quickly they would want us to implement. our experience so far with prop c it's taken us 6-9 months to roll out the new programming. >> thank you for your answer. if it were going with the speed that's 6-9 months if and there is a lot of if's here, if this program were to support people like the appellant, then it wouldn't be too late for this particular individual to wait for that time because did you say that they have another year in this program to do the conversion? this year and next year? >> john from the city attorneys office. i don't know the exact

circumstances of this building, but the way the expedited conversion process if they can set up, if they convert this year they can take advantage of the conversion program that begins on april 15th and goes for about 9 months. i believe they can also take advantage of any of the subsequent years of the expedited conversions process as long as they remain eligible. the entire program extends for 8 or 9 years. if they didn't choose to convert this year, they can convert through this process paying the fee in subsequent years. >> thank you. >> supervisor campos. thank you, just a quick questions, just reading the memo that we have in the packet from the mayor's office of housing. so you said earlier this property was the total value of the property is about $1.9 million.

it says here the property was bought in 2006 at $645,000 is that correct? >> because of the quick turn around, supervisor's analysis, we did a quick review of what was on zillow at the time that $645,000 was the last sale of the one of the units in 2006. we looked at the assessors record with the property value is $1.9 million. it's not necessarily supervisors, i think the memo and third that there was a large jump in appreciation between $645,000 and $1.8 million price. >> do we know what was paid for

and for the units? please step up to the mic. >> yes, zillow only list my unit value. we came into the building after the other person. the entire building was about $1.8 million. >> what was paid for? >> yeah. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> can i say one more thing also? our building has already been, the approval has already been granted neeng meaning the review from the board has already happened where the history prior years it's. >> colleagues, any final question. i had one final

question around the ellis impact act. if the eviction occurred during the conversion, it would be pre -- have you heard anything on that? the ellis act eviction doesn't have any ability to convert. i want to understand that a little bit better. >> john from the city attorneys office. the ellis act primarily comes into play with this current ordinance in two different ways because there is two different kinds of buildings that can't take advantage of the expedited

conversion process. one trigger date is november 16, 2004. if a property owner who is currently trying to convert actually evicted somebody through ellis actor other eviction proceedings and served the tenant on or after november 16, 2004, they can't take advantage of the expedited conversion process. ellis act would come into play. the other situation is the pes skin ordinance and that has a different trigger date. that doesn't look at the current owner. it looks at the building history. if you as the current owner or prior owner it affects the building. that is the property owner serving the tenant with the eviction

notice, that trigger dates in may 1, 2005. and those again could be ellis act evictions or other kinds of evictions. so those items are considered and that's part of the information that is forwarded to the department of public works to the rent board. >> thank you. i had a question. if it's a case, what date in 2004 was it? >> november 16, 2004. >> and through pass skin's legislation in 2005. why do we look at eviction history from 2000 on wards? >> jonelle al ner from the city attorneys office. i don't remember now from those years

that those pieces of legislation were created but i think out of an abundance of caution wanted a longer history as it pertained to a particular building to catch potential evictions. so as our supervisor chiu mentioned there are other provisions in the subdivision code that do apply to condominium. so there is sort of a question that is out there which is was this building, did this building go through an eviction process to clear it out strictly for purposes of a condominium. so that is part of the history. the experience that the city has had is when they receive applications from property owners in most situations, these property owners have bought from a prior owner who was the one that did the evictions. so when they are asked about any eviction history that they were involved

in, the typical response was that information was not available because it was something the prior owner had done and it is considered in the application process. >> because i'm not familiar with the ordinance regarding the date of the 16. is it the date of the eviction, what is the actual black line rule? >> give me a second. i have to look it up. >> just related to that, i was wondering what the controlling date is in terms of the ordinances is. i think supervisor kim was asking was it when the tenant moves out? >> no. so eviction is defined

in subdivisions code 19.2. as an issuance note pursuant to code provisions. we discussed this with the rent board and dpw and that particular notice that this refers to is when the property owner is required bylaw to serve particularly to ellis act evictions they need to serve on the tenant in the building the notice to terminate which is also called the notice to quit to get out of the rental business. bylaw, once that notice is filed, that person has 10 days, they have to go to the rent board and give notice. the notice of

this, the issuance of this notice is unrelated to when the tenant moves out. in many cases when the tenant is eligible ora loud to stay in the unit for additional a year beyond that, but the notice, we look at when the notice was first served upon the tenant rather than when the tenant actually leaves the unit. is that your interpretation or is that exactly how it's written into the ordinance? because i mean, the eviction was recorded in 2005. the notice was given on november 4th of 2004. it's only a couple of days before when the ordinance going into effect. so does it specifically outline that that is the point at which

we decide whether the eviction pertains to condominium conversion or not? >> john from the city attorneys office. i guess while technically there might be some ability to interpret this language this notice to the board when the tenant is given notice to vacate. it is true in this particular case, these notices were served probably within days of the november 16th, 2004, cutoff. i believe there is a circulation where one of the tenants was elderly and continued to reside for a year beyond that time. but this

refers to the issuance of the notice. i will say i think as i recall because i worked on this back in 2004, before it was adopted. i think the november 16th date was a day where the piece of legislation was being heard at the board of supervisors and the amendment was made and to give everyone notice they created that date whiches the hearing date which was the land use committee or full board. >> i think it's important to have some clarity if this is an interpretation of that ordinance and that is date that we choose. there is a number of buildings i'm sure that we are considering for the bypass that may or may not interpret this ordinance be eligible for condominium conversion bypass. i have a lot of questions particularly if it's somewhat

clear that they quickly tried to give notice of eviction before the november 16, 2004, date. whether we should be an allowing this sort of bypass for those types of actions. i think it's separate from the appeal before us today. but i think it raises a question on how the dpw is going through our bypass list and determining who is eligible or not. i think there needs to be a conversion, i think there needs to be a discussion and especially on interpretation i think there are advocates that may want to challenge that date. >> supervisor campos? >> i guess i appreciate supervisor kim's question. i would ask the city attorney the

question differently. is there a reasonable argument here that the controlling date is in fact a later date in this case? is that a reasonable? is that a reasonable argument to be made that it's the case here? >> john from the city attorneys office. it's a difficult question to respond to in light of for example supervisor kim acknowledging that there might be tenant groups that might want to challenge the interpretation. i would be reluctant as a legal matter to support that interpretation. the language is pretty clear to me that it's issuance of a notice and it doesn't pertain,

it doesn't talk about when the tenant is evicted. it doesn't talk about the tenant at all in the definition. so i do think it's reasonable to take the position that it's this particular notice of termination. >> i understand that, but the fact that you are not willing to say that it's reasonable to take the other position or it's unreasonable to take the other position is troubling actually. and sort of makes it seem like in fact you could have a number of different and yet reasonable interpretations which means that your interpretation could be the right one, it could also be the wrong one. so that is not, doesn't really give a lot of reassurance to what we are talking about here. that's the

problem. >> john from the city attorneys office. as you know, as an attorney and we deal with this in the city attorneys office all the time. when you look at legislation and every word is not crystal clear. wilhelm wundt -- one of the first things you do is look at the rules of the statutory interpretation and you look at the overall laws that are on the books and the words that are used and if that language is clear and unambiguous, then you don't dig further than that. although certainly people could argue that you can do that. i think this language is clear about the issuance of a notice. >> thank you. colleagues, any final questions to city staff? okay. at this time let me ask? >> supervisor tang? >> i just have one more

question to process. maybe john gibner. if the board decides to approve the waiver or reduction, i just want to know what the following process would be if the process i will move forward if the appellant had paid the fee and no. 2, who is the body as to the waiver and reduction. >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. if the board decides to wave or reduce the fee, that would be a determination that the board would make based on findings that the nexus study does not apply or does not stand up in this case. the board would today articulate some findings to that effect to me and the clerks office. we would prepare and additional motion for next week's meeting

or the subsequent meeting laying out the board's findings to support the waiver or reduction. the board would also today determine whether to wave the fee entirely or reduce it and the amount to reduce it and again, that determination, the amount of the fee whether it's $8,000 or 0 would be a nexus determination by the board. >> thank you, colleagues, any final questions to city staff? all right. seeing none. why don't we go to if there are any members of the public who support the application to wave the fee. seeing none. we have

the appellant who would like to provide a rebuttal? >> i'm not sure about whether any person would be evicted from their and whether that affect our condominium conversion or not. i have been a social activist for the past 8 years working with different human organizations and the last thing i want to hear that someone was evicted from my house and now i'm taking over. as the gentleman said people with aids might have been evicted from that area. or people with needs like us, people with aids, people of color, low income people. i'm trying to point across, my

point is that we are basically a disadvantaged group, all of these groups that have been mentioned here legally disadvantaged. financially, in a very precarious situation. i am constantly every month, almost every week. the fact that i own a home doesn't mean that i'm rich. whatsoever. you can look at my bank statements. i own a home like i said because i won a settlement and thankfully i'm able to have a roof over my head in this wheelchair. i'm just hoping that i, i don't know about the nexus and where i can repeal there is something about that and hire and person that would help me understand it and come to you guys with the perfect statement. i'm just telling you my story and the story maybe of a lot of other people. i'm just hoping to tell a story that

might be the first one that comes to you or i'm sure there is going to be other people like this, i'm sure there are other people like me out there. so i'm trying to appeal to the progressive group of people to a group of people that have been protesting out there for other people's rights before. as an ally, i'm just hoping that you guys will hear me from your hearts and not think that i'm taking advantage of the condominium conversion and not using that money because there is a lot of fees to pay. inspectors that will come and in order to convert we have to commit to those codes. all right. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues, any final questions to the appellant or city staff on these issues?

>> seeing none. at this time this hearing has been held and is closed. colleagues, this matter is in the hands of the board. are there any motions? >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you mr. president, thank you to all the city staff, the appellant and everyone who has testified today. this is a hard issue in a lot of ways i know this being the first out of the gate. i know it's awkward to work our way through it. you know, in reading the ordinance, i would say it's not crystal clear to me that there is only one interpretation of this ordinance as much as i know someone indicated. i think this is a rather unique situation where we have someone who i

think if above the poverty line is just barely above the poverty line making somewhere $15,000 a year living on disability without any real prospects of having a career that at least so far as we've been told that would significantly increase that income, someone who relies on hsf for basic home care. in terms of the reasonable relationship between, i'm just pulling it up here, between impact of this conversion and the fee, i don't see it. and i think we've talked about a number of the issues, for example, that the nexus study refers to the option for the

people who can't afford the fee to remain in the lottery, that option is not there whatever the amendments happened to the legislation. i think to me to impose this fee on this applicant does not meet the goals around affordable housing given the circumstances presented here. so as a result, i would like to make a motion to move item 46 and to table items 47 and 48. >> supervisor wiener has made a motion ascribed, is there a second to that motion? >> supervisor, if the board adopts item 46, the motion approving a waiver -- >> it would be moving items 46 and 48 and tabling item 47. my

apology. that's the motion. >> we have a motion by supervisor ferrel, president chiu. >> thank you colleagues. like supervisor wiener we all have sympathy for the appellant. this is challenging and something we've all thought about. that being said, i want to reiterate what the secretary of standard for this appeal is we can consider a fee waiver if it's not going to affect the impact of the development and the fee charges. in other words if we were to find an instance in this situation which is the first of four appeals that are coming down the pike on this issue, that there is not a relationship or nexus, i think we are setting ourselves up for a very challenging standard in the future. that i'm concerned

could undermine the entire program that we had legislated some months go. as the deputy city attorney indicated we can't just wave this on hardship. because of that, i unfortunately will not be supporting supervisor wiener's motion for that reason. i do hope there are other ways for us to address this. i know supervisor avalos and kimberly asked if there was other ways to assist this $8,000 fee on a $1.8 million property which is owned by the appellant today. i think it's important to set our standard as the deputy city attorney has played laid --

laid out. >> supervisor breed. >> i too am concerned about the precedent that this sets. i usually want to support the supervisor of the district in this matter but this is the first time we are hearing an issue in regards to condominium conversion and it sets a bad precedent in future appeals on this program an how it was crafted in terms of it's legislation was done so that it could assist those who are in situations where they are linked to other tic owners and in situations of hardship. from my understanding selling or converting is an optional thing. so i don't understand the situation around the hardship of what this would mean if there is hardship and the money doesn't exist to

convert. you have the option to remain a tic. however if you convert, you get a lower interest rate, there is dollars in your pocket. you get an increase in the value of your property and the equity. i just have a problem with making amendments of this nature when the opportunity for deferring the fee exist for this purpose. so i can't unfortunately support what's on the table at this time and i wish the appellant the very best. but i just think we as a board need to set the tone of what this program was meant to do at this time and this is not sending the right message. thank you. >> supervisor kim? >> i'm going to concur with the previous two comments made by president chiu and supervisor breed. the question is whether there is an argument on the

nexus that was made which was pitted off the condominium conversion ordinance back in june. i think it was a very delicate balance. a lot of different interest which i will not rehash today of many of our low income and middle class tenants and middle income home owners and settling the housing stock and tic conversion to condominiums has on as a whole. i think there are real -- impacts from the condominium conversion here in the city and i think the fees are appropriate. that being said, i'm very sympathetic to our appellant at hand. i think the issues that she brings up are with many owners, knotted just

-- not just tic home owners. what we can do to support these home owners to continue to be home owners i think that is the actual issue at hand and not the fee waiver or reduction in order to be eligible for the bypass. i think there are benefits by participate nth -- in the bypass that are immediate to the reduction of the interest rate and even if the home owners state that they will never sell this unit there is nothing that will bar them from doing so. i think for a number of reasons i can't support the motion at hand today. i would