That you do for all of us who work here and live here and visit here. So thank you very much. Its a great honor, and i appreciate it. [applause] president yee director peskin, would you come into the chambers . [applause] president yee that concludes our special commendation for today. Madam clerk, lets go to our First Special 3 00 p. M. Orders, item 46 through 49. Clerk item 46 through 49, this is the appeal for the tentative map for 2146 through 2150 union street. Item 46 is the decision for persons interested in the decision of public works to approve a tentative map for a three unit subdivision. Item 47 is the motion to approve the tentative map for the union street project, and item 48 is the motion to conditionally disapprove the departments decision and to approve the appropriate finding. President yee okay. Colleagues, we have before us an appeal to the determination of the public works approving the tentative map for the project at 21462150 union street. For this hearing, we will be considering the final decision made by public works and approving the tentative map. The appellant or appellants representative will have up to ten minutes for presentation, up to two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal, up to ten minutes for presentations from the public works and Planning Department. Up to ten minutes for the project sponsor which will be represented by barbara hertzig, and two minutes in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project; and finally, a total of three minutes for the appellant or appellant representative to provide a rebuttal. Colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding this way . Seeing no objection, the hearing is now open. Supervisor stefani, do you have any remarks you would like to share before we get going . Supervisor stefani not at this time. President yee okay. Seeing no names on the roster, i will ask the appellant or their representative to come forward and present their case. You have up to a total of ten minutes. Hi. Thank you very much for giving the time for me and my wife to speak. Im adam zagoria, and i appreciate the opportunity to appeal this approval, the tentative map. We live nearby, very close to this building, and we recently got a letter telling us about this tentative map, and i realize that this has been is well under construction, but our first recognition that there was construction going on at this project was this opportunity to appeal the tentative map. Im objecting to the scope of this project in effect that they are adding an additional entire story to the existing building, which we never had any opportunity to approve the initial complication for the permits to build this building, and we feel it will lead to deterioration of that street and the buildings of this neighborhood. Its a very nice street, and we love living there, but there is a dramatic addition to the existing building that we were never able to comment on, so thats why im hoping youll give us the opportunity right now to appeal the original permitting of this building. I have no opposition to the number of occupants in the building or the number of units. President yee is that it . Thats it. President yee okay. As you can see, this is not a dialogue unless we have questions. Okay. President yee i dont see any comments, so what id like to do is open this up to the board for supervisor peskin i do have one question. President yee supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin so separate and apart what youre appe appealing today, which is a tentative subdivision map, if looking at 2146 union street, it appears that in 2018, the actual project which included vertical and hortizontal additions was approved by the Planning Department. I assume under the section of the planning code that you received a neighborhood notification if you are within 300 feet of that. Do you know if you did or did not . I know i did not, and none of our neighbors did, either. We are very close. We might be within 150 feet of that project, but this was the first notification that we received of this to appeal the map. I think this process was not handled correctly. Supervisor peskin i will ask these questions at the appropriate time of the appropriate departments. Although what is before us in this peappeal is a tangible ise of the subdivision map, not the project. I understand that, but this is a very important decision thats been made about this property, and im angry that we didnt get the opportunity to appeal this at the appropriate time, so im appealing it now, and i think its important that this be properly vetted by the people it affects, the neighbors to this property, and none of us along in our area were notified of this. Supervisor peskin i will ask the Planning Department at the appropriate time. Thank you. President yee okay. I dont see anybody else. I will hope it up for open it up for Public Comment for those who would like to support the appeal. Thank you. Im dr. George susans. I live in a property overlooking this project, and i have two issues i would like to bring to this board. Number one, when i submitted a letter my wife and i submitted a letter about this. The lawyer who represents the construction of this building said that, well, we ignored our notification of the construction. Well, to paraphrase what dr. Zagoria just said, we never received a letter that was supposed to come out two years ago from the Planning Department, and we did not receive it. We did receive one three weeks ago. And my second complaint is that the lawyer who represented that individual said that we had no grounds to stand on because we received a letter three years ago. Well, i want to reiterate that no one on green street received a letter about this construction. Thank you. President yee any other speakers . Seeing none, then this part of the Public Comment is now closed. [gavel]. President yee now, we have up to ten minutes for representatives from the departments who will split the time from public works and the Planning Department. Good afternoon, supervisors. Bruce stores, city and county surveyor. I wont take much time. We received this application. Its for a fourunit new construction project in january 2019, deemed the application submitable that same day, issued tenantable approval on may 13 i beg your pardon. Issued tenantable approval on june 6. We dont have any objection to this going forward, and i wanted to give my colleagues at planning all the time they need. President yee supervisor peskin, did you want to ask him a question . Okay. Go ahead, mr. Starr. Thank you. The issues that the appellant brought up in the appeal deal with the proposed expansion of the building and not the subdivision of the new units, therefore, planning is compelled to respond. The subject is a mixed use building with ground floor retail and two units. It includes four new residential units at the rear of the building. The height of the building is increasing from 38 feet to 48 feet, including an additional three penthouses that will rise above the roof. As required by the planning code, a 30day neighborhood notice was sent out for the proposed building expansion on june 14, 2017 and expired on july 14, 2017. The poster describing the proposed addition was placed on the building during the 30day review period. There was no applications filed on this during the 30day notification period. The department understands that the appellant is not within 150 feet of the proposed site, therefore, Planning Department does not require they be included in the notice. The second is the proposed includes substantial height over the existing height of the building and that this height will diminish views. Discretionary review period is the time when those issues should be brought before the Planning Department. The time to appeal the permit based on impacts that the proposed project would have on adjacent properties has expired. Further, neither the planning code or the citys general plan protect private views. Even if the applicant filed a discretionary view, the Planning Department would not have taken discretionary view solely because of someones private view being obstructed. Finally, its keeping to the neighborhood context with regards to size, massing and scale, and that concludes my presentation and im happy to answer questions. President yee supervisor stefani . Supervisor stefani thank you for clearing that up and clearing up the issue of 150 feet. I think that is providing confusion here, and i do want you, if you can, explain the difference again between appealing the tentative man and appealing the project. What is the difference here . When someone is expanding a building in San Francisco in a neighborhood commercial district or a residential district, we do whats called a neighborhood notification. It requires us to send out a reduced side of the plans and project description to all residents and owners within 150 feet of the property. That goes out 30 days. Neighbors have 30 days to file whats called a investigationary review which takes the permit to the Planning Commission for their review, and if they find theres an exceptional extraordinary circumstance, they can then modify or deny the project. Once it has left planning, you can no longer file the discretionary review. However, prior to the Building Permit being issued, you can appeal the Building Permit to the board of appeals which then can review the permit to make sure that the city is issuing it properly. The applicant or the appellant could, if they wanted to, seek jurisdiction at the board of appeals now, but it would be up to the board of appeals whether or not they grant that jurisdiction and then hear the appeal. Supervisor stefani was there also notice on the building itself . Theres always a poster placed on the property itself for the 30day period. Its an 11by17 poster. Its usually bright orange, and it has the same information the mailed has. Supervisor stefani when did that go out . Same period as the mailed notice, so june 14 to july 14, 2017. Supervisor stefani that concludes my questioning at this point. President yee okay. Supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin and i just wanted to apologize for confusing the 311 notice at 150 feet with the c. U. And tentative map notice at 300 feet. I believe that one of the speakers who lives on the 22 2100 block of green street, i just checked on the map is outside of that 150foot radius and therefore would not have gotten that, so i dont know where the appellant lives, but if they are on that same block of green street, would not have gotten a notice, so its not that it wasnt mailed as represented i mean, the Planning Department representative represented that the notice was timely mailed, but the appellants are outside of that radius. President yee okay. So seeing no other names on the roster from my colleagues at this time, id like to invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal to please come forward. Youll have two minutes. Thank you. Im david stone, 2100 green street. Yeah, besides the questionable notice situation here, i just want to say a few things. This project exceeds the height limit president yee sir, sir, so if you are supporting the appeal or against the project, that opportunity had already passed to speak. Well, what are you asking for now . President yee so these are speakers that are basically speak in opposition of the appeal. In other words, youre for the project. Oh, okay. We get another chance to say a few words . President yee no. Let me just say, you guys are ruining union street. President yee okay. Any other comments . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. [gavel]. President yee okay. I think we are where i didnt give the project sponsor a chance to speak yet, so can you please come up . You have ten minutes. Im sorry. You have to speak into the mic. My name is barbara hurzig. Im here on behalf of the project sponsor. I really dont have much to add. Ive sent all of you a letter explaining the legal position. Notice proper notices were given at the proper time. The grounds for the appeal are not matters related to the tentative map approval. San francisco has an unusual subdivision mapping process because you cannot file for a subdivision application until you actually have permission from the Planning Department that you can go ahead with the project from a planning standpoint, so really, the only issue that is left for discussion at the tentative map approval level has to do with whether or not the subdivision itself is consistent with the general and specific plans. And that finding was already made. Theres been no opposition from the appellants that the findings of compliance from these plans was erroneous. Thats the only consideration today. By the way, the height limit has not been changed at all. The front of the building is a historic facade. It has not been touched. I was over today, i have a photo if anyone would like to see it. The height of the facade is exactly the same. All of the development because this is on a grade, all of the development you can see from the street. So none of the neighbors that are here today will be affected by the development themselves unless theyre objecting to the addition of additional dwelling units that are legally permitted, then i dont think thats a real valid ground for appeal. Obviously, housing and the addition of housing in San Francisco is a critical issue at this time. So im happy to take any questions you may have, but i see no grounds for supporting t the appeal. President yee okay. I dont see any questions. Then lastly, id like to invite the appellant or their representatives to present a rebuttal argument. You have up to three minutes. Thanks very much. I think you heard the crux of the issue with us is that the people on green street who are very close to this property feel that we should have been notified of the original permit. Im sorry that we were not aware of that and would have appealed that. They are in effect changing the height of that building with a roof deck at the original line, and then theyre adding a large deck for people to live on, to be present, with two eightfoot high stairwells that is adding an additional level of living to the existing building. I find it hard to believe were not in the 150 foot of that property line, if you go from the back of our property to the front of that property or other properties on our street are not closer. We have a neighbor three doors down that has a property that extends very close to union street. What at a minimum id like is it to be reexamined, go back in the process and appeal the original permits. We have absolutely no problem with the number of dwellings there. Its the height of the dwelling which will change the character of union street and set a precedent for additional buildings to add another level above the 40foot mark. Thats all i have to say. Are there any questions . President yee okay. Thank you. Okay. Then this this public hearing, item number 46, has been held and is now filed. [gavel]. President yee okay. We will now reconvene as the board of supervisors. Colleagues, we now have items 47, 48, and 49 before us. Supervisor stefani, you do have any final remarks . Supervisor stefani thank you, president yee. I want to start by saying when i moved into the cow hollow neighborhood 18 years ago, i immediately joined the cow hollow neighborhood association, was on the housing committee, was an activist. These are things that i went to the Planning Commission about, and i really feel its unfortunate that its gone this far and you havent been heard. And for that, im really sorry. For that, dr. Zagoria and peggy zagoria for coming out, and those who have, as well. I have reached out to some of my colleagues to see if we can fix some of the noticing issues so that neighbors do not receive a notice for the map change neighbors receive a notice for the map change and not for the project itself. We have to act on the merits of this actual appeal and the tentative map. With that said as we heard from public works and the Planning Department, the appeal before us today im not saying that the concerns arent valid at all, but the appeal before us on the tentative map approval does not rise to the standards to disapprove of the determination made by the public works on the map itself, and again. Im not saying that your concerns arent valid in a way, but what we have before us, were not able to act on it in that way. So in this case, i do believe the proper course of action would have been to appeal the permit rather than the tentative map, and i will be looking into consolidating those noticing requirements. So with that, president yee, i would like to make a motion to move item 47 forward and to table items 48 and 49. President yee okay. Is there a second . Supervisor peskin . Can we take these items same house same call . Without objection, item 47 is approved and items 48 and 49 are tabled. [gavel]. President yee colleagues, the tentative map is finally approved. Okay. Madam clerk, can you go to our next 3 00, item 50 and 51 . Clerk item 50 is the public hearing to consider item 51 which is the resolution to establish the property based Improvement District known as the Downtown Community benefit district to order the levy and collection of assessments against property located in that district for 15 years commencing with fiscal year 2019 through 2020 subject to conditions as specified and to affirm the ceqa determination. President yee okay. We are now sitting as a committee of the whole again. Colleagues, the purpose of this hearing is to take testimony on the opposed levy of assessments of the propertybased Improvement District named the Downtown Community business Improvement District pursuant to the resolution of intention we adopted on may 14, 2019. As described in the management district plan, the proposed district would be approximately 669 parcels. Details of the covered area are on are in the file. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the department of public elections will tabulate the votes and report to the board of supervisors. Voters can review the tabulation in the basement of city hall, room 59. The board of supervisors will neither levy assessments nora prove status of the districts without approv