commissioner hurtado: my only concern with that would be safety issues. i would not want this board to have the responsibility of saying to someone that they should remain in a legal unit-- in an illegal unit. i am not feeling confident about the safety of this unit. from what i read, there is one exit to this unit, which could be a fire hazard. i do not know. i have not heard anything to the contrary. that would be my concern. it is the safety issues for the appellant. president garcia: may be what we could accomplish, then -- commissioner hillis wanted to continue this. that would give someone from dbi an opportunity to go out there and check on life safety issues.

i am sure mr. duffy would see that it happens in a timely -- si would support a continuation for the reason raised by commissioner hurtado. and i would so move. do you want to go to june? >> the board is currently calendar ring -- calendaring cases for june. president garcia: the appeal could be withdrawn if the client is ready to move. the board will not be generous about allowing her to remain past the graduation date. can you tell us the time when you think it is going to be? either one of you. i do not mean the day she will graduate.

>> mr. president, if i may, with further stipulate a waiver of the rent for the duration of her occupancy. president garcia: thank you. >> she graduates may 19. i am not authorized right now -- i have to evaluate the issues, because that may affect our civil case. i have to think about that. i do not want to be forced to make an agreement that may affect her case later. as far as term moving out, or continuance -- as far as her moving out, or continuance, this is new to me. i am not sure -- president garcia: the hearing would be june 13. >> if you make a decision today, does that mean they will start the process and she has to move out? president garcia: this on the

circumstance, as represented by mr. macdonald, your client will not have to move out until the term of school is ended. "we achieved by continuing -- what we would achieve by continuing the case is that we would see you again in june 13, by which time we would ask that she has moved out. by continuing it, we are giving an opportunity for someone to go by and make sure there are not like the -- not life safety issues, that there is nothing hazardous. if so, we would ask your client to move out immediately. >> that raises the question of eviction. in san francisco, they cannot. they have not allowed a proper eviction about this. vice president hwang: i want to note i do not think we can suggest in any form the appellant move out. i think that is outside our jurisdiction. i think what we are attempting to do is to ensure that your

client when have an opportunity to continue to stay without threat of eviction, pending the continuance. we are trying to move the date to ensure that such action could not be effectuated. with your client decides to move out before or after that date is not within our jurisdiction to state. the issue here really is whether or not the building permits are active, it issued, and if so at what point the can begin work. -- they can begin work. >> i a continuance, solely based on the things you guys expressed. >> is there a motion? >> there is no limitation. vice president hwang: it is just appearing on the merits, to june

30. >> we are not waiving our right to move out. vice president hwang: that is right. those are not issues before this board. >> thank you. >> president garcia, and that is your motion, to continue to june 13, 2012, to give time to look at life safety issues? president garcia: correct. thank you. >> on that motion to continue this matter to drink 13, the public hearing has been held to allow time to have the safety inspection. commissioner fung: aye. vice president hwang: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> this motion is continued to june 13. >> we will call the next item, number nine.

inge dhillon with 21 rosemont place protesting the issuance of a permit to operate building. complaint to thousand seven to convert area to workshop with half that. we will start to work with the appellant or the representative. you have seven minutes. >> this will be different from the last case in that -- >> please state your name. >> jim inge dhillon is a senior who has been living in this unit for the past 19 years. unlike the last case, there is

no determination yet by the dbi that this is an amigo unit. there is a presumption that it is illegal but the inspector has yet to complete her research. this case has been open for four months. ms. dhillon has been searching. the problem is her income is limited, so so security. she is hearty paying more for her -- already paying more for her rent. if the owner is unable to legalize it, or it is too expensive, she needs time to move. she needs time to find something. it is one thing to put yourself

on waitlists, apply for senior housing. as you know, is difficult to get in because there are some people who need the housing. she suggested she could have the kindness to submit some craif -- craigslist things. she has no car and the ideas she is going to move into some unit is not going to work. she does not know anyone there. she needs to stay in san francisco if at all possible. i would also point out that there is no evidence, even

though the attorney says there is hazards, there is no proof of that. i have been to this unit. i think you know that not all of them are the same. we do not know when this was bill. it is in good shape. if we wanted to get the inspectors to do a search of everything, i am sure they would find there is no imminent threat. before she moved in, there were other people living there. the person who preceded ms. dhillon committed suicide. who knows how long he lived there. the point is, this unit has been a trouble-free for many years. there was also a fact misstated in the brief that it suggests

there is two units above the garage. that is incorrect. she lives in the garage of the structure. there is nothing above her. that is a point i wanted to make. as far as the legalization, my understanding is that this would be, this could be legalized as far as the planning code. the question is the cost to do so. i believe the witnesses will testify to that issue. as far as -- it was determined she would have to relocate, how much time was she need? i cannot tell you. unlike the student, she has some

tangible deadline she can focus on. ms. dhillon is going to be dependent on finding a place. she does not wanting to move into a hotel room in the mission. she wants to find a place that is going to be suitable for her. she needs senior housing. my hope is to tinker with a social worker who -- linker up with a social worker who can get her place. my suggestion would be she be given as much time as she needs to relocate and in the interim the city should not penalize the landlord for fines or what have you. that is a serious concern on his part and i understand that. we suggest that be held back. it seems to me there is no harm.

the penalties would not accrue until but nov -- otterun -- until the nov order is issued. if we can maintain the status quo, we would do good for both ms. dhillon and withrington. would you like to say a few words to? -- words? >> my name is inge dhillon. i have been at this place for 19 years. all of a sudden three months ago, some complaint was made to the inspection people. i have no idea what is behind that.

i am hardly noticeable on the block. a much less have anybody have a complaint of any kind. so now i am faced with this threat of eviction. and, housing for the elderly, low-income people is not available. you cannot sit on a waiting list these days. -- get on a waiting list these days. let me crawl into your station and live there. that is where it stands. president garcia: you were done, ms. dhillon? you do not have a finite time line as to when you might be able to relocate? >> it is not to me.

you find me a place and i will go there. there are no places. you can look at these lists of housing, places for people like me, but the waiting lists are closed. there is nothing. it would between two and five years. why, why is this even done when this city knows that hundreds of these so-called illegal units are in town? are you going to triple the homeless population of san francisco by dragging everybody out of there and throwing them on the street? is that that goal? who is going to benefit from that? president garcia: perhaps some light could be shed on that. commissioner hillis: how long have you been in this unit? >> 19 years. commissioner hillis: how long

have the current owners of the property been your landlord? >> about eight years. commissioner hillis: you do not know what precipitated this complaint? >> no, because the inspectors said there was an anonymous complaint. i do not know what person would anonymously complain. you cannot even tell i am living there. i do not know what is behind that. i do not have a beef with anybody on the block. i have been there too long. there has been a lot of new construction. i am a longtime resident there. i say hello to people and that is it. commissioner hillis: the other units are occupied? >> by the owners. the main house.

>> we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, my name is jonathan withrington. i share the ownership with my brother nathan. president garcia: you might have to move closer to the microphone. >> i have owned the are the property since 2002. the tenants and i have been aware it was unwarranted for the entire time. at the end of december, i received a complaint. i have been working hard to find

a resolution. i have spoken to the housing inspector, the rent board, permit expediter, several contractors, structural engineers, and an architect to find some way to make the unit the goal. following their it vice, -- legal. following their advice, i have tried to keep them up-to-date with the status. my cousin nathan has been helping them. the fines for the unit have been large and accumulate faster. i had hoped to get the permits in place before the inspection to mitigate the violations and fines. i had one permit out of the three required when the appeal was filed. the inspection went ahead on the 21st of march. i have not had the report yet. the inspector went on vacation

and will not return until the end of the month. at the moment, i have an ego unit complaint, violations to be issued, permits to correct the complaint have been suspended. it has been a stressful and uncertain couple of months. i had to take several days of work to meet was consultants. -- off work to meet with consultants. i do not want to force her out of her apartment. i'm willing to work with her to find a reasonable time frame and financial relocation package to help her with a smooth transition. my primary responsibility is the financial and criminal liabilities and i am faced with and would like to oppose the appeals and correction of the violations. i have had inspections of the

unit done in come to the conclusion the only solution is returning to the original use of a workshop. the safety issues are fireproofing between the buildings, variances are required to bring it up to code and even then the cost would be prohibitive. the legal unit does not have a dedicated entrance. the height of the alleyway is under 5 feet. to bring it up to code for egress, 7.5 feet as required. -- is required. this would impact the foundations of both structures, a sewer pipes and it would be need to read -- be reinforced. this is a major engineering endeavor and the cost is about $200,000. this is beyond my financial means. an alternative is to create -- turn the garage into --

it would have an impact on value and functionality. bringing it to codes would be over $100,000. it is something i cannot afford. the permit consultant is here. she has the details of what codes we believe the apartment is violating end a general contractor who has been helping me figure out the costs for these different scenarios. i have an initial summary of those if you would like. by granting this appeal, i will be exposed to financial and criminal liabilities. i do not wish to be a part of an illegal endeavor. and the other option is not viable. -- any other option is not viable. thank you for your time.

>> what are the criminal consequences? >> if it is unsafe, i could be sued for unsafe housing. i am not sure. >> mr. sanchez. >> planning department, i will be brief to confirm the property is located within and rto. -- an rto. this changed as part of the market plan. now it removed the limitation. three units would have been permitted under the previous zoning and under the current zoning as well.

there is no parking requirement, parking minimum or maximum requirement. it would not be in violation of the parking requirement. they could remove the existing on street parking space. it would require other variances for rear yard, intensifying the noncompliant building. exposure and open space. it is something they could be sued but there would be variances -- persue but there would be variances. we do not have any -- there is no formal determination about the permitted number of units. we looked at the permit history and noticed there was a mix of one and two units. based upon our records, one of our records shows that the authorized uses of one-family dwelling.

there may be some lack of clarity if it is a one or two unit building. i wanted to raise those facts for the board to consider. commissioner fung: you said under the zoning, it could have up to three units based upon the lot size? >> that is correct. they would be permitted up to 3 units because they are at 2500 square feet, according to our records. commissioner fung: the tenant has indicated she has lived there 19 years and somebody else was there before. doesn't that predate the code change? >> it is correct. the current zoning, the rot, -- is less -- tro is less

restrictive. in terms of when this unit may have been added, for i did notice to permit it back to 1988 that added a door. that could have been de unit that established that. commissioner fung: why would they get a permit for a door? >> there was a permit but there is no more information about the number of units that would support it was treatment -- three units. >> the permit was obtained and the department has not issued a

notice of violation yet. the housing inspector is still doing research on that. we have not got to that point yet. there would be probably a nine times penalty on a permit fee for the work without a permit even though it was done so long ago. it looks like a small unit. i imagine the unit would not be that high. possibly a couple of thousand dollars, which to me is not to that time. based on my experience of seeing those penalties. we have the permit in place,

which was taken out by the owner. thinking ahead they were going to get a notice of violation. with the the permits there, the penalties could be waived because there is a permit in place. i am not saying there will be penalties. there may not be. they handle their own notices of violation. if the owner has a permit in place, i would say that the penalties would be a non-issue. i would imagine you would be sympathetic. i am available for any questions. >> i have a question. in granting the permit to remove this unit, given we do not know if it is illegal or not, was there any consideration to the

fact that someone reside there? i do not understand why a permit would issue for demolishing someone's home. >> that is a good point. the applicant must have provided our department with something that there was no third unit. when you look at the plan for the work and you look at the configuration of the unit, it is easy to see it is an illegal units. i do not see any way to get into it apart from going through the garage. it does not look like there may be proper ventilation. it is a good question.

i imagine evidence would have been asked for by our department when they issued the permit. >> is it an attached crunch -- garage? >> it looks like it is connected to the front of the building. detached from the legal units. commissioner fung: what happens to the nov if there is an appeal? and the permit is being appealed? >> if our department finds that this unit is illegal, we will issue a notice of violation. we have to. commissioner fung: i understand that. what happens to the enforcement and the penalties associated when the permit that carries it

is at the board of appeals? >> i think i talked about that. i do not think there will be penalties because the permit was in place. you're not going to tell them to get a permit. commissioner hillis: the property owner could appeal the nov. >> yes, they could appeal it. i do not think you can appeal it to the board of appeals. president garcia: what happens if they allow this to languish without taking it up? what happens under those circumstances? >> we had a similar case earlier. the rc