Will be in book format. Some will be just sort of a simple binding and some a coil binding. And as soon as we get those, we are supposed to get the shipment today, but i want to let you know this is available, and to answer your question, we will also distribute it in a p. D. F. Format, so it can be copied. Its meant to be shared. Wonderful, thank you. Thank you, commissioner hardeman. Madam secretary, would you call the next item. Item ten, closed session, Public Employee performance evaluation of Fire Commission secretary. Item a, Public Comment on all matters pertaining to potential closed session. President cleaveland is there any Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners. What is our decision on whether to go into closed session . So moved, mr. President. Commissioner covington second. President cleaveland all in favor . Thank you, madam secretary. Back in open session, any Public Comments on whether we need to disclose the discussions held in closed session pursuant to administrative code 67. 12 [a], employee evaluations. Seeing no Public Comment, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners. Whats your pleasure . A second . All in favor . Its unanimous, thank you. Item 11, adjournment. Commissioner covington so moved. President cleaveland the Commission Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Good morning. Today is wednesday november 14, 2017. This is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals court. Please turnoff electronic devices. Vice president , commissioner lee, commissioner mccarthy, commissioner walker, commissioner warshell, commissioner clinch is excused. Will all parties giving testimony today please rise and raise your right hand . Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge . Thank you. Item c, approval of minutes. Discussion or possible action to adopt the meetings for the meeting held october 18, 2017. Is there a motion to approve the minutes . Move to approve. A second . Second. Theres a motion and second. Any Public Comment on the minutes . Are all commissioners in favor . Aye. Minutes are approved. Next item is item d continued appeals order of abatement, 6836, 221 11th street. Don ramon real estate llc. Leonila ramirez, reverse order of abatement. Just for the record, wanted to let everyone know the department will present its case first. The department has seven minutes, the apelant has seven minutes and then Public Comment for three minutes and each side has three minutes for rebuttal. Department, come forward. At this time well just do the order differently. Well have the apelant come forward if theyre ready. You can go ahead. Good morning commissioners, im the attorney representative for the owner don ramon real estate llc. Im here on the behalf of the apelant to ask the commission to consider modifying the order of abatement due to a dispute at the property. Prior to the last hearing in october, i submitted a document, its the lease. Didnt want to give the commission more to read but i think its incredibly important to recognize and acknowledge that the parties, the landlord, my client and tenant did have an agreement did have an agreement that the tentant could after following the proper procedures, and obtaining the permits, leave rooms as artist space and some residential use. That was after the tenant followed all the procedural pertaining permits. In this case what happened, the tenant did not obtain the permits, basically went ahead and started renting ahead space without my clients knowledge and consent and in violation of the lease. That has brought us here today to this order of abatement hearing. My client engaged me to try to resolve the matter and i have sent numerous to the tenant to try to work something out. The proper thing here would be for the tenant to remove the residential use and occupancy, comply with the notice of violation, seize all residential use at the premises because the tenant breached the lease. The tenant has not done that, but i hope to work something out with the tenant because theyre represented by council, we can work something out. For the commission and for my request here, if its not possible to reverse the order of abatement, this board still has the ability to modify the order under special circumstances and those circumstances are within the building code. Building code section 105 a subsection 282 states that this board has the authority and the ability to make a determination whether or not the violations are found to constitute serious and imminent hazards at the premises. If the board makes that finding, they are able to modify the order of abatement and there are specific rules for how long its given to parties to resolve it. Specifically it says the board for abatement, that the repair work be completed in less than 18 months. The notice of violation identifies the violations. It refers to the specific code sections at the premises and its my understanding that individually and combined, the violations are not of the type that constitute a serious imminent hazard and the tenants, despite the fact were asking them to cure the violations, the breach of lease are still using the premises for residential occupancy. It appears at this stage, there is a possibility to give the parties an additional time to work something out without having an order of abatement on title to the property, which ultimately has consequences for the owner. So what i would request is that the board consider my clients appeal, the violations, and if its not prepared to reverse the order, modify it by giving the parties 60 days to resolve it by obtaining permits to abate the violations and specifically requesting from the tenants, they remove the kitchen, obtain permits for doing so, theres a washer and dryer, obtain permits to legalize that and cease all residential use of the premises within 60 days. What would happen after that if we can reach an agreement, the lease is set to expire at the end of next year. My client at this point is not inclined to renew the lease, we would ask the tenant to vacate and my client would resolve the remaining issue on the notice of violation. I believe thats a proper way of resolving this matter, again because of the unique aspect of the dispute. I do want to reserve some time for questions but regarding the fines, if we can have those fines reversed against the property or if its possible to have the fines imposed on the tenant as the tenant was the one who did the illegal conversion of the premises. Do the commissioners have any questions at this point . Not yet. Well hear from the department and then Public Comment and on rebuttal well ask questions. Good morning dan lowry. The Property Owner information is don ramon real estate llc. Violation, notice of violation was given 8 20 2015. Second notice april 16, 2017. The violation was change of use without permit. Directors hearing, on june 20, 2017, for it would be order of abatement issue with compliance of notice of violation. Order of abatement was recommended. Pts system indicates no current application under the process. The nature of the violation was for back in december 21, 2016, was site inspection performed as result of a complaint regarding the legal change of use, commercial to residential third floor, legal use office, now used as residential without certificate. Used for sleeping, greater than allowable area, new partitions constructed in the upper area. Kitchen use gas stove. Recommendation was obtain Building Permit with approval and work performed with permit. Compliance, authorization installed without a permit. Staff recommendations was uphold the order of abatement. Commissioner walker. So my question, this situation is covered under the legislation of going before the Planning Commission, correct . Even to do what they want to accomplish, what they have stated here to remove the existing residential units. Yes. Even though they are legal. Is it possible to legalize this . They would have to fill out the compliance form and go through the Planning Department on that. I understand that, but as far as a review. We have looked at this building, it might be one of those able to be legalized but has to go through the process. Yes. What are the fines involved . Notice of violation. Okay. It shows nine times penalty for 2,000 of work notice of violation. Nine times 2,000. Nine times 2,000. Commissioner mccarthy. I dont think Deputy Director you can answer the question, a question was brought up about the fines being on the burden of the owner, the landlord, right . What is policy procedure if they are trying to do the right thing and correct the violation about moving the violations, the fees to the violator . When they obtain the permit, when theyre trying to find compliance, the supervisor could reduce it under the current application. Yes. Hang on just that will be determined whoever picks up the permit. Whoever is legalizing the unit will be responsible for paying the fines. You dont pay 18,000. Its how much will a permit cost based on 18,000. The evaluation of notice of violation is at the time of inspection, its not for the scope of work. When we look at something and theres a violation that exists, theyre valuing the amount of construction at the time they see it. Okay. Through the chair is it possible to talk to Legal Council again . Im sorry, forgive me, i forget your name. Yes commissioner mccarthy. Would it be safe to say that the your tenant will not apply for the permit and to legalize this . I cant answer that question commissioner. At this point, we have, if i can call it a superseding legal issue. You have the agreement and the breach. At this point my client is not entitled to the tenancy beyond the lease date but she is inclined to work with the tenant to clear the majority of violations cited by the department. So on this, to the answer of deputy sweeney, if they were proactive we could probably say the fines could go to the tenant but also that happens, i dont see how we can get around it other than the reduction of the fines being paid. I wanted to point that out. Thank you. Commissioner walker. I was just going to say i think it has to flow with the person responsible. And i do have a question. I mean, is there an interest in securing this as art space and including residential if i mean, i just have to say here, im an artist and really interested in saving art spaces, as well as places where people live. My first choice would be to legalize it as an art space with accessory residential. Are you in discussions about the possibility of that . Not discussions to the extent where we have approved it and im not authorized to say yes or no here. I can understand the commissioners point, i also appreciate artist space. Im repeating myself, but you have the breach of lease, a burnt bridge where the tenant went ahead and did stuff he is not supposed to do that caused all these problems for my client. At this point shes not inclined to continue the lease but does want to see the problem resolved. I hear you. I just want to be really clear, when is the lease termination date . The end of 2018. December 31, 2018. The individuals who might be living in the space, using it residential, theyre in contract directly with your tenant who is in contract with you, theres no direct relationship between your client and these residents . Thats correct. Does your client own the building or a tenant with the subtenant . The llc owns the building. So yes. This is the only space rented to particular tenant. When you say the tenant is not expected to stay past next years lease, thats based on your clients lack of interest having them beyond the lease or was there any indication from the renter that they have no interest in staying beyond that time . Thats not a conversation weve had with the tenant, who i understand is here at the hearing, but from the owners perspective it comes from the fact that theres a breach of lease, lack of confidence and trust in the tenant not doing the right thing. Okay. Any other questions commissioners . For the apelant. Thank you, you can take a seat. Public comment . Good morning commissioners, im jeremy paul with a particular interest in art uses and preserving art spaces in San Francisco. Ive been doing this nearly 30 years. And i have been involved with this matter since before this tenant took occupancy in 2013. I visited the property with the tenant, with the Property Owners realtor and saw a place that was being lived in at the time. I saw a kitchen in place, such as it is now. I have considerable experience with the physical inspection procedures and i was evaluating it at that time in expectation of assuming legalization of it as a res art space with accessory residential use. A letter of authorization was granted to me by the Property Owner, im putting this on the overhead, signed by leonila ramirez, authorizing me to pursue conversion of the property. I filed that conditional use with the Planning Department. Heres our transaction receipt. The tenant paid the fees. That was in 2015 . Thats correct. I assisted the tenant, restoring residential occupancy to the dwelling university around the corner. Theres a long relationship of reliance on the tenant to solve the problems created by the Property Owner. Now, my time is running short, i have a lot of information i could provide you if you were at all interested, but i would say this in brief, the Housing Element to the general plan and arch element to the general plan requires the agency to do what they can to preserve artist housing. This is an exceptional dance space. Prior to this enforcement action, i visited the property with a Senior Inspector from the Housing Department assuming legalization. And we were there inspecting the property as a dance rehearsal was going on and he was amazed and we concluded that this is a very legalizeble space. Theres very little work to push the limits in terms of turning it into a legal residential space with accessory. Commissioner walker. I would like to ask a question or two. What happened that that process was stopped . In 2016, the Property Owner informed the Planning Department they did not authorize the application, so the application was suspended. I spoke to the Planning Department about that and said if youre going to cite this as enforcement matter, youre going to require additional use authorization for removal of this as a dwelling unit and they agreed to require additional used to eliminate it. Theyre facing the process either way. We filed to correct the problem long before it was an enforcement matter. To the chair, could i see a copy where the application, the owner signed you to start the process . Yep. That would be helpful for everyone to look at. This is standard form i have been using for years to show i was authorized for these purposes. Commissioner walker. Just another question per the owners representative, the terms of the lease end next year, what is the likelihood there would be a resolution, i mean, a lot of this is a civil issue, not in front of us. The resident groups attorney is present, she can comment on that. This is not terminated at will. This is the way San Francisco works, we need to protect our art and tenant spaces. Do you have a role in the Current Situation and if you do, could you explain what youre doing . Im not actively pursuing the legalization without the authorization with the authorization rescinded but i am still the consultant for the Tenants Group who hired me originally to see it through on their behalf. On comment on the penalties and fees, i would rather see that money go into improvement to the space but i think the agency needs to be compensated. I have a follow up question. Do you see a resolution . Yes. Thank you. Commissioner mccarthy . Im trying to look down the road here. Im looking at the real estate lease agreement. Its a commercial lease. Can you talk about the residential guidelines . The tenants attorney is here and she might be a better one to respond to that concern. Giving an opinion based on the legislation and protection of art spaces. Sorry, go ahead. Just to that question, you can have a commercial lease and still have residential occupancy. Okay. Im just trying to figure for the space but theres a process you have to go through to get it approved for residential to get it approved for the it doesnt necessarily reflect in the lease, but ours does. You would know firsthand on that. Im trying to get to if theres going to be an agreement here, it seems everybody has to work together. Just a comment on Planning Commission procedure and been through this process with the Planning Commission, i dont see a possibility of this Planning Commission granting a conditional use authorization to remove the residential component there. Its not a practical possibility to make that happen. The sleeping rooms all have direct exits. They have the minimum standards of housing code covered. Its a real stretch to imagine the Planning Commissioners removing this. Understood. I just want to make from your perspective, would they need to im not doubting you, but for the record, they would need to go back to the Planning Department. I want to ask our City Attorney because hes our Legal Council. Is that your interpretation . I believe thats correct but not having the code before me right now and it not mentioned in the papers, i cant give a definitive answer but my understanding, if legal residential units if they want to go back to commercial have to go through a process. Im just thinking down the road a little further, if the Property Owner were to end their lease with current lease holder, the occupants or the residents of the unit would still have a legal standing they have residency in the units . I guess going to what commissioner mccarthy said about resolving it and getting along, maybe if the council for the residence is here, it would be interesting to speak to her. There are individuals living in the units is my understanding unless im getting it wrong and then someone who holds the lease and that person is the person who is leasing the property from the Property Owner. Or is it direct lease with the folks living there. Thats a question i have. Can you answer that . Just one second. Im trying to figure out if there are three parties involved or two parties involved in the action. Theres really only two. So theres a commercial lease between the owner and the tenant and that lease did contemplate some residential use. It wasnt exclusive residential, it mentioned Artist Studio space. This is akin to a lease between a landlord and tenant who provides short term housing for people going to rehab. Our rent board recognizing that thats a commercial lease. Its not residential, it does not fall under the recent ordinance. We really have two parties and if the lease terminates, it would release the obligation to continue renting the space. That wasnt my question give me one second. The folks that your client is renting to, are they the same individuals living in the space . No. We rent it to an entity. So that is our tenant and we have not engaged in any direct communication with anyone occupying the space, which i understand revolves constantly based on the foot traffic. Thats not actually my question. Thank you. I have a question. Commissioner walker before me. I think if the residents can prove they have been there a certain period of time, theyre called residents. It doesnt affect whether the space is legal or not. They have protections as residents and when theres a residence in existence, it does have to go through conditional use through the legislation for any action. I understand i was just trying to figure out how many checkers we have on the checker board with this. It seems we have three. The owner of the property, who they executed a commercial lease with for some residential use and then the individuals by who no fault of their own are living there and occupying the space. Thats all i was trying to get to. Is he still involved on this, the person who signed on behalf . That is the tenant. Thank you. Additional Public Comment . Im the attorney for the tenants and there are several things i would like to clear up from the getgo. The occupants do have a direct relationship with the landlord. One of the people, he lives in the property and he is one of the members of the llc. In terms of the commercial lease, the heading on the lease says commercial and it has been residential use long before my clients moved in. The rent ordinance recognizes Residential Tenancies even if the lease says commercial. The landlords council stating theyre going to terminate the lease next year at will or not renew the current lease is really inaccurate. Under the rent ordinance, the landlord doesnt have the right simply to terminate it because it says commercial lease on top of it. Im not exactly sure what happened, but last month shortly before this meeting was originally scheduled, i submitted a brief on behalf of the tenants. Im not sure if you had a chance to review it or even received it but it explains several of the issues addressed here. My clients did enter into a lease in im sorry, let me see. I believe 2013 and it does say Standard Industrial commercial lease on the front, theres an addendum that addresses residential lease. My clients on numerous occasions have asked for permission to obtain the permits to bring it up to residential standards as mr. Paul explained. He received authorization and got the permit at the expense of my clients, without giving notice, the landlord withdrew her permission costing my clients the money. The landlord continued to accept the monthly rent for several years full knowledge my client was living there, a week after the ghost ship fire, she decided to make an anonymous report to d. B. I. So all of this seems to be on the back of a serious tragedy that she is trying to used to her benefit. My clients havent done anything wrong to the contrary, they have been doing everything they can to meet the terms of the agreement. Its actually the landlord this is a civil matter, what im discussing but the landlord has breached the lease failing to give the permission she promised to give. So at this point, i dont see how my clients could possibly be responsible for fees if you decide to do fee shifting. My clients have tried to get the permits, they have paid for permits and also in this packet that i submitted there are exhibits that show even since the d. B. I. Hearing in june, my clients have asked for permission to get permits and have been ignored. The only thing i have heard is that my clients vacate immediately. If you have other questions let me know. Commissioner walker. Excuse me. The lease as is terminates next year, so it doesnt seem feasible that you all would put the effort forward for less than a year occupancy to do the upgrades, but are you in are the tenants in a position the subtenant, do they have the assets to do the work . Yes, they have the assets to do the work and theyre trying to do the work. And the lease is not termble solely because the end date is next year. Because its covered for residential use, its kind of a moot point. Okay. I hear you. Thank you. Im ben wosley. In addition, speaking to the point about one year remaining and we have two renewal terms negotiated. We went through significant effort in securing the lease to negotiate the residential use and clear with our intentions and what not. We previously met with the prior tenants also using the space residentially. Our goal is to have it be legal residential and art space for the future and retain the space for that cultural use for the city. Thank you. Thank you. Question mr. Mccarthy. Thank you for coming. Is there much turnover in the building, i know you have been there quite a while. Is it typical that youre we have of the original Group Four Years ago, two of us remain. People weve had extended periods like over a year there was no turnover. It varies depending on situations, like circumstances. Its typical residency, i think is over four or six months maybe. 30 days. Commissioner walker. This isnt to you but it is to staff. Are there imminent dangers or hazards in this building as is . Thank you for your Public Comment. We appreciate it. Dan lowry, as im looking at the notice of violation, theres a new gas stove without ventilation. One of the areas greater than allowable for code and we dont know the plumbing position in the building. You havent inspected the aspect of it . I dont see it on the notice violation. Do you know that mr. Paul . Can you answer that question . Thank you commissioner. At the risk of making waves in this way, prior to this process, i was speaking with the Housing Department and the housing Senior Housing inspector came to the site on the understanding that if he found imminent life saving hazards he would write a notice of violation for immediate enforcement. He came out to evaluate while preparing the conditional use process and as a voluntary measure, under the understanding this was going to be relatively safe housing and convertible fairly easily. Its true, everything that Deputy Director lowry stated, there is uninspected electrical in the cooking area that has been around for probably 30 years and this washer and dryer was put in without permit. They have all been done by licensed contractors, in the past six months have been reevaluating for permitting violation contractors, were diligently trying to pursue legalization of the measures. Theres little work that has to be done. Okay. Commissioner mccarthy sorry, mr. Paul . He cant hear us. Jeremy. Jeremy. One of the things on the legalized units we run into a lot is sprinklers and fire exiting. You say the fire exiting is fine. Is it full sprinkler in the building . It is not. I believe because its fully open on the inside, i believe it can be addressed with possible fire sprinkling or other measures, this building would qualify under the state Historic Building code if we pursue it that way. I think there are a lot of measures that can be taken to address this. Okay. So additional Public Comment . Seeing none, its up to the commissioners Public Comment is closed. Rebuttal. Sorry each side has rebuttal. Three minutes to rebuttal. So, i want to say i want to be mindful of the venue were in. We have heard a lot about a civil dispute, thats for a different venue. I dont want to make this a civil issue. Mr. Paul does not live at the premises. This was solely rented for him to rent sublet to other persons to occupy and use. I just want to clarify hes not at the premises. Mr. Wosley is not at the residence. Correct, thank you. We have heard a lot about housing. Im a resident of San Francisco, my kids go to public schools, we have trouble staffing teachers because of housing issues, im mindful of this, but this is a commercial lease and my client is allowed to not renew the lease. Theres a breach by the tenant. With respect to mr. Pauls testimony, one has to wonder why if he submitted the planning application, why was it not pursued. Thats because the authorization that he has presented was for the adjacent property that had work done and consented to by my client. After the work was completed she realized what was happening at the current premises and said no more. You cant do this. Again, there is a civil aspect to this, but going back to my clients appeal, we just want to have more time to try to work something out with this tenant. Through the chair, thats kind of important to me. So the document we looked at is not relevant to the building were looking at . Correct. Can we see it again . Jeremy, did you put that into the record or do you take that back . Its in here the. Its probably in this one. Right here. Can you pass that down . I believe exhibit 6. As you can see, it refers to two addresses. Im happy to provide building inspection but this was used for 90 kissling. So it has two addresses. But it also has the address were talking about. I do acknowledge that, it has the address for the premises, but this was not used for planning application for the particular premises. It was used for 90 kissling. Why would you sign for two addresses . Pardon me . Why would the ownership sign for two addresses . At the commencement of the lease there was an understanding to use mr. Paul for the permitting process but this was modified to tackle a different building, adjacent to the premises, there was work done on that one that proceeded. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Do we have rebuttal . Rebuttal for the department . We need to go through our process. Why dont we see if the department wants to say anything and then you can speak . Deputy director lowry . Anything to add . Dan lowry Deputy Director. No, i have nothing to add at this time. The nature of the violation is change commercial to residential use without permit and staff recommendations uphold. Do we have questions for staff before hearing from Resident Council . Deputy director. To resolve the notice of violation, it will need to go to the Planning Department to be reviewed because of the fact of the potential removal of the permit. Now councillor you can come back, representing the residents. I just need to show i want to show you all, assuming you have the brief i submitted they have the brief. Okay. If you look at exhibit 7, youll see that actually the landlords attorney said this conditional use or the authorization form from 2013 was subsequently changed to only be for kissling street but it doesnt account for the fact that in march of 2015, the owner submitted another letter of authorization specifically for 221 and 221 11th street. I have a text message included where she is telling my client he can come and pick that up in the restaurant down stairs. So she did give authorization twice for 221 11th street. I see. We have included both of those. I thought it was important to show she provided that twice. This was not a mistake and later change it to include a different address. So thank you. Thank you. I believe that concludes Public Comment and rebuttal. Lets take a moment to look through the packet and see what we need to discuss. Commissioner walker. Yeah, i think weve had issues similar. There may be certain differences, this is non permitted residential use required to go to the planning for whatever planning resolution theyre attempting. I think that we have supported the. We have seen these type of things before. I would say we should be consistent, trying to save art space and residential space in here. We have both together. Thats the call of the Planning Commission. I would like to have a decision that actually encourages both parties to come together and try to find a resolution that serves everybody. Including the city. I would like i would like to be able to uphold the staffs recommendation and send it on to planning with enough time for there to be a resolution. And put that out for discussion. please stand by you asked for 60 day says . Sixty days. Thats correct. I guess that would a good number to hold the abatement for 60 days. Commissioner walker . And theres an assumption that within the 60 days that they take the necessary steps to move forward to the next step; is that right . Its not going to be resolved in 60 days, but they filed for permits to do it. Filed for a permit then . Have they done that yet . No, they havent. So that would be the next step . Okay. Perfect. Theres no permanent application under that address. Why dont we do that . Within 60 days to file a permit . I guess i have a question for commissioners. Filing the permit needs, theyre going to have to do the work. I want to make sure we understand. Given those 60 days, they can choose to file an initial use of planning. Im saying i think we have to have a caveat. We can want compel the by giving them 60 days, were saying whether its to legalize the work and legalize these units or to make the decision, which im sure the residents will fight in a different venue. We cant compel them to do that. And to define, theres a ninetime fee, but let me ask a question to the council. It seems there was an effort to legalize this in housing back in 2015 even though it was canceled. So can we relax the fee if they do, indeed, try to legalize it into housing as opposed to removing it . I mean, can we do a fine thats conditional on what happens Going Forward . You know what im saying . I mean, we have laws youre trying to incentivize. Yes. We did that with the avalos. We discussed it at the planning level. Can they also deal with the fine that is assessed by dbi. The ninetime fee is punitive. Necessarily. The question is can we condition that . I would have to research that question. I dont know what the code allows. Im not prepared to answer the question. Thank you. Commissioners, im hearing a sense, checking in with the group, that were looking im sensing were going to uphold the order of abatement with a 60day period to have the owner make some Movement Forward to either legalize this work or take other steps at the Planning Department for the use of this property. Will they uphold the fees . Or if we could say that we will uphold the fees as will best serve incentive to preserve the housing, or Something Like that. Im not certain that we can do that because thats presenting it as a condition, but it might be reasonable for us to be able to revisit the fees at a later date when we see the resolution. Do you have a suggestion . Im sorry. Can the public make i do have a very good suggestion on how to resolve it. It should go to the chair. Its her decision. You can ask a question, but, okay, i dont think we should ask legal opinions. Thats all i was going to say. I would like to know what your suggestion is for a solution. Thank you, commissioner walker. These fees can be appealed to the board of appeals. I think this commission can make a record that can be used at the board of appeals to justify their reduction of those fees should this applicant be pursuing legalization of the housing. Thank you. So they would immediately drop it to two times without any question at all. Okay. One more question. One more question. Jeremy . No. I dont have a question. I have a suggestion. You can go back. Thank you for your help. Uphold the fees with the cave caveat that we are supportive of any kind of incentive if housing is legalized, something to that effect, at some later date. How about an alternative to say we