Building because the first floor consists of two units one and two afternoon the second floor is one unit, unit number three and third floor is just one unit, unit four. However, on the second and third floor there are two separate access doors to the unit and at the same time there has been installation of gas lines and plumbing to both the front part facing the ocean and the rear part facing the part of the unit. Each unit third and fourth unit consists of four bedrooms. I believe the architect will address this issue. I believe it was in the original plan this is intended to be a six unit building. For some reason at some point, the buildings have changed. The developers changed their mind and the building is two units on the first floor, one full unit on the second floor and the third one. Now, appl applelant indicated violation of Building Code. We will address that. As far as i know, there has been no violation of Building Code because there is no encroachment upon the use of the other units because of the suggestion from the building inspector that they could use independent instead of the hood for instance, there is no need to go into Unit Number One plumbing or the flu because you can use the independent filter system. What the appellant indicated is the violation of ccnr in terms of subdivision. There has been no intent to subdivide. Ccnr section 2. 4 indicates there should be no subdivision. However, subdivision is not defined. It goes on to define time share. Time share as an interest in the portion use of the unit. In the absence of a definition, we have to look to the Planning Commission, planning code section 207. 3 subsection h. That is on page 6 of exhibit 2. It says an additional unit authorized under this section cannot be subdivided in a manner to allow an additional unit to be sold or separately financed pursuant to a condo plan or housing conversion or similar form of separate ownership. It was intended in the Building Code to mean separate interests. In terms of subdivision. In this case, ms. Zhang has no intentions to divide. What she intends to do is continue the use of unit number three the way she bought it in 2010 she bought unit three. It already had two sub units, 3b and 3a and a kitchen in both units and partition wall between the two units. In other words, dividing a four unit apartment into two, two bedroom units. She has no intention to anything else other than what she found the unit to be in 2010 when she purchased it. In fact, when she applied for a permit under the legalization ordinance 4314, she could not subdivide even if she wanted to because it was prohibited specifically prohibited in the legalization ordinance to sell to subdivide the property to the extent that it can be financially separately financed or separate ownership. She has no intention of doing that. What she intended to do is to continue the use of unit number 3 into two separate units. Contrary to the appellants indication there is no intent to create unit number five or unit number 3a or b. It is the use of unit number 3 that she has intended to apply for in this particular permit process. The permit was issued in full compliance with the planning code and the Building Code more specifically in compliance with the legalization ordinance. There is no reason to deny this or to revoke this permit because of the scc r r. More specificicly the ccnr is not clear. What is defined as subdivision is not clear. What is clear under the laws, under the ordinance and planning code that it cannot be subdivided. Thank you. I have a question. As you stated it is legal locally because we allow it in San Francisco. Your ccnrs are state documents. Does it comply with the states ordinance . It complies to the extent the city allows it. I ask you specifically does the state allow it . The local allows it. I am aware of that. State law is higher than local law and federal law is higher than state law. It is not specifically preempted by the state. Second question. The appellant indicated for you to get this permit for the accessory dwelling or whatever it is called that you have to use common areas that belong to the hoa. How do you do that when it is not when that is not decided to the client. The use of common areas that they object to in terms of encroachment. That is the common elements. Maybe the architect has an answer for me. The appellant indicated for the required work to be completed it has to be in the common areas of the hoa. When you own the house you own the ground and to the sky and airways. In a condo you dont own the walls you own the space within the walls and the hoa owns the common areas. Thats correct. We spoke with the city of San FranciscoPlanning Department and they said that i think as of maybe two months ago bicycle parking was no longer necessary. We dont need bicycle parking. You wont have encroachment. We dont need to change the door because it complies with the requirements. Thank you for explaining that. Can you fill out a speaker card, please. Thank you. We will hear from mr. Sanchez. That is within the rm1 zoning district. Under the densing limitations and number of units would be four that is why this building was constructed in the 1980s as four unit. It was consistent with the maximum allowed at that time. One of the units converted to a condo was subdivided bringing the total from four to drive. As you know, within the last four or five years or so there is substantial changes to provisions related to this. In the past it would have been more straightforward requirement every moving it because there was no way to legalize it they must remove it. Now the law allows for legalization of the unit and requires it. Once an illegal unit is created, it is illegal to remove it you need to go through conditional use authorization to authorize the dwelling unit. There is way path here forward to legalize it. We ask them to go through the process. They have the ability to request authorization to seek that to allow removal of the unit. The Planning Commission is about preserving housing. This is an additional unit for over a decade. I think generally we would look at this and our recommendation of the Planning Commission would be to retain the unit. In this case they have gone through the process to legalize the unit and met the requirements to do so. One of the issues that is a point of contention is the bicycle parking in the garage or storage area at the rear which may be common area. It is correct that over the last few months the projects like this did not require this bicycle parking. You generally do want it as a matter of policy, but it could be removed from these plans if the board so chose to do. Many issues raised are about the ccnr. The city does not enforce those. That is private between the parties. As far as the planning code and compliance nothing is raised by the appellant to indicate anything is not complying with the planning code requirements. We request the board address the concerns raised over the bicycle parking the board may do so without violating the planning code that the bicycle parking can be removed if that is the boards wish. Mr. Sanchez because the a. D. U. Is accessory to the primary residence it would not establish a separate unit. This is a five unit building. It may be called accessory. It is a new dwelling unit. Accessory is the name. It creates a new dwelling unit. This can be an issue when you go from two units. My question is which may or may not apply. Maybe not the building or planning code, but when you change the status to four to five unit building everything changes insurance changes, mortgage definitely changes, because it is now two to four units is considered residential and five plus is a business. There are different requirements under the Building Code r3 versus r1. It is four units. There may be other issues going from four to five with regards to the property but the permit applies. This may be a building question. Are they going to require sprinkler . That is for the department of building inspection. The issue about the subdivision and the language related to the legalization. They could not make a fifth condo out of this. It is the first time i heard five units. If it is four units a. D. U. How is that a unit. Adus are always a separate unit. It has been a couple years. It is awhile longer. Let me just get this wrapped up to your point. Really, by creating a second unit this cleans up a mess because it has already been used as a second unit, albeit illegal, because it is not recognized in any way, shape or form. Secondly, the issue of intruding into the common area the bike requirement now can legally go away so the intrigue is not there. I think the appellant raised other issue. With bicycle parking that can be removed. Then the ccnr issue is not our business. Also, the issues raised by fellow commissioners with regard to the building one number of units to another number of units, that kicks in potentially higher insurance. That really again is not in our purview to consider. Thathatthat is a civil issue and between the hoa members, correct . Correct. We will hear from the department of building inspection. Good evening, commissioners. Department of building inspection. The one thing i see that might be a possible problem for the permit holder is she signed an agreement stating they wouldnt have anybody but licensed contractors. That is because it is a multiunit building. They were allowed to pull the permit as an owner. The price is a little low, too. When the building inspector goes out there he is going to ask them to make adjustments to the valuation. Is that a building inspection issue as opposed to ahoa issue . Correct. That will be noticed as far as inspection red flag goes up, new requirement. We dont have to worry about that tonight . During the course of construction they will have an inspection. They will make sure things are done per the Building Code with fire ratings. I think the valuation is something it will fly or not. So the sprinkler issue we dont have to determine tonight if indeed there is an issue of sprinklerring which would trigger a buildingwide sprinklerring, that would have impact on the rest of the owners of the building and that would be the choice to continue . It would go through fire. Fire did look through this. April 18, april 23rd it was approved. That is off the table . Yes. One last question, senior inspector. I got all dressed up. You have got to ask me something. You have better hair than joe. The question is i thought the Building Department has a minimum mandate for such remodeling. If you are doing Kitchen Remodel i thought there was automatically a set fee at a minimum mungoing forward i thought it was 25,000. There is a formula. That is for all over the united states. You know yourself work in omaha is not the same price as San Francisco. They made adjustments in that regard. This was an existing illegal unit already. What are they doing . Legalizing things so they might not put in a new kitchen. They might make it code compliant. That is why until the building inspector conducts a site visit we have no way of knowing. We go by what they put on the permit application. These are not relevant to what you do . No. If somebody got wind of the project and came to you as the permit was going through the process and showed you the ccrs and made a case this was in violation would that have an impact . No that is a civil issue. We are Building Code. Scott and his team handle the planning stuff. We are Building Code issue. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Come on up. Dont be shy. Welcome. Hi. I am betty lee, owner of unit number two. This is my home. I love our building. I am sorry. Stop the time. I believe since she is just a member she is allowed to speak as member of the Public Comment. Unless you are an officer of the hoa that is my understanding. When we have nonprofits. Are you an officer of the hoa . I am treasurer. Unfortunately you are not able to speak as a private citizen. If the appellant wants to give his time up to you, he is welcome to. You are a member of the body at this point. Thank you. Googood evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am an owner. You are not an officer . No. My wife and i bought one of the units. Mostly the contractor license. We about the our unit as four bedroom, four unit building. It was to be removed the kitchen and the wall. She never separated her unit into two. Now she came to ask. Only one unit three. If it were approved based on inaccurate information she provided. She included space in the garage, biking space for bike parking space. We are asking to comply with the rules and bring the unit back to original form. The Sprinkler System that is in the drawings, that will not work. You can only do one Sprinkler System for the entire system. For the building to have two separate systems in case of a fire. If her unit goes off, if the unit goes on fire, then only one Sprinkler System will go off. My wife and i have saved money to buy a place to call home. We invested a lot of money. We have been doing a lot of work in making the best of the building in top shape. We would like this to be granted in our favor. They do not care about the wellbeing of the building and only monetary gains. In other Public Comment . We will move to rebuttal. Mr. Shulman. I will speak about there is not only an illegal kitch then is in the front part of unit three. What the attorney spoke about only a four unit building. That is in the assessors record from 1984 or 1983. We believe the encroachment in the garage and bike parking is no longerness. It is one of the ways the permit got approved in the first place. The issue is permission. You still when you are in an hoa it is up to you to do Due Diligence to know what is allowed to come and say i want to do this, i am applying for this permit it is up to us to talk about it. Ms. Zang hasnt appeared in two years. No questions about anything here. It is every time we try to ask a question, nothing. We understand the hoa situation is a civil issue, and we are currently going through that process, but when we bought our units this is a four unit building. I didnt know when i bought this that unit three had a subdivision. Now that i am hoa president i see the new plans and was told that somebody was renting in 3a and 3b. I was blown away. I would have probably never purchased the unit had i known that. I dont know where to go on this. I am not an attorney, but for us it is about the health of the building and how much time and effort we put in and i think having the five unit building here is just not what i signed up for and what the rest of the hoa signed up for either. Summer is being fined. That is a civil matter, an and i appreciate all of you time. That is all i have. I have a question. You understand that prior to the legislation in 2014 of october by now that once there is an inlaw it can no longer be removed. She can filed for can b condl use permit and do that. As much as i feel in pain for you guys, this is a civil matter. What is legal between the city and hoa is what is in the hoa. You know that once it is going to litigation no lender will touch it. That means no refinancing and no reselling. Isnt something to be sell about the mortgagees the one that put up the money. That is a civil matter for the coowners. This can escalate over and over and keep going and be expensive. With the Sprinkler Systems. I think you should have a conversation with the coowner. It could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. You have three minutes for rebuttal. I just want to address your concerns. Yes, it would be considered a separate unit, an additional unit. It remains Square Footage remains the same. For insurance purposes i it is e Square Footage that counts. Number two, is it fair to the other members of the hoa, no. Allocation is based on percentage of ownership. They can reallocate the costs of maintaining the building. Unit number three is the largest of all of the condos. They already pay more than anybody else. As to the concern about creating more People Living in the use of common areas. It has been since my client bought the building in 2010. We dont know when this subdivision or sub units have been established. When she bought it was already there, and people have been using the common areas. That doesnt mean it is not any different from legalizing any inlaw apartments in the city and there are thousands and thousands of them. It was intended to include residents and tenants of the illegal units to a legalized situation. This is no different. As to going back, i understand appellant would like to see removing the kitchen and returning it to the original plan. It is not possible under planning code 317 because the criteria to remove illegal units six or seven of them, the primary ones is that whether or not the owner of the property lived in the unit. She has never lived in the unit. Whether the unit is removing affordable housing, yes, it would be. She is renting the apartments for 2,300 per month. That is absolutely under market. You can never get to rent a two bedroom apartment facing the ocean for 2,300 per month. Will that reduce the Housing Stock . Of course, it would. With this criteria she will never be able to remove it. Mr. Sanchez anything further . Mr. Curren. Bernie curren. To allay the fears the appellants might have concerning the Sprinkler System. That is in place. Unless the walls or partitions are going to compromise the coverage of the sprinkler heads, this should be okay. That is why the Fire Department probably locater indicated overthecounter like they did. When the sprinkler heads were installed i dont know when the property was put together, generally code changes. If you dont touch it, it is grandfathered in. If you touch it there is an upgrade. Now the sprinkler requires every year. If you had to reconfigure it. When you shut down the Sprinkler System the whole building has to