up until now i stood out in the background. i've listened to people and i've wanted to first of all, start off for thanking my colleagues to get us to a level of compromise. i know this has been a challenge to bring many of the parties that have come to the table to come up with a way to and number 2 protect the tenants that are renting in those developments and preserve our low amount of affordable rent control units that are left here in san francisco. so i want to thank everyone that had a role to play in this.

and i just wanted to just read a bit of a statement based on my biggest southern with the existing legislation and my session in terms of what i'd like to propose in an effort to move this item forward >> currently the legislation protects tenants living until ti c's sz by providing them with lifetime leases and renter buy outs by stopping the conversion lottery for 10 years. it says the buildings are not cannibalizing larger building

that raises affordable housing to help san franciscans find housing in san francisco. and it helps the middle class to keep their homes. this is the current amended legislation as a matter of public policy. i'm truly impressed with the bill before us. specifically section 7 the last part of the bill in one oman files a lawsuit someone could file a lawsuit the day after this law there would be no way to reduce mortgage rates and the thousands even if folks will face another 10 years of hardship. the tic owners are not wealthy.

we all agreed to help the tic owners. we created legislation to achieve that goal but in the event of a lawsuit it makes the situation when i believe is far 0 worse. some have argued we need not worry about this because no one is going to sue but i oversee lawsuits all the time. when in doubt people sue. i'm not comfortable leaving this on the assumes that no one will sue. this is california and we should prepare as though someone is going to sue. we have a 1 hundred and 80 wait and i appreciate this wait but i

can't say that the 1 hundred and 80

have a bone disease which leaves them vulnerable to breaking a bone. their parents have middle medically coverage and every broken bone is thousands of dollars. their left with paying the medical bills or the mortgage. they've been in the lottery 5 times. their locked in a mortgage that continues to climb. veterans to the gay kouchdz

those folks will lose their home. this legislation can't help them unless there's a lawsuit. how can i tell those folks they're losing their homes with no policy. i'm guaranteeing this will help this legislation. my amendment simply creates a one year period where the tic owners will have a year to file. the city will accept applications for one year then have an additional 1 hundred and 80 days to process the legislation that way even if someone sues a day after then they will be able to convert.

we'll insure that the first eligible class of tic owners will have the opportunity to keep their facilities for in broad terms the city attorney said it could take about 1 hundred and 80 days for the lawsuit to go to court. then it could go to the supreme court. this is an enpermissible process. i want to say while it is unfolding we stand by the original goals of protecting the renters. the city attorney advises that my amendment is not substance active and i enthusiasticly support the goals of this bill and the specific policies. this support is what brings me here today. we have to protect ourselves

from the lawsuits. i look forward to hearing from my colleagues on this matter >> president chiu. >> thank you and let me first start by thanking all sides of this prospective. i have spent quite a few time listening to everyone. i sympathize with the folks who have been e evicted and the tics who have been stuck in this lottery. i think everyone has been involved. obviously we don't have an alternate today but i think this does address the original goals. the intent of the original legislation was to address the thousands of tic owners who are

stuck in the conversion lottery and could give them an opportunity to get a fee to bypass the lottery. the current amended

supervisor wiener's 81 intent. i would allow this but i'm not perpetrated to support item 7 because i don't think we ought to be creating tics to be solid between spectators. there's a way to look at the amended legislation regarding what happens if there's lawsuits after this passes. the real estate has been concerned that the tenants could

sue. let me first make it clear that they don't have any intent to sue but i do you understand this doesn't make the other side comfortable. if the real estate can suggest ways if you're side of the equation how do we say the bargain didn't continue as well. i do look forward to reviewing what supervisor reed talks about. but we've been discussing this and i intend to support item 6

and not 7. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i think just reiterating what everyone has said this proposed ordinance has gone through most and most. it's pretty amazing we've arrived at the place we have today would what we're looking at in the land use committee. about 6 months ago there was more discussion it wasn't going to happen. there wasn't any quote/unquote by by a pass. we've had a fruitful discussion. i think what had been unfortunate in this has been through public comment and a thereto e-mails there has been

in which ways the battle of the stories of the tic owners who are everyday folks who are struggling to own a home in san francisco and, of course, the everyday stories of our tenants similar in background their struggling to stay here in san francisco. i'd sad for me to hear that folks are being priced out of san francisco. i hear stories all the time. in my church service three of the families that were getting e evicted here in san francisco. this is becoming a hot topic. i think the issue here, of course, is we're talking about the same housing stock the

conversion. that shouldn't be the solution homeownership. if we're not building now homes for those families and residents they should come out and tell the developers. if one bedrooms are not away what you want we should insure are multiple production family units are happening throughout the city and not in just the southeast sector. i think this is elegant is not the right word but to dealing with current tic owners who want to become home individualized

homeowners. i think perhaps this is not the case so we'll allow them to pay a fee. but it is narrowly tentative to tic homeowners. it was never about fire chief tic homeowners. it is uncertain to me because it was really just a way to us to kind of accelerate the real estate market. this is not the place for to push folks to buy homes. i hope we can continue to have is a productive discussion. what was termed a poison pill

but i like the framing this is not about serve ability. there are two pieces of this legislation that must go hand in hand and if we allow bypass we can't quote/unquote cannibalize our stocks. i'm going to send this forward to the full board today and not ready to support the second >> thank you so colleagues i think many of us share the goal of helping tic homeowners who need help and protecting the tenants. i want to thank supervisor reed for her remarks and i want to

take a look at the poison pill. twoorgdz when we heard this and duplicate the file i indicated that i was open to supporting the legislation with one amendment. when the original amendment by president chiu and supervisor were placed into the legislation that supervisor farrell and i had introduced i was always very open to a number of the provisions and the legislation. i was never as negative about the 10 year moratorium as others because i thought in the - peop

financial hardships and have to sell it's pretty rare you would see a building over a extended period of time you would see the challenge of ownership. but the people who i've met over the years that should changes in ownership it's usually because someone had to move for whatever reason and that's just liver u life. my take is if we're going to have the changes in ownership we

should have some limited ownership without having to go back to the end of the line and sabotage those units. i say it shouldn't have - i'm sure there are are variations on some sort flexibility in the process. i know that the tenants at some point was open to some version of attacking a taking amendment for the future lottery apparently not at the moment but i think it is a significant issue. i don't agree it's about future ti c. particularly with the poison pill if someone files a lawsuit

and indian of the legislation - if someone files a lawsuit and the lazy are struck down instead of going back to the statue quo and the lottery we continue with the moratorium. so if you're a three or four or 5 unit building the moratorium can't convert unless you're able to do that in the six months period. and once the lottery comes back you're out of luck if you're three or four owner building you're at the higher threshold with no seniority. so it does effect the current

homeowners. let's not pretend this is about the future tics of the poison pill. this very much effects the current tics are i think there is a very, very strong agreement for the attacking amendment. i'm hopeful over the next week we're going to have negotiation and we'll come to some sort of consensus. i'm not prepared to support item 6 but i am perpetrated to support 7. we'll be offering an amendment on the poison pill. and that's

minority on this one. >> i make a motion we move 6 with full recommendation if you want to move with the motion to

continue item 7 as well. >> it there any discussion on the motion? madam clerk can you call the role please. do you want me to call them both together or separately. >> together. >> on the motion to continue item 7 for one week until june 10th (calling names) >> okay. so the motion passes. madam clerk any other business before the committee. no there are no further matters >> then we're adjourned>

>> good morning everyone. we would like to thank you to our station. our members moved into in station and became operational march 19th. we thank you for being here today. it could not have been done without the help of many people. i want to welcome you all to this station. it's a beautiful firehouse, a new firehouse. i was 6 years old in 1st grade on moscow street. we are delighted to be here. it's also a creative and unique collaborative effort. something we have never done before. it a partnership all the way. we want to thank and acknowledge

the museum of modern art. we talked about the concept of the museum of modern art which if you have not been to, it's a wonderful place to visit. their needs and desires to expand for educational programs and for more of their collection. the property at 676 howard, we identified it was a place not seismic ready for our members. it's as fire safety it's of paramount importance. when they talked to us about the ideas, they came together and decided to change properties. it's a total win win situation. we are combraet -- grateful for the efforts of the museum of modern art. we want to say thank you very much and would like to

acknowledge mr. charles swab, thank you, sir. board president, mr. bob fisher, dennis wong and michael are here with us today. and a man that worked hard long hours with us and that is neale, the director of the museum of modern art. thank you so much. so we talked about this unique partnership. it became a real thing in 2010. lots of meetings and discussion, last year march 2012, we had ground broken on this station and # 12 months later we are here to celebrate the official opening. i'm going to mention other people, but without further a do i'm going to mention the first person i'm proud to work for is an

innovative thinker who said yes, let's try this and that for better efficiency and safety. i can't thank this man who has been in several aspect of city government. he understand the types of collaborative efforts necessary to conclude and project like this. now it gives me great pleasure to introduce our great mayor, mayor edwin lee. >> thank you, chief. i want to thank former mayor gave some for having reached this incredible agreement with museum of modern art. i just thought it was such a win win for everybody. not easy by any stretch of the imagination because it takes a lot of resources even when we talk in terms of gifts, but let me first of all start with saying

thank you chief white to you and to the whole fire department's administration to local firefighters union as well for being an incredible part of our city. your mission has always been about saving lives. we see it everyday and sometimes when there are events we can't control happen but you are there without regard in many cases for the things that are occurring, but just there to save lives. i think this gift if anything reflects the value that we place on our fire department. so thank you for your incredible sacrifice all the time. we recognize, i know that mr. swab and the entire museum recognize that this gift does reflect that sentiment because not only are you

getting a replacement of a fire station, you are getting a more modern fire station. it is state of the art. it has equipment we have not seen in a long time and i like to idea that it has a generator that in case that big one hits you have three days there to really help us recover quickly. you have a number of other things, i was going to make a joke about mr. swab and i maybe testing each other on the pole, but i think you are going to beat me because you are in better shape than i am. but, again it's just a testament that we do value our fire department and leadership and all the men and with i am -- women that serve it and this gift is another reflection of that. having said that, i want to pay attribute that this would not have happened but for the ined