describe the development agreement for the project. it will require fees and requirements in the code. in dissatisfaction, the san francisco conservatory of music will replace one for one units affected. they'll be replace the with brand new units on the third and fourth levels with dedicated elevator and private-entry access. the sponsor will provide a robust relocation program for the residents to comparable temporary housing as close as possible during the construction of the new building. the conservatory will provide tenants with a clear right to return to their replacement units at the same rent and submit it to the san francisco rents control ordinance for the life of the building and will

company the company the development agreement. the sponsor will work with the tenants to address concerns to relocation access. i'm available for any questions, thanks. >> thank you, i'm president of the conservatory of music. it's our centennial year. we were founded in 1917 by two women on centennial and we serve 430 collegiate level students and the only conservatory west of the mississippi river and run an extensive pre-college program. every year we reach thousand of school children throughout the

city. an integrative part of our teaching program is the fact the students are engaged and we provide services free of charge to all the children in our community. the program provides bachelors and masters degrees. you've heard us with the opera and major motion pictures, if you have had students study around the area and elementary schools, they can be found in all the community. we're a highly diverse institution. we're 24% of our students have of color from across the united states of the america. this building is a critical piece. housing has become a dire need. 98% of our students receive

financial aid. we give back 53 cents on every tuition dollar in the form of scholarship. students attend because of ability and talent and find making access is important. housing is such an important consideration we need to look at building the building. they're consuming low-income housing often having to work or commute distances that are not helpful. it not only gives them a solid community but decompress the inventory and we're looking forward to replacing the housing on site. we're excite to provide for all of our tenants to the off-site

units. i would like you to consider the project. the president of the steinway institution is a graduate. we're glad to see them doing many great things for the city. i'm honored to be here. >> thank you.

>> i'm trying to get the power point. >> we can start the presentation. >> thank you for giving us a few minutes to present our project. we're excited about moving this forward. it's a celebrated institution and we also would like to think it will be a very good project for the city for the civic center specifically and city broadly. we hope when you see what the project will entail, you'll feel largely the same way.

>> this blue box is the conservatory a block and a half from the oprah, across from davies, close to the school of the art will be located and right in the heart. and it has networking ties to all of them. the house is not in great shape

and the idea is to build a building that looks like this image which will be 12 stories total. it contains housing for the students and limited housing for faculty, educational uses and three different performing spaces that will be made available to the public, most of the time, most of the year. it's a fabulous opportunity. we have zero increase in the annual shadow and that's been designed as the building was constructed carefully and there was great care to make sure we did that. if you look at the cross-section there's the opportunity to have a specific view of city hall dome and because it's a public space it's something many san

franciscans can enjoy it and this is the image from the space. that's a literal view of what the city hall dome will be like within that room. if we look at the ground floor plan, we have a cafe and the entrance lobby down the middle and performance on the corner of hayes and van ness and a student space on the corner. all open and active. the building will be in use most hours of day and night and what will be a wonderful addition to what's been a challenging corner for hayes and van ness for a long time. the next image we see the performance space and it's a wonderful space used for educational purpose and people from outside the conserve atory.

the following images i'll show the benefits to the street life. and what it may mean for haight street. what the main lobby looks like for people to come in whether it's students or people in the replacement housing or guests of the community to hear a performance or go to the cafe or learn with the school. here we have a view from the corner and from davies and how much it will add life to that block of van ness and be a wonderful synergy. and the cafe space will have artist and performances and it

will cement the relationship here in the civic center nep the view from at night. it will be a lively and animated use. here you see with the articulation of the materials. it's very subtle but well crafted and carefully study in terms of energy use, energy and light. it stands half a block from city hall. 10, 20, 50 years from now we'll be proud of it. it will look like it came out of a style of music and orientation in a western exposure. finally the last image looking up from van ness with the

animation and life across haight street and the public is welcome there and it's something to explore and for the conservatory to reach out and say to san francisco, come on in. we want you to be part of us. >> commissioner: thank you. does that conclude the presentation? >> yes. note, you'll need to initiate the general plan amendment. >> commissioner: so we're hoping this sets up public comment. i have a couple speaker cards. if others would like to speak, you can line up on the side of the room. welcome. >> i'm phoebe van derhorst and

i'm the face of the people this will affect. i want to support the project. i feel it's important the conservatory took the needs of the tenants into mind. i want to say if this doesn't go through we'd be more as risk because another developer can come along and kick us out. we were very concerned. we found out about the building being sold to the conservatory in the newspaper with one of my neighbors. i went to jane kim and we discussed what we felt we needed and she came up with something

supportive of the tenants. it's a high-risk building. there's a lot of people who could never afford to live in san francisco. i've been here since 1956 and living in the building 16 years. i want to remain at 200 van ness until the day i lie. -- die. i don't think the conservatory will be an impediment to that. i think we'll have nice apartments because frankly the building say dump, though i have a nice apartment, a lot of people in the building don't. the building has mice and bugs and -- we would get a nice place to live and a rent -- we've been assured our rent is going to continue to be rent controlled which is very very important to us because obviously we can't

afford to pay the $4,000 and $5,000 the apartments will eventually be worth. it's really disturbing to me that a lot of other people have control over my life right now and i'm standing up here in front of a bunch of people who don't know me, who are going to make a decision about my future. i know my time is almost up but i'm going to again stress we have been dealing with this two years and don't know where we're going and it's stressful. we want to know when we're leaving and coming back and where we're going. the conservatory has been really good about that. they've reached out and agreed

to accommodate the policies. >> commissioner: your time is up. >> i know my time sis up but please, consider getting on with this because we're tired of living in limbo. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker please. >> lois bibloiz. i'm relieved to hear a tenant speaking. that was my greatest worry. the assurance will get one to one replacement in rent-controlled apartments in the same rents they have now given the environment we're living in now which is so expensive and with gentrification and displacement. i'm hoping the conservatory will have legal assurances because we don't have costa-hawkins so i hope there will be legal

agreements and assurances so these tenants can live out their lives with those implemented and i hope the conservatory will have vacancy control which is not legal right now in san francisco because costa-hawkins because that will assure the whole building will affordable rent even after the current tenants leave. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm dray from the housing rights committee. i was equally concerned because once you demolished the units, rent control will be no longer and i want to make sure it's going to be honored because it would be an opportunity for a vacancy control as well as some

kind of rent control that is not possibly more city driven. because of costa-hawkins all these things are up in the air and i'm in the sure how it will be possible but this is what's been promised and once the units are demolished they will not have rent control so if you can move it along and make sure that's within the ordinance. thank you. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> listening muse music to my ears. 420 units of student house being built is a big deal in san

francisco. replacement of 27 units is a big deal in the city. we've had a lot of concern about academic institutions and the impact it had on the housing stock of the city. we've had hearings in the past 20 years at the planning commission because one doesn't care at all. and it's taking up housing for their students. we've had hope. conservatory, golden gate, san francisco art institute, hastings, usf, ucsf. all had come in and talked at least to the city, if not to the planning commission about how they're building housing because it's the only way they can

survive and serve their students. they're being driven by their academic commission to serve their students. at the same time, being driven to build housing means there's relief pressure on the housing. that's enormous. there needs to be a presentation and i'll write up on the slip form a presentation on the scope of what's going on for building housing and you don't have authority over state institutions. like hastings. they're doing things. should know what's going on because it's happening in your jurisdiction and it's happening in dog patch. it's happening and you need a

hearing and you are doing a good job but you need to okay knowledge it. we have a hearing coming in three weeks. so initiate the rezoning and come back and nail down what was talked about. thank you. >> commissioner: any additional public comments on the item? seeing none we'll close public comment. commissioner koppel. >> >> thank you. i think it's a great combination of multiple usages like the activating ground floor. i like the attention paid to the existing tenants which is very important and the comments made by the director the intent is to take students that sometimes take up other housing units and put them in other house.

-- housing. >> >> commissioner: commissioner moore. >> i think it's great to start finding that part and with the aaa building revitalized it the help bring market street to civic center and the art across the street. i think it couldn't be any better and it reaches over in the east-west direction. it was a fabulous project and i'm excited and today we're talking about the resolution to initiate the general plan and make a motion we do so and if there's any other question for comments about unit design to hold that. >> i'll second that.

>> commissioner: i think we have to schedule the adoption hearing after february as part of the portion. >> yes. >> commissioner: if so i juth we -- >> commissioner: so we can suggest a date. >> it's on or after. sometimes after february 8th essentially. >> a couple quick comments. we talked about the project before. it's great to see the organization. ms. hester mentioned this but being proactive in housing for students and i think the building

building is multi-use. in the lay out i only see one floor for units that have designated student units. >> so there are 27 on-site currently. there'll be 30. 30 for faculty and 37 for the replacement housing and the rest are student units. >> i think those are the sorts of things that are in the development agreement. i want to say in the document it was unclear. >> thank you. i wish ken rich was here because usually he gives me the dirtiest

look when i say i like site specific projects like this. it makes me sad but you don't do the same thing and give me that look. this is a great outcome. i want to make a couple notes about the things we greed to that will happen as a result of the general plan amendment. rent control -- the fact we're doing one-to-to one replacement is good we've had other cases where we are getting rid of rent control units for inclusionary housing which is not the same thing. i want to take this time and highlight to people it's not the same thing. inclusionary for one operates differently. it's a lottery system.

and minimum use is 55 years and that's not permanent and that's something i'd like to take the opportunity and i'd like to highlight we're getting one-for-one replacement and i'm adding on stabilization of the rent for tenants. my question is, if the tenant opts not to come back is it one-to-one replacement of people now or those moving back in and how is the rent set?

>> and so there will be six studio apartments and 21 one-bedroom apartments built into the building and submitted to the rental ordinance. the entire pact will be rent controlled. >> but there's a -- there's the actual rent and the agreement is they'll pay what they were paying before but if a tenant decides to move on to something else, is there anything else as far as who is setting the rent?

>> it's subject to whatever the ordinance allows. if there's a vacant unit, it will follow whatever the rental ordinance allows. >> okay. thank you. as time goes on and people mof on and time goes on it's more clear but i was trying to understand the one-time implication. that's helpful. and i think this is a great project. hopefully we'll push it forward soon. >> i won't restate the things my fellow commissioners have said. i love everything about this project. i love the design and

architecture and thoughtfulness of the performing spaces. the deals that were for the tenants. i think it's all great. i was going to comment on how wonderful it is to see the civic center arts synergy happening and there's a couple things missing. i was a girls chorus mom so i'm familiar of what happens around christmas time and opening night for the opera between all the different institutions and artists going back and forth and performances happening. it is magical to be in that space and i think it will add to it and once the school of the art is opened, it will be a fantastic place for young people

artists and youth to be immersed in the richness of the art scene. i'my glad to see this happening and how thoughtful you've been and thank you staff so i'm fully supportive of the project. thank you. >> i look forward to this coming back in february and seeing the details of the d.a. our conversation has been dominated as far as schools with one particular school so it's nice to see another come forward. we know there's challenges out there in finding space for students and institutions competing for other uses so it's refreshing to see a creative deal being worked out and i know it's tough to design a building on the corridor adjacent to city hall. an applaud you on that and i

look forward to coming back with more detail on the d.a. it was great to hear from ms. van derhorst and glad you're reaching out and communicating to existing tenants. >> commissioner: commissioner richards this is how to deal with tenants when you're proposing construction. i think there's been one or two of these things in the past. this remarkable and it's a win-win and i completely support this. >> commissioner: we have a motion and a second.

>> commissioner: there's a motion to second the plan amendment and schedule it after february meeting. commissioner koppel, commissioner moore. commission commissioner richards. the motion passes unanimously 6-0. it places us on items 15a. it's a conditional use authorization and there'll be a consideration of request for variance.

>> i'm presenting a request for conditioning use authorization and variance at 749 27th street. i have a request for conditional use authorization to allow the alteration and additions to a single-use family home and seeks a variance from the planning coat pursuant to section 13 2.

it's between diamond and douglas streets. the property has 50 feel of frontage on the south side of 27th street is 114th street and slopes upward toward the rear. it's developed with two single-family dwellings. the first building is 30 feet in width and depth totalling 1,448 of square feet and constructed in 1980. the rear building is a one-story approximately 1,204 square foot building. there's one curb cut on the east side which allows for parking in front of the rear house. it's located in the rh1 zoning district.

the adjacent property to the west is developed with a one-story single-family home and encroached on the subject property by one foot. the proposed project is to allow for an existing two-story home of approximately 1,500 square feet at the front and create an approximately four-story, approximately 3,581 square foot, single home dwelling with one car garage and seeks to allow the expansion and alteration of the structure to occur at the existing building. it sets back four feet from the front property line and has a required setback of 15 feet. therefore a variance is required to allow for the expansion of the building within the required

front yard. the project includes the alteration and detachment of the rear story and result in 1,329 square feet. no expansion of the building is proposed in the rear yard and therefore there's no intensification of the encroachment. in existing curb cut that provides off-street parking on the east side is proposed to be removed and the existing driveway will be replace with landscaping. a new curb cut is proposed at the front house to provide vehicle access to that building's proposed two-car garage. when comment letters in opposition to the project had been received at the time of the publishing.

one was from the adjacent letter to the west and since then there's been two letters in opposition to the project including a revised letter from the neighbor to the west and one in support. staff recommends the approval to allow the tantamount of demolition to the single family residence. this concludes staff presentation. i'm available if have you questions. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> hi, my name is doug shawn.

thank you for meeting with me, commissioners. so i've provided some drawings here. i'm the designer of the building. i had designed a few houses up on diamond street a couple years back and they had approached me and asked me if i'd redesign their home at 749 27th street. they told me their house was badly outdated and in bad shape and too confining for them for their multi-generational family and want a home that is modern, energy efficient and comfortable. linor's bedroom is the size of a

closet. i have clean lines. the surface is low-maintenance stucco with corrugated aluminum on the inserts. in terms of what i gave to you looking at exhibit one, it shows the existing site plan of the existing condition of the front and rear house. there's two houses on the property. the front was built in 1937 by her father and the rear house was built it's hard to tell when. it's almost 30 feet wide and three and a half feet from the side yard so it totals 34 feet the western property and it is four feet, four inches from the front property line. since her family has been and

will be residing on the property for a very long time, we came up with a long-term plan to use the property in a way that allows for growth while at the same time conforms to the character of neighborhood. most houses are 25 feet wide and almost all are near the front property line. since her property is 50 feet wide, it made sense to us to build in 25 foot-wide increments. if you look at the second exhibit here and lop up a portion of the rear side and the west side of that, we would create a place to have two 25-foot wide houses.

it seemed to make more sense to rebuild the front house and keep it in the 25-foot footprint. as soon as we do that it's tantamount to demolition. we're cutting away too much. we'll keep the main floor of the house and portions of the wall and assuming the variance we're asking for, wed like to be able to keep it near the front of the house where it is now. if you look at the -- that's what you'll see on exhibit three. in blue is where the new house would go. on the smaller house, there's a proposed addition at the front. you can see in exhibit 4, the proposed house is only going to

be seven foot, four inches higher than the existing house. i want to give them time to talk also. and i think we have good reasons. it's one of the original houses on the block. there were virtually no houses in 1937 so historically we're maintaining the house as it has been and conforms in a similar profile to the houses and the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of the 25-foot width we are proposing and keeping the house at the same location at the front minimizes the amount of excavation. it is a hillside in terms of

keeping it back and keep it where it is and will minimize the amount of excavation required and keep a nicer, bigger back yard. and if we can keep it to the front, it will create more separation with 761 27th street, and i had a meeting were of with her and at the time of the pre-application meeting she was more concerned there'd be no windows and we put them in on the west side of the house. her only other comment had to do with the impact of light it. comes from the south.

the size wouldn't have an overall affect. i'll have you hear from the owner. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm happy to be here today. i'm linor long and i work part-time at the opera house, davy symphony hall and the palace. my grandparents and their three children came so san francisco from wales in the mid 1920s and bought the property which was at that time 87x124 square feet and had two cottages in the rear of

the property. when the grandparents decide to move to the east cottage, the land was divided into two lots. the cottage on the west side was sold to mr. aultz and the 15x14 lot was a gift to my mother and father. at 22 years of age my father built the house we are now living on. it was the first to be built on 27th street according to the new code requiring the homes to be built up against the sidewalk. i am part of a history of this neighborhood and the only original resident still living on our block. my strongest desire is to continue to live in my new home with my daughter and grandchildren and see the sixth and seven generation of long as to enjoy what my parents willed to me. i hope with all my heart that you will understand that the

house that was built during the depression, with limited funds truly needs an upgraded remodel. i have looked forward to living in better conditions and to feel safe and secure in a modernized house. i thank you for your time and letting me express myself. >> commissioner: thank you. >> thank you. i'm linor's daughter and my three kids are here too. they're fifth generation in our family. we're residing at 749 27th street. my grandma passed in the house and during the time we were caring for her it was impossible to make any repairs. since her passing, my mom and i had to tackle these difficult and dire remarries. -- repairs.

it's a small house we all share but big problems. electric and plumbing has not been updated since 1937 and in terrible shape. last year the water pipe burst and dramatic repairs have to be made. every year we also have to endure the bad rains. there are terrible leaks and we have termites in the house and we've decided that it's time for us to invest in our home and build for the long haul. we've been inspired by the beautiful new homes on our block especially the ones on diamond street. >> commissioner: thank you very much. we'll open the item up for

public comment. any public comment on -- >> good afternoon, commissioners. my only public comment with the project is that i understand these homes are old, archaic, they need upgrade and i understand the multi-generations living on the lot. it's actually commendable. i do have a multi-generation living situation myself. but i do believe the scale of this project is too massive and especially for an rh-1 home it's going to set a precedent on the block and we don't need massive homes. time and again you have mentioned we do need more

housing but then not more massive housing. that's my only public comment. i've also heard back and forth between the neighbor on the west side and the subject property owner regarding the one foot in contention. i want to remind you there is a thing at risk possession law from about what i understand, if something has been built on somebody else's lot for so many years it's not necessarily deserving to wreck their home to possess that piece of land that was my mistake taken. i just wanted to make a comment on that also. that's it. thank you. >> commissioner: any additional public comment on the item? seeing none we'll close public comment. commissioner richards. >> commissioner: we have an extra higher level of scrutiny

when we have demolitions because of the relative affordability of the existing housing stock versus new construction. we all know new construction in the neighborhood goes for $1200 a square foot, $1300 a square foot. cheap junky new construction at least $1,000 a square foot. under the criteria, number ix9, whether the project protect the relative affordability of existing house, it doesn't. i have a couple questions. i think there may be a misunderstanding. we have a non-conforming two structures on the same lot. those, according to my understanding of the ordinance are rent controlled. they're considered single-family

yet the report on page 6 and 7 are saying they're not under rent control. >> that's my understanding as well. i think that's a staff error. >> so we're demolishing a rent control unit. >> it's an alteration. >> this is not a demolition permit. this is an alteration under the department of building inspection. >> the definition, mr. sanchez, is the demolition -- >> retention of principle parts.

we have very specific numerical cry tear y -- criteria and this is processing this as an alteration permit. >> my understanding is it's more stringent. if i want to knock it down it's two-thirds and ours is 50%. so we're exceeding their threshold? >> it's more stringent than the building department. one we deal for preservation for historic structure and one for 317 and the 317 is what they're violating. >> so though it's under an alteration permit it's not demolishing a rent-controlled

unit. >> it's not demolition under the building code. ultimately they'd have to have it not be rent controlled. as demolition it's new construction and not subject to rent control but an alteration is a demolition and under the planning code, it's my information they'd have to go to the rent board and undo rent control. the assumption is it's rent control but they'd have to got board and make the arguments. [please stand by] pap [please stand by]

>> one for each house instead of calling it as multi family buildings. so when the application that the short-term rental office received, it met the

requirements of allowing the entire unit to be short-term rated even though it's a separate building. it's like a flat. >> wright. >> where you can only rent out portions that you live in that building whereas you can -- right. so they rented out the entire house and that wasn't allowed. >> they went through the process just like rent control even though it looks like a single family house. >> it was an loud except they could only rent -- they did more on the 30 days. there was a second incident where an advertisement was found offering it for less than 30 days, which resulted in that second and still currently opened enforcement case. i think enforcement cases stay open for about a year to allow for further monitoring. >> so what happened to that second one? >> so they -- i resolved

whatever issue with our enforcement short-term rental enforcement rental staff. that case is still open purely for the purpose of monitoring the year of review started again when they had that second enforcement case. >> commissioner: i would like to ask mr. sanchez regarding why we would even consider that this building could not have to meet the current front yard setback. given that under the planning code to which we are -- under we are looking at this project, we are the planning commission. why wouldn't we expect this building to really do what it needs to do and not grant a

front set back and build a building which i consider completely oversized. the second building on the lot which is to be enlarged in the future and there is nothing in front of us right now already shows desired expansion towards the front where normally the resident that we've got design guidelines and i have to use it as a skip forward. she speaks about clearer separation and meeting of common lines rather than engaging as it would in the plans proposed. so getting back to my original question, why wouldn't we hold this project to just what everybody else needs to do if you do a tandem on to the demolition which is a demolition for our definition. if i start from scratch and build a building at the front setback line that everybody has to a boy to as well. >> certainly the commission has full discretion as to what is to

be approved on the site, but i think a couple factors to consider with regards to the front set back issue which they are seeking a variance is first, it is an existing condition that existed there for some time. there is some other pattern on the block of buildings that do come this far out to the front property line. it's not a prevailing pattern, but there are other buildings on the block face that do so. further, setting it back from the street and complying with the front set back requirement will require additional demolition of the building, which may -- if it does come down to a complete demolition permit, would arguably complicate the rent control question whereas now, it's an alteration and it's our understanding that it would still be -- they would have to go to the rent board to undo the rent control. they would have to petition the rent board for it to no longer

be subject to rent control if it is a demolition. it's not even a question because then they're getting a completely new building at that point. and lastly, the adjacent building, the one on the subject lot isn't complying. the adjacent building is also not complying to the rear and as the project architect noted, it allows them to push it to the front and provide situation between the structures. those are factors that could be required, but the commission does full have discretion to decide. >> i'm concerned that we are, again, being forced to look an extremely oversize $building. oversized building. we're going from 1448 square feet to 3581 square feet. it's a huge increase on a lot that has a capacity deeper than

most. however, since there's really not a neighborly gesture relative to what historically has happened in other lots that the garage of the adjoining building would have to be removed, i'm having a really hard time with this project. this project, by architectural design, by building expression, by size, by variance on set back has too many things without doing enough for me. i think the building is too tall. the 4th floor is highly inappropriate. i think it is just too big. i repeat, we're not looking at the expansion of the second building, but that he -- expresn is equally -- we have two properties on one lot. so i will leave this out here. i'm not particularly comfortable with what's in front of us. just curious what everybody else

has to say. >> so this is an interesting case because it's a 50-foot lot. i think from the site design, i like that they're converting this back as if it were 225 by -- i believe these are 100 feet. they're 114-foot lots. i think that's kicking it into a tantamount demolition like you said. you're removing kind of a side of the home to allow for the -- kind of the structure that's on 27th street, the new home, kind of the typical 25-foot lot. so i think the program here works. i think i'm fine with the program. there's obviously a large family that you're trying to accommodate in the main home, and then there's a second home in the rear. i like the discussion that this is not a demolition under