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 plate with a full the chair yelling at the umpire. he had a passion for the game like nobody else and immediately had my son on his lap watching the game together. he was a true friend, a legend, and someone that we will truly miss. i ask that we adjourn today's meeting in his behalf. >> thank you very much, madame clerk. i have two in memoriams. sonya pierre, an active rights -- a human rights activist in the dominican republic who died of an apparent hard attack at a young age of 48.

the human rights community and around the world is devastated by her loss. she was the executive director, a human rights organization based on the dominican republic. she had ties to the bay area since 1988 -- the 1998 winner of leadership partnered with the international human rights law clinic at uc-berkeley school of law to initiate international litigation against the dominican government for discriminatory practices of the nine children of ancestry the right to dominican nationality. the international human rights clinic one landmark ruling from the inter-american court of human rights recognizing the right of dominican born citizens, children of haitian ancestry to education.

she did this despite threats and harassment. she was born and raised among her 11 hot siblings by her mother in a dirt floor barrack in the dominican migrant worker camps. she was 13 when she was first arrested and threatened for deportation for leading her fellow residents in the march for cutters rights. she walked several miles a day to attend the nearest school and eventually studied social work in cuba. she founded the group with a group of feminists. she is survived by her five children and will be profoundly embarrassed by her activists around the world. in recognition of her dedication, courage, and commitment, she received in the human rights award in 2006 and

the international women of courage award from the u.s. department in 2010. i think it is important to recognize the passing of this very important human rights activists. the last is more personal in nature for many of us here in san francisco, and it is with great sadness that i do in memoriam for a man many of us knew, respected, and love. michael goldstein, that passed away this last friday. it is hard to imagine san francisco without his presence. michael was a longtime lgbt rights activist. if you look at michael's

personal story of how he came to san francisco, it is a story that is very common within the community. he was an openly gay man, by virtue of being openly gay, was not accepted by his family had left new mexico, coming to san francisco, a place where he can be who he was. it is perhaps because of that that michael of the san francisco. for some many years, he dedicated his life for making the city and county a better place. those of us that have been involved on some of the issues for rights, rights of women, people of color, workers' rights, you can't imagine an issue of social justice where michael was not also active. michael of the city and county

of san francisco and through the years serve the city in many different capacities. he was a member of the campus task force created by then a supervisor and was selected by the rules committee to serve in that capacity. and in that capacity, advocated for the rights of medical cannabis patients. he always recognized that it was a human rights issue. michael was also very involved in the community and served as president of the democratic club. he distinguished himself in organizing not only the lgbt community, but he understood the importance of working with women groups, working with other groups representing the various

averse communities in san francisco. michael was someone who believed in good government and spent many hours and dedicated a lot of time working on issues involving the city college of san francisco. i think that through his advocacy, and he saved a lot of money to the city college of san francisco. he was elected many times to the central committee and in that capacity, serve the city and county for many years working with clubs from all over the city and county of san francisco. i think the assembly member and his face look posting summarize how many of us feel. words cannot express the loss that we feel for michael's passing.

it is today, for me, very sad to introduce this, but i also want to celebrate michael's life and his many accomplishments. i know that i am not alone in recognizing the many contributions he made to this city that he loved. i want to thank the many members of his board of supervisors who since he has been ill, took the time to visit him, i know that meant a great deal to him, and so i would ask him that on behalf of the entire board that we adjourn the meeting in memory of michael goldstein. >> without objection. >> thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor mar: i will try to be brief.

the saturday after thanksgiving, i was pleased to participate in the number of members that was between things giving and the black friday and december monday. it was an effort from president obama to local and small business leaders and designating small business saturday on november 26. it was a great experience to be at north beach and in my district participating with a green apple bookstore and a number of other businesses. i want to thank kathleen from the small business commission and regina from the office of small business for their efforts, not just on the saturday after thanksgiving, but to make every day a shop small day. a lot of the reusable bags were given out, and if anybody wants these, the office of small business has them