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 unit through that process. in regards to -- some of the permit history based on our records, the permit holder purchased the propertied in march of 2004 and in april of 2004, the permit was sought to add one bedroom, one play room, two full bathrooms, one storage and laundry area on the existing ground floor that permit was completed in

november of 2004 and then it sounds based on the property owner's aid mission, the illegal unit was added after the final inspection on that permit. that's all we have to say. i'm available for any questions. >> mr. sanchez, so do you have copies of the permit or the floor plan for the rooms down? >> i do not have the plan ins front of me from that 2004 permit. i don't know if the billing inspection does or if the permit holder may have it. >> i have a copy. >> so, it sounds like the permit holder's contract has that, but my assumption is that complies with the looms matrix with accessory ground floor rooms. >> although this is similar to the prior case we heard it is different in the fact that there are legal permitted, permitted rooms down, so the only thing that would be no. permitted or non-warranted

would be the kitchen area, correct? >> that would be correct, that's my understanding, i don't know if f that kitchen area was formerly a garage or non-habitable space. >> it depends on what it was, one side is saying kitchen one side is saying it was a counter top with a sink, like a wet bar. >> which the room allows for. >> and that's primarily the difference is if there is rooms down, then it would just be the fact of removing the kitchen and installing back the wet bar, right? >> correct, and in terpser of legalizing, i can't speak for building department, but my assumption is it would be somewhat more straightforward to legalize the second unit the n the situation when there's legal habitable space. >> so maybe you can clarify, so if a homeowner or landlord

or landowner rents rooms in their home, is that legal or -- i don't know if i'm asking the right person. >> under the planning department, it would be legal to rent rooms in your unit. the issue here is that the cooking facilities were added which then deems it to be a second dwelling unit under the planning code, but, yeah, otherwise, just renting out rooms in your house would be allowed. if there were concerns about the rent of stay, -- >> so essentially they could ko*n to rent, they would not have the benefit of the kitchen, correct? >> that is correct and i don't know what kind of access there is for above given that it was approved with full bathrooms, my assumption is there is some connection to the direct floor above which would have the cooking facilities. >> [inaudible]. >> thank you, mr. sanchez.

>> inspector duffy. >> where were you and did you break that? >> he wanted it out of his way. that worked. >> commissioners, george duffy dbi, the builder permit under appeal was issued over-the-counter by the building department and it was taken in and issued on the same day of the 21st of november 2013 and the description was remove the the illegal kitchen, convert to legal use as laundry, cap utilities and source. it's similar to the last permit. i don't think it was properly reviewed and issued properly someone came in voluntarily to do this. i believe there is no notice of violation that i could find to force them to do that per dbi, there was a permit in 2004 as

you've heard to add one bedroom, one play room, two full bathroom one storage and one laundry area on existing ground floor. that permit was signed off 23rd of november 2004 and a cfc was issued, maybe the kitchen, maybe that was the laundry area, the kitchen got put in the laundry area and that's the area that's being removed under the permit under appeal. and i have nothing more to add. >> has there been a site visit to this property inspector? >> no not yet. >> and then the permit's pretty vague. would they be allowed to take walls down as well and doors or is it to remove the facility, the kitchen facility that is are preexisting right now. >> taking out any kitchen facility pulling back the laundry would be the thing probably just the stove when you think about it because it may have been a washer and

dryer in there previously with the laundry room, so the cabinets aren't the issue it's the cooking appliance that converts it into the kitchen and any gas, they're talking about capping the utilities at the source, so maybe they have to do some plumbing work so they can comply with that, it's only a $500 permit so i can't imagine there's much to do. >> is there any public comment on this item? sir, i think you identified yourself as the contractor, so you're not a member of the public if you want to speak, you need to do it under the time allotted to the permit holder. >> so i can't speak? >> not now, you can speak for the time allotted under the permit holder if they allow you to do that. no public comment, and we'll start with the appellant, you have three minutes. >> again we have a situation here where the landlord keeps flip flopping on their intent to demolish and it's not to

demolish because they realized about messing up to do a demolition, it's to do a landlord move-in, there's nothing to indicate the landlord actually seeks to move into the property. the only notice that was an informal notice bell got and mr. rees did not get, mr. rees has never received any type of eviction notice or any eviction threat, but the notice that mr. bell received was quite clear that it was landlord's family that was going to be moving in. mr. chu has a home, mr. chu's family, his mother and the disabled family relative have a home, mr. bell's informed that the whole family does not want to live together here.

if the landlord is going to try to do a demolition by evading the restrictions under him under california code, under local law, that should not be encouraged. none of this thing about the landlord move-in came up until now and i question why when the first permit was applied for in september, then immediately cancelled after mr. bell appealed there's no indication or any real intent to do the lmi, there's no rent control records to do an lmi, so i think at minimum, the discretionary review is called for. >> okay, we can hear from mr. cohen. >> mr. chu put in the two rooms downstairs for the house *it.

they were not intended to be rental unit, one was a play room and the other was to be a bedroom. there was a storage room which is where the stove top kitchenette is in now, and they're not in the bed rails the other occupant is moving out, mr. bell will work with to move out we j*uts want to get a permit to put the house back together and put it in the possession of the family, and that's it, mr. chu at this point in his life is not in a position to be a landlord anymore, he has a baby, he has elderly parents, he has a brother with disabilities woman he's the caretaker for. we just ask the board to dismiss the appeal. thank you. >> anything further, mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, just to

reiteratefinger this is not subject to the directive, there's no requirement for a discretionary review, there's no bbn, thank you. >> mr. duffy, anything further? commissioners, the matter is yours. >> commissioners, this case is way different than the previous case. >> yes. >> the previous case, well, i don't want to talk about too much, but there was an issue of what was a number of units and it was actually zoned allowable for two units. here it's only allowed for one unit and the owner occupies the top floor. i'm not even sure it's an owner move-in situation. .sing it's the brother that lives on the top floor. >> it's family.

but the question here is it's not warranted as a second unit or even a third unit, and therefore they're not allowed. >> so the permit was properly issued, is that your conclusion? >> that would be my conclusion. >> yeah, i mostly agree. i think that the there's legal rooms down and it is not a second or a third unit property it's a single family home and i believe the permits were issued correctly on just the removal of the kitchen area, having someone rent rooms does not indicate it as being a second unit and not having this kitchen doesn't make it a second unit, they're habitate ining the same single family dwellings, so motion? >> deny the appeal and uphold the permits that the department issued them correctly. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry you can't speak

from the gally -- gallery. >> there's a motion on the floor from the vice-president to uphold this permit on the basis that it was correctly issued. on that motion commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner wilson is absent, the vote is 3-0 to uphold -- this person is upheld. >> am i voting twice again. >> i was writing 2 for the absence and the vacancies. . inger we'll take our last item, appeal ie nem 11, appeal number 14-201, terry woods versus department of building inspection planning department aapproval. 125 crown terrace ras, protesting the issuance on december 5, 2014 to mel murphy

of an alteration permit revision to bpa. we will start with the appellant, ms. woods. you have 7 minutes and thank you all for your patience this evening. >> overhead please. >> i need the overhead. mel murphy has been trying to tear this house down for here, in 20 ot he was denied a demo permit because it was determined affordable housing, so next mr. murphy called this project an alteration, an alteration is a way that a lot

of developers use to get around the demolition rules of section 317, pretending to be an alteration and keeping a certain amount of the original house, developers can basically demolish a house through remodeling, this al ration would increase the size of the house six times over the original size, on december 16, 2013, the house was jacked up on an overstressed beep supported by shoring towers, the beam collapsed dropping the house dun hill demolishing it, the construction company owned and managed by mel murphy was responsible for failing to follow an implemented aproved plan, special instructions as mandated by his permit. this was not a natural calamity dbi investigation ruled it was totally preventable. at the building department, a

form 3 alteration permit was allowed because sponsor insisted he was required to save the original structure by earlier rulings by city planning and the board of appeals, but conditions have changed since then. saving the house was not possible the original house was demolished and removed so as not being added on to, altered or repaired, it's gone, one small portion was salvaged dbi's definition of demolition by the way, this is the property now, the demolition definition, demolition means the total tearing down or destruction of a building or any alteration which destroys or removes principle portions of an existing structure. principle portions are defined as construction which dears the shape and size of the building and belo low or that construction which alters two-thirds or more of the interior elements such as

walls partitions ceilings, the building envelope of this building has been demolished and more than two-thirds of the elements have been altered the only remaining piece of this original house is not a principle portion, so by dbi's own definition, this project is a demolition requiring a demolition permit, not an alteration permit which is what he has. i don't know if you can see the bottom there. salvage piece is only being kept to pretend this is still an alteration, the spon tor claims he will have an ip tact portion in place the plans show that this portion was not going to be used in any way except for dwo walls and that's the two walls, this is the

portion that's being left, that's the portion that was salvaged and those two yellow walls is the only thing that's being used of that, that's all they plan to use, that's the whole basis of the alteration permit two walls. their framing westbound supposedly integrated back into the structure which there isn't any structure to integrate it into right now. these walls will not be functional since they are 8 feet high or less and the new kitchen walls will be 12 feet high, any original walls or framing must be attached to other heavier frame ining the new building because it couldn't possibly support a four storey building with these existing walls. this renders the salvaged pieces non-load bearing, purely cosmetic, structural insignificant and basically just an excuse to call this an alteration, to claim these cosmetic walls are going to be built into a four storey 6

thousand foot structure is just a game of semantic circumstances have changed, the fact is they are now building an entirely new all new construction house on the space where the original house that was demolished sat. this is not an alteration of anything the sponsor is to [inaudible] he doesn't even have that, at and a new site prerment.er the entirely new construction that will replace it. it has been over a year since this house fell down and he hasn't bothered to get a demolition permit a demolition without the issuance of a demolition permit is unlawful demolition and i don't see why this isn't an unlawful demolition at this point. you can see the red lines on here, that's the walls that he's keeping, that's from his own plans.

this the site now. at city planning mr. murphy's team con seeded this is a demolition, he needs to get -- should have had a public mandatory review even after the fact because of this, but instead zoning took an internal review now murphy's claiming exemption from section 317 based on irrelevant factors so he doesn't have to go to mandatory review for this. section 317 stated purpose is to preserve affordable housing from demolition to aphrase for affordability under section 317, you aphrase the existing house proposed for demolition. if it's affordable, it's protected by mandatory discretionary review. if it is unaffordable, it's xeroxed from mandatory discretionary review, if only purpose of aphrase sails is to

protect existing affordable housing but instead he has appraised the house that he is replacing this house with. he erroneously appraised the site works of the very house that he's replacing it with, these are not valid subjects for 317, since the replacement house is not the house that is applying to be demolished, it is therefore not exempted from anything under section 317, it's not applying to be demolished, he's not demolishing the new house it was the house that was demolished that needed to be appraised so his exempting from 317 was based on faulty thinking. this code is to preserve existing [inaudible] that only house applying for demolition in this case is the original house and while it was standing it was affordable housing at 100 thousand dollars, so it should not have been torn down and it should have done a mand doir discretionary review, which it didn't get.

>> mr. nakita? >> good evening, president lazarus, i'm craig nakitas for permanent holders mel murphy you read about this project in your case briefs and some of you may remember when it was brought to this board over two years ago, it's been a long and bumpy road and in mind sight we can see how it could have been a smoother journey, much time could have been saved if the sponsors could have sheaved good advice from the outset. also a shorter review would have resulted in the city had not madder roars in its processing of the applicationfinger errors which necessitated renoticing and caused unnecessary revisions in 2009, and we certainly would be better off if a steel beam providing temp raifr support during construction had not

failed unexpectedly stridi much of the existing house and halting construction for 14 months, a further savings of time would have result ined if appellant would accept the determinations of professional staff if the approved project is [inaudible] despite her belief tos the contrary following that unfortunate construction accident here we are before the board and once again she is asking you the send this project back to square 1. before the accident this project was above the ratio that would have made this a mandatory hearing and a demolition. following the accident under the planning code, not enough existing material remained to maintain that ratio and the proj dropped below the threshold and was considered tantamount to a demolition even though a significant amount of existing material will be installed in its previous

location. that reinstallation of salvage volume of the original house is what prevents the building department from considering this post accident project to be a demolition. dbi determines the type of permit application needed for each project and has its own standards that are not always the same as the planning code. dbi does not have the tantamount to or de facto demolition definition. dbi management accepted this post accident application as an alteration pelter even though the project was reviewed as a demolition by the planning department. there is no error or misapplication of the rules here. the applicant's second issue is where she alleges that this project should not receive an exemption for the planning commission hearing because the appraisals on which that exemption is based are incorrect. those aphrase sails analyze the value of the property and the

structures on it at the point when the project changed from an alteration to a demolition, that is at the time of the accident. appellant believes instead that the appraisal should be made on the property as it originally existed based on a building that no longer remains, and excluding the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars of site work construction done legally under permit and completed prior to that accident. she claims that to do otherwise violates the intent of section 317. commissioners, i can authoritatively tell you that it is the intent of section 317 to exclude projects such as this from planning commission hearings. 11 years ago as a senior planner, i brought to the planning commission a policy for the review of residential demolitions that policy was renewed several times over the years and combine witched the work of other planners regarding dwelling mergers

evolved into section 317. i wrote that ordinance to codify these policies i shepherded it through the legislative process including many meetings with neighborhood groups, building organize sashes, district supervisors the mayor and the hearings at the planning commission, this board the land use committee and the full board of supervisors the primary event was to examine any tenant issues and to conserve financially accessible housing. this is not affordable housing as was formerly define ined the old 315 code section. first in its policies and later by the adopted ordinance, the planning excision made clear it did not require hearings where the loss of housing was proposed for properties that 80% of san francisco home owners could not afford to buy, so the clear question here is at the time of the project when

it became a demolition, what was the value of that property compromising both the land and any legally built structures on it. in other words if the property owners chose to sell the site as it existed immediately after the accident, what is the reasonable market value for that property in that condition, and secondly does that value exceed affordability for the lowest 80 percentile of home buyers. based on the two appraisals submitted and the cost estimates of the site work structures legally completed before the accident the answer is clearly yes, this project is not financially accessible. its value exceeds the 5.6 million dollars recently established by the planning department as the threshold for financial accessibility, this project does not require a hearing under section 317.

further, the current de facto demolition project when it's completed and the previously approved alteration permit would be indistinguishable from each other the subject application complies with the planning code, it has undergone intense scrutiny and public notice and we can that you uphold the permit and deny the appeal. thank you. >> mr. nakita the placement structure with a portion of the existing home that became demolished, does it match exactly the location of where it was going to be? >> it does. there's no distinction at all in the floor plans in the height, in the massing, in the location in the lot, in the finishing in the parking from the permit that was suspended following the accident. >> okay.

>> counselor, i have a question as well, so what was the determinant cost from the permit holding regarding the improvements that were made to the subject property? >> commissioner, i would have to check my report, i don't have that figure at the top of my head, if you'll give me a minute, i'll look it up. >> sure. >> if you look on page 14 of exhibit 1 there is a handwritten cost summary of the site work valuation that was part of the report that dbi released, and the total site

work cost for those completed items if they were done in their entirety would be 661 thousand 712 dollars. based on our inspection records and other billings to the subcontractors we estimate that approximately 465 thousand dollars of that 662 thousand dollars was done at the time the accident occurred. so we added the 465 thousand dollars for site work which included a whole series of deeply drilled reinforced concrete piers included map slab foundations and retaining walls drainage excavation, backfill and slabs to produce building pads and outdoor usable space. those totaled approximately 465 thousand dollars based on dbi's