can't remember the circumstances but i encourage him to apply for a building permit some days we do this verification if everything is clear can what it should be maybe a roofer pulled a permit and the unit changed i recommend he go through the planning department and get his this permit if he thought it was a single-family dwelling i got an e-mail i noted to telling him that the tuesday for permitting me in the property the purpose to determine the occupancy of the this i recommend you, you get a permit back to the single-family dwelling and the application should be 24r0u89d planning department the records

stated of the third a single-family dwelling and the map showed it was a system the careers office showed it all the building permits should that the building is two flats so what it means at some point it got converted but no permit audio tape record to permit that he did what i told him to and he's here tonight that's what is it the building permit went to the blowing plan check and the building inspection approved it around july 16th i did a process but dbi and the plans would be having been reviewed and the permit got issued so. >> what's the process i'm trying to understand the process so how does some city

departments see it as a single-family and other as a two family building how does the department recognize it as a two unit building. >> when you look at the water department a single careers office says it is two probably small business is paying property tax i see that on the assessors records and pay a property taxes for many years as two units but there's different i see that all the time all differences in that and someone may properly not as good a check when i compliment is part time a lot of the roofing contractors they don't count the units that messes up the records the

records get confused and that creates the unknown. >> what's the history open this particular property. >> i did not check it tonight but i think that the 3 r reports should it did permits from the 1950s the building is 2 flats that's what i believe the attorney for the tenant has with them him. >> do we have a copy of the 3 r in the report. >> i can explain that. >> okay. thank you. >> there's a 1952 permit and 67 and 69 and permit a 1989 shown as completed not saying how

many. >> what is the fix a kitchen or bath. >> a lower ceiling and porch instead of and a back porch and one in a remodeling of a kitchen in the 1959. >> i'm trying to establish a chronic chronology if you're going 0 remodel a kitchen not in american people unwarranted unit. >> probably not only one kitchen on the property. >> only one. >> well, there's two one upstairs and one downstairs in mike film will have all the reported we would had that once i directed the property owner

what to do i give that back to the records people. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> sure. >> any public comment on that item? okay seeing no public comment oh, there is oh, please step forward. >> commissioners good evening mar gallagher i don't come with a precipitation off the top of my head the issue of the illegal merger came up in another case i had in december i did one of the last legal mergers the commission i was concerned it was that moment the mayor come out with a representation of looking at the reenforcement of unit mr. sanchez says the current the

mandatory discretionary review so a remove of an illegal requires the discretionary review that's the rule i think in march or april maybe as late as may the initial rule was any removal so there was a period of time the city felt it was the removal of any illegal unit and for 3 unit and more can it beleaguer listed is there a way to do that so those rules their continually under fluctuation right now there's obviously some serious problems with evictions in this city i hope you'll taking a look at. >> mar it's a matter of fact that units and above. >> mr. sanchez can verify if

you have 3 unit or more and removing a one time it's a matter of discretionary review there's a period in of which my illegal unit be having to go to the planning commission beyond how that got changed the rules are under fluctuation. >> okay. thank you mr. sanchez can explain that and perhaps you may want to explain to the commissions about the d u m policy before. >> first in terms of the meowing issues requires a process there are several paths forward if i remove a unit your subject to the planning commission have an appraisal but it is complicated over the past year in regards to the executive director but in terms of the executive directive one of the

requirements so radiating create a working group that happened in january or february that working group issued a policy there was a very brief period of time we were interpreting the mayors derivative that any illegal unit were under the policy and one of the issues that came about we had projects that had two illegal unit and a third illegal unit when your drying trying to legalize that building it's different classification which could sprirlgz 36s come forward it was meant to apply to building with 3 or more illegal unit so those units would not result in a different occupancy category there was a brief

period of time but we never prod my cases. >> sorry to interrupt you mrapz but on the 3 units is there a thought of changing that but 3 at this point. >> that's how we've been applying it for the last 6 months or seven months again, it was a brief period of time we were telling people oh, we'll take to the placing plain clothes but it raised issues how to legalize a unit and if the senior building inspector mr. duffy can explain that. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> so we had public comment is there any further public comment step forward. >> good evening. i'm here i worked at a social worker

including in the housing partnership i like the council to take into account the fact we have a large number of evictions in the city i'm sure you're aware of that is one of the most of the expensive cities to live in i hope you take the information and include it. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, then commissioners the matters submitt submitted. >> this is a jurisdiction request i'm curious we met. >> the appellant requesting jurisdiction may no discretion about whether the departments record erred they talked about

whether there should have been notice or not i'm sympathetic to the tenant for 31 years that's his home but sympathetic to the young come up trying to create their own home i would probably not support granting jurisdiction neither would i. >> on you. >> pits apparent the departments did the appropriate action and in doing so no notice was required and that - >> i'm tossed in the middle this is a gray area it's not a home but he lived there 31 years

i understand that the couple that purchased their home for the people that were on that transaction i'm kind of tossed here i know that i don't have much to do with arguing with my commissioners although i'll do so. >> if no comments i'll make the motion to deny requests. >> mr. pacheco a. >> on motion to deny the reading esquires requests commissioner president lazarus 1k3408d and commissioners wilson the jurisdiction is denied and no appeal shall be filed. >> one more item we'll take the item before breaking and

entering a rehearing request on 284 union street they received a letter from the appellants in questioning go the hearing decided on september 10, 2014, at this point, a vote had to zero with one vacancy to uphold it was vested by all replacement city departments to replace existing roof decking and to ply with a complaint number and i understand that our new commissioner wilson has reviewed the video and file of the previous hearing so your praeptd to participate; is that correct? >> yes. >> okay excellent so you have 3 minutes. >> good evening. i'm john

first appellants have preempted new and material information by a professional survey that conforms the excessive building height and the respondents east building wall impostures over the appellants property by 3 inches this is the par put the planning department has never vested the issue this is in conflict the height method doing of the survey has conformed by planning and second the commissioners will recall that chief building inspector rearing done submitted a certificate covering the respondents building at the september 10th meeting applying that was built in pursuant to planned and in

response to commissioner fung's there is no part of the baton rouge this not compliant it has a stairway on page one and the stairway leading to the roof from the unit below is on page 2 we asked mr. duffy and mr. rearing depends on absent to identify where in the 23 page original 28084 plans open file at the department of building inspection those items appear as well as the building they areability built on one hand without the permit and specifically on the original building plans is the warning that the permit is not valid outside the property lines yet this is the case appellant were not given an opportunity to respond to mr. rearing depends

on comments i want to put so something on the overhead. >> this this this is the penthouse it is completely unpermitted and not appears anywhere in the plans this condemn new didn't appear in my of the plans those chimneys don't appear this roof is two feet over the height limit and the proposed par pit will be future an infractions well, the building and planning department's have done their best to cover it up we need

truthfully answers starting with mr. duffy i respectfully request a rehearing to the true facts mike maybe here. >> we'll hear from the permit holder. >> thank you. i'm clinton phenomenon joy one of the 3 owners of the 280 union street condo association i want to thank you for taking the time to lints to us clearly the owners the condo association are disappoint that the start of our construction has been stopped we hostile in the previous hearing that the board decided from the historic premise committee and the board of appeals that the position by the appellant are ground also and not legal for the replacement morph we thought the closing comments by

commissioner hurtado regarding the excessive use of the city resources and 7, 8, 9 would have been concluded this case ones and for i'll third-world we thought that commissioner fung having asked did dbi to confirm the replacement defense counsel and our par pit wall followed the plan would have been stuff sufficient to begin construction but here we are again, today regarding a request for a rehearing and we urge the board at this point to deny the appellants the request for a rehearing because the request itself didn't meet the standard for a rehearing there's no new material or circumstances supporting this rather the appellant continues to present issues that have already been

discuses and dismissed as eir relevant or not saying to the scope of the work which is precisely the replacement of a permit deck and a par fit wall i'm here to answer questions i deem are important i'd like to say on behalf of the owners of the building you'll grant us finally the permit so we can begin construction and enjoy our deck thank you. >> okay mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning staff i'll be brief the hearing requester the appellant stated the new information they're providing is the survey dated july 8, 2014, this was held on september 10th of 2014

so there's no reason why they couldn't have present this as the last hearing the the penthouse is not appearing on plans but as part of the permit holder from the roof-deck their indeed to have the penalty houses so again, because as noted there's expensive work by all agencies to review this matter and it's been thoroughly vested i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> yes. commissioners i'm in agreement with mr. sanchez and there's i'm sure you're aware of this we talked about last time the number of hours the dbi helped to pit in and the planning staff and i'm sure

while we're eye to dealing what one inch or a few inches over this will i expect the roof-deck in my opinion was permitted with the building of the building there was permits issued and it existed for many, many years over 20 years i believe that they want to rebuild their roof-deck i've been subjected to the miss allegations by those people and rearidoreardon. >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted.

>> well, i start. >> start and finish it. >> since my fellow commissioner commissioner hurtado is not here she closed that at the last hearing i wish in those cases to be honest that the person who files again and again and again would be accountable financially i apologizes to the permit holder you have to endure this and i pretty much you know where i'm going to vote on this one. >> if you want to make a motion. >> one statement for the record there's been new information it's not pertinent to the in kind permit. >> deny the request that the departments is not here. >> no. there's you don't need

to say the basis but no material. >> no new material fact it causes us to have a rehearing. >> on that motion from commissioner honda to deny the request commissioner fung vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson the vote is 4 to zero the hearing request is denied and a notice break. >> 2k7 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we're on item 10 michael vs. the department of building inspection property is at 2047 polk street for the 2014 to gathering young of a plumbing permit remove the cap off a gas pipe and it those

furnace consideration to allow the deniable to conclude it's analysis of the dwnl dwelling status i understand that commissioner wilson has reviewed the file. >> yes. i have. >> mr. duffy with the research and hear what he has to say power points content 20 men's. >> commissioners there was some evidence that we have a cf c the building was fy in ground floor with a retail residential above and dbi had notes they were seeing it as two unit i went back to dbi and presented the cf

c it the housing intersection services the complaint that housing inspector had been hey challenged his notes overhead - - a little bit on the bottom just to - >> and mr. pacheco if you can try to address the flickering problem. >> so if you can read the that better. >> not open ear our screen. >> august 18th from the housing inspector grady states he got the records this present use of

a single-family dwelling previous enterprise was incorrect that matches what i was saying rarpdz to the sift of completion on the overhead now and this was a certificate dated 1995 the second floor with the single-family dwelling over the first floor commercial the other issue this work was on a plumbing permit and i went back to dbi and spoke to other people there and i spoke to the chief plumbing inspector who was in agreement with me this type of work will require a building permit to show the removal of the stove or sink we'll want a

building permit with that i'm available for questions. >> okay. thank you hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, members of the board i'm dave krou crow i'm the attorney for the appellant. >> no, from the permit holder next and sorry. >> good evening, commissioners sam for gary young the permit holder i don't have a lot to add other than what mr. duffy said it was conformed legal configuration for this permit was one commercial floor below and one residential floor we have here an illegal unit built prior to my client buying the property

the disagreement is why the planning department would require anything other than the department we've required and, in fact, why require a permit at all our position being if we roach the tenant from the premises and never rented again we've complied one probation officer one provision we've demolished or audits permanently removed the remedy that's our good faith intent the mechanism is provided in the rent ordinance that says in the event that a landlord performs a illegal eviction we're not going to take it out of the rental use in the circumstances it's proven we've

performed a wrongful eviction under the triple penalties under the ordinance the enforcement metabolism for that situation is a private enforcement mechanism this unit is in a unit that will fall under the new sections of the planning code as mr. sanchez pointed out but the legalization of a illegal unit the trig the discretionary review you have 3 residential units on the property we don't have i respectfully request the board run state the permit i'm available for questions if you're offering. >> okay. thank you mr. crow. >> sorry i'm a bit anxious good

evening members of the board building code section 106 a .1.12 states wherever a change in occupancy or use is made a building permit shall be required to legalize the changed use or occupancy and this is been confirmed by the planning department and the building inspection law doesn't provide for some sort of different process because the unit is quote/unquote illegal a building permit is required to change the use which is exactly what the permit holler holder is doing when he plans to remove the unit from housing use and evict my client navigate h