The Board of Supervisors has passed an amended version of Supervisor Peskin’s legislation to prohibit condominium conversions for buildings in which certain types of evictions have occurred (now section 1396.2 of the Subdivision Code).
And while section 1396.2 now prohibits the conversion of a building in which either multiple evictions or an eviction of at least one senior (who has resided in a unit for 10+ years), disabled, or catastrophically ill tenant occurred on or after May 1, 2005, as best we can tell, there are a number of important exceptions:
1. A “building that had one or more evictions, as defined, after May 1, 2005, shall be exempt . . . if each unit in the building was occupied by a separate owner of record on April 4, 2006, the introduction date of this legislation.”
2. A building in which multiple evictions occurred, but did not result in the “eviction, as defined, of a senior, disabled, or catastrophically ill tenant shall be eligible for conversion ten (10) years following the date of the last eviction from the building. Conversion of a 2-unit building pursuant to this section shall be subject to Section 1359 except that both units in the building shall be owner-occupied by the same owners of record for ten (10) years prior to the date of application for Conversion. Conversion of a building of up to six (6) units pursuant to this section shall be subject to the provisions of Article 9 except that the owner occupancy requirements of sections 1396(a) and (b) shall be ten (10) years prior to the date of registration for the lottery as selected by the Director.”
Got that? If not, try contacting Boe Hayward (415.554.6987) in Supervisor Bevan Duffy’s office or Deputy City Attorney John Malamut for clarification (and feel free to share).
The SFHomeBlog has both a tipster’s account of the vote as well as the entirety of Supervisor Duffy’s post-vote spin control (he voted in favor of the legislation).
∙ You Should Have Seen This Coming (Seven Years Ago) [SocketSite]
∙ Dufty’s Response to the Peskin Amendment [SFHomeBlog]
∙ Peskin legislation retroactive to May 1, 2005? [SFHomeBlog]