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 apply to the department of building inspection to permanently roach the plumbing so we need a building permit before the plumbing permit you could apply for your plumbing permit and in addition we would like to see a permit i did research on the building today and i will speak about the building inspection complaint on my research for the building in 1994 application

i'll put that on the overhead. this was - no so this was a permit in the 4 and the dbi issued that it was legalizing did second floor a back to the residential use and the building permits state that we had one residential unit with is commercial back to residential use with one dwelling unit. we signed off that permit and issued a certificate of

completion. and the description on the certificate of final completion on polk street legalized it back to the first floor commercial number of apartments one and i think going from the i noticed on the 3 r report on the brief dbi on the 3 r report had it as one dwelling unit over commercial that was part of the brief. the latest complaint and i didn't get a chance to speak with the building inspector that was filed in june a legal unit put behind the commercial space the building inspector did reach

from the twoug of june to the 21st of july he's still doing the research and the property profile shows an r-3 it can be a single-family or separate unit and saying the legal description defines two residential spaces on the ground floor. i didn't get a chance to speak to the building inspector i don't know where he is getting that on what records the 3 r report shows some history by not a lot and the new construction. the city careers office has it down as 2 units and it would be the residential unit so inspector has not issued a notice of violation so i think

it is ongoing with regards to that. i don't think of any more to add but i'm available for questions >> mr. duffey the 94 permit was the last permit that you saw in the history. >> let me just refer to the 3 r report. the 3 r report that was in the report of residential building was dated of onions october 24, 2013, i'll put it on the

overhead. so the last permit shows 2001 permit for replacing 3 windows there's no i wanted to say there's no building permit for the remodel or renovation of the unit that's in question about removing the stove no permits for that >> so the 12 windows is for the upstairs and front or the back so they have to go through the space and probably everything but the store front. >> the 12 windows there. >> i have a question about your reference to the notice of demolition and i think i heard your statement earlier correctly you said first of all, what is the notice of demolition you're

referring to. >> it's seems like it's from the attorney for the owner through the tenants and the notice of application for the permit to demolish the residential building under the code. i've never seen one before it's exhibit c >> okay. >> and that's - >> you said in view of the notice it seems like it requires a building permit and though the plumbing permit was initial low gotten it will not close the permit. >> typically we see the building permits to remove the last unit but when you see the word demolish it didn't say for a permit to demolish or permanently roach the use if you have a use in a building that's

been illegal installed but if you want to revert that to the last use you'll need the building permits and furthermore, we'll issue a signed completion to describe the work. >> so given the absent the building permit would you - is it your suggestion that the plumbing permit itself is fine but you'll anticipate the building permit next is that - >> that's exactly right. >> and if no building permit were applied to subsequent to the building removal and the work to implement that work the removal of stove would you then anticipate a notice a complaint with -

>> yeah. obviously if there's somebody living there and constraint that we the complaint we got in june u june was like that. >> the housing complaint. >> it's a typical illegal unit description i do think if there's, you know, people do this amendment they sometimes don't wait for a violation but want to remove a violation they typically get a building permit that gives them the opportunity for the planning department more recently with the new ordinances obviously, we're aware of them and it goes to the planning department for the review. >> if you're on notice that there's an issue that is now before our board a plumbing permit has been in question and there's nothing wrong with the plumbing but you know it's sort

of a precursor to a demolition if such permit were to be allowed and upheld tonight the stove is removed it results in the fact 69 removal of the unit without the benefit of the dbi building permit i'm not sure what to - hour your department knowing this will act, you know, if it will suspend a possibility of suspend it based on the information or i'm trying to understand the process or if there's activity here that should have happened together. >> that's a good question someone mentioned a building permit is required, i.e., checked that out to move from

residential to number one residential use i don't think you can't come in and get a plumbing permit first but i have an issue if you're in the intention your using a plumbing permit to change the use of an area of a building because you take the stove out i think a building permit should be required i don't know what action and in answering our question. >> if i'm a lawyer i know what action i'd take but i'm wondering what the department and their capacity. >> in my opinion i might differ from the housing inspection i do have a complaint there's a legal unit created behind the commercial space if there's no permit and indeed an illegal

unit we'll issue a notice of violation to get it back to an original state so that action b will take care of that but the housing inspectors services do their complaint investigation i'd like to share the information i got today and assume that is available i was able to find if from the 94 permit. usually in this forum we put a lot and dbi too the certificates of closed session. we have other reaches we can go to the water department and bay area there's one commercial one dwelling i checked that as well we will put that together and see then >> but it could apply to

legalize it but the building process with the planning department is there. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. duffey i'm confused how the permit got issued in the fingertip under what circumstances could someone cap off the stove. >> i think that's a great question. i was only speaking to one the plumbing inspires but he said you get actually come in and get a permit to remove the stove and i mean, if you want to take our stove out for example, if you wanted to take a stove out of a breakroom your capping off there is no description on here on this permit where that will be and the building permits are not

delayed so a contractor could pull that permit i think i thought of this this morning maybe i'll be letting the plumbing chief know if we see this type of permit in the future we're going to ask are you using this to remove on a illegal permit we may be ask those questions but there's nothing you could pull this plumbing permit it's the paratransit i've ever seen a building permit if this was is an effort to take a stove out of an illegal unit i've not seen this on its own. if that's what we want to do they need a building and a plumbing permit >