Transcripts For SFGTV 20130804

The tenants who i believe who is here tonight was utesing it as a man cave and an extension of his office and at his request hearing, the members of the Planning Department set up and explained that that would be an inconist ent use of the zoning of the building and so there has not been a loss of someones tenantcy and so we believe that this gentleman rents a residential house in the procidio where he lives with his wife and family so this was not being used as a living unit in any event. The important point is that the documents upon which this change in the characterization of the building are relied upon are not conclusive, making the changes an abuse of discretion, both the change to the 3 r report by the department of building inspection which is based on the certificate of the final completing from 1970, and the subsequent request for revocation, is based on that characteristic and that change in the characterization from the 3 r department. And this is not conclusive. And no one has seen the permits that this work was based upon and no one has provided an explanation of why this cfc did not result in a change to the 3 r report or the characterization back in the 70s. And it is over 40 years and it is very hard to speculate and to get any conclusion on that today. And in light of all of these circumstances, there is no other aoe quitable solution than to grant this appeal. As a practical matter all of the work has been done and we will have to redo all of the configuration and reconstruct the unit in order to go through a 317 discretionary review hearing and we are talking about hundreds of thousands and potentially one Million Dollars and under the facts and circumstance its would be unfair and unjust for the appellant to have to shoulder that expense. And i now am going to turn it over to jeff inaudible the spokesman for the four appellant to address you more directly about the circumstances they find themselves in and the effect that it has had on them. Good evening commissioners, jeff shlarb and i want to personally thank you for your time and energy thank you. And i know that you have been provided with a number of reports in addition to the brief from our attorney. And they dont have a chance to address the board and so you know a little bit about me and the other owners in the situation that we find ourselves in. And we have brought, i brought this twofamily dwelling along with my wife and a couple of others and we bought the building 18 months ago and it was marketed as a two family residence with an unwarranted third unit, we are concerned before we purchased it through through the court and records that it was a two unit building and since the time, we purchased it, with that intention to return the family dwelling back by removing the unit and updating the building substantially and had had not been touched since 1938 and so it economic sense to do it all at once and to bring it up to current code and what they said. And i would like to just say that my wife and i run an interior design team we are not big real estate developers. We this is not our first property, we, this is part of how we make a living in san francisco, we renovate and move in, or we renovate and then sell and in this case, once the costs are adding up, because it was a big project, we saw the favorable market and decided that it was time to sell. And it is important to also say that not living in the removed unit and it was used as like we understand it a man cave or an office. I saw the unit personally and there was no bed in the unit. And also, elected briefly ignores the notice of violation, and that this was not related to the removal of the third unit. And the violation which was issued took us two weeks to complete all of the necessary inspections and the work on the property and to. And i guess, last i would just say that the work is complete and we have finished everything on our permits and this is not too months later that we were just permit and this 14 months after we acquired a lot and done all of the work. And so, you know, just the fact of it was effecting a lot of people and my wife and myself, and two other gentleman. And we just want to be able to move on and we cant afford to not continue and see through to this completing. And i do respectfully ask that the board remove this on the permits and allow our final inspection to take place, thank you very much. Question, do you happen to know what the cost of the demolition was, i mean i dont know if you can separate that out from the renovation work that you did for an amount that is associated with getting rid of the illegal unit . I think that it was five or 6,000 dollars that took three hours. When did you get the report indicating three units . I seen this three weeks ago but now it is it was a month ago, and the property in the contract, and the and the issue of the three hour report that can now become a three family dwelling. There is a buy out of the tenant . There wasnt. He was paid his 5,000 for relocation fees. And exactly what the inaudible require. I just wanted to know what happened there. Yeah. Okay. There were a lot of asks for a lot of buy outs. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you, good evening Scott Sanchez Planning Department first, i like to recognize and this is obviously a bit of an unusual type of paper to bring before the board, however, i have full confidence that the board can help us to resolve this matter, exercising that it is a appropriate wisdom. So, first, reviewing the facts of the case and how this matter has come to. And this dates back to january of 2012. When there was a Building Permit applications thought to remove a third unit from the subject property. And the property is located within the rh 2 dingt district that allows two units. And the report did not say that was a two unit building. This matter has been before the board at least one on the jurisdiction request and i did testify that this is a two unit building and that was based on the records that we had at that time. Subsequent in april of 2012, they sought a Building Permit application to reconfigure the units and so this was a three unit building initially and there was a unit out and the ground floor behind the garage and one unit and one above that and so thought to reconfigure the units and take the two full floor lead and combine that into one larger unit and have a second unit the second legal unit relocated to the require of the garage basement. And it was occupied and deemed to be the illegal unit. And that was following the requirements and we amoved that and there was an appeal that was filed on that permit. And however, it was subsequently withdrawn a few days after the appeal had been filed. And i think that was the same as the jurisdiction requestor. And so that was last year in 2012, and in june of this year, the department and the planning and building received complaints that the building had illegally been converted into a Single Family dwelling and they had a permit to remove the third unit and to reconfigure the units but not to merge it down to a Single Family. And the dbi investigated and found out that there was a valid complaint and the permit holder sought a permit to correct that and comply with the plans that were for last year. And subsequent to that, i received a call from the person who had the party before who had been in the requestor and the appellant and wrote that email and stated that he had evidence that it was effect a legal three unit building. And so we received from this party on july second, a final completing. That it illegally contains three units i took this information and went to the department of the building inspection and asked for verification and confirmation of the illegal unit count here would be for the building. And subsequent to that a new, three hour port was issued and that was issued on the july 9th. And with that information, included in the copy of that with our revocation request and sent that to the permit holder and knowing that there were a lot of different arguments here and we had concerns that were raised by the previous tenant of the property. And we had obviously concerns that were raised about equity and fairness on the part of the permit holder and it was the most appropriate fashion for dealing with this is a public hearing before the board of appeals. And as learning this i dont have the ability to conduct the public hearings whenever i see fit this matter use my discretion to take an action here and revoke the permits based on the report. And that resulted in this hearing before this board. And our suggestion here is for the permitting is in the request. And i appreciate you bringing this before us, and i think that was a wise call. And i am going to ask you something and it is not to place blame at all. But just as a means of getting all of the facts to make a determination and so why was this 1970 document not found . Initially . I do not know. But, what the reports that were prepared by the department of building inspection and it is my understanding that they review the past records and documents and i think that i am speculating on this that perhaps it is an address issue because i think that the address is listed at 23 to 27 on the cfc whereas currently the building goes by 2825 and i dont think that it has gone by any other address. And when it appeared before this board and the jurisdiction request, and that we do look at materials that are available to us to see if we have any evidence that may, you know, that conflict through our report. And based upon it. But, the question is who is there a burden of that error, right . That is why we are here before the board of appeals. I mean, that it is difficult to graple with and i think that that is a matter that is properly before the board for your guidance. Okay, thank you. And is the 3 r system trackable in terms of when changes are made to it . I will have to did defer to the Building Department is the 3 r building under the Building Department or the planning. It is under the department of building. I guess that most of the questions will be directed. Thank you. And could you allow a little bit on the issue of the address . Or the addresses . I mean, when did the third address which is the lowest one come up . I think that it is only exists in that 1970 cfc and it is not represented anywhere else and i dont know what the procedure would have been in 70, but i believe that the procedure for getting an address, if you want an address, you will have to go to the department of building inspection and you will have to issue addresses and i cant speak any further to the addresses than that. But i am not aware of any listing of this as 2823 other than on the 1970 cfc. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And anthony inaudible department of building inspection. The brief history on this one, again, the no activity on the property, again until january of 2012 and then we have the permit filed to remove the illegal unit. And in that permit application, the existing building and characteristics would indicate two and then the proposer two and so that would be a straight application where this is removing a unit that was not recognized based on a 3 r report. I will be happy to answer the questions regarding the 3 r, the Records Management division and how the documented the information and update those reports. And the particular permit here for the remove the illegal unit issued approved, and then, there was an inspection performed as a final with some notes and that, so that job was not final, and it was revoked prior to that and then we have the permit that was to redistribute the units and that was a form 8, which again, went through our process, and in a normal review and issue. And subsequently, there was a field inspection and there is quite an extensive inspection history and they issued a notice of violation, on for a deviation to the approved plans and the revision plans were submitted in this case, again, this is a case where the revision plans were not routed to planning for review. The subnative issues in the revision have to do with the fire and configuration i would say that in this case we should have routed that to planning the new as predated the jul certificate of final completing. A little background gone on our 3 r report, those are updated on a regular basis by our Records Management division, and again, the threehour report is a listing of official Building Permits and history of property based on Building Department records. And they are independent of many other city departments, so many times, we have a procedure where someone will submit to our department a collection of documents assessor and the department and the maps and the electric bills, and old maps and anything that they can do where they refined the discrepancy in the threehour port listing there building as an xnumber of units and yet all of the evidence that was documented was showed that there was actually a residence there for many years and so those documents are submitted to our Records Management division and they have been reviewed and without the issuance of a permit, the records would be corrected and updated. And that is the one scenario. And the other option, in changing a record is if we feel that the person and applicant, or a property owner, is there a discrepancy in the records and we believe that they are increbt we will send out an inspector to look out at the property through a site visit and do an over all, look at the materials and the age of the building and make a determination whether this would be eligible change the occupancy in which we then would have a permit document that would be filed and we would go through all of the procedures and then it would be official change of use. And change of occupancy and planning would be involved and actually issue a new certificate of occupancy. This is an unusual case where this document appeared and was generated from our Housing Division without the Records Management division. And based on the document itself, and in the dates on it was a valid document to be determined to be validly our Records Management and then they issued the revised 3 r and that related in the determination by planning today. Any questions . Are there other documents . No. No. Do you have one . Yes, we have the only document that i have is the certificate of filing the completing and the occupancy and that was a three story, and type of five nonrated family and it was issued as per what we would say was the acroynm and at that time the department of housing inspection and that authorized the issuance and dated 1970. And we know how long the three r reports indicated this was a two family, two dwelling . I dont have the specific time line, but all of the three hour reports that i have inspected with the exception of the new 3 r for the three units indicated as a two unit building. And how far back are the ones that you inspected go . I dont have the specific date but it is in the lease and we did not say maybe through 2012. And i am not clear on what precipitated your uncovering this new three r report which permits it, and again, what happened was the Planning Department received a copy of the certificate on completing. And the mention on the third of july, and then in july 9th is when ddi, and i am not sure how they received that document, and someone either transported it into our office and submitted it to the Records Management division and then they generated a revised three hour report. And you said, that there were a number of inspections that your department did of this project. Yes, we did one inspection and the initial removal of the illegal unit and then there was a series that was quite extensive inspection history like any project and periodic and plumbing etc. Just the typical. Standard inspections. For the code compliance. Is the concern here that in 1970, this would have been a rent controlled unit . Excuse me. Is the concern that if it was 3 unit it would be rent controlled . Yes. I mean that is my indication based on the Zoning Administrator requests yes. So i have several questions and one is based on procedure and protocol. And so, if i was a person that wanted a 3 r report and i walked into the Building Department, could you walk me through the procedure of how that works and how the information is physically obtained. So it is a walk in off the first floor, 1660, and there will be a form that will be requested and i am not exactly sure on the time line now and we have been generating some of them online but there is a little delay to generate that report. And it is not a standard document that someone just goes to a file and pulls out. Our division requires when that is going to be generated but the staff actually review all relevant record documents to prepare an immediate report based on everything that they have and so that it is current. And i mean, because, this is not the first time that a 3 r report has been changed without the home owner being aware of it. And what i am concerned here is sow so how long does that process take from when i actually asked for a 3 r report . How long does that process before actually get a threer report . Generally it is a week you will be able to generate your report. So again we have had quite extensive back logs and delays because there are high demand on that service for our records. And the various record requests whether they are a subpoena or three hours. You stated earlier that previously, if someone comes with the specific evidence, that will change the three r report or you will send the staff to take a look at ta. Correct. But in this particular case, the paper that actually changes it, was in your own office. Correct. So, why wasnt that, i mean, because, what i am concerned here is that the reprocussions they have rebuild this property and now you are saying that you have to unbuild this property. The department of building inspection given the zoning clearance we will issue the permit and the issue of the permit is the administratival act based on the information that we believe is correct and accurate as our property records and if someone made an error, in the information, we would take in the appropriate steps to correct that. And in this case, everybody relied on the information that was provided at the time. And our, Records Management division made a decision to revise a three r based on the certificate of final completing. And in the other cases there are no certificates and there are no inspection records. And there are documents related to occupancy and use, that demonstrate the use of a building. And from those documents, we have changed the particular use. Where did this cof material come from . It was my understanding that it was submitted by one of the previous tenants in that building and submitted to the those received from the Housing Division. Okay. And so, the Housing Division, had to seal off . Yes, the Housing Division again deals with the apartments and so with three or more units in a building becomes an apartment under the jurisdiction of the Housing Department and housing inspection. Does the 3 r, when they are doing the Research Check the housing . Generally, they would not search any additional records and they would ve every record that we keep is maintained in our record manage ment. And there are files in different divisions in the departments and within the department. But again, they are not considered official documents as far as our three r or our records manage. Okay. And i am just trying to get to the procedure. Yes. Thank you. And again, it would be and it would be a surprise to me in terms of this document being in that suggestion of the housing pile and yet not being part of the official record. I think that again there is discrepancies to the records that we find on a regular basis. And we try to determine what is more correct and what is the most Accurate Information and what is the safest avenue for this occupancy . Okay. Do you have anything again, that is 2823 . Address . No, again, we will file based on address and based on parcel and accessers block and it is based on physical address if you can imagine over the years, historically, and many of our records default to a 1906 date and so the records that we have are some what complete. And on some properties and others, there are some incomplete records. But couldnt 2823 have been associated with the third unit. It is possible. You know, again, you will see we will have and we issue the addresses and our Department Issues the physical addresses and so many times we will see the buildings that do have a series of numbers and we will have the a and the b and we will have the many different configurations of the addresses, whether they are tied to a specific parcel, and the number of buildings and the number of units in the building and that is all a combination of the records but all of the Building Departments and 3 r reports is what we use as our repository both are for the 2825 to 2827 correct. Yes. Thank you. Thank you we can take the Public Comment now, i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak under Public Comment. Okay whoever wants to speak first step forward. And again if you have not already filled out a speaker card it will be helpful if you will do that. Can i do it after . Good evening, commissioners, my name is Trent Jackson and i am just speaking on behalf of the slarbs and simply as a landlord or a home owner, and a resident of san francisco. And i felt compelled to come down here this evening to just voice my opinion because i feel that i have been wrongly forced to deal with the circumstances that i just dont feel are fit in the situation and obviously, you have all heard at length the details, but in my mind, the fact this they brought in based on the report that the city provide and they have gone ahead and they have approved that structure and it is a beautiful building now, and they have done nothing but improve and act in all of the right ways, that they should be penalized for this confusion, whether it is a 3 r report or