>> sure. right now when the legislation was amended by president chiu and supervisor yee several weeks ago the mechanism would set up that the lottery participants convert -- and i believe in years one and two and years through through six, the remaining tic owners are able to gradually convert. for those years three to 6tic's the owner occupancy length was extended to six years and this amendment as i understand it allows transfers of ownership for that pool of years three to six tic conversions and in other words could be comprises of succession of ownership and i think that is a positive amendment. i am appreciative of it. my amendment has to do with the new lottery after the 10 year moratorium, so it's a

similar mechanism but for the current and not the future tic's. >> and president chiu if you could also clarify again the suspension with lawsuit? what has been referred to as the poison pill, and i understand we clarify what happens when litigation occurs of this -- potential litigation occurs of this ordinance so i want to make sure i understand it correctly so if there is pending litigation conversions do continue for a period of time, but the 10 year suspension of lottery remains in place regardless whether we lose that litigation? >> so if the city loses a lawsuit then the 10 year suspension remains in place, but if the city is able to successfully win the lawsuit than the conversion program would continue. >> so if we lose the litigation

the conversion program would be pending or would freeze but the 10 year suspension would remain in place orderless? >> you know what i would like to do -- this is something the deputy city attorney spent time going back and forth and i would like him to explain. >> i am from the city attorney's office. the way it would work is if a lawsuit is filed to a subsection of the new 1396.4 or the 1396.5, also a new section, then the expedited process, the conversion process that was contemplate side suspended during the term of the lawsuit. if the city ends up losing that lawsuit the suspension of conversions would be in place for at least 10 years or for 10

years. if however the city is successful in that lawsuit -- excuse me -- the expedited process would resume. everything would be told so if it was three years of lawsuit people otherwise in the first year of the process who have been put on hold they are able to pick up at the end of the lawsuit if the city is successful. however, one of the things that we try to accommodate is that once there is a freeze on conversions there might be multiple property owners who are in the middle of the process somewhere and we wanted to think through how would we address those particular property owners and applicants? so what is in the proposed legislation is anybody who is mid-stream in the process if you can obtain a file

tentative map approval within six months of the date the lawsuit is served on the city you can proceed to convert, or if you are passed that point you can proceed to convert and you won't be affected by the suspension. however, if you only have a pending application at this point and not have arrived at that point within that six month period then you have the ability to a proaf d pw, you can ask for a refund of the conversion fee, any fee thaws submitted as application fees to the departments. otherwise your application is denied and the conversion process is frozen until the resolution of the lawsuit. >> and so -- is it possible for the judge to decide that we couldn't treat those

applications that way? is it up to his or her discretion at any point? >> what we attempted to do -- it's unclear how a judge would ultimately rule on this and if there was a judgment what they would order the city to do or not to do. what we attempted to do is provide some direction to give a court some tools how the city would like to see it unfold but we don't know how a judge would rule. >> i appreciate that. okay. thank you. >> and regarding the so-called poison pill this provision certainly better than the originally drafted version,. it's a little more focused. one question i have, so if someone files a lawsuit and the city loses then after 10 years the lottery would resume? there

would be no more accelerated conversions and after a 10 year moratorium the lottery comes back to life? is that correct? >> the new version -- >> of the lottery. so let's say we pass this and then on very quickly someone files a lawsuit and the wheels of justice turn rather quickly and the city loses if you have -- since in the new lottery five and six unit buildings are not includes does that mean someone with a five unit building who is in the lottery in 2013 and waiting for a long time, in the lottery in 2013. there is a quick court loss for us so they weren't in the position to get a tenant map and don't get it and wait the 10 years and they are permanently banned from converting. is that right? >> the way it's se w

don't have a provision to deal with that possibility. >> and that possibility -- that person -- some lawyers might think that person could file a lawsuit saying this is unconstitutional because you changed the rules on me in the middle of the game. a lawyer could file that lawsuit. >> certainly. >> and i know -- i don't want to put you in an awkward position, but it might be good to have advice on that aspect of it because there could be a situation where someone who is currently in the lottery today and bought on reliance of getting into the lottery is ineligible to get into the future lottery and couldn't get the map quick enough given the lawsuit that is filed. >> that's correct. >> okay. i would like advice

on that. any other comments colleagues? okay. we will open up the public comment then. are there any public comment cards? i have one card from bruce allison. >> [inaudible] >> okay. take your time. we will allow the other commenters to go first. >> eric brooks san francisco green party and our city. as we stated in the previous hearing we think the whole idea of flipping tic's and the condos should be eliminateed in san francisco. i mean what we should be voting on the board of supervisors within the next couple of weeks is ending the practice all together so there is no more incentive for this nonsense. with that said we do understand that tenants, advocates have been strongly involved in getting a fairly decent process to move forward to produce something they're

happy with, so i would say that from the -- even though from the green party standpoint what we really need is -- for you to push the state to repeal costa hawkins, repeal the ellis act as quickly as possible and in san francisco we make some serious moves to reopen and change the deadline for rent control so that we move the 96 date much closer it to today's date so we can get a much larger pool of rent control property in san francisco. with all that said what i would say about what you're considering sending to the board of supervisors is that if the tenant advocates do not support what reaches the board of supervisors it should absolutely not be voted yes on. the board of supervisors needs to oppose it, so unless the

tenant advocate vs buy in on this no way. >> >> that's the word. thanks. >> mr. collier. >> good afternoon. steve collier. housing clinic. i just wanted to address a couple of things. first of all in regards to the hypothetical lawsuit happened and the ordinance was struck down then the six unit or five or six unit owners would not be able do convert because the expedited process was suspended. well, understand the only thing that suspends the process is a lawsuit against the lifetime lease or the moratorium. okay. the lifetime lease is stricken down then no expedited conversions should happen because they're all bound together. in order to allow

expedited conversions we need the benefit of not only the moratorium but the lifetime lease so the ordinance hangs together that way. that is a matter of legislative intent to determine whether the 1396 would continue under the new form or under the old form. >> can i ask a question mr. collier? >> sure. >> let's assume that the court strikes down the lifetime lease but not the moratorium. >> right. >> under this poison pill -- if i may call it that -- there would be no conversions until the 10 year moratorium expires. is that right? >> yes, the balance of the ordinance. >> and when the lottery would come back it would come back with the new rules minus the lifetime lease since that was struck down. >> if the court interpreted that as being seferable, yes. >> that means five or six unit buildings let's say in the 2013

lottery are effectively permanently banned from converting assuming they couldn't get the tenant map within six months of filing of the lawsuit. >> correct. we're talking about changing the rules in 2024. we're not talking about changing the rules in a year from now because the rules -- they are only allowed to convert through an expedited process if the lifetime leases and moratorium are upheld. that's the balance otherwise there would be no legislation. >> right. but under that circumstance with just the lifetime leases struck down, and please correct me if i am misunderstanding this, that five or six unit building in the 2013 lottery has to wait until the 10 year moratorium is done and operate under the new rules and excludes those buildings and permanently barred from converting? >> yes. if the new lottery is

seferable, yes. people -- just because they have been in the lottery once doesn't mean they have the right to win the lottery in the future. >> right. i guess that would be a debate probably in a subsequent lawsuit i am assuming. okay. thank you. >>i also wanted to address -- if i have a little more time -- your proposed amendment which is -- we think that the existing three year continuous ownership requirement which is law now and continued under the new lottery makes a lot of sense. three years -- it's important for the purposes of maintaining stability of people in units and avoiding a market of condominiums or future condominiums, tic's which are future condominiums developed into a market of selling back

and forth with ever increasing chances of getting to condominium conversion. we want to try to avoid that kind of a marketplace which we think inflates the real estate values and bad for tenants. we also don't see much reason why two owner occupiers in a three unit building that lived there all three years continuously should have to compete people there one year and turned over and over again. we don't think that is fair to the people actually complying with the intent of this law which is to maintain principal residence, and because those owners -- the lottery so far has been over sold in many -- >> i think -- we paused it during my question. so the two

minutes is up. >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> right. >> [inaudible] >> thank you mr. collier. welcome. >> members of the committee. [inaudible] chinatown community center and we thank the members of the committee for giving us the time to work with those owners and members of real estate industry to come up with some revisions. we understand this is not a package that everyone supports but we feel like we addressed a lot of the concerns that have been expressed to us by tic owners. in particular we sought to accommodate those from the tenant side. i think with that being said and i think the changes that we propose have

really gone a long ways to address condominium owners concerns, but we think that -- and in particular the idea of allowing transfers of ownership within the context of the six or seven year conversion process makes sense given that these are units that have already been converted. they are now ownership units and allowing those transfers isn't going to fuel further speculation but we are concerned about extending that policy to the future lottery. as mr. collier referred earlier we don't see why that change in existing rules is a good idea from the stand point of public policy. it does not -- it actually disfavors, it disadvantages those owners who have maintained stable ownership over the period

of time in a competitive process such as the lottery opposed to the bypass process which is not competitive. there's a transferred property doesn't take a unit away or a conversion away from a unit which has been held for a long time. we think that the policy of favoring family -- [inaudible] >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. okay. so first we have president chiu's amendments. is there a motion to adopt those motions? >>i will make that motion. >> second. >> can we take those without objection? >> also i wanted to add my name to the legislation as well. >> okay. >> it's already adding added.

>> it was? >> i don't think it's been added. >> i'm sorry. >> add supervisor kim as a co-sponsor. can we make that motion to amend without objection? so ordered and colleagues in terms of the amendment that i have circulated -- while i understand the responses from mr. collier and others given the increase in owner occupancy which i am willing to support in the legislation, i think that it makes sense to allow there to be transfers of ownership and under what i am proposing it couldn't be more frequently than three years so you don't see the continual transfer of ownership. i know people for many reasons are living in any kind of housing situation at times need to move or need to sell and

under the current version before us if you are in theoretical future lottery for eight or 10 years -- let's say it's a three-four unit building any change by any of the occupants for any of the unending reasons that people need to move or sell would put them to the back of the line and given that we're increasing owner occupancy i think this is an appropriate change to accompany that increasing owner occupancy that we're requiring so what i would request is that we duplicate the file and put this amendment into one but not the other. continue both because i understand it must be continued under president chiu's amendments so in two week when is we come back

we can forward one or the other at that time and not have to make an amendment that might require a further continuance if that the direction that we're going so i am curious to know the feedback on that, and i don't think by duplicating the file and in this and not the other i don't think that indicates support at this time for doing that. it is to preventus unnecessary continuances and hopefully reach a resolution. >> i appreciate the amendment that you offered supervisor wiener and i know this is challenging and what was discussed between the parties and i understand what you're trying to achieve is allow for some exchange of ownership but the concern they have is that this is a proposal that would start to disinnocent the continuance. >> >> ownership between

individuals in tic arrangement that trust each other and i would be concerned that this kind of requirement might lead to additional speculation among strangers that want to get into the market and move things forward. one aspect they like and the requirements and that got to the objections of what was a blanket tacking rule and at this time this is not language i can support. with that being said just to keep this idea alive for the next week i am okay with duplicating the file as you suggested but i'm stating at this time i wouldn't support this language moving out of committee and my hope in another discussions if there are additional ways to address it it's something to

consider but i don't plan to support this version when it comes to back to committee in two weeks from now. >> okay. thank you. p -- supervisor kim. >> i wouldn't support it in two weeks or today and do we have to vote in that amendment in today to prevent a continue nance two weeks? >> >> john gib ner, deputy city attorney. if you made this amendment two weeks from now or a similar type of tacking amendment two weeks from now it would require a one week continuance for another hearing and more public comment so i think the suggestion is make that amendment now and one of the versions in the file to avoid the continuance two weeks from now. >> okay. and our commitment is -- i guess we're having a

discussion in committee. i would really hate to send out two pieces of legislation to the full board and not a good place to put our colleagues in. >> i think a number of issues i'm not on the majority on this committee so ultimately nothing would get out unless we have two members supporting it. if this wasn't a substantive amendment i would be happy to wait the two weeks but given how many hearings we had and the issue i raised about the backlog of this committee's work and trying to be efficient with the resources. >> and again i appreciate it. and just to be clear i do not plan to support the amendment if it's in the language two weeks from now but for the sake of minimizing an additional hearing and depending where the conversations go i am okay with duplicating the file. >> okay. we will duplicate the

file and without objection take it into one but not the other version? okay. that is the order. and then is there a motion to continue both versions of item eight, the two versions of item eight? is there a motion to continue those items to the next regular land use committee meeting on monday june 3 as amended? >> so moved. >> okay. can we take that without objection? so ordered and just to clarify it's june 3, correct? >> yes. >> thank you colleagues. madam clerk is there any other business before the committee? >> no. there are no other matters. >> then we are adjourned.

>> special. >> good morning today is wednesday may 15, 2013 this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. the first item is roll call (calling names) we have a quorum

>> thank you all for coming here this morning. the commission has congratulations for the senior clerk who is retiring after 29 years. and acting director paid tribute to her and good luck shirley with argue retirement and your you invaluable service to the d b i p the commission thanks the building inspector neil who was thanked publicly in a letter to the san francisco chronicle on may of the building inspectors nothing but helpful.

thank you it's good when we get something good out of the chronicle. and a customer sent in a thank you card your compassion and kindness restored my faith in people your obviously a busy guy calming me down and let me walk out of this with dignities and smiling. thank you steve for air customer service. congratulations and thanks to evelyn who provided great customer service.

and congratulations to kari who provided auto standing customer service to a person who sent acting director a letter thanking kari for her professionals and another one to commissioner who participated at the annual festival the staff and commissioners r07bd to many questions about the permit and code inspection process. and a reminder in early june the staff will receive a nomination for more outstanding employee

awards were p. and that concludes my announcements madam secretary. and comments? okay seeing none. >> just as a requirement the public may commit not to exceed 3 minutes and the remarks should be made to the commission as a whole. >> again, this is general comments. >> good morning tom san francisco fire department i want to let you know since i've been coming to your meetings i'm going to be retiring in june so i have 31 years but i've had 20

plus good years working with the staff it wasureau building inspectors. and anyway, i think about leave the folks we helped to get the sprinkle ordinance that was the best achievements working with the community to get that done. the lady in the back is helpful to try to make thing work and we always cooperated with the c schedules sometimes, the scheduled with change its table and he'd be behind the times on that. but i enjoyed