Brief that there is nothing to prove this was not done with a permit. Right no, but all the architect was able to teller the building was not done with any permit and i wasable i looked at the Building Permit history on for this premises and didnt show that any such permits were issued in the past 20 years for the building of the kitchen but here the kitchen is. How old is this building. My client bought the building in 1984 i dont know how old the building is. I have a few questions so how many unit are in this building right now. Technically my client lives in the upper unit this is the lower unit as a back unit where ms. Functions son lives a Spare Bedroom type of situation not a selfcontained. Its not a kitchen. Right thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Good evening Scott Sanchez planning staff with a rh3 up to 3 dwelling units under initial review of our electronic records were report i see a appropriate printout of is an unknown so no conclusion whether permits there was one in 2004 for roofing that is unreliable and the permit which is before you to remove the illegal unit that notes the number of units as two, that said the san born records to indicate two units the Building Construction date in our database says 19 hundred it is unknown because probable constructed around the earthquake and those records may have been lost in under the code certainly up to 3 twnlz of it was at the maximum decency it allows for the process code requirements can be waived so information i wanted to provide for the board no open enforcement case for this property ill be happy to answer any questions. Photo of the kitchen it looks like it was in the 60s or 70s. Yes. And the current zoning density allows that unit were not sure how many unit are there. Of there were three or four under the provisions they could legalize one unit and the other unit potentially under the program we have. Mr. Sanchez did you come across the Square Footage of the property thats a good indication of how much space with legal in the building. We have in your records here building area is listed as 35 hundred square feet and thats the Square Footage. Okay. Thank you. Inspector duffey. Joe duffy dbi Building Permit under paling appeal is for at building is a type 5 frame building according to the characterizations 3 stories an art occupancy thats the what we have on property profile and the people put down as characters for the building the 3 r is off the permit itself was applied for to remove the illegal kitchen and legalize the existing bedroom and comforter to a half by that time bathroom it went through the department of building inspection it was over the current permit on the 21st of january with the Building Planning mechanic and pc charges issued by the 24th of january and 13u7d on the first of february pending the appeal i looked at the complaints open the 0 complaints no notice of violation or complaint were aware of ill be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Duffy in the report in the packet removal i have dwelling unit without permit not subject to section having direct access to the street i dont understand what any of that specific. Its city mr. Sanchez note thats some of the notes in the back of the permit mr. Sanchez can come up and talk about that. And the other questions. And if it says legalized bedroom what im. Someone has put in rooms down on the ground floor and come in and want to take out the kitchen but legal lids are the rooms connected could one the unit they take out usually the kitchen but im not sure usually it means legal listing and keep the rooms plus or minus a kitchen to connect the rooms up above sometimes youve inform got a ground floor garage garage and behind the garage someone has built a room and kitchen commemorated that to a local unit now it so you would they want to take out the kitchen and keep the rooms as part of the unit thats not what i heard the permit holder there was talk it feels confusing theyre trying to legal lids it and take out the kitchen that didnt make sense soumd so you would they want to legalize the rooms no plan to see if thats connected some of the language from planning maybe mr. Sanchez can talk about the direct assess some days indirect and direct access. But as far as the Building Code is concerned decrease no set process there for legal listing the bedroom in the sense if it conforms to high provides the proper vent insulin ution, etc. , etc. And the believable didnt legalize unless they find it is illegal. No, we do if theyve got rooms built without a permit and now come in you could technically legalize the habitual rooms but not considered another dwelling unit but a bedroom connected to one of the unit if theres no plans thats only im speaking on what ive seen in the past it is no different from a singlefamily home with rooms on the ground floor someone want to convert to a local bedroom but has to meet the codes. The fact theres no permit code history. Theyre saying they have having an existing bedroom that quo would have been misrepresented in that case youll order all the micro film and this old ground floor came from i dont know if we have enough here in the package to tell us that so. That leads to my question we know there are additional rooms down does that permit encompass those rooms down or just the room that the tenants are ininhabit now. I saw something in the brief about another part of the reinforcing but this permit didnt address it i dont know if its one part of the ground floor or all of the ground floor but i mean when you come into the believable and i talk about legal listing something that is something that is built without a permit and now want to make it legal youve got to meet the guidelines youve got ceiling heethsd and egregious window and light and ventilation and some other things but certainly in a bedroom an egress window the term legalize we assume that was not built legally and now the existing bedroom is why if it was an existing bedroom why are you trying to legalize it. I have a question. Im sorry if we got this as dbi in the form of a complaint you order all the permits history and plans and have to go backwards and see where this building start and how to end up and give them advise could come if the form of a notice of violation. Well. Those people can that might mean someone losing where they will. If i can phrase it if we grant the appeal and overturn the permit would there be a basis for deploying to have issues with this building does that question make sense. Unless i file an nov. It would be that someone files a complaint. But you based on what youve seen because it is legality question in the air i guess you wouldnt file an nov. The board of appeals tells me were not going tout out there tomorrow morning if we get a complaint we have to investigate it but wherever that leads use it leads us you alu youll order the micro film and you know a lot of time ill be honest it is really postcard hard to do that plans were not not that many plans until the 60s and 70s we didnt see drawings in those types of buildings not easy. And then youve also got the Water Department records i heard someone say 3 units in the building i think that people are saying it is 2 and the city accessory. Mr. Sanchez would you mind interpreting please. Scott sanchez planning staff so the plan is for it was debiting quit meticulous he had notes removal of the dwm not subject to section 317 of the planning code rooms done having dick access to the street with a lacquering lack of connection and some measurement of 25 feet max with no complaints open the property in regards to the first part given no complaints on the property given the record there were permit that is a 2 units but no clear report i did not discuss that with edgar by built without the permit that was even though description provided by itself sponsor they describe it as remove illegal kitchen and convert laundering laundry so section 317 doesnt apply to the unit whether when there are 3 or less illegal unit thats why 317 didnt apply and the ground floor rooms trying to discourage the creation of illegal units we limit whether there is a half or full path bathed is a noting because there was a total lack of connection between the floors only a half bath would be allowed so the project sponsor didnt provide the plans a brief supplemental my assumption the plans are in con formations with the room down matrix i tried to explain that note. Wouldnt you read no visual or direct connection not conforming to the rules. Well, that allows the developments of the floors even though no connection its more restrictive. Theres no independent as he access. Right in this case they have direct access to the street with a total lack of connections between the floors under the matrix you could have a half bath thats b was approved. For this existing unit. That is accessory space if it was developed into the ground floor depending on the connection to the floor above and the connection to the street having accessory living spates a media room or whatever but limit it based on the floor above if you have apple open connection you could have a full bath less likely to become a local unit thank you. Any Public Comment . Okay. Seeing none well take rebuttal from the appellant. I wanted to briefly address it United States unit is separate increase a kitchen and living room theres one bedroom to the right side when you walk in past the kitchen and living room when you walk into the living room if you go to our left a second bedroom and than a bathroom a selfcon intend unit that has light and Running Water and heat eerie heard from the city plans that could have been lost we have no proof that was not part of the original building maybe the kitchen was remodeled to the 60s i dont know we heard the permit holder say go ahead bring Courtney Brown so i just want to reiterate that is permit holder said that she if have plans from the architects regarding why this is an illegal unit not submitted we dont know who this person see and their career history also the permit holder said they never intended to advocate the tenants but they also said theyre not trying to legalize this is a dwelling unit so theyre not trying to legalize the dwelling unit then technically the tenants are evicted thats why this permit should be revoked and i was confused of the presentation they brought the permit to see if they could legalize it bring it up to code it moefrd out i dont see how this permit shows it is legal or legally clearly it would make that illegal watt a kitchen that would no longer be a rental unit because the kitchen is gone and required were asking you revoke this permit and let them start over theyre not theyre asking i uphold the permit to remove of kitchen. Ms. Fox were there tenants in that space before your owner. It looks like a unit thats been used for many, many years i want to point out the front area is now it discuss the bedroom thats separate and apart from the unit where they lived when with you walk in theres a coordinator to the backyard and a separate door it leads into their unit so theyre not complexity or near each other either. Thank you ms. Tongue. For the presidio all right. So i can clarify what ive previously stated so what the permit holder indicated to me was that there was not sorry there was not currently a legal sorry the architect told her that that was not up to code she said what she meant was bring it up to code not legalize it as as a separate unit if the kitchen were demolished or singlefamily home then in the case the rental room without being a separate dwelling unit would be legal housing thats how it was represented to me based on my client her son lives in a backroom but those rooms are connected to the top thats why i was unaware it was two separates units theres a total lack of connection from the balk interior of the downstairs floor im happy to clarify i probably need to do so. How many units my representation there are two units but the architect says the bottom one was built without the benefit of a permit. I understand so theres only one occupant as a single unit on the top floor and mined one unit on the ground floor and another room occupied by the Family Member isnt that correct. Thats correct. So can you clarify our intention of your client the permit holder is she planning on legal listing two or three united not or legalized whats the clear intention. My client wishes to turn those are into bedrooms for here family theres not as of this date not an owner move in or an eviction but the long term for my client she has 4 adult children. So i think the tension right now right now if we prove to bring it back to its original if it were a singlefamily. Thats correct. And code has nothing to do if something was built in 19 hundred. Except planning has an emerge problem. Anything further from the departments . Just the commissioner that someone came down to the building inspection to apply for a permit or find out about the legalization of the unit we do have a specific window in our window number ten as mr. Sanchez reminded me it was husband generated because of the trying to legalize the unit with the Mayors Office is trying to do we have a specific window it is disturbing that someone took out the unit thats what im hearing im confused of the number of unit theres one dwelling unit i thought i heard the lady said and one on the ground floor i would have been of the opinion two legal units and an illegal unit on the ground floor im not i believe its the permit of a three story but it sounds like it is ground level with two levels above. We need clarification especially at 35 hundred scapegoat and the records are 2 unit 35 hundred secret i heard that as well i dont know it is confusing. Okay. So thank you. Mr. Sanchez anything further okay. No commissioners the matter is submitted. Clear as mud laughter . Yeah. I mean just based on the information the only thing i read into it is an attempt to evict and therefore im not preempted to support this permitting permit and theyll have to go through the process they need be to be clear and legalize they need to be clear if they only want a single unit. So our opinion to deny the permit commissioner. Im not to move to revoke 9 permit. No objection from me. Motion. Redefining commissioners. Going to move toy advocate 9 permit on the because the description was not clear and inaccurate. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor and commissioner fung to revoke this permit with the findings that the scope of work go description was not clear and inaccurate an m that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson is absent thank you. The vote is 3 to zero this permit is revoked given the boards vacancy 3 votes needs to overturn any departmental action thank you. Take a a 5 minute break. Were returning to the will march 25, 2015 brrldz and calling item 9 appeal gregory fox and anita versus the Zoning Administrator subject property on lake street protesting the january for a rear yard variance to construct a rear horizontal and new three story into the rear yard well start with the appellant you have 7 minutes. Closure ive hired reuben, junius rose for a personal private matter prior and feel like i can hear this case obviously. Before i start my presentation based upon the fact we have a high burden and one of the issues with this procedure since the Planning Commission weve asked to be included in with the dialog and been included in that so so would the board poison this and have real dialog with the Property Owners again, thats one of our main issues here as well but i were ready to have a host off neighbors here so whatever. Well precede. Okay, here we go. Again members im annuity rude im here are my husband mr. Fox we live around the corner from the subject property and lived here 23 years raised our 3 girls as each of our surrounding neighbors and while weve not at the end the discretionary review hearing we find this with interest to the varies procedure the neighbors who opposed the discretionary review please stand up theyre all here designated 3 speakers for the Public Participation time and in order to keep our points short and to the point the project sponsors didnt understand the burden of proof indeed i do i spend pie professional life defending folks the standard is that the board defers to the Zoning Administrator error through was therefore an abuse of discretion the entire discretion was built upon his decision from the lot precludes other decisions it didnt and the primer argument by the Zoning Administrator in this decision the shape of the lot requires variances other than the 3rd and 10 floor that was not his opinion during the review process as evidenced by his combines to the applicants the evidence in exhibit 8 of our appeal until the final decision the primary guidelines issued by the Zoning Administrator that was county to the patents on the first story and the rear yard variants is okay secondstory no variance sought and the thirdstory he provided guidance that the other solutions were possible but not expand the