following the presentations we will hear from the party of interest. we will have 10 minutes to present and we will half person speaking at the appellant will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal argument. are there any objections to proceeding in this way? seeing none, why do we not hear from the appellant? you have up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am r representing page group llc. thank you for giving me the opportunity. my appeal is primarily based on the fact that the 1138-1140 page is not a single family dwelling

and should not be allowed to bypass the normal condominium commercial process. if i can direct your attention to document number one submitted by me on november 30, 2011, please take a look at exhibit 1. currently using occupancy dated january 7, 2009. signed by mr. sweeney. two family dwellings. which is indicated in the middle. on the left column, under department name, you can go below to the description.

on that box, the property profile. under that box, the property card. and on the right side, simcox, under the description -- the same box, under the description. only of the original department to let it is considered to be a store and a family dwelling. one family dwelling. i would like to direct your attention to exhibit 2 which is identical documents of the current authorized use/occupancy which has been devised november 19, 2009, signed by mr. sweeney to be one family dwelling and one commercial. the revision is based on the

address and description on the original water department. now if you go to the next three pages. documents of the application for service installation by the original owner of 1138-1140 page street. this is 1910. this is a single family and one store. it is 101 years old. service agreement indicates based on the application for service by current owner of 1140 page street, llc, permit application 200911430376, on

this form, they confirm the number of dwelling units on the premises to be two. it appears that the property is a single-family home based on the original 100 years old owner application. i would like to bring your attention to this. this is the application and number 2009-1103. it is signed by the owner of the project. the builders alterations on 11/3/09. on the left side box, the number of the dwelling is indicated at two by mr. cassidy himself.

it is also very important that i bring this to your attention that the client authorized this after the filing of this application. the revision was on the 2009. moving forward to the next page should, i obtained this from the dbi on november 29, 2011. based on the application, the number of the dwelling is determined to be two. proposed as four. it seems that they have changed the current authorized use in this exhibit im2 after he filed

his permit in 2009. this confirms that the document you should be two documents relying on the city and county documents. this is just a confirmation. please go to exhibit four. the multiple listing services of san francisco dated 11/27/011.

the top right corner, and this is indicated april 3, 2009. below the picture on the right side, the property is two units. you can now go to the next page under zoning. the number of units is two. moving below that, on the left side it says 2 flats, 2 stories. this indicates one-bedroom, one bath. under that is a unit two. the property record indicates 2 flats. moving to the next page to the property detailed records, the last recorded current sale of the property is january 25,

2011. under characteristics, this property is reported to universal land use as a duplex. right below that, the county use code. moving to exhibit 5 is an email to me on november 28, 2011. this is confirming my telephone conversation where he said that after he reviewed the file, he determined that they dpw is determining the condo based on a single-family dwelling. the current authorized use of this project is two dwellings. therefore, this is not a conversion where there are two

existing spots, which i have provided proof to you. i have provided several official documents of the city and county of san francisco which reports as two dwellings. it is subject to condominium ordinances. please move to exhibits sex. i have attached a lever -- letter of determination by scott sanchez. this is a property located on the 1372-13 union street. it is a similar case where the project was rejected for the new construction condominium because it was not a single family dwelling where units have been added. i believe i have enough adages

for you today. i have established this through current authorization use of the occupancy of 1138 to be two dwellings and not a single- family home. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions for the appellant? at this time, why do we not hear from members of the public who wish to speak in support of the appellant. if you could please step up to the microphone. >> you found this just in time. you found it just in time ♪ my bridges all were crossed no where to go

now your map is here and i know just where i am going no more doubt and fear. your map came just in time i found my way today ♪ >> any other members of the public who would wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? why do we not now hear from the city departments. you have up to 10 minutes. >> good evening, supervisors. the city and county surveyor. this is an application we received in june, 2011. we'd been the application submitted a ball.

we receive permitting approval on october 27. we granted tentative map approval on october 31. we are treating this as a new construction project. the information that we have that has been provided for us by the applicant and confirmed by the department of building inspection is that there is a commercial unit, a single-family residence, and the applicant was adding two additional residences. the commercial unit is not subject to the condominium legislation and single-family residence. this fell within our purview. >> emily rogers from the

planning department. it is important to understand the terminology is used in this appeal. two units, but only one residential. planning departments can be granted to single-family dwelling units. even if there is a commercial unit available. the proposal to the site included physical editions, the removal of the existing unit. and the addition of three new dwelling units. the result would be four-story construction with three new units. you can see i put this on the overhead. the project site is with the x on it. i put this map up because it is important to understand the context. this has an important mix of

styles. the appellant is a four-story, 12-unit building. this is a three-story, six-unit building. there were two planning issues. they asked whether this property was properly analyzed for environmental impact. in this case, they apply for ceqa twice and had applied both times to be exempt from environmental review. the project was exempt from environmental review under class one and ceqa guidelines. the did -- planning department letter signed november 21 of this year. the same determination was made under the building permit applications which included three residential units in a single-family dwelling. this was in preparation for the

dr hearing, which was never called. the proper terminology on the proper unit on the existing building. the appellant contends that the partial map approval is based on the four newly constructed dwelling units. this is the approval of three units to the existing family dwelling. the categorization of the project as four-unit construction is correct. it involves terminology that is unique. adding new dwelling units to an existing family dwellings is -- would exempt the project from the condo lottery. the existing bolling new debt and the newly created dwelling units would be considered condominiums.

that concludes the planning department presentation. is there any question? >> colleagues, any questions to department staff? ok. why do we not go to the project sponsor? >> supervisors, in good evening. speaking on behalf of the project sponsor. based on the staff presentation, this was constructed as a single-family. the only permit history was based in 1936. it just said one flat. the store was never legally converted to residential.

it is a single family with a store. the bulletin issued on march 5, 2007 by the planning department. this is consistent with that and cannot mapped as a 4-unit building. the case submitted is relevant. that is clearly a two-unit building ab. ased on the testimony of everybody here today, this is clearly not a two-unit building. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions to the project sponsor? why do we not hear from members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor. >> supervisors, i am hear from the builders association.

i am here to support the approval of the building of the parcel map. there has not spent any reason not to approve any such parcel map. the real reason for this appeal is just another act of betrayal by the appellant. the appellant and initially filed the d.r. against the project. the builder and the appellant began negotiating the terms. the appellant hired a lawyer. the lawyer drafted a settlement agreement. just when we were getting ready to sign the settlement agreement, there was a new issue. a new issue to the tune of $7,500 in cash. they incorporated this cash payment into the agreement and executed the agreement, despite the stench. the appellant and allow the project sponsored to make the revisions, allowed the planning

department to approve those revisions, and then went and filed an appeal despite what it says in the second to last paragraph that she would not appeal. we have all heard the phrase that everybody deserves their day in court. i completely agree with that. housing is a very complicated process. there is no room for individuals who cannot live up to the spirit and the technical aspects of their own written agreement. >> any other members of the public wish to speak on public comment? why do we not hear back from the appellant? you have up to three minutes for rebuttal.

if you could please speaking to the microphone? >> my name is maria. i am an attorney in the city and county of san francisco. i am not formally representing him. i have known him for 30 years. she does not need $7,500. let's just make that clear. in regard to this situation, after reviewing the documents myself, i can honestly say that i would not be able to come to it -- to the conclusion that this is not a two-unit residential building. the last time the building was occupied, there were two flats and two different families living in the flats. the building was categorized as a residential or a flat with a commercial unit back in 1901

when the regional owner applied with the water company that is no longer in existence. if this building is a residential unit with a commercial flat, why is every document that they have presented to the board of supervisors indicated that it is two flats. example one, the current authorized use occupancy. manager of the building inspection department, the allstate that is to flats. you'll see that the permit was filed on november 3, 2009.

and the applicant who noted himself and the number of units, it was too. that application was filled out from -- this is another copy of the current authorized use occupancy. you concede that on november 19, 2009, after the permit was filed, the occupancy authorize use was changed to a family dwelling in commercial. the building has not been one family and commercial for more than 50 years. it is ridiculous for anyone to stand here and say that this building is one family and

commercial. all she is saying, why is this particular contractor -- [chime] >> thank you. any questions? supervisor mirkarimi: first of all, i don't have any questions for you. this is in our district, but there was no work done by the office. we're coming at this in the same speed and the climate that you all are. i am going to ask the planning department, can you sort of recap where there is potential disagreement on this question of there being skirting of the

condo conversion process? >> in this case, the appellant is claiming that there are two residential units, that there were two at this location that were authorized an official residential units. you'd need to go through the subdivision cut to make changes to those residential units. there are two units in the building, but the official document as to what type of unit and the report, there is one commercial unit and 1 residential units. hull is with one residential units are not required to go through the lottery. >> of the assertion that we are talking about the original or initial intent, it suggests human it's the somehow evolve to

four units. can you speak to that? >> they should probably speak to that document. >> with new units added to the existing single-family residence and a single commercial. >> to new units on top of the two that are identified? four in total? >> correct. >> to be identified -- did the application identified for units? >> the application was for four units. >> of the assertion was that it was checked off as two. is there consistency with it being designated for four units? >> yes.

>> any other questions. >> in this matter is in the hands of the board. >> i will leave this up to the board. in this case, typically what as routine is that there would be some question okhotsk in discussion with all parties or negotiation. that did not take place. i think it is a potential missed opportunity, but i am not hearing the potential of their being there for a grievance in a way that we gave to these particular appeals. >> i agree with you, supervisor. i will make the motion to approve items 39 and cable items of 40 and 41.

>> seconded. can you call the roll on the motion? [roll call vote] >> there are 11 ayes. >> the motion is approved and the tentative parcel map is approved. why don't we go to roll call. >> i just have one in the morning and today. colleagues, i would like to

adjourn today's meeting the in the memory of richard kelly. on thanksgiving night, we lost a great man and a native son of our city. he was son of italian immigrant parents. he attended the marina middle school. he served in the u.s. army as lieutenant in the transportation corps and lived in the marina for nearly 30 years. he was an amazing father to six children and husband to his great wife, barbara. he was a self-made man, found that the number of companies in town not to mention the cafe on chestnut street as well as his family running the restaurant at the flower market. among many other things, he was known for his passion and commitment to the university of san francisco. he received a full athletic baseball scholarship to go to

school there. he was elected to the board of trustees and serves as the chair for the advisor recounts all. he was the alumnus of the year award recipient at the university of san francisco in 2009. he served on the boys and girls club of san francisco, the olympic club foundation, and the old-time athletes association. he was involved with charity burke -- work. he is survived by his wife barbara who is a wonderful woman and his six children. i remember going to a baseball game late this spring and with my children, running into dick in his late 70's. he was behind home p