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

was taking into consideration. >> we understood a permit was issued some time in the 50s i totally agree with you commissioner mar there's a lot of structures there's carnival hours in the rear yard and people are lived in them for years i would nothing better than to facilitate a resolution but i don't have it win my powers. >> a excessive building inspector to say this is based on the information and the documents we have in hand right now i totally awe agree with you those are all over. >> so another follow-up question if we have had building inspectors in with with the legalization we have a speaking go and we say are there life

safety issues you know is it still a barn for example and the heating not heat all of those things i wanted to know based on that is there my life safety concerns about that contested unit and the other thing that comes up with ordinances when street tree they try to legalize the unit how much did it cost a lot of owners will say the bar is too high i can't you know make this barn legal so we take a look at - take into account what's the barn our inspectors have been in there. >> i've seen pictures of the property not out there myself

we've had inspects there last june with the cf c we did inspections for the dry rot and the water repair back in 2002 nothing tells me there is nothing to say it loosens a very nice little how is it is an independent access, etc. our scenario here is more an administrative one figuring out how we move forward and have the cf c issued issued or have the you know other things happen happen. >> commissioner lee and yeah. commissioner mar brought of a up a good point is there separate hearts for that. >> i suspect there are. >> there's no gap separate letters. >> commissioner walker. >> so i guess i mean mean i think i know the answer to the

question by having something called a house on the application or called a residential didn't flow the legal use or change the legal use because our records indicate it is that and do we have a building the authority to change the use from shed to residential without planning going in. >> people what write whatever they want to. >> didn't change the use. >> correct the answer to our second question not require the approval based on the convergents. >> commissioner melgar. >> sorry chief you're getting a lot of questions. >> very well i'm ready. >> i didn't have a question more for the chair i'm a little bit unclear on what the action is we you know are considering taking or maybe the city attorney can clarify i'm not

sure what it is exactly clear what the motion will result in maybe i can explain. >> the code authorizes you to reduce or affirm or modify the city to revoke the cf c. >> then if we reverse it it becomes- they will then have a certificate? >> yes. >> great and what you are telling us you don't believe that you have the code behind you to have issued that certificate in the first place. >> i don't have information substantial enough in my opinion to document the run establishment of that but you as a commission have the power to. >> i understand thank you. >> commissioners. >> on that same line of action do we have the authority to

reverse the departments rulings and authorize the cf c? >> you're asking me. >> yes. >> technically you are bound by the same laws that govern the department you can't ignore the law any more than the department if you found there's a requisite resilience on representations that the city made and a detriment to the party you could reverse the departments decision the property is whether it's good faith resilience with the material on the face of 3 r it's a call for the commission and commissioner lee. >> can we discuss what we want

to do yet. >> we're still going to go to public comment. >> okay. the public comment first. >> public comment and then that should do it we'll go back to the commissioners kristen's. >> one more question and commissioner melgar. >> yes. in front of the brotherhoods that's for tonight and yeah, and postponed to march 25th now. >> is interest a reign for the postponement. >> i think it has to do with hope to get some kind of an answer from this today so - >> given the you been unusual possess turning over over the same issue we felt the issue of the cf c should take priority over the priority so we asked

the board they agreed to continue this so your discussion would be reinforced. >> okay public comment. >> public comment? >> hi, i'm actually not a member of the public i'm a it is not necessary and give not equal time but extra time and made some statements about actions i've taken. >> state your name for the record. >> my name is daniel the tenant on gerrero street the one that asked the dbi to reexamine the certificate of occupancy so i've only had the landlords brief since last wednesday i don't know if you've had a chance to read it. >> so i am a paying tenant in

good standing and paying rent the last year the landlord is not accepting rent from me i pay my rent early not only on time i've lived in the cottage on gerrero for 3 and a half years and fighting eviction for over a year it's a freestanding cottage behind a two-family house the property was in 1980 and the cottage to 1956 and permits documenting that definitely was constructed before the onset of the rental ordinance in 1979 at an unknown date in the 1980s it was converted without permits in 2003 the cottage was issued union alteration permit not a

construction permit to replace fixtures it was an over counter permit not subject to review it was not asked to change the residents it was state that the use before or after the alteration what about a single-family dwelling that was a misrepresentation the department has stayed occurred there is not a permit and never has been a prosecute it to a conversion to 0 dwell even where certificate of occupancy was revoked last year my landlord filed a suit against me their motion for summary judgment was dismissed because no certificate of occupancy when

it was filed against me a couple of months after they began the eviction they supplied the certificate of eviction not 0 legalize the dwelling but to evict me the 2014 certificate application was based on the 2003 permit and the work was completed before the property changed hands that work was allowed to occur san francisco building code a specific about when and how the certificate of occupancy can be issued the landlord are asking important a special certificate they say they're entitled to a permit even though the 2003 permit. >> sir i'm going to have to ask you to wake up wrap up and there

are many reaps at the can't rely on those i've explained it in my brief i hope if you're considering overturning the rest indication you've read my brief i've gone through the case laws specifically but - the legal argument they've made. >> thank you for a coming here today. >> thank you is there any additional public comment. >> if we could keep our comments to the allowable time. >> i'm not here as a consultant but i live in the city and my family's concerned about the housing crisis we have my kids can't afford to buy here so losing housing it is important i want to talk about this 3 r because i think we'll agree myself and the chief building official only understands this nuance during

world-class 21943 we were losing the war and we didn't get troops through san francisco faster we were we were in a housing crisis beyond belief a deal cut with the fed's if you're going to add a unit go to the planning department and if you have an address we'll fix it after the war after the war as long as you had an address and building we'll legalize it federally involvement for the urban reneutral or wrap 113 if you have an address we'll legalize it later this 3 r was not legalized because of the suspend rot if you have an address

you're an legal unit the purchase of cf c was to legalize the unit by each side if you don't believe me ask our chief housing inspector. >> thank you i'm sorry see is there anyone else for public comment that has not spoken already okay seeing none, public comment is closed and i'm going to go straight to commissioner walker any at commissioners after that. >> commissioner walker please. he definitely needs all of those those unite to be legalized we have a process for it the department is happy to explain to people i encourage that this owner

takes the proper actions to actually legalize this unit and i think your department will bend over backwards to do that i'm censured about the precedence we lay on this case if we allow misrepresentation on police station to determine the occupancy of a building so i feel like what we did is problematic in the first place of relying on that without improperly looking at the history of that building to issue the late cf c inappropriately i feel like the department did the right thing to do in revoking it and asking the property owner to go through the processed of legal listing it i don't see how we can legally

do anything else we can't do the change of utilities without goes through the planning department and the planning commission that hadn't happened here. >> commissioner melgar and commissioner lee and commissioner mar. >> i hear you commissioner walker i on the other hand think the 3 r report is not just a piece of paper it is what the lender relies on in terms of issuing a mortgage for that property it is to elevate the property as a city relies on so when this is issued you know we can like we say oh, in terms it is disturbing i agree with you but we don't have the authority to change the utilities

i would say that we need to hear from the appeals board for planning first before we consider my action so you know that's sort of what i would say but you know i don't want to take that lightly the fact we've issued something means something to a lot of people particularly the zoneer i don't like being butt put in a situation having an eviction he pending that's disturbing as well. >> it was initiated. >> commissioner lee and i'll get back to commissioner walker. >> commissioner lee. >> i appreciate that the owner of the building is trying to do the right thing trying to make sure the imprudent a legal he's been relying on the 3 r report it seems to me there is evidence

to support the 3 r report is accurate there maybe several meters for the unit my feeling would be to maybe ask the department to dig deeper and find more evidence to support a or contradict that it was a legal unit or a recognized unit some point. >> commissioner mar and commissioner walker please. so while this jurisdictional issue kind of weeks ago own me as well i'm not i'm semiathletic to the owner like commissioner melgar feel the 3 r reports are very important as a purchasing and landlord we base whether or not what we buy on those 3 r reports and for us to say whoops sorry we were wrong you pay for

it the whole thing is the educators our going to refund money to the property owner so i feel very upset about that i understand that we wouldn't be sitting here if there's was not an eviction i was looking to the city attorney do we have jurisdiction and if we do we could say we recognize what the 3 r report says because i feel like the - we wouldn't be here if there's was not an eviction at the same time i feel for the tenant if he wasn't getting evicted he would want that certificate of occupancy so he could stay there that's the kind of contradiction we're put in

some days we're here to adjusted things where tenant don't get left wing with their landlord stuff like this we look at the building whether it's safe and habitable we're not looking at whether or not people get along you know but it ends up here it ends up here they are using the building codes bogging because they're not getting along i would love to send this to planning or send this thing to the other you know place but i feel that if the city attorney puts this on us to make the dignities then we have jurisdiction i feel we have to deal with it. >> commissioner walker

so the 3 r if preclude it says the city may enforce all errors in the reports i'll say that the board of appeals is likely to evaluate this and whether or not the proper process was done but we can't just take on the responsibility and the obligations of the planning department and the planning commission to allow for a use that hadn't been permitted to change into a residential and we can't do that in the sense as will said bad precedence for anybody coming in that misrepresents the use of building i feel like we relied on misinformation and

responsible for not following up more on that but it happens a lot our data is consistent with the utilities and the illegal use and what people are applying for permits for i think it's a common currents in the department and to allow for the use to change with misinformation an applications is the wrong move so i actually think the board of appeals is the better place for this to be evaluated they have the authority to look all those things we don't have the jurisdiction on we can't change planning use eir a use in a building. >> thank you. >> i'd like to maybe just get reinformation from the city attorney as commissioner walker says we don't have jury instruction but you seem to say

we do again is a tough case i'd like to through it on someone but if it's up to us to make the decision is that your legal opinion. >> yes. the code gives us the jury instruction from our appeals of the revocation and allows to you affirm or modify or reverse it decision and if you precede adopt that avenue make the finding for the basis of your conclusion. >> okay. i've been keeping quiet i've been shift in the debate first of all i want to be clear the chief raernd came out this morning and said he whishes he didn't have this case sfarnd but i want to be clear i

don't i don't think the department skews the roughness i think i want to commend the chief for doing what he to lay out the history to get to the conversation all the departments and commissioners have done a go back as a victim of badge 3 r reports i've done this over the years it happens i wish i had representatives to correct because my team told me i self-have a leg to stand on with that said, i know that commissioner walker said that particularly i have one 3 r report i had to concede it that i want to kind of come to a

point of view obviously i was hoping we won't have jurisdiction and this would go to the board of appeals some of the commissioners believe we do and some do not to the homeland security this is a serious investment i know how important it is at the end of the day we're trying to do the right thing here even the tenant i think was very convinced in his position everything is right and mr. above the virtues is right it through me into a spin i've never heard that before in the interest of trying to take a step back here and where i would like to sit down and talk what some maybe small business from the city attorney's office with

one member the party so see if there's a way to continue this until another date and come back maybe a little bit more equipped on some of the questions and answers or questions raised here today and know lagoon more thoroughly but what i stand i'm not interested in making a decision on the information because i find a lot of it compelling i don't know i'll see how the other commissioners feel. >> commissioner clinch. >> so we have that option. >> yes. >> commissioner walker sorry then commissioner mar. >> so our suggesting we continue this? >> i'm suggesting we continue this was caveat that maybe we could sit down with the city attorney's office and whoever

choose to get for educated and understand the decision that we want i i know we have conclusions but i'm not sure the commission we're all in agreement here maybe i'm wrong if someone want to the call the question we can but at the end of the day i'd rather be it seems like the board of appeals will stay on home until this is decided. >> it's up to them. >> and jack for the appellant i had not considered the possibility not receiving a decision before we went to the board of appeals i'll have to confer with with my client if they feel it's important for that to happy it seems to me the cf c is the fundamental issue

for reasons that escapes me that decision is in our laps he'll cancer putting it on hold we want you to get to the right decision and work with the commission to make sure that i get to the right decision. >> for me peppering that's my conclusion i can't get a past the part we don't have a permit to convert this from the sheds to the house that's one thing, however, the use has been there a long time and a lot of documents but those are the issues i want to get right in my head from the departments point of view i believe their one hundred percent correct in the action because they were given no option. >> commissioner mar and commissioner walker and if commissioners you can finalize your thoughts let's wrap.

>> i'll be amenable to commissioner mccarthy suggestion i want to make sure we have more interrupted in not new information so in awe memorable to the owner i'll suggest we have our building inspectors inspect refresh the inspection of the premises and make sure that everything there's no you know that t is habitualable and no code evictions that's a main purpose of that commission and our department is the place habitable and up to code that's should be what we're looking at. >> commissioner mar we are pleased that the coordination of the tenant to provide access to any of you who wish to inspect we believe those conclusions are helpful in arriving at our

dignities. >> commissioner walker please. so i'm ready to vote and uphold the steps and action i think there's an avenue with the board of appeals and with the proper permit polarization to legalize the sooner we do that the sooner on the rod a legalization i feel like i'm really glad it's built 80 up to building code we don't have jurisdiction on that i think what's before us did our staff act properly in re sending the certificate of occupancy they've realized that was issued incorrectly that's what we're here to look at so if indeed like i said if the staff acted skrej it's simple they looked