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 of demolishing sound rent control housing stock and replacing it with non-rerld housing stock this doesn't set well with me. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you actually supervisor wiener touched on some of the points i was going to make i wanted to ask questions of the planning department i think there are a number of positive things as mentioned by staff the creation of 6, 3 bedroom unit is extraordinary and having looked at a lot of massive development in the district i represent it is still nice to see the developers made the commitment so we see it's largely studios

and bedrooms a struggling of 2 bedroom units we have a need for multiple apartments here in san francisco i was going to ask the planning department how many bedroom units have been constructed i think 2007 do you have that data point i. >> through the chair emry rogers in the city's housing inventory the number of housing unit built by building type you're interested in the number of bedrooms. >> 3 bedroom units. >> let me look and see i'll add this is the commissions decide was one that was debated by the commission a closed decision and certainly not a clear-cut issue certainly the production of more housing units but finding that

point is difficult we appreciate our guidance and get back with you. >> i think i'm you know on the one side i'm conflict by the demolishing of two rent control units the project is adding a positive value to the city i'm sure you're aware of we can't build for rent control heirs - this is protected by rent control and others who are not they've seen extraordinary hikes and so the protection of this housing stock is important. >> i'd like to add to the city attorney's response, of course, there are development argument you can get rent control housing but there has a ellis act rent

control a that's included but 0 a that's for a point of information. >> i think i found the data point out of 1 one plus according to the 2013 only 23 were 3 bedroom units the richmond is a great neighborhood to add those types of apartments but i'm stuck whether or not we have to demolish two rent control sound but we have vendors that or i can't begin to initiate a discussion because that's a bottom line so i guess the question it came up in the appellants brief what could you build on the lot next door you you know look at the google maps it is fairly large what's the alternative and the second question was there exploration with the project sponsor on if we did allow for the demolishing

if they'll agree to two below market rate unit for the project of this size i know that will make me more open i would like to build for housing this is a step in the right direction but i'd like to work with the developers to make sure that a few units are daeblthd to the mayor's office of disabilities program what kind of alternatives we've explored with the project sponsor. >> so a lot of those questions it will be great to ask the project sponsor if you look at the exist the lots xhrths to do a new project and preserve the existing project we'll need to preserve the rear yard there will be not that much room for the backyard. >> can you explain that why

preserve the rear yard and open space. >> there's more flexibility when you consider a new project together and so the new project we're looking overall at the open space that is provided and configure the two buildings to use the roof as american people open space jointly to help a make-up some of the loss of the open space that's lost under a configuration general they're an the corner of the 6th street and the next lot is dedicated to parking generally we'll keep the rear yard with the existing housing and generally look at the parking area that is potentially a substandard lot love problems trying to fit a new building open the substandard lot was not considered by the commission. >> i know that the project

sponsor has to apply for a variants and want a variance on the radish simulating you're describing you're saying not demolishing the knowledge and not create a surveillance because open space open the rooftop. >> so the variance was for the amount of radish priorities with the zoning administrator considers are not within the appellant are there extraordinary cascades open spaces being provided in general to see if their comparable open space to be provided the da approved it on the ground floor why there was no yard and the rest of the 4 stories compliant and on the other building two feet short to the zoning administrator felt the rooftop made up for the loss and if you

have key building there maybe less flexibility. >> i appreciate you answering the question it didn't look like it is completely out of the realm of possibility but chablg for the project sponsor to build on the existing vacate area of the lot i think based on some of the information we have right now i'm not the move is for a turns to explore other alternatives i'd like to see more density and housing i love the 3 bedroom units and i think we have to do this in balance with the loss of rent control housing that's clearly became a proprietor with the players particularly in the housing market i'd like to find a solution to address those potentially but i will also reserve some of any questions for the project sponsor thank you