>> we are resuming the june 29, 2011 meeting, and we are going to call item 8, witchehich is fr the planning department's disapproval, appealing to a denial on march 25, 2000 a 11th of a permit to alter of building, remove the illegal units her parents, illegalize rooms and a ballthroom on ground floor, interior remodel and horizontal addition. >> my wife and i purchased a property in 2009, thinking it

was a single-family home but we could renovate and live in the entire the building, and over the last year and nine months, we learned about this tenant rights and other things like this, and when we purchased it, we did not know about a violation and what the expired permit men to. -- permit meant. at some point in 2006, the landlord applied for a permit to remove the downstairs unit and make it legal, just to remove

its superiot. eventually, the permit was revoked by the board of appeals, and they got a new permits that made it illegal, and that permit expired before we purchased the property. we purchased it a few months later, not knowing this, so we were going through the process of assessment, and applying for our permanent. we thought everything was going to be fine, and eventually, i reach the planning department, who had already seen our

assessment, the initial plan we had, and they did not say anything then, so it was surprising to us when our permit was denied, and i guess-reaso rn the initial permit was revoked was because both parties agreed to make cakeit a legal two unit. i mean the tenants and landlords. basically we are the only ones that are going to be living there are as of tomorrow, and it is not our rental unit any more, so i guess it is a different situation, so we would like

that permit that has expired retak-- our recourse is to revo, and we can move forward with the additional permit. is that clear? >> it is for a clear. -- it is very clear. when you purchase a house, you purchase it with the assumption it was a single family dwelling? >> it said on known -- unknown. >> it seems to state it was a one-family dwelling. >> but was of dated a few months ago, because i did some

research, -- it was updated a few months ago, because i did some research, and they determined it was a single family dwelling instead of on k unknown. >> when you purchase it, it said unknown? so they have done a defacto merger. we will work that out. >> the permits they polled to make it legal to units, none of the work was done. >> thank you.

>> good evening superior del -- good evening. i would like to run through the history of this issue. historically, there has been an illegal units. in 2007, a few months later, the variance was granted, and a permit was issued to do the work but was required end to the elias -- that was required to

legalize the unit. to complete the work of was contemplated in the 2006 permit -- i misspoke. in november, a new permit was filed to remove the unit and also to expand new building. what i think is important to note is the initial action we understand to be motivated out of concern by the tenant, who would be evicted, and our our action stems from that as well. our action stems from the decision was made in 2006. aside from the outcome of this

does comply with planning code. were it not for the history, we would have issued a neighborhood notice and would have gone on to a approved a permit. we will continue to defer to your judgment. we understand the circumstances which led to your 2006 action may no longer be presidenent. if the is the case, we would not find that objectionable at all. we do not have anything else to say, but we would be available to answer any questions. >> do they have any time clauses related to implementation for solidifying the variants?

>> i am checking right now. there is more often than not a three-year window during which variants must be executed. i am going to find this later and answer it, but there is a second issue, which is set in the intervening time, this letter was issued on the 12th of february, 2007, and it does have a three-year of effective date, so this variants would have voided out in february of 2010. the planning code since this was issued has changed in order to legalize this unit.

>> understood. the policy has also changed. >> thank you. before you sit down, can you speak to the fact? >> i cannot speak to that with any level of expertise at oall. >> is there any public comment on this item? you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> i'd just want to mention the fines have been paid. >> can you tell me about the process you and your wife underwent? >> kofi unisys -- both units

were occupied when we purchased it, so the only way we thought we could move in was to do this. to protect the tenants, they have one year to vacate, and one of the tenants of vacated early, so we moved in to the upstairs unit. the downstairs unit decided not to vacate after one year, and we reached a settlement agreement, and they have been living there for an expanded nine months rent-free, but they leave tomorrow according to the settlement. >> did you have to do file certain documents and with -- i do not know which agency. >> it goes to the red board, and it basically says this property will no longer be a rental, and if we rented it in the next 10

years, the original tenants have the first claim to come back of the original rent level. >> what are you doing whiff the lower unit? what is your plan? >> we want to merge the units into a single family dwelling. right now there are two separate entrances. we want to get rid of the exteriors there's -- exterior stairs. you can barely see it, but on the right side we want to put a single car garage, extended to the property alliance -- to the property alliance -- lines. and to basically updates to windows and that kind of stuff. >> not further expansion?

a wax there is a horizontal and addition. >> -- >> there is horizontal i edition. -- addition. >> thank you. anything further? no? nine commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> it seems as though we have not have one of these in a while. it is always done if there is mutual consent, so we had and a legal unit, and to accommodate the individual living there -- and we had an illegal unit, and in order to accommodate, if the individual allowed to of -- agreed to allow them to stay there, we would go through the

process of legalizing it, rather than the process of some apartment, probably planning, to have the individual move out. it is unfortunate someone was there, but the reasons are pretty compelling to grant the individual who bought this house to go ahead with his plans and do what he would like to with that building. >> i would follow on a slightly different cas path. the variants is null and void. a permit is null and void, and this indicates the current status of the structure is a single-family home, and if there

is no further comments, i am going tuo move to overrule this. >> i can see where the conversation is going. while the project is code complying, the project is not, because it involves an expansion. the project would not otherwise be subject to 311 neighborhood noticed. that was not issued because we disapproved the permit prior to do the notice. it was not needed. now in consultation with your staff, it is clear that the hearing notice was issued and it was issued in a similar fashion,

but i want to point out the required 311 notice was not issued. whether or not you feel that is relevant is a matter for your a judgment, but i wanted to mention that. >> if we agree that, what would the process bee to indicate to planning, assuming this board things it should go back to a single-family dwelling? >> i may have to defer to your staff and the city attorney, but i imagine it would be reinstated with a condition that it be subject to neighborhood notice, though i may have its row wrong.

>> the board cannot remand to go through further processes. if it is up held now, the permit would been final. >> i would reiterate the notice issued by your staff goes to a very similar radius. >> this is a denial. if you overrules, a permit would be issued. the notice would not th150 feete -- not be 150 feet. >> the relevant issue is whether the work composed is required to get 311 note is --