Our general plans. 2016 was the sixth Consecutive Year of job growth in San Francisco and its estimated that we had over 703,000 jobs in the city at the end of 2016, which is a new record. The city added just under 29,000 jobs in 2016. Over the past decade, weve added almost 150,000 jobs. Unemployment has continued to fall to 3. 3 in the city. As you can see, the city continues to outperform the region, the state and the nation on unemployment. Employment has grown across all sectors of the economy, with the notable exception of hotels. As you mentioned, construction jobs did grow from a low of 13,860 in 2011, which was the low, lowest point of the economy, to over 20,000 in 2016. So theyre back to the highs that they were prerecession. And construction jobs do, in fact, make up one of the largest proportions of pdr jobs in the city. Average wage citywide is 101,640, and has grown consistently 7 the last decade. Average wage is probably not the most outful metric. One of the reasons its not the best is it concealed the discrepancy between a retail wage, which is under 40,000, and average office wage, which is now over 150,000. The inventory tracks building activity, measured by the number and construction value reported by our Building Permits. We saw a slight decline, down to 28,750. However the total construction value of the permits grew by 11 to 6. 5 billion. Bringing you now into 2016, right as were ready to head to 2018, the latest estimates on unemployment in San Francisco show an incredibly low 2. 7 unemployment. Believe it or not, there are two counties that have even lower unemployment, and those are our neighbors, san matao and marin. The report and data is available on our website and at dsf. Org. With that, im happy to take any comments or questions after Public Comment. Thank you. Well open this item up for Public Comment. Any Public Comment . Seeing none, commissioners . No questions. Thank you for the report. Sorry, commissioner johnson. Commissioner johnson really quickly. As usual, the mandated reports are helpful to us as we think about the overall context of the work we do. Its notable the significant increase in Construction Activity in the city. People thought they saw they have seen cranes for years, but apparently theres more of them. Its interesting that we continue to see that, but theres talk that it may not last forever, but as we talk about our city budget and how well maintain the level of prosperity that were seeing and making sure that its more equitably distributed. It talks about sub regions and neighborhoods, so that number is not universal. And its not universal either across neighborhoods or industries. So i just wanted to say, thank you for the report. I hope that everyone gets a chance to download the entire 127 pages and take a look at it. Its fascinating. Thanks again to the data team. Thank you. One of the reasons this is useful is that we constantly need were constantly looking for specific elements of data throughout the year in our work and getting questions about unemployment, jobs and where they are and its helpful. I find striking the fact that were over 700,000 jobs in the city. And also the increase in value in building and land use permits, the value was quadrupled in eight years, which is pretty extraordinary. That number is an amazing figure. And its a real indication of changing patterns about where people are planning to live and invest and choosing to locate. So thats an interesting stat to me. Thank you. Commissioners, if there is nothing further, we can move on to item 14, 2014, 1459cua, 214 states street. This is a conditional use authorization. Good evening. Jeff horn, Planning Department staff, presenting case 2014, 1459cua, 214 states street. This is to allow the legalization of work completed and to allow the tauntment to demolition of an existing twostore singlefamily home and an addition of the ground floor garage, front entrance, horizontal rear addition and three new roof dormers and enclosing two front decks to create bay windows. And to accommodate the proposed ground floor garage, expanded first floor and retaining walls to increase the patio. The proposal will increase the 1,635 square feet by 1,214, for a total side of 2,849 square feet. The project requires conditional use authorization because it will result in the removal of vertical and horizontal elements as in sections 317. In 2014, the project sponsor was issued the first in a series of over the counter Building Permits to resolve complaints and notices of violation, some of which predated the ownerships sponsorship of the property. It includes facade altercations, enclosing the balconies, relocating, adding dormers and a roof deck. And relocating what permits and plans have labeled a garage. The plans didnt exist at the time of the permits. It was shown on the plans provided. Several complaints were filed for working done beyond the scope of permit. On december 29, 2014, it was open without 311 notification. Permits suspended and construction activities have ceased since the complaints, though showing of the building has been allowed. To correct the violations, the project sponsor submitted a Building Permit for expanded work. The project was scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing in february, 2017. The mdr was submitted by the sponsor because the sponsor declined to alter the proposal in a manner requested by planning staff. The department determined that the proposal conflicted with the guide lines and condition concluded that the building should maintain a raised entrance and stairs. In review of the conditional use application, the department supports the facade. Its in the review of the mandatory and public dr that staff determined the staff exceeded the thresholds of 317 and required the conditional use application another condition that arose, a newly built retaining wall encroaches to the property on the northwest. The department considers the resolution of this issue to be a private matter. Since december 7, publishing of the case report, Planning Department has received 12 letters and emails in support. I provided copies of 11, that i had early enough to print. In seeking conditional use operation, the project add a second dwelling unit to maximize the density of the sites. The modified project with two units would meet criteria q of the residential demolition, asking whether or not the replacement project would maximize density. The project would need to be designed in the manner that both units would meet Building Code requirements. With that said, the Department Finds the project with modifications to be necessary and compatible. The project will increase the number of units from 1 to 2 and maximize the density allowed. The density and scale is in keeping with the neighborhood pattern. No tenants will be displaced as a result of the project. And though the structure over 50 years old, it is not historic. This concludes staffs presentation. Im happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Project sponsor . Welcome. You have 10 minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners. Todd mavis, project sponsor. The Planning Department and some of our neighbors want us to replace our singlefamily home at 214 state street as a twounit building. We would like to make clear for us in our opinion its not fair or reasonable to make this request and we would like to illicit three main reasons as to why we dont think this is feasible to convert 214 state street from a singlefamily home to two units. First, its economically not feasible to do this. Id like to stress that we cannot afford to build two units out of our home at 214 state street, two heating systems, two kitchens, two sets of utilities, two fireprevention systems, more costly construction methods like fire doors, emergency lighting in common hallways, monthly monitoring for sprinkler systems, monitoring from the city for fire systems, etc. We cannot afford to make our home two units. Second, we wouldnt be able to finish our home because i think this is what our neighbors would like us to do, go through multiple hearings, come back again and again and again and ultimately nothing gets built. If we were forced to make our home a twounit building, it would be, in essence, forcing us to start all over again. And thats going to take i dont know how many more months or years. Weve been trying to get a permit to finish remodelling our home for three years. We cant afford to continue to pain the costs for our unfinished home. If we were asked to convert our home to two units, like i said, it would be tantamount to asking us to start this process over again. And also it would delay us so consiberably, im not sure what well do. The second point i would like to stress is that fees feasible to meet the requirements for open space, for example, and twocar parking. If we had two units, we would have to have two parking spaces. Each space would have to have its own dedicated, private open space. Its not feasible to meet the Building Code requirements for light, air, and 10 of the floor area or 12 square feet of windows are required. And keep in mind, our lot is unique. Most of the second floor is still below grade. So the ground floor is built into the hillside. The second floor is also built into the hillside. And once you get to the third floor, three sides are still covered by most of the hillside because its that steep. You either have the building next to us or the back of the lot, its abutting the back of the building. So you have extremely limited opportunity to put in windows. Also, in order to make a twounit building feasible you need two ways out of the building, second egress and be required to add stairs. And because the stairs would have to meet the requirements, we would have to have landings at every 12 feet. So we would be left with two units that are extremely small and not able to get two bedrooms in each unit. Further more, i would like to talk about fairness. We about the our home in 2013 because we wanted to live in a singlefamily home. It was marketed and sold to us as a singlefamily home. In 2014, based on a false accusation, the Building Department asked us to stop work and let them Research Whether or not it was a singlefamily home. After six months, they did a lot of research and confirmed that it was, indeed, a singlefamily home. We admit that mistakes were made by our prior contractors and architects, who signed and stamped our drawings as accurate. As owners, weve diligently all means available to correct the mistakes and move forward. Our proposal is to keep the building as we bought it, a singlefamily home. Rightsized, for one family. Were actually reducing the footprint of our building by approximately 100 square feet. And were adding about 700 square feet of habitable space by adding dormers to get a little third bedroom and through excavation. The original building only had two legal bedrooms. The total habitable Square Footage is only about 2,000 square feet. Its just enough in our opinion for our home, for our family. Hallways, stairs, utilities for a second furnace, second water heater, all takes away space from habitable area. Its not as simple as taking the space that we have now in the building and divided it in half and saying, now you have almost 1,500 square feet for each unit. Were upgrading our home for new fire systems, installing new sprinkler systems. Making many nonconforming areas conforming. In other words, were making our home a much safer place to live in. And finally i would like to stress that there are many other Property Owners that have not been forced to wait three years to get a permit or told they must live in a twounit building with other people when they dont want or cant afford to do that. For example, at 79 craigmont avenue, they were not asked to build two units on a doublewide lot that was demolished. They were allowed to rebuild as a singlefamily home and they got their c. U. Approved in june, 2017. They also added Square Footage to their building and made the footprint larger. 2178 pine street demolished the entire building except for the facade. They received a notice of violation about the time we did and yet they were allowed to rebuild as a singlefamily home. In other words, they were not asked to build in the over 5,000 square feet of space they had into two units. At 24 ford street, they were cited for work beyond the permit, but both building and Planning Departments investigated and the new permit allowed them to change a threeunit building into a singlefamily with an au pair. And its being marketed for sale right now, coming soon. Sign is out front. So there two units were lost. None of the neighbors said anything about that loss to the city. That makes me turn to what the neighborhoods have written about and want. The neighborss concerns or motivation is that they want to prevent us or anybody else building on museum way, because were a through lot. Let me clarify were not planning on building up on museum way. We dont have any plans to build up on museum way. All we want to do is finish our home and move in. Many neighbors i spoke to do not want added density. The Zoning Administrator said that its extremely unlikely for somebody to get a Building Permit to build on museum way because of variances required. Some of our neighbors think that with less than 3,000 square foot is too big, but were making the footprint smaller and the additional Square Footage is excavation and dormers, converting an attic. The neighbors made unreasonable demands over many, many hearings. There could have been New Buildings built on the through lots and nothing has been built. Many people live right next door or across the street. Many of them have taken time out of their schedule to speak to you about why its important to be able to finish our home as a singlefamily home. Please approve or permit for a singlefamily home as shown on the drawings. I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have a couple of speaker cards, if folks can line up on the screen side. Jesse ray, bill knudsen, joe land, joseph collins, steven brown, mike schulte and joel halliwell. Speak in any order. Please line up on this side of the room. If you are ready, sir, go ahead. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im crispin hollings. I live on collingwood street. This is my neighborhood. Im here to support the permit. Normally i would favor adding a unit to a property, but in this case, i think that planning is proposing a density change mid stream. Planning has allowed the Property Owner to make substantial progress. To add another requirement is unreasonable. I am concerned they will slow it to such an extent that not even a single unit will be built for some time. Planning has for a long time discouraged me from adding a unit to the backyard cottage i live in. It has a basement that could be turned into an additional residence. Its supported by owner and neighborhood alike, but as ive been told by commissioners and staff, creation of additional unit would require variances that would prob certainly prevent creation on that site. On state street there, if more density is the goal, a, make the decisions at the beginning, and, b, modify variance rules. I support the 214 state Street Project without the density modification thats been proposed mid stream by planning. Thank you for your time today. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Go ahead. Your time is teicking. Im mike schulte. My wife and i own the house next to the subject property. I first want to direct you to section 249. 77 of the Corona Heights large residence special use district. I will paraphrase sub section f, because its the crux of the matter before you today. It essentially says, if you have a through lot with existing residential unit, any new residential unit should be located on the same size of the lot of the existing unit, unless its infeasible. What the project sponsors are hoping to skirt the ordinance getting approval for one unit now and then apply for a second unit on the opposite side of the through lot and claiming it would be infeasible to build both units on one side of the lot. I want to tell you how we got here. In may, 2014, the project sponsor submitted a permit for a foundation replacement. After witnessing significant overexcavation, i asked them to share their plans and drawings. They refused. I went down to the Billing Department and reviewed the plans and i discovered that the project sponsors fabricated existing conditions on their drawings, including an entire basement and garage. Purportedly behind these carriage doors fabricated and installed decoratively. I made a complained to dbi and their permits were revoked. I will finish up. In conclusion, i ask that the commission take the Planning Commissions recommendation and require that the project sponsors maximize the density new for two units. This can be achieved in three ways. First, project sponsors can divide the proposal now before you into two units. You have the drawings in front of you how it could be done. Secondly, they could also provide a bona fide plan showing how an additional unit could easily and fees feasably be added to the proposal. And then they could come back with a greater twounit plan expanded to the area and the rear of the lot. They have plans to build up top. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im joel halliwell, adjacent Property Owner to the east of 214 states. My partner and i have been residents since 1986. Weve suffered under numerous threats, deceit and false promises from these developers who have no intention of living in this house and have told us that numerous times. Our foundation has been damaged. Walls bulldozed without permission or permits and bedrock removed. We believed we could eventually work it out with mr. Mavis and chang to ensure the safety of our home and repair the damage to our property. We believe the most important issue today has to do with t