Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 25, 2014 4:30pm-5:01pm PDT

4:30 pm
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 we'd see that on the plan i don't 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 given to the owners on the polk street in san francisco will apply to the
4:31 pm
department of building inspection to permanently roach the plumbing so we need a building permit before the plumbing permit you could apply for your plumbing permit and in addition we would like to see a permit i did research on the building today and i will speak about the building inspection complaint on my research for the building in 1994 application i'll put that on the overhead. this was - no so this was a
4:32 pm
permit in the 4 and the dbi issued that it was legalizing did second floor a back to the residential use and the building permits state that we had one residential unit with is commercial back to residential use with one dwelling unit. we signed off that permit and issued a certificate of completion. and the description on the certificate of final completion on polk street legalized it back to the first floor commercial number of apartments one and i
4:33 pm
think going from the i noticed on the 3 r report on the brief dbi on the 3 r report had it as one dwelling unit over commercial that was part of the brief. the latest complaint and i didn't get a chance to speak with the building inspector that was filed in june a legal unit put behind the commercial space the building inspector did reach from the twoug of june to the 21st of july he's still doing the research and the property profile shows an r-3 it can be a single-family or separate unit and saying the legal description
4:34 pm
defines two residential spaces on the ground floor. i didn't get a chance to speak to the building inspector i don't know where he is getting that on what records the 3 r report shows some history by not a lot and the new construction. the city careers office has it down as 2 units and it would be the residential unit so inspector has not issued a notice of violation so i think it is ongoing with regards to that. i don't think of any more to add but i'm available for questions >> mr. duffey the 94 permit was the last permit that you saw in
4:35 pm
the history. >> let me just refer to the 3 r report. the 3 r report that was in the report of residential building was dated of onions october 24, 2013, i'll put it on the overhead. so the last permit shows 2001 permit for replacing 3 windows there's no i wanted to say there's no building permit for the remodel or renovation of the
4:36 pm
unit that's in question about removing the stove no permits for that >> so the 12 windows is for the upstairs and front or the back so they have to go through the space and probably everything but the store front. >> the 12 windows there. >> i have a question about your reference to the notice of demolition and i think i heard your statement earlier correctly you said first of all, what is the notice of demolition you're referring to. >> it's seems like it's from the attorney for the owner through the tenants and the notice of application for the permit to demolish the residential building under the code. i've never seen one before it's exhibit c >> okay. >> and that's -
4:37 pm
>> you said in view of the notice it seems like it requires a building permit and though the plumbing permit was initial low gotten it will not close the permit. >> typically we see the building permits to remove the last unit but when you see the word demolish it didn't say for a permit to demolish or permanently roach the use if you have a use in a building that's been illegal installed but if you want to revert that to the last use you'll need the building permits and furthermore, we'll issue a signed completion to describe the work. >> so given the absent the
4:38 pm
building permit would you - is it your suggestion that the plumbing permit itself is fine but you'll anticipate the building permit next is that - >> that's exactly right. >> and if no building permit were applied to subsequent to the building removal and the work to implement that work the removal of stove would you then anticipate a notice a complaint with - >> yeah. obviously if there's somebody living there and constraint that we the complaint we got in june u june was like that. >> the housing complaint. >> it's a typical illegal unit description i do think if there's, you know, people do this amendment they sometimes
4:39 pm
don't wait for a violation but want to remove a violation they typically get a building permit that gives them the opportunity for the planning department more recently with the new ordinances obviously, we're aware of them and it goes to the planning department for the review. >> if you're on notice that there's an issue that is now before our board a plumbing permit has been in question and there's nothing wrong with the plumbing but you know it's sort of a precursor to a demolition if such permit were to be allowed and upheld tonight the stove is removed it results in the fact 69 removal of the unit without the benefit of the dbi
4:40 pm
building permit i'm not sure what to - hour your department knowing this will act, you know, if it will suspend a possibility of suspend it based on the information or i'm trying to understand the process or if there's activity here that should have happened together. >> that's a good question someone mentioned a building permit is required, i.e., checked that out to move from residential to number one residential use i don't think you can't come in and get a plumbing permit first but i have an issue if you're in the intention your using a plumbing permit to change the use of an area of a building because you take the stove out i think a
4:41 pm
building permit should be required i don't know what action and in answering our question. >> if i'm a lawyer i know what action i'd take but i'm wondering what the department and their capacity. >> in my opinion i might differ from the housing inspection i do have a complaint there's a legal unit created behind the commercial space if there's no permit and indeed an illegal unit we'll issue a notice of violation to get it back to an original state so that action b will take care of that but the housing inspectors services do their complaint investigation
4:42 pm
i'd like to share the information i got today and assume that is available i was able to find if from the 94 permit. usually in this forum we put a lot and dbi too the certificates of closed session. we have other reaches we can go to the water department and bay area there's one commercial one dwelling i checked that as well we will put that together and see then >> but it could apply to legalize it but the building process with the planning department is there. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. duffey i'm confused how the permit got issued in the fingertip under what
4:43 pm
circumstances could someone cap off the stove. >> i think that's a great question. i was only speaking to one the plumbing inspires but he said you get actually come in and get a permit to remove the stove and i mean, if you want to take our stove out for example, if you wanted to take a stove out of a breakroom your capping off there is no description on here on this permit where that will be and the building permits are not delayed so a contractor could pull that permit i think i thought of this this morning maybe i'll be letting the plumbing chief know if we see this type of permit in the future we're going to ask are you using this to remove on a
4:44 pm
illegal permit we may be ask those questions but there's nothing you could pull this plumbing permit it's the paratransit i've ever seen a building permit if this was is an effort to take a stove out of an illegal unit i've not seen this on its own. if that's what we want to do they need a building and a plumbing permit >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening scott sanchez planning department i'm to begun by echoing the word of the inspector joe duffey commissioner hwang we appreciated having you on the board your leadership is an
4:45 pm
supervision to everyone you've maintained the best preparation and your probing and insightful questions and your deliberating and we appreciate that service to our city and the best to your new endeavors and hopefully, you'll have free time. >> thank you very much. >> on this case the subject property in the commercial district based on the information that joe duffey it appears that the legal property is one legal unit brown above the ground in terms of what we see for a permit that removes an illegal dwelling unit you have the ground floor commercial use what happens to the space that was formerly a residential
4:46 pm
illegal commercial use. does the commercial use expand what's to become of that and other issues for the mravd. i'd like to clarify a couple of issues while the subject property removal of on illegal unit will not trigger a mandatory discretion we could approve that over the counter so we'll provide them notice a 10 day waiting period to file and have the planning commission review the permit they could request that because which the notification they've requested and also clarifying the non conforming unit non-conforming does not equal illegal unit we
4:47 pm
have the legal and non-common uses for example, you have a district that allows a two unit building and it could be a third unit - >> sorry to interrupt you do that one more time and in terms of conforming and number one conforming they don't equal one another the example you have a unit in excess of the district 23 unit were allowed that third unit is considered the third non-conforming unit so if someone removes a illegal third non-conforming unit but the removal of an illegal unit is not conforming to the policy we have applied a hearing a discretionary review authorization florida their
4:48 pm
removing an illegal unit with the response to the mayor's office distinctive to try to preserve housing weight look at ways to legalize those units but in this case that doesn't trigger. >> can i ask again, if you remove a third an illegal unit where there are 3 legal units or 3 units. >> correct so if the building contains 3 unit then removal of an illegal unit. >> a fourth unit. >> if you want to remove one unit we'll require a mandatory hearing one of the reasons there's a break in the building code requirement if i have 3 or more unit there's a standard for
4:49 pm
safety requirements so somebody has a two unit building with a third illegal unit it's much anymore difficult to legalize the third or fourth or first for existing that's the break in there so it's a nuance so again, this would otherwise not require a mandatory hearing but given there's a b b n the appellant gets the notice and questions a discretionary review. there are options to legalize the unit there was legislation that was passed that i supervisor chiu this year and they can avail themselves of that process it's not something we want to do but it is available to them and over the course of removing an illegal unit the department wants to see a building permit to remove the
4:50 pm
illegal unit. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> one mr. sanchez. does the planning department have a square footage for this particular property >> oh, we would get that information from the accessory office and mr. duffy's got the records here. where is it the building secret is 26, 40 it appears on the accessoryors records it's what the assessors office says >> did that seem correct on the partial commercial on the ground floor. >> i don't have the lot dimensions unnecessary it's not a lot coverage.
4:51 pm
it's hard to say. because the assessors office nighttime count the skoornl >> i'm trying to see a general footprint it's 12 or 13 floor plate and if there's 26 there's two floor plates they're considering as square footage. >> the square footage is 2 thousand 64. >> oh. >> it's the size of the lot so it is 2 or 13 hundred. i think it seems like it's under a bit the building is fairly a
4:52 pm
subsequential lot coverage but i don't have the information >> i wanted to see it so thank you mr. sanchez. >> i have a question mr. sanchez so if planning would like to know what's going to happen to the space how it is affected when the space is modified through a nonbuilding permit or a permit that is not a are planning permit how can you become aware of a space where it's currently habitualable. >> i agree with mr. duffy they should have filed a permit with plans to document this this is typically how people deal with something like that and most instances an illegal unit is
4:53 pm
being removed and appealed to the board it's - we have electrical or plumbing permits i think as most cases there's a building permit so i think i don't buy the permit holders agreement this building permit is all they need. >> thanks. >> thank you. so we can take any public comment on item 7 the plumbing permit on polk street any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant mr. crow. you have 3 minutes. >> clearly i don't have much more to add given the testimony of the building inspection and
4:54 pm
the planning department. i want to refocus on this. the reason we're appealing this plumbing pyramid because of it's stated use what the permit holders wants to use it for something will else it it were to cap off a embarrass line and put in an electrical stove in the unit are fine but we understand the intent of applying for this permit that's why we're asking you to revoke it based on the fact as the testimony has indicated accomplished by a building permit. historically the method of capping off and removing a stove has been used to remove quote/unquote illegal units you, however, those are at least in my experience have been a
4:55 pm
building permit has been applied to effect that that's the reason we came here today. what we have to remember we're just looking at the permit here and, in fact, if the permit holder would like to apply for a building permit than because of block book 90s notices in effective e effect they can have the discretionary review and the chips will fall that's all we're requesting in the fingertip so look at the permit and not the liability and understand the permit holder intends to do and revoke it on that basis thanks. >> we can take rebuttal from the
4:56 pm
permit holder. >> just like to clarify 1 or 2 things there's confusion and that could be my fault for serving what's called a predemolition notice it's pursuant to california civil code 1940.6 it's notice to a tenant if you're intending to demolish but you're taking it out of use giving notice to the tenant that's coming it also cards with that a possibly statutory fine of $2,500 to the property owner so in the caution it's been our policy to issue those to protect your client from the possible fine. much has been made about the intent of that permit but the
4:57 pm
real intent in this circumstances is the intent to exercise our rights under the administration code 379810 which allows us to permanently rove a unit from the house use as well as we have the good faith intent and comply with the statutory provision of money help. whether or not a stove is pulled out pursuant to a plumbing permit and the building that unit is reconfigured to a planning permit or either way the landlord has to have the unit empty the removal of that unit renders it unhabitualable.
4:58 pm
so i guess my final point is whichever procedure it determined the actual intent of my client is to remove that unit from housing use >> question why now. >> what triggered it. >> i pointed out this in my brief there have been several complaints made by lack of use in the building there are in that specific unit. my client was tried to he'd that and been unsuccessful and, in fact, the last notification from any folks were from pg&e when they established the unit at the request of the tenant and
4:59 pm
certified it didn't meet their standards. my client because of the configuration of the building being one legal residential unit above the commercial space simply to get even though heating that will satisfy pg&e and the planning code it is going to cost a minimum of $10,000 or more my client was determined given the recent series of events it is simply impractical to keep that unit as a residential unit that's why he's determined he wants to legalize that unit but again that is a decision that is left to the discretion of the owner it's not mandatory. >> and so the owner attempted to work with the tenant in some satisfaction for additional heat
5:00 pm
or heat. >> yes. >> and all attempts of the tenants were just not satisfied. >> that would be my. >> i'd put it that way. >> and you understand the issue we're seeing is that the permit maybe issued correctly it looks like it will change the usage change and the zoning so it permit by itself will not stand alone. >> i'm not ready to speak to the issue of whether or not there's a planning i can see the use change as mr. duffy pointed out. >> i'm looki