happen the trustee is going to accepting sell this property at the lower value and whoever buys that can do on a eviction by spreading out into the unites so the whole idea of this timely thing in the name of affordable housing in san francisco we have to save this particular unit and save this tenant from displacement will not happen it will the property will be evaluated lower and the kaufks will the transferred to the buyer i don't think that is something that mr. dennis or whatever his name is if you vote against the recommendation of mr. smith you'll vote against affordable housing that's how it

turned out they should have followed mr. smith recommendations. >> mr. sanchez my understanding at first there was one motion to continue that failed two to four vote and then the motion to take discretionary review and that was a 5 to one vote in support of the motion whether supervisors commissioner hillis and commissioner richards. >> one question were you present at this particular. >> no, not at this particular hearing and again, we're representing the decisions of planning commission this is acknowledged as an unfortunate

situation we're in this preempt but the permit holder neatest to have they're due process rights replaced as well, so to add to the situation they'll refile the application we'll disagree and they'll bring it before the whole board to have a decision i'm available for - >> it's not quite due process they need a majority. >> so had this the b b m been done the commission would have taken an action on the pretty we would have denied it. >> we shove done it but the fact it wasn't done right now the permit is approved therefore

confirms of that permit requires two votes. >> and the permit that's the problem. >> that's been. >> there's another problem i'd like to say to raise with the zoning administrator suggestion what upstairs to the one year bar because the only way to get around that if there's a changed circumstance and i haven't heard it articulated. >> to the only been changed with we made a decision that included that as part of the one year bar. >> i think the change, in fact, the item is not properly before the board the permit was issued in error await proper

notification and full and fairway before the commission. >> there's some truth to that the question is whether i accept it at the moment. >> i've got a question this may be for the building department is it an illegal structure at this point? >> it seems to be. >> so if it's anlogically structure you shouldn't the whole structure be taken down it's more than 10 by 10 and have its own foundation and- >> that's an excellent point it didn't appear that on the sand borne to insure the permit but it seems like is it so not a legal structure it was built

without benefit of the rear yard if they remove the kitchen they would still need a variance to legalize the unite. >> if it's illegal. >> before we turn it over to the gentleman if this the records and i'm accepting it as a fact the records show this was there before 1954 your set back codes were not no place yet it's not illegal at this point to have a building on the rear property line. >> you if they have a permit to establish it prior to 1954. >> there's no permit. >> i can't say with certainty the issue there's a sand born map no structure there it leads me to building there's no permit to have a structure in that

location. >> okay. >> mr. bryant. >> just to continue the conversation going on before the important thing the condition that was needing to be change was the condition that prevented the permit that's where the commissioner is referring to if the three permit were denial here for are reason those conditions that justified the denial of the permit is a condition that will is have allow them to apply again. >> good point. >> that's a concern if the trustees are looking for value most people try to combine and

put the secondly, units on the next map. >> if you're pulling this off the stove and the bathroom out then you have to address the building is an illegal this and this structure should be removed and that's american people excellent point. >> or legalized; right? >> why the argument was you're taking away vail instead of adding value whatever they want to do. >> hi commissioners, i was listening there was discussion will an inspector going out there and tea the documents of the careers records will lead me to building their trying to do -

we ask them to present united states with the water department sand born maps all we look at the building history and try to decide what's on the property i don't know if it didn't work for them this is something we'll do we had one appealed. >> the woman in the audience. >> i'm sorry you can't speak from the back of the room. >> the process is the whole process of all records from different cities and starting with the water department you've heard earlier the spring valley company has good records. >> i actually have that. >> you might want to speak. >> i'd be more comfortable if mr. duffy looked at it first. >> she actually accepted it and

pulled the water department we didn't what was asked us inform do you actually have them we sent them back on the first time and the discretionary review they're in the packet. >> what. >> we have them here. >> we didn't accept it. >> here's the water department one. >> i have a hero. >> let me speak. >> i'm sorry. >> can you give a copy to the attorney. >> we explicit do a full blown process but based on what i hear if it's not on the sand born the water department board has one family whatever that is about it is calling it one family

there's needs to be a bit more to call it whether he will to answer our question we'll leave it at a two family dwl and they can remove the structure based on the age if it's been there forever i know that a lot of people try to get the non-conforming legalized. >> would it have to be a separate units or structure it on the property. >> that's a planning department consideration. >> because the 10 by 10 with no foundation and no water and electricity; right? >> is this what we have. >> it's larger. >> and it looks like it has its own foundation. >> is it a known. >> it's a two family dwelling.

>> it says two family. >> yes. >> well, if people disagree they can come down and present us with documentation there is no one forefront and rear building. >> she has something else. >> mr. sanchez i want to follow up if the building in the back is not legal then simply removing the kitchen doesn't solve the violation they'll need a certificate of variance for an accessory residential space or demolish the structure intriefrl i mean, if they pursue legalization the process for legalization waves the rear yard

requirements it maybe easier to legalize the unit than to remove the kitchen if they remove the kitchen the building will have to be demolished so they probably time to think about it. >> except for one thing whether the analysis and research was done to prove construction you know beyond a point where you know some records were destroyed we've having had lots of incidents where they couldn't necessarily show a building permit by found other types documents that was built if whatever it was. >> and sand born maps show a building in print this is on a argument that the permit

structure that you know - >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> are we finished? >> well, i - no everybody is finished thank you not finished but that's it on the timing. >> let me go through what i think it a process that may may not be acceptable to all parties (laughter). >> whatever. >> is one i'm pushing to find a

point of resolution and wherewithal we be the issuance whether the planning department would prefer a cleaner and more transparent procedure whereby the decision somehow relates to a either a revocation or a basis of the dr hearing becomes the crux of what is being appealed and for me if i was to look at that i think the decision making becomes the same whether that or whether in reviewing this particular permit i don't think it's you different in terms of the principle issues

behind that and for me that's that i think the records at least as demonstrated to me appraise for two unions in the front flat and therefore i'm prepared to support the approval of that permit meaning i would have voted to accept on appeal of either a revocation or a discretionary review decision on this particular case. >> so - can you explain that angle - >> i don't think we should put everybody through more of a process but go forward. >> you're saying to uphold the

permit. >> i'll vote to uphold the permit. >> i'm on the opposite side of the fence i think there are 3 structures on that property and if i uphold the permit and remove the kitchen and the stove you still have to deal with the fact where did this building come from if it's not an illegal building so you don't get your cake and eat it, too a decision has to be made what happens to the building and i actually like the zoning administrators suggestion this is really a cluster bomb because it just doesn't the b b m should be the stopgap and now

we're dealing with the after math of that failed process. >> you'll grant the appeal we're not going to be able to do that. >> what is your opinion madam president. >> i think i'm leaning towards the way you want to approach it. >> we don't have a decision for tonight. >> commissioners, if you want to continue this we can continue it to a time when there is a sufficient number of commissione commissioners. >> i think that's fine i'll have another suggestion in that case the department should ask for revocation and we'll combine it. >> i'm typically when an permits

is before this board all other departmental actions stop they'll not have - >> they can't do anything at this point. >> okay. >> then we'll have to waits. >> so we go to december 10th to be certain. >> i would think we need to either be before us 5 person body which will be in january or 4 person body with a vacant that may or may not happen so january is safer. >> 14. >> again, you certainly can do that my concern is that calendar is quite full. >> the 31st. >> between the 14th and 21st.

>> so many tonight with those days. >> the 14 one is 5 and one of and another 3 cases that are combined that are probably moving to the 14 from last week's cancelation that's also - yep. >> move to continue the matter to the - yes. >> mr. sanchez just a suggestion i appreciate the comments about wanting to prevent an initial process but suggest something claimed if we allow a briefing for the next hearing if we have a full board at the next hearing and it is

clear there's 4 votes that would be in a position to do as commissioner fung was saying of you know denying the commissions action then i think that would help me in future actions in whether or not we'll tomato do a revocation process and it will help if there's additional information of legal outlet of the rear yard and getting discretionary review memo before you so maybe allowing there's allowing a few new briefing schedule we can you know try to brief as best we can with all the issues and taking into consideration. >> okay. that makes sense. >> all parties are allowed to provide further brief. >> up to the normal.

>> you want to limit it. >> well-set a page limit and as many pages of exhibits to submit. >> they'll be able to do 5 pages. >> and the same briefing schedule as usual okay. >> was that your motion commissioner fung. >> i think it's at presidents motion. >> my motion or yours? (laughter) >> the president's motion to continue this matter until january 21st, 2015, this is to allow the two missing commissioners to participate in the final vote. >> i'm sorry did you say the 21st or 28th. >> again to continue to

january 28th to allow the two missing commissioners to participate in the final vote it was reset as a lower page 5 pages instead of the normal 12 and everything else remains the same and the zoning praelt holders to do one commissioner fung vice president the absence. >> commissioner honda and commissioner wilson is absent the vote is 3 to zero the matter is continued to january 28th. >> councilmember davis there's no other business before the board we are