tic condo conversions. and none of those were result of the legislation, those were pre-existing lottery projects? >> as far as i know everything you are seeing now, we call it e ecp, expedite conversion. >> so it's a result, when was this effect? >> july 29. >> there was previous conversion what was paid before this legislation went in effect? >> previously it was subject to the lottery. >> so no fees? >> there are conversion fees. >> so this fee is on top of the existing conversion fee and that goes to affordable housing. >> correct. >> and to the mayor's housing? >> yes, correct. these are buildings grandfathered in? >> they were the senior participants when the lottery

existed, there was a pool a and pool b, these are the most senior out of the pool-a, and there were 18 or 19 units if the lottery had continued, they would have automatically be selected. >> so they can go through the process without paying the $20,000. >> correct, as of january 1, 2014. >> so now the system works that there is no lottery but if you pay -- i am not clear on how, so now for people in the lottery. but now we have got rid of the lottery. who gets to pay the $20,000 and take advantage of it now? >> right now this current year you had to participate in the 2012-13 lottery and your owner occupancy had to begin in april,

2008. >> so if you participated in the lottery years before and not chosen the last year you wouldn't? >> if you didn't participate in the 2012-13. >> are there people not taking advantage of it? >> there is four appeals to the board. part of the legislation there is a deferral process where the department of public works can defer the fees for the length of the project when it's in our hands. so if you come and apply and if all of your code compliance is done and your building is up to par. and planning takes six weeks or two months to give its approval. in theory that deferral would only be three or four months. if you have a bunch of code compliance issues and things like that, have to pay the fee before the map record. and there is also a waiver or

reduction. and that has to go before the board of supervisors and has to be applied to, to the board of supervisors. in order for that to prevail, you have to show that the nexus of the establishment of the $20,000 was inappropriate. >> okay, but i think -- that would be -- you mean because of the price of your unit? i can't understand what the nexus would be in that case. >> so far the four appeals have all been denied. >> okay, and so how much money have we raised and this is the earmarked for the affordable housing or earmarked any specific way, or just the mayor's housing of funding? >> how it's used when it leaves our hands. last time i checked it was a hair under $4 million. to date we have 182 projects.

and that's it. >> how many are eligible, how many more can we expect do we think? >> well, we frankly we are surprised. july 29 we thought that there was the possibility that we would see 100 to 150 applicat n applications on that day. there is -- from our analysis we think there is 500 units available to participate in this come july 29. >> and you said 182, units or projects. >> projects. that's about 500 or 550. >> so we are at our max or more? >> there is plenty more. is that unit or buildings. that's buildings so somewhere in the place of 1500 units. i was off. we figured that from all of our

previous statistics from the lottery and what we had been through. we thought there was somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 buildings available to convert come july 29. and i think the first day we only saw 12. 12 applications. >> right but 550 units is a lot already. >> buildings. >> buildings. >>genically we multiply by 3 or 3.5 to get the unit count. >> thank you. >> sure. >> commissioner sugaya. >> this is a dumb question but the 20,000 is per unit. >> correct. not a dumb question. >> commissioner antonini. >> let me see if i understand this correctly. one of the restrictions was that the participants to be eligible to pay the money and to be able to convert had to be in line as

of april, 2008. they had to be already tic owners in a compliant situation. and anyone who got into something like that after that period of time will not be eligible for the conversion to condominiums. >> no, that's not correct. the first year it's that 2008 time frame. starting april of 2014, they had to be in a tic as of april of 2011. the date each year, the date slides up. >> when is the cut-off date for someone who has gotten in a tic to be able to convert? is it the date of the legislation? >> i don't understand the question. >> all right, let's assume that people thinking there was a lottery last year and jointly

converted a six-unit building. are they able to take advantage of the conversion? at what date are they not able to take advantage of the conversion? >> the seven tth group in this the last group that can participate in this. would have to continuously occupy. the beginning date for this, not for the occupation but the date they can convert or apply is april 15, 2019. they would have their tic in place as of april 15, 2013. so this year. >> that's my point. what wi -- what i was trying to understand that it would seem unfair that someone didn't realize this legislation is

going to be passed and got in a tic and be trapped. but there couldn't be many. when it did it pass? >> june of this year. >> so a month or 2-1/2 month period, people would realize something is coming about. the later on the restriction of the condominium was a later development, when the process began. that's not part of the deal. that is perhaps people got in the tic and stuck in that forever. >> it would seem if they fell in that time period. >> commissioner sugaya. >> just to pursue for a moment. if the seven members of a commission bought a building and

it formed as a tic today. because of the moratorium there is no eligibility to convert to c condomini condominiums. >> let me back pedal, first you can't convert a seven-unit building. you might take your five favorite. but even that wouldn't work. >> you have to pick who they are, that would be fine. >> this part we try to stay out of. 2019 if the lottery is renewed, there won't be any five or six-building conversions. >> did the legislation go so far to state what the process is at that point? >> no. >> is the lottery reinstated? >> it's unclear, there is a

moratorium on lottery for 10 years. >> okay, and they have time to figure out what they do. >> yes, and it's been a while since i visited that legislation, but if i recall if the lottery is reestablished the five and six buildings are excluded. >> and i have a question, you have vetted the material to be a part of the tic program. and they have gone through that process. then they go to a planner and the planner writes the case report whether or not there is consistency with the general plan, is that a correct understanding? >> yes, that's my understanding. >> i have questions about whether or not these projects really do comply with the general plan. you know in fairness i think

that these projects, the five and six units they have gone through this process already. i think it would be somewhat unfair for them to be turned down at the planning commission. but i think i would like to hear from staff about when parts of the housing element are you looking at to talk about whether or not these are consistent. and i assume you are looking at affordable homeownership, i think that's what i have seen in the case reports. but how do you weigh homeownership and preservation of the housing? >> we look at two elements of the housing section, i didn't

bring a copy of the draft motion with me. and i can look into that and follow up with you. i don't have that section. >> okay, i think, the point i am trying to make. it feels like the time they come to planning commission. they are on our consent calendar, it feels like it's a done deal. but what specifically we are to look at consistency with the general plan. i don't think that the argument is laid out for me and the question of creating affordable how many opportunities. maybe it shouldn't come on the backs of losing the rent stock in the city. i know we are far along. i am not saying that we reopen the legislation or look at it again. it puts us in a weird position. >> i think your point is well

taken. the challenge we always have with general plan consistency findings. that the general plan has a variety of policies that are sometimes in conflict with each other. and what we try to do and if you look at the general plan letters should i sign and some you see depending on how complex they are -- shouldn't use that term. the term we use is on balance. and we have to look at on balance and if this is a reasonable request. >> thanks. >> commissioner antonini. >> yes, and in response many of the people in this process are actually owner/renters themselves. who had been renters and they combined their incomes to purchase the building. but they didn't want to be in bed with each other and wanted to separate it out.

and that answers the question of consistency in affordable housing. one of the ways that people with limited means can buy the homes they were currently renting. i think it's a good system. the other problem have you seen legal challenges. tenant in common and joint tentancy and in the state of california and most states throughout the united states. i don't know if anyone has challenged the restriction on taking something that you own and being able to separate the tenancy and the separate units, seems like something someone may be doing in the future. >> we haven't seen that yet and there are provisions in the legislation for depending on the

dispute. there is a couple of different areas if a lawsuit is filed, then things come to a screeching halt. but it's directed at two parts, one is directed at owner occupancy requirement and one is directed at the fee. i haven't seen anything that directly affects the tic process itself. >> yeah, i was aware of the poison pill as it's called in that legislation. but this is more of a broad concept that predates the legislation even in prior years when the city was restricting and limiting the ability for people to break up their tenancies in individual ownership units. obviously so far no one has done that, but it would seem that it would be in general principal of the law there could be a case made that you can't restrict

people from separating themselves from co-owners. >> if i understand your question, and you have a four-unit building that submissioner sugaya and his favorite commissioners own together. you cannot -- and this is part of the subdivision map act, you cannot create an individual fee ownership without going through a mapping process and subdivision process. >> yes, this is a technicality that allows this to happen, because you have to remap in separate ownership units. as opposed to an apartment building or tenancy common or ownership of these four units. and that's where the detail is involved. i assume if everything fails, the group can dissolve their tenancy and leave, you can't force them to stay there, i

don't think. >> well, we are treading into an area that our department hears about but we have no discretion over and much of what we hear is hearsay but what i have heard. many tenancies in common are fought with peril. and my limited understanding is that each person is essentially responsible for the entire mortgage, they are responsible for the other people. and until yesterday i hadn't heard about a foreclosure with a tenancy in common. but someone called me where the bank foreclosed on one of the notes. but i never heard it until yesterday. >> that's been my understanding and the problem, that four people can collectively afford to pay the mortgage. but if one is left or two, oftentimes they can't it by

themselves. >> it's a big problem. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i agree with the commissioner wu and the comment that the commission at the tail end of things. and it would appear unless a strong argument our hands are -- i mean the decision has been kind of made. it was in my view a little bit that it would seem that the board of supervisors you know essentially made the decision that said, everything is consistent with the general plan in a kind of backwards manner. so -- anyway. >> commissioner hillis. >> i was going to say, it seems like the board now said it's not consistent with the general plan. because it doesn't allow them to convert buildings over five or six units and we want to conserve rental stock. it's awkward that we have them on the calendar, in four units. i think the general question is

conversion of five unit buildings above consistent is a legitimate question and the board answered that and it's not consistent when other policy reasons. and acting on case by case basis and in conversion in heights is stupid. i don't know why they are before us but i agree with those comments. >> thank you so much for coming to explain. >> thank you for your time. >> commissioners. >> can we take a break, please. >> yes. [break]

>> item 11, the kaiser permanti -- permanente plan. >> this calendar item does not require similar action and similar to receiving comment on an environmental document. institution requirements are required to be submitted every three years, and to supply on institutions themselves and the population they service. kaiser has identified five projects with expansion or change in their operations that relate to land use regulation.

they are going to establish a medical office building at 1600 owens in mission bay. and they anticipate occupancy of that building in spring, 2016. they are replacing an area of owen. and they would like to have a site for out-patient services and don't have a specific time for that project. they want to reuse their french campus and create outpatient services there, and they again they don't have a specific date for that project. and they may be relocating their chemical dependency program that is currently on fillmore street.

through a review imp document it's concluded that it's complete. that completes my presentation and open for any questions. >> okay, project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> can we change -- >> thank you. my name is randy vellve with kaiser permanente. this is the country's largest

not for profit hmo, and we are providing comprehensival care and focus on prevention. we have eight states and district of columbia, in here in san francisco, we have 3500 employees. we usually rank around the 10th largest employer in the city. we take care of 25% of the city residents, now we have close to 94,000, and of members 13% come from medicare and medical programs, and we have volunteered to take care of 3,000 people under the healthy san francisco program. we first started serving san francisco in 1946, we came in to

take care of the ship workers in hunter's point. and that because you to a location in 1947, the building still stands today on pennsylvania street. we operated there until 1954 where we opened our main campus. and we acquired the french campus in 1989, and that's our major out-patient hub. so the san francisco medical center is about 1.3 million square feet. of that space about 366,000 feet is licensed hospital space. we have 247 licensed beds. and that facility does meet the 2013 california seismic standard. we completed our seismic work in the year 2000. the san francisco center is a tertiary care hospital. we have a lot of specialties

there. and it's our major center for cardiovascular center, we treat patients that come as far as way as fresno. and we is a lot of specialty outpatient services at the san francisco center. our main campus is on gerry, and you see vascular and pulmonary medicine and we operate at locations: gerry boulevard is where we have our other programs and we have allegy -- allergy services. and then i want to show you that

we lease a number of sites across san francisco. one of these we will be talking about a change, that is fillmore street where we have our chemical dependency program. and we have services for employers at 601 van ness and we have a small marketing office that serves san francisco. so what does the future look like in san francisco? we are committed to san francisco and reinvesting in our existing facilities and considering a couple of expansi expansions. we are in contract to purchase a building at 1600 and they plan to break ground in january, and we hope to occupy that site by april, 2016. that would be a hub for primary

care/outpatient services, serving the city's east side. and in the spirit of the health care master planning process and efforts to decentralize health care in san francisco, we would be investing more in the city's east side with a new location, primary care medicine. and that includes adult medicine a and pediatripediatrics, and obg. the pharmacy optical and health education would be open to the public. they would be there to serve the community as well as kaiser permanente members. and we look to build a facility

that is approximately 7500 square feet. we will wait until we open mission bay and see what additional services to develop a time line for that project. and then we want to continue inve investing in our current standing sites. the french campus we have been in the process of converting from an inpatient to a building that was constructed for inpatient services to out-patient services. we will continue to invest for proje proje proje projects in that campus and to provide for new signage, with this project underway. and then on fillmore street, we are outgrowing our space for

chemical dependency and rehabilitation. we are looking for opportunities, we haven't identified a building but looking for opportunities for a larger building for those services. and then finally to visit vaderia street, we recently demolished a 21-unit older residential building. we built a 21-unit residential building affordable housing about a half a block up across the street from aferil street. and will that building as a community benefit was sold to tabernacle foundation to own and operate as affordable housing for the community. so we have demolished the former

building on gerry and afirle, and installing an orchard on that site as part of the beautification of that street. we are working with the forestry and putting in fruit trees. and when the fruit matures it will be donated to a food bank. and then i want to highlight our community outreach process. we have a community task force that has been meeting for 30 years at the san francisco medical center. and you can see on this list all of the organizations that are members of the task force. so we spent the last several years through this process updating all the neighborhood associations that participate on the imp. and