Good evening welcome to the wednesday, july 23, 2014, San Francisco board of appeals. The presiding officer is commissioner president lazarus and joined by commissioner fung and commissioner honda and our vice chair will be absent tonight to my left is deputy City Attorney and at the controls is the person victor im sdooej well be joined by the representatives from the city Scott Sanchez will be representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission and the Senior Engineer will be here and deputy City Attorney will be here on behalf of the department of Public Health will you go over the rules ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar soundproducing electronic devices. Please carry on conversation in the halfway appellants and permit holders and Department Representatives have 7 minutes to present their cases and 3 minutes for rebuttals all pa parcels parties who are not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes to address the board with no rebuttals to assist the Board Members of the public who wish to speak are ask but not required to submit a Business Card to the staff. Pencils are available on the lndz of the podium and Consumer Survey forms on the lefthand side of the podium. The board office is on Mission Street room 304 between van ness boulevarding its broadcast live sfgovtv channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sfgov and thank you at this point well conduct our swearing in process if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give our testimony wealthy please stand and raise your right hand arrest incomplete note that any member of the public may speak pursuant to the sunset ordinance under the administrative code thank you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . inaudible . Thank you. Mr. Mr. Pacheco commissioners we have three 0 housekeeping items all to do with at t ill recuse myself due to a financial investment. Commissioners because there are an insufficient number of Board Members to act on the cases they are going to be need to be rescheduled so so item 4 is the protest of the an excavation permit on Caesar Chavez after the first meeting date is october 8, 2014, the appellant is traveling during our september meeting date so thats the first valuable time and at t has requested the opportunity to commissioner white additional drawings to address the board request in this case so in addition to rescheduling please consider whether or not youll accept the drawings. I think i noted the drawings are extremely large are they going to put it into one drawing. The drawing is one large piece of paper and the drawings are straight in your packet youll have one piece of paper. Thank you. Commissioners we need our consideration to move this case to october 8th and whether or not you wish to accept Additional Information so moved. Any Public Comment on that item . Seeing none, mr. Pacheco call the roll please. We have a motion from commissioner fung to continue item 4 appeal to october 8th and additional inhabits not briefing allowed additional inhabits are allowed on that motions. Commissioner hwang. The Vice President is absent the president is recused commissioner honda thank you the vote is 3 to zero this matter is continued until october 8th. The other two items are a jurisdiction request and an appeal on 26 avenue protesting the excavation permit issued to scc the first available meeting is september 17th. There is yeah, thats the first valuable time the dph is unavailable during the september 10th meeting and an insufficient number of Board Members available for the august meeting so we need a motion to move to september so moved and any Public Comment on that item . Seeing none, mr. Pacheco. We have a motion then from commissioner honda to rescheduled items 5 and 6 and appeal to september 17th. On that motion to reschedule both matters. Commissioner fung. Commissioner hwang and Vice President is absent president is recused. The vote is 3 to zero both matters are rescheduled to september 17th we can ask the president to return. Okay. That takes us to item one general Public Comment is there anyone that wants to speak on an item not on tonights matter then item 2 it questions or comments this is my fellow commissioners last meeting what an honor and pleasure to serve on this board with you, chris and wish you luck. Thank you. I also for the record wanted to state its been an incredible honor and privilege to serve on the board and surprisingly a pleasure ive learned a lot and enjoyed working with an esteemed group of people and especially the work of sdooenl and has kept us together as more goes on behind the scenes and victor i appreciate you and want to thank that board for having made that a great experience i hope its been good for the community as well. We would love to see you again. Thank you. And id like to say thats been a pleasure to me ive not met you before and i admire the way you handle the questions and insight and youre going to be missed and wish you all the best and whatever you spend your time theyre lucky to have you its been a pleasure to work with you and appreciate the work you did for the board and to have i here such a strong voice so far thoroughness and the way you treat the public is excellent i appreciate it and any Public Comment on that item . Okay. Then well move on the next item is item 3 the boards consideration of the minutes of july 16, 2014. Changes, additions if not do i hear a motion to approve the minutes so moved. Any Public Comment on that item . Seeing none, mr. Pacheco call the roll please. We have a motion from commissioner honda to adapt the july 16, 2014, minutes on that motion. Commissioner fung. Commissioner hwang. President is absent. Commissioner president lazarus thank you. The vote it 4 to zero those minutes are adopted okay. Then we have rescheduled items 4 example 5 and 6 next is the property inspection protesting to gary young to remove and cap off the gas pipe start with the appellant you have 7 minutes. Good evening, commissioners before i make my remarks i want to request i can submit to you a rely ive prepared for this case and that i will also be summarizing in my statement tonight. A good thing for you to have theres an exhibit in it it includes new evidence regarding the status of the unit weve only found on july 21st of this last monday of the Housing Inspector they commented. Has this information been shared with the other parties. Ill be happy to share that with the other parties. I be if you would include it with reference in our comments well decide whether or not tests important to see it. Certainly ill be referring to it in my comments and will be putting that on the overhead projector. The sole question for the board can a plunging permit be the basis for removing a housing permit from the market they seek to remove the stove remove the unit in other words, convert the unite to nonresidence use and e vehicle the tenant the removal removal is not a demolition and not required a Building Permit to remove the concepts the planning code states removal shall mean with the conversion demolition or merger in other words, removing the unit can only be accomplished by one of the methods for each the methods the Planning Commission requires a Building Permit not a plumbing permit section 23d 1 demolition and e1 for merger and f one for conversion. The permit holders is seeking to convert it to nonresidential use if the intent does not amount to a demolition then thats a conversion it occurs when the residential unit under go a use as defined by planning code or a change of occupancy as regulated by the planning code of any dwelling unit to nonresidential use in zoning controls on the removal of zoning units. The unit is a dwelling unit as denied in the planning code. Quote a room or scoot of two or more rooms thats designed or occupied by one family doing its own cooking and only having one kitchen the San Francisco Building Code riverside requires a Building Permit to convert it to a nonresidential use and a Building Permit as i stated earlier therefore the plumbing permit cant trigger a conversion although mandatory review is not required for the non residential units the Planning Commission can consider applications to remove dwellings at discretionary review holds the permit holder had applied for the correct permit because of the block book notice the plumbing permit must be revoked because it violates a code that states no place for a Building Permit or other permit or license of permit of occupancy shall be approved by the Planning Department and no license issued by any Industry Department that changes a contrary to the provisions of the code. One San Francisco Building Code requires a Building Permit to convert the two unit to a nonresidential use therefore the permit holder tried to initiate it to number one residential use contrary to the planning code therefore the permit should be revoked. The legal status of unit does not mean to file a Building Permit the determination of the legal status of the unit is not relevant or appropriate in this proceeding, however, the permit holders size the unit is illegal to justify his use of the Building Permit. The planning code defines a residential unit as a legal conforming or nonconforming dwelling unit in the planning code section. The gentlemans unit is a dwelling unit as defined in this section as defined a residential unit can be a legal conforming a legal unit or a legal nonconforming unit the law does not permitting provide a third definition the conversion to nonresidential unit with nonlegal status requires a Building Permit not a plumbing permit theres nothing that says its illegal and in the paragraph 6 of the regional occupancy two family dwellings theres no pending 90s notices on the non conforming status the september 2013 nova didnt mention it im going to be showing you a data sheet hopefully, youll see that after two recent inspections on june 24th and july 9th any Public Comment . 2014 the inspections were inclusive as to the existence of a violation of the housing code with respect to the legitimate of the unit. After further use on july 21st entry the Housing Inspector said it shows an r3 d 23 facility the legal description further indoctrinates defines two residential units on the ground floor. In fact the Housing Inspectors findings says the housing unit maybe a legal conforming unit the permit holders allegation its illegal is in dispute and cant be substantiated without the involvement of the Planning Department through the discretionary review thank you. Yeah. Thank you we can hear from the permit holders. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. I think my colleague mr. Crows argument is predicted on an incorrect interpretation of the applicable planning code specifically code 317 conversion of the merger or demolition of a residential unit is preceded by a definition of what constitutes a residential unit. Its illegal common or noncommon mr. Crow received to both of those. Mr. Crow has apparently obtained doimgs im not familiar with, however, whether or not a complaint dictated sheet on the site resulted in a legal status of a unit is not surprisingly and not the dbis purview were not recovery excuse me. Were not demolishing or converting a residential unit were removing an illegal unit implementing our rights under section 37. 8910 of the rome rental to do one thing demolish or otherwise remove from the housing united by implementing or rather invoking the administration code. Historically this method of recovery has been used steel to recover inlaw units and recently the City Government has has enacted he had methods for legal inlaw units at the desegregation e discretion of the property owner. The explaining memoranda from the dbi from the Mayors Office says this is a method to encourage people to legalize inlaw units to provide for housing stock. What the tenant in this instance is proposing that the ordinances that are not applicable are not encouraged to get the tenant to legalize the unit but because were not demolishing a legal unit its an illegal unit its proper to remove a cooking unit from the illegal unit by use of overthecounter plumbing permit. If a permit for any purpose were made necessary to go through the Planning Department or in order to legally have a permit issued there 0 wouldnt be an over the counter permit it includes a number of permits but one type of that is referred to as an example from the dbis literature it any permit that deals with the modification of a kitchen or bathroom so long as theres no change to the building in other words, not blowing out walls that sort of thing. The tenant in his belief again refers to the availability if the owner wanted to attempt to legalize the unit using the code. However, as stated before whether an owner wants to attempt to legalize a unit is under your discretion its not proper to say the tenant is using the board to attempt to coerce the owner when its his right to remove the unit under the code. Thank you. Ive got a few questions counselor what is a our response to the ground floor. I dont believe theres a cognizant document the 3 r ill attach to our brief refers to an original use as two residential i take it not specifics to the unit but the present legal use the profit is two units one residential over one ground floor commercial unit thats with the polk street use. Thats all a clarification. Did you know the unit was illegal when rented. As weve state the illegal unit was was already installed. When your tenant was aware of the lease why wasnt it mentioned to the taken place possible street unit has been renovated and something the tenant agrees the unit is in perfect condition. Theres true but theres nothing where the owner represented to the tenant tights quote unquote a legal unit. If he was aware why did he rent the property. Im awarethanasia thats an obligation of the landlord as the Mayors Office has recognized there are tens of thousands of illegal unit throughout the city and im not aware of any instance or provision of an ordinance that says if its an illegal unit the landlord must inform the tenant of that and okay. Thank you. Mr. Duffey. Good evening, commissioners joel duffey dbi. First of all, id like to wish commissioner hwang all the best in her future its been a pleasure knowing you at the board and youve been thorough in my opinion which i like i like your fairness and its been a pleasure working with you best of luck in the future. On this case commissioners theres a lot of mostly parts reading the brief and ill speak about the plumbing permit i want to speak about the complaint and the process that maybe should be taken care of so the plumbing permit was applied for by our plumbing provision on obtain think thursday it was given to a description thats covered to remove and cap off gas pipe ive checked no permit from our plumbing provision so the permit is properly issued for that type of work. And with that said, from reading the brief and from the notices ive seen someone get a got 0 notice to demolish i believe it talks about demolish lets see this. Sorry in those cases we typically see a Building Permit with plans to if you are removing anyone thats illegal installed and in that building for example, if we did have a legal conversion to residential use and that use would want to be continued wed like to see the use of the building and what the use of that area of the building was being used for and revert back to the original use whether it was storage or laundry area even if it was rooms done if the stove and cabinets were removed wed see that on the plan i dont see that and if the purposes of the plumbing were to remove a stove that was in an illegal residential area we certainly need a Building Permit to go with that. I saw a notice to the language here. The notice is hereby
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.