next appeals of this type of scheduled for this body. >> i believe next tuesday. >> next tuesday. why don't we continue this for one week and if you could work with this appellant and suggest reaching out to other appellants to see if the same issue has come up so we don't wait the cities and the public's time. that if that makes sense. supervisor weiner has made a motion and supervisor farrell a second >> i understand there might be a difference of opinion with this board of the grounds whether certainty appeals can result in the waiver of fees. i'm not sure who told you you have no case some people

disagree and some agree with you but this week will give an opportunity to come up with a resolution that works with our timing and financial situations >> and we'll come back next tuesday. >> yeah. at 3:00 p.m. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor cowen. >> thank you. i actually was going to highlight would supervisor weiner said the defendant not being recommended. i got only pieces of the puzzle so it's hard to make a decision >> supervisor breed. >> mr. chair i don't understand

why wore continuing it but those cases are being represented to the board and the comments made by the appellant. i'm trying to understand why wore continuing this in the first place >> let me suggest. >> couple you have options. colleagues, i need to take public comment if there are other people needing to speak but we could continue the whole matter and again go through the whole process next week. i really want to ask the board for feedback. i think supervisor breed was suggesting we hold the entire hearing next week but, however, people see fit.

supervisor farrell >> i think the appellant might want to explore another venue but it strikes me to everyone why don't we have dwp work off-line and sorry everyone for this happening and you have to be here. just trying to work it out and it won't be before us next week but the sooner we stop talking the better off we are going to be >> count iii. >> okay. >> supervisor breed. >> from the city attorney it's the basis for what the appeal is so there won't be the ability to make corrections so i ask to closeout this case but in the interest of other members of the board to continue this i don't

see i mean it shouldn't have gotten to us in the first place based on the boil is my pointing point. i don't think we can make any changes even if there's some decision worked out with dwp >> i'd like to propose that that we take any public comment and we continue this item for a week as supervisor weiners motion depending upon what folks think. supervisor campos. i >> i think there is no basis to grant an appeal. i feel bad we're going to make here come back in a week to do something that legally we're not allowed to do. so that's the concern that i

have >> let me ask a couple of questions to the gentlemen. if he were to reject the appeal today can you work with the tenant to resolve the matter or continue this for a week to have ample time for a resolution >> wore already working with her. i would he is it doesn't have on a effect on which way this goes we're going to work with her no matter what >> and gentlemen you've spent a ton of time on this legislation. do you have any thoughts on whether we can tighten this language or is this where dwp needs to work on this. i think there's a majority or super majority that may not feel their is an issue with the nexus

>> john with the city attorney's office. i think short of a legislation amendment we have two different procures available. someone could go to dwp and demonstrate the low income standard they can ask they not pay the foe until the final map. in part that's the dwp processing time and when the appellant can get the materials together. it's the time period that can adjust up to a year. the other option they want a fee reduction or waiver the process is to come to the board of supervisors and go through the process that's before you today and we had the prior hearing on.

i know at the last hearing we had a discussion on ways to allow a fee deferral that could be years down the road before someone has to pay and that requires a elective amendment >> okay. so at this time madam clerk. actually, i, all give me 30 seconds. colleagues why don't i suggest given that the gentlemen has said mug about this outcome of the hearing that is going to impact the discussion is we run through the hearing and defer the final decision important a

week and added which point depending upon the resolution if there's additional conversation otherwise we'll stop it today so we don't have to reopen it next week. does that make sense >> i don't total understand it will be closed today e.r. continued until next week. >> we won't have to take public comment or urging have to rebut. we won't make a final decision so it gives a little bit more conversation between you and the appellant and the department. does that make sense >> supervisor campos. >> is there still the specification that the appellant has to come next week.

>> i seem the appellant doesn't have to come back or do both parties have to. >> there could be a resolution on the deferral but the conversation between the appellant and dwp couldn't revolve the waiver of the fee per the appellant could if she's satisfied with the outcome of the discussion on the depositing referral she could withdraw the appeal and the department could communicate that to the boards office or return next week to answer any questions before i make your final decision. >> okay. so trying to recap. my suggestion we go through the hearing and make a decision at the end whether to deter it to next week or if there's a

resolution the department can support and the appellant could withdraw her appeal or the appellant could choose to show up. and madam appellant do you understand what we're proposing here today >> i believe i do he and i appreciate scott wiener saying it's not necessarily everyone here agrees. i thought when i understood from what i was told there was no possibility for the waiver or the reduction but i'd like to look into that this week with the department of public works >> why don't we hold the hearing. we're still in the appellants presentation. colleagues, any additional questions to the appellant.

supervisor kim. okay. now are there any members of the public that wish to speak on the side of the appellant. please step up sir, >> i don't want to get too close to this problem issue. but i have an objection in time or by chances in response to this go, bad, trust, false, yes or no thing but to make a public judgment in the matter of civil justice >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm douglas. i wasn't planning on speaking on this item by this item is interesting in the sense that i feel that the appellant is at a

noticeable disadvantage because most people not knowing it's going to be tough trying to figure out whether you're being voiced by the department of public works or when you deal with the city i think that's something that the appellant has stuck with and made a good expression on all of us lymph nodes to this back and forth and the appellant is correct to pose questions and since there was some sort of not complete clarity as to what should he was told to pursue it to today's hearing. i want to suggest a common sense approach maybe in the future that the board of supervisors office become involved with the appellant and the department of public works and maybe they'll obey to solve the problem and if

not that says something about the legislation being way to complicated. so i think supervisor jane kim and the other supervisors have brought out the problem >> any of the public wish to talk. okay. a brief presentation by city staff. >> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors i'm with the mayor's office of housing and community development. i'm stay belief but for the record i'll give a brief presentation. at the beginning the standard of appeal in the law requires the appellant show an absence of any reasonable even relationship between the impact of the

condominium conversion and that the appellant bears the burden of presenting that comparable basis to challenge the economic nexus study. the law didn't provide a hardship reduction to wave the fee and the appellants cases as we've heard at this point she hadn't presented evidence to challenge the nexus study. there remains this relationship of impact to convert to a condominium and for the city's you affordable housing costs. the requirement for the impact fee regardless of what the condominium is sold although at the previous hearing on october 29th the controller's office gave a letter about the

timeliness about the nexus. the office stated at the time neither the nexus or the level materially hinges upon the condominium sold been conversion. wove submitted that for the record as well, and that's attached with the supplemental short memo from our office. the nexus level justified in the study was between $21,024,000 per unit. the board made the decision to set the level brother at $26,000 limit. based on the time many the lottery they're getting a reduction in the fee at the $16,000 per unit. as supervisor jane kim stated there's no reason for this

tenant to pay her fair share that would be worked out between the owners along with the new condominium. additionally, you know, there were a variety of questions at the last hearing as to how easy it is for the owner to refinance and what sort of services our office provides. i want to say wove reached out to a number of our housing counseling agencies those are community organizations that the mayor's office provides funding for to get what sort of services that would be helpful to this particular homeownership. they don't turn anyone away and they have services to walk through the first time

ownership. so invite all those homeownership's to contact our office directly or the homeownership counseling that we provide. we've spoken briefly to some of our lenders to talk about the easy process and it's individualized. most folks have to refinance after they convert to a condominium. some of the cities funded counseling agrees are posed at this moment to help the applicants through the process if they need assistance. finally, making the point of the basis of this board to deny the appeal. the appellants case doesn't preferential any evidence nor meet the legal standard to grant

the reduction. and the ordinance didn't speak about how the homeownership's defy i didn't up to refinance their fees. so someone would refinance their loan and spread their costs into their new loan and help them over time. that concludes my remarks >> colleagues, any questions? okay. thank you very much for your presentation. why don't we hear from the members of the public who are in favor. appellant you have 3 minutes of rebuttal whether you want to. colleagues unless there's any other questions this hearing is closed and supervisor weiner has

made a motion to continue those items for one week 27 of november. colleagues, can we take that without objection. mr. store i hope you'll be able to work something out colleagues why don't we go to our next item which is item 27 >> it an ordinance to appropriate $16.8 million in parking revenue to the transportation agency in order to support the departments expertise increases. >> roll call. >> on item 27. sxhovz. i. supervisor breed. i >> supervisor chiu. i. supervisor cowen. i. supervisor farrell. i arrest supervisor kim

>> i. supervisor mar. supervisor tang. sxhir yee. there are 11 i's. authorization to have a contract extending the agreement through december and increasing the cumulative estimate amount to $1 million. same house, same call? this resolution is approved >> the code business tax installments. >> sam this is approved. >> now for the property at 221 ed just street. >> this resolution is xhauptd.

>> this is a multiple housing note not to sxeed 22 million for the financing of rehabilitation of a multiple rental housing resident attaining project. >> same house, same call? this resolution is dpauptd. >> this is to amended the existing telephone services which will anticipate the fund of more than $3 million over the contract term. >> supervisor kim. i apologize. i started looking at this yesterday >> i was reading through the budget it talks about the

charges that we pay $0.65 of those pot itself to go book into their own services and there's enough on top of that we can audit the profits or the revenues that this global tel link is able to make and they're able to make a profit to bid on the contract. we're charging executor rates on inmates to call their families. and that's one of the rehabilitation thing is the connection to families. is there anyone that can speak on that item >> or i'm understanding correctly. >> anyone from the sheriff's department here or our controller or budget analyst. >> members of the committee as

i recall the committee was also concerned about the rates and ask the sheriff's representatives to use some of the fund to subsidize the rates and they said they'd consider that. >> i did speak that supervisor avalos. i would liquor to see a commitment from the sheriff's department before we approve this retroactive extension. i have a lot of flipal issues. through collect call charges it's sad thought city and county of san francisco mrarpts in that. we give back over 50 of what

they spend but it's a separate policy decision. but i get it i think it's slight a better program but there's severe under spending in terms of the proceeds and i want to see some of that go back to subsidizing those calls. i want to security commitment from the sheriff's department. supervisor avalos. >> thank you. i appreciate that question. there were a number of ways to support inmates in the jail system and it seemed like there's not unify effort applied to that. brooe from the sheriff's department was hero we made a

request to put forth the fund to reduce the cost of the calls but there wasn't a commitment. i would submit a greater push for real commitment on behalf of the sheriff's department to lower the cost of calls. so if we want to continue legislation i'd be happy to do that >> mr. controller. >> supervisors ben rolling fold. it's in the privy of the board to continue the contract important that discussion. that kind of agreement with the sheriff's department is with the appropriation of the fund balance and ultimately the board of supervisors makes the final decision. so when that proimths come down forward the pot the sheriff's department will propose how to spend that money and the board

can a attach conditions to it. so if the appropriation come forward in next year's budget that would really be the final momentum for the board to roll speak to how those funds are to be spent. so a verbal commitment from the sheriff's department motive be okay but the ultimate decision is with the board of supervisors >> supervisor breed. >> i think one of the confidence we had was that many of the families that are visiting or paying the fees are low income community. so i know the proposal is to obtain more of a percentage to the sheriff's department in order to support some of the costs associated with the department but if there's an interest in lowering the foes

altogether i'm definitely interested in that if that's what's being proposed because that will have a positive impact on those families who can't afford those over priced calls from their family members. thanks >> supervisor campos. >> i want to echo the comments and i know it's appropriate so have a more concrete commitment before we move forward. >> supervisor yee. >> i want to lend any support to supervisors breed precipitation on this. when i looked at the report two weeks ago i was getting the same feeling why are we charging so much. it's a decision on what do - what's the different funding

even on our plate are we charging the amount of money to operate and not to make a profit >> as far as ann as an continuance supervisor avalos do you over that. >> i believe it was supervisor kim. >> unfortunately, we don't have a representative from the sheriff's department. it's a retroactive issue it should have come to us back in april. i don't know in april of 2013 so retroactive and i want to know why we can't renegotiate those besides giving the cards to the

inmates based on the the revenue they've spent on those are calls. i don't know if three weeks is more appropriate we don't have a board meeting after thanksgiving >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you it seems like the expenses are retroactive i second our. >> i make a motion for three weeks. >> okay supervisor kim has made a motion for december. item 33 >> item 33 with the property lease as landlord for space at 755 van ness he avenue for an

initial term for $102 million. >> colleagues, can we take it same house, same call? it's adapted. >> this is to accept and extend a grant for disease prevention of hepatitis from september 29, 2014. >> this resolution is adapt. >> this is for a grant and cash for the friends of library for the period of july 31st to june 30th, 2013. >> same house, same call? this item is adapted. >> the issuance of a type off sale at the montgy