solar electricity and other it would be too large of incentive but we have a large group that works well, that the legislator and the government and a slight advantage that the democratic's say almost two-thirds the legislation we can only dream of so thanks so

>> good evening welcome to the wednesday, july 23, 2014, san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is commissioner president lazarus and joined by commissioner fung and commissioner honda and our vice chair will be absent tonight to my left is deputy city attorney and at the controls is the person victor i'm sdooej we'll be joined by the representatives from the city scott sanchez will be representing the planning department and planning commission and the senior engineer will be here and deputy

city attorney will be here on behalf of the department of public health will you go over the rules >> ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices. please carry on conversation in the halfway appellants and permit holders and department representatives have 7 minutes to present their cases and 3 minutes for rebuttals all pa parcels parties who are not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes to address the board with no rebuttals to assist the board members of the public who wish to speak are ask but not required to submit a

business card to the staff. pencils are available on the lndz of the podium and consumer survey forms on the left-hand side of the podium. the board office is on mission street room 304 between van ness boulevarding it's broadcast live sfgovtv channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sfgov and thank you at this point we'll conduct our swearing in process if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give our testimony wealthy please stand and raise your right hand arrest

incomplete note that any member of the public may speak pursuant to the sunset ordinance under the administrative code thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> (inaudible). >> thank you. mr. mr. pacheco commissioners we have three 0 housekeeping items all to do with at&t >> i'll recuse myself due to a financial investment. >> commissioners because there are an insufficient number of board members to act on the cases they are going to be need to be rescheduled so so item 4

is the protest of the an excavation permit on caesar chavez after the first meeting date is october 8, 2014, the appellant is traveling during our september meeting date so that's the first valuable time and at&t has requested the opportunity to commissioner white additional drawings to address the board request in this case so in addition to rescheduling please consider whether or not you'll accept the drawings. >> i think i noted the drawings are extremely large are they going to put it into one drawing. >> the drawing is one large piece of paper and the drawings are straight in your packet you'll have one piece of paper. >> thank you. commissioners we need our

consideration to move this case to october 8th and whether or not you wish to accept additional information >> so moved. >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, mr. pacheco call the roll please. we have a motion from commissioner fung to continue item 4 appeal to october 8th and additional inhabits not briefing allowed additional inhabits are allowed on that motions. >> commissioner hwang. the vice president is absent the president is recused commissioner honda >> thank you the vote is 3 to zero this matter is continued until october 8th. >> the other two items are a jurisdiction request and an

appeal on 26 avenue protesting the excavation permit issued to scc the first available meeting is september 17th. there is yeah, that's the first valuable time the dph is unavailable during the september 10th meeting and an insufficient number of board members available for the august meeting so we need a motion to move to september >> so moved and any public comment on that item? seeing none, mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion then from commissioner honda to rescheduled items 5 and 6 and appeal to september 17th.

on that motion to reschedule both matters. commissioner fung. commissioner hwang and vice president is absent president is recused. the vote is 3 to zero both matters are rescheduled to september 17th >> we can ask the president to return. okay. that takes us to item one general public comment is there anyone that wants to speak on an

item not on tonight's matter then item 2 it questions or comments >> this is my fellow commissioners last meeting what an honor and pleasure to serve on this board with you, chris and wish you luck. >> thank you. i also for the record wanted to state it's been an incredible honor and privilege to serve on the board and surprisingly a pleasure i've learned a lot and enjoyed working with an esteemed group of people and especially the work of sdooenl and has kept us together as more goes on behind the scenes and victor i appreciate you and want to thank that board for having made that a great experience i hope it's

been good for the community as well. >> we would love to see you again. >> thank you. and i'd like to say that's been a pleasure to me i've not met you before and i admire the way you handle the questions and insight and you're going to be missed and wish you all the best and whatever you spend your time they're lucky to have you >> it's been a pleasure to work with you and appreciate the work you did for the board and to have i here such a strong voice so far thoroughness and the way you treat the public is excellent i appreciate it and any public comment on that item? >> okay. then we'll move on

the next item is item 3 the boards consideration of the minutes of july 16, 2014. changes, additions if not do i hear a motion to approve the minutes >> so moved. >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, mr. pacheco call the roll please. we have a motion from commissioner honda to adapt the july 16, 2014, minutes on that motion. >> commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. president is absent. commissioner president lazarus thank you. the vote it 4 to zero those minutes are adopted >> okay. then we have rescheduled items 4 example 5 and 6 next is the property

inspection protesting to gary young to remove and cap off the gas pipe start with the appellant you have 7 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners before i make my remarks i want to request i can submit to you a rely i've prepared for this case and that i will also be summarizing in my statement tonight. >> a good thing for you to have there's an exhibit in it it includes new evidence regarding the status of the unit we've only found on july 21st of this last monday of the housing inspector they commented. >> has this information been shared with the other parties.

>> i'll be happy to share that with the other parties. >> i be if you would include it with reference in our comments we'll decide whether or not tests important to see it. >> certainly i'll be referring to it in my comments and will be putting that on the overhead projector. the sole question for the board can a plunging permit be the basis for removing a housing permit from the market they seek to remove the stove remove the unit in other words, convert the unite to non-residence use and e vehicle the tenant the removal

removal is not a demolition and not required a building permit to remove the concepts the planning code states removal shall mean with the conversion demolition or merger in other words, removing the unit can only be accomplished by one of the methods for each the methods the planning commission requires a building permit not a plumbing permit section 23-d 1 demolition and e-1 for merger and f one for conversion. the permit holders is seeking to convert it to non-residential use if the intent does not amount to a demolition then that's a conversion it occurs when the residential unit under

go a use as defined by planning code or a change of occupancy as regulated by the planning code of any dwelling unit to non-residential use in zoning controls on the removal of zoning units. the unit is a dwelling unit as denied in the planning code. quote a room or scoot of two or more rooms that's designed or occupied by one family doing its own cooking and only having one kitchen the san francisco building code riverside requires a building permit to convert it to a non-residential use and a building permit as i stated earlier therefore the plumbing

permit can't trigger a conversion although mandatory review is not required for the non residential units the planning commission can consider applications to remove dwellings at discretionary review holds the permit holder had applied for the correct permit because of the block book notice the plumbing permit must be revoked because it violates a code that states no place for a building permit or other permit or license of permit of occupancy shall be approved by the planning department and no license issued by any industry department that changes a

>> contrary to the provisions of the code. one san francisco building code requires a building permit to convert the two unit to a non-residential use therefore the permit holder tried to initiate it to number one residential use contrary to the planning code therefore the permit should be revoked. the legal status of unit does not mean to file a building permit the determination of the legal status of the unit is not relevant or appropriate in this proceeding, however, the permit holders size the unit is illegal to justify his use of the building permit. the planning code defines a residential unit as a legal conforming or non-conforming

dwelling unit in the planning code section. the gentleman's unit is a dwelling unit as defined in this section as defined a residential unit can be a legal conforming a legal unit or a legal non-conforming unit the law does not permitting provide a third definition the conversion to non-residential unit with non-legal status requires a building permit not a plumbing permit there's nothing that says its illegal and in the paragraph 6 of the regional occupancy two family dwellings there's no pending 90s notices on the non conforming status the

september 2013 nova didn't mention it i'm going to be showing you a data sheet hopefully, you'll see that after two recent inspections on june 24th and july 9th any public comment? 2014 the inspections were inclusive as to the existence of a violation of the housing code with respect to the legitimate of the unit. after further use on july 21st entry the housing inspector said it shows an r-3 d 23 facility the legal description further indoctrinates defines two residential units on the ground floor. in fact the housing inspectors

findings says the housing unit maybe a legal conforming unit the permit holders allegation it's illegal is in dispute and can't be substantiated without the involvement of the planning department through the discretionary review thank you. >> yeah. >> thank you we can hear from the permit holders. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. i think my colleague mr. crows argument is predicted on an incorrect interpretation of the applicable planning code specifically code 317 conversion

of the merger or demolition of a residential unit is preceded by a definition of what constitutes a residential unit. it's illegal common or non-common mr. crow received to both of those. mr. crow has apparently obtained doimgs i'm not familiar with, however, whether or not a complaint dictated sheet on the site resulted in a legal status of a unit is not surprisingly and not the dbi's purview we're not recovery excuse me. we're not demolishing or converting a residential unit we're removing an illegal unit implementing our

rights under section 37.8910 of the rome rental to do one thing demolish or otherwise remove from the housing united by implementing or rather invoking the administration code. historically this method of recovery has been used steel to recover in-law units and recently the city government has - has enacted he had methods for legal in-law units at the desegregation e discretion of the property owner. the explaining memoranda from the dbi from the mayor's office says this is a method to encourage people to legalize

in-law units to provide for housing stock. what the tenant in this instance is proposing that the ordinances that are not applicable are not encouraged to get the tenant to legalize the unit but because we're not demolishing a legal unit it's an illegal unit it's proper to remove a cooking unit from the illegal unit by use of over-the-counter plumbing permit. if a permit for any purpose were made necessary to go through the planning department or in order to legally have a permit issued there 0 wouldn't be an over the counter permit it includes a

number of permits but one type of that is referred to as an example from the dbi's literature it any permit that deals with the modification of a kitchen or bathroom so long as there's no change to the building in other words, not blowing out walls that sort of thing. the tenant in his belief again refers to the availability if the owner wanted to attempt to legalize the unit using the code. however, as stated before whether an owner wants to attempt to legalize a unit is under your discretion it's not proper to say the tenant is using the board to attempt to

coerce the owner when it's his right to remove the unit under the code. thank you. >> i've got a few questions counselor what is a our response to the ground floor. >> i don't believe there's a cognizant document the 3 r i'll attach to our brief refers to an original use as two residential i take it not specifics to the unit but the present legal use the profit is two units one residential over one ground floor commercial unit that's with the polk street use. >> that's all a clarification.

>> did you know the unit was illegal when rented. >> as we've state the illegal unit was was already installed. >> when your tenant was aware of the lease why wasn't it mentioned to the taken place possible street unit has been renovated and something the tenant agrees the unit is in perfect condition. >> there's true but there's nothing where the owner represented to the tenant tights quote/unquote a legal unit. >> if he was aware why did he rent the property. >> i'm awarethanasia that's an obligation of the landlord as

the mayor's office has recognized there are tens of thousands of illegal unit throughout the city and i'm not aware of any instance or provision of an ordinance that says if it's an illegal unit the landlord must inform the tenant of that and okay. thank you. >> mr. duffey. >> good evening, commissioners joel duffey dbi. first of all, i'd like to wish commissioner hwang all the best in her future it's been a pleasure knowing you at the board and you've been thorough in my opinion which i like i like your fairness and it's been

a pleasure working with you best of luck in the future. on this case commissioners there's a lot of mostly parts reading the brief and i'll speak about the plumbing permit i want to speak about the complaint and the process that maybe should be taken care of so the plumbing permit was applied for by our plumbing provision on obtain think thursday it was given to a description that's covered to remove and cap off gas pipe i've checked no permit from our

plumbing provision so the permit is properly issued for that type of work. and with that said, from reading the brief and from the notices i've seen someone get a got 0 notice to demolish i believe it talks about demolish let's see this. sorry - in those cases we typically see a building permit with plans to if you are removing anyone that's illegal installed and in that building for example, if we did have a legal conversion to residential use and that use would want to be continued we'd like to see the use of the building and what

the use of that area of the building was being used for and revert back to the original use whether it was storage or laundry area even if it was rooms done if the stove and cabinets were removed we'd see that on the plan i don't see that and if the purposes of the plumbing were to remove a stove that was in an illegal residential area we certainly need a building permit to go with that. i saw a notice to the language here. the notice is hereby given to the owners on the polk street in san francisco will