done and this permit is not built from was to be addressed what was submitted and rewarding the setbacks and the proposed firewall and assembles that are noted. so this is a correspondence from mr. duffey confirming we'll submit all the required items for the property to be built according to code and also in regards to the argument the stair has increased no size is not true. again exhibit 4.

if it was previously submitted it clearly shows the potential deck is the same size if not smaller again not correct. again to the citing the occupant load it's not correct if you go to section 10004.8 in the california building code it states both outdoors and part of 3 and the individual groups r-2 are exempted from the occupant load so the occupant load criteria didn't fit for the outside space. so also the opinion that the project will have a harm

physical effect on the appellants property is merely an opinion we're able a code compliant firewall that's going to be thirty feet long and 27 feet tall that will improve the appellants property. so the fact that, you know, they're saying it doesn't meet the planning code is not true it's been approved by the planning department and been denied through various appeals >> thank you anything from the department mr. sanchez or duffey. >> welcome back mr. duffey. >> thank you commissioner

honda's it's going good to be back. on the permit i spoke to the architect and spoke to him subsequentially on the phone there's an addendum they can't submit the addendum but the details from the foundation from the firewall and the construction of the firewall and we could also get the notice of special restrictions on the addendum as well, i'll put it on the addendum or ask the architect to put it on for the record it's a document so it's on the forever in the records for that project and as far as i can tell their building it to code. the biggest issue ms. lamb wants the firewall to extend to her roof that's not required.

so that's it if anyone has any questions >> what's the differences within the roofline and the 27 feet. it's 21 inches more increase the wall 21 inches but the permit wasn't required at the last hearing i know that's what he wanted from speaking to them >> okay. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you commissioner president lazarus and members of the board i'm be brief i don't see any new facts or evidence that justifies a new hearing this has been before the brazil and it's correct that as a condition of approval the nose of special refresh my recollection which was recorded for this property i was

agriculture to pump pull it up the plan was not there and the building inspector noted the process so they can satisfy this condition of approval and have it documented but that's not a fact to prevent it from being approved the fact they've recorded the s f r it's a matter of having it on the plans so the fact you can go to the careerss office there's a special refresh my recollection that's tied to the restriction is very clear and even more of a public benefit a than having it on the plan. i didn't see the 3 hour report it's referenced as exhibit 9 i don't see a exhibit 9 i want to highlight that that's in and of

itself is new information >> thank you. >> the matter is submitted. >> commissioners the brief resolves around the first one the adequacy of the permit dominates documents that's an administrative issue the department will deal with and the balance of the brief dealt with issues that are repetitive i don't see any new information. >> i'll concur. >> move to deny the rehearing request. >> before we call roll on that lets hear if there's. any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none.

sorry about that >> mr. pa check my we have a motion to deny the rehearing request. commissioner hwang. commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you p the vote is 5 to zero and it's denied. >> thank you. the next item item 5 is the subject property 0 and is board received a letter requester asking the board take condition over this ordinance which will oasis issued ton march 20th and the appeal end and the jurisdiction request was filed in 2014 the permit holder it, llc and the project to remove a legal unit to convert

to a single-family home we've started with the requester you have 3 minutes arrest. >> i'm nan an attorney in san francisco and practiced a long time in the city primarily representing the tenant and done other civil event. i'm not as familiar with the permit appeal process but when she came to me and received and she's here today for anyone that's lived her mom is 91 and she is 66 and have lived in the property for more than 40 years their spanish speaking family and spinal columns speaks

italian when we got the notice i got when we find out there was an eviction notice to demolish the property i want down to city planning and look at the dbi website and looked at it other dements documents. from my understanding the research that i did and talked about u talking with the planning department they've holding all discretion regarding the merger of rental unit this particular piece of property and the permit was issued over the counter i don't know if this - this is part of it i imagine you have it it says that's a

single-family home and it was recommended to me it was a house with an illegal in-law unit i went down and reached it that's actually, two flats from the front of the building looks like two flats it had two vacant units and the owner that previously lived below my clients passed and this was two generations down selling it the grandchildren. my clients unit has been there since 1912. i requested the oh, so basically, it's a two flats my client lives in one the flats the landlord pulled the permit to do plumbing and electrical and my clients was the first

number in the series and the ground floor the permit is relying on a single-family house much smaller than my clients unit and not having two ground floors. i did visit planning department they said it will go through a demolition like a conditional use authorization hearing the 91-year-old woman is unable to come because the heat her dollars said she's going to die if at the gets relocated this was a unit built in 1912 so >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> i represent the permit

holder. really submit open the papers >> i'm sorry counselor i need to ask the city attorney a question. >> okay sorry one second so she represented me 5 years ago but it won't effect my judgment today. >> just quick we would like to submit on the record the owner bought this property as a single-family house and related on the the purchase documents during the 3 hour report that

indicated on the public record this is a single-family house and it's irrelevant how it looks like a pair of flats but it's a single-family house and treated like that she purchased it that way and it looks like the main living area that upstairs and the tenants have been living in downstairs ground floor with the illegal kitchen portion etc. we understand their clinging to the basement area because the rent is $507 there b will not that a discretionary review because denying the over the counter permit is intended for being for illegal 3 unit or more this property didn't apply there's have been tenants are

trevor with the landlords plans to rely on the city records it is a that's a single-family house she's paid the fees and i have nothing more but to submitted on the papers thank you >> counselor somewhere in the briefs. >> please stay at the podium. >> it says something about a lot split are they part of the same lot. >> it's a building open the lot they're built at separate times. >> is it a single lot and it's a single lot and i have a question too counselor so your client purchased it as a single-family residence what was the discloser. >> it was advertised as if several unit and during the escrow it was disclosed it was a

single-family house with a separate 5 unit building on the same parcel after the report came out so is he bought it as a 5 unit building with a single-family house on the same lot. >> but he purchased the building understanding it was used a is a 5 unit building. >> it's a 5 unit building and she knew there were people in the basement ground floor of the single-family house. >> two structures one 5 unit and one. >> yes. and . >> one is an actual 5 unit building. >> yes. >> and your client stating that's a single-family home knowing they're two separate families living in the home. >> actually, the upstairs is

have a doubt but the she knew the downstairs it was an illegal unit it was built in 1906 and the permit shows a single-family home house then. >> okay. thank you. mr. sanchez. mr. duffey. >> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department i mean, i'll be brief wanted to conform it only relates to buildings with 3 or more illegal units and you rove an illegal unit it will be subject to the discretionary review and give-up the history while the building on the 7 unit will be over zoned it would not

be if constructed in 1912 and some of the facts there would be legally two units the fact there's two exterior doors the permits subject to the jurisdiction request why is there no exterior connection and the allegation it's removed don't have any evidence this is a clear a single-family dwelling dwelling and we rely on dbi and the report as we final record of notice the final records are not also correct. i'll note this was advertised and what we can tell the materials submitted on the overhead as a 5 unit in the front and 2 in the rear that was

need in the record. so again, i think maybe department of building inspection can shed light but the additional research and the water department records they indicate there are that more unit than a single-family home so this will be submitted to make an appropriate decision on the matter my mr. sanchez in terms of the definition the question of the executive order and how they denied the number of units i thought normally it would be the number of units relates to a lot. vs. i know whether there's multiple structures and the density is based on the number of lots >> in the inclusive directive

it states the number the lots and not unit this is an appropriate interpretation one of the ways this is tied in its tied into the building code so once you have a 3 unit buildings you're in a different classification if you're trying to legalize the third unit be it's a higher burden you have additional code requirement so the divisive says more than that two unit per building it's literally per building. certainly this could be discussed and certainly not something to remove did unit it could be subject to discretionary review even if we don't subject it ourself

>> mr. duffey. >> commissioners when i first become a just reading through the brief and sticking i spoke with records management the building department about the 3 r that says three units i was confused so i checked with the management poly i didn't and they basis this on building departments records the new construction was indeed and in the brief one single-family dwelling and this was in 1906 and so it's been presented to me at the building department there is other evidence that that building never got built this

was something do you think it was built as a two dwelling from 1906 to 70 the new construction permit never got completed it has two addresses i saw the water department records and two family and the other records two family. it's you ailing always you awkward we need more information that could come up as an appeal but there's questions about this building i have not been to the building it's a hearing request if i have to i'll have to look at it. we had a unit verification process at the building

department and if i was doing one on this one i would have a hard time on the single-family i'll villaraigosa to look at it more that's my take >> did you verify the permit history. >> on the t r report and only on the police station one family are believed that mr. involving visual said there was something done with the construction but other documents but not this passage maybe not documented properly those things happen we have a building in san francisco we're trying to think about what happened a hundred years ago so definitely i don't think was it unit looks like so i'm not sure.

>> in the cooperated study that the permit can't do i've visited the site and i'll do a quick summary it is for filbert and others there's an address at one thousand 18 it hits and burns the entire area down six months latter the moratorium was band they filed a permit to build a 50 foot wide shingled metal roof

no job card never got built and as part of the reconstruction it going into the construction to one hundred and one hundred and 603 inches. 1912 the permits filed were to build a 5 unit building and it shows the whole house we're talk about that and he's planning on doing a lot subdivision and 1912 after a permit was ushered showing on the plans or actually application the old house he goes to the waterfront to build 5 water meters for units and he white light that 2 unit building so the 1890 showing the alley it goes away in 1909 the fire burns

the neighborhood do you think that's the neighborhood the permit that everyone is relying on it is this permit for a huge earthquake structure that never gets built. the permit that no one's is looking at is the permit to build the next door neighbors building they're the older house it's 4 hundred square feet it's not the 144 hundred square feet it's to earthquake reconstruction period put on the site. so clearly there's a 4 hundred square feet building and maxwell the property owner decides one month after the permit to build the 5 unit to build two more units so if you look at the 1913 and san born the building that's currently driver's license now

is on a city street it existed in 6 it because no building until 1912 so mr. mark well decides to build his other two this is a merger and it should be a merger with proper notice >> that's only if you assume. >> pardon me. >> only if you assume the two units were permitted it's not printed. >> the two unit building. >> it's to the permitted. >> there's 40 no permit. >> is there any public comment. >> she's not allowed to speak your time took up her 3 minutes. >> that's not part of our

procedures. >> i'm going to ask the requester to clarify the initial statement. >> it's not a basement unit there's two front doors and if anything my client was the only legal unit it's all there in 1912 and got it. >> it's not an illegal basement. >> got it. okay. the commissioners the matter is - >> i've got to a question for mr. duffey. >> okay. mr. duffey. >> wearing your permit hat. >> where's the permit? >> wearing our permit hat.

>> oh, yes. okay. >> based on and we're picking up on what you said and others. the original permit never got built 14 one hundred square feet whatever. the 5 unit permit got built. but there was no permit for the other two unit. i haven't seen one >> based on what was said so far. >> correct. >> how do that work to the structure in terms of the legality either as a single-family home home or two units or structure. >> that's like a lot of old buildings they're built so long ago and that was talking about through could be more information we went from 1906 to

1970 there's aol.com other addresses on the lot. i don't know what the housing have listed we'll be doing inspections and the other card is a good record but to answer our question i don't know if there's a permit to build two other buildings >> around that time after an earthquake, you know. >> that's okay. >> commissioners this jurisdiction request is submitted. >> well, i move we grant the jurisdiction request. >> i have a question for my own ed indication i didn't hear

anythingful from the requester naefts that leads me to do that. >> it's not brief. >> okay. >> it wasn't that clear it would be a better brief. i have one last question what did you recommend we do >> who wants to come up first? >> obviously being a impartial the way i look like it there's evidence and san burn and there's questions there has to be questions about the building so i'd say indemnify a chance to file an appeal and let's look at that it is what it is