thorization from the planning commission. these interim controls do not prohibit them moving forward either to seek legalization of the residential uses or to convert back to the commercial use. they simply state that they need to go through the conditional use process. these are the laws that are now in effect. we believe these are the laws that need to be applied tho this project and to the permit. the permit has not been reinstated, these interim controls are in effect and therefore i'm asking you to grant the appeal to maintain the suspension and we can work with the department of building inspection to take appropriate action which i believe would include revocation of the permits, but we need to have this come back, go through the appropriate process under the interim controls for the interim use authorization. those are the issues i wanted to race. thank you. >> mr. san sanchez, for the

rookie's benefit, can you be very specific? the problem for me here is like the referendum on the ballot where you vote no you are actually voting yes and vice versa. if the appeal is granted, what's going to happen? and if the appeal is not granted or overruled what is going to happen, specifically. >> excellent questions, a great way to start the conversation. so if the appeal is granted as we are requesting and the board maintains the suspension, the suspension would remain in effect and would not be or could not be released until such time that they have obtained the conditional use authorization. we would discuss this with the department of building

inspection. i think the most straightforward matter would be subsequent to this to actually revoke the permit and to take affirmative action to revoke the permit, but then we would want to discuss that further. if the appeal is not granted and the suspension is therefore lifted, we believe that that would be an error and we would want to discuss our appropriate next actions with the city attorney's office, but such actions could include another letter from our office requesting a revocation of this permit. this has happened unfortunately i think once before. we had another project last year that the board members may remember at 518 castro street where interim controls became effective after we had taken action and the board in that case mooted the appeal and issued a new letter, but we believe the most effective way would be for the board to acknowledge the interim controls, grant the appeals and require the

suspension to remain in effect and not allow reinstatement of the permit. >> so if we grant the appeal and the permit is revoked? >> the action on the appeal would be just to continue the suspension and it wouldn't directly result in revocation of the permit. we would want to discuss that possibility with the department of building inspection and we believe that there are grounds for them to revoke the permit. >> but the possibility exists, and i'm not advocating that it should be or that it shouldn't be, but i'm just trying to see where the river is going to take us. if the permit is ultimately revoked then the process -- then the building owner can file again for the permit and go through the whole process of going through the planning department, et cetera? is that the gist of it? >> yes, they would submit the building permit application, go through the conditional use

process as required by the interim controls and that would be appealable to the board of supervisors. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, why didn't the department take this action in the first place instead of the release of suspension? >> the interim controls were not in effect at the time that we issued the release of suspension. they are in effect now and we believe that they apply to this project, to this permit. >> i think we have a disagreement between mr. sanchez and the city attorney. is that fair? >> i think the rules as related to you by the effective director are correct. you apply them to the law that was in effect at the time that the zoning administrator made his decision, the decision being the request for release of suspension. and the law in effect at the time was not the interim zoning control. however, that's not to say that whatever you do, the zoning administrator or the department of building

inspection couldn't take further action in light of the interim zoning controls. >> is this, following up on your statement, is this analogous to driving 65 in a 65 zone and then having it change to 55 the next day and then getting tagged for your previous action? >> in a manner of speaking. in a manner of speaking. you were lawfully driving, the law changed, you are going to be evaluated on the law. >> why do you think it applies? is it practice, is it --. >> well, i think it has been standard practice to apply the law of the day when reviewing land use matters such as this. i don't have the eloquence or the legal arguments perhaps of the city attorney's office to make, but i believe that the

board does have the ability here that a hearing that you are conducting now, we were, during the pendancy of this appeal we were prohibited from making any changes to our release of suspension because of the appeal. so had there not been an appeal in place we would have been able to take action. now that the appeal is in place we are asking you to take action with respect to the interim controls that are now in place. we believe that's the appropriate action to take. >> so because there are appeals, that means it runs on to the interim legislation? >> the permit right now has not been reinstated. it's suspended. the interim controls say a permit cannot be reinstated during the time of the interim controls so they were trying to reconcile what the interim controls say, which

state that any permit to reestablish any commercial use shall not be issued or reinstated, and what's before you tonight is an action that would result in reinstatement of the permit in violation of the interim controls and that's the concern that we have and that's why we believe and we're requesting -- i mean -- that you grant the appeal and to require the suspension to remain in place, because recognizing the interim controls. >> what if there were no interim controls? >> if there were no interim controls, we don't -- we believe the release of suspension would have been properly issued for the interim controls, which are now in effect and they were, i believe, unanimously approved by the board of supervisors, signed by the mayor and they are in effect. >> so probably put you right on the spot, maybe -- without the interim controls your

position would be to advocate for the release of this suspension and you stand by that, again putting aside the subsequent development? >> yeah, putting aside pretty much the larger policy issues that result -- resulting from the action, that there would be this loss of housing, loss of residential use that results from this action. we believe otherwise the permit should be reinstated but for the interim controls. >> so the timing is of the essence. >> yes. >> yes. thank you . >> can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on public comment? can i ask you to come up and other people stand on the far side of the wall there if you can which will help make the proceedings

move more quickly. >> mr. pacheco, given the number of people and the lateness of the hour, one minute per -- yes. >> first person can step forward. and if you haven't already filled out a speaker card, if you could do so either before or after you come up to speak, that will help us in the preparation of our minutes. >> do you want to speak? okay. >> one minute, okay. my name is cory bloomberg, i represent jonathan stoker, resident at 1049. we are in support of the appeal. he's been a resident for about 4 1/2, 5 years, and i just heard that the management, the owners of this establishment, rented to him to live there. his lease is a work-loft lease. in other words he is supposed to live

there. yet they knew all along that it was an illegal unit. so i think if you see through the smoke and mirrors of the establishment here, the owners, they are trying to capitalize on the increase in rent and throw him out after they already rented to him to live there. so i don't think you should reward their intentional bad behavior in that regard. with respect to the appeal, sometimes the supreme court rules on cases that they have which are under appeal and under consideration by lower courts and that overturns those decisions. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hey, i'm jonathan stoker, i live at 1049 market street for about 4 1/2 years. i was asked today to read a letter on behalf of the tenants that did leave the building after the eviction notices were lodged

from the tobner law center and it reads, to whom it may concern, our office represents victor areola, justin barker, chris crevitt, robert castleberg and melissa walker. these individual residential tenants at the property of 1049 market, san francisco, were served with the eviction notices ocean their units were being demolished. they are also plaintiffs in an on-going case in the san francisco superior court pertaining to the wrongful eviction from the above-referenced property. following the loss of their rent controlled homes, nearly all these tenants were forced to leave san francisco because they were priced out of the rental market. mr. areola who lived here for 14 years was moved to the state of washington. mitchell who lived

at 1049 for 9 years, now resides in los angeles. mrt atkinson also now lives in los angeles. mr. crevitt lives in walnut creek, miss walker resides ?t state of new york, mr. barker livers in (inaudible) because the cost of living is so much less. >> i'm sorry, your time is up. next speaker please. >> hi, my name is tory antoni, i am an artist. terry bogart has rented these apartment as spaces since 1997 and basically 1049 market street currently operates as a mixed use building specializing in artist live-work spaces. it is home to many students at the academy of art university who create

remarkable pieces of art within their unit. living in an artist-based community has provided much encouragement and support for many artists throughout the years. it is truly a community based on creativity and celebrating unique ideas. i wish these were my words but these are their words, the article posted on 1049 market street dot com in 2013, so, yeah, i'd like to see it remain that way, see that this remains a hub for creativity for many artists. that's all i've got to say. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is tommy, avacoli mecca, i'm with the housing rights coalition of san francisco. today, tonight, you folks have the ability to stop hundreds of evictions on market street. at the housing rights committee we are seeing an

alarming trend, land lords who once rented commercial spaces residential because it was more viable 5 or 10 years ago now want to evict these tenants and rerent them as commercial because they can make a lot more money. what that means basically we know of 3 buildings right now beside 1049 on the same block which are in the same situation and could result in hundreds of evictions. the mayor last year issued a declaration to the city to do all they can to preserve rent controlled units. we are asking to you preserve these units, stop the evictions, stop the evictions of hundreds of artists on market street. it is the only logical decision you can make tonight. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is sarah zimmer, i'm here representing eviction free sf, we can't lose

another 77 rent controlled apartments. many of these tenants moved into these apartments thinking they were renting real apartments. they are only turning them back thinking they can make more money because of a twitter tax break two blocks about. this is about greed, this land lord never tried to do anything, they were renting these units after they say they bought the building this time around. if you don't grant this appeal you are throwing these tenants out of their homes. some of them will become homeless, some of them will move out of the area. please stop the demolition of these units. grant the appeal. this is in your hands tonight. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, my name is

dennis zaragosa, i'm an attorney, i represent two of the tenants on the 6th floor, but quickly, i think the problem here doesn't go back to whatever the building department ordered in 2007, the problem here goes back to 1994, possibly 1995, it goes back to when they decided to change a number of units, a number of rooms, from commercial space to live-work. they acted illegally. the problem with allowing the december initial is that you will allow the land owner or the landlord to profit from illegality and that should not be done. it is a bad precedent to do so. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is steve whetstone and i don't live at

149, i live at 1067. we have the same landlord, bob, and i'm experiencing the same things. i moved in, saw a craig's list ad, it says live-work. i believed them. i lived there for 8 years and now it really is residential. if they want to evict me, they need to use residential laws to evict me. they are not doing that. my neighbor, he was evicted, now i have an architectural firm for a neighbor. he was forced out under commercial rental laws after living there for 8 years. don't let this happen to other people because to make money, they make profit off it and it seems like they are not following the spirit of the law. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> hello, my name is bethany shores, i am also a neighbor of 1049 market street. by allowing these residential units to be converted to office spaces you are losing the people of this neighborhood, people who work and create art and thrive in their rent controlled spaces. by allowing them to stay there you are allowing these people to continue to thrive, to continue to create art and to continue to live in san francisco. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is joe bender. i'm a resident of 1061 market, which is in between two buildings, 1049 and 1067, that you have already heard from. i have a different building owner but a similar situation. we've been living in a

commercial space with the full knowledge of the landlord for 4 years now. and exactly the same thing is happening to us. now that they can make more money off of turning these units into commercial spaces, into office spaces, people, everybody on the third floor of the building has received eviction notices. and i beseech you to put a stop to this. >> does your building, the units in your building, have kitchenettes? >> they all have sinks and there is a common kitchen and common --. >> common shower. >> common shower, common bathrooms, yes. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hithere, my name is ollie wool itch, i live at 1005

market street, john gall is also my landlord, i was the tenant's representative as we brought 40 cases through the rent board and 10 of them were abandoned due to a combination of intimidation, buy outs, senior citizens that we helped transition into senior citizen housing, but 30 of our cases we won. our building was converted and it was part of the four buildings that the bogart family owns. ours was the smallest and the easiest to convert so in 2003 our building was converted from commercial zoning to 25 percent residential use live-work and that's why the rent board granted us all our cases and granted us back rent for all the years of rent control that we were overcharged and granted us rent control. all the buildings are the same, it's just a matter of paperwork.

>> thank you ?oo . >> next speaker, please. >> bobby coleman, san francisco tenants union. the property owner spokesman would have you believe that the entire of the sfplt san francisco board of supervisors and the mayor don't understand san francisco's administrative law, government law and even equitable principles, laches, the land lord accepting rents. in the background is the mayor's executive directive that was referred to at the board of supervisors hearings and the reason for the mayor's executive directive is to address exactly this type of situation. the wealth gap in san francisco was internationally reported last year to be worse than the

nation of rowanda and growing at the highest rate in the country. that was last year and it's getting worse. and that's the reason for the mayor's executive directive and that does apply to this situation. thanks very much ?oo . >> next speaker, please. >> when city attorney dennis herrera was asked about the twin peaks situation only a few days ago he replied as you see here. if the city is so concerned about the health and

safety risks associated with life safety code violations, then why is he allowing the city to blatantly ignore the landlord's right and responsibility to abate them? both mayor lee's office and supervisor jane kim have unfairly turned this into a political issue to apiece some of their constituents to make it look like they are saving housing in san francisco when they are actually risking the lives of these people for their own political gain. the pressure that the supervisors and mayor's office have put on the city officials and employees with reference to this building permit is highly disturbing, abuse of power and frankly should be on 20/20. i would like to also make the point it is not the responsibility of landlords to finance any housing crisis. supervisor kim is attempting to shift the responsibility and cost of affordable housing for constituents to landlords but even more disturbing is the liability the city is creating by continuing to allow these people to reside in highly

unsafe conditions. this should be a simple decision, put safety before politics. thank you. >> would you care to identify yourself? >> pebby mullin, i'm sorry. >> is there anyone else who would like to speak under public comment? okay, seeing none, president lazarus, i wonder if before we start rebuttal you'd like to hear from the building inspector? >> yes. >> apologies, mr. duffy, we don't need --. >> no, it's okay. normally as istrator, i sit quietly but tonight there was some issues brought up regarding our department and code issues and i just wanted to address those as well, if you don't mind. >> no, not at all. >> joe duffy, dbi just going back to the beginning of this case, i think

we all know what it was anyway, but just some issues that i noticed during when i started researching for tonight's hearing. the original complaint number, 200711850, was received by dbi on the 10th of july, 2007. the inspector at that time, mr. leon, did an inspection of the premises, he met with the building manager, richard leon, of san francisco office lofts. mr. leon said the entire building is office lofts, additional inspection required. that started with our department of housing services and through the investigation it revealed all spaces are approximately 60-plus, research showed only 6 conversions on the 6th floor. the result of that was that

housing inspection services actually transferred the case to the building inspection division or code enforcement and we ended up writing a notice of violation and i want to read it out as well. a complaint has been received by the department regarding illegal conversion to live-work in the building. permit application 910572 was applied for 6 live-work units on the top floor. inspection of said office units converted to habitable space, no permit exists for this conversion. the action required was obtain a building permit with planning department approval for conversion of ofrs units to live-work units. that note is of violation was issued on the 27th of october, 2007. the permit that was under suspension and then got released was to comply with that notice of violation, demolition of office walls on 5th floor through first floor and that got issued on the 2nd

of august, 2013. again, just doing research for the hearing tonight, i did realize that some other people at the apartment had been involved in this case and i went and spoke to some of them today. i spoke to mr. jeff ma, who is one of our senior plan check engineers who does a lot of pre-application meetings. i know mr. buscovich mentioned he had tried at dbi to get the residential use in the building. i'm not sure when that happened, i believe we met in 2008, i saw the permit that was withdrawn at that time. it didn't look like it had been reviewed by plan check, it looked like it had just been brought in and maybe it was going around for a while but it was certainly withdrawn for some reason. i don't have any evidence of any preapplication

meetings during that time. what i do know is after speaking to mr. ma today is that there had been meetings at dbi in mid-december, 2013, regarding the possibility of creating live-work occupancy in this building. the department had asked the building reps, owners, whoever was at the meeting, to apply for a formal pre-application meeting with dbi that process involves, you can involve people from other departments, you can have fire department, mechanical, structural building, it's a good process. that process has not been followed up on. that's what i'm being told, that is still outstanding. there is a path to legalization for live-works in this building and there are exceptions in the san francisco building code under ab005 which

refer to local equivalencies and i believe that that would be a good avenue if they wanted to go, easier for them. regarding -- that would eliminate the need for the egress windows and also it would require life safety upgrades, sprinklers, fire alarms, but there are california code as well would allow conditions that exist to be legalized. really, that's about all that i have to say apart from, you know, it's their (inaudible) if they want to apply for it. we're still waiting for a formal request for a pre-application meeting and that's what my research for tonight's meeting has led me, anyway. i have some, i did get some documents from mr. ma today on the sections of code

that they could use and i'm available for any questions. >> so based on the lack of a process going through, building inspections has no opinion or does it have an opinion as to whether this is a dangerous building or not? >> the building was converted without permits from office to residential. we know that. my discussions with staff today, as a matter of fact i spoke to ron allen, chief electricitial inspector, who was on a task force visit there, his comments to me was i expected a lot worse. there are some issues. it's whether you call it dangerous or not, i don't know. but his comments to me was that it would, there are -- there is the possibility that the building could be brought up to current electrical code. mr. ma told me the