san francisco

>> and entered webinar id 852-0513-0680 and sfgtv is broadcasting the instructions on the screen if you're watching the broadcast. listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star nine which is equivalent to raise your hand so we know you want to speak. you will be brought to the hearing when it's your turn want you may need to dial star six to unmute. you three minutes and you will have a verbal warning before the time is up. please know there's a delay what is streamed on the inter net and important to turn off the volume otherwise there's interference with the meeting if you

need accommodations and send an email to our website. now the chat function can't be used to provide public comment or opinions. we will take public comment from the member who is are physically present in the hearing room. now we will swear in or affirm all those that intend to testify. any members of the board may speak pursuant to the rights under the sunshine. if you want to -- (paused). to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. okay. thank you. if you're a participant and not speaking please go on mute so commissioners we do have one housekeeping item. for 8a and 8b and at

1801 broderick street the planning department is asking for revocation and the permit holder agreed to this recommendation so we need a motion to grant the appeals and revoke the permit it wasn't properly issued. >> mr. lopez if you like to make that motion. >> we have commissioner lemberg is raising his hand i would move to grab the appeal and over turn the permit on the basis it wasn't properly issued. >> okay. vice president lopez did you want to add anything? i didn't mean to -- >> i didn't see. sorry commissioner. i didn't see you raising your hand and that will create an issue and sensitivity for tonight with the two remote commissioners it's hard to -- >> i see them on your zoom screen and if their hand is raised i will try to

keep you aware of that. >> thanks a lot. >> thank you. so is there any public comment on the motion to grant the appeal and revoke the permit. please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any hands raised so on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasuina. >> aye. >> eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries five to answer and the appeals are granted. thank you. so wool now move it to item 2. this is general public comment and the opportunity for anyone who would like to within the board's jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar. is there condition that would like to speak on an item? okay. you have plea minutes. >> thank you very much julie. can you hear me? >> yes, i can. >> excuse me julie. >> i'm sorry, one moment. yes? >> as he is a

potential -- has potential to be speaking on an item that we will hear several weeks from now can you please -- >> okay. mr. murmudo your general public comment should be on general matters since you're the representative for cases coming up on november 6 -- >> i will only say to mr. swig i have the right to make public comment in my opinion and the thing things i'm going to say relate to taxing matters but not to the two lant lants. >> okay. that's fine. thank you. we're just clarifying in advance. please go ahead. >> thank you. a few days ago i sent your board a synopsis of october 18 sfmta board meeting agenda item in which staff tried to remove taxi appeals from the jurisdiction. at

the urengaging of stakeholders the commissioner successfully severed the issue basically a rider amendment to the unrepresented calendar item. the director has a wonderful resume and his stint for 20 years as the executive director of the metropolitan commission and staff gave misleading to questions he asked and i provided answers to him by this sinopises. when kate torn was asked about the revocation of cases and said unprincipled permit holders were involved and describing appellants and low hanging fruit -- >> became taxi law [inaudible] and transportation director

ed reiskin asked for amendments which the agency board approved and one provision required a cdl for taxi renewal and targets elderly and disabled persons that can't get a cdl due to disabilities. those career workers are not ignoring a basic requirement rather sfmta created a capricious hurdle that workers cannot clear and getting the permits in the agency's benefit. hundreds of now elderly or disables taxi drivers obtain the valuable permits which served as a de facto pension. unfortunately for the past years we have been ubered out of that anticipated income. 25 years ago wal-mart super store

similarly engaged and small grows out of their safings and their businesses. the medallion value is returning and protect them -- >> 30 seconds. >> thanks. made your board aware of these mashinations and this disingenuineness in all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent agenda are considered to be routines. thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. we'll now hear from mg. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. okay. i think he did so. yes we can. you're a bit low. >> okay. well i will try speaking up. good evening president swig, board members. mark grubber taxi driver and board members of the san francisco taxi drivers alliance, taxi workers alliance i should say. i want to address the

issue of your jurisdiction holder and taxi permits appeals. 10 years ago the issue came before this board after the mta issued a large number of taxi medallions to cab companies in violation of the provisions of the police code then in effect. united taxicab workers a predecessor for the current union attempted to file an appeal. the executive director at the time rejected the application so we filed a request for jurisdiction. we had the disadvantage of appearing before a four member board that denied jurisdiction on a vote of 2-2. our argument mainly rested on charter section as cited which governs the right of appeals to this board of permit decisions of all city departments and limited and explicit protections taxy permits want being among them. the mta

maintains that the provisions governing the mta supersede the provisions of section 4.106b. we argue that any seeming conflict between these sections can and should be reconcileed in favor of preserving this precious right which is so important to cab drivers who most often can't afford to take an appeal to court. i will be sending the board a copy of the brief we submitted on our jurisdiction request. it contains out dated references to appealed sections of the police code but the discussion the charter which is the main discussion is as pertinent today as it was then. i hope you will take a look at it before your hearing of the 16th. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the caller ending

1045. okay. go ahead. . >> hi. [inaudible] former cab driver whose medallion was removed by vet connection and i have no reason to expect a sympathy and compassion or kindness out of the commission but i do have the expectation for rule of law, and i'm not seeing it and quite dismayed. [inaudible] involved in a legal dispute that results in my favor. thank you. >> thank you. is there any further general public comment please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any more public comment at this point so we will move on to item 3. commissioner comments

and questions. >> commissioners both present and virtual? any questions, comments? hearing none. >> okay. >> julie item number one i think [inaudible] discussed. >> pardon? >> the resolution for consideration. >> oh yes. we passed over right over item number one. let me see. let's go back to that. thank you. we're moving along too quickly here. so item number one is a special item consideration of public adoption of a resolution which make findings of the teleconference meeting under the government code subsection e so commissioners we would need a motion to adopt this resolution. >> i will put forth that motion. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item please

raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised so on the motion to adopt the resolution vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasuina. >> yes. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner her. >> aye. >> okay. that carries and that is adopted and thank you alex for the-- >> you're okay? >> yeah. >> good. >> so we're moving on adoption of the minutes. before you commissioners is the possible adoption of the october 19, 2022 minutes. >> commissioners any changes recommended or otherwise? and do i have a motion? >> motion to adopt. >> okay. we have a motion from vice president lopez to adopt the minutes. is there any public

comment on that motion please raise your hand. i don't see public comment so that motion. commissioner trasuina. >> yes. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> okay that motion carries 5-0 and the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number five. this is a special item. every overview of the unit unit programs. this is a presentation by natalia kwiatkowska, a principal planner and dee coordinator on dee programs and the presentation will cover the a local adu program and the state adu program and the hybrid adu program so welcome ms. kwiatkowska. we look forward to your presentation. >> good evening commissioners. natalia kwiatkowska planning department staff. i'm going to share my screen so just let me know once you see it. >> we can see it. thank you.

>> okay. i am here today to talk to you all about our program and as you're listening to this presentation all of the photos conclude on the on the adu so i hope you enjoy. we will start with a little bit of background of the the majority of this presentation will focus on definitions and programs and then basically go over resources and our process. starting with background adus became the topic back in 2014 for many reasons why this started. some of these that we saw many illegal units in the city and because of the housing crisis we wanted to provide an opportunity to legalize these units and to build more housing. at the time the department of building inspection [inaudible] was commencing so this was a great

opportunity for property owners that were already doing construction to at the same time add additional dwelling units. then adus found to be easy to construct so when does this happen? going back to 2014 is when we saw the program and i will go that in more detail. at the same time there was a adu pilot in san francisco and started in castro and district six and eight. at the same time [inaudible] was happening so adus with retroactive projects and the pilot was so successful and adus were available city-wide as long as they met parameters and state law caught up and allowed them through the state ministerial process. it was

limiting and only one in an existing family dwelling. in 2019 our local adu program was significantly expanded to allow them in new construction. this was a significant change and in 2020 state law went through major amendments to also allow them in the new construction similar to the local program and then today adus are basically allowed as long as they set and meet certain parameters. moving on to definitions of programs. a accessory dwelling unit which i will refer to as adu and referred as the secondary unit, [inaudible] cot annuals. at the end of the day they're residential units added to new and existing residential buildings. when talking about adu i thought it would be helpful to add legalize units in san

francisco so our first option is [inaudible] units so picture a single family home in a zoning district that allows two or more units. you would be principally permitted to add more units to max your density and this option you are required to meet all planning code requirements that are relevant. then our second option is the legalization program. this is often referred to as the amnesty program but there's an important distinction. units going through the legalization programs and not technically adus but legalized units and this program has a big incentive that some planning code requirements are flat out waived. there is a requirement that the units must have been used independently prior to 2013 so an illegal unit was added after 2013 or lacks that evidence there's other ways to legalize it as the right

or adu program and the adu program as i mentioned is a city-wide program and lets owners exceed the density in the lot and in the single family home scenario it's a single family and they don't have the opportunity to add more dwelling units under the zoning district. this allows them to exceed that and then we have the [inaudible] program and the local, state and hybrid so a little more detail as of the as of right units. as i mentioned the number of units varies depending on the zoning district and the number of units on the property andeck checked on the property information map. it's important to know there are no eligibility requirements. and this option a property owner is required to meet all relevant planning code requirements. there are no waivers available to these. it's a requirement can't be met it would

require a variance application. now with the [inaudible] units there are no restrictions. these units can be sold separately condos and subdivided. they can be used for short term rental as long as they follow the regulations and these units are not subject to rent control. they're newly created units. now with the legalization programs limited to one [inaudible] per lot so we often see properties with multiple units and we get creative and other ways to legalize them and with this option as i mentioned there's a couple eligibility requirements. one of them is that the unit must existed and then used independently prior to 2013. there's also a eviction search so if there's no fault evictions in that unit the property owner would be unable to go through the legalization program to add

the unit for a certain timeframe and with option the incentive is some of the planning code requirements are waived and then the [inaudible] exposure. it doesn't need to be met for the unauthorized unit and these are existing units. we're not trying to force property owners into significant modifications. that would make it financially difficult to add these units and legalize them. there are some requirements that do have to be met. they're smaller in nature such as landscaping and the front setback and things like that. all right. moving on to our adu program. we've got our state program and the local program and began first in 2014 and today a number of aloud varies. they're allowed in existing and proposed

single and fam multi-family and exceptions from [inaudible] from adus added to existing units and we've got the state program which is the state mandated option. it only allows adding one adu in proposed or existing multi-family and only permitted on property that no other adus and with this option there's not required to meet all planning code requirements similar to the legalization program exposure, open space do not need to be met and then we have the hybrid program and a subset of state law so it's still a state mandated program. the number of adus varies. they're allowed in existing and proposed single family or only in existing multi-family homes and the reason we came up with this name even though it's a state mandated program these

adus are subject to the relative planning code requirements without the option for a waiver so it's the state requirement so it requires local compliance so now i thought we would go over a couple of adus that we see today and the difficult one are conversions and new units that convert space in the residential building and common ones in san francisco and converting garages and storage areas and living rooms and things like that. next is [inaudible]. these are new units that extend an residential building and think of horizontal expansion of the rear and things like that and a new concept from state law in 2020 is detached adu and free standing buildings located on a residential property so we often see them in backyards. we haven't seen many in san francisco as you can imagine corner and some lots

are the best candidates to physically build and construct them and then the last type is which is a new type of adu available through state law is called a junior adu so this is a conversion type of adu. it's only available in single family homes and it's limited in square footage. we think of these often as caretaker units and there's an opportunity to connect the junior adu with the primary single family home. all right. now getting into the details of each program starting with the local program the number of adus varies as i mentioned. for existing buildings if the lots have four or less existing units only one adu is allowed. if the lots have five or more existing legal units and an unlimited number of adus are allowed. there's incentive for

properties going through dbi or mandatory or voluntary [inaudible] and they're allowed an unlimited number of adus. this is very similar to new construction but it's dependent on what the zoning district allows and if it's four or less you can have one adu. if it's five or more units there's no cap on the number of adus allowed and similar to the legalization program there's an eligibility requirement that includes eviction search so certain no fault evictions anywhere on the property would prevent the owner from using our local adu program for certain timeframe. with our local program there is required compliance with planning code requirements. however, adus adding to existing buildings benefit from waivers from some of the big planning code requirements and density and open space and partial expose and you are adus added to new

construction only benefit from the density waiver. there are some restrictions tied to the local adus. typically they cannot be sold or condos or subdivided and supposed to be rental units however there's an exemption of adus added to property going through the retroactive program and those can be condod if they qualify. local adus cannot be used as shelter rentals and typically local ones are second to rent control and go through the [inaudible] and subject them to rent control. moving on to the state program like i mentioned it only allows one adu on the property. the only eligibility requirement is that there are no other adus and there's partial requirements of planning code requirement so very small items are required such as landscaping, those big ticket items

and fence and open space and do not need to be met for the state adus. and then there are some restrictions tied to these. these state adus cannot be sold so no condo subdivision and not be short term rentals however they're not subject to rent control. and then moving on to our last program, the hybrid program. the number of adus allows varies. in single family homes you can one ether a conversion detached and one junior and -- (stand by) or up to 25% of the existing units whichever is higher so you have 100 units and

25% is 25 adus allowed. there are no eligibility requirements similar and then there is a requirement to meet the planning code. as i mentioned before the reason we call this hybrid because it's a state mandated program but subject to the local planning code so the big ticket items such as open space, exposure, rear yard has to be met and there's no available variances or waiver oh exceptions on these. the only exception is density and they're allowed to exceed the density. similar to the state adu hybrid adus cannot be sold. they can not be used as short term rentals and not subject to rent control. so there are some benefits that we outline for the state mandated adus, both state and hybrid programs. the benefits are ministerial and streamline review processes. they're secretary to a 60

day review timeline from the. >> . >> complete application. there's no subjective design review. there's a small exception for [inaudible] property. they're not subject to ceqa, not subject to our neighborhood notification process. there's no discretionary review opportunity and this one you're aware of and a shortened appeal window and heard within 30 [inaudible] days and no opportunity for rehearing and this subject the adus to rent control. now moving on to some of the resources. we've got sort of two main locations for them. we have many resources on our planning department adu page at our website and the city has great adus pages as

well and s fdot goff and the city pages include everything outside of planning and requirements from building, processes, things like that and then we have dedicated adu planners within our department and we can be reached for questions at our website. now moving on to process, so super exciting that today everything can be submittedod line so that city website at s fdot gov a customer doesn't have to visit the city to get their permit. everything is submitted on line and everything is issued electronically as well. so this really does comply with the 60 day review timeline. provides streamline and review and this completes my presentation and i am available for questions. >> okay. thank you so much. we have question from

president swig is. >> thank you. the more i know the more confused i get. i am confused about -- there are three buckets. there's local, state and then hybrid. we had a hearing here a couple weeks ago that was designated as a state adu, and therefore subject to some rules, and by which we went and made our ruling accordingly, but where does that designation between local, state and hybrid get made? when does that happen? how does that happen? and why is there more than one at this point? >> great questions. the distinction is often made by our

planning department staff. depending on the property type, the number of units and the property there might be more than one option for the property owner to add an adu and an example of adding one adu and customers can pick between the programs. we work with the customer to pick the program that is best for them, outline the benefits, things like that. most of our data shows that multi-family properties end up using our local program because they're able to get more adus permitted. most single family homes use the state program and they're only looking to add one adu and streamline and the ministerial review that come with that program. the hybrid program is barely used because it's really difficult to meet all of the planning code requirements and not

seek a waiver or a variance from it, so often if an applicant wants to look the a hybrid program but need a waiver they will go to the local program to be able to use a waiver from that requirement. we have f and qs on the website to help customers pick but we have this conversation to see what bucket they fall into. >> my second question of three is going back to the hearing that we had a couple weeks ago which involved a adu being built in what was represented as a storage shed, and then it was built according to all the statutes again in the state adu program. it seemed to fly

-- one of the discussions it seemed to fly in the face of other requirements for other things such as a variance. in this case the adu was being built mid-block in a backyard. again it hit all the rights according to the state adu yet in this midblock situation where there was wide open park like atmosphere as is typical in many of san francisco's blocks here was this building which ended up being 16 feet i think total according to the statute popping up and disturbing the seemingly the midspace, the midblock open

space and thus flying in the face of what in a variance we would say out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. how does planning sort these dilemmas out where there might be a conflict with other statutes? >> thank you for the question. the state makes it easy for us and they're allowed if they meet the points and so we have conversations with the planning commission where they were concerned with midblock open space with the residential guidelines and state law because the adus are not subject to them or making it ministerial and the review so this is a local adu we do have that discretion to require compliance with the design guidelines to prevent these adus from taking away from open space,

housing services. state law does not give us that discretion. we do often encourage applicants even when using the state program to provide design input and ask them to consider certain features to be included in the project. >> thank you. final question. quite often when we've had adu situations i know in my neighborhood where i live in the marina it seems that several of the historical large format maybe i'm guessing three or four story apartment buildings are converting copious amount was garage space to adus and when we've seen some of these activities here in a hearing in the past there seems to be, and we get an appeal on it, it often

seems to be related to tenants rights and lease contracts and the like. how does planning deal with the challenge of how to sort out what our are tenants rights and legal statutes related to lease agreements and the legalities, otherwise the legalities of building an adu and i am talking about things like storage units or laundry rooms, bike racks, things that are quite often written into a simple rental lease? >> sure. thank you for the question. and it various depending on the use of these programs. the short answer we work closely with [inaudible]. the long answer for state and hybrid we don't have the discretion

and local programs and the ones that are multi-story, multi-unit buildings that are converts garages and other spaces. they're required to comply with supervisor mandelman's ordinance that was effective in 2021 and requires the property owner to provide a notice to all their tenants informing them there will be adus proposed and a declaration saying whether there housing services that will be impacted. adus cannot remove housing services so through the adu notice and declarations there's an opportunity for any of the tenants to petition their rent board or determination if they believe there will be an impact on their housing services and our local planning code says we can't approve a adu for the

local program if the determination or declaration says there's anup pact on housing services, and so that bucket really fits into more of the multi-story, multi-unit program. if a property owner chooses to go to the state or hybrid program and meet the parameters we're not required to apply the requirements for that. with the represent board that's an option for a tenant to seek their help whether housing services are impacted. i believe that often results in pay -- excuse me, a rent's reduction or assistance and they often get creative and provide a lot of input in that process. >> thank you very much. i yield to clapboard vinyl. >> thank you president swig and thank you ms. kwiatkowska

for the excellent presentation. it's helpful to me as a new member of the board and i am sure it's helpful to members of the public as well as adus become larger and all throughout the city. a question just briefly on the what you describe as a sales prohibition. can you elaborate a little bit more as to how that -- how that prohibition is in effect? is there -- are there time limits for them? if the main unit is sold does that have an impact? >> sure. thank you for the question. so all these adus exempt for the one exception for adus added in conjunction with the [inaudible] cannot be sold separately so no condo subdivision. this memorialized as i notice of special restriction that the property owners sign, notearize and in

the recorders office and live with the property in perpetuity and no impact on the existing units that are adu. if they qualify for a condo or subdivision and available they're able to go through that. the adu would have have to be tied to one of the lots so it stays as a rental unit. the one exception that i mentioned is for adus added in conjunction with the seismic seismic retrofit and remain with the condo if available. >> they can be sold but not separately from the main unit. is that right? >> yes. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. any other commissioner questions or comments? >> i want to make sure that our two commissioners at home are fully recognized and they have the ability to ask questions. >> i don't see their hands raised. i

see a smile so bear with us. >> thank you. >> so we will now move on to public comment and i do see one hand raised. jeremy. please go ahead. >> hi. can you hear me? >> yes. welcome. you have three minutes. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes we can hear you. can you hear us? >> i'm not able to hear anyone. >> okay. i can hear you. do you have head phones? . >> hello. >> hello. can you hear us now? alex can you -- >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. can you send him a message in the chat that we can hear. >> there we g hi. jeremy from [inaudible]. thank you for having the hearing today. it's helpful for me as well. we had a couple

of adu projects and planning has been quite helpful all throughout despite the hiccups. my main question for natalia and the board -- i have two questions and commissioner swig you asked one and if we're taking away potential tenant space or open space or something in the rear yard and [inaudible] does it need to be replaced? what other means or methods might be affected? and the other question is going on commissioner swig's thoughts we find a lot of confusion in coordinating the planning department's view on all of these adus and those of the building departments and how applications are filed when they ask us to reference certain supervisors

legislative numbers or legislation and i would appreciate those could be somehow harmonized so those are my comments. >> okay. thank you. >> i can answer the question. >> yes. normally -- i just want to make a comment please. normally in public comment we don't create a dialogue and don't allow answers to questions, but in this case i would like to allow that we have this as a more of an open forum and questions maybe asked and planning maybe provide answers because we're here to get educated. thank you. >> thank you president swig. yes please ms. kwiatkowska if you could answer that? >> thank you. i will answer the first question first in regards to taking away open space. going through the state and hybrid program you're able to take away open space when constructing an adu. however you're required to retain access

to any open space so the square footage might get smaller but still have access. as i mentioned earlier we try to provide input to maximize the open space less than the lot or consider providing additional and then the other question or comment i hear you. we're trying to work at this time with the department of building inspection to harmonies the terminology and the names are explained and when [inaudible]. >> okay. thank you. is there any further public comment? please raise your hand. i don't see any further public comment so i want to thank the planning department very much for giving us this presentation this evening. thank you. so we will now move on to the next item. this is item number 6,

jurisdiction request number 22-zero seven and subject property at 524 lake street. letter from margaret and michael bloomfield, the requesters and asks board to take jurisdiction over the permit as cited which was issued august 2, 2022 and appeal ended on october 17 and filed -- auto permit holder is greg germano and remove old cabinets and replace with new and disposal and sink and back splash and counter outlets and hear from the representative for the requesters. welcome. he's the attorney. you have three minutes sir. >> thank you. my name is steve collier. i am the attorney for the requesters. they're in the room, mr. and mrs. bloomfield and they will be addressing the appeal and that follows

this item but as far as the request for jurisdiction i understand that the board is pretty limited in what it grant for jurisdiction. we believe you should in this case because the building permit what is not on the dbi's website when i looked at it on august 24 when i received notification from my clients there was a tremendous amount of demolition and construction going on and particularly on the 23rd. the tenants also complained to the housing inspector -- excuse me, the building inspector who told them work was being done beyond the scope of the permit, but they never told them what to do about that, whether they could appeal, and importantly the permit is stated to be solely for a kitchen

remodel when it became clear that the remodel was including all parts of of the apartment including a bathroom remold so i believe dbi should have stopped work on the permit and ordered that permit holder obtain a broader permit or amend the permit to include the bathroom and other areas that are being now worked on and were noticed in the pumping and electrical permits that were issued september 27. if they had done that and then we could have appeal that permit and then we wouldn't had an issue of an untimely appeal or opportunity to appeal simply because we didn't know who there was a permit issued. what the apparently happening that was work beyond the scope of any permit or no permit at all and the requesters asked dbi

to intervene and dbi it is we're beyond the scope of the permit so they thought the work would stop and it didn't and i believe it's within your jurisdiction to grant an appeal of the drawing permit. you have an appeal before you tonight -- >> 30 seconds. >> -- of the pumping and electrical permits so it's within the scope of what you're going to decide anyway and it seems logical to rule on all three permits. thank you. >> okay. thank you. we'll now hear from the permit holders representative. i believe is mr. alex serrano present. >> i think commissioner lemberg has a question. >> thank you. commissioner lemberg. >> yes, i wanted to check in is this permit issued is there no type of notification to the tenants as a matter of course that would happen normally? i guess i just don't understand how this

permit got filed, and the tenants in the building have no notice of it. >> right. unfortunately i think for just an interior remodel without any changing the envelope of the property or in smaller buildings there isn't a notification requirement or a posting requirement. there's certainly are in larger buildings, but in the three unit building with no change in the envelope i don't believe there is a posting requirement, but other people may know better than me or others. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holders' representative. >> my name is alex serrano. i am the

general contractor. greg contacted me through his real estate agent they work for a long time to come and help out with this, and he actually pulled the permit already, so i came in help out and help to pull the electrical and plumbing permits, and you know take care of [inaudible] for the kitchen remodel. >> okay >> and everything is done, the permit fees, the is thes signatures for the pumping and the electrical and the permit was for 802 and not showing on the 26th -- on the 24th, and i mean

this is everything being done according to the permit and it's all i got just to try to help out and get the project finished. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from i am assuming planning department won't weigh in. department of building inspection. i'm sorry. we have a question commissioner trasuina. >> for mr. serrano. >> yes. >> it's fine. i have the spelling of his name and everything already, so mr. serrano you don't need totable that out. you can go to the microphone. we have a question for you. >> mr. serrano thank you for your attendance on behalf of the permit holder. you can tell me whether this is within your knowledge or not. is work

currently being done pursuant to the permit? >> no, not that i know. >> as far as you know it's all the work completed? >> no, it's not completed because we stop. as far as the construction goes i don't know -- i don't handle the construction side and [inaudible] so i haven't been to the place since i got the letter and got out and we haven't been back since then. >> do you have any estimate of how much more work needs to be done and time? >> probably another week at the most, five days. i say only the kitchen left to be done and trim out and that would be it. >> a week? >> yes. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. we have one more question from commissioner eppler. >> yes, follow up for mr. serrano. the question is you said there was

nothing being done. can you tell me the date that you stopped work at the location? >> i don't recall -- today we received the letter stating we had to stop work. i don't recall what day that was but that was the day that we stop work. >> the day received which letter? >> the day the owner received the letter we stop work. >> for clarity commissioner eppler only the electric and plumbing permits are suspended since this is part of a jurisdiction request the underlying permit is not suspended. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we will now hear from department of building inspection. >> good evening. i am matthew green acting building chief inspector representing the department of building

inspection. this permit was issued for a kitchen remodel on august 2. when i received notice of the jurisdiction request about the website not having the permit updated i contacted our it department and asked them to run an audit. the head of it says "it might be difficult to verify the appellant's statement unless they have a screen capture. one things we can do is check the audit and what changes were made between the dates and i asked them to do that and the result was based on the audit take there were no changes to the permit history and i verified and that means that the dbi website reflected the status in real time and the it said it did and there were four anonymous complaints about the project, two to the building inspector and one to the

plumbing inspector and one to the other inspector and notice of advance as stated and a plumbing inspector. there wasn't a plumbing permit at the time. the notice of violation state there was a building permit but required them to get a plumbing permit. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> vice president lopez. >> yeah mr. green thank you. i wanted to turn the question to you about the notification requirements if any that may have a risen with these permits? >> no, not for a minor interior model such as this. there's a requirement that the job card that is posted with the permit building be issued -- sorry, there's a requirement that the job card with the permit is posted in a conspicuous location and access for the building inspectors rather than the occupants of the building. >> you mentioned the

nov at some point was issued. is that something -- >> yes, there was a building permit issued. it also requires a separate electrical and plumbing permit. the those permits weren't issued at the same time of the building permit. there's anonymous complaint that work was done without those permit think. the plumbing inspector went out and verified there was no plumbing permit and wrote a notice of violation and subsequently obtained a plumbing permit with the penalty attached to it. the electrical inspector between the time the complaint was filed and the electrical inspector responded the electric permit was issued so no notice of violation for the electrical complaint. the two building complaints or investigated by the building inspector one was for the work inside this unit. he went and verified that the work being done was under the

building permit. there was another complaint that work was done in the garage. he walked the garage and no work done. he closed that complaint. >> got it. just to one further clarification i think i heard -- if i am hearing you correctly there was an nov specifically for the plumbing work done without a permit, and if that's correct would that involve the public notification or public display of that of some sort or would that still be within dbi's website? >> there's no requirement for public display of the permits. the notice of violation was posted on the front door. >> got it. thank you. >> president swig has a question. >> so the penalty for not getting a plumbing permit in this case is go down get your plumbing permit and pay the penalty, the financial penalty for abusing that?

>> yeah. 9/10 of the normal fee and $148 and this one costed $1,349. >> okay. so -- yeah, so the cure -- the cure here is a fee and ticket. i am speaking metaphorically and i am not diminishing the importance of the cure but just creating a metaphor so that typically when somebody over looks the need for a permit that would be the cure. in this case it was cured and the resolution here, best resolution is just finish the job and get the heck out of the building and return it to peace and quiet, correct? >> correct. sort of the distinction between the building permit -- they got a permit allowing for the remodel and the electrical and plumbing you're paying for the inspectors to come out. >> right. i got it.

>> so the work was authorized -- the actual remodel was authorized under the building permit. the inspection as far as pumping and electrical they needed a permit to authorize the inspections. >> so do you see any other manifest abuses in this case other than there may have been perceived to be excess noise. there was a true perception there was one permit that should have pulled but it wasn't, and there was alleged they started too early and worked too late according -- >> yeah, just to keep us on track what we're focusing on now did the city intentionally inadvert have the questioner be late filing the appeal. >> what is your view. >> -- >> well, i asked the it department and

said it's impossible without a screen shot and our evidence shows it was updated online as it was supposed to be. >> thanks. >> okay thank you. i don't see any further questions. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i see one hand raised. suzanne levine please go ahead. >> hi. i just wanted to express concern of the neighbor who lives next door when there was some kind of chemical used in the building. it w afted into our building next door, into my apartment. another neighbor in the building said the same thing about their apartment. it was really toxic, and i

have concern the long hours, the disregard for the neighbors and the work being done. i just have concerns for safety and unfortunately -- yeah. i just feel -- sorry. i am still really concerned that the proper oversight is not happening, and there's a pattern of this, and i just think that i would like to see closely oversight to ensure safety and proper regulations, notifications. if the wiring was done inappropriately or something done there's that oversight that could cause a fire. you know our building went through a lot of construction. we went through a lot -- we went through all the

proper permits and proper notifications. i just think there needs to be a neighborly you know we're neighbors. we're all very closed to each other so i wanted to express that concern. >> okay. thank you. is there any further public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any further public comment so commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> should we start on the virts? commissioner lemberg any questions, comments? >> sure thing. we have a statement from counsel that the permit was not available on the website. i have had this problem in the past as well myself not with this particular property of course but with other properties in the past, and i don't see any reason not to

grant the jurisdiction request. that's my 2 cents. >> mr. eppler any comment? >> yes. you know it strikes me that you know looking at the scope of this, the remodel that the people that are asking for the jurisdiction be granted were on notice that things were going on; that they were in a heightened state and; and as a result of some of the background prepared to enforce their remedies and you know seek to have their interest heard so you know that -- that is to say long way of saying they have been looking for the what they were supposed to be looking

for and say they didn't find them so i think this wasn't just a cursory look at the dbi website to see what is pulled so i think that goes to their statement that the permit had not been posted at the time in which they looked >> can anybody hear me? >> am i muted? >> i'm sorry. it's not time -- we're in deliberations. there's no further comment allowed at this point so you cannot speak. okay. commissioner eppler are you finished? >> yes, i am. >> thank you. . >> mr. gibner can you give us any further guidance on jurisdiction request decision making other than that which ms. rosenberg gave us?

>> not really. the board's rules out the standard, and if the board concludes that the city caused the inability to file an appeal the board would then, and the board decided to grant jurisdiction, the board would then continue the item or allow the parties time, the appellant time to file the appeal that the board would consider at a future meeting. i understand that mr. collier is saying that the board could grant the jurisdiction today and hear the underlying appeal for that today but that's not an option for the board and i wanted to clarify that. >> that's exactly -- thank you for the guidance and education. it's education day. commissioner trasuina. >> thank you president swig. i realize that all of the issues are coming together and the jurisdiction

issue is a threshold question for us. as i hear the representative from dbi they checked and rechecked as to whether the information was posted on the website. perhaps it was hard to find, but the testimony is it was on the website, and i'm not really clear on what -- even if we granted the jurisdiction question in support of the bloomfields what would we be able to do at this point? there's a lot of issues and ms. levine and the public commenter mentioned and neighbors and neighborly, and communication. much or all that has been lacking from the understand from the 97 pages that of course submitted by the parties and by the stay and by the

oral testimony today. i am frustrated as you know about the general lack of communication between neighbors, between members of the community, and oftentimes the city that prompts many of these cases to come before us, but when we have if the sole basis for the our taking jurisdiction is a delay because the information # was not seen on the website and we've asked the city whether it on the website and did the audit and the checking and if that's the testimony i don't believe we have the ability or should take up this matter because of the inability of a member of the public to find it on the website which that is leer. they did not find it, whether it was there or not is the second question, and secondly i am also frustrated especially as you describe we would have

to come back at a later date. i'm not sure if there's any possible remedy that would satisfy or make whole the parties that of the appellants that we have any control over. they may have other options. they may have civil court options. they may have small claims options. they may have a lot of options or maybe done but i don't believe ultimately we can provide them much relief and i want to be candid and clear with my colleagues and with members of the board that for those reasons i don't believe it's appropriate for us to take jurisdiction. >> . >> mr. lopez do you have any comment or shall we let -- >> well, commissioner lemberg has further comments.

>> commissioner lemberg i apologize. it's very difficult to juggle between sitting here real life and seeing it is tiny screen next to me and look for your tiny raised hand. >> no problem and i will be back in person next meeting. >> we look forward to it. >> i just want to respond to what commissioner trasuina was saying and i don't believe it's appropriate to consider the potential what we might be able to do or what the parties might be able to argue on appeal just for this jurisdiction request. i believe according to the rule was our body we're only to consider whether there was a city mistate that caused a late filing for this particular agenda item, and as i stated earlier, and as commissioner eppler stated as well you know i think there's sufficient evidence to at least grant jurisdiction over this. whether or not there are --

whether or not there are potential solutions is not appropriate because we haven't been briefed on this particular permit yet. we have been briefed on two other permits that we will be hearing right after this but it's a separate issue and separate argument that both of the parties in this matter can do additional briefing and do that, so i don't think it's appropriate to take all of that into consideration for this jurisdictional request. >> i believe commissioner trasuina wants to respond? >> thank you. and briefly if i can clarify my comments. my comments are hearing the city and hearing the on the issue of whether there was any action or inaction by the city that caused the delay i did not find that there were, so i am saying even if

beyond that because we've heard about the activities under the permit i wanted to bring those in, but i agree with commissioner lemberg that if the standard is only on the jurisdictional question i would probably differ with him, but i'm not using the lack of an ultimate outcome solution as the reason for my view on that. >> okay. >> i would just further comment that we -- this is hearsay versus hearsay. i i'm not looking at a screen shot that shows me on august 25, or whatever the permit holder -- sorry, the appellant or the jurisdiction requester says it wasn't on the screen. we don't have a snapshot of that and then dbi can't give us a snapshot that it was on either so

it's hearsay versus hearsay. it makes it really difficult. i am sympathetic to both of my fellow commissioners and one is recognizing the integrity of the city and the claim they make through their records and the other commissioner is recognizing the integrity of the jurisdiction requester. i'm not challenging either of them. all i know is it's hearsay versus hearsay which makes it pretty difficult so if somebody wants to make a motion -- >> well, commissioner eppler has further comments. >> thank you. i can't see that little hand. sorry. >> and i will be back too at our next meeting. you kind of got to what i was going to say president swig and the way i took the dbi comments on this matter were that not they had this positive

evidence it was posted appropriately on the website but more they had no reason to believe it was not and so i take that as -- you know that's evidence they did not find it but it also does not disprove the contention made by the requester and that's what i am seeking to balance as we consider this jurisdictional request. >> so would somebody like to make a motion so we can find out what the end of the story is going to be tonight? do i hear -- >> commissioner lemberg has a question. >> commissioner lemberg is raising his hand. >> yes. i was going to move the grant the jurisdiction request based on a substantial possibility there was a city error in posting this permit on the dbi

website. >> mr. gibner is that enough? >> it's really a judgment for the board. the board's rules provide that you can find that the -- you can grant the request if you find that the city intentionally or inadvertently had the requester be late in the filing. there's not a standard of proof or evidence in rules. it's a judgment of the board. >> okay. so the motion would be in your view legally adequate to take a vote? >> yes. >> okay. that's what i am getting at. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner lemberg to grant the request on the basis that there's a substantial possibility that the city was in error and inadvertently had the requesters to be late on the appeal. on

that motion vice president lopez. >> wait. do we still have vote on the motion if we have request to speak? >> i'm sorry. i thought the deliberations were over. >> you have a comment commissioner trasuina. >> thank you. i do have a comment now that i have heard the motion for the first time. >> okay >> and after the colloquy between the president and the deputy city attorney i think we're confusing sympathy with the legal standard, and i haven't heard -- i just caution my colleagues that as i have learned from president swig every time we adopt a standard or interpret a standard that's going to be the standard for everybody in the future, and i believe -- while i am

sympathetic to the bloomfields i don't believe it's appropriate. i don't believe the standard has been met to grant jurisdiction. >> mr. lopez. >> yeah. i think i come out in the same place. i think we have you know kind of in absence of hard evidence on either side and you know one would hope that our it team would be able to produce an audit trail of something like this, but when it is in this kind of a jump ball scenario i do -- i am inclined to side with the city's statement that that there's no reason to believe there was an issue with the

posting after reviewing that, and i think i'm -- i'm also comforted by the fact that this doesn't mean that that the palleted apts won't have an opportunity to present the substance of their position on other items. >> . >> so that's in the back of my mind as well, but that's how i am leaning. >> okay. so commissioner lemberg did you still want to proceed with that motion? it doesn't look like you're going to get four votes. >> it's still on the table. >> okay. so we have a motion from commissioner lemberg to grant the request for the reasons previously stated. that motion vice president lopez. >> nay. >> commissioner trasuina. >> no. >> commissioner eppler. >> yes. >> president swig. >> no. >> okay. so that

motion fails. is there another motion on the table? it's not necessary but -- okay. so in effect the request is denied. there was not sufficient votes so we will move on to item 7a and 7b. 7a is 22-068, margaret and michael bloomfield and subject to building inspection on 524 lake street and appealing the issue of greg germano of an electrical permit and install electric at outlets and kitchen read model and one out want bathroom and permit as cited. and appeal number 22-69 at the bloomfields dbi, again 524 lake street. the permit was issued to greg germano of the plumbing permit kitchen and laundry remodel and gas from

kitchen and bathroom reed model and permit as cited. and so we will hear first from mr. collier. since you have two appeals you have 14 minutes to address the board. >> thank you. before we start i would like just my two clients mr. and mrs. bloomfield to do the presentation so you hear from them and we have -- at least when i did this a long time ago sometimes the board wanted stuff on the overhead as far as pictures and sometimes -- >> on the overhead is fine. >> i brought both. >> thank you. you ask just show it on the overhead and let us know when you're ready to we'll start the time. mr. and mrs. bloomfield you can approach the microphone.

>> thank you. >> welcome. if you could move the microphone down so we make sure we hear you. thank you. >> okay. hello commissioners. thanks for seeing us tonight. my name is margaret bloomfield or meg bloomfield. my husband and i live at 526 lake street. it's the bottom flat of a three flat building. we have been there for then years since 1987 the owners of the building who house the flats invoked on the ellis act in 2022 on two of the units. although the 522 unit did have a tenant occupyinglet unit and listed as vacant when the ellis act was filed. 524 was occupied by jennifer and scott

middleton and vacated eight weeks before the 90 day notice was given, so my husband, mike and i notified the germano attorney we were requesting an extension of termination to may 12, 2023 so we requested the year's extension which was accepted by both germanos. on july 30 the kitchen appliances in the 524 unit were removed by the handy man building repair person bill butler who [inaudible] and a picture of the kitchen as it looked without the stove and fridge. on august 12, which we did not know nor was anything posted. apparently a permit was issued to remove

the cabinetses and install others and a kitchen remodel. on august 4 without notice from the germanos or bill demolition started so they pulled out the whole kitchen counters, back splash, and it was days and days of very long noisy demolition and they broke a water pipe. the water cascaded down the back splash by the wall across the subfloor into our light fixture and on floor so we had a flood that we cleaned up. on the 23 a completely different crew showed up at 9:00 a.m. and started work on the 524 kitchen and bathroom. the kitchen wall is further demoed and the tub and sink and medicine cabinet and plaster from the walls were removed and put in the kitchen and

there's a picture of that. >> [off mic]. >> this one. yeah. work continued aggressively and disruptive to us to have a conversation, worked zoom meetings or mike conduct business. he's been operating out of the dining room since covid and the restrictions hit in many 2020, so this work has continued well into the month of october and this is construction work with signs severing pipes and sawing through wood and signs and the outside of the building and the floors of the 524 kitchen right above our kitchen. the water has been shut off twice. some scheduled, some not scheduled and we discovered that there were no permits issued

for the plumbing and electrical work being done or permits issued for the bathroom and the laundry room remodel. the painterrer started working and came in on august 31 so at the end of august we then had painters who worked initially on the top flat and come in at seven in the morning and work to nine or 10 at night or 11. they use sanding machines. they were playing music which was fine until after 6:00 o'clock and used chemicals, some type of chemical that came through the building itself at least three times on three different occasions. we noticed greg germano those three different times and on the third complaint he did reply vaguely that the chemicals were not toxic. we have no idea what was in them but it was certainly

-- anyway fans and odor abatement were never deployed and affected our health and forced to keep the windows open overnight during the cold nights of september. the painting crew would park the truck and block access for pedestrians and children and anyone and that's what it looked like everyday with a truck parked across the sidewalk. on september 20 a convergence of truck did the previous picture descended bringing chaos, further demolition hammering, sawing, woods pipe and loud thump on the kitchen and complete demolition done on the bathroom and this is what i saw at 630 at night after the demolition

team or maybe search at night. can you see it? there you go. and under that is the bathtub, the sink and medicine cabinet. on september 23 more kay i guesss on came. workers showed up early. more conversion much trucks and plumbers and painters and deliveries and coil wiring which annoyed me -- not annoyed me, alarmed me was going into the 524 flat. i called pg&e to expert the smart meter pulled out from the wall outside and arrived in the hour and looked like pg&e capped that and then i asked about the wiring up the side of the building into the top flat that was jerry rigged from the electrical box here

and went straight up to the 522 flat and said give them extra electricity apparently and said i should contact the department of building inspection. it didn't look safe to him but it wasn't in his jurisdiction, so i did. they told me pg&e can handle complaints about electrical. so multiple complaints were filed that day. the plumbing and electrical permits were issued for 524 lake street on 9- 224 weeks after the work on the unit for pumping and gas lines and the bathroom and laundry rooms had started. >> . >> so those permits were for the bathroom and the laundry room also. on 5-2 on september 28 mike and i had a one hour zoom call and impossible to hear.

we had workers all over upstairs just making noise. on the september 30 construction started at 815. our water was turned off without notice for over 20 minutes and apologies for greg and wanted to know should we reschedule the water turn off and we responded yes we wanted the water restored and scheduled for the following monday soon after my cousins came out and hasn't been here for 20 years and couldn't enjoy a meeting in the dining room until sunday evening when the workers went home early. we attempted to have lunch monday and the plumpers were outside attaching gas line to the exterior of the building and drilling and cutting pipes again and impossible to have a conversation. at 2:00

o'clock that same day the painters were in another unit and toxic fumes filled the flat so we vacated and took them out to dinner and took them to the airport hotel. on the october 4 the painters were there at 9:00 a.m. to paint and strip the front doors and ask for our door open so they could do that and mike said of course and left it open unattended for an hour and had lunch and i don't know what they wereth doing and i shut the door and didn't reopen it. the work continued through saturday the eighth and on the tenth -- i know. okay. at 830 the workers showed up and drilling and saying more pipe and wood and the building was shaking and then we had more paint fumes. that was the third day on the tenth. so greg responded by asking us what we think we should do would be a good course

of action for these paint fumes? we didn't respond. we're not his site managers. i don't know. but he certainly probably does because he's the landlord and owner of multiple tenant occupied buildings in the city, so all work finally halted at 11:59 a.m. on october 11. i am very thankful that the work has ceased. we had two and a half months of intrusive work with no permits posted. we have been san francisco residents for many years and we're excellent tenants and we love our neighborhood, and we simply ask that we can live in a peaceful quiet clean home free of the stress that we have been living on since early august. we don't want to live under and within a construction site so we honor our

request that you halt the work and michael would like to talk. >> yeah. commission my name is mike bloomfield and as my wife described we're subject to the ellis act so we have six and a half months left. the middletons were also occupants of lake and wrote a letter of s i ask you to read that letter and describe the conditions they had to ensure under the tenancy of mr. germano. i think this construction experience further evidences haze callous disregard for the comfort of his tenants and his inability to have the compassion to let people live peaceably so please read that letter and all the

letters of support. there's been no tangible effort to mitigate all of the effects of this job which far exceeds the scope of the permits that were issued, far exceeds, and there should be some penalty for that so what we want and we don't know it's only going to take one more week to complete this project. we don't know. the landlord has not been as forthright as he could be and we don't know if his estimate is correct. if it proves to be incorrect what remedy do we have? we will have to go through this again and by that time the work might be done but could be three, four, five, six more weeks, so i had a lot to say, a lot written. i'm going to skip all of that but i would really appreciate the fact

that you read those letters of support. you consider the circumstances and you allow us to live in peace for the rest of our occupancy of 526 lake street. we lived there for 38 years. we contribute to the neighborhood. we're friends all over the neighborhood and this is not how we want to go out harassed. so with that i'm going to -- we have 47 seconds. do you want to add anything? >> members of the board i just want to reiterate that the building permit does say it's a kitchen remodel and the testimony is they have remodeled all including the bathroom and again without the permits being obtained we were unable to appeal a proper permit, based

on the previous item but we're appealing these permits that clearly talk about a broader scope that the over never notified the tenants of and given this history of the owner and the middleton unit you can understand why -- >> thank you. thank you. >> there hasn't been the communication necessary. >> thank you. we do have a question from commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. it's no secret that i am a tenant attorney and i certainly have a lot of sympathy for your story and i have read the public comments and the impact letters from the neighbors. i heard you mr. and mrs. bloomfield very clearly, but unfortunately what is before us tonight is appealing the issuance of a electrical and plumbing permit and so my -- i

definitely have concerns that even if we were to grant that appeal i don't think it would necessarily fix your problem and so i guess i want to ask specifically what regarding the work described in the plumbing and the electrical permits is causing specific harm or cause to you? and unfortunately we voted against hearing the building permit appeal so we're stuck now with just the electrical and plumbing permits so we have to hear -- we can only consider those two permits and the contents of those two permits so my question is what in those two permits are problematic and that are the work being performed is outside the scope of what is in

those permits? . >> sure. go ahead. >> well, again we don't know exactly what has been done already, but if the appeal is granted and our request for conditioning the permits them being completed after their occupancy is over then basically any work regarding the kitchen and the bathroom that would still need to be done in order to implement those electrical and plumbing permits would be stopped. i guess the painting wouldn't be affected technically in that sense because you don't need a permit to do painting, but i think it would essentially stop the work and i would hope the permit holder would wait until the tenancies were over

before finishing the rest of the work including whatever would be necessary to do the pumping and the electrical work under the permit. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. you can be seated. i don't see any further questions so we will now hear from the permit holder or the permit holder's representative is which one of you is going to speak? >> i am happy to speak. >> okay welcome. you have 14 minutes. >> well they talk about my history as a landlord. i have not one blemish on this set of flats on this address. we've owned the building since 1926, and the bloomfields rented yeah in the 80s. i believe that my family brought down the rent so they could come in and occupy. they looked at the flat and it was too expensive and then my

kindhearted family decided to call them back and we will bring the price down, and my family has been very fair with them over the years. there's not one complaint, but i see -- i had to pay a lot of money for this property and decided i didn't want to live in the city, and i wanted to do something now and get out of it, and they're unhappy about it because they're angry about it, and they want to do anything they can to stop what i am doing to create chaos. yeah the building was very quiet for all of the years. as you see from the photos the kitchen was completely almost original and just one set of lower cabinets not the bathroom had a claw foot tub. as far as i know that's going back in and we're were

going to change the vanity. when you say the whole flat is remodeled. no. they're three separate flats with three entrances full floor detached buildings so when ms. levine says the editors are coming in and i don't know has she never been around paint? there's not even a hvac unit in the building to create -- you know to run duct work and springs that might spread odors. the units are completely cut off from one another. the building is 5600 square feet and 1800 square feet a unit. the kitchen is in the back and the only room where work is going on. other than that yeah paint is taking a while and coat and sealing and wood work and takes time to do that

work. i have seen pictures of the trucks on the sidewalk. i can't imagine that happened everyday and that it happened very long because as you know parking enforcement is going to ticket when they see a sidewalk blocked. this being the permits for electrical and plumbing my understanding was these have been signed off. i mean we're really done. it was just the kitchen and changing the vanity and adding an outlet in the bathroom. the rest is all paint. when alex says we will be done in a week he's probably not far from the truth and regarding this flood all this drama, all of this drama. sure. the people that owned it -- you know my family they would be over 100 years now and everything was very quiet and you know now i am making some

changes and they're very upset about it, but you know remodels happen around the city. we didn't do anything structurally. we made no alterations. we're talking replacing cabinets and sink. wire not moving the drain. everything is practically going on the same wall. 1800 square foot flat that are completely separate. they talk about a flood. okay. that flood was solved under an hour with paper towels. that's what i am told so all this drama is you know based on the ellis act. it's not based on anything in fact. paper towels you know that's not a flood. heavy demo, -- all the wording they used. bringing in their attorney in and all this is a lot of drama. i mean they want to sit there in a

building that is completely quiet. it's not reasonable. this whole thing is not reasonable. what little i am doing is done with permits and done legally and been inspected. they emailed me quite a bit. as a matter of fact i don't live in san francisco. when i talked to the painter and i tried to limit the hours and everything and only the painters there after hours and the plumbers and electricians are not there late at night and the painters and they thought they were the owners and they throw their weight around. can i give you other instances how they act like the owners of the building and do things around the buildings that tenants shouldn't do but i won't bother. the painter actually thought they were the owners. no, no, i'm not one pays you

and work with you. it's just anneal at this point especially when we're almost finished and it's just a minor project. >> . >> when they say the word "project" we're replacing cabinets. the drain doesn't move. the sink is in the same place. the bathroom gets a new vanity. it's a separate commode and there's the tub and sure we're replacing some flooring. well, we took up the vinyl in the kitchen and that's just been the subfloor will be refinished. the bathroom i would like to put tile on the floors and replace the vanity. i mean it was just a light weight project. they talk about me owning multiple units. no, come on. this is all being blown out of proportion because they're unhappy they need to make a change. i have been pretty much

forced to do this ellis act. i have been pretty much given no choice, so that you know i understand they have been there for 37 years but my grandfather bought the building. i bought the building. they are just renting. they want everything their way, and i'm afraid this is -- these are the little things that i am doing and they email me all the time and i knew what they were setting me up for. every time i responded and called the appropriate people. we tried to mitigate any smell. this is a completely detached building. i don't know they're getting neighbors just to try to make their case which is you know not a case, and we did -- the painter did bring in fans. we didn't know if we should open or close the windows. i read all this drama in the brief. this

huge long brief from mr. collier. you know mr. bloomfield -- his eyes are watering and stuff. his lungs are collapsing. store bought paint. i mean really? let's move on. i mean we're done. i mean if there was anything else to do that the city required we would have done it. it's been signed off. i don't know what more to say that except these tenants are trying to create a problem where there isn't a problem, and they live in a separate flat that's not been touched exempt for the epic flood solved with paper towels and i have angry tenants and never a complaint from them before. check the rent board, check anything. they had 37 peaceful years there and i brought the place in 2017 and i basically just had my hands tied and had to do

with with the els and i they're unhappy about it and i'm sorry. i think that's -- if alex wants to say anything i think he would say he did everything he needed to do that city required and by the way i'm a native san franciscan and lived there most of my life and taking care of my mom in the desert in southern california and that's why i am not there and i was going to come back but i don't think so i will now, so -- if alex wants to add anything i think he has done everything legal so it's very minor stuff. >> okay. thank you. alex did you want to add anything? you have five minutes? anything to add? >> [off mic]. >> if you could approach the microphone please. >> all i want to say and i conduct my business respectful for the tenants. i don't have any issue for them. everyday i show up i try to be respectful and i understand that construction can be noisy at time and

demos and such a small project and one, two days at the most and when the guys were working bringing the gas line up to the kitchen you know that was the loudest days i guess but for the most part i don't have -- i just try to conduct my business respectively and get it done and off to the next one. >> okay thank you. >> thank you. >> so mr. germano are you finished? >> yeah, i mean basically there's a difference between renting and owning and you know this business about mr. bloomfield being so ill from all of this. what i understand from all of the people that go there he's golfing and biking everyday and so i think they just thought that they could live there as they stated this low rate of rent forever and forever and you know that's not what happens when you rent. they had a run at 37 years and i have to make

this change in my life with this property that my family held on to for almost a hundred years so i'm sorry for them, but nobody has forced them to rent and nobody has forced them not to purchase their own house somewhere where they could act like the owners like they have been acting around my property. >> okay. thank you. we do have a question from commissioner lemberg. >> i do, and i honestly wasn't going to ask this question but since you brought it up in your argument mr. germano i'm going to ask the question and that question is since you had already known there was a date certain that the tenants vacating and above and below and sounds like there's two other units in the building and the one in the middle is the one receiving

the construction here. is there a reason that there had been to be months of construction? even though by your own admission there wasn't any work done on the property in many years while the tenants were still vacating even though they had a date certain they were vacating in may? >> oh it's certain. i'm not told that it's certain. i think that if they choose not to there's an unlawful detainer. you're a attorney it can drag me out and i don't think they will and i made a generous offer which is going off the table and they want to fight and they're angry and being unreasonable and to wait i mean really how long do you wait? i mean we're talking about -- we should be talking about the permits and the ellis act and leg

get peace of the permits and not should i wait until they leave? that seems out of the scope of what we should be talking about. >> . >> i'm completely sympathetic. i didn't want to do that. i owned the place for five years and before that on title and part of the family the whole time. i pretty much have been forced to do it -- get out. >> are you going to answer the question or no? >> the question of why do it now? it's really a very light remodel. this is a lot of drama about replacing kitchen cabinets, a sink, a disposal, installing a dish washer and new vanity and light switch. the paint i think aggravated them the most and the wood work and the sanding

you have to do on plaster walls and ceiling when they crack and i have painted the unit over the years myself before they ever lived there so your question would be why wouldn't i wait? why would i? why? how is remodel it ising the kitchen and remodel means a little more than what i am doing. i'm replacing cabinet, a wall of cabinets. i mean really? there's no walls moved, no interior alterations no structural alerations, nothing significant. just like the flood. moses parted the red sea with paper towels. >> has he answered your question commissioner lemberg or are we ready to move on? >> he has not but i don't believe he will. >> okay. we will move on and i assume

planning department doesn't want to weigh in on this so we will hear from the department of building inspection. thank you mr. green. you have 14 minutes. >> i won't need 14 minutes. thank you. math rue green representing the department of building inspection again. both these permits, the pumping and electrical permit are associated with the building permit we heard the jurisdiction request previously. both permits were issued on september 27. it's important to note they're required so the scope of work done the plumbing permit was obtained after notice of violation was issued. the electrical permit did not have a notice of violation associated with it. the work has proceeded. both permits have a rough inspections october 4 and both passed on the first try. i would say the only work -- inspections remaining is a gas test on the pumping and the final inspections once all the fixtures

are installed. i am sympathetic to the appellants here and also to the contractor and the owner, but i don't think these permits were issued improperly. i recommend that you keep them in place and allow them to finish the work to obtain the final inspection. i am available for any questions you may have. >> you heard the question before so the electrical permit was issued properly and the construction has adhered to that permit, correct? >> correct. they passed the rough frame inspection on october 4. >> and the plumbing permit was over looked. dbi rescued that over look and got the contractor to get the permit issued properly and the accountability, the fine was the accountability for

that overlook. >> [off mic]. >> i'm sorry. if you can please don't interrupt. >> so the pluming permit ultimately issued albeit late and the price for being late was the fine, correct? >> correct. >> and other than that have you seen any other abuses or excesses beyond the scope of the permits issued? >> i would just like to clarify that both permits were obtained late. it's just they were able to get electrical permit prior to a notice of violation being issued so no need for notice of violation. >> is i got it. >> other than that they have passed the inspections. the work is being done to code. >> has there been other abuses you or staff have observed in this program? >> no, under the building program there were two inspectors and passed both inspections. >> thank you. >> okay thank you. i

don't see any further questions. >> commissioner lemberg has a question. >> he put his hand down. commissioner lemberg did you want to ask a question? >> i did and similar to president swig's question. >> okay. so you don't have it anymore? thank you. >> thank you. >> so we will now move on to public comment. if there's anyone here to provide public comment please raise your hand. okay. suzanne levine please go ahead. >> hi. commissioners and thank you for allowing me to speak again. i actually wasn't planning on speaking, but when i heard mr. germano question my integrity for stating our experience in the building next door and him not being able to understand that was an actual thing that has happened i felt it was important for me to state that this was a factual situation,

and this is not made up. i don't have any definite investment with my neighbors other than they have been great neighbors but you know i'm not close with them. i do have some sensitivities. i am affected by this. i just i am really saddened that he made those statements and i just wanted to set the record straight that i have no reason to lie. i have no reason to make anything up, and i am just really disappointed. i remember i think it was his uncle you know having many beautiful conversations with him and talking with him about the neighborhood, learning about the building, learning about the building they lived in and the building that was there before our building was built nearly 100 years ago. he was really -- he

was part of a community and really a gentle man so i am really sorry that it has come to this. it is very sad. i wanted to make that statement so thank you. >> okay thank you. is there any further public comment? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any so we will move on to rebuttal and mr. collier you have six minutes. >> thank you members of the board. just a couple of points i wanted to make. first of all and it's noted in our brief that the ellis act specifically says that when you grant the one year extension you're not supposed to tear the building down around the tenants while they're living their last year there. that is the specific requirement of the act that was imposed when they amended the act to allow for the one year

extension, and there's a case on point malally versus allen case that cited in the brief, so this is exactly what the act is meant to do is to say if you want to go out of the rental business and tenants entitled to the one year extension seniors or disabled tenant and live there without disruption and that's exactly the opposite of what happened here so i think it's very important that this board make that policy clear in san francisco that we're not going to let people evoking the ellis act just tear a building down around their tenants and okay i guess maybe i am exaggerating but doing major remodel that disrupts the tenancy and the remainder of the term

and also you're rewarding someone who didn't get the electrical and plumbing permits by saying hey well everything is done by the time they got their permit because they did all without the permit first and so basically you're saying you know if we don't -- if we allow or deny the appeal and we're denying it because the permit holder has done all the work already and there's not much to left to be done well that's because he's done the work before he ever got the permit so you're rewarding someone again for not complying with the permit requirement and i'm going to turn it over to ms. bloomfield to talk about the flooding. >> a couple of things. the water that came down was at least 3-gallons of water. i know that's not a flood. i know it wasn't but it wasn't a couple of paper towels that cleaned it up and

billy helped me and came down with tolls and we mopped up the floor. my light took down the light fixture this shape and filled with water from -- anyway -- that -- so it was like a waterfall, and two, we've lived there 30 plus years. we have painted the flat. we've painted every single room for these past 30 years. i've never had odor like that through the flat. we've redone the floor. we have totally maintained that place. we had a lovely wonderful relationship with his dad, his uncle and his aunt, the three people actually living on the third floor whether we moved in. we never had a problem. all of this started, all of the contentious relationships started whengina and greg

germano bought the building and about six months after they bought it but that's another story. it doesn't matter. we have totally been excellent tenants. my parent his a gas line through contractor put in so we could have a dryer 30 years ago so we could dry our baby's clothes. i mean we have been really responsible tenants. tom and i built a garden in the back. it was beautiful and enjoy the by multiple people. we're not looking to -- anyway, go ahead. thank you very much. >> it's a beautiful gard glean thank you. you have about two minutes. >> . >> did you have anything further mr. collier? if not that's fine. you don't have to use it. >> i don't think so. i think we said what we need to say. >> thank you. we have a couple questions though. go ahead. >> i wanted -- my

cousin wrote a letter. at least two neighbors wrote a letter. i think a third one did that lives on the other side. this disruption is not a few people. it was entirely -- i was surprised that people could smell the fumes. i had no idea it was beyond our scope. it's an old building. i know that. i know it's an old building but it's stiff livable and lived with the middletons for 14 years no problem with construction and i am saying we're well aware of it. >> this is much more than a small cabinet being removed, much more. >> thank you. we do have a couple of questions. first from commissioner trasuina and then president swig. >> my questions are directed to mr. collier. >> okay. >> on the question of the ellis act is it your legal view that this board has the ability to address

ellis act either violations or retaliation under the ellis act? >> well, i think the board have very broad discretion and it's cited in the brief to deal with permits that impacted general welfare, and i think when you deal with this permit in the context of the ellis actex vision that general standard for the general welfare includes what the act says which is that you shouldn't be causing disturbance during the year extension period, so i think there's no problem for this board to be cognizant of that and to exercise discretion in light of it. similarly the board couldn't say well you're going to have to withdraw the ellis act before we grant the permit. that would be clearly a violation of the eli guess act to do that so you have to be cognizant

that the ellis act creates certain parameters but i don't think you need to limit them and not penalize the owner for evoking the act but i think you could say comes with the act that the requirement that he comply with it and we're recognizing this is out of compliance with the act and therefore we want to limit the work until the year extension is expired >> and is there judicial body that has the ability to hear violations of the eli guess act other than the board of appeals? >> well, i mean superior court account -- could do it if a lawsuit is brought. >> . >> i suppose there could be a lawsuit for an junction. >> is it your legal view that the examples that we heard this evening and

trucks blocking the driveway, of late night and early morning construction or renovations being done, or failure to respond to complaints of a flood erraticsic fumes that those as an example those type of activities are sufficient to nullify a properly granted permit? >> well, yes. we're not actually asking that the permit be nullified but simply it be conditioned that the work not continue until after they vacate so i believe -- you have that discretion and that power and that ability to do it. i mean other boards before this

board -- other boards' appeals have hit on similar things. >> thank you. >> president swig. >> i'm going to direct your same question to our city attorney because the issue -- i would like some clarification here. am invoking the ghost of anne lazarus and said stay to the task of what is in front of us as opposed to getting into things that are not in front of us, and so with that the city attorney play some referee on the ellis act here. we are here to based on an appeal related to two permits which are being challenged and my question to you is the ellis act

something that we this board is -- any action towards these two permits -- should any action related to these two permits take into consideration anything related to the ellis act as i fear that this is out of our jurisdiction that is the ellis act? >> sure. deputy city attorney john gibner again. the board of appeals doesn't have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes under the ellis act as to whether a landlord is complying with the act. you have jurisdiction to consider the permit and that does include the impact of the permit on the property and its inhabitants and residents, but that is a different question than whether the landlord is complying with the ellis act.

>> so the testimony that i think i just heard is that counsel said under the ellis act there's a requirement not to disturb the property of that tenant who has -- who is going through the process of being ellis acted. sorry using that as a verb, and that's the line. so in fact he's doing what we can't do. what he is asking -- he is asking us to cease these permits and condition these permits based on the ellis act, and in fact that's a whole different jurisdiction from what i am hearing you say. that we cannot do that. >> that's right. if the board does have jurisdiction to

grant the appeal if you make findings that the permit should be denied or nullified, but if you are going down that road the board shouldn't base that decision on a finding that the construction violates the ellis act. as mr. collier said that would be an appropriate determination potentially for the superior court but the board of appeals doesn't have jurisdiction to makes it decision based on the ellis act violation >> and we have had just to make it clear we've had cases in here before i can't remember the address but there was a family that was the last family standing in an apartment and the landlord wasn't misbehaving and was working from 6:00 a.m.

to 10:00 p.m. leaving public doorses for public access open, doing all sorts of things as i recall, and we took action on those abuses, but we separated it from another action that was a separate dispute between that family and the landlord so is that -- am i drawing a the proper just position? >> yes, i think so. the board could grant the relief that the palleted apts are seeking. >> . >> but not based on a violation of the ellis act but for the reasons you have described. >> can we grant relief beyond what is in the statutes of the city which mr. green maybe able

to comment on which is reasonable time to do the work? i think what is it? 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.? i don't know what it is and ask him to opine or there are restrictions that contractors have, so as to not to disturb tenants regardless whether there's an ellis act involved or not and we could grant relief based on those statutes? >> that's correct. >> okay thank you. that's all i have. >> we will now hear from the permit holder mr. germano you have six minutes. minutes are you with us? >> yes thank you. well, what i am -- this whole affair is really based on the ellis, and i'm i'm sorry that they

cannot handle any change at all that they wanted everything to stay as it was with my dad and my aunt and my uncle who would be all over a hundred years old, and steve soldier said major remodel. it's not a major remodel and i think they're -- this whole thing is about -- the appellant -- the bloomfields are there all day long and they're trying to record anything that may look unappealing, and you know truck on the sidewalk, a pile of trash in the kitchen. they're trying -- they're trying to make a case. i don't have any -- i'm not there with you. i don't have any photos or anything like that but there have been no abuses: i think the only contractor that worked after hours and we're talking

about -- we're still within the hours that allowed by law are just the painters and yeah maybe they played some music but it's a 5600-foot pursuits flat over a garage and is totally detached. it's solidly built. when they say things are rattling and shaking i don't understand that. this is build of old growth redwood and solid and original and it's not a major remodel. i think if it was a large remodel and demoing and doing additions and really affecting their habitability i think that mr. collier would have been brought a lawsuit in superior court. i think they're trying to go around and go through you know trying to get you as the board of appeals to set me back in what i am doing just because they don't like what i am doing and they want to live there like they

have always lived there with my aunt and uncle and dad and they were setting me up all along. i knew by the emails that came in and the phrases and they were being coached. the only remodel that is done if you call it that. to me it's not a remodel. it's more of a replacement of cab nets and counter top. it was all along one wall when they showed the picture of the kitchen it's on one wall. we didn't move anything. it's basically what was there, and there have been no abuses. you saw in the brief where a flood from the burst pipe -- well, you know paper towels. i don't know if billy came down about a towel. i was told by the dad was just paper towels that did it and that sort of representative of what

they're doing. they're exaggerating and creating a lot of drama and i think it's very much within normal you know a six room flat. we're talking about the kitchen at the rear and we're talking about the bathroom, a single bath. they don't want any noise. they don't want any disruption. they have come to like it to be very quiet and i am sure they made friends in the neighborhood and so forth but what i am doing is very light, and i am sure it falls within the guidelines of the ellis. what little i am doing. i never expected to be brought before the board of appeals for what little i am doing inside of a flat an 1800-foot pursuits flat in the kitchen and the bath. it's just unthinkable they want to stop this and

the whole motivation is to get you to do something because of the ellis act and it's not fair. that's really all i can say that there's no abuseses. everything they have emailed me about i called the parties immediately and i said to them by email "stop emailing me. text me. call me" and i will jump on it as soon as possible but they don't want do that and write emails to set me up. this is hellish. this is torture. this toxic fumes. everything just came from a store to paint, a paint store. i don't know what we don't have -- we don't have a meth lab on the property so i really don't understand. i do understand. the bloomfields and their attorney are trying to just stop me from doing anything and

sort of create chaos and so they can as retaliation for this ellis act. that's all i can say. just trying to weaponize the board of appeals. >> thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner trasuina. >> thank you for your testimony. you have repeatedly described the bloomfields' description of the work as exaggerations. at the same time if it's replacing some cabinets and doing some work in the bathroom to me it sounds like it's taking a really long time, and i am wondering can you educate me and perhaps my colleagues as to when the work started? and how long it's taken? and can you encapsulate -- well, i won't

ask you to further describe the work. i think you described it as you will describe it but can you tell me how long it's taken to the point that it's at now? >> well, we started painting the top floor and you know they just don't like any disruption whatsoever. they're not accustomed to any noise. they're not accustomed to any work being doesn't and the units are just all wood work and platter and coat sealing and we painted and i don't know when it started and this stuff tends to drag out but this is within reason. i mean what we have been doing is not beyond anything i have mentioned, and maybe alex would be able to talk more about the painting, but the participating has

seemed to really irritate them but again these are 1800-foot pursuits flats. they're totally detached with windows on all sides and when i asked them what would you suggest i do? we're painting. they said fans so we got fans right away and we opened the windows and i think this is mostly completed, but you know except for i guess bringing in appliances and fixtures and counter tops need to go in, but this is just totally unreasonable and the way it's characterized that horrific brief with completely exaggerated and embellishd and full of lies and all i can say that mrs. bloomfield herself told her what kind of flood it was. >> i think the question was how long did the work take? >> i think he

answered the best he can. >> okay. we're going to move on to the department of building inspection. . >> good evening 18 matthew green department of building inspection. construction is allowed between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. seven days a week at any noise level. after those hours you can still work but the noise level has to remain below 5-decibels. it's not apropos here but you can get a night permit for excessive noise after hours. i want to point out if the board decides to revoke the permits we have plumbing and electrical work that has been installed and inspected that would require a permit so i encourage you not to revoke the permits and let them stand and be finished. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from vice president lopez.

>> thanks. my question is about whether the ellis act plays into your permit approval or dispunishment process? we heard earlier this evening in planning's helpful presentation about adus for example that. >> . >> there's been a [inaudible] tech over legalization process in that context. is there anything analogous to that to this point you know related to a lack of disturbance of tenants during this extension period under the ellis act? >> not in the building code there's nothing about the ellis act, so no. >> got it. so that

doesn't play into your permit approval process at all? >> not at all. >> got it. thanks. >> okay. president swig. >> so 7:00 a.m. to eight impacted. >> seven days a week. >> seven days a week. >> . >> the jackhammer a tile floor right above a tenant which makes a ton of noise? that's okay? >> unfortunately during construction hours yes it is >> and so the -- so the law protects the noise? the law protects the interruption to peace and quiet of what could be a tenant or a condo owner down below. it doesn't matter. correct? >> correct. >> all right. and so the only thing

that maybe abusive here can be -- i'm not accusing mr. germano this but rudeness, lack of empathy and lack of compassion and disregard for somebody's peace and quiet but that's about it but there's nothing in the statutes that would deny a permit or force the condition that say they stop the work until our peace and quiet can be restored? >> i don't believe so. >> right. i don't want to distort that but i want to really -- it's about your statutes. it's about the lawsuit and that's what we have -- and there's no ellis act involved either as you stateed? >> not with

electrical or plumbing permits. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners this matter is submitted and two need two votes one on the electrical and one on the plumbing permit. >> okay. why don't we start. commissioner lemberg do you have any comments on this? >> yes. i have lots but i will keep most to myself. i unfortunately think our hands are tied with these permits. it's not to say i don't think the appellants have any potential recourse here. i just don't think it's through us of the appeals of these particular permits and i also don't think that getting rid of these two specific permits, the electrical and the plumbing coding would really accomplish the goals that the tenants are seeking so again i

do sincerely feel for these tenants and their neighbors as well. i just don't think this appeal is the right way to do it. i don't think we have the evidence to show that these permits were not not properly issued. i just do not see it. if there was evening a little bit of it i would grant the appeal but unfortunately there innocent and what mr. green shared is very valid and i wish the best for these tenants and their neighbors. i just -- i couldn't support a motion to grant the appeals unfortunately unless some of my colleagues have something spectacular they haven't thought of yet. >> thank you. commissioner eppler. >> yes thank you and unfortunately commissioner lemberg i

was hoping as the tenant rights attorney you would have the spectacular thing for us to consider. i think i will say maybe a little more because i have a lot to say and i don't want to [inaudible] myself and i hope that i'm a mere tenant and i am allowed to say being a tenant myself i don't know that's been under cut validity in the course of our discussion today, but i just want to apologize to the bloomfields they're having to go through this process. i understand that the landlord and tenant relationships can get contentious from time to time but i am struck by the number of people that don't live in the building and commented and provided public support for what the bloomfields have alleged. they don't have to do this and only buying trouble and had their names being

damaged or dismirched as part of the process and i don't find people looking for trouble for nothing, and so i do feel bad that these tenants and their remaining days as is their right to have under our law are having to go through this. however, i do agree that both in terms of what remedy we can give that remedy is woefully inadequate just over turning the permits and i don't see cause for us to do that on the basis of this. i do hope that the tenants with these administrative remedies exhausted you know find it possible to go to the legal remedies that may otherwise exist in this case. thank you. >> i'm going too go back to

commissioner lemberg because his hand is raised and i want to go through the panel. >> i do. i just was inspired by commissioner eppler's comments and i will just add you know i think it's this course of conduct as described by the bloomfields and their neighbors continues i think there's plenty of room for a potential court injunction. i think that section 37.10b would be a great remedy for this. i just again it just boils down to this. i've dealt with many, many cases very similar to this one although the ellis act tends to be handled in the very capable hands of mr. collier in san francisco as he is

the city's most most expert on the ellis act but i think there's room, and i think there's ways to ensure that the tenants remain adequately housed and with minimal disruptions through their lives through the end of the tenancy whenever that maybe but again i can't as far as what is before us tonight i just can't do it, but i kudos to you to the bloomfields for having to go through all of this and b, you know trying this avenue, trying this remedy i don't think so it's going to work out but i strongly encourage you to seek other remedies that maybe available to you. >> thank you. mr. lopez, commissioner lopez thoughts? >> yeah. i mean i

have to echo the comments of my fellow commissioners. you know i am very sympathetic to our appellants you know based on what has been presented i don't think i would want to live there during this period and so i'm really sorry that you're going through this. i think as been mentioned there's definitely appears to be something here but this doesn't appear to be the forum for your remedy that you're seeking, and yeah i think you know back to the kind of you know long shot question that i asked of dbi earlier i think it's something we should pursue. i think it's outside of the scope of this decision but i do think there should be an ellis act check of

some sort for matters such as this, and we saw that it's in effect essentially within planning and other context. i think it make sense in these cases as well, but just based on we have such a narrow question to focus on, and within those boundaries as was expressed by mr. green dbi did issue the permits appropriately. you know the work done outside of the scope of the permits you know the penalty for that has already been assessed. that was the four figure fine which you know given the size of the damages being experienced seems

small to me but that's what is on the books so what we're left with it is some permits that appear to be properly issued so all that is to say that my heart goes out to you. i hope that you find some peace soon or some remedy elsewhere but i don't think we're able to give it to you tonight. >> commissioner trasuina. >> thank you president breed. i suppose i'm not yet. >> . >> convinced or as conditioned as my colleagues who expressed views on the limitations of our authority that we don't have authority and thought so earlier on, but hearing the colloquy you had president swig with our deputy city attorney i would like to ask mr. gibner to clarify or at least

provide further education for me and others as to whether there are any activities by a permit holder after receiving a properly issued permit related to the construction or the substance of the permit that would allow us to cancel or revoke the permit? . >> the code section that sets up the factor that the departments and ultimately the board can consider in your discretion include that you can take into consideration the effect of the permit on the property, residents and its inhabitants. the board could potentially impose some conditions to ensure that work under

the permit doesn't have a negative affect on the residents and inhabitants so my discussion with president swig earlier really was what i was trying to say the board doesn't have jurisdiction to deny the permit based on a violation of the ellis act, but there's other factors that you may consider in deciding whether to grant the appeal or not, and those could include the impact that the work would have on the property and its residents. >> thank you. i thought that was what you had said earlier, and i am glad you have added to that. on the issue of the ellis act i don't believe -- i defer to your expertise and i don't believe that we have the ability to say no permits during an ellis act

final tenure. if there had been an explosion in the unit, if any number of valid reasons that unit were occupied and it wouldn't have a kitchen or a bathroom i don't believe simply because another tenant has ellis act tenure that would prohibit construction, remodeling et cetera to be done. the concern here i believe is the conditions upon which the unit is being remodeled, and if we're able to take those -- that circumstance into account we have heard testimony. we received written testimony from the bloomfields, from the neighbors about the current conditions under which the permits are being carried out, so

i do believe that we have the ability to take some action with regard to the permit, the issuance of the permit or continuation or revocation of the permit based on the testimony that we've heard. i am sympathetic to everybody in this matter. i don't agree about the notion that simply because you're a tenant your right to quiet enjoyment of your premises that you pay for or or simply the option of well if you don't like being a tenant well go buy someplace. i don't agree with that but i also don't feel that my inclination to disregard that kind of notion as expressed by mr. germano has a legal basis for me to make a recommendation, but i do believe that with the types of

activities that have been described that we have the ability to put conditions on the permit up to revoking it, and i would like to -- i would like for my colleagues to weigh in on that notion, and if we have a sense that we are able to do something then i think we should try to explore what we should do understanding that eli guess act probably belongs in the superior court and we cannot mandate good relationship. >> . >> notwithstanding as mr. germano said decades of the bloomfields being good tenants and good neighbors to his family but now certainly they are litigious and doing everything they can to weaponize our board et cetera. leaving all that aside i do want to see

what if my colleagues agree that we do have the authority based upon the conditions that the permit has been carried out to put some limits either by time or by revocation on this matter. >> commissioner lemberg has his hand up. >> yeah. do you mind if i go now? >> yes. >> i would like to have the opportunity since i haven't said a word and like to go back to commissioner lemberg and commissioner lopez. i agree with just about everything that you said, and i kind of take offense on the statement not from yourself they heard tonight about "well, why don't you go out and buy yourself a house" and you

heard me talk about the differences in being a renter culture and being an owner culture. there's a big gap and we have to respect that and so you know my position on that, and the respect that i have for renters and the limitations that some people cannot reach that dream of owning their own. at the same time before we get what is haunting me in the back of my brain here is before we steam roll and go in a direction that is served by our emotions the two words of manifest and justice comes into my brain on behalf of the owner of the building, the building of the building has a right too no matter how he

feels about those subjects that i am sensitive to. no matter -- and i'm not going to characterize him but he's been characterized as kind of rude and not exactly sensitivity but i don't know that because i'm not there but that's how he is characterized but i think before we go in a direction that i am sensing which you maybe going. there's a lot of emotion here. that we look out and be mindful of the rights of the property owner and not get carried away with our conditions. now, what we can do and i believe and mr. green can help us here we could condition and restrict the hours on the construction, and we can instead of being

7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. we can condition it on a reasonable eight hour day of nine to five or say nine to three or 10 to four as long as it's reasonable. we can condition that it's five -- monday through friday weekends off but let's be careful that we take into consideration that there's an owner of a building who may surf a material loss and the inability to finish those units to move on with his investment and while showing the protection for those persons who have occupied that apartment for four decades to which i am extremely sensitive, so i would like to take your direction under advisement and also temper it a little bit so we don't get

carried away and now ask commissioner lemberg to recognize his hand being raised and then mr. lopez. thank you. >> so i understand what commissioner trasuina and president swig have said but the problem is the two permits on appeal are essentially accessory permits for pumping and electrical work. the conditions that we have been talking about would have been appropriate for the building permit which was the subject of the jurisdiction request earlier in this meeting that was denied, and all of the testimony and all of the documents submitted for this case are all regarding the building permit, issues with the building permits, not with the electrical or plumbing permits so placing conditions on the electrical and plumbing

conditions and this is why i said this earlier is not necessarily going to fix any of the issues that are being brought up here today, and so i mean i think if we had voted yes on the jurisdiction request and that permit then would have been stayed pending appeal and then we could have heard that appeal at a later date that would be the appropriate time and place to place these conditions on a permit because that's the work that's been disrupting the tenants and neighbors' lives but the permits before us right now are just as mr. green has stated are accessory permits that are essentially they just have one city inspection left on each of them and there's not going to be any significant work done, so i just don't think that it's a great solution unless we want to revisit the jurisdiction

request, but i just don't think it's a particularly good solution going forward with putting conditions on these two permits. (paused). >> that tenants might be leave at the end of the ellis act period so that remains an issue. on an unrelated --

tangentially related to this matter so i would say two things in terms, and again based upon not my own sympathies or et cetera or larger issues of landlords and tenants and owners and the character of san francisco the deputy city attorney has said we have authority over these two permits. i would be, and president swig seems interested in exploring some reasonable conditions that would provide some relief. i would suggest that we could put as a limitation on the permits suspension of activity under the permits until the end date of the ellis act

tenancy. therefore, presumably if the work would condition because mr. germano apparently is no where near occupying the unit. the other unit is vacant. i assume you can't sell the unit while they're occupying it, so that it would minimize the impact on mr. germano. it would give him some greater assurance that the tenants would leave on the date he expects them to leave, so i would suggest that, and i have another point on this in i guess in response to commissioner lemberg and commissioner

lopez and on earlier issue of the building permit as a new member and with the absence of passing a motion keeps it before us? we did not pass a motion to act on that matter. if it is still properly before us i would, and if having that permit before us under reconsideration would enable us to provide relief i am prepared to change my earlier vote or approve a reconsideration motion if one were properly before us. >> that would be a question for the city attorney. >> i've never seen that. i mean it was voted on. the vote failed so in effect the request was

denied. i just i don't think there's anything in the rules that addresses what you're proposing and i have never seen it. >> would a motion to reconsider that motion would be in order? >> mr. gibner can you give a legal comment? i will give another comment. >> i would defer to the executive director as the parliamentarian of the body but happy to look at the side of the rules and see what we can come up with collectively in terms of answering those questions. >> my comment is we made our bed and now we have to sleep in it. that's number one and number two we do this we just blown open -- we basically open pandora's box and everybody standing out that door i want you to review and i want want a new vote so that would be a

very, very dangerous precedent for this body. we took a vote. the motion to accept jurisdiction was denied and that's it from my experience, and the if we did that again i think the consequences would be very, very difficult. what i would like to ask mr. green before he falls asleep -- i am just kidding. could you step to the mic please? let's get a reality check here. the reality check the pumping and electrical is done for all intensive purposes. all it has to do with pass inspection ; right? >> i understand the fixtures need to be installed and pass inspection. >> so the one step is install the fixtures? okay. >> actually could i

back up. i believe the owner said that the counter top wasn't installed yet so that would require some extra -- the sink would be installed and hooking up the sink and then the fixtures. >> okay. so if -- you know i am trying to figure out if we're too late to the game on this and the major disruption. we can't touch painting ; right? >> no permit required for painting. >> we can't touch floor something. >> no. >> so what we can touch is exactly what you said which is a counter top being -- and we can't touch cabinets being reinstalled and reattached? >> well, that's part of this building permit.

>> the building permit -- >> you're right.. we're adjust talking about the plumbing -- >> and electrical so we can't touch the paints. we can't touch floor. the installation of the cabinets is not touchable. we're talking about the installation of a sink or sinks. i'm not sure. and the installations of utilities or accessories that need to be attached to utilities? >> it does sound like the loud work the drilling is complete. it's basically finish work being done >> and that's my problem here. we're a little late to the game in that the intrusive noise has already been done and what we would be

doing if we got in the way of a permit which is properly issued because we think that it's intrusive in creating a disruption to a tenant -- i'm uncomfortable annual with that. i am unafter the basketball with that because i think the damage has been. >> . >> and you acted badly and stall the installation. that really doesn't -- and the permit was properly issued. there's no testimony that the permit wasn't properly issued. >> they were both issued properly. >> they were both issued properly. that's what we're here for. again the ghost of ann lazarus is on my shoulder and stick to the issue rick. was the permit properly issued? and i see all the other stuff and

the paint smell, hear the noise, see the trucks and all of that, but what -- and i hear the other comments that we've discussed about renters and owners, but to the issue was the permit properly issued? the permit was properly other thanked. all the other stuff we have to put aside. that's what the ghost of ann lazarus sitting on my shoulder is saying in my ear and you replaced her. >> . >> if i may president swig i fully respect the ghost of the ann lazarus and your experience and judgment and and why i asked the deputy city attorney do we have the ability to consider on a properly granted permit the conduct of

the permit holder based upon the activities carrying out the permit and he told you yes. he told me yes and based on that i believe we have the ability to consider that. perhaps maybe mismatch among the building permit, the electrical permit and the plumbing permit but i also want to say it's a very widely accepted under robert's rules of order at least a motion to reconsider and a motion to reconsider can be made by someone on the winning side of the original motion and that is in order. i don't know about the notice requirements but it would be in order, and only if we actually moved to reconsider and granted a reconsideration would the lines start -- would people be able to try to push that on us in other

cases? >> may we hear from our herders. >> sure thank you. neither the board's rules nor the applicable code sections speaks to reconsideration but the board rules do provide in the discretion of the president of the board robert's rules can be applied to parliamentary questions that come up during a meeting and as commissioner trasuina mentioned robertings rules do provide for a motion to reconsider at the same meeting, so if in your discretion as the president you decide to apply robert's rules at this meeting there could be a motion to reconsider the previous motion on the jurisdiction request. i understand

that is not -- that's not a motion that is typically considered at board of appeals meetings. i don't have the experience to know whether it's ever come up before but that's the way the rules read >> and as the permit older may i say something quickly? >> no, sorry, sorry for being curt and seemingly rude but you can't interrupt at this point, sorry. so mr. gibner without -- how would the president do that if the president doesn't want to act arbitrarily and dismiss the feelings of his fellow commissioners? do i go around the room and ask each of these commissioners whether they would take offense with -- they have a feeling one

way or other so it would help me to make a decision or does that require a notice? i am being very sensitive to the other things that go around us when you know in regard to ethics, sunshine and all the other things we're trained and taught about as acting appropriately on this panel so your advice please? >> sure. it's within your discretion so there's a few different options. you could have a discussion whether to invoke robert's rules and a motion to reconsider. you can at least use robert's rules here and have the board discussion whether anyone wants to make that motion or how people would feel about making the motion, or of course in your discretion you could determine that the motion to reconsider is simply not

appropriate in this matter because it's your authority under the board's rules. >> i think i know commissioner trasuina's point of view. i would like to ask mr. lopez's point of view and then i will go to the two commissioners who are virtual. >> yeah. i think we're from where i am standing my vote in the previous matter you know i believe as i stated was in part given that it was such a close call and given that we didn't have concrete evidence either way and given that i understood the present matter to be to be a vehicle to

discussed substance of the underlying permit, and you know i will confess i didn't fully appropriate the nuisance of the plumbing versus the electrical versus building permit in this detail, in this level of detail at the time, but having the benefit of what has been presented now if i had known that then that we be foreclosed from engaging with the full substance of the matter i do think i would have sided with the appellants in that jurisdiction request. in my feeling with respect to creating problematic precedent is that we're talking about a meeting and a calendar

where we had two separate but somewhat related -- [inaudible] in the same meeting so i think the risk of having this create problematic precedent for us is relatively low because we have you know this unique circumstance where we had you know one you know kind of threshold jurisdiction focused question for one permit, substantive questions on related but separate permits. within that you know collection of circumstances i'm not worried about this coming up every other meeting. we don't often have you know the just that cluster of matters before us very often,

and yeah i think from my perspective it would be given that we're still within the meeting that we didn't have a final vote on the first question i do think it would be appropriate to revisit that? >> to discuss roberts rules? >> right. and to entertain a potential motion to reconsider. >> okay. commissioner eppler please comments? >> yes. i largely agree with commissioner lemberg on this in particular in regards to the likelihood that this particular issue comes before us again with any frequency. we are within the meeting in which the matter was considered and now wanting to try to reconsider it. i

think it's in our usual line of incentives to act with finality and if there's a mechanism where we discover that perhaps we made a mistake and we have the ability to revisit it then it seems like that is something that we should have avail ourselves of in the rare circumstance when is it happens. you know this is entirely self initiated. i don't think we have to worry about the appellants or other parties constantly raising this issue. this is totally fully within our powers of a body to do and to initiate and what is more not even our power but the power of the precedents of the board -- president of the board and it's limited with the five of us and i voted for jurisdiction the first time and clear where i would

fall on that but i do think it's something that concerns roberts rules is something that we should do at this time. >> commissioner lemberg. >> i actually don't have a lot to add. obviously i brought the last motion so it's pretty clear where i am land on with the reconsidered motion but i will just say that -- excuse me -- that you know had these two agenda items been flipped in the order on the agenda we wouldn't even be having to have this conversation because we would have just voted on the first appeal and then going to the jurisdiction request. it happened the way it happened but i think ultimately that came down to chance at the end of the day, and i certainly think it's appropriate

to reconsider if the members -- my fellow members of the board are willing to reconsider this, and i agree with commissioner eppler as well i don't think there's a risk of abuse of this. none of the parties asked us to reconsider this. this was entirely within our own conversation and our own discussion as a board, so that's what i have to add. >> okay. now the chairman has to according to mr. gibner make his direction so this is my inclination. my inclination is recognize the wishes of the commissioners and allow the decision to revisit and reopen the first item according to robert's rules. with regard to the subject at hand i think it

is appropriate to, and i like -- mr. gibner i need your attention on this because now we're in delicate territory. what i see is these permits were properly issued, and what we're going to do is not -- what i think the appropriate thing to do given that we're going to pay attention to roberts rules i have a sense that in that discussion we are going to entertain another motion that might reverse our action on the previous item, and so in that case what i would do is a call of the chair to postpone a decision on the second item and to revisit the second item at the time that the first

item is reconsidered under the anticipation of a jurisdiction acceptance of a jurisdiction request. is that appropriate? >> that all sounds correct to me. the board will be -- would be taking a few different actions. the first action is a motion to reconsider and if the board passes that motion and sounds like it will then you would determine -- make a determination on the jurisdiction request, and then if the board grants the jurisdiction request that appeal still has yet to be filed, and then on the appeals that are pending here regarding the plumbing and electrical the board could continue those items to line up with the building permit appeal that would then be filed down the road. >> okay. let me ask you one further question because i want to make sure that we don't get

ourselves surprised, and my fellow commissioners this comes from history of experience, not a point of view, just want to make sure we're covering all bases. there's the assumption if we reopen the discussion on the jurisdiction request and we take jurisdiction that indeed an appeal is filed. that's what we're assuming, correct? you just said it, correct? >> that's right. i base that on the appellant's statements. >> so what happens if we allow a jurisdiction request to be recognized, and crickets. there's no action taken. then we're sitting out there with a call to the chair tied to an assumption that never happens. the

gentleman who owns the building who is sitting at the point there's significant activity at the building and basically it's install the dishwasher -- i don't know this to be trubut it's close. install the dishwasher and the sink in the kitchen and you're done. this person is held out there in perpetuity and the call of the chair is quite tied to something that is not ever going to happen at which point that is [inaudible] injustice. >> i apologize. don't mean to step in. >> yeah, help me. >> okay. the board's rules of order provide if the board does grant a jurisdiction request the appeal must be filed within five days so you would have a timeline for the next hearing based on board's rules. if the appellants -- if you grant the jurisdiction request

and the appellants don't file an appeal within five days then you could bring the other two appeals back for a final determination. >> okay. i'm going to ask what i'm going to do pending -- we will interrupt this -- suspend this discussion right now on the two permits at hand to have the discussion according to roberts rules on reopening the other. pending that discussion i may come back depending on the result and do a call of the chair and i would ask that the executive director please put her head together with yours to make sure that issue is covered with the appropriate motion that she might

suggest to me so that this is not a never ending story, and that the building owner is not subjected to the never ended story and does not suffer a manifest injustice. is that okay? so the president thereafter says that we are -- therefore says we recognize robert's rules and i will open to discussion on the previous action taken earlier this evening. mr. ras vina would you like to open that discussion seem you seem to be the proponent? >> thank you president swig. before i make the motion i want to express my gratitude for the way in which you have laid out not only for me and my colleagues but for the public and the

parties here what the values are, what the factor ors are, what the risks are, and what the appropriate process forward is, and again as the deputy city attorney said it is within your discretion and i greatly appreciate you accommodating my concerns and hearing from our colleagues and based upon where we've gone in the last 20 minutes or so and if we're now back on the original jurisdiction question i would move to reconsider the previous vote that i was in the majority to the previous vote which failed granting the jurisdiction. >> okay. so we have -- well, is there any -- are we having a

discussion or is that the motion on the tail to reconsider? >> would any commissioners like to raise any further discussion on what is the potential motion put forth by commissioner trasuina? the two commissioners -- >> yeah, we're just having a motion to reconsider to see if we're going to revisit the jurisdiction request. >> right. so do i have a am looking at the two commissioners who are not here. anything further to add to commissioner trasuina's point of view? >> no. >> hearing none mr. lopez have you anything to add -- >> is this subject to public comment? >> -- it to commissioner trasuina's point much view? >> no. >> okay. >> . >> so we have a motion from commissioner trasuina to reconsider item 6, jurisdiction

request 22-zero seven. on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> yep. >> okay. so we have the vote to reconsider it. at this point then we would just take another vote and i would like to remind the commissioners that the full issue before is did the city intentionally erinadvertently on that but the narrow scope that you need to vote on is the city's actions? so do do we have a motion? >> do we have a motion? . >> i am happy to make a motion. >> sure. >> the same motion i made earlier. i move to grant the jurisdiction request

based on the assertion that the city inadvertently caused the late filing in this matter. >> okay. on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasuina. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> no. >> okay. well there are four votes, 4-1 so that motion is granted, so at this point what we could do there is a five day window of time for them to file the appeal. we could continue the other cases to the seventh or 14th and that's when i'm scheduling the appeal and upon instead of going to the call of the chair and the parties and i think it's good to have a date certain and that would be ideal. >> would somebody make a motion to consider this to december 14th? >> so moved. >> okay. so we have

a motion from vice president lopez to continue item 7a and 7b appeal numbers 22-68 and 22-69 to december 14. on that motion commissioner trasuina. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 5-0. the two appeals are continued to december 14 and -- >> do we need two separate motions. >> since they're both we're just continuing them. it's fine. if we're voting on the permit. >> i want to make sure we're going according to -- >> yeah it's fine. the jurisdiction request is granted and mr. collier you have five days to do the request. this concludes the hearings. >> this concludes the hearing. >> if anyone has questions feel free to reach out to me.

>> see you in a couple of weeks folks. [gavel] >>

>> hello san francisco. i'm brian adam and running to be district 10 supervisor. i was born and raise in the san jose and worked as an engineer. now i learned a lot working for city government. i'm run to give san front a voice. voter turn out and 3 and 30% speak a language other than english i want it easy to get involved i'm running on a simple plat furthermore of more housing, safer streets and better public transit. for the i want it clear the obtackles to more housing and support t