quite frankly shocked to see that because that is the gold standard. i mean that is essentially the birth certificate of a building and that is the most important document to have and so the fact that this existed was that i was shocked and didn't, i mean i didn't know what to make of it and i didn't know honestly how it was found earlier and so i forwarded that to the department of the building inspection and i asked mr. hansen, who he received and who received those. >> i don't know why this document was not either found by the building department earlier or found by mr. hansen earlier and i think that he claimed earlier that there was evidence that this was a legally a three unit building time of the jurisdiction request and early on it would have been quite honestly easier to resolve all of this and i

never received any evidence to my knowledge and the other documents received any evidence that this was legally a three unit building. until the end of june or early july, that it is my understanding now that that was the days before they were to issue the final inspection on the permit. but again this was all information that we can say that we have the revised three hour report that was based upon the 1970 cfc and it was dated 1971, and yesterday, i have not seen any of the underlying building permit from 1970, and i don't know... what vehicle that was but at the time, in 1970, three units would have been allowed and so there was nothing that really seemed questionable. and you know, issues like maybe... and if there was a permit subsequent to that and removed the unit but there was

no evidence of this cfc. at the time if they were adding a dwelling unit and they came after 1955 they would be required to provide a parking space for that unit. and again we have the cfc and the 3 r report and that is what we base our decision on thank you. >> >> there are a couple of references that ened up as a single family dwelling that was allege and what is the out come. >> they filed it and that was kind of restarted in early june. and dbi, i think that we received, like the complaint on june fifth and they investigated on june 6th and determined that they had done the work beyond the scope of the per permit and they submited in late june and then maybe, that was basically to bring it back to what was my understanding to what was authorized under the previous permit that reconfigured so that there were two units in the building that the upper two

units and the two flats were merged and the lower one of those was essentially relocated to the basement level and so that was my understanding to the out come of the investigation. >> it was not a violation and it did appeared that they had merged it into one? >> yes. that was again another factor weighing in our consideration of making this decision on the revocation and having the hearing properly before the board of appeals. >> are you aware of how far they took or excuse me, let me rephrase that, are you aware of what extent of work beyond the scope of the permit? >> i don't have those details and maybe that permit holder can address that, and i know with dbi and i don't know if matters of openings and closings. >> you know, this, i am sorry. >> this cfc there is that addresses or not quite, and not

quite, right, if this i am not sure whether that the allegable number or not it looks like it is 2821. >> i think that that is one of the points raised by the appellant and kind of questioning the validity of that cfc. but again, you know, we received this information. >> and initial, i know is there a 2821 next door? >> no. so the property is 2805 to 2807. >> from what i saw on the record it was not close and again the appellant can address that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> anything further? >> does the board have questions? >> department of building inspection and regarding the

notice of violation, which was issued on june the 11th, 2013, it was a construction dw not file the approved permit application number and it did not provide a separation between the unit one and two, and the field inspector had issued the correction notice, and we need to followed the approved plans and obtain the revisions for the unit and so it was pretty standard correction and it was not a notice of violation that involved any penaltis for exceeding the scope and it was a deviation from the approved plans and they subsequently filed the revision. >> there was an opening and you mentioned earlier a fire door. >> but there was an opening between the two upper floors and the ground floor. >> yes. >> the actual note is going to obtain a permit and opening of the interior stairway to reflect the issue application and 2012 and 04, 18, 8561 and

additional plumbing and electrical permits required as well. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> we will go ahead and start. >> so. as my daytime job is a realtor, we rely heavily on the 3 r report. and in the short time that i have been a realtor, the 3 r report has gone from 48 dollars to 162 dollars in 15 years. and contrary to mr. greco's statement, the 3 hour report from a month to five weeks right now. and we rely heavily on the 3 r report and even though there is an error and omission statement that is given along with the 3

r, i find that there is, or that there is error on the planning department and the building department that, i mean they were given the specific direction that they followed and you know, dollar wise, whether they are doing a spec home or whether they are actually living on the property, you know, the information that we give our clients and we have done and we do our due diligence on our behalf and there has to be some you know, some truth to that, and you have to be able to hold on to the information that you get from the 3 r department and in this particular case was followed up by representatives from the city and county reassuring that position. and so on this particular case, i would you know, i am at a loss, i mean i think that the repercussions and if we make them put, a third unit back in

it is absolutely agregious >> there was an alternative regarding the 317, that ultimately if it worked and it would allow them to to the building; is that correct? >> scott sanchez planning department, the loss of the dwelling unit would be through a application which would be a public hearing before the planning department and a 30 day notice, and it could be filed and there would be a hearing and mandatory discretion hearing of the planning commission and we would evaluate the fact on the section 317 for the merger of a dwelling unit and again, based upon the initial review of this, of the 5 criteria it will meet at least three maybe four of the criteria and we typically recommend approval, if it meets three of the criteria and that is again,

speculative and we need to have the application and a hearing and there would be the commission's decision ultimately but that is the process. >> if they file that tomorrow how long under the best of circumstances would that take? >> we would do our best to insure that it was processed as quickly as possible but it is a hearing before the planning commission and there is a 30 day public notice and the process like this and it is not going to be resolved probably within three months. >> thank you. >> you know, the timing is quite interesting, on this entire process with the information showed up and the things occurred. and it occurred very quickly. and the question, however, is back to the same issues that we would face when we looked at

situations where people want to either increase the number of units or decrease the number of units and show appropriate documentation. >> and it is interesting in terms of the timing, and not necessarily of what these things show up but in terms of how the real estate market has changed. and my first time on this board, everybody wanted more units. and they wanted to squeeze units out of their existing and they would go back, you know, whether it was reverse or the utilities, and now it appears that the larger the units the better and remarkable it is. and the and i agree that the question of reliance is probably a foremost in my mind. they, at the time of purchase,

they had it sxwh should rely on that and i am prepare to over rule the zoning administrator and to eliminate the suspension. >> i would add a couple of things shs the reliance issue is big, and 18 month lag is just too long, i just don't see and i think that it would be a terrible precedent to set for san francisco and for property owners for the real estate market. and also, i am not, i am not convinced that it was a rent controlled unit, even if it was, any error in removing it should be bourne by the city

and not by the property owner and in this case, i think really illustrates a value of our function here in having a public hearing and hearing all of the evidence, so i would also be in favor of over turning the revocation. i don't think that it was an abuse of discretion, i think that it was an error in that the documentation of the 1973 unit classification of this building, i don't think is conclusive and so i would say that, you know, we should over turn the revocation not because it was an abuse of discretion but because it was issued in error. >> so how would that work. >> if we over turn it and i mean if we over turn that, does that mean that the 3 r will revert to the previous status?

>> i believe that is the case, yes. >> and the current permit. >> scott sanchez planning department. >> we would be revoking the request that we issued to dbi and reinstate the permits and currently the 3 r report says that the three units and the other would the internal question for dbi of how to resolve that and however, i believe that there may be and maybe there is going to be a ctc issued for one of the permits that has been revoked and 23 that cfc for the revoked permit would then supercede the cfc, from the 3 unit building. >> and so, dbi issues a cfc for one of the permits that is subject to revocation that would over rule the 3 r report and that would show the two family dwelling. >> and should we condition it then? >> and maybe, he could speak to whether or not there will be a cfc issued on one of the permits that is subject to the

revocation and if they were to needed to file a subsequent permit that would issue or confer a cfc. >> well, they would still need to go through the final inspections and so the issue is that the elimination of the revocation and the suspension and then the normal procedure will be ongoing. >> and so that is why, at this point, i am prepared to depending on whether there is four votes. and to over rule the zoning administrator on the basis that the revocation was done in error. and that i should leave it at that. >> i don't know if you might want to base it on it on relying on the 1970, cfc. >> that will be my motion, yeah. >> did you want to make a

comment? >> anthony graco department of building inspection. and the (inaudible) would be reinstated and active again will proceed through the normal inspection process and we will issue final inspection completion job cards, certain projects in our chapter one administrative code indicate those particular types of projects and permits that do receive the certificate of final completion and occupancy and not every job gets one, a typical bath or remodel will not get one and horizontal additions or seismic up grades and changes in use and changes of occupancy and so if in this case there is no change of use or occupancy there is still two units and then we will, our department will look administratively again, at reissuing the 3 r based on this board's determination and we will discuss with our director and actually we are going to

take whether we will do that based on the determination tonight or the subsequent permits as they proceed. >> okay. >> yeah, i mean that it seems to me that it has to be clarified that at if at some point the building sells again, we have a report that is issued with the units and if the determination tonight is that permit is going to be reinstated and the revocation is denied, and we will have to evaluate the reissuance of that report to reflect the actual two unit building. >> go ahead. >> i was going to say that we should focus on what is before us which the revocation. >> i believe that is correct. >> so, would you like the roll to be called? >> that is my motion. >> okay. >> no. it was, it will be the commissioner hurtado. >> okay. >> and we concur. >> thank you.

>> so. >> on that motion, from commissioner hurtado. the motion is to grant the appeal over rule the zoning administrator's revocation request and reinstate all three permits with the finding that the zoning administrator errored on relying on the 1970 final certificate of completion and occupancy. >> correct. >> on that motion to over rule. with that finding, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president is absent. vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> and thank you. the vote is 4 -0 and the revocation request is over ruled. and the permits are reinstated with that finding thank you. >> thank you. >> there is no further business. >> meeting is adjourned.

>> hi. welcome to san francisco. stay safe and exploring how you can stay in your home safely after an earthquake. let's look at common earthquake myths. >> we are here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco. we have 3 guest today. we have david constructional engineer and bill harvey. i want to talk about urban myths. what do you think about earthquakes, can you tell if they are coming in advance? >> he's sleeping during those earthquakes? >> have you noticed him take any special? >> no. he sleeps right through them. there is no truth that i'm aware of with harvey that

dogs are aware of an impending earthquake. >> you hear the myth all the time. suppose the dog helps you get up, is it going to help you do something >> i hear they are aware of small vibrations. but yes, i read extensively that dogs cannot realize earthquakes. >> today is a spectacular day in san francisco and sometimes people would say this is earthquake weather. is this earthquake weather? >> no. not that i have heard of. no such thing. >> there is no such thing. >> we are talking about the weather in a daily or weekly cycle. there is no relationship. i have heard it's hot or cold weather or rain. i'm not sure which is the myth.

>> how about time of day? >> yes. it happens when it's least convenient. when it happens people say we were lucky and when they don't. it's terrible timing. it's never a good time for an earthquake. >> but we are going to have one. >> how about the ground swallowing people into the ground? >> like the earth that collapsed? it's not like the tv shows. >> the earth does move and it bumps up and you get a ground fracture but it's not something that opens up and sucks you up

into haddes. >> it's not going anywhere. we are going to have a lot of damage, but this myth that california is going to the ocean is not real. >> southern california is moving north. it's coming up from the south to the north. >> you would have to invest the million year cycle, not weeks or years. maybe millions of years from now, part of los angeles will be in the bay area. >> for better or worse. >> yes. >> this is a tough question. >> those other ones weren't tough. >> this is a really easy challenge. are the smaller ones less stress? >> yes. the amount released in

small earthquakes is that they are so small in you need many of those. >> i think would you probably have to have maybe hundreds of magnitude earthquakes of 4.7. >> so small earthquakes are not making our lives better in the future? >> not anyway that you can count on. >> i have heard that buildings in san francisco are on rollers and isolated? >> it's not true. it's a conventional foundation like almost all the circumstances buildings in san francisco. >> the trans-america was built way before. it's a pretty conventional foundation design. >> i have heard about this

thing called the triangle of life and up you are supposed to go to the edge of your bed to save yourself. is there anything of value to that ? >> yes, if you are in your room. you should drop, cover and hold onto something. if you are in school, same thing, kitchen same thing. if you happen to be in your bed, and you rollover your bed, it's not a bad place to be. >> the reality is when we have a major earthquake the ground shaking so pronounced that you are not going to be able to get up and go anywhere. you are pretty much staying where you are when that earthquake hits. you are not going to be able to stand up and run with gravity. >> you want to get under the door frame but you are not moving to great distances.

>> where can i buy a richter scale? >> mr. richter is selling it. we are going to put a plug in for cold hardware. they are not available. it's a rather complex. >> in fact we don't even use the richter scale anymore. we use a moment magnitude. the richter scale was early technology. >> probably a myth that i hear most often is my building is just fine in the loma prieta earthquake so everything is fine. is that true ? >> loma prieta was different. the ground acceleration here was quite moderate and the duration was moderate. so anyone that believes they survived a big earthquake and their building has been tested

is sadly mistaken. >> we are planning for the bigger earthquake closer to san francisco and a fault totally independent. >> much stronger than the loma prieta earthquake. >> so people who were here in '89 they should say 3 times as strong and twice as long and that will give them more of an occasion of the earthquake we would have. 10 percent isn't really the threshold of damage. when you triple it you cross that line. it's much more damage in earthquake. >> i want to thank you, harvey, thanks pat for

?oo hi, i'm holly lee. i love cooking and you are watching quick bites. san francisco is a foodie town. we san franciscoans love our food and desserts are no exceptions. there are places that specialize in any and every dessert your heart desires, from hand made ice

cream to organic cakes, artisan chocolate and cupcakes galore, the options are endless. anyone out there with a sweet tooth? then i have a great stop for you. i've been searching high and low for some great cookies and the buzz around town that anthony's are those cookies. with rave reviews like this i have to experience these cookies for myself and see what the fuss was all about. so let's see. while attending san francisco state university as an accountinging major, anthony's friend jokingly suggested he make cookies to make ends make. with no formal culinary training he opened his own bakery and is now the no. 1 producer of gourmet cookies in

the biarea and thank you for joining us on quick bites. how do you feel? >> i feel great. >> so i want to get to the bottom of some very burning questions. why cookies? >> it was a recommendation from a friend. hard to believe that's how it all started. >> why not pies and cakes? what do you have against pies and cakes, anthony. >> i have nothing against pies and cakes. however, that was the recommendation. >> you were on the road to be an account apblt. >> actually, an engineer. >> even better. and it led to making cookies. >> in delicious ways. >> delicious ways.

>> this is where the magic goes down and we're going to be getting to the truth behind cookies and cream. >> this is what is behind cookies and cream. >> where were you when the idea came to your mind. >> i was in my apartment eating ice cream, cookies and cream ice cream. how much fun, cookies and cream cookies. their cookies and cream is not even -- it took a lot of time, a lot of fun. >> a lot of butter. >> a lot, a lot, a lot. but it was one of those things. all