there could be a project there and could even be a residential project. we voted to continue to have the case sent back to discussions which apparently took place and a revised proposal was worked on. what i heard from the appellant was basically my way or the highway response to the discussions. i have trouble with that. so for those reasons, in addition to the reasons that the last hearing, i would support the hpc. president goh: i am similarly leaning for some of the same reasons, i recognize that you have to take your design, you put great stock in the value in

your own view of how the property should come out. it is frustrating to come up against these issues. as a commission, we do need to look at the historic preservation commission and their findings and give it some way. we can't disregard it in the entirety. i was present for the hearing and i took a look at the property. i found in favor of the department, and nothing i have heard today has slave to me to the other side. >> i am extremely torn in this case. i applaud the appellant.

i did drive by the primary building. the fanciful designs looks lovely although i am not a design expert. but i do have some concerns when we are working with buildings of landmark status, all of us here in the city need to work with the department index of some of the guidelines. i am disappointed that all of us that the compromise plan by the department wasn't acceptable because the think we would all be benefited by the improvement of the property. i don't think my vote matters, but i think you did a lovely job. we're dealing with buildings of landmark status, this is where

we need to work with the city experts. yet done a lovely job with the main building and i applaud your investments. >> is there a motion? >> i moved to uphold the department for the reasons stated. >> told the historic preservation commission, and disapproval set forth in motion no. 78. >> we have a motion from commissioner hwang to uphold the denial set forth in the hpc motion. on that motion. [roll call vote] commissioner fung: no.

commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner garcia: no. president g-- commissioner peterson: aye. >> the vote is 3-2. t the denial is upheld. >> 5a and 5b will be heard the other. -- together. protesting the issuance, permit to alter a building. lighting to comply. the change to windows, walls, or doors. subject property at 34366. protesting the issuance on may 4

to permit to alter a building or remodeling bathrooms repair plumbing and complying with various notices. as the first appellant, you have seven minutes. >> thank you for taking time to give us a chance to speak. i like to say that i am a little nervous. i'm not quite gotten used to these types of situations. and i don't have an attorney present as i can't afford to have one. i'm up against a quiet season the litigating landlord and tenant attorney with over 170 caners in his repertoire. -- retainers in his repertoire.

i have made notes to keep myself a little clearer. i first want to address the brief in which he -- i am sorry. i live at 342. in reading his response to my appeal, page 6 of a, he has claimed that violated and tell my bathtub and shower and shanker move before filing the ipo, and that is certainly not the case at all. my appeal was filed on the eleventh. the demolition of my bathroom happened later. it is an hardly understand that i did not allow this to happen and then run out and file an appeal. i filed an appeal when i saw the work being done beneath me and

the bathroom was ripped out so i could see the dirt floors. when they told me that i had two days with no suggestions or accommodations except that i could use the port of party provided for the construction workers, that is why i filed the appeal. additionally, i enjoyed living there without incident until the new owners had first visited my apartment for a walk-through. immediately following this, i became a member of the san francisco 10 and's union. it was through the union and some of the behavior towards me that i began to understand the intentions of the new owners of the building. i was meeting new people who had seemingly no agenda. that was the " but i overheard

her saying to my neighbor. i will just have to vet all of these people. -- i will just have to evict all these people. this plan has now than when into motion as they have filed a lawsuit against myself and the other single female living in the building. it has made life very difficult for me. i filed because the work exceeded the notice of the violation. where several inspectors coming over to the building after some alarming problems, big problems. we have a plumbing disaster that resulted in human feces into the paper all over my garage floor and underneath the building that was -- and there was not even a clean up.

that is when we first started to notice that there was not going on. i learned from the san francisco 10's in yen, they investments and the partnerships. according to my research, have 19 unlawful detainer in their profile. he seems to be a friend of mr. epstein. further, i filed because no precautions or warnings or even admission to lead based paint on the site, and the steps required when dealing with this removal. only after the appeal the receive a certified letter notice the was a government

pamphlets i have included in my brief for you. the precautions were taken to protect me or my neighbors of the hazards. his construction workers took no safety measures. they put on some of its limited the work downstairs, but they never talked to me about that. i've believe that he is using a method called constructive division process to harass me out of my home. and without giving any alternatives to a bathing facilities, i made my -- and it has made my life very difficult. i have been without a shower now for a long time. since may 11. and when i filed my appeal, i was told that he would be getting a phone call in half an hour, and his crew worked late

into the night against the orders and work to do more work that was not -- i don't believe it was in the notice of violation codes. they did not abide by the board of appeals a device or admonition to stop the work. i would also like to say in conclusion, in case i forget, on page 7 of 8, he said that notwithstanding the condition of the building, there were six units of questionable have the ability at less than market rent to friends or acquaintances while in bankruptcy. this is true. the deadline these apartments. he rented by a permit to the wishes of questionable have the ability. i have no question or appliances

and the floors are so damaged, thinking i could do it myself, i was told that they were beyond the sanding. my walls are appealing, i was promised a refrigerator on november 6 of 2010. i still don't have a refrigerator. that is all i have. [chime] commissioner garcia: the brief at one point referenced there is a discussion with an attorney for you? >> that was my attorney. commissioner garcia: there was supposedly an agreement made? it never went through?

>> there was never an order made for me to hah in membership. he also did not give how many weeks it would go on for. >> let me try to be clear on what is you want this board to do or like the sport to do. as of right now, your bathroom is unusable. and they, being the permit holder, as a permit to abate, correct? and what do you want us to do? >> i might not have addressed that. there is real work that needs to be done to this building. and in my particular case, the bathroom was a $2.50 effect that the -- that my boyfriend did.

all i was asking the board to do is to stop the process of public harassment. there was no need to do demolition of the bathroom. that comes from either the bathroom of of, or when i finish paving, and dump all of the water in my to live. all i had was l 0 tiny light at the head -- -had a little tiny fix. commissioner garcia: if you were to be totally victorious here today, what would you walk out of here with? that they would never be allowed to do the work? >> there is real work to be done to the building that lead to grave attention.

removing my bathroom is not one of them. commissioner garcia: what would you like us to do to correct the problem? >> i would like my bathroom to be put back then. the bathroom removal was beyond the scope of what we noticed. commissioner garcia: i am not saying that you don't have a real issue or that we're not gonna try to work on whatever the issue is, but normally, that would be something that would be reported to the department of building inspection and they will cite them for having done more and beyond the scope. if you don't have the kitchen, you should. i don't know how this board can get involved in that. i am trying to delve into what your primary issue is the feel that this board can deal with having to deal with the

permanent venue are appealing. >> i wish i had a better answer for that. the notice of violation posted on my door to fix a leak or a drain pipe. in the decision to remove my bathroom and demolishing its didn't seem like -- let's see if we can't work this out. president goh: do you happen to know if she is here? >> died of null if she is

coming. -- i don't know if she is coming. president goh: noticed she did not submit a brief perio. >> previously, we have agreed to give the permit holder 14 minutes because both appeals are being heard. shall we proceed with that and continue to take the second appeal? president goh: alternatively, we can just have the seven minutes.

>> my name is mark epstein, a and the property manager -- and i am the property manager. it is currently by the morris family. they inherited it from their father. it is currently owned by four people that are siblings and the son and daughter of a fifth sibling has passed on. the building is a beautiful building that needs an incredible amount of work. since the owners purchased the building where we have purchased it in a foreclosure of august, we have engaged in a campaign out of trying to harass or remove tenants. that is not at all part of what

the goal is for this building. the goal is to set up in a position where it meets and housing codes. it is safe and a friendly building. we began during the renovation work in three of the units that were occupied and by the longer- term tenants. i believe have been there as many as 20 years. another is a, and a number -- another is 23. >> they called with regard to the work that was being done in the other units. it was, as a result of this process, the contractor we were using, a licensed contractor had done some work, replaced a water heater and replaced a heater.

the contractor was immediately instructed to get permits for the work. there is a conflict between the contractor and they told me they will not work on our building anymore. we retained another licensed contractor, a lead certified licensed contractor and they began doing work in the building. we prioritize the work that needed to be done while the contractor was doing the sewer pipe that runs the entire length of the building. he noticed that the flooring needed to be replaced. we went out, got a permit, i arranged with the tenant, for him to have a porta-potti put in in front of the building for him to be able to use the showers and some facilities, and for him

to not pay rent during the time the work was being done. i want to make clear, when i was having my conversations with ms. conway, i made that same offer. instead, she requested that we put her up and a hotel while the work was being done. we did not find that that was an appropriate remedy in light of the fact that she would not be paying rent and the expense of putting in a bathroom, $12,000 unanticipated made that not financially reasonable. she said that her comment was filed before she let contractors in to remove the bathtub and the same. i want to put a permanent appear, the appeal of their.

please note that it was filed as i said on may 16 after the cut and the sink had been removed. i also want to call your attention to the notice as exhibit 1 attached to my brief, it says very clearly to review the scope of the work, the contractor to demolish every install bathroom as required. work is expected to take three weeks. this is the noticed that was placed on her door on the morning of may 10. so when she permitted the contractors into her unit, on may 13, to do the work, not on a 11 when i was there to inspect, she newhall when the contractor

was going to be doing. while the contractor was working on the downstairs unit, adjust for the information of the board, there are three units in three sacks in the building. in a 340 is the ground floor unit. 342 is even floor unit, and let my contractor was working in unit 340 and had demolished the ceiling, he saw that the four was rotted and unsafe. he has provided a declaration in the packet provided to you. officially the exhibits quickly taken with my camera fun. they are not the best pictures.

that is why i went to the unit, and that is what i saw. if it was only a $2.50 fix, we gladly would have done that. instead, we began demolition work hot pudding in a brand-new bathroom. when she talks about lead paint, not one service was touched. and when she moved into her unit, the wolves -- walls are as

they were now where she made them that way. and the kitchen an. [chime] commissioner garcia: when you dealt with the individual -- >> i did not. commissioner garcia: was there a use of jcc? was that a unilateral decision? >> when i talked to the tenant, i told him what they needed to do. i suggested that as a resolution and that is what we agreed to do.

>> it doesn't seem odd that a woman would not accept that? does that strike you as strange she felt that way? >> i understand that in the work we're doing is a huge inconvenience. but it is work that needs to be done. in addition to that, i had been given reports that she has keys to at least one other unit that she is regularly seen going in and out of. i have reason to believe that she does have access to shower and bath facilities in the building. could i prove that, probably not? commissioner garcia: what does the code provide for?

what does it require you to do in that situation? >>-only know that it requires us to give them notice of what we are doing. >> for instance, when there will be a major innovation -- renovation, there has to be fees paid. in addition to the rest that they will have to pay has to be met, all of that is new to you? >> that is when there is a long- term -- i can assure you that has suggested that she be relocated for a month, it would have been raised as an issue to try to make too big of a project. all you are trying to do is to force her to move. commissioner garcia: how does

the code to find long-term? one night would be long term without a bathroom. >> her bathroom would not be usable, but -- she would have a place that she could go. we're talking about the port-a- potty, and access to jcc for shower and other sanitary needs. commissioner garcia: thank you. president goh: i just have a follow-up question for something that you stated. it sounds like you have heard from other people that there is a possibility that she had keys to another unit in the same building. let me ask my question. if -- would it have been offered

to use another unit in the building pending the reconstruction or fix in the bathroom? >> i don't have access to other units. i am the manager, but since we took over the building, her boyfriend refused to provide us with keys. if it was a solution, we would have taken it immediately. >> mr. duffy. >> grieving, commissioners.