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and then, there was an inspection performed as a final with some notes and that, so that job was not final, and it was revoked prior to that and then we have the permit that was to redistribute the units and that was a form 8, which again, went through our process, and in a normal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 and it was predated the july second issue with the new certificate of final completing. A little background gone on our 3 r report, those are upd
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 ha
Rely on that i know that you have received a number of support letters, and from people in the community and emphasizing that point that i will not belabor it. No one was actually life ng this unit that was removed and there were no beds there and 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 inspectio
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 all of these details. When they get their original permit to proceed with construction or demolition or whoever you look at it, that should be the green light to go ahead and you cants like i say, hold any of that against the actual start. And so, i encourage you guys all to please support the appeal tonight and thanks for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. My name is evan clutter, and i lived in San Francisco for the better part of 40 years. And i am a home owner. And i am familiar with the specifics of this case. And i recently did work on my home and i had a girl come into our family. And made space for her. And this is a really scary for me. And if the permits that i sought and i p
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 on