many issues raised are about the ccnr. the city does not enforce those. that is private between the parties. as far as the planning code and compliance nothing is raised by the appellant to indicate anything is not complying with the planning code requirements. we request the board address the concerns raised over the bicycle parking the board may do so without violating the planning code that the bicycle parking can be removed if that is the board's wish. >> mr. sanchez because the a.d.u. is accessory to the primary residence it would not establish a separate unit. >> this is a five unit building. it may be called accessory. it is a new dwelling unit. accessory is the name. it creates a new dwelling unit. this can be an issue when you go from two units. >> my question is which may or may not apply. maybe not the building or planning code, but when you change the status to four to five unit building everything changes insurance changes, mortgage definitely changes, because it is now two to four units is considered residential and five plus is a business.

. >> then the ccnr issue is not our business. also, the issues raised by fellow commissioners with regard to the building one number of units to another number of units, that kicks in potentially higher insurance. that really again is not in our purview to consider. thathatthat is a civil issue and between the hoa members, correct? >> correct. >> we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, commissioners. department of building inspection. the one thing i see that might be a possible problem for the permit holder is she signed an agreement stating they wouldn't have anybody but licensed contractors. that is because it is a multi-unit building. they were allowed to pull the permit as an owner. the price is a little low, too. when the building inspector goes out there he is going to ask them to make adjustments to the valuation. >> is that a building inspection issue as opposed to ahoa issue? >> correct. >> that will be noticed as far as inspection red flag goes up, new requirement. we don't have to wor

the installation is prohibited by the ccnr would require the other members to sign amendments to the plan which has not been done. five. there are other false misleading permits. the estimated cost. they estimate $14,100. this is excessively low in light of reality of the needed work to add a new kitchen, in plumbing, sprinkler and reroute sewer lines for the toilets for the bathroom upgrade. she provides false and/or misleading information to minimize the scope of the project. another issue is false and misleading statement regarding affordable housings. on page 7 they ask if the city supply affordable housing be preserved. it will be enhanced because it adds to the housing stock. it is a four bedroom and four bathroom unit. the application and appeal would subdivide to two units 3a and b as sited on the plans. this does not increase the city housing stock as it has the same amount of people. the mortgage contracts based on this being a four unit not five unit building. approved plan problems. it is a deeded four condo building. legalizes cannot pursue the condo. it is prohibited no