an exception is a demolition permit. alterations and construction they can work at their own risk. commissioner garcia: you have to wait until the appeal period is over for the demo thing. >> did you cite to a code section that says solar panel permits are not required? >> it is administrative policy based on these so iraq. >> could you say that again? >> we of developed it over the last few years. it is issued by the electrical inspection division. the roof-mounted solar installations that conform to the general requirements itemized on side two of this form will not require a building permit application, planning department approval, plan review, or equivalence of metal.

the contractor range is the final inspection. when the applicant comes in, they fill out the pages of this form and the electrical division reviews that and, based on the information provided at the time the permit is issued, the electrical inspector goes out, and they found that all work was in compliance. >> the work has to be done by a licensed contractor? >> yes. >> interesting. >> there is a special provision for solar. when those permits come in, they are reviewed by the electrical division. >> thank you. >> is there any public -- i thought you said no. >> thank you. just to clarify, and there was no planning department review required. that is a result as an

amendment to the solar act. it became effective in the early 2005. it limited local discretion jurisdiction over these applications. prior to that time, planning department would occasionally review solar permit applications, and to correct the requestor's argument that all exterior changes require notice, that is clearly not the case. there are numerous exceptions to that requirement. previously, we would not to notice under section 3114 solar panels. even had this state law not been passed, there would have been no planning code section 311 notification because solar panels are exempt from section 311 notice. there was definitely no notification required in this case. >> we have seen solar panel cases before us. how do they get here? >> as an appeal of the electrical permit, typically.

>> ok. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing them, commissioners, matter submitted. >> comments, commissioners? >> given the presentation by the appellant, excuse me, the jurisdiction requestor, i did not see anything that relates to life safety or health issues. it was predominantly a question of process that was requested. therefore, i am not prepared to grant jurisdiction. >> i would agree with that given our limited jurisdiction on these subjects. >> other comments? >> unless vice president garcia has any comments on the move

meant to deny the jurisdiction request. >> ok. call the roll, please. >> on that motion, to deny jurisdiction. commissioner fung: aye. president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. the vote is 4-0. jurisdiction is denied. president goh: we will call item 5b. the board received a letter from the appellant requesting rehearing of appeal #11-067. it was decided on july 27, 2011. at that time, the board voted to deny the appeal and a pulled a permit on the basis that it

complies. the permit holder is love a family trust. the project is remodeling one bathroom, lighting to comply with cec150k. we will hear from ms. greaux. >> three minutes? mr. epstein claims he elected not to be sworn in. he also chose to not taken notes. he is an attorney at all times. please refer to an attorney's oath. if i get to it, i will put it on the machine. he knows very well of the health and hazardous matter. there was not proper notice. it required safety measures. i believe he has and continues to act in and above the lost

child. he pretended to be ignorant of any ordinances or code when questioned by the board last summer here. now, he has claimed that because he was not sworn in, he did not have to tell the truth. i'm a little more familiar with this ordinance. no copy of the permit with accurate descriptions of work were given to me. he included the one he gave to me or posted to my door and did not say i could go view it. i did you attend it was not ready yet. i receive notice on april 11 that there would be three days of work at my apartment, including a leaky valves. it was reviewed by dbi. in accordance with the ordinance, he is required to pay relocation expenses while he temporarily seeks possession of my unit during construction. the minimum is $5,000.

in the first brief, he admits my apartment is of questionable have the ability, and to make it even more and have a, he removed my only bathroom. now, he covers himself by branding -- by pretending that i would accuse him. he is simply trying to distract us from the issue at hand. i'm aware the board of supervisor rules about entering new evidence, i wanted to alert you that i have a new notice of violation from the san francisco department of health. lead inspection was done. lead paint was found 20 times higher than the allowable amount. i also have another notice of violation over the weekend. raw sewage, human feces was spilling into my garage. after doing my own research in finding out that the construction company is not

certified to do lead inspection or even a real general contractor, i called them and i spoke with the license board, who encouraged me to write a complaint about them. they line also in the declaration, saying they were construction workers employed to do certified lead abatement. that was really fast. commissioner fung: is the work in your unit finished? >> no. they have not done anything. >> the permit is suspended. commissioner fung: still suspended. commissioner garcia: have you looked into whether or not this is an issue for our board? >> i did not get to that. i'm sorry. i had one paragraph to say i realize that this is not really an issue for the board of appeals, but as the rent board

has stated, and unsavory new trend with property managing attorneys, they simply circumnavigates city ordinances and rent board ordinances, and constructively her read -- harass people and evict you out of your apartment. there's no place on a permit for someone has to check or say that they have even attempted to make arrangements that are suitable for a tenant. i am afraid this is the way that people who have no scruples will behave. while i have a hearing with the rent board coming up, i am asking that the board of appeals, if not toward me the $5,101 a relocation fee, at least be aware that the reason i am here is because i believe that mr. epstein is chosen to use this permit process as a way of harassing me out of my home. he is taking advantage of the permit system. commissioner garcia: thank you.

commissioner fung: or accommodations made for you? >> no. the porta-potti has been removed. it was not cleaned for two weeks. anything else? >> mr. epstein? >> we have a new sound system. the buzzes sound the same this time. first one is a 30-second warning. the second one means stop. >> madame president, mr. vice president, commissioners, the way i understand is this board has already decided that the permit complies with the law. she has made allegations with regard to manifest injustice.

i have provided the board with the information on which i based the opinion that i gave last hearing that the rent board ordinance does not cover the situation where a tenant has a lease. i have provided you with a copy of the lease that she claims is a valid lease. it is an eight-year lease for this property. the porta-potti has been removed because the bathroom in unit 340 has been completed. currently, we do not have permits that will allow us to do any work on any other bathrooms. with regard to making access to jcc available, we have offered to do that when work can begin. ms. greaux mentioned this to were back up in her garage. we exchanged three e-mails over the weekend. never once did she tell me there

was a problem with sewage. i had to find out about it from a phone call from the health department on monday morning. the health department was out there at the complaint on friday. i wonder why she is having a sewage problem and not telling about it. she has my cell phone. she has my e-mail. i think it is quite clear which is trying to do. it is as i stated in my brief. she is trying to obstruct us from doing the work we need to do. i have nothing more to add, other than i ask that the request for reconsideration be denied. commissioner garcia: do i have selective memory or did it come up in the original hearing that there was sewage in the garage?

>> there were some were issues that were related to a pipe that went the length of the building. that had been long resolved. the sewage issue this time was a back up caused by the connection between the building and the city sewer line. commissioner garcia: the other question i have this, since we met last, have you looked into what is provided at the rent board in terms of the type of work you intend to do and how one showed or does not have to compensate a tenant? >> as i said in my brief, i called and spoke to an administrative law judge and ask whether or not it was possible to do. commissioner garcia: associated with the rent board? >> yes. she told me it is not possible to reject someone if there is a valid lease.

by extrapolation, since there is a valid lease, and the relocation is for erection of a tenant because you're taking the unit out of housing use, it does not appear to me that i could legally ejecvict ms. greaux. that could be the condition precedent to the requirement of relocation. commissioner garcia: extensive enough work has to be done to a unit such that the tenant has to move out for some time, is there no provision under those circumstances for someone to be compensated? >> that is correct. that is my understanding. commissioner garcia: is your understanding what? >> there is no provision for compensation for tenants for being inconvenienced. commissioner garcia: let me rephrase. you want to do extensive amount of work to the unit. the amount of work requires

that that tenant moved. under those circumstances, are you aware of whether or not the landlord has to provide for some compensation to that person while they have to move and not only pay for them to have to move, but pay for the place they're staying at one other unit is being worked on? >> when you have the situation where there is a lease in place, the least takes precedence. the rent control ordinance protect tenants who are on month-to-month tenancies who are being ejected. it gives them their rights. the rights that she has are under a written lease. the procedure for obtaining relocation as an eviction. the lease is a defense to an even action -- eviction. i gave you the pages out of the guide, one of the seminal

guides for landlord tenant law. it sets forth very clearly under what circumstances when there is a valid lease. the rent board does not deal with -- the ordinance does not deal with the situation where there is a reduction of services other than to say the rent does not have to be paid. she has been successful on not paying her rent since april. commissioner garcia: i don't know how to resolve this. i'm not familiar enough with it. because someone has a lease, they lose the right to be compensated if it becomes necessary for them to leave their premises for some time? is that what you just told me? yes or no. i will rephrase if you want me to. someone has a lease. they have to be relocated so work can be done on that unit.

because they have a lease, as -- that bars them from being compensated for having to move. yes or no? >> i cannot answer the question as it is asked. under the rent control ordinance, is that the circumstance you're asking for? or general california -- commissioner garcia: my question had to do with rent control. >> the rent control ordinance would talk about an abatement of rent for the time she was out of the unit -- unable to use that portion of the unit. ok? if you were doing any eviction, there is relocation. there is no provision in the rent ordinance that i am aware of as a stand here today that deals with compensating a tenant other than in the situation where you are evicting them from the premises. commissioner garcia: let me ask it this way. someone has to leave the

premises. they have a lease. the only relief they get from having to leave their premise so work can be done is they don't have to pay rent. is that what you just told me? >> that is correct, i think, if i understood you. commissioner garcia: is that what you just told me? you have to know that. i have no more questions. >> ok, thank you. questions from the department? is there any public comment? the matter is submitted. >> i do have a question. i'm trying to understand the various arguments here. do you have the letter the requetostor submitted? dated august 8, 2011. >> i don't have it with me.

>> in that, san francisco city ordinance 37.9a11 is referenced. it basically states -- >> i attached it to my brief. she paraphrased incorrectly. >> the exact provisions this year? >> yes. it is attached. >> thank you.

commissioner garcia: are we contemplating something? >> we're in deliberation. commissioner garcia: my feelings are -- i don't know the answer to the question i asked. it seems hard for me to believe that there is one set of rules for people with police and a totally different set of rules for people who don't have a lease when it comes to a landlord being required to make some reasonable accommodation, not that kind of accommodation under ada, but a reasonable accommodation for someone if they have to vacate the premises. i find it hard to imagine it is

not. we cannot decide that. we are not the rent board. i read what was cemented having to do with 379a11. i look forward to being talked out of it -- i would say to retain come if we can somehow continue a request for a rehearing until such time as some hearing before the rent board. >> i think the issue we talked about before is the work is not getting done in the meantime. commissioner garcia: i understand that. i thought we helped out the appellant, tonight the requestor. we helped her out because we thought that in her best interest, you know, things would resolve were she to except the arrangements offered having to

do with the porta-potty. i do feel it would be reasonable to continue this and contemplated at some future time, depending on what happens at the rent board, whether or not to grant a rehearing. commissioner fung: i move a different opinion. the issues and information brought forth tonight are the same as what we saw last time. the resolution of those issues is not going to correct this venue. -- to occur at this venue. i do not see anything new added that is procedurally required. commissioner garcia: i don't need to be argumentative. i guess the manifest injustice to me is the fact that i just

feel it would be manifestly unjust were we not to participate in making sure that this particular tenants' rights are protected. i am confused as to why she is not do some compensation. to me, that represents manifest injustice. >> we did hear some -- i'm sorry. we did hear some new facts in that we heard the contractors who had alleged in a declaration to be certain types of experts were not those experts. that may remain not be a material factor. commissioner hwang: i appreciate very much the vice president's

sentiments with regard to equities. i don't believe that this is something that is for our board to try to sort out. i also would agree with the commissioner that there is nothing material from my perspective that is new here to warrant a rehearing. i do hope that the rent board hearing the equities are heard loudly and clearly. >> is there motion? commissioner garcia: i go back to my original statement. i would like us, if we can do this, by continuing, we retain

some jurisdiction over this, and we could come a dependent on the outcome of the rent board, reconsider some of the points raised tonight. not knowing more this land, i would move for a continuance until such time as this matter has been heard before the rent board. >> want to pick a date? october 5. commissioner fung: let's take a vote first. >> on that motion from the vice president to continue this rehearing request. commissioner fung: no. president goh: aye. commissioner hwang: how many votes do we need? >> 3.

commissioner hwang: aye. >> the vote is 3-1. the matter is continued. we need a date. commissioner garcia: as to the date, whatever is convenient after the matter is heard before the rent board. do we know the date of that? >> she said it was this friday. i think october 5 would be a good date for the board. commissioner garcia: october 5. >> if you respond to the october 5 date, certainly.

>> the rent board hearing is an administrative proceeding. there is a written decision made. that can take anywhere up to 90 days. then the respondent has an appeal period. then there is a period during which the rent board decision can be challenged in court. so, we can continue it to any time. without continuing into your, you probably will not continue it until the end of the process. commissioner garcia: you know what is sad about this? no other comments? thank you. you are not helping yourself out by pushing and continuing this. probably, we would do you a bigger favor just to deny you

your request for a rehearing and let you land wherever you land at the rent board. after the work is done, you could still recover some fees that might have been due you. we're not helping. we are not helping you by delaying it. go ahead and make the comment. >> the violation for lead abatement will consider a substantial amount of work on my apartment -- what else could warrant my needing to be relocated? every wall come every ceiling, doris, and windows are being replaced. this is coming up. i think the date is the 28 of this month. what then? will i be sleeping on a blow up mattress while they are constructing around me doing the walls? i ask for a continuance like and go to the rent board and this can be heard on friday.

commissioner garcia: you're fully aware of all the implications. all right. thank you. >> october 5. commissioner garcia: if we determine that a decision has been rendered and they were to ask the office for a later date, the office could do that unilaterally. correct? >> there is always the option of rescheduling of the parties agree. if they don't agree, it would be the president's decision. >> we could put it on october 5, but it does not sound like there will be more information at that time. >> after hearing counsel for the permit holder, i would actually change my vote, if that is possible. i would vote no.