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

surprise in 2014 when the complaint was filed by the tenant for reasons beyond me i want to see this at this point in time my client was surprised to hear a process had begun in behind close doors by the inspectors of the city as opposed to the normal process held in this department that is the notice of violation that was in fact, orientated at the directors hearing in open session and than an abatement appeal so my parties that were not happy we object to the process was done in private meetings between representatives of the tenant and the tenant lawyer my comply was called in separately at no time done in open meetings when we made a

public record requests no communications or e-mails by the city that indicated that there was significant communications between representatives of the department and the tenant and his lawyer well, it turned out there's significant e-mail communication we've 0bd it through other sources that was not produced by the city and this commission should be concerned about that in responded to sunshine act requests and the requests by my client i'd like to give my client a chance to talk i'm going to introduce my client to address his interesting concerns thank you. >> thank you, commissioners for allowing me to share my prospective on this i'm 70 years old my wife is 65 i've been in this country's

since 22 from india where the bureaucratic's harassed me i want to live in peace and law and order this situations takes me back years i bought this home in 2004 to own with my wife in retirement years close to our children and grandchildren i bought this as a legal home had assurances such as a 3 r reports authorizing the unit for occupancy it is undisputed that the department was made habitable affordable unit air force 19980 i owned this with my son as a 3-d building and paid the fees for 3 years i've filed tax returns in the same manner now the city employees pointed out i made a

lot of error and suspended the permits in this case it seems the city concealed the conversation from one party to another the city admittedly conspired would one party in harassment there is no due process followed and the permits are suspended no corrective action proposed and no opportunity to take corrective action or modifications to ply with the city going forward for the permit requests the city's action are amounting to taking the property or have someone in the building i've not collected rent i don't have use of my property can't collect rent i

find this process extremely stressfully and draining my retirement savings i deserve to have my property back i ask for justice to correct this situation which is largely caused by the city thank you. >> okay when we got to the timeframe do they have no more time. >> i believe you can have more time. >> i appreciate a few more minutes. >> commissioner. >> i was going to ask questions. >> yes. >> appropriate at this time in the agenda. >> you'll have to forgive me so questions for the attorney.

>> or the owner either one, however, feels. >> perfect whoever wants to talk so, sir there's a tenant currently in the rear cottage but she's not paying rent because his position is that it's an illegal unit therefore you're not entitled to rent. >> the case is called herpes a california appellant decision if a unit is illegal and it is unlawful for a landowner to accept rent if he does he or she will be - those cascades are brought ed reiskin the owners is not going to conduct himself

unlawful and he ceased to collect went rented and wouldn't be able to collect rent. >> a followup was that tenant in the building when i bought it so you inherited that tenant or rent it after. >> i rented it after. >> so there's been a series of tenants all of which are amicable. >> commissioner vice president mar. >> thank you for coming in and helping us to understand this so have you currently filed an application to legalize this unit? >> no we believe that the unit is legal. >> that's your position. >> we met with the planning department and the planning department agreed that the new process that the mayor's office

has created new ordinances that have been impacted for streamlining illegal units were probably not applicable that is an rh3 that allows for units there are the process that was created was designed when you had non-conforming in-laws where more unites were lauded u allowed they provided tenants that would give up right and the owner has elected to go to the board of appeals that is certainly an option i'll ask if the this commission is considering forcing think outside the box 0 the owner this is something the compilation follows they'll seriously consider to emancipation

proclamation revoke the cf c and make that be suspended as opposed to revoked we have a problem with that the permit was suspended it is unclear why the department indicted to suspend the permit it seems logically if we're invited into a path that the permit would have been suspended and the cf c would have been suspended with the path we're invite to follow. >> if it's our position that the cf c was issued inappropriately then it maidens to do a revocation and ask the process start again. >> if the city is interested in working with the owner then it will work with the owner and suspended the circuit courts for example c and invite a process

naive commissioner walker i think that has the same impact we don't have a cf c for reasons unclear we have a suspended permit that is quite unusual with a appeal by the same department it seems in the interest of consistency the department will want to take a consistent action with the cf c that's our view we think the cf c to be reinstated we urge you to do that we think my client was relying on the 3 r report we've made those arguments in our brouf brief. >> what about the argument we relied on information that was given to us under penalty of perjury on the application. >> that's not in front of you there's no evidence of that that

was speculation by the inspector that's all you have. >> well, if it's a stated use not authorized on the application of the existing use then it's not - >> well. >> done in error and frauld i'm sorry saying our people did it. >> not by my client i think the latter issued 3 r and the action taken by the city subsequent to this for reasons i've mentioned i don't believe those in any way override my clients rights because of the cause law in my briefs mistakes has happened the city makes mistakes and the inspectors will do their jobs correctly but to the extent that mistake hemispheres it shouldn't

effect the owners that relies on the statement by the city this is what happened my client got the 3 r and render the unit and have that pulled out from underneath him and by the way he is living in the building and difficult to get the tenant out you'll have some way but at the end of the day that's not the interest the city the city should be maintaining that how's unit. >> the 3 r states that the report describes the illegal use as compiled from records no physical records to disclaims it is actually, the document that allows for the change of occupancy. >> respectfully i agree it didn't accept the change of occupancy f this report describes the legal use of this property as compiled if the

records of the city department and few lines later any occupancy or use of the property other than that listed in the report is subject to abatement this reports shows this. >> errors and omissions shall not binding or stop the city from reinforcing. >> if you bought a property and reline on this report probably miss places you have the same feelings of despair and disappointment and anger you've heard from my client. >> thank you. >> commissioner lee and then commissioner melgar and commissioner vice president mar. >> it showdowns i sound your client wants to do right and once you discovered the unit may not be legalese wants to

legalize it my question why not at this point if we all seem to disagree but agree it's not a legal unit why not go forward and realize it. >> that's certainly something we're looking at commissioner lee if that's what's required my client will make an option the likely option if we go through a lengthy process is the reason we all know how long it goes through a planning process there will be appealed and discretionary reviews and the process we have love it or hate it in the meantime tenant sitting in the property for free paying nothing. >> i think the likely outcome if we end up with a determinations this is not a lawful unit and this commission whatever reviewing body agree that my client that didn't have

a right to the unit the housing stock will be lost. >> commissioner melgar. >> so this is disturbing i actually have you know, i semisympathies this is bigger than this particular case in open san francisco is a really expensive city housing or lack of affordable housing is you know pretty high on the policy agenda our department is a really important you know part of that in that our word our documentation is relied upon for everything that has to do with real estate transactions with occupancy and codes and so you know to have a case in which our departments says off in terms

something in 1984 was not legal so we're taking this back it's disturbing it opens up the possibility that folks can't rely on our information and it's pretty damn important so i'd like to see a resolution that involves the department you know being transparent and easing the way for a resolution because i don't know. i don't want the department to be put in a questionable situation it's bigger this particular case so - >> commissioner. >> some of my sentiments run similar to commissioner melgar and with that, actually i'd like to direct the question again at the department

but i think i want to thank the owner and representative for your comments one of the things that always comes before use it goes through the abatement process i'm wondering why this didn't why was a nov not issued and not come before us before the appeals board. >> an nov was issued in september and the nov was that referred to code enforcement and at the request of the owners representatives we pulled the cats back because like i said we stopped code enforcement activity ending resolution here i just like to say that we or willfully to work with mia any of the parties for a resolution it is really unfortunate that

the 3 r report showed a single-family home at the it was based on permits that has nothing to do with to single-family those reports were dry rot permits that's how the 3 r report ended up showing the single-family it showed back to the last permits there you have it i'd like to say in respect to what council has said there's no conspiracy here in closed-door meeting only with mr. bucking witnesses and i've never met the tenant i don't know that person he or she for that matter but there were e-mails i don't remember being asked for any of the e-mails if i'm asked today,

i, provide those i'm a huge advocate for transparency i'm willing to put anything out there. >> can i have a followup and sure. >> with the will code enforcement were we suspended the continuation was that because the owner applied for a permit that's what usually happened when we suspend a code enforcement. >> primary commissioner mar what happened and i think mr. bossing vindicate can attest to this we allowed sometime so they could perform a search of city archives for any resident permits that had to do with the permit of the sheriff's deputy for single-family use we primarily stopped the activity

hopefully they'd found something we able unable to find and hoping so show the single-family home was was correct and there was a permit for the conversion. >> no more questions there? >> we have rebuttal. >> 3 minutes for rebuttal yeah. let's do the ruth and if more comments we'll take it from there. >> i have a specific question for commissioner mar there's a notice of violation issued on october 23rd, 2014, and that notice of violation was specifically stating that you will be notified the time date and place of the directors hearing by the code enforcement the process was con mentioned after the cf c was looked at it was a normal process we followed it land on the abatement appeal

if someone was unhappy with the outcome but for some reason it got pulled back when things get done out of the oermd process it's is of concern and to you commissioners this doesn't handle it according to the normal process we were told there was a process we were advocating not to the department to advocate and the tenant was advocating as well as with his lawyer and their e-mails to that effect i asked for the e-mails and i have the public records i don't know if this matters but i have it thank you. >> why not hear our rebuttal and then we'll ask for questions than. >> so the department or the appellant. >> i think the department first

i'd say pat there. >> mr. reardon we'll do your 3 minute rebuttal. >> again i think there's a path forward here the owner and the representatives of the owner s are they can file for a permit under the mayor's derivative there's a good likelihood they'll see the rear building and the single-family use will be approved and i guess i was reminded by our communications person louie there was, in fact, a request for information and i did provide to her that was necessary i get a lot of those requests this wyoming is one i e

may not remember i did not have anything 83 at my defense, defense policy wlsh i can say this could be the cf c could be reinstated or this rear building can be called a legitimate legal building there was a process that could have been followed those gentlemen are aware of the communication process where shall an applicant comes in the management group and assembles documents permit documents records and is an born maps and water department maps then we'll go out they're having all those records and senior building inspector and look at the building and if we have enough and clear documentation that this is likely and always has

been a single-family unit we'll write a cf c having enough information to document the use of that building that's the process that wasn't didn't take place here but would have been a way to go with the issuance of the permit without you know planning or my drawings being in hand was in hindsight was not the best course of action so i think we would be in the same place in my opinion we don't have enough to say that was a legal dwelling unit with the documents. >> commissioner melgar. >> did you have a response or rebuttal to what the owner representative said about the rest indication versus the certificate of occupancy.

>> the certificate of final completion the cf c establish the use of occupancy or other types of used for the types of buildings it of the clear to us we should not have a cf c in place without will adequate information to approve it's use we go back to facilitating a resolution with allowing the permit to remain suspended so maybe we'll go back to planning and run state the permit wisp trying to work with the staerldz and double back on the permit should it be reinstated and find a way to credible be issued with the cf c. >> commissioner walker please. so the permit is for the issuing

the cf c not legal listing the unit. >> right. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much commissioners and thank you for you for the time i want to emphasize this is a beautiful housing unit it's been inspected by inspectors and i understand inspector reardon position it is not appropriate to be a single-family dwelling but 1938 other inspectors that been to the site and ultimately determined this is a that single-family dwelling leading to the issuance of the 3 r report that concludes to section the san francisco building code if this commission want to save this unit i have at authority to do that under the section which

provides that a structure or building can be considered legal if it is audits approved for used by the department of building inspection that's a pretty big catchall you have the authority to do this under the code itself that i've cited to you we've conceived there's a permit in the history but we're in a housing shorthand we don't want to take actions to lead to the removal of housing i fear if we're thrust into a mr. haney process we'll require a variance for parking or rear yard we'll have a neighbor's that are unhappy and require possibly some type of discretionary review for the planning commission that's years a that's a lot of money and in the meantime the tenant sits without paying rent and it's unfair commissioners, i urge you to

overturn and run state the cf c and invite my client to work with the department don't push him away thank you. >> one question you keep mentioning the tenant does not pay rent when did that stop? >> i stopped collecting about a year stop accepting more than a year ago. >> commissioner clinch. >> is the law allow you to put that money in escrow. >> probably not but if we skroetd it the tenant will say i don't have it you have it some argument we've accepted money we're not entitled to because the city doesn't recognize it in-law units are more k4r5ik9d i've spent years with the if the

landowner intend to get along but if there's a dispute like this is there is huge liability for alandlord to the tune of hundreds of dollars with no meaningful way to remove the tenant. >> commissioner mar. >> i assume this question will be directed at the department again or will the department have rebuttal. >> if you need them back up. >> one of the issues that was raised i know because this is an older neighborhood i actually bored this neighborhood a lot of the buildings are very old one of the ways we determine

occupancy is through utility records and we go back to water records that are luckily not in the building in 1906 was any of that done fermz in terms of looking at the occupancy this was not an in-law unit that came on the books in the last 5 years or within the 10 year of this new owner this unit has been around for a very long time that happened a lot in this city my community they have there's present of carriage hundred dollars and bars that are new legal unit somehow the city recognize those structures as legal residential unit so i just wanted to know if any of that