design issues, i think sometimes we've overlooked what i consider to be a really out standing public policy initiative by our former mayor, ed lee. and that is the most staff that have done a single job on this because they recognize add couple of things that have been overlooked in the discussion on affordable housing. most deals wrap around 4% and private activity bonds with a cohort, having incomes and not beyond 60% of the area median. that is the cluster. that mayor and his staff said we're going to go beyond that. we're going to deal with, finally, in one project, people who have been formerly homeless and provide 20% permanent housing for that co-horts and we're going to do it also with another cohort of 100% to 120%

of median of the so-called missing middle. that is fire, police, first responders and teachers. those are really hard to finance. . in fact, it takes more public subsidy on a teacher than it does on somebody who qualifies for the tax credits. i take my hat off to mayor lee and his staff, olson lee in particular who started this thing, as well as kate. we are, i think, the mother of all hybrids. we have mixed income, mixed use and mixed age. we have 53 senior you nietzes. -- senior units. we have a cafe underneath the senior component. we have a sit-down restaurant. we have live-work and we have a large child care centre. it is a pleasure for us to work with a partner that we've done

many transactions with. the first actually being one that started 14 years ago, 16 years ago, north beach place. very similar ground lease, affordable tax credit, mixed income, mixed use, mixed age and if you want to have a foretelling empirically of what this project will look like in terms of craftsmanship, design, and continuing operation, i would encourage you to look at bay and taylor north beach place. marie is now going to talk about what we do going forward and also what i didn't talk about, social services. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is marie deboer. i work with bridge housing and i thought i'd highlight some of the community benefits of this project. first and foremost, we're

delivering 178 new housing units and not only are we adding to the housing crisis or adding units to meet the need here in san francisco, they're also affordable. and as john mentioned, they include a broad range of housing, including middle income from 80% to 120% a.m.i. to formerly homeless. we'll support that by adding services to the buildings. one of services will be a child care service operated by the ymca of san francisco. and all residents will be supported by services at the ymca and lao*utz ran social services will be providing. we are also providing specific services targeted towards the formerly homeless unit, lao*utz ran social services will be on site providing case management services for those residents.

we're also including a total of almost 6,000 square feet in the project. those include probably a coffee shop and restaurant. aside from this appeal, we have funding from the mayor's office for this project. we're planning and completing our entitlements in june of this year and will enter the final design phase of this project and gear up for financing in august. which would make us ready to start construction in the spring of 2019. we've experienced a little bit of a delay, but hope to move forward with this project and thank you for hearing us today. we'll be happy to answer any questions. >> all right. we may have some. i have one speaker card confirm bob hahr. if you'd like to speak, please line up on the screen side of

the room. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bob hahr with the [inaudible] neighbourhood association. and we have nothing to really add or criticize as far as this very thorough staff analysis of the environmental impact and certainly can't disagree with the proper conclusion that there is no significant, environmental impact. however, we did note that there was a comment letter submitted about concerns over impacts on land use and cultural issues and so i believe that, for the record, those merit some comment. first of all, let me emphasize that this project is located in the middle of our neighbourhood area. members by the street walk by the site every day so whatever goes in here is going to impact

our neighbourhood significantly and we have to live with what's there. to be clear, we supported the original design and still support the modified design. our objective or really our desire is to have a project that, within the constraints, is not a cold, boxy institutional blockhouse kind of structure. we view this street, this project in combination with the other project can offer the opportunity to have a very nice, pedestrian walkway that is really a gateway to san francisco. and, therefore, we support this project because, contrary to perhaps the comment letter that was sent in, we believe the design is attractive. we believe that the developer has been very sensitive to height and mass concerns, given the constraints of the project.

we're looking at providing as many affordable housing units as possible. and they have correctly, i think, stayed within the 65-foot height limit. so there is no need for any variance. we think given those constraints, they have handled the situation as sensitively as possible. there are many setbacks and we particularly praoernlt the adjustment to along the broadway street that has the setback on the top floor. also -- i would also point out that there was a change to the window pattern and that originally was an irregular pattern. now it is not. it is a minor issue. but we don't need to duplicate history and we really preferred the earlier one, which seems a little more modern. so, in conclusion, we think this project really can offer a

great gateway to the city and we support this project and w that in mind, we respectfully urge you to approve the issuance of a [inaudible]. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> sure. you can come. >> my name is ted and i'm with north beach neighbours. we're a neighbourhood group of -- who's been around since 1978. i just want to say that we've been presented with the design a long time ago and, at this point, i was really impressed with the design because of -- from a social aspect, i think, that people who live there will be a community.

and i have no issue -- other issues with it. and i urge you to support the project. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is danny. i'm the president of north beach neighbours. we're an organization founded in 1978 with 100-plus members who are focused on making north beach a vibrant, inclusive place to live. we are here today in support of the project and in support of the negative declaration. we have been engaged in this work for three-plus years and have been thoroughly impressed along the way with the community out reach that the project team has done. who believe the two dozen community meetings are a test tonight that. i want to emphasize just how important of an opportunity we see this as. for as much good intent as there is to build affordable housing, the unfortunate truth

is this is the only project currently in the pipeline in district three that offers any affordable housing. the next closest project has eight units. so this is our opportunity. if we want to build neighbourhood that is are inclusive neighbourhood that is welcome families, that welcome seniors, we must start here and we must move forward with this project. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, mr. president. commissioners. my name is jay wallace. i'm a partner at kenwood investments. we're the neighbour across the street on davis street. hopefully. of this project. we are part of the partnership that is developing the hotel at broadway and davis and you will be hearing from us soon. we wanted to come today because it has been a pleasure to work with the john stewart company and their architects on design. we will share front doors on davis street. we worked through the issues

that that entails and we're very comfortable with the outcomes that both they and we have come up with. and i know they share the same attitude. it is a great project. we're excited to have this project as our neighbour and we look forward to coming before you with our project in the very near future. thank you very much. >> great. thank you, mr. wallace. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm from s.f. h.a.c. i just wanted to reiterate as i'm sure you heard from my co-worker corey the last few weeks that this project is a massive upgrade over the current parking lot, given the massive housing shortage that we're in the midst of. it also hits the quota for every population in the city that needs housing. on top of that, two of the best

builders in the city, two of the most help rabble builders have community support from both the north beach neighbours and the [inaudible] coast neighbours. to add anymore urgency if you could to this particular project, 250 laguna just went down and we need housing for folks who would have had that housing. thank you. have a good afternoon. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm afraid i have a question. which is does the a.m.i. level go low enough to accommodate seniors whom we know nationally have a social security amount of about 14,000. will they also qualify for the senior housing? i am really pleased that i like the idea of mixed income.

a lot. and especially bringing in folks who have been unhoused. but my concern is, is the a.m.i. also low enough to bring in the other real part of the senior population. that would be really important to me and i know as someone who's lived in north beach for 38 years, working closely with the senior population and those who are once 50 years old that i've watched grow to be 90, that wanting to make sure that that population is also included in this. especially if there is senior housing. i do know and like north beach places a lot. but i also know that some of our seniors who have been evicted to move in are not eligible because their income is too low. so thank you. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. >> steven boss, mission b.a. again. i like this project. i went to one of the community meetings and spoke in favour of it. i actually found it pretty distasteful that the wealthy homeowners in the audience audibly hissed at me and called me a shell when i was speaking in favour of 100% affordable housing. so i would really love for it to be approved as quick as possible so i could be a little smug about it. thanks. >> any additional public comment on this item? [laughter] seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner moore. >> looking at the appeal, i do not believe that the displacement of 180 parking spaces in this area warrants more than what has already been done in environmental analysis since the early 1970s, there has been displacement of

parking throughout the area. starting from the building of the golden gate commons to the relocation of the farmer's market, etc., etc.. and even 15 years ago, people started to talk about a joint strategy to look at other marking resources within the area. such as the golden gateway and, and, and, including the alcoa building, all the buildings with very high parking ratios to see as to what's another joint parking ratio for parking displacement on poor property could find another solution and that is called a joint strategy for parking at certain times. so i do not believe that these 182 spaces on their own will greatly change any analysis that is normally contained within the document. the other comments regarding the architecture treatment of the buildings is being discussed and booked on in

other [inaudible] and this commission will look at the building independently. it is basically commenting on the appeal and i personally do not believe that there is any reason that what we have is, indeed, appealable. >> thank you. any other commissioners? i would agree. i think we've done a lot in this commission and i think the city will try to exp/e diet affordable housing projects that do the right things. this is a well-designed project and it's creative in its financing. it is unfortunate that we're here on an appeal by one person. i think it is kind of bogus traffic issues and one of the most transit-rich portions of the city. i hope we can move this along quickly. commissioner richards? >> move to uphold the negative preliminary [inaudible] of declaration. >> second. >> commissioner moore? >> i just want to add to my comments, that i appreciate the size of the project on this particular -- in this particular area.

i think it is an extremely important project in district three. we do not have many opportunities. i like this one. >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to uphold the preliminary negative declaration. on that motion -- [roll call] >> so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, we had item four pulled off of con sent and inserted at this time. so we will hear case number 2016-014839cua at 4093 24th street for a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. marcel bedreau on behalf of ashley lindsay. before you is conditional use authorization for work to be

performed at 4093 24th street, pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 209.3 of the planning code, a conditional use authorization is required for macro wireless telecommunications -- excuse me -- telecommunications facility in the 24th street noe valley n.c.d. zoning district. the proposal is to install a new at&t mobility macro wireless telecommunications facility consisting of insulation of 12 new panel antenas, installation of 20 remote radio units and installation of ancillary equipment. all radio relay equipment will be screened from public views. three new f.r.f. faux vents will screen new antenasen and one f.r.p. box will screen nine of the antenases. a second f.r.p. box will screen ancillary equipment.

all of the screens cabling and any of the equipment as potentially visible will be payabled to match the existing building as part of the department requirements. the project is located on a lot -- let's see -- within noe valley. surrounding uses include a mix of residential and commercial and public uses throughout the n.c.d. and public zoning districts. and the block surrounding the project site, the buildings generally range from one to three stories in height. staff has received public comment on this item. one e-mail was submited in support of the promise. jonas, i have copies. i values a few additional copies for the public. two phone calls were also receive in objection to the project. based on zoning and land use, this is a preferred location for siting. the proposed w.t.f. facility would not cig kanldly impair commercial or residential activities within the proposed site. and the proposed facility is on balance, consistent with the objectives of policies of the general plan and the department

recommends they approve the conditional use authorization with proposed conditions. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any additional questions can. thank you. >> thank you. is the promise sponsor here? -- is the project sponsor here? you have five minutes if you'd like to speak on this item. welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i represent at&t mobility. i want to thank staff and ashley lindsay in particular for bringing this project to the hearing. we have worked diligently with staff on, you know, designing the project to meet the veting regulations. we held a community meet, for this promise before submitting the application. about four members of public attended and i believe we addressed all their concerns. we did have one of the residents that required some

existing e.m.e. measurements done so we did that for them. i'm joined here today by raj mathur representing edison and also at&t r.f. engineer michael camillia. i'm able to answer any questions that you have. regarding the project. >> ok. we're going to open it up to public comment first. if we have questions, we'll ask you to come back up. >> ok. >> is thank you very much. so i have two speaker cards. sara lee paddington and dimitri lagos. you each have three minutes. and anybody else is welcome to speak on this item also. you may want to line up on the screen side of the room. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. my name is sara lee pennington and i've been a leaseholdser along with elaine wells and

padman lauer along with the suite of offices at 4093 24th street since january of 1988. to note, 4039 is only one of three addresses in the building which encompasses four building addresses so we have a question as to why our address is the only one designated by at&t. i'm speaking on behalf of the people who are leaseholders and renters at this address. we are, of course, concerned that every precaution will be taken by at&t to ensure the safety of those who work and come for service to our suite, who work in the building at large and of our neighbours and others who lives, work, walk, and enjoy their lives on 24th street in noe valley from. the radio frequency, energy levels that will be emited from

this proposed cell antenna project installation. we are concerned action the radio frequency levels from the at&t installations that will be placed over us on our roof and, of course, want to know how we who work in the building will be protected. to ensure our protection, we request, one, that the level of radioactive energy to be measured in our offices at 4093 24th street before any work has begun on this project as well as to have the levels of the same energy managed in our offices after the project is installed at the airport time intervals. two, that before and after measurements should be taken on the streets in the surrounding area of 4093 24th street so

that we know the radioactive energy levels in our offices and on the street level are within an acceptable range as established by the federal communications commission. when there are safety concerns such as these, the american cancer society recommends [inaudible] monitoring by a government agency or private firm to ensure that the r.f. field strength near the cell phone towers within the acceptable range. thank you for addressing these concerns. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you very much for allowing us to speak and my name is dimitri lios. i'm a native san franciscan. born and raised and lived here any entire life. i'm getting old. and i don't want to lose my wife.

i don't work in this building, but i'm the husband of the other woman who's sitting next to sara lee over there. i have knowledge of the equipment that will be installed. and what i'm asking to have happened preferably before the equipment to be installed, besides checking all the r.f. amounts inside the building, i've been in touch with ashley lindsay and i understand all of the necessary measurements have been taken outside of the building. and we are going to get measurements inside the

building and including the that my wife works in. what i'm here to promote is a installation of essentially a new roof. this new roof would be impregnated with a products called kupratect scheidting system. it is basically copper wire mesh. that covers the entire roof and it is grounded to ground. so, anything that approaches it is stopped from going into the building that all of this equipment is on. you may be familiar with it. because i wouldn't be surprised if others have talked about it. because this squiment patent in

the united states and made in germany and installations have been made all over the country, california, anytime touch with a person that would -- that i would suggest to be contacted and bided for the job. [please stand by] [please stand by]

i am confident it will be safe for everybody. thank you. >> public comments? >> we will close the public comments. commissioners? >> a question for the representative. >> you have tenants in the building who wanted -- you are open to do that? >> i have been in touch, and we are working to get measurements done on that building. >> do you have feedback on the

roof? are you familiar at all with that? >> i am not. >> good afternoon. i am an independent consultant, i am a licenced professional electrical engineer in california. she was talking about a metal shielding on the roof. it doesn't go inside the building. now, a couple of things to keep in mind is that the antennas are directional. that means that the energy coming out is coming in a narrow beam. the energy is going down.

we have taken measurements in office spaces that are just below active antennas. we measure the limit in the homes. no further shielding is needed. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner? >> i make a motion to approve item number 4. condition that the before and after testing is done for the tenants. that is standard condition of approval. >> seconded by the commissioner. >> on the motion, to approve the matter with conditions. >> all right. commissioner johnson. commissioner koppel...

the motion will pass 7-0. item 16. case number 2017. 668 to 678 street. for condo conversion that you have heard. please note that on january 11th, 2018, after hearing and closing public comment, the commission adopted to disapprove and continue to february 2018. at which time without hearing you continue the matter to today. in order to participate, you need to acknowledge you reviewed the previous hearing and material. >> i have. >> thank you very much. this being a second hearing... there will be three minutes and the public testimony is one minute.

>> a question to allow subdivision, 6 unit building. and 1386 and 1396.4 within an r rh3 zoning district. the commission heard the case in 2018 and adopted a motion of intent to disapprove the case and continue to february 1st. at that hearing, the case was continued to march 8th. the project sponsor and the public have extra copies here with a clarified motion. the changes are the correct citation to the code and a more detailed and correct description of the code requirements.

you will find the changes are on page 2 of the notion and number 3 of page 3. it adds an explicit finding, setting violations of subdivision code 1386 on page 4. new finding e and as follows, this application violates the code for four reasons. one, vacancy increased and tenants have been displaced from the unit. three, an eviction or equivalent occurred for purposes of preparing the building for conversion. the subdivider has knowingly submitted incorrect information that misled and misdirected efforts by agencies of the city and the administration of the subdivision code. further, the clarifications

provide additional explanation as to why the proposed conversion violates general plan housing element policy 3.3. it is on page 5 of the motion. and finally, the clarifications go into detail about the statement of decision on page 8 of the motion. further motion adopted on january 11th, 2018. the department recommends disapproval of the application. this completes my presentation. and i am available for questions that you may have. thank you. >> project sponsor. >> thank you. on behalf of the sponsor, you have heard -- i was unsuccessful with the last attempt to convince you when i appeared the last time. i think you didn't hear from some of the residents at the last meeting because of the time

constraints of the hearing. there are two residents here who would like to speak to you and explain. i hope that you will understand that there is another side to the story. they will help put life to that. thank you. >> commissioners. i along with my wife, i have owned the property since 2003. i don't have time to go into addressing all the claims and allegations made by applicants. i want to address one item on the findings of the 6.c subdividing. this is regarding a review i made in july 2014. this information is inconsistent with the building history. i would like to address this. so there is no inconsistency.

the review was submitted in july 2014. absent of any communication from the family, the contrary, we had no reason to believe that she would not return to the building. in fact, neither of the owners would have objected to that. we knew from 2013 -- 2003 to 2012, 9 years, no one objected to their returning. subsequently, she would not return to the building and were relocated from 2012 to oakland. to be clear, there is no consistency in filing. the co-filing occurred in 2014. december. which is five months after i submitted the discretionary review. thank you.

>> commissioner, i wish i had more time to speak to you. i feel there has been a great deal of inconsistencies in the stories shared with you. i don't think you have the full story. i will tell you this, the absolute truth, she did not live on page street. i share a long corridor and i know for five years there was no one in the unit. the story i would like to tell you is one that the media does not want to tell you. it doesn't sell newspapers. the fact of the matter is the story is about a single signature, three years after the signature on the condo conversion paperwork would have no effect on the terms of her life estate. when the court case started, all we needed was the single signature and the litigation, we needed a single signature and peter offered to waived the

$120,000 in fees in exchange for corporation. the judicial record shows the attorney ended the dispute and had the fees waived. the life estate was agreed to be reinstated after the court rescinded it. it would allow her to stay in the unit with a care-giver. the question is why would iris not sign the paperwork? the reason is that people advised her against giving us a single signature for five years. the same advisors did not have her well-being in mind. they used the elderly family member as a pawn moving her across the bay. only when media interviews, the people were supposed to look out for her health and filling the end of her life break and stress and heartbreak at the loss of the home.

it could have been avert with the a single signature. for more than five years, we did not understand why the signature was not forthcoming. iris's care giver we were told for looking out for her interests. the end game was shown, t -- fo the care-givers it was not about her health and were using her signature as leverage for their financial gain. at the january 11th meeting, the commissioner expressed how the -- and the exhibit was discussed. furthermore, wanted to use the vote to condemn our actions you felt our application was misleading the commission. i agree with you. we have been misled by the iris's care-givers who fabricated the lie that they sold to the media and the public and befuddled you. iris was exploited over the past

five years, not by the owners in our building and not by peter who went to great lengths. >> up for public comment. you can come up in any order. . >> thank you. the fire department, had careful work on this and the recommendation to disapprove the application. i think you have seen all of the information and you have cut through all of the misinformation to see what is going on here. and i want to speak briefly about some of the comments that were made. first of all, there is a comment that this was all decided in the court finding in 2014. i want to remind the commission

that was -- miss iris was not represented and they are basing this on a situation which she was not represented by counsel and technically i want to mention about the signature. the signature -- they go on and on in the most recent documents about how offers were made to miss iris and if she was here she would have signed. what they do not talk about is how the offers made to miss iris would have involved increasing her housing costs to the point where she could not afford them and would have been evicted anyway. this is about displacement. it is not about a signature and not about being in good faith. it is about displacement and always has been. and finally, they bring up the argument again and again about miss iris was not evicted. she was given a notice of eviction. ultimately at the end of the day, miss iris was evicted by

the sheriff and all of us saw it happen. making it about definitions and side facts and all the other things, all of us were there. this was an eviction. >> your time is up. >> i want it start by saying this is a sad occasion for me it was over a year ago that she was evicted. and it was less than a year ago that she died after that eviction. it is hard for me to get beyond that. i knew the woman over a year and tried to help to save her home. i don't want to get into the back and forth. there was an eviction. she was living there in 2012.

i was in her place many times. she was living there. she was evicted. not once but twice. it was an attempt at eviction. the story -- i can go on and on with details, the bottom line is the report says it all. she was evicted. the eviction did lead to her death. thank you. >> again, this whole thing started with the eviction in 2002. there were tenants that lost their home with the exception of iris who was granted the life estate. in the end, she was indeed evicted and did indeed die. i beg you to go along with the testimony you heard that you understood that this is about --

this is only about greed. and we cannot reward those who would do this to our city. and to a 100-year-old woman. and so to deny the condo conversion would be in the best interest of our entire city. and especially for seniors. we cannot bring iris back. we cannot take back what happen. you can make this right. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i strongly oppose this project. and as a senior and a person living with a disability, we are fragile. we need to hold on to our homes. as much as possible. i think this story has echoed with many people. it is women's day.

and in iris's memory, let's do the right thing. >> next speaker, please. >> i am a member of senior disability action. iris's death -- it became infamous. the greedy tenants who want to make a quick buck off of condo conversions. pure and simple. there should be a plaque placed there. we have a workers revolution in the city and country. we will put a plaque there. this marks the spot where greed won. and killed a woman that lived for over five decades -- to make a quick buck. >> next speaker, please.

>> the commissioner with the senior and disability action. the information you need is in the report. she was in fact evicted. i was present on the night it happened. the sheriff carried out the eviction as they do for all evictions. a moving company was hired to take the stuff out. i have been to her house on many occasions. she lived there. you know when a person lives in a place and when a person does not live in a place. we urge you to reject this. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon commissioners. i live in district 9 and oregon the west side. i ask you to deny the condo conversion. iris was displaced and because

there was -- on the unit. she was one of many long-term elderly tenants of colour disproportionately targeted. iris was in her late 90s and reached her 100th birthday had the right to her space. she experienced an eviction. there was an eviction and led to the death of a 100-year-old woman. i urge the commission to deny the condo conversion. >> next speaker, please. >> i am here to urge you to deny this condo conversion permit. it is really clear there is evictions happening.

and please help us stop this. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i want to say that those who live on page street are not bad or evil people i know that because some had the courage to come up and talk to me and protested for three days and nights. all they wanted was an american dream which is what we all want. iris wanted that too. i believe it is true. she wanted to pass it on to her heirs. in the best interest of the common good, to approve an application that was against the law because it did not state the truth that there was an eviction. what does it say about the planning commission and the planning department, how can we

trust them that it was overlooked. it will take more courage for you to decide. thank you. >> thank you. additional public comments? we will close the public comment. >>... do not support the intent of denial passed in january. i think it is clearly -- the motion in front of us... i just move to disapprove. >> commissioner. >> i think no matter how you want to try to contort the story to make it work for you, you know, i remember when i was in front of the committee, the board on my confirmation, some of the things i said was people

will buy witnesses and buy them for supporting the business. there are bad faith actors in the city. i used examples. first she did not want to move -- the people who buy rental buildings, knowing that the businesses and -- that is bad faith. i was sitting there, another one i heard yesterday, a category historic resource building, i was talking with historic preservation, and the developer bought the building and said to the historic preservation person, i want to get rid of the building. the person said i can't. can i burn it down or put bugs in it so it falls down, he said. these are things that are happening in the city. i think this is where we have to draw the line.

you folks bought the building, knowing people were -- you are creating home ownership opportunities for people when you are getting rid of people is just talking in both sides of the mouth. you got rid of people. the people were living -- i don't get it. how could anybody say i am creating opportunities for people when you are taking them away on the other end. i am happy and proud to disapprove. >> a question coming up. and the back and forth. there are stories that are not clicking. how old had she own the property before iris left the property... >> a number of years. bought the property in 2002. >> but the project sponsor, six

people, six groups of people live in six different units, they acquired them at various times. >> the first time it was requested to turn to condo was in 2014. >> okay. thank you. >> back in 2002, when first initiated, it was mr. owen -- the property owner at that point? >> peter owen and two family members. >> the people who were in the building bought units at tic from mr. owen. over several years. >> mr. owen still owns -- >> i urge people to read the findings in the motion and i

know -- there is a lot of back and forth. i think i get the facts from this in 2002, there was an ellis act. we cannot hold the condo conversion -- because of the ellis act in 2002. at that point, iris was slated to be evicted from that unit through the act. the lawyers for thc, was it the housing clinic prevailed and were able to get her negotiate with mr. owen and get her a life estate in the property. >> it is not the way i heard it. mr. owen is not here. it was clear... >> you know, she got a life estate in the building which i think is important. i mean getting her life estate in the building, i think was good. and she certainly had the ability to remain in that unit

under that life estate. i think what happened because i have been through the process before is the condo conversion required her to sign a document. >> as an owner. >> as an owner. even as a tenant, she would have to sign the document. i think she held the discretion whether to sign the document or the not. i get there were people trying to negotiate things for her. and they were not agreed upon. and she did not sign the document which prevented the ability for the remainder of the owners to condo convert the building. she could have signed it. she was not obligated to sign the document. it then went on -- she was evicted.

she was evicted for violating the life estate agreement. that is where things get murky. it was not necessarily a no fault eviction. it was determined by the court whether she had representation or not. or what happened she violated the terms of her estate. i think that is the key in this. i don't think she was necessarily evicted. this was the result of the -- ultimately was the result of the 2002 action it came about. she was evicted from the unit. it was a fault eviction. the court held she did not live in the unit and was evicted. i think the information had to be put forward on the condo conversion. i know your argument and you say she was an owner at that point. she did not pay property tax and did not pay the insurance.

she wasn't able to sell the unit to somebody. i think that is where your argument breaks down. you should have noted that in the document. maybe that prevented you then from moving forward with the condo conversion because somebody was evicteded wheth... the staff did a great job clarifying that. i urge people to read the facts in the staff report. that is why i am voting to deny the condo conversion is outlined in the staff report. >> nothing further commissioners. the motion that is seconded to disapprove this item. on the motion, commissioner copel. the motion passes 7-0.

commissioners, item 17 for case number 2017... >> good afternoon. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization, pursuing to sections 186, 764 and 303. to allow a change of the use from a limited restaurant to a restaurant doing business as cafe in a limited commercial use tenant space. on steiner street. the planning code section 186 changes of use only allowed in

limited tenant spaces and the proposed use is permitted in the restricted in a zoning district or an individual neighbourhood commercial district in a quarter mile of the property. the neighbourhood district allows restaurants with additional use authorization. this proposal requires... tenant space measures 1284 square feet. the condition previously disapproved the request for conditional use authorization to establish a formula limited restaurant. on june 2017. however, the proposal before you is not a formula retail establishment. there are five locations existing in san francisco. including the tenant space that legally began operations of the limited restaurant in 2017. there are no major changes in

operation or lay out of the establishment. the proposed addition to the venue that will be... to date, the department has received two letters of opposition from the member that is included in your staff report. the department recommends approval of the application with conditions. the report and it is available for questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. you have three minutes. >> we are proposing for limited restaurant to restaurant to view the service. we were hoping to do better service in the following month or so. i have a picture of -- basically

what we intend to do is just a continuation of what we do for service. which is salads, burger, bowls, pastas, you know, we have been open for the last month or so, and the neighbourhood well received us. everyone kind of appreciates the space finally being activated. you know, i am not 100% sure what the deal was before. i know that plenty of neighbours have come in and really, you know, thanked us for activating the space and, you know, the neighbourhood the commercial associa,