Is overwhelming that iris canada did live in the unit and was, indeed, evicted from the unit. For the purpose to prepare this building for condo conversion. Please do not reward the subdivider who is attempting to circumvent the condo conversion laws. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Youve already spoken, sir. Unfortunately, everybody has 3 minutes. Is there any additional Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, well close Public Comment and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. Commissioner johnson. Commissioner thank you. So i would like to start this off by apologizing to the commission, due to a child care issue, i might not be able to stay through the vote on this. Im going to go first to give my situation, my recommendations for what i hope we do, and then ill watch the video after i return home. Ill start off by saying it seems to me were going to end with either a continuance or an intent to deny which is a continuance because we do not have a denial motion in front of us. So hopefully thats where we end up. There will be an opportunity for, you know, me to register a final vote on this at some point in the future. But to help the discussion along, i want to start off by saying normally, i love our planning staff. The city work very hard and normally for all of our cases they do excellent work, but on this one, im disappointed. I am condo conversions have a high bar for a reason. In this city, we normally like condo conversions to be amicable and clean. Generally speaking, condo conversions are done when you have people who are living in a building and you buy the building and youre seeking to convert it to condos and we want to make sure that whenever we can have it, thats its clean, everybody agrees to it. Many they stay or dont stay if thats their choice and everything moves forward. When that is not the case, there is a reason why theres findings we can make to deny a condo conversion. I feel that those facts, if they exist, are saleient to our decision and none of them were presented in our case file. Adds a person who likes to prepare very heavily for these hearings and to really be prepared with information and then also have that added to by Public Comment, im feeling very uncomfortable and unprepared for today. I want to go through what we were presented with in our case file and then what we heard today in Public Comment or what ive interpreted from Public Comment as well as what i have heard in the hallway right outside of our hearing just now before and phone calls earlier in the morning, which to me is not acceptable in terms of a way to present information for a commission to be able to make a determination. In the initial application, they said the initial application to dpw let me back up and say, all our case file had was an intent a motion to approve and, you know, a brief description of the property and a table that said what was the residency status from 2012 on with unit 2, which apparently was iris unit, saying vacant. So if you have not heard of this case before, if you had never heard of iris and her situation and maybe like myself, i actually happened to have been in that cave with whoever else was there, you would have no idea that any of this was happening. I had no idea, and maybe thats my mistake for not getting the news, but i feel like i was very much feeling blindsided by feeling this address was connected with that news story. So thats all we got, you know, and now through conversations outside, phone calls this morning, Public Comment today, weve learned the following, some of the things are contradictory. The initialing application to dpw said there were no evictions from 2005, but yet, apparently, there was an ellis act for everyone in the building and a subsequent lifetime agreement for iris. I dont have the evidence of i mean, i think we have something from dpw, but its partial. So, again, partial evidence for all of these things. We also have no statement from dpw or the rent board to substantiate how they validated the statement on the initial application that there had been no evictions from 2005. The residency table in our Planning Packet i made reference to says that the unit was vacant from 2012, but yet, the eviction that was somehow it gets complicated connected to the findings that are around 2012, iris was not in the apartment, eviction wasnt until 2017. If you say the litigation went on for 2 or 3 years, that still isnt 2012. So i dont understand how the residency table can say there was a vacant unit. But yet we also dont have proof of residency. I mean, we have statements today, and again, im not trying to say anyones not telling the truth. Im just saying, this is what were just getting in the past hours. Theres no proof of residency. We have an article that was passed to us from march 28th, 2017, an article in the guardian, but theres no date stamp on the actual photo. Im not calling journalists saying its not true, but im looking for evidence. There was a statement from iris grandniece she voted. She had a voting record in her polling place. Thats information you can look up. You can look up where someones vote a data, but that wasnt presented to us today. We have no evidence of the material actually gathered from the sheriffs eviction. Normally theres a statement when theres an eviction and the Sheriffs Department goes in, some piece of paper that says there was a couch and bag of garbage or full amount. We dont have any of that today. Im not saying anyone is saying anything untrue. We have verbal statements where some of these things can be substantiated and she should have been in our case report because its saleient to our decision and it wasnt. Ill continue a couple other things. Iris refused to sign a condo conversion agreement a couple Public Comments mentioned that happened in 2015. Again, theres no evidence for that one way or the other other than a statement which, again, there should be some way to substantiate something about that, an email, a draft agreement, something. Finally, there was also a pass up to us, a dr request in 2014 that mentions iris and her apartment, but the date is handwritten and its not the full file. Now, that one hopefully is easy. They are filed with the Planning Department. So we should get that. As of today, i have a typed up normal dr one piece of paper from a packet with a handwritten date on top. So, you know, everything that i just mentioned is a little fuzzy. It makes me uncomfortable. It puts you on the side of if any of it is true, i mean, if any of what i just said can be substantiated, thats really challenging for the owner because, again, this is on the owner to provide accurate information, and the city to verify it because we have this high bar for condo conversions, not only to protect seniors and we have an issue with aging in place but to make sure that condo conversions are clean and amicable when they happen. I feel uncomfortable with this case. I want sub staniation for some of them. If any part of it is true, i would definitely urge the commission to do an intent to deny to reenforce they are clean and amicable. We should be protecting our seniors who should be aging in place. Death is not clean. People arent just alive one day and then not alive the next day, generally speaking, unless theres a tragedy. The fact she was in and out of the hospital is a normal part of the aging process. Like i he had is, ive laid ive said, ive laid out any concerns. Sounds like were going to have to continue this even from the Public Comments i heard today and im hoping some of this will be addressed at the next hearing and i would go as far to say we should do an intent to deny so we have a denial motion in front of us. Ill stay for a few minutes and i apologies that i do have to run out in a little bit. Thank you. Im not going to say it again. Im not going to beat up on staff. You and i spoke this morning. Im not going to go through that, but i share your concerns. To me, aside from everything you just said, its actually pretty clearcut that unit where theres been an eviction in the last five years is not eligible for condo conversion. There was an eviction, and it was filed. Whether or not you think that the unit was vacant because her family took her to oakland whenever it irrelevant. The court case is within those last five years. You checked off the box in the application that says no evictions took place. To me, that is not true. It is clearly not true because there is an eviction filing with the court that is in that fiveyear period. So i will support the intent to deny today. Commissioner richards. Commissioner so let me just start off making a comment i think about whats going on these days. Two hearings ago, we had somebody come up and want to demolish a house they had already actually demolished by lying on the building plans. They said there was a garage there. They pasted a fake garage door on the front and submitted stuff to dbi and then it was thrown our way to have to legalize after the fact because for whatever reason, building didnt want to do it, and we pushed back on it. We had in the paper that i held up at the beginning of this hearing permitting that resulted in the destruction demolition of Historic Resource twice, once it came before us and once before the zoning administrator. Weve had in the news over the past couple of years not only this issue. Weve had 100yearold woman on york street, a woman down in burlingame who was 100 who lived in her place since 1950. We have Senior Citizens being evicted all the time, tenants being harassed. We had carl jensen who is 93 who was stressed out beyond belief because the construction workers were living upstairs. They were pressuring him to move out. I think i have a 94yearold mother. I cant imagine any of this ever happening to her. I remember in 1999, around the same bubble time when you bought the building and ended up doing the ellis act, there was a building at the corner of 30th and church. I was looking for a place to buy, live. My Real Estate Agent took me through the building. I liked unit 4, the one on the corner with the fireplace. Theyre still there and beautiful. Theyre spanish revival. It was a 94yearold woman in it, same age as my mom. I went out to the agent and i said in the hallway, i really like the unit, but theres a 94yearold woman in the unit. He said, well, just ellis act her. I said, youve got to be kidding me. You dont throw anybody out into the streets. This is absolutely crazy. You know, i applaud you for doing the life estate. I really do. However, i look back at, you know, your operating in not good faith to buy the building and then within days evicting people. We dont know what happened to them. We know what happened to iris. Part of me likes you. Part of me doesnt like you. Thats not whats before us today, you but i think its a commentary whats going on in the city today. It kind of makes me sick. It really does. Its like, this isnt the city i moved to when i moved here. Its just, everything is so selfish and so money oriented. Its like, who cares if we trounce on people or their rights. That just is really bothering me these days where i talked to my husband about leaving the city. So my reason for not approving this is not on how i feel about the owners or anything else, the state of the city. As i look at the planning code section 101. 1. About, 101. 1b, it does comply with abcdefg and h. As i read down im not going to go through the ones that dont apply. A and b dont apply. C applies. The Affordable Housing be preserved and enhanced and the answer is no housing will be removed from this project. However, tics are more affordable than condos. We know that. I own tic building in corona heights. Im trying to sell a unit. My sights are its like a condo, but its not. Its more affordable. Tics are entry level housing for people. Unfortunately, you know, in the past, people would do ellis acts and then buy them as tics. Now, this building i own is clean. Now you cant convert to condos. Whats the point of buying a tic because youre in it forever. When you folks bought these units, it was fully disclosed that the building was ellis acted. So you went in knowing that this was the case. I mean, if you werent disclosed on that, you should be suing the people that sold the building to you. D doesnt apply. E doesnt apply. If does. The greatest possible preparedness to protect against life. It wouldnt be covered because its more than three units. And then the issue about maintain balance and policy 33 in the housing elements. Protect affordable especially rental units. Maintain balance and affordability of existing by supporting moderate ownership opportunities. Go back to the tics are cheaper. So its a better place for people to start. But the second one is, once its condo, its no longer under rent control. I see some of these units have been rented as recently as last year or the year before. So im looking at this and on balance, it doesnt meet the criteria for me. Thats what im going to be using to decide on this. I guess i picked on number a. Maybe we should have looked at i think weve had one of these in the past year or two, but, you know, i think we need to look fore carefully at a lot of these that we are creating less affordable, non rent controlled housing by approving these. Im going to when the motion is made, im going to support intent to deny. Can i ask the City Attorney a question . On the we were given section 1386. In it, it says so what are we in this process. The Property Owners submit an application for a condo conversion. That goes to dbw. Do they review that to make sure the application is complete and accurate . I mean, it says here were supposed to take that on our were supposed to review the application and deny it if we believe the subdivider has knowingly committed Incorrect Information. Are we the only ones that do that. One issue is, at least in its entirety before us, we have the relevant elements where it may be incorrect. But who else does that review . Im from the City Attorneys office. The department of public works takes in the application information. Section 1396. 2 has pretty detailed definitions and descriptions. I cant tell you much detail about how much extra Research Public works may do on a particular application. The issue of whether there was thats where i think this whole thing hinges on whether there was an eviction or not. To me, its clear, there was an eviction. Right . So i think theres a i think the Property Owner did you were able to convince the court and i think the court ruled that she didnt permanently reside in the unit. You go back to but permanently reside is different than an eviction. I think thats where we get into problems on this. I mean, back in 2002, you know, you exercised your right under state law and did the ellis act. I think it was that was a good outcome that you provided her with a life estate. Whether you did it out of the goodness of your heart or there was a lawsuit or filing by who knows, but so you give ms. Canada a life estate in the property, which i think is good. Unfortunately, it didnt turn out after that, you know, we should have just moved along. She was able to live there and live out that life estate the rest of that Property Owners were able to condo the property because i think they get kind of dragged into this because of the actions. We all go we all go kind of on our way. Shes able to stay in there. But it gets then complicated. The facts get kind of why that happened. You know, she had to sign some document to allow for that condo conversion. She doesnt or she doesnt have to in the rest of this kind of ensues. The courts clearly opine she didnt permanently reside in the unit post 2012. Whether she had the benefit of an attorney on that, but i dont think thats necessarily relevant. Thats a civil matter that you had as a result of the life estate, which, again, was a civil matter, not necessarily before us. So then weve got to make this determination, which is weve never really been faced with this before that theres Incorrect Information on the application. I believe there is. I mean, i think its clear she was she resided whether she permanently resided in the unit or was a parttime pennant or what tenant or what the facts werent adjudicated by the court. They took on the civil matter of the life estate, which said she had to permanently reside in the unit. So i think thats where we kind of get into this i think to us, if this is the intent and were supposed to analyze whether the application is correct or theyve submitted false information, i believe you submitted information that was kind of consistent with life estate in your civil agreement with her, but there was an eviction. The sheriff was called in. There was an eviction. I think you should have claimed that on the application and moved forward. Whether that then was then it spins up to the top of that, whether the eviction occurred for the purpose of preparing it for a conversion. It ends at whether there was Incorrect Information in the application. That to me is kind of the deciding factor that there was. We cant necessarily rely on what the court said based on that civil matter. I dont know who typically does this because weve never been faced with that question, whether its dpw on the rent board or who would have advised us, but to me, based on the facts, i would support a motion of intent to deny based on that there was an eviction. Commissioner indicate stacy in the City Attorneys office. My understanding is that the department of public works does check the information pretty carefully. I dont know how much they go outside the record. What seems to be in the record is that in 2005, there was this ownership interest created with a life estate. That in 2012, a court determined after 2012 that the terms of the life estate had not been met. Whats not clear is what happened. But even if the terms of the life estate then to terminate that, it would lead to an eviction. The cause of the eviction was the fact that the life estate wasnt the terms of the life estate, but to me, thats still an eviction, whether the cause was the terms of the life estate werent up held, to me, i think its still an eviction. That should be disclosed. Then the city make its determination whether thats eviction then was occurred for the purposes of preparing the building or t