Invested. We have sat in that house for two decades before the codes changed and we were able to make it an a. D. U. It was six months working with a Civil Engineer and in 2016 we waited five months for a cemetery permit based on the plans we submitted. After two years in 2018 and after 22 years of being in that house, the codes changed and in 1996 our n. S. R. They called it an accessory building was rescinded by the city. We submitted new plans and waited another nine months for a new a. D. U. Structure. Were all in. We paid for plans and repairs. Over 3,000 in School Assessments which i love and we notarized a new n. S. R. That says it cant be in the parcel or used for shortterm rentals. We endured complaints and whist whistleblowing conspiracies and we had to complete two n. O. V. S that we immediately addressed and youll hear more about that, mostly for a naming convention calling it a shed. We endured someone stealing the posted permit signs off our door and then calling in that they werent posted. Weve endured malicious vandalism by mr. Burdick violently smashing our property as witnessed by neighbors. We had to take off work to file a restraining order. Weve endured his bullying and rallying neighbors and has threatened to call i. C. E. On my family. Enough is enough. We ask for the support of this project, the expertise of our City Department that we followed, and theyve held us to the highest standards on the regulations and the requirements and we followed them. I left you three minutes. Youre a good wife. My wife would have left me none. Before we got an a. D. U. Permit we got a permit for replacing two sides of the foundation, repairing walls, framing, repairing windows and siding and a new roof. Under that permit we were given two notices of violation and had two administrative permits due to the error in naming the structure, which i totally dont understand. The first was for a permit ridge being before i could get the permit together, a complaint came in that we raised the height of the building. This was proved false. So we stopped work and got a new permit. That was in 51717. Then in 31717 we were made to get a permit for the naming of the structure again a new naming permit. Then after that, we got an administrative permit, we had a second notice of violation come in from a complaint and it was alleged that we replace the entire structure and we replace all the foundation and illegally excavated. This was also proven false in a meeting with the structural engineer, myself, and neighbors. We had to correct the correction notice. We corrected that and i was issued a new permit for additional framing on the first level and additional framing on the second level so i could move the bathroom walls so slightly so i could accommodate a legal stairway. That permit only lasted three weeks because the city got the naming wrong. So i had to get another administrative permit to replace that permit, but once i got that permit things were smooth sailing and we got an okay to cover and everything was inspected. I got the plumbing and electrical and mechanical finalized and the final building inspection signature will be done upon the reinstatement of the a. D. U. Permit. But if the city wants home owners to build these oh, sorry. You have 30 seconds. Then we need more incentives and protection from these irrational neighbors and idle complainers. The complainers have to be held accountable for their falsehoods because there seem to be a lot of untruths floating around in this day and age. So i mean they said that i excavated the foundation and replaced the whole structure which is totally not true. Thank you. Youll be able to continue in rebuttal. I would like to cause for a moment. Did you Call Building services . Is there a problem with the air conditioning . Im sorry, its very hot in here. I think maybe open it up a little. I think it does affect the filming. I apologize for the temperature. Its my understanding that the a. C. Broke on this side of the building. Only in this room it was reported to be 85 in one of the rooms. Mr. Sanchez, could i ask you to abstain for a moment when i ask the appellant a question. Of course. Either one of you can answer the question im going to ask the permit holder, sorry. Normally when theres an n. S. R. There is a reason for it. We ask the creation of them when theres where we feel there is a need. There was obviously a need when you went to build your house. Can you describe, please, or can you provide the reason why there was this restriction that was required of you at the time that you built your house on this structure. Yeah, when i obtained the permit to build a new house in front, they made me sign the n. S. R. And have it notarized. That was for not renting the house in back. We could use it as an accessory to the main house. Thats what i did and i removed the kitchen immediately. And but no one ever checked. I removed the kitchen as soon as i got the n. S. R. And there was no kitchen and it was just used for storage. Thats all i used it for. It was very run down. It was common practice in the 90s to issue these n. S. R. S when additional rooms or structures were being built. That all changed with david chus legislation in 2014. And it wasnt legal at that time so thats why we had to sign it. Thanks. Sir, i have some questions either one of you can answer. So my first question is you began you embarked on doing more work on this rear structure in 2016 before the a. D. U. Ordinance; is that right . No, the a. D. U. Ordinance was already in place. I wasnt really thinking about the a. D. U. At this time. I was looking at this rear cottage until i built my house and it was terribly run down, 130 years or whatever. You were working to make it habitable as an accessory to the main house . Well, at first when i started, i was just doing the structural repairs. I wasnt totally thinking about it. And can you tell me what are the terms of the restraining order that you referred to. Well, guy burdick was walking by our house. The last warrior game as you may recall, about 4 00 or 5 00, hes carrying a guitar and started smashing my house. He opened the meter box and saw two meters. So he started smashing and smashing and little guitar pieces to his front door. I discovered it in the morning and came down. Two neighbors witnessed the whole thing. Thats why we have the restraining order. What does it require . Weve been there three times and nothings solved. Youre telling that to an attorney. Okay. Has a judge granted a restraining order . Its in place, but its not its temporary, yeah. Thanks. Thank you. Any more questions . Thank you. Thank you. Well now hear from mr. Sanchez. Thank you. The subject property is located in rh1 Zoning District and to help find some answers to questions raised. The building at the back based on our records has existed for quite some time for 1902. It shows at 1908 those records show it as a dwelling. I think it is in agreement that the current owners bought the property. At that time it had a singlefamily dwelling at the rear of the property basically fronting on poppy. And they decided to do a new singlefamily dwelling at the front of the lot. Its an rh1 district which only allows one dwelling unit. In order to render that they had to render it at the beginning and the back property to no longer be a dwelling. So they built the building at the front. Now in this permit they would like to restore a dwelling unit there, given the changes in the planning code and changes in state law. They can do an accessory dwelling unit in that rear building and thats the permit that they are seeking. And we have properly reviewed and approved this. Its under section 207c4. Ive been in contact with mr. Burdick in the past. I think in 2017 he reached out to me regarding the accessors information. While we rely on them for a lot of information within they do not represent the official legal records is it right as far as what we look at for the legal land use. We look at the permit history. I explained i dont know why the assessor made this assessment. It is legally a singlefamily dwelling at the front with a structure in the rear and whether its storage or accessory space to the dwelling unit, it is not itself a separate dwelling unit. But the permit they are seeking now is to accept a separate legal dwelling on the property. There may have been two meters there the whole time. The number of meters does not mean the number of units. Thats just irrelevant. That doesnt go into the factor. The issues raised about the permits at the rear, the senior building inspector is here and is very familiar with the history of the permitting on the property, but from all the information that ive seen here, theres nothing that gives me concern about the work being done in such that it would render this to no longer be eligible for an a. D. U. Certainly its noncomplying structure. If they demolished it and rebuilt it, take down the walls and reconstruct it, we have seen this on another case, they can replace the foundation. They can do other things. They can reroof and reside. There is nothing in the planning code that prohibits maintenance of the building. If they have dry rot, they can replace that. The question is when it requires the demolition and reconstruction of an element. But repair and ordinary maintenance is generally allowed and we work with d. B. I. And thats my understanding d. B. I. Determined if the building was demolished and reconstructed. Its an existing legal noncomplying structure. With that i think the permit was properly issued. I guess i was a little confused initially on the appellants arguments at the very beginning and therefore why is this permit even required. Legally it is a singlefamily dwelling. If they sought permits where they built at the rear, that is incorrect. That is why d. B. I. Corrected them on that and said that is not a separate dwelling unit. So i think the record has been cleared here by the various actions of the city to investigate the complaints and to review the matter. [ please stand by ]. As you can see, the permit actually allowed the homeowner to repair the foundation and rebuild the foundation. This is the front of the building where you can see the systems because theres a detail on the house, how are you going to repair the foundation on that side. I also have this is the inspection history. I understand there was a concern about the occupancy code which we addressed under administrative permit to correct that on the n. S. R. Restriction to correct that situation. There is a detail we address with the complaint in regards to the concerns about a retaining wall that was replaced. We reviewed the plans overhead. And face it like youre looking at it. So this is the poppy lane and this is the retaining wall. But in reality it was the sides that our understanding that the complaint was concerned about, which in fact were approved for replacement. The only retaining wall that was or the actual wall that was to be removed was in here which the owner did not remove. At the time we issued the second notice of violation, we were going through a transition where we had a new inspector, which he went to the property based on another complaint and he issued a notice of violation. After that the homeowner came to the department, expressing his concerns, and i went to the site. The reason that no decision was issued is we thought that, yeah, in fact the other than replaced the foundation on that side. But this is actually the existing wall. At the time where inspector lee visited the site, there was no plans on the property and the owner had put a coding. So i advised the owner if he was okay to remove the coating, and he did remove the coating material so we could see that was a retaining wall. Through the process, we did i do want to express that all the complaints were anonymous and most of the complaints were kind of vague in the sense of the whole scope of the concerns. Some complaints were just for completing the scope of work. Some complaints were just for change of views. There is a kitchen there. You have to understand when we went out there there is no unit because he was under construction. So we couldnt verify that there was a unit in place. We did verify the n. S. R. Restriction and we did go through a 1998 plans which shows the same existing conditions. I did want to show an email conversation with the complainant where we explain why we amended the notice of violation. And the normal protocol when we issue a notice of violation or the language doesnt conform with the existing conditions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for coming down this evening and explaining that for us. I know this is not our normal gig. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Please approach. Is there anyone else here for Public Comment . Okay. Welcome. Thank you very much. My name is eric glasgould. I live at 56 sussex which is three doors down. I want to thank all of you, commissioners, president , and Vice President for hearing my concerns. Its really lovely to live in a city where voices are heard. I wanted to raise an issue that i havent heard raised, which is really two issues regarding first fire safety in this area. This structure is just a few feet, maybe two or three feet, from poppy lane. The Fire Department has prohibited any development on poppy lane because they cannot access poppy lane with Fire Equipment or trucks. It is an unpaved lane and steeply graded and they cannot bring fire trucks up there. There is an additional concern because of how far rear this structure is and because 50 sussex, the front house, the main dwelling, it says it is attached on one side to 48 and the other side to 52. Its also a fourstorey building that there is no way for firefighters to reach this rear dwelling from the front of the street. I also want to note weve had three fires just within steps of this 50 sussex just in the last ten years and residents of the neighbors have been displaced, not just of the dwelling where the fires have been. Its really not a theoretical concern. The same issues that affect fire safety affect other kinds of emergency services, e. M. T. S. No one can get up that road unless you have a fourwheeldrive vehicle or a raised pickup truck. So im concerned with someone who lives near there about fire safety and emergency services. I also want to say if you rent a house in a very rear section of a lot and there are already a lot of two families living in the front, there is going to be a lot of pressure to use poply lane for entry and exit. Although people drive up that lane rarely because it says its very inaccessible, if ubers, lyf its, u. P. S. And deliveries are going up that lane, theyre not going to be able to do it but also im concerned about parking. Last but not least there isnt foliage making this a private dwelling. I want to say thats inaccurate. I dont think thats the main concern. I really want to thank you for your attention and thank you again for hearing this thank you. Just confirming no more Public Comment. Is there anybody else here for Public Comment . Okay. So were now moving on to rebuttal. Mr. Burdick, you have three minutes. Yes. First of all, no one has explained the two dwellings. Its a commercial multifamily occupancy and tax code and it is suspicious and someone needs to review that because 50 sussex is a singlefamily home, not a multidwelling apartment so theres a number of so his permits kept getting suspended and needing to be revoked overhead, please. Excuse me . If you want to use the overhead. Yeah, ill skip past that one. I do need the overhead on this one. Youll see that he never quite reassigns the accessory building as an accessory building. He always has an occupancy. Hes always saying its occupied, even though he changes the occupancy class to u and says zero here. Well, which dwelling occupancy doesnt constitute the change of occupancy . We dont know if its occupied or not occupied. Hes just confusing. Hes not clarifying anything. And of course that one gets shut down. That permit gets shut down. And he goes back again. Were going to change it to a storage shed. Again he goes back, two buildings, its occupied. Even though he says its occupied. Again, we dont know which one hes talking about when he says occupancy change is going to happen. You know how you get a Basement Foundation that wasnt there . You put on your plans that it is there and you have a friend look the other way, whos no longer at d. B. I. Because of this, and then you make the basement you have in your plans. Its childish. Heres more foundation work. Didnt have a right to any of this excavation. No, no, no, or that. No ones yeah. So the inspector comes out and says, yeah, site visit revealed rear concrete retaining wall has been replaced and floor systems that ten days it goes away. I guess he had an explanation for it, but i dont see how a senior building inspector looks at a rear retaining wall and says, thats an unsafe building, floor systems bad, ten days later when im not looking, it gets amended out. And this is the planning p. M. I. Website for the first permit john burton had in 2016. You cant access it now. Its gone missing. And also in plans the Fake Foundation that they drew in there that they wanted, you cant find that in the plans. Its gone missing. And 50 sussex is not 2,248 square feet. Its 3500 square feet at least. That top floor is not on the tax records. Thats a free floor not on tax records. Mr. Burdick, your time is up. Thank you all. Thank you, alex, for my emails. Ms. Rosenburg, im sorry. Okay. Thank you. We will now hear from the burtons. I would like to address your neighbor erics question about fire safety. Overhead, please. So this doubleshaded area is that there is a corridor that goes all the way from sussex street to the rear cottage. Its concrete so its fire safe. It could be used for emergency and the concrete pumped right through there. So i think fire hoses could go right through there. The fire hydrant is two doors down. So we think we addressed that fire safety for an occupant who would live there because we really care about who lives there. I want a teacher to live there. The n. S. R. Referred to our building i dont know about our taxes. We just pay them. I dont know who assessed them, why, but weve been paying them and we keep referring to our house as a singlefamily dwelling because thats what the city referred it to. We would ask for help. Thats why the naming conventions are really important as people look at this. So thats all i can say on that. I really hope you uphold our a. D. U. Process. We wanted it rented before school started. I spent 33 years as a School Educator at San Francisco unified and theyre still looking at housing. You should pay your property taxes. No talking in the gallery. Go ahead. I wanted to address about the two fires he was talking about. They were a disgruntled woman who burnt her house twice with arson, and i dont know what happened to her but thats what those two fires were about. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Just briefly. This building typology is nothing new in San Francisco. We have detached buildings at the rear of the property. In many cases. This board has seen many. It has been referred to building inspection to make sure the permit was appropriately approved for those fire safety matters. In regards to the assessor information, thats not relevant to the permit in hand. This permit authorizes a second dwelling unit in here. In 2017 i did communicate with mr. Burdick and explained where we are with this and that we look at this as a singlefamily dwelling. Whether they would pay more or less for a twounit building, i dont know. The assessors would have to comment on that. They might have a higher property tax bill, but i dont know and could be something for the assessors office. They could go back a number of years if that is an issue for them, but that is for the assessors office. It is not an apartment building, my understanding is it is three units and above. It is also not a commercial use build. Its a residential use. Again, the permit was appropriately reviewed and issued as an accessory building to allow for this permit here. Im available for questions. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hernandez, anything further . I would like to show the original permit showed in r , we did per all the complaints, we did have them administer a permit to clarify that. Again, throughout this whole process the department was actually actively looking into this complaint. We have ten anonymous complaints, and all the complaints were actually addressed within 72 hours of getting each complaint. We actually went to a point where we had conversations again with the complainant and we did research as you say they overbuilt the structure. We went to the plans in 1996. You can see the same detail as the plans in 2016. Sorry, inspector, so all n. O. V. S were abated . No, they are not abated until he finalizes all the permits. And, like i said, we do have the standard procedure where if an inspector goes in there and the owner believes that its not the right language or, in fact, its not the actual condition, the Senior Inspector goes in there and takes a look and amends the notice. Depending on whether there was more or less work that was done. And the appellant said a Senior Inspector came out the first time, but you had already in your testimony indicated it was a new inspector primarily. Yes. And after going back he coded it and removed that additional coding at his cost to indicate that it was the original footing at the time . And i do want to say throughout the whole process the homeowner was willing to give us access any time. Its difficult whenever theres an anonymous complaint, the homeowner as the right not to give us access. He had open permit and he was always willing to give us access. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, commissioners, this matter is submitted. In reading the brief, it was kind of hard to follow. At the same time, i appreciate chief inspector hernandez coming out. I worked with him a decade ago. I can tell you he is fair but strict. After reviewing this the n. S. R. S dont theyve all been amended. All those n. S. R. S that were done in the 80s and 90s were amended because of the use. As a realtor we use tax records regularly, but the approved permits from the city and county actually indicate the usage of the building and thats what needs to be checked here. I see after the testimony of reading the briefs testimony, im not supportive of an appeal. Anybody else . My motion is to deny the appeal and that the permits were appropriately issued. We have a motion before us. On that motion. [vote]. That motion carries 40 and the appeal is denied. Can we take a break until 7 00, please, quick, commissioners, because we lose a commissioner at 8 00 and i want his participation in as many items as possible. So if we can take a break until about 7 00. Thats about seven minutes. Okay. Welcome back to the august 28, 2019 meeting of board of appeals. We are on item 10. 1580 unit 3a and b appealing the june 20, 2019. The legalization of existing unit fire separation, new doors, garage, bathroom clearance and smoke detectors. 2019. We will hear from the appellant first. Good evening. Greetings. I am one of the owners of 1580 great highway and the current hoa president. They are a self managed condo. Each having a separate ownership. Financial responsibility for the building is broken down by equal access for all owners and tenants. Any structural changing must be approved by the hoa or unit owners. When permission is granted an a mend is amended to change only then can the permitting begin. Many of the line a tems listed on the permit have to do with encroachment on the common space without hoa approval and falsification of factual cry pieria. The reason we are appeals is to assure the owner of 1580 unit three strictly follows the hoa laws, california civil code and California Building standard codes. Thus far the owner of unit three refused to be bound by any legal standard. Ms. Zhang has not complied to the mandatory before it can begin. Permission was not granted by the hoa to alter the plan or use the common interests for the purpose of legalization as stated in the permit. 1580 requests the board of appeals cancel or revoke the tee permit. Violation civil code and Building Code violations. Three have her apply for conditional use permits to a four bedroom single unit. Problems with the permit. One, there is no unit 3a as stated. Only 1, 2, 3, 4 exist according to the map. These have been Public Record since 1983. I want to show that up here. Much two, new street trees. There is no space for this. It was denied. Three, no bike parking. The permit is suggesting putting new bike parking in the unit one space. Additionally the approved by suggesting edegrees to five feet. The building is played out has three feet. Parking spaces are deeded. Egress is restricted in 22rc. These do not take into account the space needed. To be clear, she does not notify the hoa or members before applying for the permit or it being issued violating the governing documents of the project. The hoa beliefs she was were negligent. She is aware of the space. It was acquired at the time of application. Four, subdivision and or fire separation wall is a violation of ccnr2. 4 relatings to subdivisions. It prohibited no owners shall subdivide the air space or create time share for condominium it also violated the civil code relating to other owners,crous trustees. 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 notwithstanding article 9 of the code a lot with additional unit may not be subdivided to allow for it to be sold or separately financed pursuant to a plan or similar form of separate ownership. She put it on the market to attempt to sell into two separate units. Information the application of submitted plans contains false and misleading information. All the information presented is true and correct. This would be sufficient to revoke. It must be revoked in order to crerecreate this to other deeded space and common areas. Not only physically outside but new venting would be in other space. These are not disclosed nor is permission received. Since the subject unit cannot be subdivided we ask the board allow a conditional use permit. Thank you very much. I have a question for you out of interest. How many people in your building live there, how many owners . Two. Two units which are rented out and two owner occupied. Thank you we will now hear for the attorney for the permit holder. H. Good evening and welcome. Thank you and good evening. I represent the permit holder. Contrary to what the appellants indicated, this is a building with three stories and originally to be a six unit building because the first floor consists of two units one and two afternoon the second floor is one unit, unit number three and third floor is just one unit, unit four. However, on the second and third floor there are two separate access doors to the unit and at the same time there has been installation of gas lines and plumbing to both the front part facing the ocean and the rear part facing the part of the unit. Each unit third and fourth unit consists of four bedrooms. I believe the architect will address this issue. I believe it was in the original plan this is intended to be a six unit building. For some reason at some point, the buildings have changed. The developers changed their mind and the building is two units on the first floor, one full unit on the second floor and the third one. Now, appl applelant indicated violation of Building Code. We will address that. As far as i know, there has been no violation of Building Code because there is no encroachment upon the use of the other units because of the suggestion from the building inspector that they could use independent instead of the hood for instance, there is no need to go into Unit Number One plumbing or the flu because you can use the independent filter system. What the appellant indicated is the violation of ccnr in terms of subdivision. There has been no intent to subdivide. Ccnr section 2. 4 indicates there should be no subdivision. However, subdivision is not defined. It goes on to define time share. Time share as an interest in the portion use of the unit. In the absence of a definition, we have to look to the Planning Commission, planning code section 207. 3 subsection h. That is on page 6 of exhibit 2. It says an additional unit authorized under this section cannot be subdivided in a manner to allow an additional unit to be sold or separately financed pursuant to a condo plan or housing conversion or similar form of separate ownership. It was intended in the Building Code to mean separate interests. In terms of subdivision. In this case, ms. Zhang has no intentions to divide. What she intends to do is continue the use of unit number three the way she bought it in 2010 she bought unit three. It already had two sub units, 3b and 3a and a kitchen in both units and partition wall between the two units. In other words, dividing a four unit apartment into two, two bedroom units. She has no intention to anything else other than what she found the unit to be in 2010 when she purchased it. In fact, when she applied for a permit under the legalization ordinance 4314, she could not subdivide even if she wanted to because it was prohibited specifically prohibited in the legalization ordinance to sell to subdivide the property to the extent that it can be financially separately financed or separate ownership. She has no intention of doing that. What she intended to do is to continue the use of unit number 3 into two separate units. Contrary to the appellants indication there is no intent to create unit number five or unit number 3a or b. It is the use of unit number 3 that she has intended to apply for in this particular permit process. The permit was issued in full compliance with the planning code and the Building Code more specifically in compliance with the legalization ordinance. There is no reason to deny this or to revoke this permit because of the scc r r. More specificicly the ccnr is not clear. What is defined as subdivision is not clear. What is clear under the laws, under the ordinance and planning code that it cannot be subdivided. Thank you. I have a question. As you stated it is legal locally because we allow it in San Francisco. Your ccnrs are state documents. Does it comply with the states ordinance . It complies to the extent the city allows it. I ask you specifically does the state allow it . The local allows it. I am aware of that. State law is higher than local law and federal law is higher than state law. It is not specifically preempted by the state. Second question. The appellant indicated for you to get this permit for the accessory dwelling or whatever it is called that you have to use common areas that belong to the hoa. How do you do that when it is not when that is not decided to the client. The use of common areas that they object to in terms of encroachment. That is the common elements. Maybe the architect has an answer for me. The appellant indicated for the required work to be completed it has to be in the common areas of the hoa. When you own the house you own the ground and to the sky and airways. In a condo you dont own the walls you own the space within the walls and the hoa owns the common areas. Thats correct. We spoke with the city of San FranciscoPlanning Department and they said that i think as of maybe two months ago bicycle parking was no longer necessary. We dont need bicycle parking. You wont have encroachment. We dont need to change the door because it complies with the requirements. Thank you for explaining that. Can you fill out a speaker card, please. Thank you. We will hear from mr. Sanchez. That is within the rm1 Zoning District. Under the densing limitations and number of units would be four that is why this building was constructed in the 1980s as four unit. It was consistent with the maximum allowed at that time. One of the units converted to a condo was subdivided bringing the total from four to drive. As you know, within the last four or five years or so there is substantial changes to provisions related to this. In the past it would have been more straightforward requirement every moving it because there was no way to legalize it they must remove it. Now the law allows for legalization of the unit and requires it. Once an illegal unit is created, it is illegal to remove it you need to go through conditional use authorization to authorize the dwelling unit. There is way path here forward to legalize it. We ask them to go through the process. They have the ability to request authorization to seek that to allow removal of the unit. The Planning Commission is about preserving housing. This is an additional unit for over a decade. I think generally we would look at this and our recommendation of the Planning Commission would be to retain the unit. In this case they have gone through the process to legalize the unit and met the requirements to do so. One of the issues that is a point of contention is the bicycle parking in the garage or storage area at the rear which may be common area. It is correct that over the last few months the projects like this did not require this bicycle parking. You generally do want it as a matter of policy, but it could be removed from these plans if the board so chose to do. 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 boards 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. There are different requirements under the Building Code r3 versus r1. It is four units. There may be other issues going from four to five with regards to the property but the permit applies. This may be a building question. Are they going to require sprinkler . That is for the department of building inspection. The issue about the subdivision and the language related to the legalization. They could not make a fifth condo out of this. It is the first time i heard five units. If it is four units a. D. U. How is that a unit. Adus are always a separate unit. It has been a couple years. It is awhile longer. Let me just get this wrapped up to your point. Really, by creating a second unit this cleans up a mess because it has already been used as a second unit, albeit illegal, because it is not recognized in any way, shape or form. Secondly, the issue of intruding into the common area the bike requirement now can legally go away so the intrigue is not there. I think the appellant raised other issue. With bicycle parking that can be removed. Then the ccnr issue is not our business. Also, the issue