. i would just say it is a later start time. >> in terms of the department's position, and issuance of addendum one allows the work to proceed on what ever is covered. is the work aloud if the permit is under appeal? >> it would not be allowed. i was wrong there are a two addendums. we are still waiting for the mechanical addendum.

>> thank you. >> i want to learn there would be a permit required as well. >> i cannot remember if i made a motion. >> you made a motion, but it has been changed. you originally made a motion to deny the appeal, but you will need to make and a m motion that would change them. >> do i need to states that? >> it is understood that your motion would be to grant the appeal, and it would be ideal to have a basis for your motion.

>> would that be based on the fact of aeronaut in violation? -- the fact they are not in violation? >> i thought you said to grant the appeal and a pole and a permit. >> of holding the permit while placing the condition -- and uphold the permit. >> upholding the permit while placing the condition. >> it is now on the substance of the motion, which as i thought we were going for the permission. >> i do not think we can do that. i think appellants should be

very grateful they are granting that access, and we can always sit back and pray it goes about way. >> of the only condition imposed as the hours of construction -- so the only condition imposed is the hours of construction. you can call role. >> are received the motion to uphold the permit on condition that construction be limited monday through friday 7 assaad 30 until 5:30 and on saturday from 8 hickock 30 until -- 8:30 until 4:30. [calling votes]

the vote is 4-0. the permit is of held with those conditions -- is >> 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 -- notice. >> to me what is relevant is the process is still available. >> if you approved a permit at this stage, he would be approving it without having it go through all the code requirements. the alternative would be to uphold the denial but immediately and now -- allow a new permit application, making clear the only reason for it to go to sections 311 notice. commissioner fung: we could do a

finding that the notice process that has already occurred is the same as a 311 notice. >> a 311 notice goes through the are at the planning commission, correct? -- goes to eight d r -- goes trhough a -- goes through a dr at the planning commission, correct? vice president garcia: if we overturn, we are not giving them a permit. we are giving them the right to apply a permit. >> you are giving them a permit. >> planning can go down and cpb will issue a permit. vice president garcia: there is still a process available. >> but not to the planning commission. >> if it triggers one right, but it is not a dr right.

vice president garcia: would neighbors be noticed? >> i do not know what exactly the notice from ddi -- dbi would be at issuance for this type of permit. vice president garcia: i hate to ask the permit holder. it is like asking tobacco companies its cigarettes are dangerous. do you know if there is any neighborhood opposition? i know your answer will be of course not. >> i do not know. we prepared the neighborhood map. we are prepared to do a 311. >> i think an option available to the board would be to uphold the denial but make findings is only on the basis that section 311 notice has not been done, and make clear the permit holder is authorized. the one-year bar does not apply. he can apply tomorrow for the

permit. if we were to issue this permit now, it would not become compliant. commissioner hwang: it is not ok given that the idea is to clear it up and clean it up. let us do it right. >> if i apply for another permit, do i have to pay all the permit fees again? [laughter] >> would planning have discretion to waive the fees in the unique circumstances of this case? i do not think the board has jurisdiction over planning zone fees. >> this is a department of building inspection permit. the planning department is a referred agent to be on that permit. while i imagine we would be creative and attempt to waive our portion of the fees, that is only one segment. commissioner fung: i think that is the only segment we are talking about, because he has not paid for his permit yet.

there is the permit. yes. the permit costs are separate. >> that is within the planning department. vice president garcia: you do not have to get planning to check it twice, do you? i am aggregated enough. -- aggrivated enough. >> i would defer to staff and the attorney whether or not this discretion exists in your body. i would be comfortable making a finding on behalf of the planning department that the notice bus issued in life and nature of the project is tantamount to a section 311 notice. vice president garcia: the notice that went out having to do with this case described the proposed project? >> vice president garcia, if i

might interrupt, it is less an issue about notice and more about the process available as a result of that notice. it is the discretionary review process that would be obviated. that is a concern. commissioner hwang: i would agree. thank you for clarifying. >> this is hard, though. commissioner fung: the crux is we need four boats here. -- votes here. vice president garcia: so we could help out the appellant by making a motion that stated that we are overturning the department. you look skeptical already. give me the content of a motion with a comfortable with. >> i think the motion would have

to be to withhold the department, but only on the basis that the project needs 311 notice, but that the permit applicant would not be precluded by the one-year bar from replying, so that section 311 note this can occur. you technically are upholding the denial of the permit, but making clear that the reason the department originally denied it was in deference to the board's 2006 decision. the circumstances have changed. there is a new owner. the tenants are gone. the basis of the 2006 does not exist anymore. the variance on the proper permit is expired. but the 311 notice is the of standing issue. vice president garcia: and that is not a du jour, de facto remanding? >> they do have to go apply.

vice president garcia: but we are granting them the right. i will not get into that. it is not important. you got my motion, right? [laughter] >> there had been an earlier motion by commissioner fung. vice president garcia: i worried it was my motion. i am glad to hear it. commissioner fung: i doubt it will pass but i will make it again anyway. i will move to overrule the zoning administrator on the basis that the variance and the original permit to maintain the two units have expired and arnelle and void. >> one suggestion. it is not the zoning the minister