>> president breed: got it. >> -- it's the end. >> president breed: mr. starr? >> thank you, president breed. i'm joined here with the planner on this project, who will be presenting this case for the planning department. the decision before you is whether or not to uphold the -- uphold or overturn the department of public works' decision at 668 page street. it was based on thing commission's decision to deny the condo conversion on march 8, 2018. >> thank you. thank you, president breed. honorable supervisors, david weissglass, planning department staff. the appellant raises two main issues in their written appeal. first, the planning department's decision was improper, and second that the planning commission was incorrect in determining that

the condominium conversion application was inaccurate. the first question relates to the applicable sections of the subdivision code as well as of the general plan. for the case of 668 to 678 page street, the planning condition was guided by subdivision code sections 1386 and 1396.4. section 1386 states that if the commission makes certain decisions about the project, the tentative map shall be approved. the commission decided there were reasons that made it ineligible for conversion under this section. one, they could see the project had been increased. two an elderly tenant had been displaced or discriminated against. three, evictions had taken place, and four that the subdivider knowingly submitted incorrect information in the application. the appellant contends that the elderly tenant in question, iris canada was not evicted no,

sir displaced no, sir discriminated against. the court's decision in this case is irrelevant to the commission's review. subdivision code section 1386 does not specifically define the words eviction, displacement, nor discrimination, allowing the planning commission to make its own determination as to whether the subdivider did indeed evict or displace the tenant based on the pertinent facts of the case at hand. the planning department made the determination that the removing of miss canada's property and changing of the locks constituted an eviction under section 1386. as a result vacancies were increased and an elderly tenant was displaced. the fourth aspect that the commission determined to be true related to the appellant's

second issue was the information submitted completely accurate and truthful? the commission determined it was not. in form one provided to the city, it was stated that miss canada left the unit in september of 2012 with the reason for termination listed at moved to texas/east bay. unit 670 is listed at vacant from january of 2012 to january of 2017. based on the facts of this case, the commission found this was not a completely accurate representation of what had occurred, as the application does not include the fact that miss canada's items remained in the unit until february 2017, and that she had access to the unit until her locks were changed at that time. further, a discretionary review application filed by an occupant and owner of another unit in the subject building in 2014 states that miss canada still resided in unit 670 at that time. this directly contradicted the information provided by the subdivider in the application, which states that the unit was vacant in 2014.

while the commission acknowledges the previous determinations made by the superior court regarding this case, it lawfully exercised the powers granted to it by the subdivision code and the general plan. for these reasons, the commission disapproved the proposed condominium conversion and staff will now leave the question in the hands of the board. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your presentation and seeing no names on the roster, we will now open it up to public comment to those members of the public whistleblowo are opposition of the appeal. you will have up to two minutes at this time. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is charles menster. i'm a member of senior and disability action, a resident of district one. quite a few times, i was out in front of this unit in question in defense of miss canada's right to live and reside there

as long as she wished. and as it played out, it become an infamous issue around the world as to what kind of greed is occurring as capitalism rots in this city. the people that bought this housing kicked out six or seven tenants when they took it over. they were forced by circumstance -- miss canada had been living there for over five decades, to allow miss canada to stay there until she passed or wished to leave voluntarily. she obviously didn't leave voluntarily. the sheriff had to take her possessions and put them on the street, and the -- the only reason the appellants are going through all this procedure right now is to make another quick buck. pure and simple, make a buck off of throwing a 100-year-old woman out of the place that she had lived for over five

decades. so i think it's a simple decision. it's already been disapproved twice by the planning commission, unanimously at the last hearing. i would think that's enough evidence right there for you to take a decision to deny this appeal today. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm from the housing rights committee. i also think that this matter before you is really clear-cut. you should vote no on this appeal. the applicants gave false information in their applications as was stated by the planning department, saying that miss canada had moved in 2012. in one case they said she moved to texas, in another application they said she moved to oakland, so which was it. then, there was a statement by one of the t.i.c. owners who said she lived there since

world war ii. i can say in 2016, when the housing right committee took on this case, she lived there. i saw all her approximate education ises, her paintings, her husband's paintings. just a tremendous amount of possessions and she lived there. the fact is the sheriff removed her things. there was an eviction. the sheriff's paperwork will show that. i was there the night that the landlord's attorney came, they removed her thing. i was there that night, i saw them removing her possessions, including her medication and her wheelchair, and they would not allow her niece to go in and get those things, so i'm a witness. she was 100 years old, an elder. both dpw and the planning commission by unanimous vote have rejected this application. you should do the same thing. in addition, you, the board of supervisors can send a message loud and clear that here in san francisco, we don't tolerate the eviction of seniors, especially not for the purpose of condo conversions.

please don't let people profit from this eviction. when iris canada was diing, she asked to go home, home to page street where she had spent half her life, to the paintings, the family photos, her favorite red sofa in the living room. that's all she wanted. please say no to this appeal. thank you. [applause]. >> president breed: thank you. >> clerk: just a reminder to the members of the public, if you are in support of the speaker's comments, please just give him a support of hands. >> good afternoon, supervisors. tony robles representing san francisco senior and disability action. urging you to vote no on this appeal. i, too, was there on the night of iris canada's eviction. the applicants clearly misrepresented the facts on two condo conversion applications, saying that iris canada moved out in 2012, and that she was -- was not evicted.

at the same time, they said in a d.r. request to planning that she was living at the page street address. they even submitted a picture of her in 2014. so again, you know, we need to take from this that we have to send a message, do not reward this type of behavior, don't -- you know, don't -- do likewise and deny this. i implore you, board of supervisors, to do this, to deny it as it is the right thing to do. >> clerk: thank you. thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> i volunteer at the san francisco tenants' union, and i would like to ask the board to please not approve the condo conversion, and i would like to say to peter owens, jeff pierce and everyone else, even the deep pockets eventually are empty. please do not reward that

behavior. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. i'm from the san francisco tenants' union. this characterization that the t.i.c. owners were doing a nice thing by allowing miss canada to stay for her life is simply not true. this whole thing began when they brought an ellis eviction against that building, and simply because she was elderly, they had to give her a life estate. and then when she continued to live for another ten years, they got impatient. at this point -- and then they served her an eviction notice. at the time, she served her an eviction case, and they make hay of what happened in court and what happened at the depositions, but during that time, she was not represented. and instead that now we see that they were claiming that

she lived there, they were trying to claim that she lived there when it suited them. you have to ask her, why wouldn't they let her age there and die in place in her home, that she'd lived in since world war ii? because they wanted more money. we can't allow this anymore. the entire country has heard about this story about how this woman was evicted from her home and that a month later, that she died. and between when she was evicted and when she died, we were all there. i was another person who was there that rainy night when we saw the landlord removing her belongings from her apartment and they refused to let even her family members go in to get her things. please do the right thing here and don't approve this appeal. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. next speaker. >> i'm from senior and disability action. again, the misrepresentation of this entire case is really disturbing. what you read on the -- in the

letter from the attorney in early january about the facts is nowhere do you see the word ellis act. rather, there were some agreements made between peter owens and some of the tenants. there were tennesseeants names on that list of t on -- ten tenants names under the plan to evict under the ellis act that you received. so it is fact that the planning commission also heard the testimony, saw the documents and made a decision unanimously that this then was violating two different codes of the planning code, and we should not allow the conversion of this building to condominiums. so i ask you to please uphold those decisions and deny this appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please.

>> i am working on the project for senior eviction in san francisco. it's an abuse. i've talked to a lot of lawyers and tenants' issues. i recently went to berkeley, and a lot of elder abuse victims came to this conference. yeah, i told about the case of iris canada, and they all were shocked. this is like people who saw, like many and many elder abuse cases. so this is such a shame, so i -- but i was really -- even like not glad, but happy when planning commission -- this is, like, third time something right happened in this case, when planning commission denied this application, and i'm very grateful for this. and i hope that, like, you will

support the right thing, and they will know san francisco as not a place where everybody can make a profit over senior deaths. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> my name is fran taylor, i'm with the tenants' union. on one hand, we have an elderly woman throwing out on the street and diing, and an african american woman, a demographic that's being expunged in san francisco. on the other hand, we have property owners, pretty pricey property, and they're whining about the fact that they can't make it worth more or have cheaper interest rates, which really seems irrelevant to

people who are just barely scraping by, and they're calling themselves the victims. and this is really the age of trump. this is up and down and war is peace and all the other orwell expressions, and i hope that you're suspicious enough and follow the money here that the affidavits from people who stand to benefit financially might just be a little fishy. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. next speaker. >> if i could show a picture. may i show something onto the screen? i'd like to show you that this is iris canada. at the top of the picture, you can see the date. that's october 2014. she's in front of her front door. i have multiple pictures of her, in her home, getting

dressed. this is her also in her home. this time her voting in san francisco, the -- the mail came to her home, but she voted in san francisco. this is also in 2014. what i'm trying to get at is most of the girations made by the applicant were to circumvent the city's process for condo conversion. you have a set of laws that guide the applicant's process. the applicants in this case did everything to circumvent the process, including file a manufactured case against my aunt. my aunt has -- and i can provide for you the electric bill, a comcast bill, the pg&e bill, any other reference to her living there. there was a caretaker, there were many, many things that

proved that she lived there. my aunt did leave her apartment in 2012, and she was hospitalized. that's the reason why she left. she didn't leave -- she didn't move out, and peter owens continued to accept her payments up until he refused them at the bottom of 2016. so i'm not clear how you accept payments and then you say she doesn't live there. she had a camera at her front door and at her back door. she pounded on her door on may the 8th, 2015. i have an e-mail to that effect. my aunt suffered a stroke because jeff pierce and another occupant pounded on her door relativelessly. the record said ucsf -- >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. >> in 2015, when iris canada

refused to sign an agreement to convert the building into condos, everything changed. she was threatened with eviction. and from what i know from being at a lot of the protests and doing research, those threats never stopped. she -- iris canada embodies the polite of seniors and people with disabilities when -- who have suffered severe illnesses when threatened with evictions from her long-term homes. i kiss suffered three strokes when her case was underway and died in march 2017, a month after her eviction after the sheriff took all of her stuff out of her home and locked her door. this story is part and parcel of the current dire housing crisis in san francisco, the displacement of african american and latino families and people with disabilities and the worship of money over humanity. the applicants have tried to

disappear iris canada but we will never let that happen. at another old iris, another nurse, and another long time tenant, i hope in some small way to carry on her legacy of compassion, community love, and justice. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. next speaker. >> we're still here. >> clerk: thank you, deputy sheriff. >> good afternoon. my name is cassy lipscomb, and i'm active with senior disability action as well as the tenants' movement. i hope you will say no to this appeal. i can only think of my neighbor, 94-year-old contractucarl jensen, who received an eviction notice and therefore had a stroke. i'm also thinking of my neighbors on 28th street,

7 28th street, who are facing an eviction on the 28th of this month. so iris khancanada, we have to remember her and do something about her decaying representation in the world. this was an international cause de celebre, so to speak. this received protracted attention from media all over the world, as iris canada went through 11 successful requests for delay in evictions. we have to change our reputation as a queen city of gentrification and income inequality. both dpw and the planning commission denied applicant's request for condo conversion. please do the right thing. >> clerk: thank you very much for your testimony. next speaker. >> karen fiskin with senior and

disability action. iris canada should have been able to live out her final years in peace in the apartment she had called home for many years. instead, she lived under a miserable cloud that forced her into court and to live with the fare that she might lose her home with nowhere to go. a sad story that should not happen to any senior in san francisco. but this case is especially via vial -- vile. the building owner in this case did actually lock her out of her house at the very end of her life and then lied to the planning commission, all in the name of greed. please listen to your planning commission. san francisco must not reward this bad behavior of this landowner. it would be wrong in this case and would send a terrible message to others who might be tempted to follow this illegal play book. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. next speaker.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. lorraine petty here. i'm a senior and a resident of district five, iris canada's district. i urge the supervisors, please deny this appeal. please see past the spin and the misrepresentations of the appellants. please understand that this is simply a matter of law. the san francisco condo conversion law which disallows a conversion where there's been an eviction. iris canada, long time resident and 100-year-old woman, revered in her community was evicted a year ago. this was a matter of record. the appellant would have you rewrite history. please abide by the record and the law and deny the appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> i advocate for the elders, and we actually in 2014 went before the city attorney with the idea that the ellis act evictions and elder evictions were elder and choice abuse. we're continuing that fight. one of the cases we brought was iris canada. right here today we're with our libberations home school, decolonize academy, poverty scholars. all of these young people have been homeless, and we stood up for iris every single time that they were trying to evict her, including in the court system. one of the things that shocked me and i heard this appeal even happened was actually what we were advocating was for

reparations for african american san francisco residents, not more evictions and removal, and gentricide, as we call it. now we're even discussing more profiting off the 40-year-old home of a 100-year-old black elder. so i know that you conscious folks here -- 'cause i know a lot of you, and you know me, are not going to approve this appeal. i know you're already there, because you know within your heart that we have gotten to the penultimate of the destruction of this system that we could actually even consider evicting a 100-year-old black elder instead of giving her reparations and her family, and love to her niece here, instead she should be shown love like all residents like her.

i'm going to leave it to these young folks, who have something to say. >> hi. my name is zayna andrews. why would you let the man who killed iris canada by evicting her make more money from condos. >> i'm also with dicolonnize academy, and it's not just a coincidence or an accident that she died. it was because peter owens, the owner of that building, as soon as he bought that building, he kicked her out. he evicted here, and like many people said, he locked her out of her house. and i know a lot of elders, and i -- and i work with a lot of

elders among the community, and i know that a 99-year-old elder should not have to deal with being locked out of her house when she's trying to get inside of her house. she shouldn't have to deal with the fact that people are telling her she can't go back into the place that she's been in for 40 years. and to honestly think that you guys are considering giving peter owens the -- the -- the go ahead to make condos and make money off of her -- basically off of her death is just sickening, and i am -- i just can't even believe how this is even being discussed. and i don't even know why he is still out there and doing what he does. thank you, everybody. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> thank you. so please do not approve this appeal, and thank you, conscious folks. >> clerk: thank you. and next speaker, please. >> hi. thank you. my name is tyler, and i'm a

member of the democratic socialists of america, san francisco chapter. i didn't want to just repeat everything that's been said, but i was actually at the planning commission a couple months ago when this was discussed. and i'm still kind of shocked by some of the things that we heard, that well technically, it wasn't an eviction because technically, she didn't live there, and then, of course we saw all of the evidence today and that she did live there, that there were reporters that came to interview her in her apartment where she lived. so i think it's a pretty straightforward decision in this case. please deny the appeal. thanks. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> has it really come to this? have we as a society come to this being a question of our basic humanity in 2018, a

progress progressive bastion of a nation? that man locked a woman who had lived for over a century, who by some accounts decided over 60 years ago to make this city her home, to lock her out of her home until the end of her life here on earth? i was compelled to move here on a premise that people could live their dream. wow. should we all expect the dream to end in such a fashion as iris canada's? i implore you, find the humanity to say we shouldn't let this stand. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is t.j. bossa with the south of market community action network. i call on the board to deny the appeal to convert miss canada's property into a condo unit.

this has already been a long battle resulting in the death of an elderly woman. please spare miss canada and her family from further indignity, and please do all you can to address the ongoing housing crisis in the city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is mona figueroa. i'm a san francisco resident, and i also work for south of market community action network as a case worker. i'm here to request that you say no to the condo conversion request of the building. clearly with all the statements that have been said, it's clear that it needs to be no. there's something morally wrong with all of this. as the board of supervisors, you guys are all accountable for our communities, specifically for the most vulnerable. i ask that you say no to the condo conversion.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. my name's susan marsh. i'm a resident of san francisco. it should be beyond clear what has happened here. a 100-year-old african american elder was evicted from her home, plain and simple. and by the way, i was there -- also there that night when her belongings were removed. what happened as a result? she died in shock and in pain and in devastation in the hospital. this must not stand, and it particularly must not stand given the motivation for the eviction was quite simply to facilitate and speed a condo conversion that will enhance the property owners of those who brought -- of peter owens and his cohorts. please do the right thing; please reject this appeal. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> leila substantitanley with francisco tenants union. we have passed some rules that offer some protection, though not near enough. we cannot allow those who knowingly submit deceptive applications to flaunt our laws and profit by condo conversion. it's very clear, when the sheriff appears at your door with a writ and subsequently removed all your possessions, that is indeed an eviction. and in this case, an eviction of a 100-year-old elder. supervisors, please defend our laws and let it be known that san francisco does not tolerate this abominable behavior. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. good evening, president breed and supervisors.

my name is curtis bradford, and i am from the tenderloin development neighborhood corporation, and actually i wasn't even going to speak on this particular subject today, although i was well aware of it, but i decided that i really had to get up and at least say something, because clearly, this is cut and dry. for me, there's not really even a conversation. i know a lot of you personally, and i know you're good people and with good conscience. this 'seems like a no brainer for me. in fact this seems to me this should be the easiest vote that you have to make today. it's pretty clear that we can't allow people to profiteer off of this type of behavior, trying to subvert the system, trying to lie and cheat for gain off the expense of someone like iris. again, this must be the easiest vote that you have today, and i look forward to hearing it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> yes. my name is gus grow, and i am

member of staff, in fact a volunteer at the san francisco housing rights committee. i'm not an activist. i met iris canada while she was alive during the last year of her life, and i can tell you everything that happened from the time i met her until she died reminds me of law school. there's a lesson we learned in law school about something called unclean hands, unclean hands. and what happened at that house was that they literally took the wires from her doorbell so that if you went and pressed the doorbell, it would ring in another apartment. the gentleman who came here earlier and spoke, her doorbell was ringing in her apartment. so when they would come, strangers, friends, whoever and

would try to get in the apartment by ringing the doorbell or trying to, iris canada wouldn't hear it. whoever else was there would never hear it. so there's a possibility here that you can talk about profits and condo conversions and all this stuff, but unclean hands ought to be remembered when you actually cast your vote because that is what this is all about, unclean hands. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> my name is andy gillis. i'm a resident of district eight, jeff sheehy's district. for me, this is very straightforward. if we're just talking about rules, the applicants presented mi misinformation in their application, and they evicted a senior, so based on their

application, their appeal should be denied. but it's about how we treat seniors, it's about greed, it's about what the city represents. when i moved here 22 years ago, this seemed to be a city where people wanted to explore themselves, improve who they were and make the world a better place. and now it seems to be a place where people just want to make a whole pile of money, and it's lost a lot of its humanity. i know a lot of people on the board of supervisors thdo have conscience. i thank you -- or most of you who voted against scott wiener's terrible bill, sb 827, and you would ask you to consider your position by maintaining your denial of this application. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your

testimony. mr miss trainer. >> betty trainer. as you heard the testimony, i'm not going to repeat it, either, this should be a no brainer, as curtis said. but i want to take this one step further, which is for each of you supervisors to look in your own districts for all the other no brainers, all the other seniors, and some people have mentioned seniors in their district, people with disabilities, families, that are being evicted out of greed. please be there for them. be there for the demonstrations that took place for iris canada in her memory. be there for these people. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other members of the public other than mr. gilbe gilberti who would like to

speak in opposition of the appeal? thank you. >> thank you. we're setting san francisco values, right here, right now. rejecting the condo conversion application, that's one of the questions. another question is, should somebody be going to jail? thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. gilberti. >> so as a former union laborer, independent contractor, real estate -- oh, pardon? oh, i can't speak on this end? oh, how unfortunate. >> clerk: madam president? >> president breed: thank you. are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in opposition of the appeal? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president breed: and the appellant will have up to three minutes for rebuttal.

>> first, i'd like to just say that there's a lot of miss informati -- misinformation being presented here today. first off, the planning commission has previously indicated that ellis act conversions would not cause eviction. the terms eviction and tenancy have legal means and they don't apply here because miss canada had a life estate, and she had a vested ownership in that life estate, which was revoekd ked the superior court. i will say the idea that she was unrepresented at court was absolutely ludicrous. she had no less than five, and i think somewhere closer to ten lawyers that took her case and subsequently, all but one

draped that cadra dropped the case after getting the facts of the case. no affidavits from her family, no bills that were presented. in fact, we have presented an exhibit h where we have prove that her meals on wheels which was started in december of 2007 was temporarily suspended in july of 2012 and permanently cancelled on october 2012. that was because she no longer lived at the unit. how can you displace someone that doesn't live there anymore? the court case was not an eviction. the question the judge decided on was whether or not she was living at 670 page, and after the decision was made that she was not, based on all the evidence that was pented ovres over three years, peter offered to let her move back into her apartment, waive all the court

appointed fees and reinstate her life estate. this offer was refused. that documentation i submitted earlier today. as it relates to what people are characterizing as a misrepresentation of the planning department -- or sorry, the planning commission, these have been addressed in an affidavit that you've also received from one of my coowners. no false statements were made to the planning commission, they were simply based on our knowledge at the time that each document was submitted. that knowledge changed over time as her family finally clued us into the fact that no, she no longer lived there. the last statement i'll make which is just i've been dealing with this for so long, i somehow wired our doorbell to my apartment so i could see when she had people coming over is just absurd. you can go there to this day and it still rings exactly how you think it would. i think the family members think that her button was the

top button, and it was in fact the second button. and i even put -- tore numbers on those things so she would know, but it -- >> president breed: thank you. this hearing has been held and is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> president breed: this matter is in the hands of the board of supervisors. supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: thank you. this case was certainly complicated given all of the information i've read in the packet, hearing all the public comment and so forth. i did have a question. so i know there's been a little bit of debate whether miss canada was evicted or a life ownership in her estate. i read in the packet that she was offered a loan at 0% interest at $250,000 and made loan payments in $700 increments permonth, and i just wanted to confirm whether that was true, because i know some

of the public commenters mentioned that she was still paying rent, and that the other t.i.c. owners were accepting it, but i wanted to confirm that she was paying a loan. >> president breed: so who was your question to? >> supervisor tang: i'd be happy to hear from both parties because i know that obviously the t.i.c. owners would have to be a party. >> president breed: so in order to answer the question, you would have to come to the microphone, and iris, i'll give you an opportunity to do so, as well. >> yeah, it was absolutely a promisary note that got issued basically to secure her life estate, and she was payed $700 a month, which i will note was under what she was paying at a renter. peter made that concession because basically he wanted to be able to make it so she could stay there forever, and so he

dropped her rent -- she dropped -- he dropped her promisary note fee to a number under that at that time so that she would be able to stay. >> supervisor tang: okay. thank you. >> i'd like to correct the statement that just came before you. he did not drop her rent. >> can you provide your name. >> my name is iris marens, and i'm her power of attorney. it was not a lower amount, it was a higher amount. jeff is making a lot of decisions about my aunt or making a lot of statements that are just not true as it relates to our family, my aunt, where she lived, where she didn't live, and i'm not clear why this continues to be the case. they all signed a condo conversion application under penalty of perjury that stated that my aunt had moved. there was never an indication from my aunt or her family that she had moved. we are not in court, and what he said that happened in court

did not happen in court. my aunt did not submit anything to court because she had had a stroke and she received sanctions. that's why you do not see anything in there from my aunt that went to court. so what he's saying is not true. thank you. >> supervisor tang: okay. i just wanted to confirm forward because obviously if it's a t.i.c. situation all of the coowners, which would include miss canada here, they would obviously, i think, have on the record that it was a mortgage versus rent, and i think that is actually a very important distinction to make that she was part owner, had a life estate in the condo. and then, also, again, this is just really difficult because listening to the public comment but reading, also, the information that was presented and filed in court saw that, you know, mail had piled up at the door. there was unclaimed ups delivery notices. there was a site survey in 2014

where they had to install a carbon monoxide detector, and when they entered, they saw water had evaporated in the toilet bowel. and then the comcast installation in 2016, someone had come to do the installation. i'm reading what's in the court documents. i'm relying that it's very difficult to hear this kind of back and forth between he said, she said, but in any case, i wanted to just at least share that or bring that out to light. i think also what was interesting was the stopping of the meals on wheels deliveries in 2012, as well. so any way, i will defer to other colleagues on their questions or comments. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you. and i'm not sure exactly who to address these questions to, so i'm just going to look at our city attorneys in this case. the distinction that supervisor

tang just brought up between a life estate and, i guess being just a pure tenant, could you explain that distinction a little bit for us. >> city attorney's office. i a life estate is the equivalent is or is similar or can be similar to an ownership interest in a property. under tax law, it depends on the length of that life estate. it can ripen into an ownership interest and therefore the property would actually be taxed as if it were a sale. but it's also -- it's sort of a hybrid. it's a bit like a rental agreement for the rest of your life, and it sounds like it was secured here by a promisary

note which would -- it similar to something like a mortgage to pay. >> supervisor kim: but the main difference for the resident of the unit is perhaps how it is treated via our tax regulatory framework. i'm just wondering if it affords you a different set of rights. >> my understanding is that it -- it would change that, which is why i believe that the rent board didn't have -- i don't think they had evidence here that there was an eviction because she wasn't viewed as a tenant for that purpose. but the -- >> supervisor kim: but displacement is also a consideration. >> excuse me? >> supervisor kim: but displacement is also a consideration. >> yes. what i was going to say is that the planning commission in interpreting the requirements

of the subdivision code viewed this as it's a life estate. if it wasn't exactly a rental agreement or a tenancy, it was the equivalent of that. so they had the ability to interpret the subdivision code, the meaning of those terms and what displacement was. >> supervisor kim: thank you. and just one final question, is there some type of definition of residency that either this board or the planning commission is tethered to in today's decision? >> not that i'mweek.

it involves an element of presence and an element of intent. >> supervisor kim: great. thank you so much, mr. givner. those were my questions. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes. what's key for me in this issue is the analysis that supervisor kim brings up which is that the subdivision code isn't necessarily tied to tenancy but displacement, and that's where i think the planning commission made the -- or the planning staff made the right decision and -- in this case. and you know, i don't -- i think that's the correct legal analysis, and i also think it's

the correct moral decision in this case. you know, she lived in her home for close to 60 years. you know, we heard all of the testimony, and this -- this profit motive over humanity that's become, like, a monster in our -- in the speculation of our housing market in san francisco is really stark in this case, and i'm not going to be voting in favor of this appeal today. >> president breed: thank you. and i'm seeing no other names on the roster. colleagues, i'll just make my remarks about this particular case, especially since it's in my district. it's really sad that we are here today to address such a -- a tragic situation here. i had a chance to spend time and get to know miss canada

with her niece, iris, and she was an incredibly sweet person. everyone who knew her, even the people who lived in this building, agreed that she was very thoughtful, and she was very kind. she always had something nice to say to people, and you know it's sad that we're here on this occasion. and i remember when i was contacted by tommy mecca who reached out to me because of the court case when miss canada first started going through going to court, and we held a press conference with the housing rights committee and others in her family to bring attention to this matter. the file on this matter, the testimony that has been given by -- at the planning commission and here at the board of supervisors today

reveal a very troubling set of events about this particular property that must be acknowledged for the purpose of making this decision. the property was in fact subject to ellis act evictions in 2002. after years of court battles with iris canada in particular and negotiations back and forth, including myself making personal calls to the sheriff to delay what was i believe to be an eviction, unfortunately, we were unsuccessful. and the sheriff went into her home on february 10, 2017, and executed an eviction notice, removing all of her possessions from her home. and as far as i'm concerned, you can call it eviction, you can call it displacement, but she was removed from her home and there's no other way that i see this. when the sheriff goes into someone's door, changes the locks and forceablely removes

their possessions, that's in essence an eviction. whether a person has a life estate or a tenancy interest, it doesn't matter. sadly, after the eviction took place, iris canada passed away. and when this board adopted reforms to our condo conversion ordinance, it was a priority to ensure that we were not granting the right to convert properties which -- which had recent eviction history. in fact, we took extensive care to ensure that we weren't incentivizing displacements or evictions in our condo conversion laws. the eviction of an elderly tenant along with the incomplete information which was submitted in this application gives me great concern. what happened to iris is not compassionate, and it's not acceptable in our city.

colleagues, given the eviction of miss canada which occurred in this property, i cannot support this application to allow the property owners to convert the condos. to do so would be not just unjust to iris, but it's inconsistent with the spirit and the intent in the language of our condo conversion laws. and so i would like to entertain a motion to approve item 35 and table item 36 and 37. moved by supervisor safai, seconded by supervisor cohen. madam clerk, on the motion, please call the roll. >> clerk: supervisor kim? supervisor peskin? supervisor ronen? supervisor safai? supervisor sheehy? supervisor stefani? supervisor tang? supervisor yee? supervisor breed?

supervisor cohen? supervisor fewer? there are ten ayes and punione with supervisor tang in the dissent. the ayes are approved. >> president breed: madam clerk, let's go to public comment. [applause]. >> clerk: at this time, the public may now address the entire board of supervisors for up to items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board to include the march 20, 2018 board meeting minutes and items 42 through 50 on the adoption without reference to committee calendar. public comment is not allowed when an item has been previously subject to public comment. pursuant to the board's rules, direct your remarks to the board as a whole and not to individual members and not to the audience. speakers using interpretation assistance will be allowed twice the amount of time, and if you would like to display a document on the overhead projector, please clearly state such to sfgtv and then indicate

when you'd like the screen to resume to live coverage of the meeting. >> president breed: first speaker, please. [ speaking native language ]

. >> supervisor jane kim, congratulations. many of our supervisors agree to agree with you and do their own visits and remove the trash cans and drug dealer needles. yes, jane kim, you have the right to be with us any time we need you to clean the city. you know why? because most of the

supervisors -- most of the homeless, you see they keep coming from other cities. i was eyewitness, they give them $100 and one way ticket to go away. they coming to san francisco. the weakest time when willie brown in office. he hired some homeless guy. his name is george. elied to the mayor, he lied to us, and now we need to clean our city. you see yesterday, the formal director of dbi coming to san francisco, but i know, i agree with him. he doesn't like to see the garbage and the needle of the drug industry. jane kim, don't worry.

i have the key for room 200. we're going to support you, and we will support everyone who have courage to talk over our name. >> clerk: i'm going to pause your name. you are not able to discuss or aloud to campaign politics in this chamber. >> okay. i'm sorry, but i'm very glad to say what i have said. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> tomorrow is 8,070 days from something big time. time will tell if i'm correct. but i know something big time happened 8,069 days ago, and it was that the first trumpet had to have started the sound, the 40th jubilee