seniors with people with disability and low income and the rents have risen more than 16 percent in 2012, i am sure that it is a lot more now because it is rising with the tsunami of rich, young tech people coming into the mission. the evictions have doubled in the past year. the motivation is that it is profitable to sell the tenants and tell them as tics >> i am a nurse and we take

care of the people who have the fewest options and i think that is a good thing to follow as a government too. the people have read the san francisco chronicle article in march about the increase in homeless families in san francisco. many people or 10,000 people are homeless in san francisco and many people are losing their homes through foreclosures. winters are going to become an endangered species and the google will pass by saying there is another endangered species like going to the zoo. i support all of the amendments and any strong protections. so that people will be able to stay in san francisco, keep their homes, keep the medical care and their neighbors, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> and before we start the clock. for the folks in the overflow, we had a bunch of seats open up, i think that we have enough seats to accommodate the folks at this point.