much. >> (clapping.) thank you want and members of the board it's a pleasure. >> thank you and with that, colleagues it is 3:00 p.m. we have 43 p.m. special offenders i'd like to take the second, third and fourth special orders until we go to the one that will be substantive madam clerk call the second special order of 33 through 311 come prices the individuals in the planning department determination that the proposed project located at 2853 on broadway street a

examined and items 34 through 36 reverse the items. >> both sides have agreed to continue until our december 9th meeting to board of supervisors. >> supervisor farrell is proposing a motion to continue this to the go ethnic of december is there a second second by supervisor kim any public comment on this item? anyone who wants to comment on the substantive meter seeing none, public comment is closed and on the motion to continue colleagues we'll take that without objection. those items are continued until the ninth of december >> items 37 through 40 for interested parties for the planning department determination that the proposed project it categorically exempt if the california quality act

and the motions to reverse the determination and the preparation of finding. >> so the appeal has been withdrawn out of the need to follow process let me open up the hearing for seeing none, public comment is closed. and could i have a motion to affirm the determination. >> motion that i supervisor avalos and seconded by and their colleagues we'll take that without objection. the determination by the planning department is affirmed. >> items 44 madam clerk. >> mr. president, on the previous item we'll be tabling items 39 and 40. >> let me ask for a motion to table those supervisor farrell's and seconded by supervisor avalos we'll take that without objection. those items will be

tabled. >> items 41 through 44 comprise the public comment hearing of persons interested in the 2014 of a tentative map on katrero avenue for commercial mixed use new construction condominium projects looked on katrero and 44 to approve or disapprove. >> any any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed and i'd like to entertain a motion to approve the decision of public works to approve the item 42 and to table items 43 and 44 motion that i supervisor mar and second by supervisor avalos we'll take that without objection. that motion is passed now colleagues our first

3:00 p.m. special order. >> items 29 through 32 comprise of people interested in the mravlt for a conditional use authorization to for about 20 properties on 26 of the avenue and for the conditional use and 31 to disagree the conditional use authorization and to direct the clerk to prepare finding. >> colleagues, we consider whether or not to approve the conditional use authorization to demolish two buildings and unless there's questions or suggestions we'll precede as we typically do for a presentation up to 10 minutes by the appellant and two minutes for public followed by a presentation from the planning

commission up to 10 minutes followed by a presentation by the project sponsor or the representative and followed by members of the public that wish to speak in opposition 2 minutes per speaker and final up to 3 minutes for the appellant with that, unless there's questions supervisor mar opening comments. >> thank you president chiu and colleagues about this time last year, i was approached by this project moving forward in january and residents met with me i met with different project sponsors as well this is has been a long time in the works i'll say that there are supporters of project and opponent so we have people from the neighborhood on both sides i do feel very strongly that we need to look at this issue

within a board complexity of the stock of are we talking about controlled housing within our city and losing rental control units over one thousand per year we're noted building that many it is rapidly stling this project will xoosh two residential units and will replace them with 6, 3 bedroom unite increasing the housing stock but eliminating two units of rent control and each other also i'll say the demolitions of the building like this are not in the richmond district by throughout the city i'm trying to keep that in prospective we have to focus on sections 303 and 317 from our codes i want to say i was trying to look at the infraction framing we're trying

to make tough decisions one year ago the mayor ed lee issued a 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