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 >> mr. sanchez.

>> thank you. good evening scott sanchez planning department i'm to begun by echoing the word of the inspector joe duffey commissioner hwang we appreciated having you on the board your leadership is an supervision to everyone you've maintained the best preparation and your probing and insightful questions and your deliberating and we appreciate that service to our city and the best to your new endeavors and hopefully, you'll have free time. >> thank you very much. >> on this case the subject property in the commercial district based on the information that joe duffey it appears that the legal property

is one legal unit brown above the ground in terms of what we see for a permit that removes an illegal dwelling unit you have the ground floor commercial use what happens to the space that was formerly a residential illegal commercial use. does the commercial use expand what's to become of that and other issues for the mravd. i'd like to clarify a couple of issues while the subject property removal of on illegal unit will not trigger a mandatory discretion we could approve that over the counter so we'll provide them notice a 10 day waiting period to file and

have the planning commission review the permit they could request that because which the notification they've requested and also clarifying the non conforming unit non-conforming does not equal illegal unit we have the legal and non-common uses for example, you have a district that allows a two unit building and it could be a third unit - >> sorry to interrupt you do that one more time and in terms of conforming and number one conforming they don't equal one another the example you have a unit in excess of the district 23 unit were allowed that third unit is considered the third

non-conforming unit so if someone removes a illegal third non-conforming unit but the removal of an illegal unit is not conforming to the policy we have applied a hearing a discretionary review authorization florida their removing an illegal unit with the response to the mayor's office distinctive to try to preserve housing weight look at ways to legalize those units but in this case that doesn't trigger. >> can i ask again, if you remove a third an illegal unit where there are 3 legal units or 3 units. >> correct so if the building contains 3 unit then removal of

an illegal unit. >> a fourth unit. >> if you want to remove one unit we'll require a mandatory hearing one of the reasons there's a break in the building code requirement if i have 3 or more unit there's a standard for safety requirements so somebody has a two unit building with a third illegal unit it's much anymore difficult to legalize the third or fourth or first for existing that's the break in there so it's a nuance so again, this would otherwise not require a mandatory hearing but given there's a b b n the appellant gets the notice and questions a discretionary review. there are options to legalize the unit there was legislation

that was passed that i supervisor chiu this year and they can avail themselves of that process it's not something we want to do but it is available to them and over the course of removing an illegal unit the department wants to see a building permit to remove the illegal unit. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> one mr. sanchez. does the planning department have a square footage for this particular property >> oh, we would get that information from the accessory office and mr. duffy's got the records here. where is it the building secret is 26, 40 it appears on the accessoryors records it's what the assessors office says

>> did that seem correct on the partial commercial on the ground floor. >> i don't have the lot dimensions unnecessary it's not a lot coverage. it's hard to say. because the assessors office nighttime count the skoornl >> i'm trying to see a general footprint it's 12 or 13 floor plate and if there's 26 there's two floor plates they're

considering as square footage. >> the square footage is 2 thousand 64. >> oh. >> it's the size of the lot so it is 2 or 13 hundred. i think it seems like it's under a bit the building is fairly a subsequential lot coverage but i don't have the information >> i wanted to see it so thank you mr. sanchez. >> i have a question mr. sanchez so if planning would like to know what's going to happen to the space how it is affected when the space is modified through a nonbuilding permit or a permit that is not a are planning permit how can you become aware of a space where

it's currently habitualable. >> i agree with mr. duffy they should have filed a permit with plans to document this this is typically how people deal with something like that and most instances an illegal unit is being removed and appealed to the board it's - we have electrical or plumbing permits i think as most cases there's a building permit so i think i don't buy the permit holders agreement this building permit is all they need. >> thanks. >> thank you. so we can take any public comment on item 7 the plumbing permit on polk street any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none we'll have rebuttal starting with the

appellant mr. crow. you have 3 minutes. >> clearly i don't have much more to add given the testimony of the building inspection and the planning department. i want to refocus on this. the reason we're appealing this plumbing pyramid because of it's stated use what the permit holders wants to use it for something will else it it were to cap off a embarrass line and put in an electrical stove in the unit are fine but we understand the intent of applying for this permit that's why we're asking you to revoke it based on the fact as the

testimony has indicated accomplished by a building permit. historically the method of capping off and removing a stove has been used to remove quote/unquote illegal units you, however, those are at least in my experience have been a building permit has been applied to effect that that's the reason we came here today. what we have to remember we're just looking at the permit here and, in fact, if the permit holder would like to apply for a building permit than because of block book 90s notices in effective e effect they can have the discretionary review and the chips will fall that's all we're requesting in the fingertip so

look at the permit and not the liability and understand the permit holder intends to do and revoke it on that basis thanks. >> we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> just like to clarify 1 or 2 things there's confusion and that could be my fault for serving what's called a predemolition notice it's pursuant to california civil code 1940.6 it's notice to a tenant if you're intending to demolish but you're taking it out of use giving notice to the tenant that's coming it also cards with that a possibly

statutory fine of $2,500 to the property owner so in the caution it's been our policy to issue those to protect your client from the possible fine. much has been made about the intent of that permit but the real intent in this circumstances is the intent to exercise our rights under the administration code 379810 which allows us to permanently rove a unit from the house use as well as we have the good faith intent and comply with the statutory provision of money help. whether or not a stove is pulled

out pursuant to a plumbing permit and the building that unit is reconfigured to a planning permit or either way the landlord has to have the unit empty the removal of that unit renders it unhabitualable. so i guess my final point is whichever procedure it determined the actual intent of my client is to remove that unit from housing use >> question why now. >> what triggered it. >> i pointed out this in my brief there have been several complaints made by lack of use in the building there are in

that specific unit. my client was tried to he'd that and been unsuccessful and, in fact, the last notification from any folks were from pg&e when they established the unit at the request of the tenant and certified it didn't meet their standards. my client because of the configuration of the building being one legal residential unit above the commercial space simply to get even though heating that will satisfy pg&e and the planning code it is going to cost a minimum of $10,000 or more my client was determined given the recent series of events it is simply impractical to keep that unit as a residential unit that's why

he's determined he wants to legalize that unit but again that is a decision that is left to the discretion of the owner it's not mandatory. >> and so the owner attempted to work with the tenant in some satisfaction for additional heat or heat. >> yes. >> and all attempts of the tenants were just not satisfied. >> that would be my. >> i'd put it that way. >> and you understand the issue we're seeing is that the permit maybe issued correctly it looks like it will change the usage change and the zoning so it permit by itself will n stand alone. >> i'm not ready to speak to the issue of whether or not

there's a planning i can see the use change as mr. duffy pointed out. >> i'm looking the fee of the appellants brief it says the notice it hereby given that your client intends to apply for the permit to demolish or audits permanently remove this unit from houshgs use is that the intent of your client to apply for that permit. >> to permanently remove. >> but to apply for the permit. >> yes. maybe a little bit classification that language is for per verbatim from the

section. >> okay. >> and it's placed in there. there's some legal agreement whether or not in some circumstances a permit is necessary to remove a unit period, however, if a permanent is do required then to get the necessary permits removing the unit pursuant to a plumbing unit and it's our good faith intent to remove this from the housing use it's appropriated under the circumstances >> so it's your clients position if there's a debate to the planning department it's required is it your appellants position not required. >> it's my position now, it's not determined given the testimony given here today particularly by the representatives of the city it's

not been determined whether or not a further permit is needed if the city says yes, that's exactly what we'll do. >> okay. thank you >> thank you. >> anything further from the department. >> mr. duffy i'll say the attorney wanted to hear from the city a permit will be required i'll say yes, a building permit is required we see the documents where the area has been remodeled and i don't see any permits so we've got that issue and the plumbing permit we need a building permit in my opinion to show what the true intent is in the area and if you want to

keep it as a legal use or whatever you need a building permit to show that and that will forever be on the record but the plumbing permit we can't do that. >> okay. okay commissioners the matter is submitted >> my take is that it should be continued because the permit itself the plumbing permit the permit holder should have time to get the necessary permits required to complete the plumbing permit work does that makes sense. >> that's my hunch i'm interested in hearing from others but seems like it is an adequate in and of itself to say the department heads are saying

it is required because of the tint removal of the unit i appreciated what the attorney said let the chips fall where they may the unit can be properly moved moved of removed but it should be removed properly and trying to get it in this manner through a plumbing permit is proper. >> i'm going to say why not remove the permit. >> it permit was not issued in error but it requires something else. >> i wouldn't say it of the issued correctly otherwise we wouldn't be continuing it is it being used in a manner that's improper because i think it's been used to circumvent another

appropriate processes from what of the stated that's where i'm at. >> i think both sides are using those processes improperly but to use this board in dealing with the plumbing permit is another way how they're to use the processes the question is whether this permit was illegal issued and it was not. i think both sides clearly know what they're going to do next there's another venues and they have litigation >> i held my tongue on the types of action i'll contemplate and i'm sure the attorneys representing the clients are

trying to help their respective clients. i know if we were to uphold the permit that is otherwise on its face in isolation not improper i think we would be advancing not advancing the interests of the public in - and i think continuance where i'm removing like commissioner honda stietdz in order for the public to have their interests represented and allow the parties some time to do it right >> i would agree in general if it was truly de facto but it's not de facto. >> why not. >> the parties knows exactly what's going on. i don't see an, an example i would use a slightly different

example if someone had a water heater go out you know they leak all over your garage and something goes in for an over the counter that water heater it out. i don't 7, 8, 9 to read into all actions of the city. other things that have their own venues for resolution >> i think normally that thinking surely where the red board has jurisdiction i agree we don't want to step into that roll but we've got a permit and that's the most compelling to hear if mr. duffy and mr. sanchez about what they would like to see and haven't seen it's clear what is intended by this.

that's - i don't know if continuance i don't know what others think about continuance >> continuance to the call of the chair until they decide if they're going to get a permit or go further with what they're planning on doing. mr. duffy. >> may i. i guess i'm going back to the question i asked before what was was this permit perhaps erroneously issued >> i'll try to find. >> if we continue f this that's information you'll supply. >> if people are going to be coming in and getting plumbing permits for the purposes of making illegal units i'm not a

fan i agree with commissioner fung we can't surmise what people are doing it's not right in my opinion that's not the way to do that we typically and mr. sanchez and i have seen this before the board the proper way to remove an illegal unit get a permit and if they want to appeal it they'll be going there to planning commission but when i look at the permits our department issues several permits a year and permits are taken out in good faith by contractors and homeowners and we don't think anyone in this case was to remove a stove in an illegal unit and maybe this one is the case we'll use to if we're going to see that i wouldn't want to be here every

week doing this i don't think it's at - if that's what they're doing in my opinion not right. >> i think you said before or maybe mr. sanchez said it 2340i9s typical i don't think mr. sanchez stated you don't normally see the stand alone type of permit without the benefit of a building or permit to accommodate a removal of a unit. >> in this case it would be issued in error it will change the usage that requires another permit. >> the city attorney if this permit was taken out for the permitting use it's part of the process but you need the building permit with it. >> by removing the stove it changes usage. >> no. >> no that is .

>> what was the use. >> removing something that the building code requires then, of course, it would be chang the use. >> okay. >> a stove does not set that condition. >> yes. we don't know what the use is we know it's a 94 permit for the space on behalf of it was the top floor being used for a commercial use and conferred back to a residential use there's nothing it on the building permit that told us what the use is. >> okay. thank you. you know what we have the housing inspection services with the open complaint maybe let them do their investigation >> i think there's no doubt there will be multiple actions. >> question is what action do we take.

>> suggestions commissioners. >> we can continue to what mr. duffy said wait until after the housing inspection process. >> do we want to have to the to the call of the chair. >> i'm leery of having this go on too long. >> inspector duffey how long will the take to estimate for the housing inspection investigation to conclude. >> oh, they do a thorough investigations it could be a month or two but the other thing i could do if we continue with this we'll check with our chief plumbing inspector and all be it the building permit would they

typically give that permit i can't say yes or no the person i spoke with today, the plumbing inspector didn't seem to think it was a problem but if the i would like to speak to someone at a higher level to get that answered. >> okay. >> but time wise probably a month would be enough and let them know it's part of the process and do our research a little bit quicker. >> i don't know if the housing inspection services i'm not sure where their coming up with their information. >> we can put heat. >> especially, if increase a deadline i can definitely tell them that. >> perfect. >> director. >> do you want to propose it.