you rent them as rooms, the whole time, now it is convenient for it not to be a rentable unit when you want it to be. i mean, so, i don't know, i am trying to get a question. >> take us through the process to change it from a single family to two units. you would have to go through the planning and the parking is an issue, just because someone puts a kitchen in there it does not make a legal unit. unless you have the building permit to do so. i really what probably annoys me and everybody is that the unit changes on building permits and someone puts in three we give them a permit for three, i wish that it was better or it should be clear are and this is going back 70 or 80 years ago, it is very difficult, but and then when the people are living there a long time and the gentleman buys it, i don't know if i would have wanted maybe the commissioner if you had walked it you may would have disagreed being a realtor and it is hard to believe that it is three units but he probably bought the property and whether he knew or not. but it is what it is. but the building permit wise, i do in the see a permit to go from one to two, or two to three or three back to one. it is jumbeled. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay, seeing none, we will start with the rebuttal with the appellants. >> i first wanted to clarify something. there is an issue of protected status for tenants who have been there for five years in our catastrophickly ill and that would mean having a life threatening disease and mr. hyman having hiv certainly does qualify for that. i also wanted to clarify that on february 5th, mr. zaches called me to discuss settlement and asked my client to make an offer. a couple of days later i sent him an e-mail stating that my client want to stay where the unit rent controlled without being evicted but he would consider making an offer. this was very difficult for my client to make such an offer and i also told him why doesn't his client make us an offer and mr. zaches refused and insisted that we make an offer. and again it was over after ten days that my client put forth an offer it was not 6 figures. and i do believe that they are trying to settle and work it out and i don't think that this should be a part of it, but i will state that if this owner has no interest whatsoever in evicting mr. hyman then he should be able to state on the record and stipulate as a condition to having these permits approved that mr. hyman's unit will remain as a separate rent controlled unit and that mr. hyman could not be evicted unless there is a good cause reason under the rent ordinance and the reason is not a no-fault eviction, he cannot evicted for an ellis act for illegal unit and the fact that he is turning this into condos or that somehow he is by living in his unit it is there for somehow illegally using this unit for whatever reason it is not considered a separate single unit. they have, in fact, admitted that they planned to do rent increases. if this were... mr. zaches just said on the record that they were going to increase his rent. as a single family home the rent could be increased without limitation whatsoever. mr. hyman could go to paying five times his rent. and this would be a defacto eviction. >> we would have him stipulate no rent increase. and we ask that this board as a condition of approving these permits, if they are not going to deny them, that the owner put on the record he will not do any sort of no-fault eviction on my client and will be or abide by the rent control increases if this was a rental unit in a multiunit dwelling not in a single family home which has no rent increase limitations. >> glad stone. >> first of all, i want you to think about what mr. duffy just said he said that it does not look like a three-unit building, i agree, we do not main thayne that it is. the fact that there is no record at housing inspection division of inspections, is because it is not a three unit building. they don't inspect two unit. my client does not maintain so, i agree with mr. duffy, but it is a two unit building and it looks like it. >> i want to point something out in the statements made by mr. bascovich he leads you to believe that when he went down to the building department to get a seismic permit the building department said absolutely not. you have to verify and show us that it is a single family home and we will not issue the permits otherwise and we want to see a three-hour permit. that is not what happens and mr. duffy can tell you that the building department does not tell you whether to make it into a single family home or two family home. they merely say, if there is an illegal unit remove it, or get permits for it. they don't tell you not to get permits for an illegal unit. in fact the notice of violation for the building department for illegal units. and some of you commissioners know that. it is a legalized unit. or get permits to remove it. now, if it is, you know, or the three district where the two district and they are asking to legalize a third, obviously they would not say, legalize because you cannot legalize a third unit in the rh2 district. but it is wrong to think that the opponents were asked to clarify the record to make this into a single family home. they can get a permit for a second unit. and the second unit can be made large enough by removal of the illegal third one that both the owner and my client can have a bigger place to live or my client can stay where he and have what he has and the owner can stay where he is merely by merging an illegal unit into his unit. we don't need to go destroy the whole building. destroying the whole building, however, let me state a lot of the misrepresentations have to be looked at. for example, look at the scope of work in the amount of work that they declare on the permit. they declared that there is going to be only $3,000 in work. i asked you to show them the drawings that they have. they had to say that because they had to make the planning department believe that there was very little work here. it looks like a single family home, it exists as a single family home and there is removing a wet bar, and removing a kitchen and that is all there is to it. the property holder himself stated to you that he in effect evicting himself. i ask you to consider the amount of money that he is going to spend, the fact that he is going to have to find a new place to live and he is doing it all for a tenant who is rent controlled. i just have to ask, whether that makes sense. if they were to get a second unit applied for, it sounds like the zoning administrator would consider a variance for open space if one was requested. or he might ask him to pay an open space fee instead of a variance, no parking is required if they want to create a second unit. the city needs these and this is the run around the planning department. and frankly, i'm a little bit surprised. if indeed, you are inclined to approve this, then at the very leave don't approve it tonight, make them show you plans why they can't create two units by removing the illegal third, giving the owner one larger unit. make them show you exactly the seismic work that has to be done. make them make the building department ask the building department to go out and confirm that the seismic work needs to be done and by the way that it is of such a large amount that the tenant really has to move for it to be done successfully. i must admit i have been in the shoes of mr. zaches representing a owner like that and i have corrected permits consultants to go down and see if they could convince the building to do a 3 r for one unit because that is the eastist way to avoid the hearing procedures and inputs from the neighbor that you get from a planning commission hearing on unit merger, that is where public policy, and all parties can be heard and the criteria can be stated and we could determine the commission could determine whether this is for the benefit of the city, and the neighborhood, and the tenants, thank you very much. >> mr. zaches. >> thank you, responding directly to his suggestion that i directed someone to do something, i did not direct anyone to do anything, mr. bascovich was obtained and he worked on his own, i was brought into the case. it is rumor and unsupported by any evidence. >> commissioner honda the issue of illegal units that pre dominate the city, a property owner under california law is not permitted to take rent from an illegal unit that is discourage from the tenant. when the property learns that he or she has an illegal unit, it is encumbent to take action. my client learned of the status of the units when he hired him when he came to the city and explained to him that he had a single family dwelling. he promptly did what was legally required of him to seek a permit to clarify the legal use of the property. if there is any suggestion, implications, thought, about limiting my clients' rights under state law as a condition of the permit. imposing some sort of rent control on this unit and limiting my rights to go out of the rental business. and i strongly urge you to seek legal, the case law is in favor of my client that the board cannot limit my clients rights under the rental housing right and the board does not have the authority to limit my client's right to go out of the rental business if that is his choice. and the suggestion that we agree to that is illegal. it is not going to ha happen. in terms of the questionable lease. i, confered with the client, he is willing to limit his rent for a period of a year to insure that he as adequate time in this space and willing to enter into a lease as the issue of a protected tenant to is catastrophickly ill who has an hiv illness for 20 years, and i don't think that is something that the courts have agreed, there are fortunately many of our friends and neighbors living very, very, successfully with hiv. and you know, that is just, that is not the state of the law, that is not a protected status and nor does it matter before you. the issue tonight is what the legal status of this unit is and of this house, and i don't think that there is any evidence before you that it is anything other than a single family dwelling, if you are going to follow the law you need to accept that conclusion and i think that he had a few comments that he wanted to make relative to statements that mr. gladstone made. >> here are the drawings if you want to see them, you don't have to look. they are attached to the brief, when you go to file a building permit, and i am at the counter an hour a day and you have to list the number of units there, if you put down three units they go on-line, look at the last cfc and will correct it. so i cannot pull a permit and say, three units. you can ask mr. duffy that, i talked to the microfilm person, patty and she confirmed it, i cannot get a permit with three units to do the one story. it is not going to effect his unit, it is on the lowest level and the guy who is not here who is being kicked out along with my client is not protesting. so the seismic is pretty straight forward but i can't get the permit to do this work. if we are going down this pandora box path the city is about to send out about 15,000 letters in all of these units are going to start coming up and the question is do you want to reopen cfcs? because, historically this board never wants to go down the path of saying a cfc somehow can be mode identify. >>vy one question. so, you said how many notifications were going to be sent out? >> the city basically is about to do and going to send out since the story count on buildings when they were permitted prior to 85, counted stories the wi that the french do. >> so i understand the story. >> two story buildings and above could potentially be a three story building, so they are going to sented out a letter to every two-story building build prior to 78 that has five units or more. >> but this is a single family. >> this is going to be exempt under the current pass through that does not mean that you have to do the work. it just means that the city is not going to put a gun to your head in the first group. i have had clients that i am retrofitting buildings right now and we have tried to go through 8092 and get a fee waiver but couldn't, to do the voluntary strengthening and so a lot of people are doing it. my client happens to be one of them. >> glad stone suggested that he should merge the attic studio with the basement inlaw, i don't think that is a faoesable thing to do you would have to install a elevator and you would spend a lot more money than my client has. the suggestion that the board should force my client to file a permit to add a unit, i just think that is inconsistent with the property ownary's right if he has a family dwelling to decide if he wants to add a unit himself. i don't think that there is any past authority for the board having done that i would urge you not to extend the board's authority to that type of what i would call intrusion into the property owner's decision making, we have no idea whether he could afford to do that, that is hundreds of thousands of work. i don't know if he could afford to do it, that is a problematic area for the board to enter into. i would like you to hear from the client with the time that is remaining, thank you. >> sorry. tank, again. and i guess that i want to clarify a couple of things i am willing to offer the tenant a lease. this was not and has never been about doing this to the tenant. this has been about trying to get the building into a better state that it needs to be in. this is why am i willing to evict myself, because i am entertaining some opportunities that are outside of san francisco that i fully expect to probably move outside of this city. and so, i don't mind being evicted from the building because i think that i am going to probably land in a different city. so, the tenant can stay there. i don't have an issue with that. >> okay. so i have a question, i mean, we have some of the strictest tenant law pretty much in the nation, right? >> okay. >> currently right now he is afforded as he is under rent control and tenant rights. >> yes. >> and you generally sound like you are willing to give him a lease. but when you give him the lease he is now the building has been converted to a single family residence once that lease is done, at which point then all bets are off. >> it is a fair question. so i have owned, i own one other family single home and two properties just to make it clear that i don't have more than two. i own one other single family home that the tenant had lived for two years and i asked them can you afford the $200 increase in rent and they have can't and i reduced that to $100 increase. i don't have a history of trying to gauge. >> i can't say of what i would increase the rent to, i can't make that statement. >> unfortunately, we have only this time to try to understand the full gravity of the situation, right? >> i understand. >> and we just have to look at the fact that because of the situation that all angles and what it can and cannot be. >> i also have chosen not to do, you know, the annual rent increases that are allowable under the rent control and the other thing is i have they ever done a pass there, and there was a discussion that i would do a pass through of the seismic costs i never even thought of that. >> honda, you used the term convert the house to a single family dwelling. we are restoring it back to the legal use and the exemption is not something that we are responsible for. >> are you folks done with your rebuttal? >> is time up. >> we have two and a half minutes left here. >> okay, you can turn it back on. i am fine, i just want to make sure that commissioner honda i respond to the question that you had to my client that we are trying to end run the ordinance the exemption is they are entitled to under the state law and it would be not correct for this board to interfere with the lights. if we don't like the law we go to sacramento and we change it. >> i agree, since you are here right now are you saying that currently the tenant has no tenant rights? >> the tenant has significant rights before and after the permit. >> they are entitled to just cause eviction. >> according to the way that we looked at it. >> the fact that... >> can i finish asking the question? >> i am sorry commissioner. >> what i am asking is that... are i saying that this tenant right now has tenant rights and rent control under the standard of which we looked at it here in st* san francisco. >> as long as there is a third in-law unit in the lower level there is probably no argument that there is no rent control on this unit. because the property is a single family dwelling, if my client moves out and opens up the doorway and the basement level is removed, it is a single family dwelling and there is no rent control. he does not have to do anything, because the city is saying that it is a single family dwelling, it is the city's position. and to answer your question, maybe i haven't, illegal inlaws are subject to rent control protection that is correct. that does not change the owner's legal obligation to deal with those in the way that the city requires and to either remove them or otherwise address their illegalty and they do have rent control and i acknowledge that. >> thank you very much. >> anything further from the departments? >> no? >> okay. commissioners? the matter is yours. >> i have a question, sorry. i don't know who out there is going to be able to answer this. but at the time of the purchase of the home there was a belief that the it was a three unit property. there was at what point in time did there exist a three-hour report that said that it was single. at what point in time was that generated? >> 2012. >> fourth quarter. >> okay, thank you. >> probably was a three-hour report as part of the transaction to the client and we don't know what it said it probably said single family dwelling also. >> if that did it would have been part of the disclosure packet. nae. that 14 years ago i have not looked at the packet but if that is something that you want i can look for it. >> that would be inconsistent that you are buying a three unit property. >> no you don't necessarily look at your three hour report. if you don't have a good agent. when mr. honda sells property you look at the three-hour report. >> he owns multiple properties and people who buy multiple properties. >> this is one of the properties that he purchased and owned. >> okay. all right that is enough. i have had enough. >> who wants to go? >> i am too tired. vice president, should i start? >> sure. >> okay. >> the rights of a home owner and the rights of the tenant in san francisco are very difficult and we do have very, very strong tenant rights in the city. a lot of that tenant rights is geared towards circumventing for eviction especially know that the property values are exceeding as fast as they are. when asked the question regarding is you know what is a disclosure say when he purchased the property? you know, you read the proof and you sign the disclosures that are pertinent to the property it is a lot of money, it is actually people's largest investment that they will make in their life wl. they had an agent that had them just sign, sign, sign. or whether they reviewed the documents, the documents they read and approved. and i don't know when i can only been doing this for 15 years, as long as i have been doing the 3 r has been required as part of the disclosure package. it is the residential report of records and the legal indication of the property that are there. i do like i said we unfortunately have to look at this in a very short period of time. if i were to rule on it, i would rule that not to allow the permits to go forward. i believe in this particular case, it potentially, potentially now, is circumventing the rights of a tenant that has held this unit since 2007 and he has rented it and rerented its a three unit building. >> i guess that it is the resolution of this case may not necessarily end here. but the when i look at the technical analysis of permit history, i have to accept the permit holders position that the cfc governs. it says 49, unfortunately for the property owner for the time to convert to two or three units is past. they would have had an easier time doing it ten to 12 years ago. i have to accept that this building was originally a single family home and that there is no significant permit history that converted it. skaus me, change $it from single family to anything else. >> would you be enclined to deny the appeal and up hold the permit. >> i would concur with that. >> i'm more inklined to go with the equities here with commissioner honda. i think that the property owner has benefited significantly over the years, even if he might be a nice landlord which i have no reason to question. but it is an investment and it has been an investment property and now are turning that into something else. at the expense of another person and a human being. and so, i'm more inclined to go the other way. >> all right then i am going to move, if everybody is finished i will make a motion. >> i am going for move to deny the appeal and up hold the permit. >> and is that on the basis of the cfc? >> yes. >> okay. >> and that applies to all three permits? >> yes. >> do we have a motion from commissioner fung, to up hold all three

Related Keywords

California , United States , Sacramento , France , San Francisco , French , ,