lately with some of these tree issues that you have changed the position of the department by the time the issue comes before us. and i'm happy that you are all flexible and that it benefits the appellants, but what is it about the process that doesn't allow you to do some of this investigation and determination beforehand. because this then requires a process on the part of the appellant. a cost money and it cost time. and i'm not trying to be antagonistic. i am just trying to asking. if i am not making an appropriate observation about the pattern, please let me know. >> know, it is totally valid feedback to provide. this is a tough case for us. we really felt that the same way that the applicant had lived with the tree this many years, we thought what is more -- can we get more round out of it. i had not met the other property

owner at the public works hearing, but that would have been a little more compelling had i seen that there was a vision impairment. it is something that we strive towards as consistency. we do have -- it starts at the staff level. we have a departmental hearing. he gets reviewed. there are a lot of moving pieces we have different hearing officers and sometimes i do think actually public works have a single hearing officer and make that a full-time job? a lot of folks who are senior level staff folks were taking it on voluntarily. sometimes it is challenging to be as consistent as possible. often at our departmental hearings, there is some reassurance. we will often, absolutely look at this through the lens of if this goes to board appeals, how consistent is this with other cases? and that's a guiding principle that we make sure that the staff level we are giving that some

thoughts. along with the final recommendation. we don't want to come in at the last hour and say actually, compelling brief, you when. let's change our position. we want to avoid that as much as possible. i do feel like we -- there are a few cases like that that come up and we are constantly striving to make sure that we can prevent that from happening. and that is something that we will continue -- we are always learning in that regard. will continue to try and focus on that to make sure that we end up at the board of appeals with matters that are very important or we feel strongly about and we will continue to focus on that. >> i appreciate your answer. >> in terms of order of operations, if we were to support the appellant tonight and they were able to remove the tree, what with the process look like in terms of replacement trees. with debbie before and after the removal. i would like to hear that the appellants would support the

street tree. could be good if that was something they were agreeing to care for the tree. >> the first step would be re issue a permit. generally it allows six months for the property owner to remove the tree. and replace. it is six months to remove the tree and provide the replacement tree. it is a six month timeframe. they typically would not necessarily need to plant the replacements at all. also the applicant seems open to the planting idea. sometimes planting street trees can be very controversial. we were discussing that in the hallway about what can we do to work together to make it palatable. so that is when -- we will let them speak for themselves, but i don't want them lugging water water too far down the street to water these trees. want to be a realistic character it would be removal of tree within the six months and replacement within six months and we would work with -- if we

can identify the closest locations, we would mail a letter. when we issue that removal permit, we would issue letters to property owners and say it looks like you have room for trees. let's debrief you about this hearing. we have an opportunity to plant trees here. >> thank you is it possible to speak to their support for replacing trees? >> absolutely. we would love to have a street tree. it would be a beautiful thing. we are not anti- tree. we just want safety. so yes, you have our guarantee. our plan would be to do this pretty quickly. our fence is really a problem. our neighbor downhill got robbed we can't really lock our gate. i'm concerned about those things i will also share with you that -- bill and i met and he met joe who is now his lover, his partner, his his husband who is also a landscaper. if there is a tree to take care

of, we are the people you want to take care of that street tree i will commit to you personally. i will log water up and down that hill. i always thought -- >> does that answer your question? >> thank you. >> are you an actor? >> i will invite you over. we will have a party. >> for clarity -- for clarity, he says two replacement street trees. >> okay. understood. thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i will start. it is a beautiful tree and you hate to see trees go away. especially in san francisco where we need to heavy canopies. at the same time, this is the main entrance for multiple units and the fact that they are dealing with health issues. that is going to continue for a while. the other concern is that the trees will only get wider.

they are at 27 inches at this point. it is definitely not a.d.a. you could get a walker or a wheelchair down that. i am supportive in denying the appeal and whether they plant a new tree or not is not consequential. we believe the red hood has -- read what has been a stepchild for a long time. this will be fabulous. >> i thank you meant to say grant to the appeal. >> grabs the appeal. >> so you are not moving to condition it? >> if they choose to, that is their women. i believe the redwood will be a spectacular tree for the neighborhood. >> would you accept -- will you make a motion on that? did you make a motion on that? >> i can. >> would you include the condition?

>> let's do two. >> we have to go for two. >> it is too controversial, he said. start with two. >> that is my motion to add trees and the two trees that they add for them to work with the department. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda two grabs the appeal and overturn the public works order denying the removal of the ash tree and directing the bureau of urban forestry to issue the tree removal permit on the condition that the appellants planned two replacement street trees and 24- inch box sizes as close to the subject property as possible with the species and location to be ultimately approved by the bureau of urban forestry. >> i think that's what i just said. >> that's exactly what you said. on that motion? [roll call]

>> that motion carries. thank you. we will now move on to item seven, a., b., and see. these are appeal numbers 18-1 to 6, 18-127, 18-128. yesterday afternoon, i was advised by a department building inspection that the permits for item seven a and seven b. were counselled by the permit holder. technically, these appeals are moot at this point. however, the permit holder applied for two new permits at these locations and dvi can address the situation. we will hear from mr curran. >> good evening. i am with department of building inspection. yesterday, just so no one gets confused, they submitted a request for a cancellation of these two permits. >> for clarity, in his item

seven a and seven c. >> i had to request them to be reinstated then counselled, just in case anyone is looking at it and wonders what the heck was going on. the other permit is a fairly benign permit for a kitchen with removal of a couple of partitions that looked to be nonbearing. we went through the proper permit process. i don't see anything wrong without permits. the other two permits that had been subsequently filed or refiled with a little bit of change in the verbiage, i took the precaution of putting an address block on those properties so that the permits cannot be issued without review by myself or my chief. i think it is in the sponsor's best interest to get with the tenants and work this out. the only thing i would have to say about the kitchen permit is if there is going to be any demolition work back to serving

of lead paint or anything like that, they will have to adhere to chapter 34 in the san francisco building code where it talks about posting the building and notifying the neighbors prior to any work. >> okay. thank you. for item seven a and seven c., do we have a motion to -- i'm sorry. public comment. >> i would like to be sworn. >> hold a second. >> i was going to ask. >> we should call them up anyway >> do you want to call the item up anyway? okay. if you can be seated, we can call the item up. >> we can swear you and when you come up to speak. thank you. why don't you have a seat and we'll hear from the appellant?

>> i think we should. but we haven't called the case up. >> i thought you just called them? >> no kak i just call -- called item. >> seven b. -- >> let's do it that way. >> so i was saying before that we would need a motion to administratively dismiss seven a and seven c. and then we would take public comment on that motion. so you will have an opportunity to address the motion but seven item b. is eligible for a hearing. >> so moved. i will make that motion. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to

administratively -- to direct the director to administratively dismiss item seven a and seven c. so on that motion, is there any public comment? >> do you swear and affirm the testimony were about to give is the truth? >> yes. >> thank you. >> i am the attorney working with the two appellants. this last-minute sandbagging is really unfortunate. because this is a complicated case that the owner is moving on and removing the tenants. without another application for a new stairway. no one has -- we do not have copies of them either.

we need some time to submit real information on this project. we are building by building, losing existing housing by improvements, conversions and removals. there has been real conversations at the planning commission and at the building inspection commission when they had a joint hearing about what is happening. there are all kinds of moving things that is resulting in a loss of housing. this is one of them. and if you just go on and let them pull the permit than they own the hearing. when it was their opportunity to file something, it was last thursday. it would have given some warning to the people without going onto the d.b.i. site, which i did this morning and found out this is happening.

this is the ultimate in sandbagging. both the public, the appellants and the board. i would ask you to continue the decision on this anc, seven a, and see into a new hearing. you can't -- you have to hear me -- me. it is what they did to initially remove the unit and put it in that place for the developed -- for the developer. that is a violation of the planning code and the billing code. is a violation of humanity for loss of housing. so i would ask you to stop, take the testimony. i don't even understand what the time limit is anymore. i asked ms. miss rosenberg yesterday and we refreshed our

memory about the amount of time that would be allowed for speaking for the project, for the developer to speak and for rebuttal. is that all washed away? we now have a seven unit presentation and one month minute of rebuttal. explain away what is happening here. because i don't think you should be making a decision this way so fast. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? >> can you explain a little bit about the process? i understand that these permits have been withdrawn so there is not active permits to have a hearing on. >> let's finish public comment. >> there are more people. sorry, i didn't see anyone his hand. >> if you could approach the microphone.

>> hello. let me, if i may, i want to set up a presentation that i had. >> man, the appeal is moot because the dip -- >> there is still -- there was three. >> we will hear seven b. we are just not there yet. >> i apologize. >> no worries. >> i'm a little out of my depth here. >> no problem at all. we are onto public comment for a motion to administratively dismiss item seven a and seven c. s. or any other public comment on that motion? >> i'm totally confused. because i understood that there would be a time. -- again. i did not hear about this permit being withdrawn and that there is a two new permits. although it seems very standard for what we are seeing going on

with these particular owner agents. so if you could just clarify, i would really appreciate it. the presentation that i had prepared, i should just -- i will not be giving today or? i'm just not sure -- >> i'm happy to answer. this is your public comment time this is highly unusual that the permit was cancelled prior to the hearing. since it's cancelled, the they are moot. the board has to make a decision on permits that have been issued or applications that have been denied. this was cancelled. so basically, i understand the permit holder is seeking two new permits and these permits are basically very similar to the two permits that were cancelled except for the verbiage regarding no tenants are

occupying the premises. so what the board -- this is highly unusual. when those permits -- if and when those permits get issued and they are on heightened alert , what is it called? in address restriction? to make sure everything is in place. if they do get issued, they will be appealed and we will waive the filing fees for the individuals who filed -- caroline duffy and diane english >> we will waive the height of -- the filing fees. we do not think it is fair if you do pay twice to the appeal. the board doesn't have jurisdiction over this matter because permits are moot. they have been cancelled. >> does that mean that one will have a chance to look at the actual plans in terms of the two new permits before meeting again >> if the permit is issued, there are plans on files and i can -- we can have the

department of building inspection address it. >> okay. >> you had your chance to speak. >> commissioner tanner had a question. >> is there any other public comment on this? okay. >> my name is brian. i have been attending the building since 1985. i would like to be sworn in myself. i would like to say about what has just occurred. >> if you want to be sworn in -- >> do you swear from the testimony are about to give is the truth? >> yes, i do. >> thank you. >> this is just part of consistent patterns to confuse, harass the tenants to try to get them to move. the fact that this was a last-minute filing doesn't surprise me at all. as you can see, everyone here is in unison. we had things prepared to

address this issue and at the last minute, the owner and management throws a curveball as you'll probably hear from us again that they have always exhibited nothing but disdain to the long-term tenants. lying, trying -- accusing me in writing of having two dogs that i never had. a roommate which i'm allowed to have but did not have. putting 3d notices up for minor infractions. when i fractured my pelvis, i was subject to a lawsuit where they held might rent for eight months without cashing the checks which is illegal. i could go on and on and not waste your time. but today i want to start right now because i am sure we will be up here again as we try to continue to remove old and long-term tenants. i wanted to be stated this is a pattern that has been happening for years with these owners. >> okay. thank you. >> let me clarify for the public record.

folks that are speaking in public comment have presented an each thing they like in the timeframe. if you want to present what you have prepared, you are welcome to do that. you have three minutes and it is part of public comment. okay. >> right now we have a motion. >> public comment does not restrict that you have to limit anything. you know that. >> for clarity the permits are moot. >> they certainly do. so anyways, his or any other public comment we. >> seven b. will be next when we finished with seven a and seven c. right now we are on the motion to administratively dismiss

seven a and seven c. is there any other public comment on that motion? we have that motion from commissioner honda. on that motion, president fung. >> i. >> commissioner lazarus? [roll call] >> that motion carries and i will administratively dismiss those two appeals. we are now moving on to appeal seven b. this is appeal number -- item seven b., appeal number 18-127. >> renovation of the kitchen and bathroom and the replacement of two walls. we will hear from the appellant appellants first. you have seven minutes.

>> may i ask a question? is there someone representing the permit holder in the room? okay. thank you. >> high. good evening. my name is caroline duffy. i reside at 50 alta, apartment six. i have called this my home for ten years now. i have to say, by alta street standards, i am somewhat of a new person on the street. i was already pretty nervous to start off with. so this is going into, clearly a very emotional issue. what i like to do briefly is walk-through -- the reason as tenants we felt compelled to file an appeal. this is just to give you a visual of the property that we are talking about. you will hear 40 and 50 going back and forth. you can see that for the most part, i don't know about code regulations, but it is the same building.

this is the backside of the building. so what i want to show here is, in the right corner, this is my unit. to the left is diane english she was going to be one of the appellants appear with me this evening, but obviously that will not happen tonight. this is the unit in question that has been stopped. this is where the property manager, management had their office for three years. the tenants living there passed away in may of 2015. a few months, i don't know the exact date, afterwards is when the property management moved into this space. this space over here is currently being occupied to the best of our knowledge by the owner. though he is seen only infrequently. the reason to show you this picture here is i want to give a

visual of how this is a very close space. so it is almost impossible to not have a sense of what's going on at this property. you can see where it says office space, unit five, every day for me to leave the building i would walk by this office space. i understand there is issues around hearsay but there is also close proximity where i would actually witness firsthand that the management was there working in addition, i would say probably throughout 2018, the owner was also there with computers, working as well as his brother. this is clearly being used as an office space for three years. i just want to get to why we were concerned. what raised red flags for us? over the last few years, as units have become vacant in these two buildings, of course, side-by-side, the property management has not been feeling

them. as i mentioned to, one was used for an office space. there has been another unit, number 1 on the 40 side where the brothers moved in and then to the best of our knowledge, in october 2017, it was vacated and the owner moved in. there is a systemic -- a systematic watching of units becoming vacated. the property management, not putting these units back onto the rental market and the san francisco met rental market that we know right now is stretched to its limits. in addition -- there wasn't speculation about remodelling plans. we were aware. one of the things i would say is i have overheard many times the contractor out on the lower deck talking about how the units were going to be pushed out. is that really their plans?

do i know that for certain? was it may be discussing what their wish list is or what would be their ideal situation? what i am trying to address is why were we concerned? why did we feel compelled that we had to file these appeals? another thing that i found really interesting was that over the years, there's been numerous complaints about this office space. we never quite fully got a great answer as to why, to our understanding there was an illegal office space. at some point, we do know that d.b.i. did go out to talk to the property management and her explanation for why they were there was that they had plans to do remodel work. we were aware of this. all of this is happening without any communication from the owner and certainly no communication in writing. so another indicator for me that they definitely had plans is in

april of this year, i arrived home to find a note on the door. this is the way the property management corresponds with me. she has blatantly instructed me not to correspond via e-mail and quite often when i do receive notices, they are not dated. i know this is something that many of the other tenants have experience as well. i was a little surprised to see that the note said i was required to carry insurance at $300,000. of personal liability and amongst other conditions, the landlord was to be listed. he was indicated this is part of my lease. that is just not true. there is also handwritten notes that said could you come down and stop by for a moment? i did. the conversation with the property management who is also the agent for the owner was very cordial but she went on to explain to me that when they were doing -- when they were going to do some plan to seismic

retrofit, they would use this as an opportunity to do renovations she went on to tell me that it was going to be very uncomfortable, very dusty, tenants probably would not want to be there and she asked if i would be willing to consider the buyout form. she offered the form. i forget what it was called. it would allow us to start into a conversation about a buyout. i never did proceed with that. also it is interesting to me, at the time that she called out that as one of the tenants, i was actually one of the few that was paying close to act rental rates. again, to underscore why were we alarmed? there were permits issues that are no longer -- i'm sorry for the language but have been cancelled. but the permits stated there was going to be redirection of stairs and there'd be no occupants in the building, which

of course, is not true. many of the occupants are here tonight. we have been told that we would verbally -- we have been verbally told that we would move and it has not been issued. there has been no permits that's been issued as of yet. >> thank you. your time is up. you will have an opportunity and rebuttal. is the permit holder -- is a representative for the permit holder here? if you could please approach. if you could identify yourself for the record. you have seven minutes. >> i really don't have anything to say other than i represent gerald who is -- my name is brian patrick. he is the owner of the property and i represent him. >> okay. >> with regard to the permits that is at issue, this is a simple interior model of a kitchen.

>> okay. you still have -- how we started the clock? okay. you have time if you want to address the concerns. >> there was a lot -- i have read the brief that they submitted. i have listens -- listen to tenants process fears and concerns. the process is going to be respecting. tenants rights will be respected there is nothing -- we and fully -- we fully intend to comply with the law. >> are you done? >> i'm done. i have a question and i'm sure everyone has several. first of all, how long -- how long ago have you been retained by this particular permit holder or landlord? >> in what regard? >> have you been there representative for more than three weeks? >> this is a client who has more than this case in our office. so it depends on your question. >> how long have you been

representing this particular property? for this particular property, maybe since a summer. >> is a reason why you did not submit a brief? and follow the rules of this body? >> yes. we found that the could have been an issue that the architect made a mistake with regard to how the two permits that were full -- pulled off were noticed and rather than go through and fight something that was improperly noticed, we were going through the notice procedures so everything is done property -- properly. >> so you read their brief and have no response and you agree to what they've said or did not say? >> i'm sorry. say that when we're time. >> in this particular board, you are not required to, but it is generally recommended that you supply a brief and it is in response to the appellant post s. brief. did you read their brief? >> i did. >> is there a particular reason why he did not respond to that

particular brief? >> we felt that there was an error in the procedure that we were going with those two permits. we cancelled the permits. we are starting over to make sure all the notices comply. >> okay. anybody else? >> what unit is a kitchen remodel for? >> i think the kitchen is unit five. >> is there some particular reason is being remodelled at this point? >> it is a vacant. the owner wants to remodel it now. >> vacant. thank you. >> do you have any response to the appellants who have asserted that there is an office being run here versus having the unit -- >> there is no unit on that property. >> i have one more question. and the pictures that were in the brief and that were put on

the overhead, evidently there has -- there are windows on the property. is very permit history that i see in the pictures? >> i cannot speak to that. if there is, i was not -- >> i will ask the department. thank you. >> any further questions? >> will now hear from the department. okay. planning. >> evening. and hear from the planning department. briefly for item seven b., for that subject building permit to, they did not review or sign off on that. i wanted to clarify that consistent with some of the public comment, we had received a referral from the city post s. attorney his office in august 2017 that unit number five is used as an office space instead of a unit.

that complaint case is opened. it was investigated for a good period of time and in august of this year, the planning department did issue and n.o.v. and required that it be updated. the permit for item seven b. was to essentially, even though the language is to renovate the kitchen and the partition walls, my understanding was to replace the kitchen and reintroduce a dwelling unit use into that space and formally remove any illegal office space that had been there. because of that, on september 25 th when this permit was issued, that enforcement case was closed. so i want you to be aware of that. because it has implications for what happens with this permits.

making sure it is properly abated. >> you are saying there is n.o.v. issue because it was found there was an illegal office use being used at the location and this is to rectify this? >> i do not know what it says and i don't think it specifically references that purpose but effectively, that was part of the purpose. >> are you aware if there is currently a kitchen on the premises that was -- or the kitchen was removed and now they need to put one back in because there is not a kitchen? >> my understanding, and i can look again, was the kitchen had been removed. but i can double,. >> thank you -- but i can double check. >> thank you. >> i will just call you the zoning administrator. >> that's fine. >> wouldn't that also -- you are not allowed to remove a rent controlled unit in san francisco and by removing that kitchen, wouldn't that also trigger that

as well? >> if you are proposing to remove the unit, legally. that would require a conditional use authorization from the planning department. in this case, the unit had been converted without permits. the option for the property owner would be to legalize it through the appropriate means or abate the violation by reinstalling the residential use of the unit and that was the roots they went. >> okay. thank you. >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> it's always good to see you. we don't see very often. i missed my dinner just to dress up to see you guys. >> you are so sweet. >> what do you want to know? >> we will get a new bites -- lots of bytes at this apple. but other than what you have to

say, i asked is there a chance that you had looked at the permit history prior before coming to our hearing? could you give us some insight of that permit history of the property? >> they have permits going back to the ats. reroofing, kitchen cabinets, things like that. nothing major. they have a seismic retrofit permit filed along with the two new file permits for the back stairs. >> i noticed in the pictures that were shown on the overhead, that those are newer style windows. they look like they were vinyl. did you see any permit history for those? >> i did not. >> the other question is, if it is on the seismic retrofit and it is on voluntary, it is required. >> this might be under the mandatory. >> because it is five units plus >> gas. >> wonder they need to comply with that? >> i think it is any day now. >> that is what i was thinking. >> thank you. >> while you are up there?

-- >> was there a kitchen in the unit? the council said it wasn't an office. >> i never gained entry. i was just made aware of this through mr teague because it was the planning department action. not a building department action the only verbiage they have on the new permit now is to remodel the kitchen, so to speak. >> but we would be just putting it back in the kitchen. >> if there is no kitchen, how can we remodel it? and if there was a kitchen there and there is no kitchen now, would it be your assumption that an illegal action occurred and the kitchen was removed illegally? >> that is why they got the notice of violation from the planning department. >> do they have a tiny kitchen and there? i don't know. i have never been in the site.

do they have a makeshift kitchen in there and pulled out the larger kitchen? i don't know. >> does this project require drawings? >> yes. >> and this was otc, right? >> joined the backstairs or during the kitchen? the kitchen there just putting in cabinets. >> it is not a demolition of walls? >> if they are demolishing walls , the only thing that would be required is the notification if they are distributing lead paint. >> or are there drawings? there are? >> there should be drawings. >> are there? >> no. it is very rare that we have a builder like this. it will be fun. have you seen any plans in regards to the required seismic retrofit? it is only a file permits right now. >> are you aware -- usually when

you do the a.d.u. you have the benefit of adding a d. use additional dwelling units. are you aware if they are planning to -- do they have a.d.u. his -- a.d.u. his? >> would planning have any more information regarding that question? thank you. >> it's party time. [laughter] >> okay. we are now moving on to public comment. >> i think the zoning administrator has further comments to add. >> okay. >> thank you for inviting me back up. i want to clarify since there was questions about a kitchen. i apologize. it was not clear through the permit and through our system that the permit on appeal was effectively for the purpose of this in some parts. so i wasn't interested until this evening if that was the case. again, in august of last year,

we received a referral from the city poston his attorney his office that this was being used as a business office. there was an expansion -- inspection. they confirmed that and they conferred with d.b.i. and they did access it. they determines there was a location at that time. kitchen was installed by july 13 th of this year. but in august of this year, additional complaints were received that even though the kitchen had been installed, it was still being used as an office space and not being used for residential purposes. that led to the issuance of the notice of violation that even though the kitchen had been reinstalled, it was actually not being used for residential purpose and was being used as an office space. that helped clarify that if there is a kitchen in there to some degree, how that kitchen is laid out or set up or included is not clear. >> what is the penalty for candy -- continuing to use the space as an office outside of code?

>> for any violation in the planning code, if you fail to abate the violation, the maximum penalty is up to $250 a day from that point on, as long as the violation continues. >> even with the permit, the notice of violation can be satisfied by the office use could continue. what would happen then? >> it cannot continue, essentially. it has to be used as a dwelling unit. now that the notice of violation has been issued, and it was abated, because of this permit and assuming some other associated documentation, the notice of violation has been issued. if the violation continues, than these can begin to approve. >> thank you. >> i have a question. sorry mr teague. the property, evidently, by the tenants that are on the property , say it has been vacant since 2015. in san francisco, we do have vacancy controls. aren't they supposed to -- and

then the other thing is, they are a block book notification -- is there a black book notification. >> not that i am aware, but i can check. >> is bbn only good for building permits are planning staff? >> it is for any permit or any other application that requires review by the planning department. >> if there is not, it is recommended somebody gets a b.b.n. so if the owner were to file any permits that they will be notified. >> true. but only if it requires planning department department review. this permit, this is subject -- he did not require planning department review. it would have not triggered the notice. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. okay. >> there are plans. two sets to appeal the kitchen. sorry about that. i misread it. >> thank you. we will now move on to public comment for this item.

okay. if you can please approach. how many people are here for public comment on this item? okay. may be not to eat too many. if you can be prepared to speak. go ahead. >> my name is john. i am a neighbor at 90 alta and i was going to represent diane english for seven a and seven c. but since that -- we are not doing that tonight. i just want to make clarification on this remodel in unit five. the notice of violation was for an office and they complied with that notice of violation on the permit.

the permit application to comply with results. they put a kitchenette unit. a refrigerator. so the original part was nice cabinets and refrigerator, stove , you know, normal set up. and to comply with the notice of violation, they put in a kitchen , sink unit and a refrigerator. that is why the permit was abated. i don't know. oh,. overhead. it is not showing up. i'm sorry. anyway, so this new permit here for the kitchen remodel is actually, everyone keeps saying it is a kitchen but it is actually the reading of the

permits as kitchen and bath replacement. a renovation of kitchen and bathroom replacement of a partition wall. so they said they did have plans for that. i can testify that right now that the apartment is totally demolished as far as walls go. they tore out walls and they tore out sheetrock and it is in the middle of construction. i want to clarify that situation >> thank you. >> you are saying the property has been demoed prior without a permit? >> it was probably demoed with this permit but they have not done any work to restore it. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. public comment. maybe if you could come forward to be prepared. thanks. >> thank you very much. my name is roxanne davis.

i live at 40 alta and i have been there since 1981. this is just to show how duplicitous the owners are. the units that -- the whole thing with the office, a tenant died and then they called it a temporary office that they tore out -- the reason they tore out the kitchen. they tore out the kitchen and put in seven or eight computers. we paid our ranch they are. it was the office for almost three years. -- we paid the rent they are. it was the office for almost three years. out of the 12 units, they have four of them and they are keeping two off the market and the owner, when he moved in and bought the property, he was really dismissive to say this is just an investment property. [please stand by]

e >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> teresa flandrick.

i actually work at senior and disability housing and policy. this whole situation here came to me at a point where i'm actually very familiar with jerald balzer, the owner. back during the first dot-com era in terms of he bought a home on my street on lombard, and he pushed everyone out, saying there were renovations. and one person fought to get back in. but with these remodels, this building became commercial rentals for many years. the neighbors still look out across the street to what's going on. this was very important to our tight knit north beach

community. when we see also with balzer riding on his secretary of state statement -- see, he owns several buildings. the problem is is he's also said that he has an office in 567 lombard. this is, again, the seven unit residential building on lombard street. so he has that address in one place, he has another address as his principle business address being 517 lombard. he also has a service of address address at 429. he immediately upon buying that tried to negotiate buyouts with the tenants.

the building is now vacant, the four tenants that had live ind that building. this building is empty, but this might be his other business address as well as his 567 lombard and 579. so the point is we see all of those inconsistencies. how can you have so many different addresses, and which are your actually business places, and does this mean units at the lombard street building are also being turned into office since they were -- had to close down the alta street one. so i just really want you to please make sure you are monitoring this? the joint commission, the planning commission, and building inspection, they talked about this exact same thing on

april 12, alterations without building permits. >>clerk: okay. is there any further rebuttal? okay. miss duffy, you have three minutes. are you going to take the rebuttal time? >> yes. >> sue hester again. i'm asking this board to continue this item to january so that briefs can be prepared, given the craziness of this situation about unit five. unit five is office and not office, and the developer is doing construction and has had a lot of permits that he's applied for. this owner seems to be very proficient in doing over the counter permits that never get

routed to planning. planning commission has jurisdiction whenever uses change, has to go to planning. they just ignore that, do it on their own. there needs to be an opportunity to give this board the information on what is happening on unit five in the context of this really ridiculous stairway evictions that weren't real until today, when they got a permit to cancel the permit. i ask you, you have jurisdiction over b, which is unit 5 and 50 -- 50 alta. planni planni planning should meet with the neighborhood people and understand what the hell is happening. there's all kinds of end runs being done on this property, on other properties that are

similar to this by this same owner, evicting the tenants. we're losing housing in this manner that is bit by bit, but it's real, and the people are moved out of the city. and you have the ability to say what happens on unit five? i ask you to continue this hearing until january if it's convenient for you, just to have briefing done that no one was able to do because all of this stuff at the last 24 hours was not briefed. the developer has never submitted a brief, he just gets permits from d.b.i., and he gets permits from d.b.i. without plans. we don't have plans. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. okay. is the permit holder's

representative, it's rebuttal time. do you have anything to add? >> commissioner honda: i have a question, counselor, please. so, sir, i understand that you did not supply a brief for a and c because you felt there was inconsistencies in that. is there a reason why you did not supply a brief for item b in regards to the kitchen. do you not need a kitchen? >> i'm sorry. is the question -- >> commissioner honda: why did you not supply a brief for item b? >> i didn't feel i needed to supply a brief. i was instructed by the client not to submit a brief. >> commissioner honda: how many ellis acts are you in the process of doing or have you done recently with this client? >> i haven't done one ellis act for this client? >> commissioner honda: okay.

and is that a service that you would normally provide for him? >> our firm provides ellis acts for our clients. >> commissioner tanner: were you aware of the acts received in unit five? >> i was aware there was an m.o.v. but i was not involved. >> vice president swig: you seem to be representing a client that you know nothing about. everything you say, i don't know anything about. let me get more specific because you're asked how long you represented the client. i believe you said sometime in july or august? >> well, that was for this assignment. you're asking me -- >> vice president swig: okay. thank you. i didn't say anything, because i'm kind of upset. is there somebody in your office who has represented this client on this matter? is there somebody in your office who is aware of the n.o.v.?

is there somebody in your office who has participated in ellis actions in this or other properties of this client? >> i'd have to go back and look at this client's file. this client has been -- >> vice president swig: thank you. obviously, you can't answer -- you're being disagreeable. >> no, that's not true. now you're asking me a bunch of broad questions. >> vice president swig: no, i'm asking you very specific questions. >> no, no, no, no. >> vice president swig: yes, yes, yes, yes. >> you're asking me of doing an ellis act for this client. i do a lot of ellis acts for clients. i don't know of one pending for this client. >> vice president swig: fine, then that would be you don't know of an ellis act pending for this client. >> fine. >> vice president swig: then that's your answer. is there somebody else in your office since you seem to know nothing about your client which has participated with your client on this property and participated in any activity who

would have nothing of the n.o. -- nothing of the n.o.v. and any activities at this property? >> i cannot speak to the meetings that mr. wiegel and this client have had, so i'm not going to speak to that. >> vice president swig: okay. >> commissioner tanner: what did you imagine was going to happen when you came here tonight? >> this exact circus that happened here tonight. >> commissioner honda: and i'm sorry. i've been calling you counselor. are you an attorney at law? >> i am. >>clerk: okay. [inaudible] >> president fung: excuse me. you can't speak from the audience, but you guys have the time. if you guys want to present something representing the permit holder, you're welcome to

use your time. >>clerk: well, they -- [inaudible] >>clerk: right now, we are on rebuttal. how much time do they have left, gary? [inaudible] >>clerk: okay. so we have three minutes for rebuttal. if you want to have the property manager speak during the rebuttal time, that's fine. >> well, maybe we better approach -- >> president fung: no, no, the question is do you want to use your rebuttal time? >> sure. >> president fung: okay. then start the clock. [inaudible] >>clerk: he was answer questions. please don't have a seat. >> i don't have a prepared statement. >>clerk: and if you could identify yourself, please. >> my name is renee england, and i manage property on behalf of jerald balzer and have done so for the past 11rs