of it the current owner a sf property 31 they inherited this mess that was created by the construction that was done illegal but had tenants in more units than legally depraved and 234ik9d reporting the core issue is who is responsible for compiling with the lo law what's the responsibility of the zoning administrator how does he do his job how does staff do their job if there is a credible complaint do they do anything about it when someone is indicted for fraudulent plans and the supervisors is employment i

expect the planning department to go over this issue there is nothing in the files i have been going through the files on this project for months and i invite the rest of you though you're never going to take me up on it to go 0 through the files there's nothing that planned what happened on those projects i was looking forward to the zoning administrator explanation of the circumstance because those projects can only go forward with variances because they're not complying with the legal stance for a strong housing they were built as work so they don't meet exposure as office space requirement and everything what's the thought process that the planning department has gone

through how did at the sort this theirs or there's no variance no understanding of the thought process in the zoning administrators office was and i assure you there's nothing in the file that shows the thoughts in review there's a lot of e-mails they got ahold of that past monday on purely issues in here who is involved from the planning department and the city this was the letter i sent last night to mr. larkin's it was my fourth letter we come back to what your role is can you allow the - can the planning department not personal the planning department planning commission allow a building to be included illegal for all intents and purposes and occupied illegally and you just

process that and give permit without sit down by the planning department not by the developer not a third party but the planning department what happened on this o these projects i don't necessarily disagree those unite should be allowed as housing but what about the buildings those are not unit that are free-floating office space they exist in 3 buildings on brandon and 208 on pennsylvania are you insured what evidence do you have that the buildings are in compliance one of the things that i understand you should understand because i've tried i cannot ask the treasurer for the compliance information on every

this work if i make a request tell me how many business licenses there are at 208 pennsylvania they don't give it to me from the planning department asks how many business licenses have benefit filed. >> what units are they for at 208 pennsylvania and the various buildings on brandon street they'll tell you your another port part of the city i don't think they'll tell you who they end at 304 and 5 have business licenses and in 2015 and go back 8 years i don't find an inquiring mind at the planning department so the statement that the developer gives are the owner i'm used to excuse me. the owner says it's

part of the conditions of the lease oh, every condition of the lease it maintained they have offered nothing that shows any compliance so because those are live work units not dwelling units and people can't just live there and they can't live there after the adaptation of the eastern neighborhoods the n s r are in effect until the building is changed i'll ask sherry to agree you should ask that has the city attorney ruled those buildings could be occupied as dwelling units if they're not congest converted or whether they have to all points conform to the law that likewise work and what evidence do you have in the file i'm pleading continue

this hearing and pardon me if at least a draft in variance scott sanchez can give you a thought process what was the thought process he went through when we closed the variance hearing and said he's grant the variance i don't have any idea it is not available so one of the things that you need to have is some thinking from the planning department and some evidence from the planning department a letter from ethics attorneys is nice but ethic is not the planning department and you're the planning commission you have a responsibility to league of women listen to your staff and the people you can have evidence in the other side but not the only evidence

files are missing there was a fraud conviction this is exclusively those buildings the same expediteer the same person that drew the plans also have two things for the academy of art university i'm deal with four out of compliance buildings by jimmy jan architect who have them i commented on and the two academy of art are not here the issues are responsibility there was 5 thousand live work units they were all approved in central the waterfront area of

potrero hill south of market mission the only places they're allowed and so we constructed 5 thousand market rate housing unit not dwelling units in theory and their is not one note zero affordable units zero. >> you wonder why question have a problem in housing those are rented without rent control their rented at a rent the owner can get at the time and we don't have much of anything to go on i'm mrooeld with you what's our evidence from your staff i have the evidence from ethics what does the staff agree with

and why do they agree with and how do they guarantee compliance and the bigger question i asked yesterday i'm sorry at the middle of the knitted to scott sanchez and the supervisor who's the people that okayed this because when you read the letter if ethics it is complete with people from the city agreed people from the planning department agreed and there's not one name city staff, staff, staff city officials and planning in beginning dbi who who signed off on this who did they meet with and why no records in the file of them? there are no records >> i've gone through the records maybe their deep in the records from e-mails on various

they're not in mr. sanchez records not in mr. seiu ks i've gotten him perhaps in records of supervisors and the mayor's office and people it says dbi i have no idea who they've taushgd talked to who is making those decisions you are sponsored to make the decision this is ant appropriate subject for hearing it is not some crazy woman off in the bushes like i feel how they go on to paint me i've spent 6 years on this a lot planning department spent 6 years on it processing the issues they've spent sometime

presumably dealing with the enrollment actions i know they did because they stopped construction i have no idea what they did on the rest the timing is generous for me but i ask you what do you have as evidence the a those buildings are being used all of those buildings are where the housing u housing units are are the buildings legal? if you're legal listing some unit is that okay to legalize some unit but not the buildings? it would be unheard of from my experience that planning department has ever walked away from that issue can you legalized a portion of the unit without knowing the building is

in compliance with you have the ability to call the treasurer and say give me this information not gym give me this information 3 months after the you should have that information thank you >> thank you okay. are there any speakers in support of dr requester? >> okay. seeing none project sponsor. >> just to be clear your team has 15 minutes. >> sure thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is a allen murphy on behalf of the portfolio llp we respect ask the committee not take question of before the details i want to put this into context and why wore

here and attempting to get those approvals the building permit were part of an approval first alleyways allows all properties to be in full compliance, and, secondly, the crew will have spelling needed housing unit to people can stay in the loss properties we recognize the lost properties and want to keep the units if approvals are a not grand only to evict the tenants for the properties given those are the two options and the only means of avoiding this is the better of the two options give you a little bit of background a group of developers urban associated with ethnicities had divide several small unit

without permits before ethics purchased the property they learned about those unite and initialed permitting the units they custodial mantled in the process to bring all the units into compliance they applied for the 31 dwelling units the zoning administrator indicated in september of 2014 he is inclined to grant the variance to allow the surveillance it be established the approvals will allow the units to conform to the existing units the brandon properties are - pennsylvania in the your honor mixed range and 15 to 20 of those units will not be available there will be no change for occupancy and no additional

square footage and minor interior work will be performed the response to the dr requester raised today and previously there are several broad policy regarding the units and those policy concerns this is not simply the proper forum a citywide conversation happened in 2012 when 2013 when the board of supervisors talked about the zoning district if they have concerns those concerns should/have been raised contaminate the application is not seek to convert or change the use but rather permit the units not permitted in the friend and find a path for the unit not to be vacated the dr requester agrees ethics main be

a proper compliance that it not relevant because their applied to the work unit but ethics is in undermines compliance and we are open to continue to work with the planning department to insure there is full compliance with the n s r as mentioned we certainly will be happy to work with planning and finally in response to the dr requester response for the affordable housing the establishment of the dwelling units will result in affordable housing paid by ethics in the city into the affordable affordable housing fees in addition to the dwelling units so we think that that will only increase the affordable housing in the city but preserve the better hours at the complex in conclusion others t it insuring that no tenants will be evicted we have individual if ethics that provided additional

information on compliance if any questions thank you for your time and urge u urge the commission not to take discretionary review but approve the projects. >> so speakers in support of project sponsor dr requester you have a two minute rebuttal. >> sorry were there speakers? >> thank you ms. hester. >> hi my name is josie live in pennsylvania i'm live almost 14 years and i'm poor my kids grew

up in the place but now the problem they all own it and they have to - we have to pay they have a grant in the begin i've - the new owners have to do what they have to do they have to do but we'll ask of them if it possible to live in the same place i can't afford in san francisco it is too hard to live and it's hard to live in places and safeties it is the area is nice for my family i tried to attend all the meetings and say please if possible we still live in the same place and don't raise my rent that's all thanks.

>> hi my name is jan i live in one of the units that i'm a little bit confused i need clarification perhaps from ethics the last meager we were attend from what i recall a couple units that were able to be legalized and two, that were not wore living in a unit that sponsorship were not able to legalize we've been long term tenants and when we rented we represented with the old owners and we didn't know the units were not illegal until two years auditors we understand that there is not much that can be done with our unit if this were to that legalized we'll have to move i request we have to move move to another unit within the

little a similar unit and same represent right now we don't have a lease we're month to month and unclear if we're adapted are not from what i've heard from the last gentleman i think the request not to make changes to the existing unit i'm sure how it effects some of the units potentially couldn't be legalized thank you. >> any other speakers? in support of project sponsor? okay dr requester you have a two minute rebuttal >> i'm going to quote from a they've they're not filing a

variance due to the history of permits and the lack of direction they got their variance application late but got a hearing within a month basically, the owner is saying keep us from shooting our tenants their innocent people your decision is whether we have to have the action ax fall on them is that the standard that the planning department applies this is not a case of the building built in the 1 century and evolved into having two units their trying to legalize them a hundred years later this was an action a contention planning

case the entire building was approved not individual units the desires space every single floor was allocated in the plans that the planning commission approved and they changed that pardon me the previous owner the current owner it is two old to compliment when it it ever the right time to claim when a variance comes down before you i've done those complaints so desire buildings is at issue i don't disagree they should be legalized but need full information about the state of the rest of the building and make basic inquires if you don't you're not doing our job the

planning department is not doing its job and the planning commission not doing its job thank you. >> okay project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you allen murphy on behalf of the project sponsor and ann morrison from ethics to respond to any of the public comments received just a few points we appreciate the dresser agrees it shouldn't be relegalized because of the acts of the previous developer the two omthsz to go to the permitting process to allow the occupants to stay or allow displacement those are really the only two possibility that's why wore on this path and spent

significant time and money to accommodate that in terms of the question that was raised in public comment about the this individual unit this counter process will allow 31 of the 34 of the permit to be retained but a few not because public safety but for certain units if this individual is, in fact, in one of the units we'll ethics will offer another situation so that's been committed to everyone casca stay within the property but unit can't be reigned in their current situation this is not hundred percent of the units reigned in ideal form any other questions we're here.

>> we may have questions. >> sure thank you. >> thank you okay. the public hearing a closed opening to commissioners commissioner richards. >> wow. i've been here 10 months and this one is messy i'm trying to look through the smoke over the last 10 or 20 years to make sense of it this raises questions i know that is complicate displacement is my number one issue and unfortunate i didn't see it in the staff report but people adapted because dbi issues not planning issues it is my goal to make sure that whatever we do here in the end none anybody is on the street i want to be clear about the property i appreciate the fact you're trying to bring it into compliance it is not easy

he have questions of the process of the variances issued for the unit ms. hester i was not clear on the issue of the no thought process was there a public hearing held and that's available to merit my yes a public hearing held in september and ms. hester communicated concerns she didn't attend the hearing i heard and i didn't issue the variance decision letter because of the neighborhood notifications pending that was completed and the discretionary review file and before you this is has not been noticed as a surveillance hearing but i closed the hearing at the september. >> a decision say a decision granting but we've not issued the decision letter. >> great i think one of the issues that's interesting for me how do we bring a portion of the

building into compliance which when another portion is not in compliance this is their obeying the allowing law a notice of special restrictions out there the issues have not been verified i heard mr. murphy is open to continue the dialog and discussion i don't think i'd like to make a decision until i understand the whole building is in compliance mr. murphy agrees the conversation should continue we've been doing this for 15 years is another couple of weeks i guess i've asked the zoning administrator to create a decision in the first place the extent of the work the person did in the past are there more fathom units to be aware of the

fraud. >> it was fairly prolific it is not a matter that was completely dissolved. >> maybe kind of a special project for an interim to pull the permitted and see how many more units might be out there this is a suggestion we might see this with more ethics lose properties here we're legal listing thirty dwelling units and only one of them over 10 unit i believe would require an affordable unit we're not getting affordable units. >> their subject to be affordability respiratory. >> oh they are. >> and elected to pay the fee. >> that's a good clarification the large policy issue i don't

think we should decide is here maybe a discussion for the commission over the next most we have the n s rs what is the stent are they being followed up on i have friends that live in lofts they were told to have an s r their computer programmers that's a larger issue maybe put on the action list to talk about it in the future if you don't mind i'm comfortable supported a continuance here preponderance of the evidence my understanding that the rest of the building is in compliance. >> i can aid you might have information. >> yes. so there's a special restriction that requires at least one the tenants in the work units to maintain an actively business licenses this

information is publicly available anyone on the internet can find it on data sf i found the following numbers again, this was a basic search only relatively recently, i had discussions with ms. hester this was one of the main concerns and found for the 5:30 property there were 32 but 17 actively business licenses and 532 i found 15 business licenses and 34 units and 34 for pennsylvania 32 and i found 18 business licenses. >> a description in what is happening and should be happening. >> yeah, we need more information it could be that maybe some people in units have let their business licenses