>> i leave it was the -- believe it was the maintenance supervisor. >> and he witnessed him doing the check? >> thank you. >> the department has three minutes.

>> you have never had one that has been suspended. this is the first. how would we relate, whether the penalty fits the size? >> one way to think about it is it is one 12th of a year. they have put their residents at risk. it could easily be one 12th of the time. so that's a way to think about it. >> can they pick the time? >> i don't see why not.

especially -- at this point, we are using it as a punitive measure to make sure that they continue to take seriously the threat of it. as part of our progressive enforcement strategy, we are following through on our threat. we would like them to pay attention and not have to come before you or us again. >> i thank you got their attention. >> most importantly, we would like for people not to get sick or drown. >> okay. thank you. >> i have a question for your technician. your inspector, sorry. you'll have to move that microphone up because you are kind of told. again since this is the first case that i've heard in six years, the permit holder says that they have a professional company that maintains it three

times a week and then when you took your measurements -- i respect you are a professional and your equipment is correct, what was that measurement? what did indicate? she might have said there was too much chlorine in the water. >> there is 13 and a half or 12 and have parts per million. >> i don't have my google on. what is that? >> state law says you have to do three and ten parts per million of chlorine. chlorine is the means to get to hypo clark asset. it reacts with water to make hypo cloris acid. >> and they had too much? >> they had too much. at that point, you start to bleach people's clothing. thank you. >> i have a question. the maintenance logs and the on-site mac logs, are those maintained by the private company or is there an on site persian -- person testing daily or is there someone testing three times a week?

>> i can't answer for the appellant but the maintenance logs are typically done by a vendor that they are paying for. >> but there is two different logs that are required or only one is required? >> it says it should be ph chlorine and test -- temperatures to be tested daily. >> thank you. >> i would also like to note that every time i test outside state law, there is a minor suspension. so they have been suspended four time so far 41-3 days, typically >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners pack this matter is submitted. >> would like to start? >> i will start. since this is the first time that a full -- pool suspension has come before us, in the previous case i did appreciate that the department is working with the small businesses and making the punishment appropriate to the crime.

i am supportive of some type of suspension. i am not supportive of 30 days. i think a week is in line with what i feel. at that point, a serious message is being sensed that the next time will be much longer. >> i would agree that 30 days is a long time. it seems a 1-3 days was mentioned and have been somewhat effective and that they have had hired a company to do the testing and maintained the pool 's ph. it seems like elevating the length of the suspension would be a way to send a stronger message. >> i guess that is my motion. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant to the appeal and uphold the department's order on the condition that it be revised to reduce the suspension to seventies.

>> on the basis that that creates that the punishment fit the crime. >> on the basis that the consequence fits the violation. >> thank you. >> okay. >> i say it so well, don't likely. [laughter] [roll call] >> that motion carries and there is a seven day suspension. thank you. we will now move on to item number 8. this is an appeal number 18-118. the subject property is 1042 minute street. and alteration permit. a response to a correction notice september 2017 to show as built conditions and obtain

geotechnical letters. this is application number 2017 09221277. we will hear from the appellant first. >> good evening, commissioners. i filed the appeal. it is probably the last place i want to be. >> please speak in the microphone. >> thank you. >> thank you. there we go. >> it is the last place i want to be. i was involved in a case. i really can't get into a lot of those issues that they made to because those are there issues. with some of the issues don't belong to me. my issue is after the case settled, the plans that were submitted are incorrect. i have information that i would like to share. i would like to explain of why i have appealed the permit.

the plans himself, i'm embarrassed to say, i would have ignored. i would have said, that is not my business. someone else can deal with it. that calls it enabling, bad behaviour. i would have been happy just to say it is not my problem. the problem is, when everybody does that, you end up with situations that are getting worse and worse. and the situations that got worse and worse and drove me to this hearing. i don't want to be here. so the plans that have been submitted basically show and resolve a structural issue by showing the neighbor's foundation being four and a half feet below the top slab of 1042 minute. on the plans were submitted in 2004, it showed the bottom of the forging 24 inches down.

about three months ago they resubmitted new plans. these plans were part of a permit that was with the building department for over a year being plan checked. a specific question was being asked that wasn't being answered and within a week of the case settled new information came out that the adjoining buildings foundation was 4 feet below their projects so their foundations were much bigger instead of being two with the below. they were four and a half feet below. their foundations grew, on paper , from 2 feet to four and a half feet. i don't know of any fertilizer that grows foundations to double the size. the premise is the adjoining building's foundation is deeper. if you look at their drawings, they will show that the adjoining buildings has a brick

foundation. this is evidence that i can get. i don't have to pull something else that is privileged. that doesn't belong to me. those on the top of the foundations of. >> are you pointing to something on the overhead? there is nothing on the overhead >> overhead, please. >> that shows the top of the foundation. 30 inches above grade. their representation is the bottom of that footing is four and a half feet below the sidewalk, because that is their slab right there. they are saying to the city, a two story brick building has a . that is a high-rise building. but that's what they want you to believe. that there foundation is 7 feet deep. i know how deep it is. you can go on to microfilm. there is a permit. i did it in 1991. is on file. it shows the depth of that footing.

it is 4 feet deep which is the proper depth of a foundation. you will also notice joe should they have shown something about a neighbor's building that basically says the neighbor's building is not 4 feet deep. it is 7 feet deep which is ridiculous. it is offensive to me as an engineer. at then allows them to show something on their building that resolves the issue. sometimes you just have to say, this is not right. i will take a hit for this. i would love to walk away and be another person that says this is somebody else's problem. i just can't do that. i will take a hit for it. it is the right thing to do. there is no other motive. and a brief they say i am doing broke. i talked to the building department and i should have talked to them earlier. they've made some suggestions.

i'm happy to listen to it and happy to believe their investigation. i would stand down and listen to whatever they have to stay. i don't need to say anything more. thank you, commissioners. >> i have a question for you. going to the brief, you are paid to council or paid by the page family and 2005 and 2015. >> even later than that. >> so there was, it looks like there was a five-year argument and an appropriate settlement. >> there was a settlement. >> are you representing the page company at all? >> no. >> are you representing the ministry project? >> no. >> you are just out of the good nature of your heart? >> no i don't want to be here. if you think this is fun or pleasant -- >> going through the brief,.

>> enough is enough when somebody does this. your guy will have to decide. not me. >> we will now here from the attorney for the permit holder. >> i am with a law firm and i represent tony shields. this is a head scratcher for me i have never seen an appeal as is substantial as this one. he has acknowledged to mr honda and has been on this matter for 12 years. he was originally with the neighbors when there is a dispute when this matter was first proposed back in 2005 and 2006. after ten years of a happy relationship between the properties when the building was built and the owners took ownership of their units, one of whom is here today, he came back

in as an expert for four years of litigation. all the parties spent a ton of money and went to mediation and went to court and reached an amicable agreement with respect to all of these issues. the foundation, the structural integrity of the two buildings and the two buildings made their peace with the settlement agreement that was approved by the court. and when i looked at this appeal , i asked myself, i think as mr honda did, what is he doing here? he is not a good samaritan. he made a lot of money. perhaps was frustrated that his ideas didn't lead him to make more. but he is not the permit holder. he is not an owner. he has no interest and he hasn't even alleged much shown any public interest. there won't be any public comments later. this was a private matter that was resolved regarding a building that has been standing for 12 years, with owners who have been there for 12 years.

so we just can't understand what this is about. mr santos is here and he will address the merits such as they are with respect to what is going on there. but at some point, things have to end and people need peace. this is not a question of a good samaritan. i don't know what his motivation is but his clients have disowned him. and said we have made our peace. we are happy and we are safe and we are structurally sound. we are not behind this the -- at all. yet we had to come here tonight with half a dozen people taking off work and coming again to make the same argument we made before a mediator and a court accepted settlement. at this point, i think the question has to be asked, why do we not assume that the planning department and d.b.i., which went through this, not once but twice this was not a walkover. this was not a back of the hand counter permit. there was a substantial process in 2005 and 2006 in which the neighbors had objections based

on the hype. those were dealt with. the permit was granted in the building was built. twelve years later, litigation broke out. it went through another year of planning and whatnot and resulted with the issuance of the permit. the idea, if i heard correctly that suddenly, after 2005 and 2006 and after four years of litigation after we settled, suddenly he discovered something that he hadn't discovered before as nonsense. i think we need to put this to an end and let the owners live in peace and let the parties live in peace and let them abide by the settlement that they've made at great cost to both emotional and financial to themselves. thank you. >> thank you. we will now here from -- is mark epstein here? attorney from the homeowner's association? do we have a representative from the homeowner's association. >> i am one of the homeowners.

i am one of the homeowners. i have been an owner for about eight years. the building has been there for about 12. to give a little background, what happened is a nightclub moved in next door after we bought our unit and moved in. they operated outside of the balance of the entertainment commission and the a.b.c. at some point after that, the nightclub sued us, alleging a whole bunch of things and that the noise was all our faults. the lawsuit encompassed our neighbors as well and lasted five years or so. to work through that. as it has been mentioned, we have settled that. during the case of the lawsuit, the claims kept changing and the sands kept shifting. they began complaining at the d.b.i. about a variety of things including plumbing permits.

the builders worked with the d.b.i. to resolve the issues. we are also puzzled by why we are here. the building has been fine and we have not seen anything wrong with it and it has been there for quite some time. these issues -- they did not bring this up initially. they discovered them and thought they could stick it to d.b.i. his seem somewhat suspect to us. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. there is still five minutes left for the homeowners association. but we will -- is there anyone else? anyone else who wants to speak.

>> did you want to let the structural engineer speak under your time we. >> oh. yes. thank you. >> welcome. >> good evening. this is a well-built building that was built 15 years ago. not a single callback to the owners of the three unit condominium. nor a hairline crack. you walk through that building and there is no evidence of settlement no evidence of structural distress at all. push the clock forward to 2013. claims have been made that no inspections were submitted for this project. wrong. absolutely wrong. third-party inspections, d.b.i.

inspections, inspections by a soils engineer. the misfortunate thing is that the soils engineer retired. this is a building that was done 15 years ago. but we found him. we found him. we got a copy of his original letter. and in that letter, assess not only did i review the grading and excavation, but i also specifically inspected the interface between 1525 mission and our building. and i wrote that letter and i signed it. and i dated it 2005. we found the letter. that wasn't enough. we had to get a new engineer and take new samples.

we have a full-blown new geotechnical investigation on a building that is performing magnificently but we have to do it. to appease his errors. their conclusion. they thought that the soil was better than what he had anticipated. they gave us higher values. you over designs the foundation. we could have done it for 15 inches and we did it for 18. the thickness of this building is a same thickness of the new building that is being proposed for d.b.i. at 1500 mission. that is a seven-story building. this is a heavily reinforced slab. he is questioning the reinforcement. there is nothing unusual about having different reinforcements in the centre of the building as it is on the edge. he is the litigation support

structural engineer. we do drugs and we get permits. the final issue, what happens at the interface between the two building? once again, the source engineer, at the time made that investigation. we wanted to make sure that it was the proper interface between the two. it is not unusual in the structural engineering drawings to say 24 inches minimum or depth to match existing foundation. that is not unusual. again, that is something we do all the time. we are given minimum dimensions but if we do an -- if we need to do more, we will do more on site how do we verify that we? how do we certify that cleat with special inspections. is a procedure. those were submitted and those were signed off.

this is a very unusual case. we have a concerned citizen who worked on the building on 1525 mission. we did a brief investigation as to what happened with 1525. we uncovered there were no special inspections signed off on that building. that is a brick building. it happens to be a club. it is an assembly. no special inspection. the ordinance required brick testing. no evidence of that. and my filing a complaint? of course, not. that is not my style. my style is to do proper design and get signoff and get additional inspections. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection.

>> joe duffy, d.b.i. permit application here to a responsible response correction. to show conditions and obtain geotech letters based on the original structural drawings referencing the building permit. the permit was filed on the 22 nd of september, 2017. it was issued on the 17th of august, 2018. it did go through d.b.i. intake. the building plan check by an engineer, richard tam. and it was then signed off. was issued on the 17th of august and signed off on the 20 th of august and subsequently suspended because of the appeal on the 7th of september, 2018. the correction notice that was referenced on the building permit was issued on 9617. and it said file for and obtain

a building permit inclusive of a geotech review letter to document the structural integrity of the building. it must make reference to as built conditions on the original building permits and in 2004. so that was complied with on the correction notice. then there was some sort of a delay. me beat with comments and on -- than they noticed issue of violation. you have not provided the requested materials to plan review staff that was identified in december of 2017. a correction notice was issued requiring structural validation of the building's foundation based on the original permit and the as built conditions. obtain the building permit within 30 days by submittal of the documentation materials requested by the review section

staff. failure to comply will lead to additional enforcement actions. it sounds like the notice of violation got complied with with the issuance of the building permit. he is making claims that there's something improper with the drawings. i don't know if there is or not. d.b.i. have signed off on the permit. one of his options could have been to come to, when he saw when the permit got issued, he could have canned to the chief building inspector and said one of the inspector signed off on something that is wrong. he didn't do that. he filed his appeal which is the right thing to do. that would have been an option. i did discuss that with him. it is still an option even though the permit is completed. we do have a section in our code of the issue and sign off on something, we can't resend stats based on improper information on the drawings. i just wanted to add that. it may make it easier. that is where we are at with this. obviously, you heard about the

litigation and the years of that that went on. i'm not that familiar with the case. i was not involved in it. i do know that some other staff members were and there were depositions and stuff like that going on. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> in september of 2017, a year ago, plans were submitted. this permit was submitted a year ago. eventually it came down to one question about the plans. they couldn't answer them. they sent them to a director's hearing saying, you need to answer this question. go online and look it up. there is a hearing on it. they still couldn't answer it. the case settles two months ago.

within a week, new drawings, the one i am complaining about, are the new drawings that were submitted showing something completely different next-door. showing the neighbors' foundation is 7 feet deep which we are now matching. for year, this information doesn't come out. these new plans don't come out. they only come out after it settles. if you want to believe a building has 7-foot deep foundations, and say it is fine and tell everyone you will believe anything because that is what you are really saying. i am happy to listen to the building department and have them investigate this. continued for two weeks and see what they say. if, in fact, the neighbor's building is 7 feet deep than they've matched it. it's the only reason i'm here. but you guys just have to decide what you are willing to believe.

do you believe foundations get bigger when you pour them in the ground? i could spend an hour talking about the history of this building. it doesn't do any good. none of that really matters. you submitted a set of drawings that are fictional and you guys except that. >> thank you. you have three minutes. >> you read the papers that mr epstein submitted on behalf of the homeowners and the oak h.o.a. and that we submitted on behalf of mr shield. you will see the answers to these questions. he let me to believe he is an expert consultant. he does not build and design. he testifies. and yet being involved in this property for as many years as he says, back to 2005, and in 2017, when disruptive testing was done as part of an overall settlement and discovery in the process, and the case was settled on the

basis that money was paid to the pages. if they had any problem with anything, they could repair it. this is where we are today. i don't believe infections. i have you believe in what is in the ground and with what he has seen and what mr santos has testified to and what the d.b.a. found and what the owners of that building have lived with happily and safely for the past 12 years. to reopen this and make a spend more time and money may make him feel good but unfair to the participants in this case and unfair to the homeowners and unfair to the other professionals involved. all of whose reputations have been affected and to have now made their peace and left two sound and happy side-by-side buildings with one disgruntled engineer. thank you. >> thank you. the homeowners association association. you have three minutes. >> i won't need three minutes but i would also like to request an end to the process.

i think the d.b.i. and their engineers have signed off. it appears that everyone is happy except for mr bosco which but i believe the city and mr santos have done a good job and have reviewed everything. >> anything further? mr duffy? i'm sorry. >> could i ask mr duffy a question? he is -- so. >> i'll hold him, you hit him [-left-square-bracket. >> we are all friends here. >> so i respect his right to come up here and appeal. thank you for doing that as a citizen. so there is a claim that there are two sets of plans.

one is right and one is wrong, if they are indeed different sets of plans. have you reconciled those two sets of plans in any way, shape, or form? can you reconcile those two sets of plans? if one foundation suddenly grew legs, it will be implying through an obvious three straight reconciliation of those plans. >> there is original plans for building the building and thursdays revision plans. there is a permit that is repealed showing an as built condition. there may have been something but d.b.i. that got replaced. we don't tie them. those sheets aren't recorded. all we have is what is drawn on the drawings. there is nothing else. he is showing the brick foundation and they are level with the building i'm not sure

what the inspection process we have done in order to determine that. in these cases, base as built conditions are drawn. so someone on the divine -- design professionals end of it does some testing to determine where the bottom is and then we sign off on that. usually that's what happens. we can, in addition, asked them to open it up and make sure it is the same depth that they are stating in their reports. this was based on a geotech report, and engineer's drawings. we take the drawings on good faith. >> i will ask my question. because i am either an engineer who isn't sport expert nor am i an engineer of any kind whatsoever.

so if there is a difference in the two plans, were suddenly a foundation grew 2 feet, what is the impact on the world? >> i'm not an engineer. that is a good question for the engineers. if i was -- if d.b.i. were informed of that that this wasn't right, as i said, that is why i stated that. if the attention is drawn to us that there is a discrepancy, we have the right to rescind what we signed off on go back and say , hey, are you sure about this? is this right? if it is not right, then we would refer that another revision be submitted so our engineers would have the ability to review that. i didn't bring an engineer with me tonight. a kind of is all engineering but i did not bring a d.b.i.

engineer with me. the question is an engineering question and i would not be qualified to answer that question. >> the thing that is riding is that there is a claim that there was, a long time ago, and far far away, a set of plans that people relied upon for these two buildings and then, as the appellant states, there suddenly is a new set of plans which differs from the original set of plans that was submitted. so this is the only thing that is concerning. and it would be, seemingly, again speaking from a very naïve point of view, a very simple reconciliation between a set of plans that was there before and a set of plans that suddenly appeared in the last 12 months. , that is a very naïve, commonsense point of view. >> it is a very good question. what in as built provision should give you is the

difference. that is what they did. he is saying it is still not right. but we definitely know there was a change from what was originally approved versus what was built. and that should be covered on the as built revision. they are very common. that is what you would do if you change something. and some people get it before they built it which probably should have been done but we are dealing with it so many years later, it will probably come out in this whole process that they went through with the litigation you guys did not give us an as built revision. the question would be for them at the time when it got constructed, how did it end up deeper than what it was approved as an why did you make it deeper that probably should have been caught at that time, as i imagine. that happens every day of the week now. something changes and the

inspectors will say, hey, this is deeper. you need to stop and go back and get a revision. this case they are calling it an as built revision which tells me it was built and they were doing the revision after the fact. assuming then that is accurate. he is saying it is not accurate. i hope that clears it up for you >> not really. >> this is where. >> exactly. >> this is where i am thankful that commissioner fung sits on this body because he actually knows what he's talking about in areas like this. he may have some questions later okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i will let you start there. >> let's look at what is really before us.

the question is not what we believe or who we believe. the question is, is whether the information that has been provided establishes that the department erred in issuing the permit. we get lots of things go to us. the truthfulness of many things is up to the beholder. the question here, based upon the one page brief, an oral presentation of a photo of the exterior does not prove anything to me and does not represent the department erred in issuing a permit. >> i concur.

as in the previous case, when inspectors went up, we have to have faith in our departments and their ability to have done their work, given the amount and considering that the property went through litigation for five years, i would imagine that there was quite a bit of process involved here. on a side note. i used to get my mirroring done for my stuff 35 years ago. i had good memories. [laughter] >> is it within our purview, is it appropriate for us to ask for the department for any proof supporting documentation based on -- as inspector duffy says.

we can do that. we can just go out and measure the depth of the foundation. is it appropriate for us to ask his time to do that just to be on -- just beyond reasonable doubt or just that. and yet upon the appellant and should that have been done as part of his brief? >> it is both. one, i don't think the department is going to be able to ascertain exactly how deep the foundation is. and portions of it. secondly, is that what should have been done is that this could have been handled by the department and not an appeal. obviously, the right to the appeal is there for every citizen of our city, but this

should have been a complaint made to senior management in terms of whether it was an appropriately reviewed permit or not. and that the department responds accordingly to the engineering side of the question. >> just to carry the discussion a little further, he is no longer a party in either of these buildings? he is an interested citizen. if he had gone to the department his and done what you have suggested, does the department -- should the department to be responsive to him? is the department have any responsibility to a party that is not associated with the project.

>> it depends on relationships. >> that is why in the brief he was pretty heavily hammered that he should have kept his nose out of it where it didn't belong. but i support the fact that he is an interested citizen and a responsible citizen and has the right to ask. if he wants to pay his feet to a pale -- appeal something, god bless them. >> absolutely. but if you want to make your case you have to present information that we can act upon no such information was provided here. >> that is the crux of the matter. thank you. >> i moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued.

>> okay. we have a motion from president fung to deny the appeal and uphold department on the basis that it was properly issued. [roll call] >> the motion still carries 3-0. the appeal is denied. excuse me, 3-1. >> she is not counting him. >> do you need a break? >> no. i'm ready to move on. would you like a five minute break? >> let's take a short break. >> it looks like we have a big crowd. >> yes. >> we are concluded.

queen good evening and welcome back to the nova some of, 2018 meeting of board of appeals. we are moving on to item number 8. our mission no eviction versus the planning commission. the subject property is 275,019 th street protesting the issuance of august 23rd, 2182 a planning code of section 329 large project authorization to allow construction of a new six-story 68-foot tall residential building with split 68 dwelling units. 10,000 square feet of ground floor production distribution and prepare space and 24 offstreet parking spaces. it requires exceptions to the planning code for rear yard size requirements set forth in section 134 and dwelling unit exposures on section 140. this is case 2014.

as a reminder, the standard of review -- 329, only a simple majority of three votes is required to overturn it. commissioner honda, disclosure. >> my second disclosure of this evening. i'm a partner and a they have hired us this evening and will not have any influence on my decision. >> thank you. we will now hear from the appellants. >> good evening. we are with our mission, no

eviction. we would like to see this decision overturned and scent back to the planning department so they may consider this case with eight -- with the full facts at hand. we would like the decision amended by the board so it includes the additional conditions that the terms be extended to the mission community in the event that fitzgerald does not fulfil the full term of their lease as well as the a.m.i. on the additional b.m.r. unit. the planning commission approved this project despite the fact it fell short of the super inclusionary housing requirements of the mission area plan objective 2.1 and fell short of the mission area plan 1.7 to preserve and enhance production, distribution, and repair, p.d.r. and businesses in the mission. there's intimate -- debate among the commissioners whether this project met the conditions. it is the belief of our mission, no eviction -- eviction that

they should continue the decision until all the facts are at hand and make a fully informed decision. while it is true the project sponsor has approved the project , the initial proposal on november 20th, 2017 was so far for meeting objectives that they continued it several times at the january 25th commission hearing. commissioner hella stated in many ways a commission looks to the community to negotiate with the developers and come with projects that we think will work and will have higher levels of authority ability and have ground-floor space that are not a gentrifying factor. stating that the project is improved from being one completely rejected by the planning commissioners should not be taken it until the project has met the city's objectives in the area plan, which has sent -- which it has not. the area objective states that those who develop want just want to develop market rate housing could do so under the requirements that it provide provided a high percentage of affordable units to very low, low or moderate income households on site through super

inclusionary requirements. the inspired intent is to facilitate the housing production percentage targets identified in the housing element and enable the production of the housing san francisco needs. this project requires 17.5% affordability in the project sponsor offered at a single b.m.r. unit of unspecified size at 150% a.m.i. units above 120 are considered above moderate and income housing. san francisco has built 218.9% above moderate income housing greater than 120% a.m.i. the additional units should not exceed 220 a.m.i. in order to meet the requirement of low to moderate income housing that is the type of san francisco needs. the area objective states it is important for the health and

diversity of the city's economy and population that p.d.r. activities find adequate and competitive space in san francisco to promote the attraction, retention and expansion of p.d.r. businesses to employed --dash provide employment opportunities and semiskilled workers. the continuity of working-class p.d.r. jobs is critical to the sustainability of the mission. our mission, no eviction do not take issue with the actual fitzgerald furniture memorandum and welcome the retention of this mission-based family owned manufacturing business in its current workforce. the project sponsor has not agreed to extend the same terms to a community serving p.d.r. business in the event the circumstance beyond fitzgerald's control can cause them not to control or forfeit the remainder of their lease. as commissioners argued the merits of the project on august 23rd, gave way to the issue of market rate versus affordable housing and p.d.r. in san francisco. it determines whether a business will be gentrifying or meet the objectives to retain

working-class manufacturing space. commissioner richard stated he would like to see a report of average rates for affordable p.d.r. spaces. this discussion was a sticking point for him. the founding director and planning staff were present would not have the data readily -- is readily available. they stated that three dollars a square foot was below market rate and they had another mission that paid more than five dollars a square foot. that tenant is an international medical research group. the exact type of gentrifying business from whose harm submission area plan was developed to provide protection. according to a memo dated january 8th, which we have here, the p.r. development manager says six dollars a square foot is triple the average rent. this means that in her professional opinion as a person

in charge of blue-collar space development in the city, roughly two dollars a square foot is the market value for p.d.r. space. we provided this memorandum and a list of current p.d.r. spaces. the list is here. the lease right is 71%. >> can you put that list on the overhead, please. thank you. >> overhead, please. >> the first page of three. per their website, the project sponsor, all four of their san francisco projects shown are industrial to creative office-based conversions. this is the exact kind of predatory behaviour they were guarding against. because the project sponsor has been reticent to provide the space and provided incorrect information regarding average p.d.r. lease pricing to the commissioners at the hearing, the communities gravely concerned as to the intent of

fitzgerald to return. we fear that fitzgerald m.o.u. was created out of convenience to facilitate the sale of the property and allow the partners to prey on the community and their trajectory of a converging industrial space. leading to further gentrification and displacement. the planning commission suggestion should not have been made without verification average market p.d.r. lease rates and confirmation that the space would retain working-class manufacturing business at an affordable p.d.r. rate. echoing this concern, commissioner morris stated how important it was that the mission base p.d.r. remain in that space. she said i personally believe we have not finished his conversation on the rental rate and stated she would like to have a little bit more background on that number. she felt this was a fair reason for her to ask for that clarification. so just the mission community. if the sponsor is sincere in their office are -- their offer,

they nothing to lose by extending the same terms at the memorandum of understanding to the mission community. thank you. >> you have 42 seconds. >> one thing we want to say is that it's really sad that the fitzgerald family would not encourage the project sponsor to actually make these conditions part of our m.o.u. because this is a neighborhood that has supported them all these years. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we have the attorney for the project sponsor. >> good evening. i'm here on behalf of the project sponsor. the project before you today provides two crucial land-use benefits that san francisco is in dire need of. sixty units of housing and replacement p.d.r.

these elements alone meet -- meet a whole range of goals. they address the city's acute housing shortage by also creating 10,000 square feet of new light manufacturing space. with the project goes above and beyond just providing new housing and p.d.r. space. to volunteer to 20 housing on site above and beyond the planning code requirements. the sponsor is subsidizing relocation cost and rent so that the current tenants can relocate from the existing space and back to the nearly completed building to continue its furniture and upholstery business on site. the planning commission did not misinterpret the code, nor did it abused its discretion when they proved this project. we ask you deny this appeal. the appellant has appealed this project's --dash postnet large -- the task is less relatively

straightforward to. to the planning commission misinterpret any provision of the planning code? or did the commission abused its discretion? and abuse of discretion happens at the planning commission's decision is not supported by findings and if there is no substantial evidence in support of the decision or if the findings don't make logical sense. the planning commission approved the lpa in late august. granted code modifications for rear yard and dwelling unit exposure. it made a number of findings, explaining why those exceptions are justified. did not impose any unique conditions of approval. importantly, it found the project to be consistent with 65 objectives and policies of both the san francisco general plan and the mission area plan. the appellant claims that this planning commission abused its discretion when it approved the project and found that the project's 20% on site

affordability and 10,000 square feet of replacement p.d.r. further to the overarching policies of the general plan and the mission area plan. recording -- regarding affordable housing the appellant identifies a policy 2.1. the policy called for additional on site affordability above then existing requirements in the northeast mission industrial zone. the eastern neighbourhoods rezoning of 2,080 did exactly. it created a zoning district which also included patent on site affordability requirements, codifying policy through planning code for 19.3. the project meets this policy. the 20% affordability comfortably exceeds the 16% zoning requirement for the property. at it also exceeds 17.5%. in total, this project furthers a significant number of policies

and goals relating to housing production including general plan policies 1.1, 1.10, 4.1 and 4.4. and mapp 2020 categories for, objective three and solution one h. this project is not required by code to provide any p.d.r. yet it provides p.d.r. replacement instead of ground floor retail and retains the existing mission base p.d.r. business in a brand-new space and pays for temporary relocation while the building is being constructed. this makes -- this means a project is zero displacement p.d.r. meaning and overarching goal in the city wide policy of industrial protection and industrial job protection. the project will be named to the fitzgerald in honor of the company. this retention furthers missio p