earlier was the complaint issued, mr. fung. the complaint was worded a legal dwelling unit on ground floor and restore to last use, single-family dwelling, changing this building into a single-family home. it was filed by the permit holder herself on her own property as i saw. someone mentioned a change of occupancy. i read that in the brief and i think the appellant mentioned that. there is not a change of occupancy. it's an r-3 in the building code. there is no change of occupancy. the confusing part of it as well is when i realized that when the property owner came down to the building department, i think she felt that there was a legal commercial unit on the ground floor and a unit above. and when we started looking into this, we were able to point out that the last legal use was actually single-family dwelling, because there was a permit back in april or march it was filed and issued in

april and removed the existing stove from commercial first floor in associated connection and repaint wall. they didn't cancel that permit. they realized it wasn't a commercial unit once we started lookinging into this and seeing it was -- this permit with the nsr on it. so, it's maybe -- that may answer something to do with the sale of the property. it might have shown up as a commercial. and i see the [speaker not understood] got changed as well to reflect single-family. >> so, it's not a commercial -- >> no, the commercial was taken out on the permit that we signed off back in 1997. >> okay, thanks. >> but put back in again. >> mr. duffy, i have one question. is there any requirement that a notice of violation must issue before a permit removing a unit is applied for -- i mean, there's no precondition? >> no.

a lot of people did voluntarily. the permit came before [speaker not understood]. we're still in there. we're not in the business of getting warrants for this type of violation. we just don't do that. we couldn't possibly do it. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> anything further, mr. teague, no? okay, commissioners. >> i have a question for mr. teague. in '96 or '97 whenever it was converted back to a single-family, was it ever viewed by planning department for rooms down? >> yes, that was specifically why the nsr was recorded. >> but there was access then directly? >> yes. >> i have a question. so, i'm not familiar with the

legislation or the executive directive, is that what it's called? >> um-hm. >> about sort of trying to increase existing housing for people. if the situation was different in that the owner wanted to maintain the illegal unit and legalize it and there was a notice you wanted to do that at some point whether, let's say some situation a year from now, if this owner wanted to turn -- convert that into a legal unit, is that something that would be encouraged and supported by the city at this time? >> sure. there are actually two answers to that. at the time this permit was issued, again, the density for the zoning was in permits more than two dwelling units. to establish -- to legalize that dwelling unit, we would have had to have reviewed it.

it would have triggered at a minimum a neighborhood notification under planning commission section 312, gao pending on the type of rear yard and open space they have, which i haven't looked at that. but if it didn't have -- if it didn't meet those sections, it would have to be either altered or revised to meet those or get a variance. ~ planning code as of today, as of may 17 when it took effect, the new legislation that was sponsored by supervisor chiu for a more expedited process to allow for the legalization of units that were added without the benefit of a permit, the owner could voluntarily come in and legalize that unit without having to meet almost any of the typical planning code requirements like rear yard and open space and exposure and still have to meet certain minimum building code and fire code requirements. but as of today if the owners 1

and 2 they could voluntarily legalize it with very little process. >> okay. and that is not solely with respect to three-unit buildings or more? >> no, it's completely separate from that. >> okay. >> that legislation is a purely voluntary program that simply allows people who have these illegal units, irregardless of the zoning, even if you are over the maximum density, you may come in and legalize one of each unit per lot. again, it is a complete waiver from most of the planning code environments. still some of the major life safety issues with building code and fire code you still have to meet. generally it's a much easier process now than it would be [speaker not understood]. there is no requirement for additional parking and thing like that? >> no. >> would this building qualify for that? i'm sorry -- >> it's city-wide. with any zoning district that

allows residential units. >> notwithstanding the nsr or would the nsr supersede that -- >> any time you have an nsr it's more restricting than the zoning itself. if there is a subsequent project we approve that is conflicting with that prior nsr, we will, we will have them record a new nsr that supersedes this one or essentially release he that old restriction. >> okay, thank you. >> has that legislation passed? >> yes, it took effect in mid may, may 17. >> we show the matter submitted. >> i guess it's me. i do emphasize with the -- with both the owner of the property,

current owner of the property as well as the tenants, the only concern i have is that the building code violations were pre-existing and that the buyers, now new owners, were aware of it when they took possession of the property. and if there was a major concern, i think it should have been addressed during the transaction. and i at this point am not sure which way i'm going to go. >> my feeling is that the permit was properly issued. >> so, we have not heard any relevant arguments related to whether the permit was issued in error or not. >> i'd be willing to -- commissioner honda's --

>> i'm in the middle. >> -- view about disclosures. but i think, and i think what's challenging here is that this is -- we are focused on the permit issue. we aren't here to -- even if there were an opportunity to take a different course on the part of the property, this is the course of choosing. i think to the extent there is a problem from a landlord-tenant perspective, i think that needs to be addressed in a different forum. >> i agree. >> motion? >> i move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. >> thank you. mr. pacheco, please. >> we have a motion from the president to uphold this permit

on the basis its was properly issued. on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hwang? >> aye. >> and vice president is absent. commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4 to 0. this permit is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. we will move on, then, to item number 6, appeal number 14-078, jason fisher versus the department building inspection, planning approval. 1515 11th avenue, compliance of notice of violation number 20 128 2055 and to legalize storage and laundry rooms and bath on first floor.

with that, the appellant or appellant's attorney. you have 7 minutes to present your case. thank you. good evening. my name is alex merchant. i am the attorney for appellant jason fisher. mr. fisher is the tenant in the property. the property is a single-family home that has an unpermitted bedroom that was added to the bottom floor. i don't know when it was added. its was added prior to mr. fisher's tenancy. he moved in in approximately 2003. at the time he occupied one of the bedrooms in the upper floors. in 2007, with the owner's permission, he moved into the bedroom in the bottom floor. the owner had full knowledge that mr. fisher was occupying this room. he had full knowledge in 2003 when the tenants moved into the property that they were going to be occupying this room. that's contrary to the -- mr.

santiago's statement, the statement in opposition to this appeal says he had no idea that mr. fisher was moving into this room and that mr. fisher converted it himself. that's simply not true. if this permit is issued, mr. fisher will be evicted from his room. it will be an illegal eviction and i want to stress that, but this process is not being done by the book, that the permit applicant is denying that he is removing a bedroom. he's denying that mr. fisher will have to vacate the property. and if this permit is issued, he will continue with this illegal activity and the best way to stop it is to simply deny the permit. in addition, i think that the mayor's executive directive 13-01 is applicable to this situation, although mr. teague might disagree. it says nothing -- i'm going to quote the language of the executive directive. it's not a -- it is a

single-family home, so, as in the prior case, one could argue that executive directive only applies to buildings that are three or more units. the very first paragraph of the executive directive states the ip tent of the executive directive is to prioritize in our administrative work plans the construction and development of all net new housing, including permanently affordable housing. it's only when you get down to a task, task 2, that there is any restriction on the number of units in the building. so, i want to give the board a reason to rule in my client's favor because it just says in the previous case this will result in an eviction of a long-term tenant, but i think there is reason to rule in my client's favor. it says the executive director asks that your actions be taken to preserve housing. even in a case like this where

it's an unpermitted bedroom. similarly, the priority policy in section 101.1 asks that -- it mandates that the city's supply of housing -- supply of affordable housing be supported and enhanced when interpreting the planning code. so, if we want to stop this rash of evictions of tenants in the city, then you have the power to do that. jason fisher has lived in this unit for 11 years and he's going to be evicted if this permit is issued. i want to be clear, i do want to emphasize that the permit applicant prior to the permit being issued sent a letter to efficient appellant fisher demanding that he vacate his bedroom and falsely claiming that he had no knowledge this was being used as a bedroom. so, he is -- the permit applicant is on the one hand

demanding an eviction and he's doing it illegally, and he's using, and i would say abusing the permit process to do that. and i think the board should not allow the permit process to be used in that way, especially when it's going to be evicting a long-term tenant. that's all i have. >> did i read correctly in your brief that your client entered into this lease originally? yes, in 2003 he entered into a lease for the property. and a new lease in 2007 with i believe it was four brand-new tenants, but mr. fisher stayed, but he switched bedrooms. >> my question as well. so, mr. fisher, according to your brief, it was initially on the upper level yes. >> in 2007 he relocated with permission of the landlord to the lower level? yes. >> and, so, on the any tenancy that's there, is it a combined

rent or they pay individual rents? it's a single tenancy. it's not a boarding house. he doesn't rent his bedroom separately from the other tenants. >> how is the rent paid, but one check to the landlord or five separate checks? i have the lease from 2007. it states that the rent is $6,422. so, it's paid jointly. you want the logistics? >> correct. can i ask him? >> take your time. you have to come up to speak, please. yes, i write the rent checks directly to the landlord for the full amount. i collect the other roommates. from them, we all pool our money. we all pay a fair share. it's not a [speaker not understood] situation. >> would you identify yourself, please? i'm jason fisher, the appellant. >> thank you very much. >> are you the lead in the new lease that was signed in '07?

i am actually not on that lease. i was moving out and then returned right after that. i've been paying the rent check since 2003 in their entirety. >> i have a question. so, there are four others that live with you? yes. >> are any present at this hearing? there is one. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. we can hear from the permit holder now, mr. santiago. hi, good evening. my name is fred santiago. i'm the permit holder for 1515 11th avenue, and i just want to

reiterate the appellant's statement. i had [speaker not understood] permission for him to use the ground floor rooms a a bedroom. that's not true. he just did it on his own. i rented the whole place, the whole property as a single-family unit to five roommates and that's it. so, i never gave him permission to relocate from upstairs to downstairs and convert it to his own use. so, that's not true. i think he's just trying to use this pretext of illegal eviction to undermine the permit process of the building department and we're just trying to comply with the order the building department to legalize the rooms. [speaker not understood]. so, now he's trying to say that he's going to be illegally

evicted by the com piectiontionv board. we're not evicting him at all. we're just going to comply with [speaker not understood]. that's it. i told him it's not a legal bedroom. it's not authorized to be used as a bedroom. [speaker not understood], it's a storage room and a laundry room plus the bathroom. that's it. we're not putting him out or displacing him in any way. so, just simply complying with the order of the department of building inspection violation of this. and that's it. >> yeah. i didn't see any [speaker not understood] he keeps using this illegal eviction to derail the process, the permit process.

but there's no such de elevation. >> you have a current lease with how many current people who are on the lease? >> well, the last lease that we had was seven-year. we had only four people only. it is not on the lease [speaker not understood]. >> but you were aware he was living there since that lease was signed? yes, right. >> where was he living prior to moving to the basement? i believe he lived upstairs with the other roommates. >> so he was sharing a room with them? no, there's four bedrooms upstairs. so, he's just using another room there. >> i see. i don't know what motivated him to move downstairs and convert it for his own. >> and as far as you know, that room that he was occupying is still vacant or is vacant? i don't know because i don't really go there and

inspect. as long as they pay the rent on time, we don't bother them. so, they just rented the whole place, the whole house as a family unit. >> so -- are you done, madam president? >> yes, i am. >> so, if a roommate moves out, mr. santiago, how do you -- do you advertise it or do the tenants advertise for additional tenants? i don't even know. if the roommate moves out, because mr. fisher takes charge of that. he's the one that goes out and look for the replacement roommate. and he just sends us the whole [speaker not understood] amount, down payment. >> also in the briefs, when he moved down he said there was someone living in the room prior to him being in the room? >> i don't know. i really don't know. >> from 2003, is mr. fisher the primary leaseholder since 2003, or were there recommend inapt

people in the unit prior to when he moved in? when he moved in, he was with a group of other roommates that rented the whole house. >> i'll ask mr. fisher. yes ~. he was the last of the remaining tenants of the whole place. >> okay. so, i don't know what he did to juggle the people around. >> okay. >> are you finished? would it be fair to say that if 7 people lived in the single home as long as you got paid the rent, you're fine with that? >> the thing is i cannot [speaker not understood] money for how many people living in the unit. >> as long as you get paid -- >> yes, he just sends us the rent check in full on time. >> you would be okay if mr. fisher continued to live there. that's where he's staying now. >> but you would be okay with that? o yeah. >> you wouldn't object to him

living there. >> but again, the room would be authorized -- it's authorized as a storage and drawnly room ~. it should not have had [speaker not understood] of the regular bedroom. >> i think maybe if the department can speak, maybe it could be issued in with some of the new legislation potentially. >> i'm thinking if you have -- if you happen to have a very large family, you live in a four bedroom house, you double up some of the kids, maybe someone just doesn't want to share a room and they can live downstairs. it's not a legalized bedroom, but that person is fine hanging out in that room. that's not a problem. would that be a problem for you? >> well, it might be. >> why? >> once we know it causes a lot of wear and tear on the property. living in like a normal

problem. you would have a problem with that. >> oh, yeah, of course. >> not every other statement, but several statements you made is you're pretty hands off. you don't go in and inspect. you don't know what goes on in there. you care that no one lives in that sub space, is that correct? sometimes when we do repairs on the property, of course, we more or less get a feel of how many people are staying in the prom. and some of the property is kept up in a certain standard i think we are fine, you know, with the people. >> okay. i don't have anything further. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy?

>> commissioner, the permit application is under appeal. it's to comply with the notice of violation 201 2 82 05 5 to legalize ~ storage laundry rooms and bath on first floor. and we have garage is the term there, and to remove kitchen, stove, and sink [speaker not understood] since they've been -- come into the building department around the seventh of march, 2014. it got issued on the second of may, it went through the planning department, building department plan check, mechanical usual plan review. i don't see anything wrong with the issuance of the permit. and to comply with the notice of violation, we received a complaint to our housing inspection services on the 17th of december, 2012, and that complaint was that the description of the complaint was mold in almost every room

in house and ceiling and bathroom and walls in other rooms. the complainant was jason fisher. the inspector leong, housing inspector leong went out there. he [speaker not understood] 17th of december. on 22nd of january, 2013 -- sorry. from the 17th of december until the 22nd of january, 2013, it what inspections of the premises. permit was researched on. met with payment, inspected the areas of complaint. notice of violation got written up, on the notice of violation it was legal authorized use of three story, one frame, [speaker not understood]. additional dwelling unit, one kitchen, one bedroom, one bathroom. i don't see any mention of the mole by any [speaker not understood]. or current use of subject

spaces. so, the permit and plans are part of the documents and it shows the ground floor with this room with the kitchen cabinets being removed. so, it sound like life was okay until they made the complaint and then we ended up writing up this illegal unit. and that's what drove the permit. >> are you finished? , mr. duffy? so, can that space be made legal space at this point? >> i thought you were going to ask me that question. luckily on this appeal i'm happy to see the plans attached because we can look at them. and i did look at them, and it shows the -- on the proposed -- sorry, let me see here. it does show the existing current fixtures, cap off gas and water supply length which pretty typical for removing the

sink. on that sheet it says existing entertainment room. i'm not sure what that is, and then storage is over there on the other side. there seems to be a door leading to the outside where it's called a proposed plan and storage laundry, looks like it says 7 foot 1 ceiling height. [speaker not understood]. looks like it's short on the ceiling height for bedroom or room. >> under the proposed legislation -- the legislation from supervisor chiu, that will not -- i see cory cheesecaking his head. >> i look for planning to speak to that. i'm not familiar with that. there's a lot of -- we haven't really got to grips with that to be honest with you. and dbi believes planning are dealing mostly with it. >> a not too personal question. when a nonpermitted kitchen is removed, do they cap it, if it's gas, do they have it capped or do they have it removed to the source.

>> it's supposeded to be removed to the source uncapped. that's done under a separate plumbing. if there is electrical plumbing work as well, it's brought back to the panel for procedure, i believe. >> thank you, inspector duffy. >> mr. teague? >> good evening again, president lazarus and commissioners. cory teague for planning department. this is fairly similar situation to the previous case. again, the planning department does do a lot with the recent legislation. the mayor's directive to try to preserve as much housing as possible. the existing zoning is rh-2 so it would permit a second dwelling unit as of right. but, again, based on the code as it is today and the mayor's executive directive, we feel like this permit was issued

correctly. the appellant did state correctly that the mayor's executive directive does have language about prioritizing 100% affordable housing projects and we do that. there is a special priority process for those projects to be approved through our department. he's also correct that our priority policies in the general plan, we do abdicate for creating housing in appropriate areas and protecting and creating more affordable housing, however, we do not advocate doing that ~ through illegal units legalizing a unithe ing ~ unit is appropriate when it's fine. goingv through the specific parameters of the mayor's executive directive, we do that. again, the building has to have three or more units before it will trigger a more thorough discretionary review to determine if it is possible to preserve that unit.

to that point, commissioner honda's question about the ceiling height, again, under the recent legislation from supervisor chiu, almost all of the planning code requirements are waived to legalize an existing illegal unit. however, there are still minimum requirements from the building code. it is my understanding that ceiling height is still one of the issues. similarly, if this building had three or more dwelling units and the removal came to us and we took it through the dr process, dbi and planning reviews it to see how feasible it would be to maintain the unit, one of the biggest issues, one of the biggest hurdles in terms of feasibility is ceiling height because generally to achieve that you would require slightly different excavation. to my knowledge that standd