directive 1301 for the preservation of housing stock any read of that directive we should be doing everything to preserve the rental housing stock as we're going through building more market rate units especially and also trying to understand how this to listen to the san francisco housing plan with the objectives one, 2 and 4 that really promote the preservation of the existing affordable housing stock in our city as well with that, i'll say that the residents who are in support of the appeal i feel they're raising significant and important concerns about the loss of this affordable housing and whether a project like this t is fittings within our mayors

directives and so i'll look forward to the testimony from both sides but i have those concerns of the loss and don't guess of the sound rent control housing in our city >> with that, thank you supervisor mar the appellant mr. wimdz. >> thank you president chiu steve williams on behalf of the appellants in this case and the surrounding property owners and residents thank you supervisor mar so far that introduction and that is the focus of our appeal so those concerns around housing we're here to challenge the planning department conditional use authorization for the don't guess of a building on the corner of 26th avenue and clemente street that has is two affordable housing the subject site in the outer commercial district and the subject lot is one of two development lots on

that particular block that is sdoebd within the commercial district if i could have the overhead here's the lot here it is just captured by the neighborhood commercial district the rest of the block is zoned residential planning department approval the conditional use authorization demolish those at a supplied vote of three to four with commissioner wu and commissioner moore voting against the authorization and in favor of saving those affordable unit departments analysis in this sustains is simply wrong the may or may not finding this project is necessary and desirable for the community can't possibly be sustained

there's an overwhelming policy and humanitarian mandate by the affordability choice so the board should deny it and help the existing affordable housing unit are those my words, no the departments words i invite i to look at the departments analysis that has a merger under section 317 please review the attachment as exhibit 3 and 4 which are the departments analysis in exhibit 3 from july of this year and the merger of 3 units on third avenue in the richmond district and exhibit 4 from this year for the merger of two flats at 812 on green street if you read those are analyze done by

the department the department statistics there's an extraordinary and exceptional circumstance created by the affordability crisis in response to the directive from the mayor which is attached to exhibit 2 and the department has said therefore we have to deny all mergers not losing a single unit especially affordable units in those circumstances the analysis was the elimination of smaller and affordable units and replacing those with lesser units it inconsistent with the general plan and both the exhibits 3 and 4 says that that is inconsistent with the general plan the department inexplain ably reaches the opposite conclusion and called the new luxury condo

to be put in on clemente department does note tyler balancing going on there are policies and regulations and the housing that are in conflict there's tension between the creation of less affordable new housing and the retention of those smaller affordable rent controls this is nothing new that is this issue has existed for decades the resolution of that is also existed for decades it is found in the priority policies of the general plan established by prop m as i spell out on page 2 of our supplemental brief the priority policies were specifically established to be the basis on

which inconsistent in the general plan are to are resolved if the department finds itself in conflict with building new concussion it has to find in favor of preserving the existing housing this is what the policies are for and why they're there department and developer failed to address this issue at all they don't mention the priority policies not even referenced in either brief albert einstein said one can't simultaneously prevent and prepare for war it it doesn't take a genus to see that one standpoint simultaneously prevent the program and at the same time allow professional developers speculating in our

residential neighborhoods to demolish sound affordable rent control units every don't guess the sound like affordable and rerld units is a direct attack on residents rights it's an attack on the integrity and an attack on the promise made by the establishment of that system the failure to enforce the policies is one of the rot causes of the affordability crisis in this city most recent controllers report referenced by supervisor mar tells us the city has losses more 2 thousand rent control units others as metcalf over at spur and the tenants union say it is much honoree that they're being lost to demolition or converging and replacement with no construction that is not

subject to rent control during this crisis every supervisor and every elected official for the city has you talked the talk wanting to fight the affordable crisis and wanting to keep the poor and less affluent in our city this is where you get to walk the walk and show the talk is more than empty words and you care about displacement and ugly be the check and balance against what the mayor says in our residential neighborhoods the department analysis is full of excuses it says we can demolish this this is not currently occupied so the price is going to start at market rate we're getting 6 units when it is actually 3 but those wonderful units the department gives the excuse

those are bigger and better for families those are only excuses to allow the existing affordable housing to be demolished and to allow the profits for the developers those excised are not policy and if you think about those excuses carefully what you're going to see this is also the can i nobody tears down samuel affordable units to build smaller nobody tears down small affordable units to build with less decency that t this is going to happen if you allow those flimsy excuses not found in the policy or the housing elements if you allow those flimsy you excuses to somewhat our your supporting a excuse

that didn't exist and an exemption that will completely and utterly swallow the rule it's been xhoovent or inconsistent the long term retention of sound ooblth affordability rent control heirs as it states in the policy the number one priority policy to be held above others is to skweefr and protect the existing housing and neighborhoods and in order to preserve the cultural and economic exist of our city that's what is being lost by the failure to enforce those policies by the depended this is what the case is about we urge you to support the appeals and i think carefully about your vote thank you. >> thank you, colleagues any questions to the appellant? okay. at this point let's hear from the members of the public

who wish to support the appellant >> bobby tenants union in support of the appellant two things many of you have come to the tenants union and pledged pledged in writing to oppose the don't guess of this kind of housing sound rent control housing torn down under those circumstances those exact circumstances and even with the passing of ted those pledges are not null and vied e avoid we want to see them honored new a few minutes in this session diversity was supported by a vote and you've heard it when you looked at hours hours and we looked at affordability and rent control we're talking about the same kind of exist in this community if you support the appeal that

will be sponsored by the public with the same kind of a claim the disparities between the interested parties here has to be resolved in favor of the executive directive and the general plan our own pledges and your own principle support of exists in housing in don't guess of sound omaha is unconsciousable given the crisis you've heard it allowed and clear from the tenants we'd to see it get better not worse thanks. >> next speaker >> good afternoon, supervisors sighing vaughn with the sierra club the sierra club strongly opposes the don't guess of rent control housing it allows residents to live in walkable community with neighborhoods

serving the businesses frequently near their jobs and the preservation e preservation helps too often greatly - affordable housing comes in different forms including section 8 and housing authority units but rent control housing is the largest portion of affordable housing, however, annual reports from the controller notes that the number of rent control units t is eroding according to the report of 2009 and 10 san francisco had one hundred and 75 thousand plus rent control units in 2007 to 2009 by 2020 or so the rent control unit has dropped by 4 thousand and 32 to one hundred and 71

state law prescribes the rent control by residential building inspection constructed after 197 will lots on which units have been removed forever from the rates of lots regulated by rent control we urge you to don't guess the rent control units and to pearl i live 3 and a half blocks from the place i urge you to oppose it's don't guess. >> next speaker. >> move on up to the east side to a comedy moving on up to the east side you finally get a piece of the pie

>> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors bev i didn't upton i'm the director of the violence consortium the rest i have my time i'm hanging on my, my fingernails keep the rent control units intact we're losing two n many because of the appellant gentleman there are so many units do you recall through buy outs so the numbers have doubled we're trying to hang into ours we're trying to support this on clemente and 26th to hang onto theirs. >> be any public comment on that item on on behalf of the appellant okay. seeing none why

not go on to the planning department for their presentation ms. rogers. >> this is ann marie rogers i'm joined by christen the project planner that is conditional use for this particular address 395, 26th avenue we've sent a letter i'll go over our response this project i'll show you a little bit sfgovtv this is on the corner. >> sfgovtv. >> thank you very much site measures one hundred and 18 square feet on the outer clemente the current lot contains a mixed use building on 1/3rd of the lot it is vacant with 3 vacant a commercial space and 3 bedrooms in total and two different units there are also 6

parking spaces provided in tampa done non-conforming in the front yard and it was approved by the commission the don't guess of that existing building subdivision of the lots o lot two lots of parking spaces and two garages and 8 hundred and foot square feet of commercial space and the 6 units contain 3 bedrooms for a total of 18 businessmen's that's the project before the board now specifications concerns of the appellant whoops i think - so for this particular project i knew i shouldn't have - cu has been approved by the

police station under the section this is the project necessary or desirable for that the neighborhood and compatible with the neighborhood we are familiar but in addition, this particular project needs to be reviewed under the section that i review for the loss of dwelling unit as within the commissions discretion for the weight of the criteria now the cohere 0 belongs to the board first, the concern regarding the demolition this is the key part those two units will be replaced with 6 new units a net dollars have had units and replaced by 15 bedrooms through the existing

units are subject to rent control they would be rent out at current mandatory as the new units will be in addition the appellant claims it was contrary to public policy we described it our memo the project is unbalanced consistent with city policy and the necessary finding for conditional use and the removal were found and approved by the commission now, it's good to note the finding of the consistent involve a balancing of all of overall consistency so the board should reexamine the finding perhaps this project talked about the city's crisis we look to you how the policies should be interpreted don't be mislead by the journey for the appellants you've mentioned past cases the board has denied units

those with not new housing instead those were mergers where the city sees a loss of units we disagree this approval is contrary to all public policy the general plan policies courage the retention of the housing and it is a rare project that is consistent with all of the policies in the general plan and the planning code therefore the quest remains unbalanced consistent with the general plan 101 and in this case, the commission felt the answer was yes. >> so in addition to the policies that are outlined i mean, i'll go over a few from the general plan and the housing unit objective one identify and make available for development for the housing needs especially

affordable housing now here on clemente corridor that is a great location almost 1/3rd of the existing lot is surface parking for cars not people policy 2.1 discourage the as subscribed it results in a net increase in 4 units the commission in their determination felt it sufficient, of course, the new units will be made available at you current market rate but so will be the existing units policy 4.1 develop new models to fiemdz with children our commission heard a grateful of lack of family housing in the city we have existing 1 and 2

bedrooms awe piece and those - number 2 the appellant does not meet the criteria for don't guess it must be considered but up to you how to weigh them and the commission felt in this case, the project meets 13 of 17 criteria and therefore they may be finding in their approval the net gain of 18 bedrooms and that the scale of the project is consistent with the neighborhood there would be no significant impact to either of the streets or muni and to replace those building would be consistent with the density of the surrounding neighborhood it therefore it is appropriate for this site third, the appellant raises questions related to the

decision made pay the zoning administrator and in raising those issues the appellant challenges the variance those decisions are appealable thus i can go through detail if you want that finally the appellant is concerned this lot is what they said in their documents did be density a not maximum missed neither the general plan describe a density awhile other cities search warrant may have a density in rich areas san francisco does not instead san francisco says here's the most you can build and the housing has policy elements we know in the general platoon there is a growing need for larger units as

extended families increase and more households stay in the city the appellant is correct so four units is correct it's not uncommon because there are so many other requirements and rear yard that apply so although the property is less than the maximize density the property will be closer in k3406r789 with the density of the area so in conclusion so the following reason the department recommends that you uphold the decision to grant the conditional use authorization for the project. >> colleagues any questions supervisor wiener.

>> thank you i asking have a question for staff so from what i've seen this project is sound; is that right? that's correct >> so it's not a situation where it is delipidated falling apart building. >> that's correct. >> so this is demolishing a sound two unit rent control building which can't be remembered with rerld housing stock. >> generally speaking yes. >> and so i know the department has argued this has been vacated since 1996. >> 96 or 97. >> so a look at vacancy not caregiver but paying tenant i

understand that argument is not persuasive doesn't have to be left vacant it doesn't move the dial one way or the other to preserve the rent control housing stock you know the argument that the department makes whether it's new housing here new construction or the existing building that when and if it is rent ought to be market rate you know, i guess i want to push back against the argument this is true i'm presumably the new construction is going to be a higher rent than the old construction the nature of how rents work but the other piece of that is awhile it's true that the initial rent of the existing units will be market rate if

it's rent out at some point in the future it will become rent control with the annual limits so theirs stability on the pricing as opposed to evict without cause or raise rents sometime advertised a significant way so i - i'm not per situated by the argument there is a difference between the two i guess the question i have because this is a it's challenging situation because i've been a pretty consistent supporter of creating for housing so all of the things being equal having of unites on site instead of 4 consistent with the neighborhood oriented can be a good thing i also know

in giving the housing in this city to be sustainable losing rent control unit you can't get them back when we approved the park merced we were able to replace the units with new rerld unit the city defended that i guess my question this may be for that the city attorney this isn't a development argument could there be a condition placed in the cu that the new units have to be rerld or somehow the equivalent of rent

control like park merced. >> the provision is included that allows the city to explores rent control on a new unit or otherwise not subject to rent control if there's a voluntarily agreement and the property owner is getting something out of it that's what happens for example, in park merced if the city want to reaffirm that with the type of condition on the unit this is something i would explorer with you i would recommend that the board continue the item for two weeks so we can explorer that and i can give you some high quality advise in two weeks. >> thanks i came to this

hearing being generously conflicted again, we approved park merced a key part of the question we were not going to lose an implicit exception and they were going to be remembered rerld unit so here i think it is something to consider because if you can replace two rent controls units with 6 rerld units this is something i think we need to think about i know i'm milking this is a little bit more challenging to do that there the developments i will be interested in thinking about because the idea