Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Enforcement 3847 3849 Eighteenth topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission declines to require added unit for enforcement case at 3847–3849 Eighteenth St., notes $250,000 offer

San Francisco Planning Commission · December 19, 2019
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a contentious hearing on enforcement and alleged permit violations, the Planning Commission voted 4–2 on Dec. 19 not to require restoration of a third unit at 3847–3849 Eighteenth Street and included a finding noting the sponsor's offer to provide $250,000.

The Planning Commission on Dec. 19 voted 4–2 to decline a request from Doctor requesters to require the project sponsor to restore a third housing unit at 3847–3849 Eighteenth Street and recorded a finding noting the sponsor’s voluntary offer of $250,000.

Staff described a long enforcement timeline and pre‑application coordination with the Department of Building Inspection and Fire Department. A pre‑application review established that converting the completed project to three units would require reclassification from R3 to R2 and substantial structural and life‑safety upgrades, staff said. Those changes would trigger new elevators, fire protection and other requirements that the applicant said would amount to effectively demolishing and fully reconstructing the building.

Public commenters urged the commission to insist on restoring lost density as a remedy for alleged illegal work; Kevin Chang, Jerry Dratler and others characterized the sponsor’s actions as self‑inflicted violations and asked for parity with other enforcement cases. The sponsor, represented by Paul Dawson and counsel Liz Bridges, said the project team had secured permits to remove an earlier illegal unit and later acted under the direction of city enforcement; sponsor representatives described extreme financial hardship and the lender’s foreclosure action.

After extended debate the commission voted not to “take the Doctor” (i.e., not to compel restoring the third unit) and included a finding that the project sponsor had offered a $250,000 payment (characterized by counsel as a gift based on an inclusionary fee calculation). The vote was 4 in favor of not taking the Doctor and 2 opposed (Commissioners Moore and Melgar). The zoning administrator took the related variance under advisement.