historic preservation commission last wednesday and it did come out unanimously with the recommendations of the planning department, but also asking the planning department to further study two issues. one is kind of the distinctions between first and final approval and the second was actually reconsidering bringing back landmarking as one of the approvals that is allowed while an appeal is pending, so that was something that we actually took out in our substitute legislation. the hpc asked us to reconsider that issue and they did also mention if there were a discrete of controls -- i'm sorry, approvals that planning felt kind of had a policy need to continue on while the appeal is pending that they would consider that as well. >> thank you supervisor kim and also for clarification the clerk's proposed amendments are to both pieces of legislation

and are they to both supervisor kim's legislation or just one of the two? mr. cal dera. >> good afternoon supervisors. it's international nuts and bolts we would like on both part was legislation. because you included the reservation of sending to the planning department and making the determination within three working days and add a provision by any other department making determinations just to clarify the planning departments but not just for their determinations or other departments that are makingditions and ties up with page nine of the legislation and any departments are provide them with the ordinance -- >> thank you and i am supportive of the clerk's recommended

amendments. my question now is supervisor kim has two pieces of legislation, items six and seven, and the questions are these amendments for both of supervisor kims or just one? >> just for six. >> just for six. okay. it's for items five and my legislation then and supervisor kim's six. >> we have nothing for seven, no. >> i forgot to speak about item seven. i apologize just for the sake of the public. item number seven we did split the file on this piece because this came out of conversations how the public can contest or have a discussion about modifications of projects when they get exemption determinations so we did introduced separate piece of legislation regarding whether how those appeals would be taken and we had written into the legislation that the appeals would go to the planning commission. if members of the public would like to appeal the

modification of the ero. again we are very open in the conversations around that. we split the file because the item is required to go back to the planning commission, so that's why we made that separation, but again i think we really want to figure out how we deal with modifications and for a way for the public to understand when a modification occurs or not so if it's outlined in a way that everyone understands that is one way to deal with it. we haven't come up with that language so far and we have a way for members of the public to appeal that. >> so there are potentially multiple appeals of modifications but go to the planning commission instead of the board of supervisors? >> it would go to the planning commission and this is when a department actually refers something to planning. it's not that members of the public get

to decide but if it's referred to the planning department this is done by other departments when they feel that is the case and the ero makes a determination whether the previous exemption covers this modification or whether he or she needs to issue a new exemption determination. if he or she does not members of the public would have a right to appeal, just that decision, not the ceqa, but whether the modification occurred if that makes sense. >> so if there were -- for clarification if there were five such modifications that the ero determined within the original one each of the modifications are appealable to the planning commission? >> that would be the case but i'm not sure awe often departments do that and of course that is a discussion our departments can have them with each other when they think that a modification is substantive

enough for the ero to look at it and i assume they don't frivolous send them if they don't have to. >> okay thank you. i have a very different perspective on that. i think whether you're appealing to the planning commission or the board of supervisors this would still potentially allow multiple or numerous, depending on the project, appeals in the middle of construction, but i understand your perspective and i think it's an on going dialogue that we have on that particular subject, so the planning department staff is here, and we did receive memos from the department relating to the planning commission and the historic preservation commission recommendations on supervisor kim's legislation. can you explain that? >> that's correct. i have additional copies for the public if you anyone would like to

see. there are two memos. the first -- actually one was -- the first is a memo from our department to this body in response to the planning commission when they reviewed supervisor kim's ordinance they ask we look into four additional items and notification and feasibility thereof. they want to know if it's difficult or possible to do these determinations. they wanted more information about this idea of allows or not ax allowing project approval while pending and discussion on affordable housing. this memo i think covers all those topics and i think this committee might find on pages two-three and the timeline for additional notifications with both of the proposals before you today, and then the second item is the

historic preservation commission's resolution after reviewing supervisor kim's ordinance last week. like she said they recommended approval of certain portions and disapproval of other portions and this goes through the specifics and includes the executive summary which the commission supported and you will find a point by point approval or disapproval and they supported these recommendations and asked for three additional topics to be explored. one, they asked for the planning staff to provide analysis that further clarifies the differences between the two proposals as they have currently and up-to-date in the future as amended, and number two, they asked that the legislation should allow this landmark decision to move forward while appeal is pending and finally they thought it needed further

clarification about the hpc's role during appeals, so that's the recommendation and it's before this body. we are happy to answer questions. >> thank you very much. i want to -- with regard to allowing landmark to proceed while ceqa appeal is pending and even though i have disagreements aspects of the legislation as do the planning commission and the hpc i am appreciative of that removing of the landmark and i think we should be consistent. my legislation had other approvals could continue during the appeal to the board of supervisors and as long as no physical changes to the property. on supervisor's motion it was removed and i supported that for the sake of moving forward even though i think the better policy is to allow the non physical

processes to move forward. if we're going to remove that provision we should be consistent and not have a random acception for one thing and i appreciated when supervisor kim provided that constituency in the legislation. so if there are no further comments we have public comment and two sets of amendments on the table, amendments from the clerk for items five and six and an amendment from supervisor kim for item six only. and so do we have public comment cards? i have one public comment card from bernie jordan. you can come up and if there is someone else that would like to make public comment we have blue cards in the front. come on up. >> thank you again and i san francisco tomorrow. bernie

[inaudible]. i wish to make three comments. the first it is necessary for the city to conform to state law regarding ceqa regarding the priority of -- of tu ledge of impactablity. it's not in your legislation. it's required by state law. cumulative impact. everything that happens in terms of an associated project. it's not in any of your legislation but it is in the state's legislation. secondly, the study of appeal deadlines at this point of 30 days is arbitrary, and it is certainly litigatable by measured impact by running count by the very planning authorities. that is not happening. third, we have a

race in effect to the gallows making things more appealable to basically [inaudible] hearing body. that needs to be corrected at the same time as opening and safe guarding the appeals process, and by the way since we're measuring popular appeal, i represent a list of associations and popular support far more numerous than supervisor wiener's. thank you. >> mr. brooks. >> good afternoon supervisors. eric brooks representing san francisco green party, local grass-roots organization our city and as the coordinator of the community ceqa improvement team. clearly there are a lot of issues being debated what are sort of three versions of the legislation. we of course still weigh heavily in version of

supervisor kim's legislation and also supervisor chiu's direction that he's heading with amendments, but with that said even though there are a lot of different issues kicking around that are important especially with noticing and how it's going to happen really we're starting to get a good compromise on the table with the exception of one key issue and it's the one we keep things bringing it up and trigger on the last approval. what supervisor kim is now interestingly putting forward and a final approval which is different -- by the way i would flip the description of that and call it -- this is just an idea, the first approval for a whole project that is going to trigger physical changes or dbi permits, something to that effect. but anyway it looks like we're heading to a place where the

coalition, the community is still being asked to compromise and take an appeal trigger much earlier in the process than we think are healthy and for that we need some guarantees and the biggest guarantee is we need a guaranteed if there are substantial modifications and we will make sure and get good language laid out so we don't have the minor thing that they're not reporting to planning but when there are substantial modifications we have to be able to appeal that if it's something real and you have to give us that and we've had a good cooperative process here. let's keep it that way. thanks. >> is there any public comment on items five, six, and or seven? mr. welch. >> my name is calvin welch san francisco clearing house. i am speaking on the proposed

amendment by supervisor kim. i am in support of the amendment and taken with the language in her proposed ordinance we now have a proposal to prioritize affordable housing application and pre-application process under ceqa that will take a maximum of six months. given all of the reviews that are under way that is acceptable to cases that -- nonprofits have face in this town of taking two years before a final evaluation is made. i have to conclude by saying i am somewhat disappointed by the may 20 memo of sara jones and director rahm in regards to the affordable housing housing prioritization. it seems odd to me that in the

context of affordable housing that the director and acting environmental review officer would raise the objection that "every project is different making it impractical to dictate specific timelines for decision making." how stark in contrast to their position on virtually every other aspect of this amendment which is aimed at creating predictablity and specific timelines for all projects under ceqa. it seems odd to me that they would want quibble with this one on those grounds around affordable housing but that is the position they take, and i guess it's not of great importance that it's disappointing to me but i would conclude by supporting the proposed amendment. thank you. >> thank you. is there any

additional public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] so as an additional matter we have these amendments. perhaps we should just take them unless president chiu would like to speak first? >> sure. are you talking about the -- >> the technical amendments that were proposed. >> yes on supervisor kim's happy to support that. on the clerk's i am happy to support that and city attorney i don't know if you had a chance to look at them but one thing i was going to say -- we are still looking at other amendments and happy to include this in another round of amendments on this but wanted to check with the city attorney. are you comfortable with it? >> based on review they seem fine. they're minor clarifications for the amendments. >> we might as well take them. if the city attorney has tweaks

i am sure there will be opportunities, so we have amendments by supervisor kim to her item number six and then we have amendments from the clerk for items five and six. is there a motion to adopt those amendments? >> so moved. >> okay. can we take that without objection? that will be the order. okay. president chiu. >> thank you. i want to thank both of our colleagues, planning and staff and city attorney and all of the stakeholders doing all of this work in the recent weeks and months. i was a bit optimistic that today was going to be the day to bring this together. this is complicated stuff and i have been engaged in a lot of meetings with various stakeholders and the planning department and others to see if we can continue to narrow the amendments to this legislation, and i don't think we're there yet, but it's my hope within a week or two we will have amendments that i think reflect

what the various stakeholders can agree on and we can simply decide up or down on the remaining issues that we have left so my suggestion is colleagues we put off the items to the call of the chair with my suggestion at one or two weeks but leave it at the call of the chair and i want to thank the patience of the chair and the legislative on this measure and the public as we wrestle with these difficult issues. >> thank you. and i am fine with doing that. what i would like to just note is that this is -- since this is the fifth hearing on ceqa on this legislation and the next hearing is number six if there are amendments that are substantive then there is a seventh hearing. between ceqa and the legislation the calendar of this committee

has gotten seriously backlogged and we have been delaying and delaying a number of items and now june is really backed up, so it is my intent for going forward for ceqa potentially to call special land use committee meetings probably limited to ceqa. the land use committee does not meet next week because of the memorial holiday and the next meeting is two weeks from today. i believe that is june 3 if i am not mistaken so i suggest that we continue this to the call of the chair. it would be my intention either to call a special meeting next week or the following week. we will work with the city attorney just to see what the amendments -- if any are ready, and one other option is that we could start -- if the timing works out start the june 3 land use meeting at 10:00 a.m. instead of 130, so

right now the next land use committee meeting is monday june 3. if we call a special meeting or if we call -- start the june 3 meeting earlier at 10:00 a.m. we would provide the required notices. if anyone is interested you can call my staff to find out where we are on that. does that make sense colleagues? okay. so do we have a motion then to continue items five, six and seven to the call of the chair? >> so moved. >> okay. and take that without objection? that would be the order. okay. item number eight. >> item number eight is an ordinance amending the subdwigdz code to adopt condominium conversion impact fee applicable to certain buildings to convert during a six year period and suspend the condominium conversion lottery until 2024

and restrict future lotteries to more than four units and specified number of owner occupied units. >> supervisor farrell is unable to be here today so this legislation since it was sent back to committee and continued. i know there have been a lot of discussions going i believe from what i know is going on president chiu has amendments today. >> thank you mr. chair and i do have a number of amendments and as we discussed what has been another challenging topic and i want to thank the tenets side and representatives of individuals who wish to see the conversions of these units. i do have a number of amendments that have come out of conversations over the last few weeks with the various parties and i would like to go through them. there are essentially eight categories of amendments to fine tune this legislation and address the various issues

that have been raised around them. i want to thank the deputy city attorney john mallet who has been working with the parties to move this forward there is additional language in the legislation to clarify the intent to adopt the legislative program. secondly there are provisions around the topic of ownership and allow existing owners who have applied for the process transfer the units without using eligibility for conversions which we heard from owners. the third set of amendments around expedited conversion to make sure we're dealing with the full universe of folks currently in the lottery or have been in tic's. one portion would extend the process for a seventh year and right now it's six and we would add one more year and add those

ownered in that period listed or under contract but not yet closed escrow. there are provisions to allow the most senior pool of the lottery to convert without further conditions. the fourth set of amendments have to do with a current requirement of 10 year hold on conversions and it would establish a process for buildings that have completed the legislation that has a 10 year hold on conversions to convert to condominium through the expedited process or the lottery. fifth set concerns lifetime leases and the language simplifies the requirements for owners to comply with these provisions. sixth set of amendments deals with evictions under the future lottery and accommodate owners in the future lottery by allowing one per

building by the owners and evictions to vacate units because of the need to demolish a unit or other safety issues. the next set of amendments concerns the requirement around a suspension with a lawsuit and clarifies that the section addressing the litigation to allow conversions to continue to for a period of time even in the event of a lawsuit that challenges the law and if the city loses the lawsuit that the 10 suspension stays in place and if the city wince the lawsuit it would resume. the last amendment to the legislation would address the senior buildings lost in the 2013 condominium conversion lottery and it would simply add a process to allow these buildings that represent 19 units in total and convert on

january 1, 2014 and independent of procedures in the legislation. these amendments are really to address the concerns that we have heard from tic owners and others with the legislation really trying to fine tune and address and refine the legislative proposal that we've had and with that colleagues i hope that we can support and adopt these amendments here in committee and then move this legislation back out of committee out to the full board. >> thank you president chiu and i want to say i really appreciate the work by many people that has gone into this. i think there has been a constructive dialogue and the amendments move in a positive direction in terms of addressing some very tangible concerns so i'm very appreciative of that. this legislation for me is definitely much closer to legislation that i can support. there is one item that i know

was discussed and is not included in this legislation and that has to do with the issue of ownership transfers for the revised lottery after the 10 year or minimum 10 year moratorium and specifically in terms of given that the new lottery have an increased threshold of owner occupancy of three, units to -- excuse me, three unit occupied units and two for three unit buildings. it would be my desire to have one additional amendment that would allow for transfers of ownership not to interrupt the owner occupancy levels under current law and i believe as the amendments are drafted if there say transfer in ownership in the revised lottery that would then

disqualify -- not disqualify, but put the building to the back of the line again. they would need to restart the participation in the lottery. that doesn't benefit tenants. it simply makes it very, very challenging for owners, 200 units maximum will convert each year regardless so the amendment i am proposing doesn't increase the number of conversions. it just has to do with the order of conversions. it will be very challenging for me to support the legislation as amended today by president chiu. with that additional amendment i am very open to supporting the legislation and so i distributed the amendment to you colleagues. i have some extra copies here for the clerk for members of the public. it is an amendment to

page 14, section 1396e and it states "for purposes of this section a unit that "occupied continuously" and defined by owner of record with the three year period without intrupgdz of occupancy and as long as the owners occupy it hases principal place of residence not less than one year subject to application and occupied continuously by owner of record maybe cohave ad to new owner of record and occurs not more than once every three years and the last phrase is important and the transfer couldn't happen more frequently than once every three years and i want that amendment on the table and it's my hope we can include that amendment, or in

the alternative after we adopt president chiu's amendments to duplicate the file and put this amendment into one and not the other and forward both so we don't have to have continuances in the event that we do have agreement on the amendment i've proposed in the future. i don't know if that made sense but that is the suggestion that i have. supervisor kim. >> i'm looking through all of the amendments now, and there's -- there seems to be somewhat a parallel, and so i would like to ask what this would clarify regarding supervisor chiu's second amendment which is transfer of ownership. it does allow current tic owners waiting to apply for the process and transfer the units without losing eligibility for conversion so could you clarify what it would do on top of that? >> 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