want the development not at expense of our lives it's a human right as a citizen of san francisco and this nation our buddies died in vietnam i can't can't we have a clean breath of air my father's generation died in the shipyard we're still trying to clean up i was in the research center those bombs that were dropped on japan were shipped from health department sadly in some of the research life expectancycy for african-americans males if 66 to 62 the average life sentence for others is 68 this is r6g9d in african-american women they have

77 hire more tablet rate for breast cancer than whites all the social economic variables we've still died the air consistency the bitter factor in health disparity is matter that causes cardiovascular disease please help us to live and enforce the laws equally in san francisco we can change those numbers thank you for listening to me he i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. on this thank you for taking the time. >> thank you.

>> i just - i understand we can't decide it in light of the fact i want to make sure that our department is doing everything it's supposed to do to make sure the dust ordinances is being applied here i'll ask for it to be on the next agenda is there any additional public comment. >> okay. seeing none item 4 election of the president and vice president. >> okay. thank you madam secretary so at this stage we're at the time of the year we have to reappoint our presidents and vice president and committee members so wurd.

>> yes. i'd like to start i'd like to nominate president commissioner president mccarthy as president again and commissioner mar as vice president my feeling is that the commission has been working well under the leadership of commissioner president mccarthy and commissioner vice president mar commissioner president mccarthy has been very good at allowing our views and concerns to be heard and helps us to communicate with each other i believe been fair with the public and working well with the department over all and commissioner vice president mar is working to make the department efficient and i appreciate that so those are my

reasons i'd like to renominate commissioner president mccarthy and commissioner vice president mar to those positions it is working well and the department seems to be doing well. >> thank you commissioner walker please. >> yes. i agree we're in the mid of doing major upgrades to our department it make sense to keep the leadership intact because especially of the new p t s permitting system is very complicated i think that having consistent leadership is helpful in completing that so i support our motion i second it. >> you have to second it. >> okay. >> any further commissioner

questions. >> we have a motion and a second to reappoint commissioner president mccarthy and commissioner vice president mar is there any public comment on in item. >> okay. seeing none i will do a roll call vote on the motion commissioner president mccarthy. >> commissioner vice president mar commissioner clinch commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner melgar commissioner walker okay. that motion carries unanimously congratulations to you both. >> thank you. (clapping.) >> thank you, commissioners i look forward to 2015 i think we work well together.

>> item 5 decision and possible action to commissioners to serve on the action committee their commissioner walker and commissioner clinch. >> i'll have the chair of that committee talks to us. >> we were the litigation committee. >> if it's okay with my fellow commissioners i'd like to step aside from the litigation committee and through my consent to commissioner vice president mar and so there's a nomination for commissioner mar i'll second that any further comment. >> commissioner clinch i accept his nomination and thank you for the work you've done for the last couple of years. >> absolutely. >> thank you.

>> yes. we should reappoint all the other commissioners as well so we'll amend the imposition that commissioner mccarthy and others to be reappointed if there's no objection from the commissioners. >> okay. so we have a motion and second to appoint commissioner mccarthy walker and commissioner mar as members of the litigation committee any public comment on this item? seeing none, roll call vote. >> commissioner president mccarthy commissioner vice president mar commissioner clinch commissioner lee commissioner mccray

commissioner melgar commissioner walker okay. that motion carries unanimously congratulations item 6 decision and possible action to appoint commissioners to serve on the subcommittee. >> if i can have commissioner lee lead this one. >> commissioner melgar and commissioner vice president mar and i serve on that committee and maybe we should pose a question to commissioner mar would you like to stay on that committee. >> i'd be happen to pass it to another commissioners, if they're so moved to serve. >> i nomination dr. ma crepe. >> i second (laughter). >> do you accept. >> okay. thank you very much. (laughter) >> thank you for accepting.

>> okay. i don't know - i'll is it okay if i nominate myself i continue to stay on so let's move to have commissioner lee, commissioner melgar and commissioner mccray do the nomination committee. >> okay there is a motion and a second any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none roll call vote. >> president mccarthy i commissioner president mccarthy pr commissioner vice president mar commissioner clinch commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner melgar commissioner walker okay. the motion carries unanimously congratulations to all of you okay. on to item 7 appeals that you are not to section b .3254 as a city

charter appealed by and repealed by the attorneys for gerrero street and tom to revoke a certificate of final completion and occupancy first, we'll have a presentation by the department and then the appellant each side has 7 minutes to give their presentation and 3 minutes for a rebuttal and 3 minutes for public comment pertaining to this as well. >> good morning chief building inspector with dbi congratulations on your appointments. >> i wish this were a little bit less complicated that situation we have i'm going to

give a brief synopsis of what has transpired before the commission permit application 2014 was an over the counter ownerships on june 11, 2014, that means it wouldn't have included drawings or mr. haney review that was the case here the description noted on the permit application was for administrative issuance of cf c a certificate of final completion and occupancy of the building now this has to do with the rear building on the lot the front building as two units what we are discussing an occupancy in use of rae building on the lot

so an inspection was scheduled the at cf c the document was issued on june 18th of 2014 then in september a complaint was filed by i believe the tenant of rear building and the contention of allegation the cf c was issued in error bans the erroneous information and went on to state the storage shed was illegal converted to a single-family dwelling and notice of violation was substantially issued on september 18, 2014, in regard to the complaint and the owners represented who contacted the department was given again several weeks to try to come up

with documents that showed the conversion of the building from a storage shed to a single-family dwelling so essentially our notice of violation stated that the building had been converted we didn't have any permitted documents to document the conversion so on december 19th a letter was issued by the department to revoke the cf c and 12u7bd suspend the permits based on the documents of the rear building from the storage shed to the single-family dwelling use so the further complicate the issues the permit application in 2002 and 2003 were signed off for water damage repair for this rear building

at noting it was a single-family dwelling now those permits are typically just simple over the counter permits for dry rot and water damage repair not having my credibility with establishing the use of occupancy of the building so the inspector went out there and looked and saw a single-family dwelling and saw the work was completed and signed it off not knowing this would be anything other than it seemed to be not going through the offense permits wouldn't have gone through building it was just water damage and dry rot repair simple stuff so the bottom line is the illegal use of the building on those permits probably

unknowingly were represented as single-family an appeal was filed with the board of appeals regarding this revocation by representing represents e representatives of the owner that are here today and the appeal at the board was scheduled for this evening so here we are now i think the stakeholders decided to postpone that hearing depending on what happens here there's a board of appeals case scheduled for march 25th now i contacted city planning regarding this in hopes of helping with the swarpgs in and possible you know facilitating some kind of resolution planning

indicated they would probably be okay i don't want to speak for planning they'll likely be okay with allowing this under the mayors derivative i believe that the attorney and then the representative for the owner here today will confirm that under the activity of the notice of violation has been suspended based on those appeals so we have stopped everything for right now pending the outcome of this discussion and the potential for further discussion at the board of appeals so again, just to be clear permit application 20140 6118138 was issued and associated with the cf c was issued in error for

the following reasons the garden shed was not converted to the legal unit with the permit and the drawings should have accompanied the application and planning department approval should have been required and the department review didn't take place in this starns as an erroneous report on april 5th, 2014, actually this was in 2004 showed the unauthorized use of building that reflection of the rear building as a single-family dwelling was in error and was due to permits had been issued for that water damage repair i mentioned earlier your records captured that information from those simple dry rot permits and

figured out this was a single-family dwelling because that's what the report showed the 3 reports are good for one year have extraordinary i brought this to the attendance of the repair to reflect this you unknown the 3 r report has to do with garden use so it's not a residential use so at the labeled this unknown and again the reasons why the label exists there's no construction permit for calling had a single-family dwelling there's no evidence of a permit to convert from gained shed or storage shed to single-family dwelling and we don't have enough permit

history to justify a single-family dwelling use now i'd like to state it is really unfortunate in my opinion this building requires an additional building permit and planning department approval based on the series of event and it is probably important to understand the owner really did think this was a single-family dwelling use but based on the complaint the notice of violation we couldn't find any reason to rerecognize this document we didn't have substantiating evidence to be converted to single-family use section of the san francisco

building code states. suspension of revocation the building can revoke a permit under the provisions when the permit is issued in error or based on erroneous information supplied i believe there was maybe unknowingly misrepresentation on some of the permits from 2002, 2003 for the water damage repair because this is honestly whoever the permit applicant thought at that time in our packet there's a court document where the previous owner who had the property from 19 to 84 the state that he converted what was the

rear yard storage or garnered shed to the residential used by putting in the toilet or kitchen whatever neatest to make that a residential use so again, i'm more than happy to facilitate any solution in the case thank you for your any questions >> i believe implicit commissioner walker has a comment but commissioner walker has a question for you. >> so the current owner purchased the property with that situation and the 3 r report in our records just the building permit indicated that was a residential unit. >> yes. >> the damage application to fix the damage so in our application for a permit is

there something on there that says i declare that all of this is truthful and accurate we don't think. >> when you sign the document it's the application document our stating that whatever is on that document is correct. >> and the proper document for occupancy would come after planning allows that and then it will be an amended certificate or what would be the proper document. >> before we even go under the direction of having to amend a document hopefully have the right document with the right information in this case we don't this was one of the reasons he decided to suspend the permit and not revoke it with the hopes we'll find a way to run state the permit with the

approvals. >> i have a question based on some of the other documents and seeing so in the case of that occupancy would the - if we are dealing - if the planning department were to legalize it and it comes back to us to make sure the work is done correctly when would the residential occupancy go back to - i'm curious. >> i think from the day's of issuance from the cf c. >> the new cf c. >> correct. >> commissioner melgar. >> commissioner walker asked the question. >> the only cf c with the one that was issued by itself inspector for the inspection of the paint and water damage work that's the only one on record. >> this was a simple permit for dry rot repair that was not a

permit that would generate a requirement for issuance of cf c on a simple sign off no cf c required, however the cf c was issued on a permit that was issued in june of last year and that is the one that is - >> that's the only one we have on record. >> yeah. >> i had a decision with records management that was a permit back in the 50s or 60s i maybe correct it documented rebuilding the storage shed or garden shed in the 50s. >> and rebuilt as a shed. >> yes. >> i'm not sure did cf c was issued the building was there they were not establishing a new use

commissioner melgar through the chair and i'm trying to get the chronological correct you're saying you've seen courting documents from the previous owner that the work to convert the shed to you know after the unit was done sometime in the 80s the current owner purchased the property when we did they thought it was a habitable unit when you exchange real estate in san francisco there's a 3 r report that is given by the previous owner as the disclosures on the property so when the gentleman who is the current owner purchased the property and paid for it was the 3 r report issued by our department. >> i didn't see that as a

single-family dwelling yes. >> was it were recorded by the accessoryors office. >> i'm not sure that happened. >> i believe that was when you purchased that presumably and i assume so correct. >> commissioner clinch and commissioner lee and i found the answer to my question on one of the handout. >> commissioner lee. >> could you go back and explain what the certificate of occupancy what permit triggered that? when was the permit for? >> the permit that triggered the issuance of the cf c certificate of final completion and occupy socy what the 2014 permit that was issued in june

of 2014 >> what was it for. >> for administrative issuance to document the use of rear building. >> so the owner wanted the cf c essentially. >> i think maybe the owner probably realized i didn't or she didn't have a cf c so they wanted to have the cf c in place for moving forward i think it maybe confirmed later they were going into the condo process. >> so for no work. >> right no work. >> thank you. >> i think you'll commissioners thank you. >> appellant. >> morning commissioners. i'm andrew saks fifth avenue the

attorney for the property owners they're part owners of 1140 through 42 gerrero streets that is a two unit building in the front and the rear unit my client purchased this property in 2004 and at the time the 3 r report was issued by itself city and county of san francisco put this up on the screen here did he hit a bottom or something this clearly indicates the present occupancy for the use 69 property for a one family detrimentally he should no idea the property might be later considered on two units since that time my client paid taxes

on 3 unit and applied for condo conversion rights over 56r7 years as a community property and the fees have been september and my client as rented the property in reliance on that unit in the rear being a legal dwelling unit it is unlawful to rent a unit that does not have authorization when my client saw this prior to the occupancy in 200 two or three he hired somebody to apply for a certificate of occupancy that was duly issued by the inspectors inspector were at the property in 2002 and 2003 when the permits were issued and the property at least according to the inspectors appeared to be a

perfectly habitable unit why doesn't the 3 r report matter it matters because no building or structure shall be used this is section 109 point a-1 in the building code no structure shall be used or no change not clarification or portion thereof shall be made until the building official those issued a certificate and this is the important part or audits has been approved for use by the department of building inspection in this case in 2002 and 3 and then in 2004 when the 3 r report was issued my client believed that was authorized for residential use so quite to his