>> there is the other appeal, commissioners. commissioner fung: i apologize, there is an appeal of the permit. commissioner peterson: so you have the second appeal which is protesting the issuance of the permit. >> the revision permit, yes. that is why i was not exactly sure how procedurally you would put that out. the net effect is what i am looking for, how you guys see that from a parliamentary or whatever it is standpoint, perhaps mystical steam or the adviser to the board, the city attorney, would know how to call that. i don't know. commissioner peterson: okay, thank you. >> mr. sanchez, no rebuttal? ok, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> it is a different permit.

icommissioner fung: for the main permit that was there before. president goh: they cannot have !zthe second without the fir, right? commissioner fung: they could. >> scott sanchez, planning department. it depends what the board wants to do. if the board were to uphold the appeal and require changes, then that would be there revision permit. at that point, the board could overturn or pulled -- overturned the appeal on the suspension, which would allow the whole project. but i would refer to deputy director kornfield as to whether a revision permit can go forward when the main permit is suspended. i think the board would have to come under revision permit, take whatever action the board wants to have happen, and with that they could release the

suspension on the main permit. and then everything would move forward with that revision permit. commissioner fung: can we clarify that? mr. kornfield, i thought this was a separate permit, not an addenda. >> as long as we resolve the pr'm and fixed methodology. as long as there is a subsequent permit that replaces the scope of the problem that comes before the board, we are happy to do it. president goh: i was going in the other direction. i would uphold it -- or i would grant the appeal and overturn the release of suspension. therefore, the first permit would be suspended, and then the

second permit would be mooted, because they cannot set back the ceiling 4 feet for a ceiling that was not permitted. ito me, the dropped ceiling has an adverse impact on the exterior. they could address it in a different way, and they began this work without a permit. the 4 feet set back, to me, it seems that would be very visual from the street because you are looking up and you would see the end cap of that drop ceiling. it would be very visible. those are my comments for now. commissioner fung: i've looked at it slightly differently. we acted upon the original permit, which had a minimum amount of work, discussions related to the counter, the door, etc., etc.

i would find that the revision permit is not a very sensitive solution, whether this building is his to work or not. whether it is a commercial building or not. there are a number of different ways to handle the hvac ducts. if you have restricted had room and height, especially in an older building, there is nothing wrong, in fact it is recommended in the state preservation guidelines, to have exposed ductwork that are architecturally treated. but i find the revision permit is extremely utilitarian and it does not reflect creating --

whether it is significant, and i will not use that, but decent architecture -- i find that is very insensitive. therefore, i would revoke the revision permits, suspend the main permit, and let them finish off the resident work. vice president garcia: the rest of the work, other than the work of the ceiling? commissioner fung: the ceiling would be revoked. president goh: i am sorry, i am confused about the first, appeal 2a, appealing a request for release of suspension. it is the 11/29/2010 permit. that is the ceiling, is it not? vice president garcia: there was no permit. commissioner peterson: i

believe the suspension is to legalize the ceiling, no? >> no. >> so the suspension is of the building permit 2010/11/30/5770. president goh: the ceiling permit. >> right, so if you lift the suspension of that, then the ceiling without the 4 foot setback is allowed to go forward. >> scott sanchez. deputy director kornfield has an excellent idea, and that would be the board suspension release, saying that it is released with the condition that the suspended ceiling is removed from the original project.

that would work, perhaps. vice president garcia: which means the permit that is suspended has to do with the original project, nothing to do with the ceiling, which is beyond the scope. >> the permit that is suspended is the permit that has the full suspended ceiling. so the permit that is under suspension has the full suspended ceiling. the revision permits simply cuts back the first 4 feet of that ceiling. so if the board or to revoke the permit that has the revision, the revision permit is gone, then the suspension could be revised and the suspension is being released upon the condition that the suspended ceiling is removed from the project. and if they submit another revision. that shows that. vice president garcia: they

start work on the ceiling without a permit. then it went out and got a permit and it was allowing them to suspend all the way to the front 4 feet, and then that was suspended and got a permit that would set the ceiling back 4 feet and be suspended for feedback. >> correct, correct, which is on appeal as well. vice president garcia: so we have two ceiling permits. >> correct. commissioner fung: then i think mr. kornfield's suggestion is an excellent one. ivice president garcia: i would agree. that surprised me when i first got involved in the board of appeal that the board upheld communities on issues having really to do with aesthetics. the board's basically have said, the planning commission, whoever grants permission to a building, they have the right to make the determinations about the things that are static. i don't know that that

generally applies to the interior of a building. but i think i am going to go along with this because it will be visible and aesthetically it sounds like it is pretty displeasing. one thing, not to pick on president goh, but one thing that planning used to do, whether or not somebody starts work without a permit has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a permit ought to be granted. that should be a stand-alone issue. if somebody started work without a permit, there are processes in place to deal with that and that should always be totally separate from whether or not somebody is working without a permit. so i will go along with what seems quite what they eat are suggested. -- what they are suggesting. commissioner hwang: i think mr.

kornfield's suggestion is very good. if somebody wants to move on that? commissioner fung: i will move. >> i think it would be to uphold mr. sanchez, on condition that the suspended ceiling -- >> the first motion would be to grant the appeal and to allow the release of suspension to go forward, on the condition that -- and i need you to fill in what the condition is. commissioner fung: and that the ceiling be removed. >> will be removed. commissioner fung: the suspended ceiling be removed. >> ok, and then the motion for 138 would be to grant the appeal and denied a permit, correct? commissioner fung: that is correct. mlk, thank you. >> ok, i think we are ready?

maybe not. president goh: i guess i don't understand why we would not just grab both appeals? >> we are granting both appeals. granting the first appeal, and then it -- president goh: okay, removing the condition. >> yes. >> so the first motion, then, is to grant this appeal of holding this request for release, allowing it to go forward. >> conditioning it, yes. president goh: the condition is critical, though. commissioner fung: condition at to the removal of the suspended ceiling. >> from the scope of this permit, to be deleted. commissioner fung: yes. >> ok, we will go on that first.

suspended ceiling. again, to repeat, is to allow this request for release to go forward, upholding the zoning administrator, with the condition that the suspended ceiling be struck from the scope of the permit. on that motion from commissioner fung -- [roll call vote] so the vote is 4-0, the zoning administrator is upheld with that condition. the second motion, also from commissioner fung, is to grant this appeal and deny this permit. >> can you recite the appeal number? >> this is 10-138.

and no finding. so on that motion to deny this. [roll call vote] thank you, and commissioner hwang is absent. this vote is also 4-0 and this appeal is denied. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, we move on to item no. 3 which is general public comment. if there is any member of the public would like to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda. seeing none, item four, commissioner comments and questions. if commissioners? ok, seeing none, adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the meeting for

january 19, 2011. president goh: commissioners? i move for adoption. and any public comment on the minutes? >> seeing none, if you could call the roll on the item number five, please? %ñ4x8 president goh to adopt the january 19 minutes -- [roll call vote] the vote is 4-0, those minutes are adopted. >> no further business, commissioners, we are adjourned.

>> thanks for coming today. we are announcing are temporary homeowner's property tax reduction program. this is what most assessor's up

and down the state are doing. homeowners are reliable -- of all property owners are eligible for a temporary, 1-year property-tax assessment reduction if they believe or if we believe dave -- the assess the value has fallen above their market value, which means that the value would be lower than the market value. in general, homeowners who are eligible, chances are, they purchased homes after 2003. we do get applicants who have owned homes since 1995 or earlier. in general, anybody who is owned their home prior to 2003, they are doing well, which is good news. chances are the market value is higher than the assessed value, meaning the property appreciate it. people we are able to offer little relief for, the sad news is, their homes have depreciated.

there will be a little bit of relief for them. in general, last year, we saw 6400 applicants in comparison to four years ago when we had 248 requests. the form a simple. it is one page. name, telephone number, e-mail, and the address you are applying for. if you can give us sales in formation of similar types of homes, we do hope you can give us that. if you cannot come maternity leave blank and sign it. e-mail or fax it to us -- if you cannot give us that, leave it blank and sign it. e-mail or fax it was. tenderloin downtown, south of market, mission bay, and south beach. those were many of the new high- rise condominiums that went in to market the last four or five

years. we have seen a significant amount of depreciation in those areas. gaviria that has seen the largest value drop is -- the other area that has seen the largest volume drop is the outer mission, amazon, those areas have seen the largest percentage drop. it is where we have been hit hardest with foreclosures. we make sure that we take an extra look. we proactively have been reviewing every home that was purchased after 2000. even though we think eligibility is for people up to 2003, we review any homeowner who purchased after 2000. that was roughly about 15,000 homeowners. of that, reduced -- no one had to apply or call us. we did this on our own. we reduced 10,000 of those homeowners. roughly, you have 10,000

reductions that we did on our own. 1700 reductions were done through this application process. 5000 time shares is how you get to the 17,000 number. just to give you a comparison, it is quite a bit in san francisco. these are huge numbers, larger than the dot com bust. alameda and santa clara did about 1000 come a tenfold. -- 1000, tenfold. we are doing better than our counterparts in other parts of the bay area. i feel fortunate. the tax reduction was about 21 million in taxes that were not collected. 21 million in taxes were not collected. that is a significant number. it is out of a $6.5 billion budget. overall, the difference to the city is still rather small

compared to what it meant to many of the other counties in other areas. let me stop there and take questions. >> [inaudible] >> 6462. of those, we actually reviewed only 4177. many of those were already reviewed. we have actively reviewed them. some of them were not eligible. >> [inaudible] >> anybody who has gotten a reduction, they don't need to apply. we will look at it again. if you have gotten a reduction through an appeal or through our office, they don't need to apply again. they will be reviewed. they may want to apply because maybe they want to give us

information we don't know. they are free to do that. that will be reviewed as part of that process. in general, they don't need to submit paperwork if they already got a reduction last year. >> [inaudible] >> well, i think because it is just flat, the market has not rebounded and gone up. we will probably see the same number of people deserve reductions last year. i think it will be comparable. traditionally, an economic recovery is like a v. this is more like a u. we're at the bottom of it right now. my feeling is we are going to see, you know, a very unusual real-estate market in san

francisco. it will be flat and not appreciate a whole lot right now. the number people who are eligible is probably similar to last year. i bet we will give about the same number of reductions this year as we did last year. it will not be that much different. >> [inaudible] >> anybody that was reviewed -- everybody in san francisco got a letter from us in july. they were told what their assessed value was. there were told that they got a reduction. if they got a reduction based on the letter, they don't need to reapply. what people do is we will review applicants. the deadline is march 31. all 17,000 who got reductions will be reviewed automatically. everyone will get notified again in july. we will not talk to anybody prior to that. everyone else will be getting the standard notification in july. >> [inaudible]

you review these every year. >> every year. the reductions we review every year. as the market appreciates, we may take their assessments up based on what the market value is. they may go all the way back up to the factor value. it may go up partially higher. obviously, that is what he would see. you would see a step over the years to include the appreciation based on what the market is feeling. right now, we are not seeing a whole lot of appreciation. chances are, the assessment will be a little bit different than last year. the original purchase applies plus whatever the inflation factor was on an annual basis. in general, up to 2%. we had a negative inflation factor for the first time last year. everybody got a reduction last year. >> [inaudible] >> this year, cpi based on the

final number we saw, is. 5% positive. it is still well below 2%. -- is .5% positive. it is still well below 2%. the economy is still rather flat. >> [inaudible] >> everybody who does not get a reduction will get a .5% increase in their assessment. that is just a proximate. it will probably be pretty close to that. we can show you the website. we follow the same website. it is the state cpi. it is a tracking mechanism for the state. >> [inaudible] >> i think there will vote to

finalize in the next month or two. i think the number is done. >> overall, when all is said and done, what is the amount that you're going to receive [inaudible] >> for reductions, it will really just depend on how much your property might have depreciated or appreciate id. some areas where maybe there was a 5% or 3%, the good news in san francisco, we have not seen a few drops we saw in other parts of the bay area, like solano, or properties dropped 50%. you don't want that. you want your property to appreciate. that is the goal. it might be $50, $100, maybe a few hundred dollars. it and will not be anything huge -- it will not be anything

huge. >> [inaudible] >> over last year, it was a $21 million difference. because of the temporary reductions in homeowners values, there was $21 million that was not collected by the county. let's put that in context of the $6.5 billion budget. >> [inaudible] >> the total property tax collected is about $2 billion. overall, we are doing quite well. >> [inaudible] >> overall, property-tax as have done extremely well the last five, 10 years. we have seen huge increases overall. >> [inaudible] >> no idea. if i did, i should be in las vegas placing a bet, or should be in new york making more money

than i am here. the controller's office is probably tracking it more than us. we don't know. we have seen -- we have seen several governments pumped $1 trillion into the economy. it is a huge amount of money. we have seen some improvements, but not the ones they were hoping for. great. ok. thanks, everybody.