Its about the door and removal of the cooking facilities but just even if the cooking facilities were to have remained the door alone would have been enough to consider it a merger. When you said legally established before they moved in you mean with a permit or was it legal to do it without a permit . A permit would have been required. And that they had a permit and they dont have a permit. Ive got a couple questions. Lets assume that they are not bad people and we deal with bad people and bad actors on a regular basis. And theyve evidently had to deal with omar which is quite challenging already at this point. I love omar but yeah. What is the walk around for this this . Evidently theyre fairly coming along here as residents of this great city and by forcing them to make all these things legal and correct. They own three dwelling units in San Francisco. They could rent them out. Certainly, i mean are all three onebedrooms . I think there are plans here. Yes. All three of them are one bed. Ill put the plans back on the overhead. I couldnt remember, you did put that above. The two units in question are these two. And this is the third unit. Rentcontrolled units so the illegal merger is removing rentcontrolled housing from the citys housing stock. And its exceeding density so it wouldnt be able to be restored under the planning code. Im sorry . It wouldnt be able to be restored under the planning code because this is about density. So they couldnt put a kitchen and a door back . We require them to restore that was there before, what was illegally done they need to undo but if it was legalized, if board says this is in fact legay been merged and the unit counts produced then we wouldnt be able to restore that. We cant remove rentcontrolled units, period. I mean, theres a process they can seek a conditional use to remove the unit. That would be the appropriate process. Theyve known for several years this interior connection is illegal and havent done anything to abate the violation. Can you repeat that . So i can understand the process before them. They need a conditional use authorization to legalize the opening and that also would be the same for the unit loss or no . So the opening is considered to be the unit loss. This is a unit merger. One application for the merger and loss of the unit at one time. They go from six to five units that unit couldnt be restored. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Any Public Comment . Okay. Cut to the chase, whats your prescription of keeping a family in San Francisco and not dislocating them and disrupting their life . How do we how does that happen . Theres a process for that, going through the Planning Commission. And you prescribe that and describe that process, could you describe that process in the, in terms of a timeline and also describe that process in a fashion that this family doesnt get dislocated from their Living Conditions during the same period of time. Thats what the bottom line is. As long as they get the application submitted and pursue that, they would be able to stay in the unit as is, as they are today, as they have for many years. And if the Planning Commission approves it, then it would be legalized and it would be in perpetuity. If the Planning Commission denies it they would have the ability to appeal that to the board of supervisors and if that decision is final, then they would be required, at that point, the notice of violation would then take effect and they would be assessed penalties until they address the situation. Could you please remind me an idea of a timeline. Is this week it is, months, years . Its months. Certainly to get a hearing before the Planning Commission could be six months. In the meantime during that period of time when they are going through this process, which is obviously creates stressful situation because you wish for the best and you wish for compassion and humanity, but sometimes it dont work that way. So theres a lot of stress. What happens to them in the meantime . Status quo. They would be no penalties would be assessed as long as they are diligently pursuing the conditional use authorization. If they are not, then we would move to assess penalties. Sometimes the conditional use application and walk away from the permit, they dont respond to request for Additional Information. They dont make themselves available for hearings. So as long as they were diligently moving it forward, and they have an attorney who is doing this exact same thing on another case right now. So there is a that has been months in the making as well. But as long as they diligently pursue it, they would be continuing with the status quo and have their day before the Planning Commission to legalize it which is the process that the law requires. Can i ask just one so you consider the odds of this process moving forward given your knowledge of the past, given your knowledge of the current environment and the terms and conditions that exist with this family, do you consider this a plausible path . You know, no one can say. I would never tell anyone what this board is going to do on any given night. Never know what the Planning Commission is going to do or decide. What they are going to look at that was my question, commissioner swig, could you tell us with these types of mergers that have come forward on this path, how have they been looked at . Do any of them get through or is it a nope, they are not going through . Theres a substantial burden on the applicant. And i would think not the statistics but my estimation is that more get denied than get approved. And i dont know how the Planning Commission is going to weigh if the shortterm rental history is going to weigh in and factor in on that. It had been illegally used for some time now. I understand they are having tenants that are in that sixunit was relayed to me as not a permanent tenant but may be getting the tenants off airbnb but have them for longer than one month stays which is allowed under the law but thats always at market rate, not subject to rent control because no tenant is there for longterm. They are dwelling units. So its probably its possible but maybe a slimmer chance that this would be approved, based on historical . Yes. I think the commission would looking to merge dwelling units and remove rent controlled units. Its a challenge, yes. Depends on the situation can i doublecheck something about what i asked earlier. The notice of violation, they gave mr. Patterson an additional two weeks to search for records which may indicate the door was installed legally, and it says of particular interest if the door was installed prior to 2003, section 102 that cites the doors as constituting residential mergers went into effect. Isnt that saying if the door was installed before april 2003. With permit. And also under that interpretation, i believe that they were required to maintain the cooking facilities in the second, which didnt happen here. Interpretation. But if it was before then you are saying even then a permit was required. Yeah when i read this the first time, i thought after reading this that before april 2003 you could just do it. No and they wanted to know, well, if you prove it was before 03 its free and clear. A permit would have been required but it would have been approvable. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We are now onto rebuttal. Mr. Patterson. Thank you, commissioners. I want to respond to a few things and clarify a few things. In the shortterm rentals are not the issue in this appeal. But i want to clarify a few statements that were made. The family for a while back was bringing in short term renters with a license as essentially roommates in one of the rooms in their units that they were living in. Trying to make ends meet. They also did occasionally do shortterm rentals in unit 6 down the hall, which they should not have done, and thats why they applied for a second shortterm rental license which was denied and that touched off this whole situation. They stopped doing the shortterm rentals. Unit 6 for some time has been occupied by longterm renters in accordance with the law. And thats their plan Going Forward. They have not had short term renters in their unit with them for quite some time. When the door was installed, as mr. Sanchez said, the door was allowed. This predates section 317. I dont know why the previous owner didnt have a permit for that. We couldnt find one. Situation today is why not get a c. U. . Thats the question, right . The answer is applying for a c. U. , going through that whole process is timeconsuming, very expensive and highly unlikely to succeed. Theres a reason we are here today instead of going straight to the Planning Commission. You look at the numbers. Its extremely unlikely. I wont say zero percent chance. I think they have a compelling reason for this. But its unlikely. The other reason is they dont actually want to merge these two units. What we would like and what we ask of the board tonight is not necessarily to overturn the notice of violation, if the board were willing to keep this, continue it to the call of the chair, the violation would still exist. And when this family someday moves away or sells, it can be reactivated and force them to close that door before they move out or before they sell. They are even willing to record a notice on title, notice of special restrictions requiring this. All they want is to be able to continue living as a family with this preexisting opening between two units. The question of removing the kitchen, that was more recent under the previous permit at the time of the previous permit. The family, the parents are living in the kitchen, to be clear. They sleep in that room. So if they are required to restore appliances in there, they can but they will still be sleeping in that room. So i think this is the request to the board. If you continue this to the call of the chair, and they can continue living as they have. Counselor. People consistently call this the peoples board. And we have wide and broadening powers. Unfortunately just from a brief, and i do have sincere empathy in keeping a family as well as two teachers in here. And im not totally against bending rules. Why are you taking them on pro bono . Im here tonight not charging for my time tonight because i think this is a really compelling case. How did they come upon this is part of it. Because they look like a lovely family, and i would love to help everyone. But as the zone administrator said, their Poverty Level is extreme but they have three t. I. C. S, even though they are onebedrooms and evidently the track record for rental indicates that its hardship. But at the same time i like people that are struggling that are trying to do better with their life. And i too thought about the call of chair. I dont know enough about this case to do that. But i mean Going Forward, if it went to a c. U. , would you be representing them continually for free or would you not . I dont know. I would have to talk with them. That is a lot of work going through that process. A lot of time. They are under a lot of stress in the meantime. I get it and to have your life upside down is crazy. With very little chance of success there i would say. I wouldnt say its impossible. We love our teachers in San Francisco so i dont think its impossible or i dont happenable. But you gave us the work around, its up to us to consider that. Thank you. The key point in what we are suggesting the is units are not lost. There would be no loss of rentcontrolled housing. I thought about that too. Are they into a time constraint at all for that . Or is it just going to be are you recommending an infinite call of the chair . My suggestion would be request would be call of the chair. With a notice of special restrictions recorded on title. That way you have a guarantee if someone else comes into buy it they are going to see that and know theres a major issue with the city that has to be resolved. Is there any issue with it being a t. I. C. S of recording it on the title . Thats a good question. I would have to look at that. Its possible the other owners would need to prove it. But this is it shall these are their units. One other owner, right . One owner downstairs . One other owner. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Nothing further from the Planning Department. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. I think i have a could you put up the planning again . I dont have them. Overhead, please. Thank you. Is there a realm of possibility that a door be installed at the entry hall between that theres a common door to serve both units that the units maintain their separate nature you can require closing that door in between the units and is that a possibility to have a door that serves both, that serves both units in a subkey situation, and then of course you have the kitchen issue to deal with. Im trying to get creative here. I think if we the code doesnt specifically address that situation but generally if we were doing plans and had concerns about units being illegally merged we probably wouldnt allow something along those lines because it furthers the illegal merger. Everything beyond that door becomes the entry door and everything beyond it is a merged unit. They are operating together. Not if the doorways to both units stay in place and they are locking doorways and have numbers on them thats not a precedent we would want to establish. Im trying here. Moving forward. I find that interesting. They remove the merging doorway and they just add even a gate in the corridor, i mean i suppose then theres a potential fire issue. But yeah, is there the entry door then. So your position is the code would prohibit that everything beyond that door is a merged unit, its one unit. I think we really dont we either move this to the call of chair and let them exist as its current or we basically put the guillotine on them not going to put the guillotine on them. Come on, man. One additional though, scott, and ive never seen you guys do this when the department is the respondent, but do you ever settle cases with appellants . Have you considered settling for exactly what mr. Patterson requested, a notice of special restrictions . No. That would come before the board. What we are going to do and typically well be flexible with first of all, that hasnt been proposed to my knowledge. Thats the first thats being heard. I had a conversation with him and he didnt mention about continuing it to allow them to do the c. U. Process. Our standard direction is we wont be able to go through the legalization process or give them time to come into compliance but not indefinitely. We would say you have to address this by the end of the year, 60 days, 90 days, depending facts of the case but never such an openended resolution where it would be put on ice in perpetuity. Nothing within your power to do to extend Something Like that . Not something we have made a practice of. Whether we have the ability to then we are going to be getting that request for every case that comes before us and we are never going to be resolving things. Everything will be in this case why did we do it here for this nice family but we are not doing it. Well, you can always say no. So to give you an example what we have put to the call of the chair in the past, eduardo, is that we had a 17unit building that got caught for illegally, for putting vinyl windows in their property which is a planning nono, and they showed proof that they were not able to financially deal with that. So we stepped that to the call of chair. I think you still have to call the chair. That happened with that case. I think the board did give them a very specified. They said you have to get this resolved in five years which i should probably check on that. Oh, great. Weve had other cases like the union bank signs downtown, the roof level, they were approved in error. We sought revocation of the permit. This is late 2000s. And the board gave them i think ten years to basically remove it. And so they came in at year ten with a permit to remove the signs. Sorry, 2012. Commissioner fung was in the aforementioned case i was active on that. There was a woman who owned a house and she had the windows, and we told her that she was breaching the law and we gave her till 2025 to fix it. So and she happened to be, i believe, in her mid70s, and this was three years ago, so do some math. We gave her an extended life to stick around. So if we could if we could do a similar trick and sorry, and extend compliance until these children are out of high school, that would be a wonderful thing. We would certainly prefer a decision from the board with a timeline to comply versus an indefinite continuance. Just more so what would your language like to see . I mean the board has done this before im asking for your guidance. They must obtain a permit to restore the separation of the units and restore the merged unit within ten years. By december 31, 2030. Why dont we confirm the childrens ages . How hold is your daughter . Seven. So december 31, 2030. That gives you ten years to resolve your issue. Thats better than a i would say merci. [laughter] she would still be in high school at that point. I understand but its ten years, you know, the world is changing at a ridiculous rate as we sit here they may want to sell it at a good rate by that point. We dont know if we have the votes. If the board is inclined i request in addition the earlier of that date or them leaving the unit, because we wouldnt want this sale of the unit or vacating the unit. Or rental vacating the unit for their permanent habitation. Or at what point separating them and correcting the issue. I think thats fine. The kids are older and they have their own apartment. Kind of cool. Want to make that a motion . Ill make that motion. Comment . I guess the matter is submitted. Do we have Public Comment . We already did and no one came forward. I dont remember that actually. Im getting old. Ill make a motion to accept the appeal and condition it that the permit holder has to either restore the property to the code compliance as per both building and the Planning Department or to vacate the property. And that term would be till 2030. December 31, 2030. December 31, 2030. This is abuse of discretion. Also the part in n. S. R. And to record the n. S. R. Special use of restrictions. This is a motion to put it to the call of the chair. No, we are making a decision so its not in perpetuity. Its till the date that we accept