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 authorized to wave provision of the electrical mechanic or plumbing code although the commission may

grant a modifications and nothing about the grant to. >> commissioners. >> so i just want to clarify what we're discussing who 33 we should overturn the directors decision to revoke the certificate of occupancy. >> to delete it because we gave them one and we're taking that back and if we revoke the directors decision we'll leave that certificate of occupancy. >> okay commissioner melgar would you like to make a motion. >> i'll make a motion that we uphold this appeal thereby revoke the directors. >> upholding the directors

decision revoking the directors decision. >> yes. and reinstating the thought certificate of occupancy. >> i'll second that. >> i'd like to point out that is the first time we do that to the director. >> sorry. >> so a there is a motion and a second we'll have a roll call vote on the item. >> commissioner president mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner mccray commissioner melgar commissioner walker no. >> the motion carries 5 to one. >> thank you. >> just as a procedural matter we're going to move on there the code section the bs c needs to issue haven't within 90 days i'll let the parties know those are the issues. >> thank you very much

commissioners. >> thank you. >> on to item 6 concerns for the removal of the debris to candle stick the department staff? dbi staff? >> is there a building inspection staff regarding this report?

okay. just one moment okay >> good afternoon commissioner president mccarthy and commissioners thank you for the opportunity to provide additional details regarding the demolition at candle stick stadium on the last meeting on march $18 million you having had various questions happening at the stadium through today is presentation we hope to answer those are questions as well as provide the roll and partner has in this project we are various city departments and partner representatives here with us to help to answer any questions you may have they committed stephanie and jerome

marvin willing la of the officer community infrastructure and to the redevelopment ocii has entered into public-private partnering with a private developer for the redevelopment of candle stick stadium and from lamar urban is here. >> in this presentation we'll briefly provide a demonstration of the timeline and staff will walk to our response to a letter from march 1 that captures the questions that we race thank you building inspection on march $18 million we'll be available for questions the commission may have at the end. >> demolition and project timeline

this slide highlights the key millionaires to get us where we are today, the process to demolish candle stick stadium started in august of last year into lamar urban had a hazardous material inspection and pc bs were present in the stadium work to remove this in advance of the demolition began in october and implemented in january in october larry interior had submitted two permits for the demolition one to don't worry about the stadium through i am explosion and one through mechanic or vinyl means they got a permit through mechanic nodes and lamar went to their permit to work on a demolition that

began in february 19th and scheduled to take 3 months to complete lamar can provide for details of the timeline should you have additional questions. >> after the commission hearing on march $18 million the clean air health alliance submitted a letter to dpw and dbi for the oversight of the demolition of the stadium their list of concerned is what you see on the screen those committed clarification open the roles of dpw and dbi and the air quality math district for the violations on that work site increasing community involvement on the current and future plans for the development site and that this involvement be provided in multiply languages for broad participation by neighborhood resident a call for increased

transparent in the air quality monitoring process including information on the location of monitor whether their correctly sfauld and additional monitor installed near the elementary school in addition to the monitor that the community be able to select a third party inspector and lastly that city agencies work together for the dust control practices. >> since the commission leading the march $18 million staff on dbi and dpw and ocii and lamar urban have two meetings held to insure their concerns were properly addressed today is presentation easy those individually and the did you want and the ocii and lamar will

address the questions on the next following slides. >> in a response to the alliance first point lloyd i'd like to go over goebs process we'll issue other permits with review and input from at agencies including the department of public health, the fire department, ocii and public utilities commission since it commends in february we'll have a building inspector to observe who the practices as conditions to the permit including the dust control plan are being followed specific regarding dust any visible dust that water is being used appropriating to make sure that dust piles are properly we had and stabilize and the job

site is appropriate cleans to reduce trucks tracking up dust open the resides to insure random inspections we have inspector arriving at different time and keep a log to insure we keep the compliance with the dust control plan to receive any compliments from dpw or the work we'll gladly go out to inspect arrest dust or other materials if the contractor didn't perform the work in correspondence with the dust control plan dpw e dbi can stop the work in event they continue dbi may suspend their work permit both