listing of this as 2823 other than on the 1970 cfc. >> okay. >> thank you. >> >> okay. >> and anthony (inaudible) department of building inspection. >> the brief history on this one, again, the no activity on the property, again until january of 2012 and then we have the permit filed to remove the illegal unit. and in that permit application, the existing building and characteristics would indicate two and then the proposer two and so that would be a straight application where this is removing a unit that was not recognized based on a 3 r report. i will be happy to answer the questions regarding the 3 r, the records management division and how the documented the information and update those

reports. and the particular permit here for the remove the illegal unit issued approved, and then, there was an inspection performed as a final with some notes and that, so that job was not final, and it was revoked prior to that and then we have the permit that was to redistribute the units and that was a form 8, which again, went through our process, and in a normal review and issue. and subsequently, there was a field inspection and there is quite an extensive inspection history and they issued a notice of violation, on for a deviation to the approved plans and the revision plans were submitted in this case, again, this is a case where the revision plans were not routed to planning for review. the subnative issues in the revision have to do with the fire and configuration i would say that in this case we should

have routed that to planning and it was predated the july second issue with the new certificate of final completing. a little background gone on our 3 r report, those are updated on a regular basis by our records management division, and again, the three-hour report is a listing of official building permits and history of property based on building department records. and they are independent of many other city departments, so many times, we have a procedure where someone will submit to our department a collection of documents assessor and the department and the maps and the electric bills, and old maps and anything that they can do where they refined the discrepancy in the three-hour port listing there building as an xnumber of units and yet all of the evidence that was documented was showed that there was actually a residence

there for many years and so those documents are submitted to our records management division and they have been reviewed and without the issuance of a permit, the records would be corrected and updated. and that is the one scenario. and the other option, in changing a record is if we feel that the person and applicant, or a property owner, is there a discrepancy in the records and we believe that they are increbt we will send out an inspector to look out at the property through a site visit and do an over all, look at the materials and the age of the building and make a determination whether this would be eligible change the occupancy in which we then would have a permit document that would be filed and we would go through all of the procedures and then it would be official change of use. and change of occupancy and planning would be involved and actually issue a new certificate of occupancy. this is an unusual case where this document appeared and was

generated from our housing division without the records management division. and based on the document itself, and in the dates on it was a valid document to be determined to be validly our records management and then they issued the revised 3 r and that related in the determination by planning today. >> any questions? >> are there other documents? >> no. no. >> do you have one? >> yes, we have the only document that i have is the certificate of filing the completing and the occupancy and that was a three story, and type of five non-rated family and it was issued as per what we would say was the acroynm and at that time the department of housing inspection and that authorized the issuance and dated 1970. and we know how long the three

r reports indicated this was a two family, two dwelling? >> i don't have the specific time line, but all of the three hour reports that i have inspected with the exception of the new 3 r for the three units indicated as a two unit building. >> and how far back are the ones that you inspected go? >> i don't have the specific date but it is in the lease and we did not say maybe through 2012. >> and i am not clear on what precipitated your uncovering this new three r report which permits it, and again, what happened was the planning department received a copy of the certificate on completing. and the mention on the third of july, and then in july 9th is when ddi, and i am not sure how they received that document, and someone either transported it into our office and submitted it to the records management division and then

they generated a revised three hour report. >> and you said, that there were a number of inspections that your department did of this project. >> yes, we did one inspection and the initial removal of the illegal unit and then there was a series that was quite extensive inspection history like any project and periodic and plumbing etc.. >> just the typical. >> standard inspections. for the code compliance. >> is the concern here that in 1970, this would have been a rent controlled unit? >> excuse me. >> is the concern that if it was 3 unit it would be rent controlled? >> yes. >> i mean that is my indication based on the zoning administrator requests yes. >> so i have several questions and one is based on procedure and protocol. and so, if i was a person that wanted a 3 r report and i walked into the building department, could you walk me through the procedure of how

that works and how the information is physically obtained. >> yes. so it is a walk in off the first floor, 1660, and there will be a form that will be requested and i am not exactly sure on the time line now and we have been generating some of them on-line but there is a little delay to generate that report. and it is not a standard document that someone just goes to a file and pulls out. our division requires when that is going to be generated but the staff actually review all relevant record documents to prepare an immediate report based on everything that they have and so that it is current. >> and i mean, because, this is not the first time that a 3 r report has been changed without the home owner being aware of it. and what i am concerned here is sow so how long does that process take from when i actually asked for a 3 r report? >> how long does that process before actually get a three-r report? >> generally it is a week you

will be able to generate your report. >> so again we have had quite extensive back logs and delays because there are high demand on that service for our records. >> and the various record requests whether they are a subpoena or three hours. >> you stated earlier that previously, if someone comes with the specific evidence, that will change the three r report or you will send the staff to take a look at ta. >> correct. >> but in this particular case, the paper that actually changes it, was in your own office. >> correct. >> so, why wasn't that, i mean, because, what i am concerned here is that the reprocussions they have rebuild this property and now you are saying that you have to unbuild this property. >> the department of building inspection given the zoning clearance we will issue the permit and the issue of the

permit is the administratival act based on the information that we believe is correct and accurate as our property records and if someone made an error, in the information, we would take in the appropriate steps to correct that. and in this case, everybody relied on the information that was provided at the time. and our, records management division made a decision to revise a three r based on the certificate of final completing. and in the other cases there are no certificates and there are no inspection records. and there are documents related to occupancy and use, that demonstrate the use of a building. and from those documents, we have changed the particular use. >> where did this cof material come from? >> it was my understanding that it was submitted by one of the

previous tenants in that building and submitted to the those received from the housing division. >> okay. >> and so, the housing division, had to seal off? >> yes, the housing division again deals with the apartments and so with three or more units in a building becomes an apartment under the jurisdiction of the housing department and housing inspection. >> does the 3 r, when they are doing the research check the housing? >> generally, they would not search any additional records and they would ve every record that we keep is maintained in our record manage ment. and there are files in different divisions in the departments and within the department. but again, they are not considered official documents as far as our three r or our records manage. >> okay. >> and i am just trying to get to the procedure. >> yes. >> thank you. >> and again, it would be and it would be a surprise to me in terms of this document being in

that suggestion of the housing pile and yet not being part of the official record. i think that again there is discrepancies to the records that we find on a regular basis. and we try to determine what is more correct and what is the most accurate information and what is the safest avenue for this occupancy? >> okay. >> do you have anything again, that is 2823? address? >> no, again, we will file based on address and based on parcel and accesser's block and it is based on physical address if you can imagine over the years, historically, and many of our records default to a 1906 date and so the records that we have are some what complete. and on some properties and others, there are some incomplete records. >> but couldn't 2823 have been associated with the third unit. >> it is possible. >> you know, again, you will

see we will have and we issue the addresses and our department issues the physical addresses and so many times we will see the buildings that do have a series of numbers and we will have the a and the b and we will have the many different configurations of the addresses, whether they are tied to a specific parcel, and the number of buildings and the number of units in the building and that is all a combination of the records but all of the building departments and 3 r reports is what we use as our repository >> both are for the 2825 to 2827 >> correct. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you >> we can take the public comment now, i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak under public comment. >> okay >> whoever wants to speak first step forward. and again if you have not

already filled out a speaker card it will be helpful if you will do that.. >> can i do it after? >> good evening, commissioners, my name is trent jackson and i am just speaking on behalf of the slarbs and simply as a landlord or a home owner, and a resident of san francisco. and i felt compelled to come down here this evening to just voice my opinion because i feel that i have been wrongly forced to deal with the circumstances that i just don't feel are fit in the situation and obviously, you have all heard at length the details, but in my mind, the fact this they brought in based on the report that the city provide and they have gone ahead and they have approved that structure and it is a beautiful building now, and they have done nothing but improve and act in all of the right ways, that they should be

penalized for this confusion, whether it is a 3 r report or all of these details. when they get their original permit to proceed with construction or demolition or whoever you look at it, that should be the green light to go ahead and you can'ts like i say, hold any of that against the actual start. and so, i encourage you guys all to please support the appeal tonight and thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is evan clutter, and i lived in san francisco for the better part of 40 years. and i am a home owner. and i am familiar with the specifics of this case. and i recently did work on my home and i had a girl come into our family. and made space for her. and this is a really scary for me. and if the permits that i

sought and i paid for were revoked and that would have a devastating effect to me. and i am afraid for the precedent that this case might set. it is clear from hearing what happened tonight, a mistake was made by the city. and the permit holders and the owners should not bear me liability for that reason. and i support the appeal for the revocation request. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment. >> hi, my name is greg hansen and thank you for allowing me to speak. and i wanted to just address a couple of items that need to be daylighted, if you will.

several issues, i was the tenant in 2825 a and i came before the board of appeals on the 21st of march. 2012. and after i had received a 60-day notice of termination of the tency, and then it was posted on the front door. and it was, that is consistent with a job card dated january 18th, requests an application to remove an illegal dwelling. on the 20th of january, 2012, the building was sold. and on the 24th of january, the permit was approved to renew the illegal dwelling and on 30th of january, the 60 day termination was taken to my front door. and i approached the board of appeals and i indicated that i had a lease, a 5-year lease that was provisioned by a will

and trust, that the bernice of 2012 will and trust and it was, and it was the provisions upon the date of her death for five years. and which extended through may of 2012. >> the grant deed that was given to the catholic church had when she could not have bequithed the home to the catholic church indicated the property to being 2825, a, 2827, and a peeled to the owners, that i had no reasons to believe that this was an illegal unit and in fact. the person who made the illegal unit were the same people that bequithed the building to the trust. there was a request. and i am a legal resident and i

have all of the documentation to prove that i don't think that this is the venue which i will choose to do that. the tax records also quote three unit and in fact, when we were a realty was selling the building, i will just stop there, i think that the record... well, i think that the record will show and i am going to ask that you not allow those who choose to declare units that are legal to be illegal, act on their own without working with the planning department. and remove legal tenants like myself, and learn in the unit and appropriately and the sellbility on the second and third or fourth of june as a single family dwelling. now. >> you are out of town. >> let the record speak.

>> thank you very much. >> >> is there any other public comment? please step forward. >> my name is john (inaudible) and i live at 2829 baker's street. my property i share a yard with mr. shlarps property. and i have a couple of concerns, i mean, like some of the other people that have spoken, i am sort of beside myself here, because we all rely on 3 r reports on what the building department tell us and i hope that some day to improve the property and it is a very old house and i don't know what i would do if i actually got a building permit and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars improving my property, or perhaps even getting a construction loan to find out at the last minute that someone feels that perhaps that the

permit was erroneously issue and they were going to revoke the permit and i would ask you to consider the equities of this case and it is grocery unfair and i would also ask you to consider the fact that a motive or a certificate of final completing, in itself is not evidence of the legality of the third unit it just means that someone was able to convince someone to sign-off on work done, but there is no evidence that has been presented that the unit was actually legally created and i think that the people from dbi and planning have actually said that there is no evidence and there is no permits or anything like this. so i would also suggest that the motion that the permit was erroneously issued is not correct. it was issued based on all available evidence the public, is entitled, to rely on that evidence, that sen entitled to rely on the representations made by the planning department

and the dbi, and tens of thousands of home owners in the city rely on that and lenders rely on that and many parties rely on that and the whole system becomes unraveled if we create a precedent here. and any way, thank you for your time. and your consideration. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay, you have had your time for public comment. is there anyone else that would like to speak? >> okay, i see none, so will start with the rebuttal.. three minutes. >> thank you. i know that it is getting late and you have been very patient with this one. i think that last public speaker kind of hit the nail on the head and the first thing is that the evidence that resulted in the change in the 3 r report is not conclusive and it does not justify taking the action that was taken and that is why we contend that it is an abuse of discretion and we have a single document that will raise as many questions that it will

answer. and there is no one around to verify who did this and why they could not spell grenwich correctly. and this, you cannot make out what the address is and it is not consistent with the certificate of occupancy and the deed does not make reference to this 2823, address. and so there is a number of different sources of information that we are relied upon a buyer of property or someone undertaking a project could not be more diligent to try to confirm that that is exactly what they intend to do is take a two unit building with an illegal unit and bring it back into compliance with the law and remodel it for the first time in over 70 years. and so again when they say that the permit was issued erroneously i don't think that there is evidence to make that conclusion, i would understand why anyone would take pause after receiving the certificate of final completing. when the gentleman from dbi was here there was nothing

conclusive here, this was provided by the tenant and no reason why he did not provide it during the appeal or a year ago, but it raises questions, without the actual permits, that no one can produce and no one has seen as the speaker suggested, there is no evidence that this was done legally. and that there is a legal third unit. >> and one of the commissioners also said, you know, there is people admitting that the permit is error, and one of the focus has to be whose error is it? >> and this idea of forcing the people to go through a 317 process, is an exercise or an expensive exercise in futility given that the unit is taken down but to force them to go through that process and until they do, not have a certificate of final completing, prevents them from refinancing the loan on the property and changing title on the property and taking their equity out of the property we know that to be a very lengthy process and i just don't think that it is in

anybody's best interest to force an exercise in futility. again, because the evidence conclusive was not and was not verify able or by any other source or the changes to the property and constitutes a use of discretion and the damage that would be wroth on the permit holders who could not have wrong doing and it would be immense and everyone can expect that it will not get resolved and the residents have uncertainty of what to do when undertaking projects. >> i have a question. part of your recommendations is based on the questions about the validity of the new 3 r report. if that question did not exist and if in fact it looked to be a completely valid 3 r report, what would you recommend to be the course of action? >> i think that you still have

a big problem with detrimental reliance that the information that was provided and again, not just in the original 3 r report but by the testimony in a public hearing by two representatives of the city. and from the department of planning and the department of building inspection. and this board entertained and heard the jurisdiction request which i seen on the video was on the permits of the appeal and turned that down and sided with the permit holder and based on all of these different confirmations of the characterization of the building, they spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars to be denied the certificate of final completion and i think in that situation you have to grant this appeal. that is not our situation and our situation what we have is, and that is confusing but what it sounds like is this tenant, the former tenant, out of nowhere, produces a document that no city employee uncovered. when prevenlted or providing the previous 3 r report and provides it to planning and the planning does not know what to make of it completely and

provide it to building inspection and so they testified that we got the cfc from planning so we changed the 3 r report and planning says we got a new 3 r report and so we suspended the permits. >> okay. but this is not evidence to do all of those things. >> counselor? >> yes, sir. >> when this issue came up, you must have reached the history. what have you found? >> yes, that no one has a copy of the permit referenced by the certificate of final completion and until that recent change to the 3 r report no search of the records demonstrates any records that legalize the third unit. >> did you find the original permit for this building? >> always since we have had the initial one and we had the permit in 1938 and designates it as a two unit building. >> but you did not find the original permit? >> right. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> okay. >> and thank you, mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning department and i will be brief and i want to address a bit about the history of the 1970 cfc and why that and how we came upon that and so we had received a complaint in early june that they had illegal emerged to a single family dwelling and i don't know who made that complaint but we received that complaint. at the end of june, i received an e-mail from mr. hansen who said that he had evidence that is was legally a three unit building and initially i took this with a grain of salt because i did not see anything in the records that indicated that this was a three unit building and i was expecting to receive something from pg&e saying that there were three meters here which we would say conclusive of the legality of the unit. but what i received and early

july was this cfc and the permit of occupancy and i was 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 wa