the vote is 2-2. three votes are needed to continue. i believe the prior motion would stand then. absent another motion. commissioner hillis: we talked about continuing, i do not know if we can revisit this, but adding more than the inspection? president hwang: what would those conditions be? >> -- commissioner hillis: that they come back -- i am trying to get to the reapplication. they would approve an operating plan and an ownership structure that meet the operating requirements. commissioner hurtado: that sounds like a new permit to me. commissioner hillis: yes. director goldstein: may be a point of clarification from the department is in order, because

i understand that in order for a new person to participate in the permit, a new permit is required, that they cannot add an additional party to the permit. i do not know if that is a correct understanding or not. they indicated that that is correct, suggested piece of information. -- so just a piece of information. commissioner hillis: so he could not sell 50% of his business? he would have to get a new permit in order to do that? >> that is correct, regardless of what a restaurant, or whether they were in complete compliance or not. vice president fung: commissioner hillis, the issue here is that kind of ownership item could always occur at a future date. at issue here is whether our actions may create an acceleration of the time that

would allow the operator to get back. president hwang: here is another thought. one of the things that inspector hong stated is that there was a food and safety inspector who was an actual operator, and i do not know in terms of business versus consultants, versus on staff, whether that would suffice if they attract the services of someone with that type of expertise, but that would satisfy the department for purposes of operating this going forward. can you speak to that, inspector? >> sure. i think short of an equal partner with the ability to make

decisions, it would be in my opinion tantamount into -- to someone you read had their license revoked for drunk driving. this is why i prefaced the opening comments from vice president fung at the very beginning. what is the easiest way that you see? that question i answered honestly. that to me would be the best way to go about it and give some comfort to the department knowing that they would be on equal footing. if you hire someone, you can always fire someone. you are giving the keys back to someone who got us here. to put on a show, and for lack of a better word, and i want to believe it. food safety knowledge on equal footing.

the department would get a sort of consultants. -- consultant. president hwang: ok. secretary pacheco: the motion was withdrawn. i will repeat the motion to continue -- vice president fung's motion to continue failed. therefore, the prior motion stands, which is a 2-2 vote to grant the rehearing request with a couple of conditions. therefore, without three votes, the rehearing request is denied, and the order shall be released. director goldstein:

director goldstein: the department of building inspection, legal authorized to use, no new work proposes. we will start with the appellant, aged. >> good evening, commissioners. first, i would like to congratulate president hwang as the new president, and as i was not here for the last meeting, i want to thank president garcia for his many years of service on this board. from his first hearing, he was one of the most interesting and insightful commissioners and

made this process better for his presence. the reason we are here on this matter tonight is basically a very small, very inexpensive dwelling units that would cost more than it is worth to be legalized through traditional channels. i met the owner, who is the second owner of this building. they have owned it since the early 1960's. i met the other at his job at lowe's, and we were talking about how we try to get a permit to remodel a dwelling unit and was told he could not get a permit because the house was listed as a single family and a store. he was instructed to get a 3r report, and the report came back

with three addresses but still said facing all family plus store. i told him there was a reasonable shot and that there were things in the record that indicated the record is incorrect, and as you can see in the materials i submitted to you, there are materials that suggest the record may be incorrect. there was a permit issued in 1952 that did not really clarified what its work really was, whether it was on a new unit or the flat behind the store, and i would ask this board to use its discretion to retain this housing. it is clearly only going to be affordable housing ever in the future. if they are unable to legalize it through this process through a correction of the record, there is very little option left for this family but to simply

return this potential living space to storage or to service for the laundromat. there are a few pictures, if i can go to the overhead. thank you. come on. do your thing. ok. this is the planning information database, which shows, you can see the address is 801-803 russia and another on athens. down below when it says unit counts, it says "two units." this is the subject property. you can see where that aero is, there is an entrance at 599 athens. -- you can see where that arrow is. next to the entrance of a laundromat is the entry to the unit of stairs.

there is no obvious connection between the laundromat and upstairs or a connection from the laundromat to 599 athens. president hwang: i am sorry to interrupt you. can i just get that photograph back, please? >> sorry about that. president hwang: so which street is russia, and which street is the other one? >> the arrow is pointing to the athens street entrance. president hwang: and the entire corner lot? >> yes. it is the entire corner lot. president hwang: russia? >> that is for the upper unit, which is called 803 russia. president hwang: ok. >> the windows are behind the

laundromat, and they are windows for 599 athens. there is also an exit breezeway kind of right behind where the arrow is. there are windows at the back of 599 athens facing that breezeway as well. president hwang: thank you. >> thank you. this is where the kitchen was, where the gas line and the flu event were, clearly of some considerable age. some wonderful old wallpaper. this has been occupied it since not the 1920's, then easily the 1950's, and i have got the 1954 -- which was quite interesting. the owner at the time of construction, a family where a day -- where the lucchesi's

purchased this. pardon me? i am sorry. 599 athens streets is listing michelle at that address, and, come on. powerpoint do your thing. we see from the same directory, russia street, one showing the laundromat, and 3 shellings barnhart no -- bernardo geely. thank you very much. this clearly has been occupied as a dwelling unit. i think that this board has the discretion to correct the record and allow permits to be taken for the renovation and restoration of this dwelling so it can be used as affordable housing, as it always has been,

and hopefully always will be in san francisco. thank you. vice president fung: the 3r is based on a number of things, but one of them is the current assessor reckons -- records, and the current assessor record shows it is one unit. the current assessor record. >> i am not so sure i agree with that, sir. the assessor's record is what i showed you, which shows two units, and what i included in your packet -- vice president fung: excuse me. let me go to the question. what you showed us showed two units, one residential and one store. if you go back to what you provided, in 1938, the assessor

record showed it as two residential units and one office, and in one commercial. is that not correct? >> i read it as being revised, and if you take a look at what i have listed as exhibit 5, the assessor's building card. this document shows 801, 803 russia and lists of the 1938 inspection date, and above that, there looks to be a revision date from the 1950's, and that looks to me to be in the same handwriting as we have both for the athens added, and if you look down at the bottom of that front page, you see apartment one an apartment two.

i think that that entry may have been made at the time of that second inspection in the 1950's. vice president fung: my question to you is in terms of the taxes they have been paying, it is only on one unit. >> i think that the assessor's rolls are showing two plus store. vice president fung: not from what i saw. i thought it was a total of two units in the building, one commercial and one residential. >> the database is what the planning information database is based on, the assessors' database, and that is showing both, all three addresses, and it is showing two units, and usually, that is referring to dwelling units. they would not call a commercial space a unit. vice president fung: but just down below that on the same form

you had, it said one residential and one commercial. did it not? >> i believe what you are saying is that this record, that the 3r report on is understandable. i would agree with that. there is other evidence for a third unit. there are three electrical meters. we can go to the photograph on the overhead. with the other -- with the different addresses shown directly on the electrical meters. there are other elements of this, other elements that all contribute to the understanding that this has been used as a dwelling unit it's not since the 1930's then at least since prior to 1954, when parking might have been required to add eight

dwelling units, so i believe this is something that could be interpreted as a dwelling unit, as having existed prior to the current planning code, and could be approved by this board as a correction of the record. i think that there was some discussion at the building department level about whether the record was correctly correct as one family plus commercial or not. they chose after their investigation to go back to a single-family plus store. i think it would be a very unfortunate circumstance to lose this unit. thank you. commissioner hillis: can you tell us what is the process? you said it is an onerous process to go through and legalize the unit. >> if this board chooses to correct the record, they will take permits --

commissioner hillis: i mean if you did not appeal this, and you went through -- >> they would be required to go through several processes. one would be an additional living space requiring the school district fees. they would have to meet open space and exposure elements of the planning code, which would require a variance, and the fees would be considerable. simply the preparation to legalize this unit would be considerably more than their income is over and an annual period, so -- commissioner hillis: how much is that? >> i did not, but i certainly could list some of those fees. the various application fee i believe is currently $2,100. something thereabout. plans preparation.

this would be several thousand dollars. there are application fees that would be another couple thousand dollars. there are school fees treating this as if it were newly created housing. there is another couple thousand there. suddenly, it becomes in feasible for this family to maintain. commissioner hillis: that is kind of the process, so you are kind of short circuits in this process with this permit? >> well, what i am trying, what i tried to do for the lucchesi family, was to see if there was something in the record to indicate that it was more than one unit. i think it clearly shows that.

they are not creating a new drilling in the basement and hanging a sign out. this is something already in the system, so i think it is a legitimate process that i am seeking to achieve. president hwang: the space that was recently vacated by a 30- year tenant. >> yes. president hwang: athens street? >> yes, it is. president hwang: and what you are trying to do in this permit is to try to legalize it without going through the permit. it has a kitchen and everything that is needed to live on. >> yes. an inspector duffy was there today. >> thank you. director goldstein: mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good evening, president hwang, vice president fung, and congratulations on your

elevations. the subject property is in our zoning district -- it does not allow commercial districts. however, the ground floor used as a laundromat appears to be a nonconforming use that has continued over time. based on our records, which show it only being illegal single- family dwelling with the residential units on the second floor. the zoning would allow two dwelling units, and actually in this case, they do not have any on-site parking, but given a planning code amendment that occurred almost one year ago, if they were just adding one dwelling unit, they would not need a parking space, so they would be compliant if they saw -- had a permit, and also for exposure, because they do have the windows on athens. the issues i do see would be with open space. there is a useful open space requirement. this is a very small lots, 25 feet by 50 feet, and it has

little weary are, said they would need to seek a justified variance from the open space requirement of the planning code, or they would need to put a roof deck or some other form of open space, so that would be the issue there. the current fees, the base, is $859. it goes up depending on construction costs. it would be up to $2,000. i do want to highlight that for the board. like i said, all the evidence, all of the records that we have indicates it is a single-family dwelling. we do not have any thing that's as it is a two dwelling unit. i will point out on our website, if you have not checked it out, i would encourage you to go look at. the san francisco property

evaluation, including zoning. what we are seeing there is our plugged into the assessor's office, -- our plug-in to the assessor's office. the three addresses listed above that, i believe that was from a separate database, because one of the problems we have when looking addresses or property, you may get a corner property like this. if you are looking for athens, in our old system, it would take you know where if it did not have it as the legal redress. now, we're able to cross reference various addresses. that does not necessarily mean there is a legal dwelling unit there. we do not have any evidence of a legal dwelling unit. i will be available for any questions.

director goldstein: mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to echo the congratulations of the previous speakers on your appointments. yes, i went to the to 599 athens and to russia. unfortunately, these buildings, we have got some paperwork, but we do not had a permit which says it has the assessors' card, as you heard, and we have got some addresses, but we just do not have a print that says it is two units. that 1952 permit, i think it was, could be the addition of a second unit. it just does not give a good description. it talks about adding a partition and a bathtub, and that is what i saw on the ground floor unit.

there ceiling heights are appropriate. there ventilation seems to be ok. there has obviously been a kitchen in there at some point. the cabinets were gone today, but it was clearly a kitchen. i notice that it seemed to be all pretty old construction. it did not look like something that had been done in the last 40 years, 40 plus years maybe, so there has not been any recent work done on it to turn it into an illegal dwelling unit, which we sometimes do see, so it is a difficult one, and that is obviously why we are here, so i would be available for any questions. director goldstein: thank you. is there any public comment? seeing none, we are in rebuttal. do you have anything else to add? you have three minutes.

>> i would just like to refer to the 1954 permit, if i could. it was in the packet submitted to you as exhibit 6. i believe that the problem was created, as you can see on the front page of building forms 3. bernardo geely was finding this permit and did not specify clearly enough what he was attempting to do. he may not have understood what the requirements of the process was. on the second page of that exhibit, you can see five and 97. i think that he is looking at

the cleaning store as one family. i think he is characterizing that level of this house, this building. he is not talking about any work on the upper level with this application, and because he has addressed it as an hundred three russia, a number of stories, and a description of the work, partitioned in basement for two runs and a sink and three windows and a bathtub to complete the existing catherine yang. also, the installation of two of sweats and some lights. this is the completion of a dwelling unit. if you take a look at the second page of the assessor's building car, i am going to go to the overhead for a moment -- take a look at the assessors' building cards. in terms of what the assessor is calling it, it says 54, 3-room apartment in their rear.

tile floor. pine floors. i am not really sure what else and says, but it is very clear that it is an alteration in 1954 in the rear. this is the assessor's records. this is what this family has owned since the early 1960's. it has been occupied as housing since probably before this record was made. i think it should continue to provide an housing resource for the people less able to afford high-end housing in san francisco. thank you. director goldstein thank you. -- director goldstein: thank you. any further comment? ok, if not, commissioners, the matter is submitted.

vice president fung: i think i have made this statement before. in recent years, we have seen a slight reversal of a pattern we have seen a few decades ago, and that is that people want to march in their single-family units, because a single-family home has more financial value these days, but in response to a comment made earlier, the legalization of units was quite common at this board about 20 years ago. and i have not seen a reverse directory for quite awhile. that was a very common to all to try to indicate that there were additional units. i think that there is enough here to state that was

initially three units, two residential and one commercial, and i would support the legalization. president hwang: do you want to make a motion? vice president fung: i will move to overturn the the department on the basis that the 1952 permit was used to legalize something that showed up in the previous documentation with the assessor's office and that it was representing the legalization of the third unit.