records management division to conduct a thorough search of the records that was conducted by a different individual that searched for than the one that searched for the first records two visits were made to the site by administrative review and the rear building in honest it is a nice little building and reasonably code compliant that are a few things to be fixed captured as a subsequent inspection it is reasonable code compliant for the most part the careers records show two unit for the property that's probably important to understand that and also the building is served by a separate central service which was in

fact illegal permit back in the era of 903 i have the permit here if you want to see the electrical service there's no gas service to the rear building heat is provided two the electrical there is an electrical water heater there's no gas and the water service i took pictures of the water service to the building and the building inspector indicated everything looked like it was code compliant from a plumbing prospective and talked to the chief electrical inspector and from the firs didn't see major code violations in regards to the electrical work at the property so - i think it is one thing it is it struck me in reading the

submittal package over again, was there is a court document where shall the previous owner mr. perish made a statement he had in fact converted the restore building from a garden shed to a dwelling so we have no evidence of such a permit for the conversion from garden shed to a dwelling unit we did do two exhaust searchers and came up with nothing and generally speaking we like to see a permit to document those conversions we don't have one nicole as well as i have to say i have some pictures you want to see on the

overhead of the building. >> >> i have a question. >> let me just turn it the outlet way. >> a clarification the careers office records katsz two unit not 3 unit in the front building. >> it shows 2 units for the property. >> both in the front correct. >> i guess we're not spitting the ones in the front it shows 2 units in the front of the building. >> all right. and this is the property here at the restore of the lot and that is inside the unit

there's a kitchen right there those are the two gas meters associated with the front building having no gas at the rear of the building i had mention there were 3 electrical meters those are the 3 electrical meters one is legally permitted for the service this is the single water service of the building so this one service is supplying 3 unit on the property and this is the electrical water heater mounted on the outside of

the rear and . >> so that electric was permitted electric. >> the electrical work for the building was in fact, signed off and . >> it was commercial or - >> it was done on the permit that was labeled dwelling unit back in 2002 era it didn't have plans associated with that and so forth. >> we can see we have the required bathing facilitates and sanitation fats required per the code and this is the street facade of

the front building so as you can see it is a beautiful old building so i think one more thing we find interesting this is the is an born for the building right here so san born maps are reliable as you can see it shows the oil of the front building you know we don't see anything in the back so - >> except the yellow blotch. >> that was me i'm sorry (laughter). >> do you have any questions commissioners? so >> just a quick question if the photographs that cottage is occupied. >> it appears so when i was in there i didn't see anybody there attachment it was looks like it

was being lived in. >> so why don't we if there's not more questions for mr. reardon thank you for your presentation i really appreciate it. >> good morning commissioners as the hearing started i was informed that the property owner and the tenant of that unit have reached an agreement hopefully changes the tone of the hearing and hopefully effects the outcome of the case we're here because the tenant who we reached on agreement with stated a grinds to the department of building inspection regarding the issuance of a certificate of

final completion of occupancy that tenant agrees that the certificate should be reinstated as part ever settlement and in fact, the settlement is on that it's your decision we've met the requirement forrun establishment my client purchased that property more than 10 years ago in resigns on a 3 r report and for 10 years rent out this unit believing the unit was a lawful dwelling unit the assessor of records that have been indicate show and stated on accessories

website dwnld are are in-law units on the ground floor the listing of space is urban warden indicating the legality is not justified only the associated 3 r report if the case of dwells is evidence for legality there's no question my client had has nothing to do with with the permit process that letting led to the issuance of the 3 r report or relied on the 3 r report the price he paid was for a 3 unit property it's been accessed irrespective of the record as a 2 unit u unit property given that the person that stated the original grierns with the final completion is presented to withdraw that grierns given it will be

resolved by the certificate of completion we believe it is appropriate that the board run state the certificate i don't know. i don't want to restate it we have our - i think the parties have resolved their dividends we ask you to look at that agreement consistent that the policies the city has of reverseably the unit we need to do something to prepare we are - we put it in our hands to do the right thing and effect wait the agreement i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> we'll probably have some never a dull moment

i'll be interested in hearing from all parties particularly with the tenant issue. >> what do you mean all parties tenant. >> yeah. tenants yeah. >> is there a tenants representative here? >> good morning. i'm jeff i represent the gentleman in the civil litigation between him and the landlord i agree with everything mr. zach said we're withdrawing our objections to the issuance of co and not opposing it and look forward to over turning the rest indication. >> bans our stipulation i'm not opposing. >> okay. >> commissioner melgar.

>> a clarification so there's two issues that are ending i think this is never went to planning? i still feel differently about that but the other thing this through whatever process is a legal dwelling unit it does fall under rent control are it does not that's a crucial >> through the chair well, i think that is issue here is whether this has been approved as a legal unit to be lived in i think our director has initially issued the cf oshlgs and seeing there is no approval four a residential unit i feel like the if i look at the

declaration of the previous owner since it fell after 19 not under rent control. >> and we don't know the exact date it was a gardening shaky owned it and sold it without permits no permits attached the issue for me this was done without going through the proper channels we don't have the jurisdiction the right, the responsibility to grant approval of something at dbi it is a mr. haney issue so i think regardless of what the agreement has been made i appreciate that total to see the tenant and the landlord have agreed to go forward we can't bypass needing

the planning approval for this project so i feel like it didn't matter there of the an agreement the fact is there you go no legal approval. >> commissioner mar is it okay mr. sacking. >> honorable commissioner, i building ear very eustatement city attorney made clear they've determined the vest rights and the authority to include my client utilized on which 3 r report and utilized on the legit of the property you did have express authority for a laugh dwelling unit this is consistent with the building code in section one 09 point one no

building structure shall be used without a certificate of occupancy otherwise used for use we're not only looking at want cf c the general authority of that building inspection to approve a use nicole we have electrical permit other building permits that apply to this unit we have the city whether wrong or right i'm not going to give an opinion representing to a buyer of a property that is a lawful united and that buyer relying on that and renting out the property if we could go back 10 years and say we've made a mistake we've got 10 years of illegal rents this landlord should give back i hope this was

clear we do have a board authority basically to conclude our legal agreement is correct rapture to the property owners right to literally rely on recommendations made by the city thank you. >> thank you commissioner mar. >> yeah. so for obvious reaps this was a very tough case for us i think that's why it keeps coming back actually, i'm glad that the owners reached on agreement with the tenant but part of that also bothers me i think we have jurisdiction and we can make a decision because the city messed up you know and whenever the city messes up the owners pay

doesn't matter if their nonprofit owners that everybody loves or greedy landlords everybody heights in the city messes up you pay i have a problem with that being a landlord i also have a problem with - because if this was an illegal unit and a it is not necessary has claims to the rent the tenants shouldn't be there there's lots of cases that come before us this is a garage you can rent it for cars not people boom no people allowed so the tenant is on the street so to me i think this is good that the tenant has recourse but again looking at the landlord with the recourse but you pay the way i rent it you can't rent it to me i feel like if we make a mistake

and by the we i'm saying the big we not just you and i sometimes we have to pay i know it didn't happen very often by sometimes the city should pay and i feel for the tax question and the rent question for all the questions but i feel like whoops we said it was 3 unit it should stay 3 units you know my main concern i'm glad the inspector dealt with that we send an inspector back is that place liveable? should that place be habitual a for human beings not a garage i appreciate inspector reardon's update that is important that

place is a legal unit it is habitable probably more habitable than a lot of other places that you know come before us so i feel very awkward saying that the landlord has to pay no matter what and send back someone to planning because maybe i'm boys sending someone to planning is not good sorry sending someone back to planning is a punishment i'm not willing to do that right now you know if it was our mistake. >> okay. so trying to coordinate everything before i comment commissioner mar i think you brave enough to say stuff

we'll not say here i know you feel passionate i feel i was writing down the facts mr. reardon did his go back outstanding we can't argue aren't landlord i looked at the listing in 2006 or whenever it was sold and it was litigations as a 3 unit building so i'm pretty convinced that is a sequence of bad situation with that said i was not expecting the tenants issue to be resolved this is a huge factor in this case i'm a little bit upset this was not done before you brought it here the panelling donors box but i'm trying to understand that

negotiations can be tough and not easy to get to a quick period with that i'd like to hear from the rest of the commissioners commissioner melgar. >> firstly my daughter and other daughters were class migrants that's not going to effect anything i think about this i think that the planning department has jurisdiction over the zoning and we have jurisdiction overbuilding so you know, i really glad that steve went out and looked the unit no license safety issues that unit has been on for 10 years occupied as a rental unit we need more of in the city so i

know i feel like you know it's been there it's been providing a service no license safety issues we're deciding on whether we uphold a revocation of something that is on for 10 years based on this complicated set of circumstances i actually you know what we're heard last time i feel like we could we have jurisdiction and the planning department has an issue we can send an inspectors and issue a violation for that i think that is a very complicated set of circumstances i think in the end in the balance we get legal dwelling unit out of that and it is not necessary that is going to get to stay and no license safety

issues so - >> commissioner walker. >> so i have a couple of questions there you are yes you were indicating about the 3 r report inspired can telling me the date. >> did the 3 r report valid at the time of - directing your attention of its validity my point the validity period is one year it's inspired now. >> the issue in doing things this way i look at the data that we have at dbi at property all

the time and often i feel like obviously this should have gone through the proper channels of planning as it was being rented out to residential unit in our department was appropriate in re resending the cfo that was pit on that based on the erroneous information we're in this situation i'm not going to support over turning the directors decision on that i think that this is appropriate to have planning weigh in when something that bringing this to our attention i'll support holding any action in abeyance

awhile there's a permit at planning to add a unit illegal to this property but you know that's just me. >> no duly noted trust me well, your talking common sense that is not like we all disagree with each other i any mother comments by commissioners so we'll have closing comments from which party do you want - >> any rebuttals comments. >> no, i don't of anything more. >> thank you. i'll be very briefly andrew saks for the appellant recent board of supervisors legislation represented the planning code legislation first introduced in the summer of 2013 and infected

in december of 2013 and makes that clear claiming where's this is placing section 180 h if it didn't provide exclusive evidence the unit is illegal it is 3r50u78d to be a legal non-common issue this our board of supervisors speaking in the last year and a half about the presumptions in case like this this should give you comfort this is a lawful unit based on the record and if, in fact the burden should not be on my client but the person oppose this we ask i grant the appeal and run state it i greatly appreciate the time you've given

us i look forward to our determination. >> any more - any public comment. >> no public comment on this item? related to this particular item? okay >> i'd ask you ca wait for a moment then ma'am. >> sorry. >> ma'am. >> no, no if it is related to this our more than welcome why not tells you what is on our mind. >> thank you very much i'm draeblgs i'm a homeowner intense 1968 i bought a house 3 bedrooms how you doing sweetheart what happened my house caught fire on and on in 23408 where the 3 bedrooms were at

i needed my kitchen had to be redone do you know it took those good people to make sure that my kitchen was done because of the fact it was a kitchen downstairs the kitchen was there when i moved there and bought the property it was such a mess and downstairs was beautiful but it took the good people to come out and it was the upstairs that burnt not the downstairs in order to get it done i was so upset i'm 82 years of age when you have a property for so long back in the day especially in my community that was our community and mostly you'll have them had ups and downs kitchens i could only cook downstairs because i didn't have electrically electricity i'm so

glad city planning should not have been involved i thank you for working with those good people and thank you so much is it hurt me when i hear people going through something that almost happened to me what 2008 now, it's 2015 it is sad that people have to go through stuff that shouldn't even happen i want to thank you, very much. your staff and those good people here. >> thank you, ms. jackson any more public comment commissioners final thoughts and questions? >> seeing none. >> i have a question for the city attorney it talks about about what mr. saks said i believe the city attorney said that falls under our

jurisdiction. >> you have jurisdiction to access the decision of the director that's what your jurisdiction items from. >> exactly the rip indication of the 2008 there's a provision in the administrative code that talks about the excision is not authorized to wave the provision of the mechanic code, however, can grant a modification in this case finding the special circumstances and compliance with the strike letter of the code so. >> the planning code is it listed that. >> that's question for the planning department and commissioner i have to weigh in. >> i'll hear commissioner walkers question. >> i asked if the planning that the - would you read that again. >> section 77.5 f the commission is not