landlords can try to regain common tenant spaces designs but it is up to the tenant's discretion whether to agree or not. this discussion never took place and there's no agreement with the tenants. and to show you that i am not making this up, here's a letter from the rent board to a different landlord that states that they are violating section 37.9(a) by trying to take away a garage from a tenant that has always been part of this lease. we know that the owner has access to attorneys who understand tenant law because they recently issued a three day notice to linda and yuka who are here. so i don't know why they're not following rent board procedures. and yuka's three day notice is really suspicious. they were in japan at the time, so it's a pretty common trick for landlords to serve these notices so that the tenant can't respond, and then they get a default judgment against them. we know that the owner has -- i'm not here to debate whether i like adu's or garages better, but if a construction permit is issued the commission is forcing tenants to hire attorneys. they can't create an inj

this is fore the benefit of tenant safety. both d.r. requests reference very early plans that have been scaled back significantly. the plans reference, and -- for example, we will no longer be building this top piece, and the -- it has also been scaled back significantly. so the arguments that were based in their request were based on a building plan that has been scrapped since the beginning of 2017. we have listened to concerns regarding the building height and mass and have already made extensive changes accordingly offer the last #1.5 years. we have a vision for making this building better and for making this community better. we do not want to do this at someone's expense. the majority of the tenants are in full support of the plan and we addressed the other concerns as soon as we were aware of them. this building is going to be safer, nicer, it's going to have trees and greenery. it's going to be much more energy and water efficient, and it's going to be a home to four extra people who can call themselves residents of our beautifu

with those three tenants. and there are some restrictions we have on when we can perform loud noise for them. we believe the 7:00 to 9:00 time frame provides the best solution for those tenants as well as for others. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> i just want to be clear about one thing. what was raised by the appellants in terms of some sort of settlement, to my understanding goes beyond the purview of what is in front of us. so my understanding is we can impose some conditions on the permits, but that's apart from anything that would be work cap between the tenants and -- >> that is why there are attorney. >> i thought i heard maybe we were waiting on something or going to condition it on that. i wanted to be clear we can't. >> no, but i was leaning toward continuing two of the permits. >> i'm open to that. i don't want us going down the path of waiting for legal -- >> what would be the reason for continuation? >> pardon me? >> what would be the reason for continuation, mr. president? >> just to keep so

the major tenant organizations in the city in case tenants have questions. and also, we would like the building inspection department's phone number for questions. i have called asking about the sizing work, and they were very helpful. they told me -- i called an't three times because my landlord would not tell us when it was going to happen. they said, well, lady, we can only say the permits, when they were taken out, but that was nice, and right away they got into the file and found out. so thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. and i want to leave with you a copy of my testimony as well as the letters from my landlord. is that okay? >> perfect. great. thank you. >> i have some materials for the commission. i have some materials for the commission. thank you. did you put something there? okay. overhead shot. i did. >> there it is. good morning. my name is jerry drab. my topic this morning is d.b.i.'s failure to properly enforce the building code section 103a, demolition without permit. i'm going to focus on the definitions of demolitio

seismic work normally doesn't require tenants to move out. you're supposed to do it within 90 days and a temporary relocation and you get a sum of money. if it goes beyond 90 days there's no additional monies, unless there's something worked out with the tenants. this is the first time i'm hearing that, but we need it in writi writing. it would be great to have someone who's an expert in the field to be able to opine or at least give us an opinion letter based on the details of that particular project. i'm just throwing that out. while i want to support this project, because i think it adds more in the end. in that time, i would like to see the project sponsor get into contract with each of the individual tenants so everybody understands what your rights are and what you're offering. >> thanks. can i ask a question? is it feiber or fiber? >> feiber. >> so the parking. you asked the question, did we err on the side of parking or housing. i think what is causing this problem is the fourth floor. i think the seismic retrofit of this building, li

tenant relocations that are regulated by the board that allow for different tiers of tenant relocation and return period. i don't want to speak on behalf of the rent board related to that process, but related to the mandatory seismic program, that is a component of that. we may want to have them speak in detail about their full project and the scope of that project. >> do you mind just clarifying what has been offered and if it, in fact, is in writing or not to the tenants? >> you kind of bullet pointed, but, if you can, to the best of our knowledge and to the best of your knowledge. >> so i think there were a couple of questions. the first question was whether or not we're paying up in the relocation expenses. we'll pay for the relocation services. we're committed to doing that. we're hoping that it could be less than that. if it does extend beyond that time, we're happy to extend the relocation payments also. >> and when you're completed, the construction of the remodel is completed, this is really not a demo. they will be able to move in at the same rent they're paying now? >> absol

tenant improvements? i'm assuming because the permit in your name or is it hudson pacific who is responsible for the tis? >> that is outside my wheelhouse, but google. >> commissioner swig: i was assuming. are you real estate attorney? >> i'm a land use lawyer. >> commissioner swig: so -- if google has a problem, they turn to hudson pacific because they are the owner of the building. >> right. >> commissioner swig: that is owned in the condominium structure? >> the units aren't condo -- >> no, no, that condo is owned by? >> caramel partners and gray star is the property manager from what i understand. >> commissioner swig: so who acts as the agent for the tenants? agent for the legal description of agent is someone who is advocate and puts the interests of those who -- so who is the advocate for the tenants? >> residential or commercial? >> commissioner swig: who should have protected the tenants from any problem? gray star or car mel? >> the property manager or the owner? i don't know. but -- >> does hud

demolitions also affect tenant protections. currently, neither planning nor building keeps an inventory of tenant occupied units. it would be good if that was worked on. i recommend that no residential building can be demolished if it's currently occupied or was previously occupied by tenants for the past five years. an occupancy needs to be checked prior to permit applications. we hope that effective changes will result in a process that all of us can begin to trust. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is gary weiss. i recently discussed with a senior planner a question i've had about plans getting approved for remodels. in the case of 17 temple street, the existing 129 year one story building would not have been able to support multiple additional floors, and yet plans were approved knowing that ultimately, the building would need to be replaced to an extent that would exceed acceptable nondemolition levels. two-by-fours would be replaced by two by sixes, wa

i've talked to a lot of lawyers and tenants' issues. i recently went to berkeley, and a lot of elder abuse victims came to this conference. yeah, i told about the case of iris canada, and they all were shocked. this is like people who saw, like many and many elder abuse cases. so this is such a shame, so i -- but i was really -- even like not glad, but happy when planning commission -- this is, like, third time something right happened in this case, when planning commission denied this application, and i'm very grateful for this. and i hope that, like, you will support the right thing, and they will know san francisco as not a place where everybody can make a profit over senior deaths. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> my name is fran taylor, i'm with the tenants' union. on one hand, we have an elderly woman throwing out on the street and diing, and an african american woman, a demographic that's being expunged in san francisco. on the other hand, we have property owners, pretty pricey property,

denny is one of the tenants and the main tenant. very violated the permit conditions on several occasion in february of 2018. he has proof of that. as a result of the violation, the department of building inspector came and inspected and issued a correction required notice on february 7, 2018. saying that they cannot start before 7:00. they disregarded that notice on february 14, 2018, five tenants called and complained that they started construction before 7:00. he has proof of this, documentary proof from the dbi. and also, they complained that google has been doing constructing activities on the exterior balconies of floor 7. and there is no permits that allow google to do that. lastly, we argue that because they violated the existing permits, and because the noise is so horrendous, it goes on for every day, from monday through saturday, sometimes sunday, they can't sleep, they can't think, they can't even talk to each other when the noise is going on. and because of the violations, they're not protected by the construction equip

the tenants have needs with regard to taking a portion of their unit. we need a legislative change, or you can sue us. and i welcome that because i hate sitting up here having to go through this all the time. i make a motion to approve the soft-story retrofit -- [overlapping speakers] >> i think we have a couple of choices, it sounds to me. i need to just chime in, considering the housing accountability at this part of the equation, but you can continue it with more information or you can -- if you continue it or not, the direction that i hear you giving is that the fourth -- the work on the building that would affect the existing tenants is what you're most concerned about. it sounds like the fourth floor. what i also hear you saying is, of course, you should do the retrofit. but i'm not hearing you should put units on the floor -- [overlapping speakers] >> how many are under leases? two. under a lease that's associated with a lease upstairs, not with someone around the corner. there's two. how many spaces are there? [off microphone] >> can you speak i

so i'm finding that it's very difficult to get help on tenant to tenant issues. if you are on the brink of being evicted, you can get help, but there isn't a whole lot of help for preventing eviction. i am being harassed by my neighbor. i have -- i'm continuing to seek help. this means i have to approach my landlord. we have had a relationship of, don't ask, don't tell. you don't bother me, and i won't bother you. well, i'm going to be forced to bother him. i don't know if i'm going to get help from him either, which is going to mean further steps. so it would be nice to have funding to help seniors to relocate because waiting for senior housing is at least 7 years and very little new senior housing is being built and include disabled in that. >> thank you for sharing your story. next speaker, please. >> good evening, everyone. i'm karen. i'm currently homeless and i live in the sanctuary by the community services. i also work part-time with the coalition of homelessness fighting to end homelessness. pretty much what i hear everyone and what everyone is saying an

>> i'm not a tenant and have no financial involvement. the notice of violation came in part because of the 30-second inspection i did. it was not hidden. we had an obvious -- >> the clerk: are you a representative of mr. paxton ten? >> no. >> the clerk: but you did work on his behalf on this matter? >> he asked me to look at the work that's been done. >> commissioner: you did it for free? >> yes. we were colleagues. i walked in and saw the plans did not match the building. the construction didn't match the plans. it took 30 seconds to get notice of violation after a c.f.c. had been issued. so i'm here only to make the point that john referred to a tree argument and i'm here to corroborate the plans. i know in the conclusion he asked for the board to grant the appeal. i concur to that. you should grant the appeal and deny the permit to revise the plans. my concern was to the special calculations and my concern is that the despite the ownership change the engineer and design professionals involved are exactly the same. they've made four our

in general, person tenants fall out of the process. we do have a couple spaces where we have multiple interests but not too many. most of our spaces have a solid front-runner who we're moving towards. >> are you happy with our responsiveness to the lo is. >> very much so. >> i was a little disappointed that we woulden 0 be spending about 1/10 of the 35 million we thought we would need in the long run for tenant improvement allowances in the first year. only 3.7 in the budget. was that in accordance with your estimates? >> i mean -- i'm not understanding the question. >> yeah. this is -- i notice in the budget, i thought this would be the better time to ask you for that. it was only 3.7 mill allocated in the budget for fiscal year '17, '18 for tenant improvement allowances of the 35 million total. >> i can answer that. >> i didn't know if that number came from you as an estimate or not. >> i can help answer that. given that the opening of the -- we have one lease under negotiations. we're not going to start tenant improvements until the

, then, the space could be unrestricted, but assumed this be tenanted with makers, which we certainly hope would happen, it would be at minimum a ten year term with automatic five year extensions that would be ongoing unless the developer came to the commission to request something different. or of course if the shipyard redevelopment plan expired. the other thing that the developer would do is related to the community facility space, and that's an existing program already within the dda, which is to set aside 55,000 square feet of retail spaces in cold shell conditions and then ocii is required to go find the tenants. it's somewhat flexibly defined in the dda; and the rest of the space could be used for retail, community retail use, but its main purpose is supposed to be focused on enhancing the bayview-hunters point neighborhood and the new neighborhood that this project is creating. so what is being proposed now is to instead of having the developer set aside that space in a cold shell condition, they would actually put the financial investment in to provide that in a warm shell co

only five long-term tenants remain. the building property manager is responsible for 23 other different properties and both types of charges for basic repairs to individual units have occurred that should not have increased the cost of maintenance. instead, the pass route revealed the practice of gold plating. overall, green tree management makes living in one's own home a burden to emotional -- makes it susceptible to emotional and financial services. this causes people to escape the management. over the past two years, green tree has subjected the tenants at delores with nonemergency apartment entries, days of water service and electric service interruption. 51 days without a fire escape. 34 days with suspension of their garage parking. net increase of 24% over the same two-year period. so, i'm calling this hearing so that we can investigate what is going on with this landlord. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: the rest i submit. >> clerk: madame stefani. >> supervisor stefani: i'm follow

tenant considerations, number five. when evictions are happening, they're happening a lot, and it's whether -- we had one out on, i believe it was ninth avenue where the developer pulled in some type of machinery, and it was running on gas or kerosene, and he ran it all day long, and he smoked the tenants out of their units, they couldn't stand it anymore. that's what we're dealing with. the incentive to get rid of tentan tentan tent -- tenants is so high, people are doing a lot of nasty things, and it's creating a lot of issues. the other thing i hear, we don't have the budget, we don't have the people. you have to remember, we have to look at this holistically, and why don't we try to just prevent it up front. lastly, i think they're kind of the guiding principles around what we're doing, and it's what everybody else said here, i agree completely, clear cross definition of both planning and building demolition is needed. if you're going to demolish a unit, and we can figure out if you're going to add units or not, we

i'm jennifer fever with the tenants' union. i'd like to speak in favor of the sponsor's plans and reject the appeal. they reached out to our organization which shows me that they are sincere about community concerns and tenants. i am satisfied. so is the planning commission, so are planning staff. they are adding a rent controlled adu unit. we really need housing. the commercial space has not been occupied by tenants as far as i can tell. you know, 1980's, there's no tenant evictions on record. the neighbors opposing this renovation are well known in a firm that specializes in evicting residential tenants. they live next door. i find it pretty rich that they are putting this kind of pressure on the project sponsors and trying to keep out a rent controlled abu from being built next door. this is classic nimby that is worthy of a news article, this is classic hatfields and m m mccoys. it just feels like this is the neighbors throwing around their weight because they're a very scary law firm, so thanks. >> president breed: thank y

there it is. >> sue hester, tenant of the building since 1980. you've had two projects in my neighborhood. i don't have any problem with a conversion of their use of the building, but i want to add a couple conditions to the office allocation. i'm a cynic, i'm a realist. i've been around the bench a long time. when you have a project that has this kind of an office allocation, and it's 499 -- 49,999 square feet, if they go over it 1 foot, they need a different allocation. there's a lot of temptation here. there's a temptation to take this space, there's a temptation to take other spaces, so in the interests of honesty and doing things right and getting maximum amount of funding for housing and other fundings that we need for the city, i ask you to put on a condition on the office allocations. one, when the permit for building this project comes through, the planning department routinely signs off at the first end -- front end. before the final allocation -- before the final issuance of the permit for construction, it should come back to planning

when the hotel continental went out across the street, we lost some tenants. we'd like to be able to ensure that we can put in the double pane windows to protect the tenants from the noise of construction. when all this is said and done, there's going to be some very big giants all around us. so we want to make sure that we can keep the integrity of the building and that we don't have four stories with nobody in the apartments 'cause it's been so noisy and chaotic during the construction process. so i think we're positive, and a little concerned, and we have had opportunity to speak, and we will take advantage of that opportunity so we can ask specific questions. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you, miss mcvey. did any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? if so, please come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner hyland? >> vice president hyland: i just have a response to the last comment from the public as an -- indulge me. it's not directly related to what's before us, but on sound

this is the schedule that we presented to all the tenants and invited all the tenants -- >> we're fine. thank you. >> thank you very much. we're fine. >> shows the noise levels throughout construction. >> the motion is to deny appeal and approve the two permits? >> commissioner swig's motion. >> yes. >> combyes. and that they were properly issued. >> vice president swig is making the motion to deny the appeal, and this is for appeal number 18-018 and appeal 18-040, to deny the appeal and grant the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. on that motion, president fong. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> i like when rick makes motions. i get to vote almost last. >> aye. >> that motion passes. the appeal is denied. >> so on the other two, this is the hard one. that we uphold the appeal and issue the permits on the condition that the the weekday work hours from 8 mrovrl -- from 7:00 to 6:00 p.m. with the loud work between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and that the work on the weekends be discontinued on saturday and sunday. >> you are saying 7:00 to 6:00