one moment please. yes. >> the appellant had a legal council at one time. >>. i'm sorry. >> >> the appellant had an attorney representing him at one time. >> mr. shane is individual he can't afford a legal council that's why i'm standing here my i'll. >> there's something in the brief about the acceptance of the permit and siding. >> mr. shane was not sure he retained council if i may; right? >> and so that letter is about did that reflect his current wishes. >> not his current wishes. >> okay. thank you we can hear

from the permit holder now. >> good afternoon, commissioners and the board james for the joining project sponsor that is fox properties on third avenue it is fairly simple nicole a situation whereas i described in my briefing to the commission where the overlap of redwood siding by the aluminum siding adds one eight of on manipulative no showing by the appellant of any sort of enrollment open the property line in fact that a situation where the repeated necessities of getting both the backyard of the jane landowner with or attempted to be eliminate or slowed down instead of every

four or five years to we paint but put in aluminum siding hopefully will be permit pr proximity other than somewhere in the neighborhood of four or five years to be redown this is the point where the siding say, i think the exhibits when i brought before the board shows that you'll that remains to be done is that the part that is not close to the building the building of 6 did 5 is approximately double the back withd of 691 the appellants property and the part that is sitting naked without any siding is the part in the open area the completion of this job doesn't rely that on any kind of

enrollment or anything to the appellants house i think this stands for he changed his minded about coordination and legal basis for doing so unfortunately has never been exhibited at least not to my view to fox properties i think your briefing illustrates we tried of a good faith to do everything possible including the request reimbursement for damages there is nothing more to be done simply this is a proper permit and may it remain in place without any sort of modification thank you. >> okay. thank you mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners

joe duffy dbi building permit that is under appeal it's we see those permits quite a bit it is for a covering the wood vinyl siding the elevation not visible to the public the permit was it's a formulate over the current permit it was on the 28 of january issued on the 29 and suspected because of the appeal dbi had received a complaint in 2014 that exceeding scope of permit more than 5 hundred square feet of vinyl siding being instead of the building inspector for the area mr. raphael received the case on the

3rd of december he went out on the eight of december met the complainant on site she was see concerned about the siding that encroached on her property the inspector said they're concerned about the property line intrusion get a survey that is typical for a building inspector to do that there's been no follow-up i asked the building inspector he didn't receive a copy of the survey it appears that the vinyl siding was over the loose siding i've dealt with this type of complaint it is hard to go out to the site we see someone doing politeness to their property it is hard to tell a frooks of an inch if nothing at all we don't know if it is over property line on the

face of it there is nothing wrong with the permit we need to see evidence of it over the property line i'm not the permit holder went to that it is kind of expensive one the biggest problems their going to have to get permission to go on the property dbi will not get involved but it will be something even if the permit stands how do they get to finish the work we'll not be involved i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> you looked at the two photo. >> yes. >> not the second photo but the first one you looked at where the concrete and they and i button each over the siding

you and i know the air gap is off a little bit sometimes between buildings go whether equal distances it appears the siding is over the property line. >> those older type of building commissioner fong it is hard we don't get into the property line disputes if we have evidence we'll act but as i said, the building inspector went out we haven't received the survey they go to court or sort it out in a civil form and come to an agreement a i think those guys wanted to put the siding over they're first siding that's been there a hundred years maybe it's

over the property line or may not i saw the photograph but you wouldn't say it's over property line i saw the photograph and a lot of times those are gaps all over the city when o you have zero property lines and real property links when you see the trentdz that closes up gaps all the time some people want the gallop closed up it stops thing for better for water proofing i know it is i personally think it's better but i understand there's spaces between buildings and they move around smaller and wider from the foundation and stuff like this. >> okay any public comment? seeing none, we can have rebuttal starting with the appellant if you have any thing

more to say the appellant. >> just like the previous contempt mr. shane would like to keep his property 0 as they used to be nothing much more to add like i say earlier the difference between the rental property you use it for income and primary residence your family lives there and it will be it thank you very much. >> mr. lark you have a few minutes okay mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi one thing i'll add my experience

has been with the lady paint owners when those walls start to flake it drops into people's yards they use aluminum siding to get away from that they need to get together i mean, the permit itself is not a prosperously problem but the property line they assess and what they need to agree on but the permit itself is not about building permits if properly applied and constructed but the neighbors need to get their heads around this and figure out why not to agree why this gentleman didn't want it it maybe a maintenance problem that's in my opinion. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is

submitted. >> i happy to concur with mr. duffy. >> i think they should negotiate access and or modifications of that enclosure details they want to see it pulled back but i think they need to negotiate between the two, how to diesel with this perp i don't see much issue for a minor encroachment if it is an encroachment, however, people have dentist different opinions i say they and or modification of the enclosure daily. >> i occur concur with my fellow commissioner, i think that it is nice that people do

maintenance on their property they're going to have to deal with access to the property and deal what the prove or disprove so hopefully, they'll resolve this issue. >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that - >> sorry commissioners one thing there is something in the belief i didn't speak to because the fox property management sent this gentleman a note here dated 7 slash 18, 2014 this is required by the city of san francisco that's not correct i just don't want that to be accepted this is not something the city he gets involved we deal with this amendment it is a little bit that fourth amendment that someone uses the city to

get into someone else's property that's between the property owners this is an important fact i don't want this case to be the permits uphold and the city given them permission this is this gentleman he has to give them permission a judge and court but not the city unless that's an emergency situation but i said to point that out. >> thank you very much for pointing out. >> my motion to deny the appeal and uphold the appeal it was properly issued. >> as the inspector pointed out if we agree to the hundred dollars that work with the language in the brief. >> it is now on the record that mr. duffy said that's not a

legitimate claim has nothing to do with with the permit. >> the briefs don't represent procedure or process. >> okay mr. pacheco and we have a motion on the floor from the president to uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued on that motion to uphold commissioner fung. >> no. >> commissioner vice president honda. >> i'm sorry. >> i. >> commissioner wilson a absent thank you. the vote to 2 to one to uphold the permit the motion fails, however because of 3 votes are noted to overturn of modify absent another motion to permit would be umd by default. >> i'm going to 0 move to continue this to april 15th to

allow for parties to talk. >> okay. on that motion. >> 3 votes are needed to continue this matter on that motion from commissioner fung to continue to april 15th commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda and commissioner wilson is absent thank you. the vote it 3 to zero it matter it continued until april 15th thank you. >> thank you so i see that ms. fox has returned to the room item 7 that item has been called so we'll begin with the appellant. >> thank you

good evening rachel fox on behalf of the appellant we'll ask for continuance given 3 commissioners here our position we have 3 votes to have this permit revoked. >> the other side here we'll deal with the continuances be rebuttals only. >> hear from the permit holder. >> good afternoon or good evening. i'm for the permit holder annie. >> i'm sorry could you or could you speak into the mike. >> it's easier i represent the permit holder annie fong we'll request that the hearing be held today as schedule and the briefs are submitted we don't see a

continuance on a technicality i believe the commissioners can make the motion if they feel for the she means to is warden, however, i feel the hearing should go forward as scheduled today. >> thank you i'm not inclined we expected commissioner wilson here today. >> okay. we'll precede good evening, commissioners i'm courtney brown a law school under the supervision of rachel fox on behalf of the appellant here on the screen is a picture of the kitchen that the permit holder is asking to remove the

permit although the permit holder claims they want to legalize the unit using this permit by removing the kitchen they'll, in fact make the unit legally the san francisco housing code states you have to have a kitchen to have a inhabitable in a legal unit so here they will as a matter of fact be faxing making the unit illegal by removing the kitchen their claiming that the kitchen in question is illegal but we're contesting that allegation no notice notice of violation on record to state that is a local kitchen as shown in the picture there's a full kitchen rishlg or refrigerator and sink that as windows a heating system there's

cold and hot running water and also smoke deb detectors this is consistent with other buildings in that area i had a conversation with ms. tongue opposing council and regarding be inconsistent i's and in response belief they claimed they wanted to make this unit legal and not remove it from how's about if the past as submitted from our brief exhibit one the january 13th letter says they want to demolish the unit and want to evict the tenants by march 31st to begin don't guess on the first so over the phone

we're not able to deal with the xhifkts they still remain that's the question here rachel fox i have mr. alyssa here with me and he's basically limited in his english but here to say that he was told to move out rent is not collected since december of 2014 and he's been told that his partner is fidgety and should move out and the rent will remain the same glenda a has lived in the property for the last 3 years we have behavior including not accepting rent consistent with the letter that was sent by the other

lawyer stanley chin to move out by march 31st we're in favor of the unit remaining in how's we reached out to john chow the partner to try to work something out first of all, we're not aware the unit a one illegal the no notice of violation the ceilings are high everything shows the unit is legal the concern what was happening if you're trying to do capital improvements great we're not in favor of the preventing owners from making improvements but the question if you're claiming to legalize a unit that's not designated as legal by removing the kitchen and converting it into a laundry facility that's illegal the tenants can agree to save living without a kitchen or

move out that was one of her comments to courtney brown we ask - fill a permit application that is consistent but right now this permit will result in the removal of that from housing no kitchen they want to take the kitchen out and convert it to laundry facilities i think that if you have any questions - i asked mr. garcia he's been there since 1995 with his two sisters. >> (speaking spanish.) >> >> one sister left in the 7 and the second sister left in

december of 2014 and that's when the problems started that they wanted them out. >> (speaking spanish.) >> that the project sponsor told them they had to leave and that she was going to raise the rent. >> (speaking spanish.) >> then she came back and said he could stay but the patron had to leave because he was filthy and couldn't rent the second bedroom once his sister left because she was going to rent it out herself and his mail was interfered with until i wrote a

letter exclaiming about that until their lawyer september the letter to the landlord with the interference with the mail they were not getting any of the mail until the end of march they started receiving the mail so we're asking you rerecognize it and if you want to came back come back what a permit that is doing something other than removing the unit we're in favor. >> ms. fox your belief indicated two units in the ground floor. >> and the kitchen. >> i've not seen the other unit it is part of the garage that's where the owners two sons live and i've never been in there and i'm not here to recognize that unit should be - >> i'm not asking for that

opinion but the - so this kitchen the sole use for their use and the second bedroom that you're referring to the owner is going to rent it out. >> within that unit this is a self-contained unit a smoke alarm and 1230g9 and could you please state your name i stated the unit is legal. >> it appears to be legal. >> so the question is have you looked at the yard to see if there was permitting in regards to the kitchen open the ground level. >> there is no permit history that i saw again, the unit itself is xhfblth with the 3 r report there is 3 units in the building i believe this is one of the 3 original unit and the

fourth unit where the sons live is the one that is probably not up to code again, i've never been in there it's appears to be an extension of the garage. >> we'll get clarification from the department. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. we'll hear from the permit holder. >> thank you, council for the permit holder we've stated in our papers all that the permit holder has been seeking to do is so see if this unit is legal shows entitled to do a property owner this is no one to say you have to wait for a notice of violation from 9 department of building inspection before you go proactively seek to find out if you're unit is in fact legal

as we stated in our papers with the new ordinance that passes many fong was wondering what if anything the recommendation of an architect that inspected the premises and the architect indicated to her the unit currently referred to by the appellants was not, in fact legal and probably not up to code being that ms. functioning if not to violate the law any further didn't want to wait a notice of violation from the deniable she proactively went and submitted a permit if, in fact, that unit is legal i think we'll be happen happy to hear that that will save here problems with renovating the

kitchen if a notice of violations were to issue after the receive categorization indication of a permit today, many fongz only way to apply for a permit to demolish the kitchen shows done that in north america no what you did ms. fong indicated she wanted to permanently evict the tenant she denies all of the allegations that she ever tried to nonverbal increase the rent or called the tenants any such names that's a false allegation i'll point out that again but the rest indication of the permit, in fact will not offer the appellant any relief unless, in fact that is a legal unit and i'm unable to say but defer to

the department of building inspection on this and the appellants are also unable to prove this is a legal unit obviously that would solve a lot of problems ms. fong didn't want to be in violation if it permit is revoked i can't say mr. whether a notice of violations were issued but if not immediately apply for another permit a notice of violation will be issued to it will causeer had to the in violation of the law if forced to rent out this unit to the tenants as is but allowing ms. functioning to apply for the permit and in fact legalize by which the papers we meant by bringing the unit up to code and even though architect was believing it was

not that's her only purpose as to the legalization of this unit i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> two questions. >> sure. >> you indicated you had analysis of the unit but i see nothing in the brief that indicates a report from the evict. >> i understand i wasn't work are able to get the plans so i have to a base that on what was told and that's his expert opinion and second question how does don't guess of the kitchen answer the question ofling legalization. >> sure the legal shut up is not under the 4014 ordinance to legalize this entitle ms. fong was mark farrell trying to solve the problem that kitchen was