-- 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 enforcement action goes ahead. the enforcement action is a long, drawn-out process as well. it does not mean the units -- the previous case we had, they got a permit to remove it and they renew the permit in 2012. in answer to your question, you can link and the process but our department has to go ahead if they find the unit is illegal. based on the fact we are dealing with a complaint. president garcia: do fees toll? >> i do not think so. >> and abatement order could issue as well. >> it could. that is down the line. if you are continuing this and you're talking about enforcement, continuance will come before enforcement. am i right?

perhaps. it is a long process. it is not something we go out there and pull people out of their home. there is also appeals board for the notice of violation. there are avenues for that. commissioner hillis: we have always told to go to code enforcement and ask them for continuances. it is not automatic. we do not tell them what to do. go to them and ask them and tell them i have a board of appeals proceeding. can you help me and postpone the abatement process? >> you are entitled to 30 days. when it gets to a hearing, we have to have a first and second notice and then you get your hearing date. then you can ask for an advisement to route to the process. there are processes to length

and it. -- lenghten it. president garcia: what penalties would accrue? >> i do not think there will be very many because we are not going to cite them nine times on this. that is my opinion. president garcia: if we were slow to get back to it. >> the penalties to start to kick in for noncompliance with notice of violation and we have to refer to the city attorney's office. but could be two years away. in my experience. these are not easy. we all know that. >> any public comment? we will move into rebuttal.

starting with the appellant. you have tremendous. -- three minutes. >> maybe it is because on the plans they submitted, the clear complaint, illegal unit. it is pretty bold right there. i do not know. i do not know if they have to look at nov's when plans are submitted to them. i think she had one comment she wanted to make about the ventilation system. basically i think you have the gist of what we are looking for.

it does appear that it is an illegal unit. given the gentleman said it is going to cost between $100,000, if that is true, that is crazy. i will admit that. it is a unique building. it is a detached garage. there is a passageway you have to go through. it is a shame to lose this unit for her and for the city because we need affordable housing. if she is going to have to move, she will move. she is going to need time. all we can do is hope something comes up. you want to say something about the ventilation? >> one of the brothers that owns the property has been doing a

lot of upkeep. he has built in ventilation, something that sucks out the cooking. he has done a lot of things. he insists, if it were possible to keep me there, he would do it. but he has to answer to his brother. >> his brother might be a nice he is torturing me. the whole thing i think, to even take an anonymous complaint and put me through all this stuff when there are hundreds of such

places in town, you cannot take care of all these illegal units, through these people out on the street and make san francisco were famous. you can see 3 million homeless people crawling around. >> it does not change the fact that it is an illegal unit. >> thank you. >> i was obtained by the honor to do the permit research for the project. there is no microfilm that shows the unit is legal. our only alternative was to go in and talk to the planning

department and the building department to see if we legalize it. that was our first attempt. because of the various requirements, the code requirements for upgrading the existing conditions, existing conditions that remained there noncompliant, the cost would be very high to make it legal. it would have to do fire sprinklers, there is a number of items. the grass is detached. it is a separate foundation. it is to buildings on one lot. -- two buildings on one light. -- one lot. to get to the unit is illegal and our corridor for our egress corridor is non-complying. we have 21 inches to get through and this would service the two

existing buildings and the illegal unit which is a concern for the art department. and if you have questions, let me know. thank you. >> what is the age of this building? >> this was 1912. 1908. >> in its current configuration? >> that is what we believe. >> you have photos of the building? >> the subject building is the yellow building. you can see the the garage structure to the side of the main building which contains the two dwelling units.

? that door is the door to that separation between the two buildings. >> that is correct. as i mentioned previously, maybe i will go into the time of the -- if the permit holder has additional comments. they could remove the parking space zone to remain -- required under the code. they could expand to the front, have a window of the fraud that would do with the exposure issue so that is the yard variants and open variance. it would have the rear yard issue and building code issue. which i cannot have -- address. the subject property is a shallow lot.

72 feet by a 35 feet wide. the structures are jason. >> anything further? commissioners, unless you have questions, the matter is submitted. >> i would start by saying i would establish a minimum position here first and see where we can go with it. beyond that. at a minimum i would suggest that we give the appellant at least one year here. at a minimum. how we do it, whether it is through continuance or call to the chair, we can do with that.

the other way it to approach this -- the other way to approach this is to see whether, given the age of this building, whether it is three units predated, the change in the code. -- whether the units predated the change in the code. the change would not only be density but it would be predated in terms of parking requirement. given that the building was built in 1938 and 1912. >> things that are not up to code are grandfathered? >> no. not up to planning code. let's make sure that building code passed be taking care of. >> that would represent a considerable expense to the permit holder. >> i am not sure would buy those numbers that i heard.

>> i have always felt comfortable about allowing a tenant to stay in the building when the landlord is in agreement. and there is no consequences for that land and when it helps the tenant. i would need to support what you suggested. i would need to hear from the permit holder that he is willing to have that happen, understanding that there would be no penalty to him. at least -- i am not still that clear on the criminal aspect. there would be no cost to him in terms of penalties by the city. in all likelihood. those are my comments for now. >> i would support commissioner

fung. for the imes -- times he mentioned. >> i am struggling with this because although i want to support them, i am concerned about the safety issues and if we -- i undersand ms. dyloan would like to stay there. if we have an illegal unit, the liability would stem from where -- if there was a fire or some other unfortunate incident, the property would be liable to any injury from allowing her to stay. in what it is an illegal unit. -- in what is considered an illegal unit. >> that would be a problem with

the proposal. queit depends on the liability. >> there a number of ways that are relatively inexpensive to increase the life safety aspects of the union -- unit. if it is the third unit and it is semi detached, they could take a sprinkler system that taps of the water service line rather than the fireline. that is relatively inexpensive to do. >> it might already sprinkled. >> they talk about a spring or as an upgrade. it is going to three units. >> could we add to that, ask

the building department to inspect? >> we could do that. i think part of whatever happens to the final disposition of this unit is is up to the property owner. all we can do at this point is to allow them time to go through that process. i believe they could make an argument and it depends on whether it is going to be acceptable to their own code search. because if they file that is three units, the department does not allow them, that could be appealed back to here. >> what is missing from this discussion is the willingness of the permit holder to even go along with what is being proposed. what we're trying to do, i am

sure it is obvious is buy some time for her. >> i would be willing to do that. if we can clear off illegal issues or find, that is what i am concerned about. >> i believe the order of abatement is not going to happen. that is what triggers things. >> in order to produce the concerns of one of the commissioners, having to do with life safety issues, would you look into the feasibility of sprinkling it? it would be probably a fire issue would be the greatest concern. >> we could look into that. >> we could ask the building department to do a site visit and see if they see anything

imminent. we have done that before. >> i do not see how we could get this back on the calendar before september. do you? commissioner? >> ami not be here in september. nor will i. -- i may not be here in september. >> i am free in september. >> i am asking the board how far they're willing to go. >> if you're concerned about something popping up and they have no avenue, if we set a specific date, we could do the college here. i would be looking at a minimum of the year. should something come up in the meantime, they could request an art director and the department to bring it back. >> are you clear on what was just said? >> yes.

>> did you want to make a motion? are you ok with this, knowing that they will go out there? >> yes and primarily the property owner is aware of what we're talking about here. >> do you want to say something? >> we will give you an opportunity. >> there is a big -- it can be lack of a smoke detector which is easily taking care of. when you have -- someone has been living here for a lot of years. we have not had -- we do not want anything to happen. would you be more specific? if i go -- i want to know -- >> it would be the one that allows the tenant to egress.

>> there is a concern that is 21 inches wide in areas but that has been like that for a long time. that is going to remain. sometimes we do not get that even in a legal building. that is -- 1908 is a long time ago. there may have been -- it has been like this for a long time. i can get the housing inspection services to do more detailed report on what are the issues and we will take it from there. >> you want to report back to this board? >> i can do that. >> can i make one comment? >> just quickly, the fire sprinkler system will be triggered by the three units. so if we cannot down the road to legalize the three units, we are putting a fire sprinkler in for a year.