Their conflicts of interest. The Party Sponsor is disingenuous. In their brief they say, please note that none of our scope of work would have been properly allowed if the proper procedures had been followed. None of these violations would have married had the violations not been caught and proper permits obtained. That argument can be used for any violations forced to get a new permit documenting all corrections to existing violations. Should any accommodations be given to project sponsor . Project sponsor claims financial and construction challenges to this unit. They also request a variance to the front and rear yards. Are there any exceptional circumstances that warrant giving of some accommodation to project sponsor . Project sponsor caused his own hardships. No one else is to be blamed. What is to be approved . The proposed plans dated from october 24 are compliant with the Fire Department as presented by planning staff. Thats what the staff report says. Add four wet sprinkler heads at the rear facade as a local equivalency from d. B. I. That was a quotation from staff report. How can adding four sprinkler heads to an existing Fire Prevention system be prohibitive . Why should variances be granted . No other adjacent property has similar structures in the front or rear yards to necessitate variances, especially the ones that were selfinflicted. Since the initial hearing in may of this year, the Planning Commission has been consistent in its requirements for the project. Increase density. Other projects, regardless of who is to be blamed, have been subjected to the same decisions by this Planning Commission. 284 roosevelt way, 655 alvarado street. It would be exceedingly unfair and set the wrong precedent to make an exception for this proje project. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the d. R. Request . One minute. Im an adjacent neighbor. I live with my family in the building next door. I want to say we love the structure in its current state. Are you in support of the d. R. Or the project . Im . Support of the project. Okay. Then sit down and wait until your turn comes up. Thank you. Can i have the overhead, please. My name is jerry dratler. The developer acquired a 3 million for 2 million and converted the two equalsized units into a singlefamily home. The developer admits to 13 Building Code violations. The department of inspection role in this project is shocking and requires explanation. Why were 13 illegal acts not discovered in 26 separate inspections . Why did one of the most senior building inspectors at d. B. I. Sign off on three certificates of completion on the very same day for the very same building showing the building to have zero, one, and two basements. I commend the Planning Commissions 18 july decision to restore the three units. The decision is fair and consistent with the commissions policy to require bad actors to put the Building Back the way it was. The proposal to pay 250,000 in lieu of creating three units of needed housing thank you. Is ridiculous. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. I ask you to stand by your july decision and i oppose the request of these builders. Their behavior has set a poor example of proper building procedure. I ask that they pay a fine of 250,000 in return for getting out of the Planning Commissions july decision. Its shocking that they should be allowed to decide what sized fine they should pay. I think their plea of financial ruin is disingenuous. They lost money because they were in the genuine in the building. Bad behavior must be punished, not encouraged. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment in support of the d. R. Requester . Okay. Now, project sponsor, you get your presentation. Good evening, commissioners. My name is paul dawson. My partner couldnt be here today. Hes been hospitalized due to a collapsed lung. The last two years have taken a tremendous toll on us and our families. Our plea is to allow us to move forward with additional delays. We had a three and a half year planning and construction process to upgrade and remodel twounit residential building. Since our last hearing, the lender has moved forward on foreclosure of the building. My partner and i personally are responsible for the millions of dollars we took to restore and develop this property, and as a result our 20year Construction Company with 18 longterm, dedicated employees is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. We began working with d. B. R. And the Fire Department to further explore the viability of adding a third unit to this property. We learned that the Building Classification would need to change from r3 to r2 to accommodate the additional unit, which would trigger a whole host of major changes to the building. We would essentially be required to demolish and remodel the existing structure. When we purchased the Building Back in 2014, there was a c. E. Issued due to the presence of a small, illegal third unit at the bottom level. We proceeded to secure a permit and submitted plans for the current twounit building more than five years ago. In our view, the only viable option is to maintain the current twounit status of the completed property. The package we submitted includes updated plans, and im happy to answer any and all questions. This process has not been fair. The d. R. Application was fraudulently submitted by kevin chang using false identities, as were previous complaints regarding our project. We have had neighborhood support throughout this process. While we understand the severity of our mistakes and we take full responsibility for those requests, bebelieve we have been subjected to a range of accusations of those with compromised and undisclosed motives. Having no real ability to respond to various statements or developments during the past hearings, we truly felt like ghosts attending our own funeral. Our project has been held hostage in a power struggle between d. B. I. And members of this body while charges of corruption swirl around. Some say this is the cost of doing business in san francisco, but i hope we agree this is not the case. In this instance, i ask that you stand on the side of due process and approve our Building Permit. Thank you for your time and consideration. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im liz bridges, attorney on behalf of the applicant. I just want to make two comments. One, i wanted to address the issue of the third unit and remind you again that this unit was or the building, when they purchased it, it had an illegal third unit that had an n. O. V. On it and they received a permit to remove that unit. They acted on that and therefore that permit vested. Any action to try to add another unit would be improper under that. Also, i wanted to speak to the basis for the 250,000 offer that our clients have made. The calculation for that offer was determined by looking at what the in lieu fee for Affordable Housing would have been if they had been subject to that. So they looked at the project size and figured out the basis for that. So thats where the source of the 250,000 was. Its not out of thin air. It had some basis in city policy. Were happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the project sponsor . Now its your time. Again, im a neighbor and everyone i know on the block lovs this new structure. Its a beautiful and sensitive addition to our block. The last thing anyone wants is more construction. I will also mention what we want is for the place to be occupied as soon as possible. Its a vacant building. Its been there for five years. It poses a Security Risk for my family and my neighbors. Were dealing with vandalism. Thank you. Any other Public Comment in support of the d. R. Im sorry, of the project sponsor. This is unorthodox. I think that the project was egregious. I talked about it in general Public Comment a while ago. 11. 7 million in the flat near mission and delores park was terrible. You talk about wanting to put the project back the way it was. It wasnt put back the way it was because thats what you talked about earlier. It had three bedrooms on the top level and now only one. I think the 250,000 should be given to the smallsized program, and heres why. This is a project, this is a building on hampshire street. It was ellis acted. You look at this photo really close and you see an adult with a child on their lap. Now, maybe the 250 cant do anything for the Affordable Housing thing, but it surely could do something good for the smallsized program because this building sold for 1. 5 million and these people could be in their home. That is my unorthodox statement. It was an egregious project thank you. Im not excusing them, but this is a crazy thing. Any other Public Comment in support of the project sponsor . Okay. Mr. Chang, come on up with a rebuttal. Keep it to one minute. I think the most important thing about the consistency of the decision for this body is the increased density. Subject to the meeting the Fire Department requirement, which in the staff report has indicated is possible in the october 24 drawings that were submitted to this body. That was after they had already met with the Fire Department in the joint hearing. So to not share the ofings an a timely basis and to say what they shared in october is now false makes it difficult for public policy. The matter needs to be continued so we can review those documents further or kept with the krnlg third unit decision. More importantly, no variance should be given. There is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about this project that was not selfinflicted. What are the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to this project had it come through the door before the violations happened . Was it granted a variance . The answer is no. Thank you. Thank you. You get a rebuttal. I think we have just one request. That is, please let us move forward. This has gone on long enough. This is our fifth date. This is the fourth hearing. We need a motion and a vote. Please move this forward. Thank you. Im going to start asking a question of the city attorney. Ms. Stacey, do we have the authority to accept a contribution or a fine from the project sponsor . President melgar, kate stacey, City Attorneys Office. As i understand the offer, its a 250,000 gift to the city. There are a couple of ways that the city could accept that gift, but i think it would start with board of supervisors resolution in accepting that gift. Since its not tied to an inclusionary housing requirement or an impact that this commission or failing a finding by this commission that its created this particular kind of impact on the Affordable Housing stock, i think it would be characterized as a gift to the city and should go to the board of supervisors. There may be another way for the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to use that money or the project sponsor could separately donate that money to a private or a nonprofit organization. But for the city to accept the money unless we could make specific findings, it would be considered a gift. So suppose we accept or approve the project and say, yeah, the board of supervisors will accept the gift and they dont. The resolution doesnt pass, but then what happens . Kate stacey from the citys attorney office, there is really no way for the Planning Commission to enforce that gift. A gift is a voluntary offer. Project sponsor can make it on whatever terms they decide to make the gift, but it is it would not be easy for the Planning Commission to enforce that gift if it were, in fact, just a gift. So what happens if we say, okay, you can give the 250,000 to the Community Land trust or some other nonprofit thats working on, you know, small sites, can we do that . Can that be a condition of the approval or do we have any authority for Something Like that . President melgar, i think, as weve recommended in the past, the commission really cant enforce a private agreement or a private donation. So again, it could not be an effective condition of approval. There may be a way, if the commissioner or the staff could make findings showing that this project created a particular impact and that 250,000 was an appropriate and tailored remedy to that impact, that may be another circumstance. I havent seen that evidence in the record. Thank you, ms. Stacey. So because i havent been at any of the other hearings even though ive read the record, i have a number of questions. I would like to understand from staff where we are procedurally. If we let me give you a couple of scenarios. If a motion is made and we do get four votes for it, whatever the motion might be, if the project sponsor does not like that, what are their options . Well, im sorry, could you the first question was if there was a motion to take d. R. Well, let me start with it. Has there been a motion to take d. R. . There was a motion of intent to take d. R. , but in conferring with the city attorney, you just make a new motion today. So, in fact, if there is not a motion to take d. R. The project gets approved. This is a principally permitted project outside of the variance. So for the purposes of the Planning Commission, you need to affirmativity take d. R. In order to modify the project, otherwise it proceeds. There hasnt been any motion thus far. If there is a motion to take d. R. And to approve something, if the other than a continuance, but put that aside. If there is a motion to take d. R. And approve something to be determined. If the project sponsor is unhappy with that result, do they have a right of appeal to d. P. A. . Absolutely, they can appeal to the board of appeals. Is there any enforcement the Planning Department can proceed on . Im happy to touch on that. Nice to be here the first time with you, commissioner diamond. This permit is actually the result of the enforcement process. So the scope of work that is approved under this permit, assuming it goes forward, it is issued, that is completed and final, that will satisfy the obligation. That will legalize the work done outside of the prior permits. If we dont take d. R. , there is a possibility they will proceed with what you have approved through the enforcement procedure . Correct. This permit is intended to capture all of the scope. If this permit doesnt include all of the scope they like and some of that already exists, they would have to take that away, barring some other outcome of that appeal. But one way or another, this work and the work to complete the permit would be subject to variance. This work does require a variance, yes. If we dont take d. R. , the d. A. Could still not grant the variance, which means the permit would need to be modified to reflect the absence of the variance . Right. The variance decision does not have to mirror the d. R. Decision. If there is some discrepancy, then the permit would have to be amended to match the variance, again, barring some other outcome through an appeal. Thank you for all of that. That was helpful. Earlier today, and you referenced prior cases, where the remedy had been to increase density and add a third unit, in each of those cases did they need to switch from r3 to r2, or is there something particular about this project that is creating problems with the construction type . Im personally not familiar with the other projects. I mean, generally its a function of units. I think commissioner fung could generally its a function of the number of units in the building. I think here going from two to three is the primary trigger, but there may be others that the project sponsor or others could speak to. Is the issue a problem because theyve already completed the project. The other projects have been demolished not the building type. Under the two units that they have and they continue to propose, it would be r3, but adding the third unit would put them into an r2 classification. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner fung. I think we should make a decision one way or the other, to vote it up or vote it down. Somebody needs to make a motion. It cant be me. I will just say that i still stay with the our intent from our meeting in july, that i think we should put back the third unit. I realize that it had been the, you know, legalization of taking it out had happened. I think if it were happening today, it wouldnt happen, we wouldnt permit it, but that i do think the project sponsor needs to make us whole in this. I appreciate the author paying into an Affordable Housing fund. I just dont see how we can accept it. I just dont see a mechanism, and youre not proposing one thats viable, through which we can have that money accepted into the city through some other mechanism. I dont see how its enforceable. Im one of six. Commissioner fung. I thought that was a motion. I cant make a motion. Im joking. All right. Just to put it on the floor. Im prepared to make a motion to not take d. R. As part of the findings for not taking d. R. , it would incorporate some of staffs comments, but also that they have made an offer of 250,000. Can we make in the motion that we the findings. Okay, in the findings, that we make a recommendation to the board of supervisors, that we accept it for a down payment. Is that a possible thing to put in the findings . Kate stacey in the City Attorneys Office. That recommendation on a gift isnt on your agenda and its its a different kind of decision. What the commission could certainly do is note that the project sponsor has made this offer of the gift and that it needs to go through whatever appropriate city channels they are. Thats my only point, that theyve made the offer. Im saying that can be in our findings. It doesnt mean that were accepting anything. Commissioner