but right thing to do is a set of drawings is required because we have someone that's not happy about it that's where i come from. >> it's confusing if you look at the appellants brief they show a plan on the bam my first impression they were looking at some minor alterations of the bathroom by it became clear they were moving that raised platform. >> so there's stairs going up to it, it's 20 inches it is a little bit of work you know, i commend him for trying to. it's a good idea definitely a good idea but had you have someone urging that space for another unit i've not seen that personally but old buildings have a lot of old you know

unusual situations and yeah. >> so the existence of that condition wouldn't necessarily defer you from permitting the lore of the floor? >> no, it wouldn't do that arrest. >> for the public to your immediate left in a new permit were filed she'll have the opportunity if work is done on her unit. >> that permit is appealable but including but not limited to that permit should describe removing the floor area and unit number ten and the plans would show what that floor area accommodated being a bed underneath that that will have to be shown on the set of plans. >> commissioner honda's point the kitchen being remodels is

adjacent to unit 11 there was some fear that might have been met some alterations to her particular unit. >> but what it is a common wall. >> it's typical again, the gentleman that owns the building he bought the building and he a has 11 units we all know that the steps in a bathroom and wet floors how to go about to accommodate the tenants in the building is another story that's the issue here it's probably a good idea he's got 11 of them to do i think i don't know in every unit has that condition. >> yeah. i looked at the permits that's the same description so - thank you.

>> thank you. the matter is submitted. >> commissioners you know the building inspection has indicated it's difficult to ascertain the scope of work i'm going to require them to submit the drawings indicating of the scope of work, however, i'm going to indicate to the appellant courts that once that permit is or those drawings are issued i do know think that's also a rent board issue and not something i'm going to table with her. >> i agree with you commissioner fung. >> also the building owners i understand what with the tenants situation in san francisco it's rarely you get the opportunity to correct your units but in this case the kraurgz are required because it adversely

facts an joining unit. >> would your motion be to continue. >> i'll move to continue this to submit drawings and deal with the revised drawings and the decision to consolidate the matter. >> is it just drawings and no additional briefing i'll recommend that you look at january date january 21st would be the best first state for the board. >> is that acceptable to both parties? >> january 21st. >> 28. >> so the unit became vacant only sexual 15 so if we don't have a meeting until the middle

of january it could be several more months we have a mortgage open the property so we'll potentially are a have a hardship of rent between july 15th and, you know who knows when march or april i don't know what will happen at the january hearing i definitely don't have a problem with a restrictioe revision but wait until january to be acceptable if we can't do work on the united the work will have to stop and it puts us in a precursor position not receiving rent for that unit you know for over 8 months. >> any other option madam

director. >> only next week i don't know if the drawings can be submitted by close of business tomorrow when they need to be available to be provided to the board members. >> i mean, i'll do what i can i mean if thank you, do that surely get drawings if i have to pull a permit. >> the board is not asking you to pull a permit but the drawings. >> that's no problem. >> to arrive at a settlement is another thing before you come back. >> a settlement with unit 9. >> i'll support that i think he have an issue of the permit and the drawings and mr. duffy i want that to come back. >> eastern wouldn't unit 9 needed to be able to look at the

drairgz. >> i'm sorry the drawings will be provide to all the parties in addition to the boards you'll need to rise the copies. >> 11 copies of the drawings to the board of appeals and then delivered two copies to the co-appellants. >> right. >> okay. >> fine that's fine it's just it could have been handled but i accept what you're saying so we should if the next wednesday the 12 is available for the appellant? the appellants >> i need and ms. miller. >> at the same time? >> i'm sorry you have to come and speak to the microphone. >> so the subject dental surgery scheduled on that day i'm not sure i'll be able to talk after that i don't know how

it about affect my mouth will i be allowed next week to speak to an opportunity to be heard or only about the drawings? at that time, it's up to the board whether they wanted to entertain additional testimony or looked at the drawings >> it's my intent to close the hearing but they should be able to speak for the new information on the drawings only. >> well, the plans were supported to be there too years years when the same exact work and ma'am, you can submit in writing. >> you have the drawings sufficiently ahead to prepare comments or have someone to deliver them. >> does this mean it issues are

closed and the only issue is the drawings? >> it's the only thing we'll review in terms of the public comments and the board will make the decision. >> we'll request the reasons? or would that be addressed next week? >> not quite sure i understand. >> the final decision we'll ask for the reasons. >> it's up to the commissioners whether they want to elaborate. >> so we can't make the esquire the due process. >> when the board makes the decision they'll state their decision in the final board acts. >> okay. all right. thank you and okay. so the motion then commissioner fung to schedule this to next week.

>> yes. >> that's so that the permit holder may submit drawings. >> okay. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to continue this matter to november 12th one week the public hearing has been held and this is to allow the permit holder to submit plans pursuant to the board. >> on that motion the vice president is absent public utilities commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda arrest councilmember sharp commissioner wilson is absent the vote is 3 to zero it's continued until november 12th and the permit holders revised drawings are due tomorrow by 4:00 p.m. >> i think we're going to take a short break.

>> week to the san francisco board of appeals i see the appellant for the next case our attorney is not not room do we need to - okay. are the representation for the permit holders here i'm calling item 7 abc 14101 and 4 on filbert street maria vs. the department of building inspection with the planning approval protesting the, llc of an alteration permit to remove the illegal unit for a single-family home to connect orgs with a staircase with, llc of an alteration permit for kitchen remolds in the units one

thousand with no structural work and locking the issuance of 2014 on, llc of a plumbing for a forced air furtherance we'll start with the appellants attorney you have 21 minutes if you need to use them. >> i'll try to be faster on exhibit i filed a brief in june 26th or 2014 the appeal that relates to the building permit essentially merged or removed an illegal unit first one i want to talk about my client maria is here today and long time resident of north beach lives at the property a

senior citizen with ore husband and her mother 91 who lived through more 41 years they've lived in the ground floor float flat in question are identical to each other maybe a little bit of a room upstairs perhaps when you enter there's two doorways for 40 years operated as a flat and basement at below level as you can see the current owner purchased f it a year ago in august attached is exhibit a when they purchased it the number of unions was listed 5,

two bedroom units buildings in the lower right part of the picture has 5 units and a small space in between with the two buildings and one with two flats those buildings are quite clear built at the same time and in the disclosures it gives the construction. >> 1912 i checked with the taxing authority the only record of how many units was 7 units at the property and they used they didn't have any original card on this property only those recent information from the sale of the property the advertising

there is the permit itself if you look at that this is exhibit b shows the address as being i've circled the filbert street two flats 1020 and 1022 gilbert street my client lives in the 1020 flats there's an address ever since it's enacceptance but if 1989 there was of is a permit for a single story building with a metal roof conceived as is an earthquake shack a building on

the side of the building called a.d. ridge alley it is reflected in records which show that was throw the upper left side of where the two plat buildings see and since removed between 1989 and 13 that alley disappointed and split between the two lots and the one my clients property got half of the alley and the other half is underneath the flat this further supports this property was not built until 1912 at the same time the flats were built no permit for the property that was every that i would an indication also that on the permit it says that there

are one dwelling unit across the first and second one and it also says it's to remove anlogically unit and convert it back to a single-family home how, however, there never was a permit for the construction as exhibit c identify attached a 60 day notice of item in addition the property is see listed as 10 dash 20 filbert street to permanently remove the existing unit in order to transform the unit back to into a single-family home but the evidence indicates that was never originally built as a

single-family home board may recall the last time we were able to speak before you the permit holders attorney represented this was anlogically basement unit but is it so not a basement you are talking about but a full flat we've xhieftd invited the deniable to look at it and i personally went 80 out to look i was convinced by decisions from the permit holders attorney it was a beerment unit but a meager unit to be ups right on top of each other they're the same identical units the unit upstairs was guided in my opinion that was a demolished unit and saying we can have one illegal unit here they had one that wasn't the

thrust of why this property was sought to be to get this permit issued the permit was issued over the counter it was an over the counter and there was no basement for example another issues in 1912 conceived 12 separate units that was the water spring valley water records indicated that was there was 7 families there and they gave the address as one thousand through 8 filbert and another filbert address you can see on the bottom it is signed july 18, 2012, by someone named maxwell when was one of the owners

style of the construction indicates that if you recall to look at the property you'll see there's two full entrances to the property and the misleading part by the permit holders not only to the department of building inspection but also to anyone they remove the sense taking ownership removed my clients street number and took a lot of work to get it back and the doorbell in order to present it as a single property since we were here last and worked on the property was suspended the owner continued to do construction in the upstairs unit a full

electrical panel and plumbing work completely wails knocked down and gutting of that unit without permits then they've refused to allow inspections from the department of building inspection and continued to do construction work around my client they completely they've done the same thing there were 7 separate electrical and water meters that were at the units and there in both buildings they've done work to put in a completely new gas and plumbing service without pulling permits they brought in workers that stayed and worked in the evenings and stayed at the property oath they've successfully gotten people out of the building except the lady

and her mother and husband they are i tan and she is bilingual she speaks i tan and english they're part of the fabric of san francisco and north beach and also they're all senior citizens this is really for a 91-year-old woman this is a has been a incredibly stressful and without permits and supervision it is not only distress full over the years but it is also potentially dangerous the only other thing i'd like to say is

that the other, you know, the work that the other two permits were related to plumbing and electrical work and that plumbing and electrical work after they were here they pulled the permit and changed the numbers and manipulation is sometimes they mix unit from one building to another building with and what they did was pulled the permit what they were told to stop doing they've haven't loud the department of building inspection to do any inspectors so at this point we ask the permit to be revoked no permit to support of the existing building so the report be corrected to reflect percentage there's no existing drawings or permit issued in

1912 for the 2 unit building there was for the 5 unit building i have more time if anyone massachusetts has questions. >> you didn't submit that water meter application as part of our brief do you. >> i didn't because i didn't have it at that time, i have a whole pact for the board to distribute i was told when we got it several months ago we were told it was too late to provide it i was trying to find out you all i could find from the public you know in the records of dbi i was able to find myself was that since the 70s this building the only record of permits being pulled beginning in the 70s their reflecting a two flat two family building

taxing records reflected 7 units it on the block number that includes two at this place so there is no drairgz the existing property the two unit building and i'm trying to that what else i had. >> okay. you've answered my question. >> i had some things about the alley too. >> i'll accept the additional information on the part of the application do you have copies of that. >> i do and i'll just - i think i have. >> is there a copy. >> there's another one i think i have enough for everybody. >> is there anything else.

>> actually, i have a whole packet of information that we got that related to the issues of i know the various but if you just want the water one. >> at this point that's fine. >> yes. ? the water one how many more? i have more yeah. i have - and i got a couple of more. >> i need to make sure you give one to the lady and the department. >> and to - mr. duffy

i was assisted in getting the reported by this gentleman who i think he showed them to me he can probably address some additional ones that look over the years he can explain that better than i aha 8 minutes left you want to concede our time.

>> he's not a paid person. >> i was looking at the records all i could see was a single story building that had been permitted with a metal roof and then in 1912 so the building looks at nothing like the permit showed then i have a copy of - i think i have a copy of that as well but that is - that's not what is there the original you know what i said if my clients unit is the only unit that is currently occupied and the other unit is gutted she can stay there with a empty actinic the

appellant has said it is illegal she's rented out the upper unit and preceded to try to evict my client on other grounds and the relocation fees they paid were withdrawn it's clearly not a it was never a single-family home when you look at it everything is original the two separate entrance the ceilings are full height and the windows are a historical property it is special please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, tomb windows did architecture is the same for the two buildings i payroll sir, you pointed out there wasn't a permit for the construction and there isn't so the building itself isn't technically a permit building probably in 1912

after the earthquake they were happy to get the construction up and it's a well constructed building so that's basically all i have. >> thank you permit holder we can hear from you now monopoly i go next. >> i don't really know why we're here on july 15th my client conceded since the records are so unclear even though we have evidence it's a single-family home that's not the forum here she withdraw the permit and scald the permit open july 15th why are we here we have no idea this is akin to ms. conway trying to win a trial anna