best if the board were to deny the permit and we can go through that proper process and as we saw in the case last week with cesar chavez, it's something we need to be cautious and we're trying our best to implement these appropriately. i will note that -- and in the case of cesar chavezfinger we recommended approval to the planning commission, recognizing it was an illegal unit, it wasn't subject to the regular directive, in that case, the planning commission did not align themselves with staff's recommendation and voted to deny the permit and i don't want to talk too much about this case, it's not on the calendar but will be back before you and i want to avoid the same scenario apologies for the lateness of this information but if during the rebuttal, the appellant can indicate whether they would have any indication of taking

the discretionary review, i think that would help us inform the board. >> there's no long gap in time like the last one? >> that is correct. >> and a lot of process in between. >> yes, and just for the board's kind of informationfinger we do have another case that's similar with a bbn that was not properly noticed and it's our intention to avoid that additional process of the planning commission hearings when their outcome cannot be fully guaranteed, we're looking at other alternatives. >> by the way, is a new computer system going the take care of those things? >> well, this was as under the new computer system, but it's -- it's simply was a backlog between it being on staff's desk and getting a computer up in two days. >> i have a question which i'm not sure is your purview, does rent control apply to illegal units? >> it's my understanding that

the answer is yes, so there are conferencing we've had with the rent board it applies to units regardless of their legality. it's my understanding, but i do not know, you know, i'm not a representative of the rent board that's my understanding. >> no, i understand. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioner, joe duffy dbi, the building permit under appeal was filed on november 12th, 2014 and through intake at dbi, i was routed to the planning department, approved by the current planning on the 12th of november the following went through building plan check on the 13th of november mechanical plan check and got issued on the 13th of november it's a form 8 over the current

permit to remove illegal kitchen and bedroom on third bedroom, convert to rom pus room and storage. there are no active complaints on the property so it was not to comply with the notice of violation, i think you heard that earlier. but it looks like it was properly approved by dbi for what we do in these cases someone came in said they had an illegal kitchen, showed that on the plans and it was reflected as a single family dwelling on the permit, so the department approved the permit. i'm available for any questions. >> mr. duffy did you check the 3r on this? >> the only thing i did was i checked the city of cesar's property profile and that's showing a single family dwelling it says one storey, and 1215 square feet, but i do

not have the 3r, no. >> i have a question for you, if the owners are voluntarily saying there's an illegal unit, will a notice of violation occur? then secondly if a notice of violation occurs, would that be penalty just on the removal or actually for the cost of the installation of the unit done? >> sorry. >> it's okay. in answer to your first question, -- >> first question was, so since the owners have voluntarily said they have a non-permitted space down, will a notice of violation since they've publicly admitted it, be that take place? >> no there won't be -- there wouldn't be a notice of violation issued at this point because they have voluntarily come in to the department, so we wouldn't give them a notice of violation for something they have come in voluntary to remove and we typically don't

do that with any nonconforming condition, if someone comes in whether it's a fence or a deck or whatever we're not going to cite them for something after the fact. the penalty if there was a notice of violation would be on the value of the work performed without a permit in the building inspector's opinion. that could be whatever the building inspector estimates that, that would be a nine times penalty. >> we have case after case that are similar to this. if a tenant just for information purposes were to file a complaint, then at which point would a notice of violation be issued at that point even though the owners are trying to comply, if the tenant files a complaint, is there a notice of violation issued at that time? >> if there's no permit in place to remove it, we would investigate it as any complaint, but if there's a permit to remove it, we would do it. >> is there public comment on

this item? public comment? seeing none, okay, we'll take rebuttal then, starting with the appellant, three minutes. >> very quickly, i would respond to mr. bornstein's suggestion that there are other avenues to stop this eviction. fighting an aun lawful detainee in court is not feasible for my client, the only way to ensure that this e v*ition doesn't map is to not issue the permit. and then regarding the block of the bbn block notice, i did file for a black book notice, i wasn't sure why it didn't go through right away and the pert were issued and i thought it was too late to use that black book noticed because i thought i missed it by a day, so we would like to -- we would like to take advantage of the fact that was filed and was filed

before the permits were applied for and if that allows mr. mccabe to stay until this discretionary review, that would be valuable to him. >> thank you. mr. bornstein? >> mr. merchant had notification that we were going to be seeking permits as early as october 15 2014, at least three to four weeks before we pulled the permits while the city obviously has acknowledged there was an administrative error i find it in some respects surprising that mr. merchant would claim now in retrospect that he would be seeking a discretionary review. he could have done so at any point in time. most importantly the emphasis i want to sort of finalize is

my client is simply trying to legalize a space. my client understands it does come with a trance advising pi client has complied with both the san francisco rent control rules lintels the relocation payment obligations and after we served the termination notice, we provided the first relocation payment, and then mr. merchant informed me in writing that his client was entitled to a second relocation paim. we provided that second relocation payment under the understanding that mr. mccabe would be using the relocation payment for what it's intended purpose was which was relocation from the unit, and so in some respects we're trying to comply with both our obligations to mr. mccabe and simultaneously place a property in its proper status and we think that this is a worth while endeavor and we think the

permits should be upheld. thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, so i heard the appellant say they would like to avail themselves of the sdetion nair review process, they weren't given notice, so they didn't have the opportunity to file the discretionary review. it sound like they husbanding they missed the opportunity but based on our records, you know, they should have gotten notice under our procedures, so i'm available for questions. >> so, could you clarify that again for me, mr. sanchez? >> given that we would request that the board deny the permit to require reapplication of this to go through the proper bbn notice procedure which would give the appellant the ability to bring this as a discretionary review to the planning commission.

>> thank you. >> thanks. >> mr. duffy, anything further? no? commissioners, the matter is submitted then. >> there's definitely a process issue the question is -- there is no question. >> yeah. >> contrary to what occurred in the previous instance, which was in my opinion changed because of a lot of process that occurred in between and a lot of time, and in this instance i would rather we get it right the first time. i think that the -- having a bbn, you know, the process

allows the person would applied for it to get notice and have an opportunity to do due process and i don't think they had an opportunity here. . er i agree may i make a motion to accept the appeal, deny the permit on the grounds that the department e r-red in discretion. where were you that day? >> it's a de nova review, you could say because they failed to follow their procedures. >> okay. >> or that it was -- >> planning failed to follow its procedures. [laughter]. >> okay, that's fine. >> now, there are three permits here, one is a building permit, one is an electrical and a plumbing do you wish to revoke

all three? >> i think all three because -- yeah. >> okay. >> commissioner, just so you know, one of the three requires the bbn, the other two aren't required to go through planning. >> but i think if we send one back and approve the other two, that is not kind of nonproductive, so deny all three? >> yes, it is. >> we should condition it so that they can file for that permit without waiving the statutory one year. >> i think under the code they would be allow today refile because the condition that caused the denial would be removed. so it's changed circumstance. >> okay. >> -- so, the motion stands then? >> the motion is to deny -- >> to grant the appeal and deny all three permits?

>> yeah. >> >> again we have a motion on the floor from the vice-president to deny all three permits with a finding na the planning department failed to follow its procedures. on that motion to deny all three permits, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson is absent. the vote is 3-o, because of the vacancy on the board these permits are denied, they are revoked with that finding. thank you. >> okay, we'll maouf on them then, the next item, item 10, appeal number 14-20hu graham bell versus department of

building inspection, 2256-306th avenue, protesting the issuance of november 21 2014 to jerry chu, of an alteration permit. we will hear from the appellant's agent. >> how many minutes do we have total because i believe mr. bell wants to make remarks directly. >> you have 7 minutes to present your case and three minutes of rebuttal later. >> this case is factually close i aom a non-attorney assisting mr. bell in this alter this is a case that's very factually similar to the case we just heard about. we are talking about a landlord mr. chu who purchased the subject property at 2256 street in 2004, shortly after acquiring the property he obtained a permit to install

two bedrooms, two baths, a play room and a storage area. let me just make sure i'm correct here, and a laundry area as well on the ground floor of the building at the time he purchased it it was a split level one family home. he installed these rooms as permitted in around spring, 2004, he subsequently rented out the two units for over a decade, in fact, telling mr. bell that the units were legal falsely making this represent ostentation and knowingly doing so while renting to mr. bell. come around ten years later, mr. bell moves in this is in october, 2013, mr. bell again

is under the impression that he's in an illegal unit, they's start tog notice defective conditions in the subject unit including but not limited to conditions leading him to be exposed to carbon monoxide he addresses the landlord in writing and several letters from early 2014 up until present, and suddenly in around september 12th, 2014, he is informed by an "informal" notice that the property owner would like to move not h*ips into the premises but his family members and he's made an

offer by the landlord's then attorney who is currently not on the case anymore, he's made an offer to discuss vacating if he's open to it. let me back up for a minute and fes fi there are again two rental units at the bottom of the building. there are two separate individual tenancies that are appurtenant to that space so mr. bell is in one unit x in the other unit, we have mr. rees jenkins who has never received any notice of eviction in any way, shape or form. the landlord claims in his responsive brief that mr. rees intends to vacate, however mr. rees indicated something different to mr. bell last fight. what we have now is a potential

[inaudible], there's nothing on file with the rent board indicating any intent to do an lmi, on the other hand, we have a situation where the landlord is trying to blur what's going on but purporting to do a demolition when he's in fact only -- his plans currently only allow him to demolish a kitchen and to get other space up to code, so this is not a demolition, the landlord never required a separate demolition permit as must happen under building code 106a .1 the landlord never gave notice of intent to apply for a demolition permit after he had already obtained the permit and then he provided the notice and then he claim today the rent board that he was going to do a

demolition eviction that's the only record the rent board has on file relative to any eviction there's no lmi on record with them. the application doesn't support demolition of the unit, again there's no nov issued the place can be legal side, we're not talking about removal of the unit. it is appropriate to have mandatory review when housing -- rental housing is being eliminated and it's certainly appropriate when there's a change of tenure of form of occupancy, whether this is a demo eviction or a landlord move-in, discretionary review would be appropriate but again the landlord bypassed the procedure by not even providing notice of the demolition application to the tenant until

after he already had his plan. i'm going to be quiet because i'm not leaving mr. bell with much time here, so that's all i'll say for the moment. >> hi i'm graham bell, i'm a teacher of the hard and has herring, i have 25 years experience, 95% that have applied for my job have quit, we started only 20 out of 5 positions and there were many children in san francisco with hearing loss would were not served. we're here because they didn't follow the law and they didn't follow dbi's process and they've been lying about it, they've offered me no money no compensation, i've had to hire attorneys for the first ground, then immediately the next day i mad to get my appeal in with you, they immediately dropped that and applied for another one, that's where we've gotten today so i've incurred a lot of cost. i would refer you to page 2 of the mayor's executive order

it's page 2, paragraph 4, the building shall file the notice of intent shall pay time and materials for all inspections, staff work and public hearings as described above as permitted under existing law, so my first attorney's not charging me the second paralegal, i'm paying for these fees, i can't keep fighting it that's over half my monthly salary. thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, my name is robert cohen i'm an attorney representing the chu's this is a matter of family. mr. chu wants possession of the entire house to consolidate his whole family. he has elderly parents who will be there quite often he has a

brother with disabilities of whom he's the caretaker and he has a miraculous baby born in may of last year whom he's taking care of. he wants everyone together he wants the grandparents there to take care of the kid during the kid's formative years he wants to take care of his brother and have a child know his brother and know the rest of the family. now, there were two applications for permits to demolish the kitchen. the kitchen is in a common area, it's not in the bedroom area, there are to units on the ground floor of the single family house, the first permit, mr. chu received after he got some bad advice from a family friend, so he withdrew it and he got counsel and he's doing it right now. he gave the appellant a 30 day notice and he's willing to make

the regular payment that is are required under the rent stabilization act. however, there's no 60 day notice now, there's no e v*ition pend, he wants to demolish this particular kitchen to bring his family into one big house and that's it. i understand mr. bell's position and we're willing to work with him on giving him some time to relocate but mr. chu is entitled to remove the unpermitted unit from the house and make it a single family house that is fully permitted and that's it. mr. bell has other opportunities as the previous case, as mr. bornstein had mentioned he has opportunities to challenge it before the rent board he has opportunities to defend himself in an unlawful detainee action if it comes down to that, hopefully it

won't have to come down to that and hopefully he'll get his relocation funds and be able to afford another place in the city of san francisco. i did attach some listings from craig's list to show there are available apartments, available units in the city of san francisco and just outside of san francisco i heard your first witness testify this evening about how we want the keep teachers here and certainly that's our intent to help mr. bell find a place in the city and mr. chu is willing to work with him to help him find a place as well. thank you. >> i have a question. >> counselor, the appellant mentioned the permit to add some bedrooms and bath when they purchased the properties. >> yes, this is what we're talking about i'll put a map up that might help. >> overhead please. >> overhead.

okay. >> when was this kitchen and these units below created? >> mr. chu could address that a little better. >> yes, speak into the mic. phone. >> mr. chu will be able to address that better, it's been a while but mr. bell has been there only over a yaoe, a little over a year, that's what we're talking about we're not talking about a 25 or 30 year tenancy, he was mistaken he thought everything was cool. >> i understand that, when were these units created? >> i can't tell you that, i don't know. >> does your client want to answer that? >> yeahfinger he'll answer that. .s speak into themying please. z. in 2005. >> you created the kitchen then? >> it's a kitchen with a cook top on and a small sink. >> are you done, commissioner? >> i have a question

counselor, so where does mr. chu live currently now? >> i do live in [inaudible] city. >> so, is the upstairs rented to a separate party or is it vacant at this time? >> it's my own brother. >> so, your brother lives upstair, i'll talk to the department about the permitting of the rooms now. >> i have another question is there a second occupant of the units downstairs? >> yes, there is occupant of the unit downstairs, it's this unit down here, i'm sorry overhead please, this unit over here is the other occupant and this one is mr. bell's unit and the kitchen we're talking about is over here which is outside the bedroom area, it's just a common area in the basement and the other occupant will be moving and he will address the board to tell you about that, but he will be

moving voluntarily and he understands that the family wants to be united under one roof. thank you. >> dpo you want to hear from him now? >> is it part of their presentation? >> my name is rees jenkins and i occupy the other unit, and basically i've been very happy living there. jerry's been good to me and my treatment there and i'm taking him at his word that he would like to get out of the rental business and truthfully i would love to continue to live there i've been very happy there but i understand, i want to be able to move on and have a place that i can afford to live at and go on with my life, and i know he would support me with that. he's already said that and whatever happens, i'm prepared.

i just want to -- everything to work out for everyone and to go on with our lives. thank you. >> i have a question has there been any monetary any money offered to you, sir, in regard for you to leave the property ?frjts no amount, but he has mentioned that to me to relocate but no, there hasn't been an exact amount? >> with did he offer that? >> in conversation. >> with was that? >> about a week ago. i do have -- i have one thing that may come through for me i've been looking around myself, depending on what happens with this, and if it goes through, i'll know for sure by the end of this month if i'm going to take that unit and relocate. >> thank you and good luck. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? sorry.

>> is there still some on the clock? >> i'm sorry i must have interrupted, i apologize. >> my name is daniel chu, i am jerry chu's brother and i'm pock piing the above upstairs so i wanted to it rate that jerry does have true intentions to move in along with his young son, so -- and i will be moving out and i understand it's because jerry now has a family, he has family commitments i'm not a father myself but i can see jerry, how difficult it is for him right now, he has an 11 month old, dealing with this situation and a brand new newborn, i can see the stress that's occurring to him, so we all just want to move on with our lives, i'm going the move out because i understand he wants to be with his family. i do have my parents here, one of them is disabled my brother

is disabled my nephew, his son's child care is 10 minutes away from where i currently live it's just a family situation we're trying to do we're not trying to capitalize on the market or try to make any money from this, we want to return our home back to a single family home. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, may i ask you a favor before you speak can you move the ada mic. down a little. >> thank you, good evening, scott sanchez, planning department, so in the case of this permit, i believe that the planning department did correctly approve the permit, there are no bbn's on file based on pelter history sand born map ask the three hour report says this is a single family dwelling this would normally not allow a second unit, but they may be able to legalize the