To speak to this certificate, one last thing, a little bit minor in the context, there is a singlestory we are garage being removed from the development lots which will, in essence, open up that midblock area and actually be through open midblock space as is intended by the planning code. A couple of things, the certificate of compliance process with d. P. W. This is not an action taken. This is not a lot line adjustment, this is not a lodge merger, this is not a subdivision. Certificate of compliance process is under the state subdivision act, and in essence, is a process by which if theres some question as to where your property lines are, you file an application with the county county surveyor and the county surveyor does the research, takes all the evidence in, and makes a determination as to what the lots or today. There is no change, it is an acknowledgement and a confirmation of what the lots or today. You will see in your packet there is a letter from the director, very explicit expressly stating that they have looked into this. There are two existing lots, in and that letter has also been developed with the City Attorney s office. This issue is not at issue anymore. It is not something we can do anything about. That is the first thing. The demolition, i know this is a sensitive issue and theres nothing to defend here. It was three years ago. I know in the context of the last year, it seems like people are still doing this, it was three years ago. Take that into account. I also just want to distinguish the character of demolitions you have seen and this demolition. This is not a demolition of a small home to make way and build a monster home. This is the demolition of a nonoriginal, without a foundation, threestory bay that reduces the size of the property to 5,000 square feet. I am not defending it, just distinguishing the character of it. And again, this is not necessary to build some the on the second lot. The second lot is a lot. And the unfortunate thing coming into this late is seeing that the demo combined with a certificate of and compliance is simply a process by which the surveyor acknowledges their two lots here and a second home can be built on a second lot. It has obviously fostered an environment early on of not is not helpful towards communications, and i think the fact that, you know, the northern neighbor is on board, i think its a positive sign. Weve got some other folks from the neighborhood who also or supportive of the project, so, again, the demolition that took place is not necessary to build the building on this lot, which is different than your previous project. I asked the commission, when talking about the new unit and took think taking a look at the massing that we worked very closely with stephan and accepted every single recommendation modification they requested. This is an appropriate project for this location, and i will leave it at that for now. Thank you. Where are we . We are on speakers in support of the project. Okay. Do we have anyone in support of the project sponsor who wants to provide a comment . Come on up. Anybody else who wants to provide a comment in support of the project sponsor, please line up on the left. Good evening. My name is scott. My family and i live two blocks away on 16th avenue. We have been there for 16 years. I am a homeowner in the community with kids, and obviously want whats best for the community. I have reviewed the renderings and the plans as well as the lot the two subject properties are fully within the scale, scope, and character of the neighborhood, and more specifically, the block in which they are located. Additionally, in reviewing the materials, it does not appear that the sponsor is requesting a variance or conditional use for either of these projects. Furthermore, San Francisco is obviously in a bit of a housing crisis. No big surprise. The crisis consumes an entire segment of the whole market from affordable to entrylevel, and obviously higher and luxury properties. The two homes will allow two families to join the neighborhood and allow for them to join the neighborhood. San francisco needs more families for kids and these two homes will allow that to happen. Enclosing, my family and i fully support these two projects and hope youll consider you will consider their completion as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your time and attention on this matter. I live on the 100 block of 17 th avenue, just about a block away from this site. My concern about this project is simply that it has been stalled for so many years. Knowing that the project sponsor has been working with the department, they would like i like to put my have completed its process. It has been an eyesore for some time now. That site seems like something that needs to be really resolved i put my support behind it and hope it moves forward. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. My name is jeffrey stevenson. Thank you for letting me be here today. I am a Real Estate Broker and a property manager with very happy tenants in San Francisco. I have been in the industry for over seven years. I was very fortunate to start as an apprentice under a group of top producing brokers in San Francisco. As long as i can remember, tim brown was one of the names that was exemplified in me as my mentors. As a respected broker in San Francisco. Through his countless efforts, he has truly transformed real estate in San Francisco for the better. He can drive by many of these developments and find out how he has improved the curb appeal of the subject properties as well as assist us statistical value of the neighboring properties. Im passionate about real estate but also have hobbies, too. I enjoy playing golf and im a member of the presidio golf and concordia club. This is where i met john a few years ago. Also a very respected and honourable person, as he and myself and the 250 members of my club. John is a loving family man and has gotten to know me well over the years and saw me growing my career. He knew he would be able to help me get to the next level by introducing me to tim as a candidate to join his team. I have been working with tim brown now for over two months i can testify what an incredibly ethical and straightforward businessman he is. I was raised on strong ethics and principles, and after working along him every day and seeing him in action, i say they align. His wealth of knowledge has helped me to be better, better my value to my clients, family, and friends. Tim loves what he does and he loves helping people. It is a bit shocking shocking to see someone trying to challenge their integrity. Yes, he is a developer, they obviously want to make a profit, but importantly, i truly believe they want to make a difference and make San Francisco a better place to live. We are all neighbors in San Francisco and i think we look back we will look back when this project is complete and thank both of them for their honest and professional efforts in improving this location and building a new sickle family home. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Thank you for having me tonight. I am kevin martin, a neighbor in the community and also a friend of johns. Like the former speaker, i also know john from being a member of the presidio and concordia club. I am the president of the club and speaking specifically to the ethics and integrity of john, i have never met a more stand a person that i have known. He has specifically worked on renovation projects at our club, he has provided guidance to plenty of others that have been doing renovations and have had other projects, and he is someone who i know has wanted to work with his neighbors and has accommodated many changes to the original plan, and has been stalled because of complaints and problems over the past few years. I truly think this project should be approved. I do think the homes look absolutely beautiful as they have been shown on the screen tonight, regardless of the objections. I think they fit well into the community. I think some of the concessions made on the size really do allow these Little Things to fit well, and i fully support the approval of this project. The site hasnt been able to be developed for three years. We need all the housing we can get. Whatever size can be built. And when tim actually showed me the plans on a show i saw how he cut them down so theyd fit they would fit with the neighborhood, i realize that people who had been there for longer than i have would object because it is a change, but if we are going to house the people in our city and continue to grow and do well, we have to accept this change, so i urge you to approve this project. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment in support of the project sponsor . Okay, Public Comment is closed. Is a twominute rebuttal . Okay. Each of you have a twominute rebuttal. Thank you. This project is characterized by false documents and full statements. Here we are today, and they are so claiming the project is 5500 square feet, when i have had a forensic architect look at it. If you would like the reports from the forensic architect, i would be happy to give it to you , but i have given you too much paperwork in the first place. Plans for the driver brought permit that failed to show the existing threestory area and some of the misinformation. In 100,000 dollar abatement permit that was raised by d. B. I. To 200,000, statements like the Planning Department said it would be a waste of resources to replace the bay, after the Planning Department issued in an oe. Submitting a map, the sponsors claim that the survey has not been approved by d. P. W. The sponsor and its associates will say anything and do anything to get their project approved, including falsely claiming two lots exist when there was really one lot. I recognize a significant a certificate of compliance issue its outside the scope of the Planning Commission, however, the bad acts of the project sponsor indicate the Planning Commission should proceed with caution and require a formal, written, legal opinion from the City Attorney that lots 25 and 26. That lots 25 and 26 were legally created. If the project sponsor is confident they have done the right thing, they should not oppose it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello. Thank you. At 5589 square feet, the proposed expansion of existing home, which is directly behind my home, will be 50 7 larger than my home and i believe that my home is above average for the block. Both of these proposed homes are just simply way too big. In addition, the number of rear decks or being proposed by the project sponsor leave the impression that a couple of cruise ship to being currently parked behind my home. The three rear decks that they propose or clearly excessive and unprecedented on the block. The project sponsor simple he cannot be trusted to build in our fair city. Please send the message that dishonest Developers Need not apply to build in San Francisco and demonstrate that integrity is a priority in the planning and building processing process in our city. Im aware that he is currently recommending modifications to result in only two rear decks on each home. The two were decks on each home is one too many. One rear deck should provide adequate where yard access and maintain rear yard privacy and would be consistent with virtually all of the other homes on our block. Under no circumstances should the fourth floor rear sky deck on 25 or the third floor rear deck on 27 be allowed. These gratuitous decks simply serve to invade the rear yard privacy of all the neighbors. I urge you to do the right thing demonstrate respect for the rule of law, protect integrity of our neighborhood, and i implore you not to reward the dishonest and illegal behavior of the project sponsor. Require the Planning Department to withdraw its support for approval of these projects as currently proposed. In light of the undisputed facts regarding dishonesty into legal work performed by the project sponsors, this is the only honourable position for the Planning Commission to take. If you insist on allowing the project to proceed, the modifications that will be proposed to the projects will bring both projects in alignment with your time is up. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, commissioner project sponsor. Sorry. Thank you, commissioners. I recognize that the Planning Commission is tasked with fulfilling the planning code and the goals of the planning code. They also recognize that it is test to do appropriate, Equitable Development in the city of San Francisco. This project is adding another unit of housing to another unit of housing in the housing crisis. For a moment, could i get San Francisco government t. V. . This building, is the building smaller . Yes, but the building is not this is not extraordinary for this block or this neighborhood. This neighborhood had larger homes in it and it is r. H. One so you can only get one home per lot. The demolition, no one is standing up here defending a demolition, but we do i think it is important to know to distinguish between this type of demolition and the demolition you guys have been seeing over the last couple of years. These guys have been punished. This happened three years ago and for a Single Family home and a home remodel, they are here three years later. It is not like they have not been punished, and it is not like this commission hasnt been putting project sponsors on notice. Lets be clear about that. No one needs to feel bad about this project sponsor, but this is not a process that someone would like to go through. The last thing i will say is that, as you can tell from the very beginning, this process kicked off on the wrong foot with the demo and the certificate of compliance. I would urge the commission, if you think the buildings are not appropriate in this location, if you think that there needs to be some modifications made, do it tonight. Dont send this project sponsor back out to the neighborhood because this is not going to lead to any sort of further useful conversation. I would really put it on the Planning Commission to make the decision you guys need to tonight to make the appropriate development for this location. Thank you. Your time is up. Okay. Commissioner richards . I am going to be a little bit crowd because we have been here since 11 00 a. M. Seeing this every week is starting to get old, to be honest with you. It seems like every week we have some type of shenanigans that go on. We have illegal demos, we have evicting tenants through rent evictions, admitted by the developer, stuff that was submitted, demos that were done without approval, permits werent that obtained, by a project sponsor who, actually, i really respected when he did the project on franklin street, who i think should really have known better. I truly believe that this commission is one of the last bastions of public trust. The citizens of San Francisco can come here and feel like theyve actually really been heard and we process what they say. We may not always agree with them, but we come down on the right side of things, and i think this is no different from what we did on 214 and 60 65 alvarado. You see the list is getting longer and longer and longer. In terms of where i am at with this, you know, we have a series of violations, no permits succeeding the scope of work, you know, comparing demo types to it is like murder and murder. It is the same thing. It really is. I am going to move to take d. R. And have the project put back the way it was before. Im happy to entertain a new project on the other lot should there be another lot coming forth. I think that we need to be consistent in our application when we find this type of behavior, and it is nothing personal, it is just being consistent anything it upholds the project public trust in the process and in ourselves. I moved to take d. R. Second. Commissioner fong . Second. I will take a slightly different position. The cases that my fellow commissioner brought forward, you know, involves garages that werent there, extensive demolition wait in excess of this one. The reason i think it is a little bit different is because if this had been two different owners, each owning one of the lots, then that they was illegal , and so the question is, whether the not filing for a permit to demolish that they, and demolish a surface pipe deck , which i dont quite consider to be the same in terms of severity of the bay, is the one where i would struggle with in terms of further punitive efforts against the property owner. They have now they have proven, as far as the city is concerned that it is two lots. They submitted a code compliant project, and i am prepared to support it. Commissioner richards . I understand on june 16th, 2016, just to rebut your point, fell commissioner fong, the engineer his applied for and received an overthecounter Planning Department permit with the scope of work was like kind repair, southwold drive wrought. When the engineer supported the building permit, he submitted building plans to show the existing threestory bay. This isnt just exceeding scope of work, this is submitting fraudulent building plans. This is clearly in line with our decisions that we had before. When people exceed the scope of work, i think we generally cut them a break. I think that is generally our position. I think nearly something has been turned in for the city to get an approval on, where it has been misrepresented or factually inaccurate. That is where i draw the line and i believe that this project crossed that line. Commissioner his, there is a motion that has been seconded. If i understand the motion correctly, it is take d. R. And require that the property we reverted back to its previous condition. Exactly. Im sorry, you said entertain a new plan submitted for the other lot . Yeah, fine if they bring up project four on the other lot, that is great, lets reconstruct the building, make sure that the new project adheres to the existing site conditions that they need to get a demolition permit, or adjust the lot line, whatever t