>> i would like to agree with everything that mr. sanchez said. i do think the problem definitely is the permit unfortunately the department we just didn't do a great job on this because the permit application has a single family dwelling. the plans for that permit actually have the 87 permit in which we issued for two units and the plans show two units on that. so this permit is the one that has the record up to three units and it's wrong. that's what i see

anyway here. if i was looking at it as something as today, i would say it's the same thing. it's an error. i think that's the current owners and the permit application has single family dwellings. maybe they were working in one of the units. they will put down single family dwelling. if our staff don't check that at plan check, it goes out and issued and then the building inspector that signed off the project put three dwellings which conflicted. these things happen. i definitely think the 1987 permit for the cfc for two family dwellings is the correct one. there was nothing to change it to 3 or 4. we would have recognized that one as a proper cfc. that's the way i see it. if i'm missing

something, maybe the attorney will point it out. the special restrictions is with the 1987 permit documents. >> thank you. >> i have a question. so would it be asking you regarding the requirement. there was some change in the report in the content per the application numbers. so, did the city just go through all the three r's and update those? >> i think the one that i don't have the earlier one in front of me, it's down in here. >> because i see permit it says revert to 2 family dwellings

and there is no more information at this time. and the same number under the current one is much more informational. and convert to breakfast area. that's where the third unit revert to 2 family dwellings with garage. so when they purchased the property in 97 they did not have that information. when it's 2013, it's pretty clear. >> i can see that, i don't have any explanation for that. i'm not sure why that happened. there has been a pretty -- we have tightened up a lot on the process for 3 r's in the last three years. maybe that's what's going on and probably in the last five years our department has. there is a lot more scrutiny on these things and they are researched a lot better. i don't work in micro film but in the records management. but certainly

whenever i order the micro film this was what i got. it was obviously in there. what day is the first one. i'm looking for the date on the first one. >> 97. >> okay. yeah. date of issuance. i don't have an explanation other than i would say that -- >> it's just there is definitely more information pertinent on the newer one that the permit holder did not have. >> if you are ever looking for records, if you put in the address, sometimes it gives you a list of permits. if you block and lot, it gives you a more complete list of permits. that's why i think sometimes that happens in dbi, that's in our system. i do think our new process is definitely more

accurate today. >> i was there too. i was able to get plans on a property. just trying to figure it out. >> mr. duffy, did you look -- i thought you said that you looked at the plans from that 87? right? >> yes. the plans show the reduction from 3-2? >> yes they do. yes. there is a room and clearly shows a room up here. this area here says kitchen to be converted to study. i think that's where they went from the 3-2. that's

the application number there. that area there was the 3rd unit i believe. that's what i'm reading, anyway. >> what are those plans attached to? >> those were the 1987 permit that we get from the cfc >> to remove the kitchen? >> yeah. they were also part of the 98 permit and they were used as reference drawings. so they were part both used in 98 on the 98 permit for reference. they are actually in both sets of both permits and one in 8 7 to do the work. okay. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item?

>> seeing no public comment then we'll have rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> members of the board i would like to you consider in this case what we heard in the last case when we talked about analysis and certainty of numbers. we thought that that was very important in the last case to have certainty. 11 decibels is completely different than 9 decibels inform this case we have the department of building saying this must be a mistake. we find one family dwelling, two family dwellings, three family dwellings, there is no certainty here. what we have is the 3 r report from 2012 issued while this lawsuit was going on. frankly saying this is a three unit building. i have the job card that was issued just

two months ago march 28, 2013 by this department of building inspection, once again showing that this is a three unit building . can i show this on the screen? thank you. you can't see anything here. on the lasts page >> council you just referred to a lawsuit. was there a lawsuit. i don't know who the initials p g are but for this property it's -- so my point is if you want to provide the citizens of

san francisco with certainty and the ability to make quantitative decision about how much to pay for a property. my clients paid $535,000 based on their representation and available from good sources that this was a three unit building and now 16 years later, people have made huge economic choices based upon the quantitative analysis provided by the building inspection department not to punish them but to say let's uphold the decision of the planning department that we rely upon the building count of the building inspection department. that's the rule. and the building inspection department says 3 units twice in the last six months. therefore this board should uphold a ruling that this is a three unit count building. thank you. i have a

question. can you walk me through chronology that your client has based it's understanding that it's owning three unit. 1997, i know it's the time they purchased. so where are the points you believe the city department has errored where they relied on the chronology. >> as a lawyer i can tell you that what a client looks at in buying the property is the title report. it was pure speculation for him to say the title was only looked back for ten years. >> you understand my question? >> can you get to this part? >> the title report showed no special restriction. >> so tie it please to the

candid admission by dbi that there were mistakes made, the reliance that you are arguing right now. i would like to understand that. >> the mistake was putting a wrong legal description so it never came up on a title report. >> subsequent to that? >> i can't comment on that. i wasn't there. >> okay. because you are pointing out something in 2012 that they are not relying in terms of their understanding. i'm wanting to understand the link. i'm going to look at the documents that we have before us. i'm just trying to understand your argument. >> i think my clients relied on the title reports that they got from a licensed title company. >> thank you. >> when you showed the job card, which category is that

last find that was signed off and showed three units? >> okay. i ask the department. >> commissioners that's the back of a permit application signed by inspection services.

they are referencing it's three units based on 98 c f c. the front of the application i believe says two. number of dwellings they have three crossed out and put in two because the planning department refused to sign off on the building permit to show up this building unless my client said it was two units. that's what we are up against here. >> thank you.

>> and i have a question too. the 3 r supplied is that original from the time it was purchased? >> no. the one i'm referring to was dated 2012. >> i'm referring to exhibit c? >> it came up in our search of documents just last year. so do you have, i represented to the board that my clients was looking at this when they bought the property. >> so you don't have the original # 3 r from when it was transferred? >> no i don't. >> because this clearly states or on this one where it says revert to two family dwellings. even if the property was represented as a four unit if they looked at the report. i

understand in 97 the home you bought was in the contract from the time you sold it and it was a crazy time. but it would be helpful if you had that original

>> scott sanchez planning department. i think it's confusing when it's not clear when they are presenting evidence. the permit which the appellant purported to say as three units when we signed it off as two units. the 1997, 3 r report with materials which showed this as being occupancy for three. they included this was three units because they didn't know what it meant. r 3 meant one or two units. i think that's perhaps the only reason they chose to include this report which was probably

the 3r report when they purchased the property in 1997. at the time they have owned in in 97, attached to that was a copy of the 1987 to two. the ml shows two units. the city has spent a year trying to resolve this. we've had a rehearing and significant resource are spent on this where it's very clear all along when the appellant knew from day one it was legally two units. the report from 1997 revert to two family dwelling. the significant amount of staff time. we have had staff review and write the letter of determination, multiple appeal hearings and the appellant is unwilling to

provide adequate information to the ford -- board and we find that extremely offensive. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners i had wanted to work with commissioner honda to try get the mls information he was looking on the overhead so you can all see it and it would be on the record. the way his computer s it's not possible. i know sometimes he brings his ipad to the meeting. it's important that everybody here see the same information. perhaps if you can work with the commissioner and let them know what the web address is. >> give him the ipad to play

with. is there any way to make

it bigger? >> yeah. sorry.

>> i understand. that's why the commissioner is presented to what you received. i'm definitely going to give you an opportunity to respond whatever it is here. >> we see it. those were the comments. >> i think we've seen enough. why don't we leave that there and if anyone has questions, we

can see it. >> counselor, have you seen this before? you've never seen an mls report? >> no. >> the reason why i ask is i asked you earlier. >> take your time. maybe we can take a quick break while you explore this information. okay? let's take a short break. >> shrink it down so you can see it from the laptop.

>> i just want to hear your thoughts on what was presented on the computer? >> as a point of order i would object to this. i thought all evidence was supposed to have been submitted before this hearing. i don't think the commissioners are supposed to be gathering their own

evidence. sorry. >> i would like to strike and i don't know if we have the order is here, but i would request that the board disregard what was presented and i don't believe i understand the information. >> is there time for anymore comments? >> i want to point out there has been a lot of -- about my clients voracity. >> i'm going to allow time only as to the additional that no one had any notice of. >> the accusation that my client, there has been no testimony that he ever saw

this. >> okay. thank you. commissioners, the matter is submitted. would anyone like to start? >> when we heard this case the first time and reviewed it, at that time, there was an element of thought in my mind that when the pros was subdivided and the designation where the loss occurred. it didn't necessarily allow one to see the transference that is related to the property. so there was an element of understanding how

perhaps the nsr did not then show up with respect to the particular lot, the other thing, however is that the preponderance of the evidence especially the that's now been further supported by looking at the actual drawings that occurred with the cfc, i believe that the preponderance of the evidence shows that it was two units. >> anybody else? >> i would agree. at first i was sympathetic to the reliance issue but once we went through the timeline and were able to under the sequence of events, i am also of the opinion that it's a two unit building and

that had evidenced and the notice of special restrictions and that is not void. it could have been discovered. it unfortunate that it wasn't discovered, but i do believe it was discoverable. and for those reasons i would also vote to uphold the zoning administrator and i would like to say that i had information about the mls listing and it was relevant. >> i concur. >> i would echo the comments of my fellow commissioners and i have nothing different to add. >> i will move to