>> president breed: thank you for being here and i know the council of general of ireland is here as well, if you'd like to come forward and say a few words. please do so at this time. >> thank you very much, madame president breed, supervisors, ladies and gentlemen, lord mayor, i'll be very, very quick. i know you have a busy afternoon of work ahead of you. i just wanted to say two quick things. firstly, we appreciate just how important those political contacts are to maintaining our relationship between ireland and california. and between san francisco and cork. and we were very encouraged by the high level political representation that traveled with mayor lee in september last year. and i know supervisor tang, supervisor safai, of course,

mayor mark farrell, all traveled and we welcome that. to those of you who haven't visited ireland, just talk to them, they'll tell you how good a time they had and how productive a visit will be. and we're equally happy to have the lord mayor with us so quickly afterwards and the senior delegation from cork city council. long will that continue because those contacts are so important in building up that relationship. the second thing i just wanted to say, is that we are blessed in ireland to have such an enormous dispracti dispractice.

through our diaspora we've influenced the world and have been influenced by the daas practice and trends in the world. it's leaders diaspora that i saw at the leadership of president of the committee, and what they're doing in creating even more links between ireland and san francisco and cork of course, and san francisco in an area where ireland since 2015, since we became the first country in the world to have a referendum for lgbt rights. and i want to pay tribute to jim and dermott and kathleen to say we're very proud of them, proud of the diaspora and what they

achieve to make ireland a better place. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. lord mayor, it's an honor to have you here. i'm going to ask if you and your delegation would join us outside so we can take a photo. i have a certificate of honor to present to you as well. thank you again for all that you continue to do to strengthen the relationship between san francisco and cork. and i'm looking forward to the next sister city visit, where i will be joining the delegation to cork, ireland, so thank you again, really appreciate you being here today. [applause] colleagues, let's continue with our work here at the board. i'd like to call on supervisor kim.

>> supervisor kim: i'm going to ask my honouree and i see her as the crowd exits, commissioner kathrin moore. [applause] >> supervisor kim: so this board and many members of the audience in this room known catherine incredibly well for her three terms of service on our san francisco planning commission and her general work as a neighborhood advocate and planner, but the commissioner is

here today because she was honored by the fellows of american institute of certified plansers as a model planner who made significant contributions to planning and society. this is the highest honor of this profession. [applause] [cheers and applause] >> supervisor kim: she is the only san francisco commissioner, planning commissioner, past or present, to ever achieve this award in her lifetime of community service and leadership. she was trained as an architect, urban designer for more than four decades and developed and shared her unique, measured and reasoned guidance on projects in san francisco across the state, nation and globe. every time i watch the planning commission, i have never seen the commissioner not comment on every single project, which is

pretty extraordinary if you have been to a planning commission meeting and you see how many items they go through every single thursday. and by the way, this is a volunteer gig. you are not paid to serve on the planning commission, so you maintain whatever full-time job you have and you read mountains of text and legislation and plans and development projects and i continually has amazed that you have comments on every single one of the projects and plans. you share your knowledge, whether it's under contract to foreign government, helping repair damages in our country or in other countries ravaged by climate based events which is only continuing to grow and increase. and you're committed to projects and space that help people thrive. beyond your role as planning commissioner, you served 12 years on the waterfront design committee and 14 years on the

treasure island advisory board. you have been an incredibly special voice. you look beyond architectural merit. you know that change of any scale must contribute to the making of a place called our city, san francisco. and it has been said with profound -- that your profound regard for the curation of the city's soul places you in a class of yourself. when serving on the planning commission, you have provided a foundation for the public planning processes by also educating the public, inspiring objectivity and public decision-making and nudging our city staff to think more broadly. through deep understanding, you have become a trusted voice on the commission for representing neighborhood concerns. and in the resolution of fair outcomes. with other commissioners, her trademark is rationally bringing them along to the correct resolution and the commissioner does that with me as well, through text messages and phone

calls, giving me a little guidance to help through many of the projects and plans with her thinking and thoughts. i really do appreciate that. your consistency and informed voice has brought to planning trust and credibility, not just amongst our residents and neighborhood groups, but also with decision maker and city hall and here at the board of supervisors. you were originally appointed by my colleague, supervisor peskin who served as president in 2006. we were appointed twice more and was even pushed through via publicly initiated a regular received signature drive in your last round. i want to congratulate you on the achievement. i don't know how many women get honored in this arena, but i'm so proud to see one of our san franciscans, one of our amazing commissioners and a woman in planning, that i cannot imagine there are that many of, get

honored at such a high level. i want to congratulate you on behalf of the board of sfsz. i know supervisor peskin would like to share words and commissioner war shell would like to say a few words. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, supervisor. i've made commission appointments that i regretted this is not one of them. commissioner moore is really the pair gone of what a commissioner paragon of what a commissioner should be. not only is she absolutely committed to the policy and does all the work, but she's always out in the communithe communit. whether you agree with her, or disagree with, urban design, whether it's about the detail of policies, the central soma plan,

she is always there to hear from and interact with the community. she is one of the most accessible members of the planning commission and i just cannot thank you enough. supervisor kim was a little bit off, you guys get a tiny little stipend that probably does not pay for the paper clips much less the time, but you've done us proud and congratulations on a most befitting award that really, if all of our commissioners could have that level of background and education, we wouldn't get any appeals. so thank you for your service. >> supervisor ronen. [applause] >> supervisor ronen: commissioner, i wanted to echo my colleagues and give you my personal thanks and gratitude for all your hard work. it's perhaps unparalleled in the city for a commissioner.

this award is brilliant for giving it to you. i want to thank you for always being accessible to me and the residents of my district when we have technical questions. and for schooling us and for proactively reaching out when you think that we're not paying attention to something we should be paying attention to. you are such an asset to the city and i want to thank you so much for everything you give us. [applause] >> supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: i want to say congratulations. my time on this board for the last eight years, i've grown to love you, i did not love you at first. i have grown to appreciate your perspective and have enjoyed learning from you and how you interact with developers and project sponsors as well as

dissecting projects before you. just wanted to let you know we've been watching you for many years and you've taught us many valuable lessons. i can't imagine a better person to receive such an honor, congratulations, we're proud of you. >> thank you. commission, the floor is yours. >> there is only one short thing to say. i thank all of you here and there and everywhere. it is you who empower and inspire what i do. thank you. [applause]

[applause] >> president breed: that concludes our commendations for the day. thank you, everyone. >> president breed: thank you, that concludes our commendations for the day. it is 3:00 p.m., madame clerk please call items 30-33.

>> comprise of persons interested in the certification of the conditional use authorization for the proposed project located at 799 castro street and 3878 through 3880 21st street to demolish a residential unit and construct a three story with one new accessory dwelling unit. under a separate permit. item 31 is the motion to approve the department's decision to approve the conditional use authorization for the castro street project and adopt the appropriate findings. item 32 is the motion to disapprove the department's decision, for the proposed project. and item 33 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings in support of the disapproval of the conditional use authorization. >> president breed: colleagues, we have before us the appeal of the conditional use authorization for this project at 799 castro street.

and 3878 to 3830, 21st street. for the hearing we'll be considering whether or not to approve the planning commission's conditional use authorization to allow for a demolition and replacement of a residential unit at 799 castro street. without objection, we will proceed as follows. up to ten minutes for presentation by the appellant or the appellant representative. up to two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to ten minutes for presentation from the planning commission. up to ten minutes for the project sponsor or their representatives. up to two minutes of speakers in opposition and three minutes for the rebuttal for the appellant or representative. we will proceed in that order. and i will now recognize supervisor sheehy. >> supervisor sheehy: i just

wanted to -- i have looked over this and been researching both sides and i look forward to hearing from both the appellant and the project sponsor. thank you. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor. this hearing is open. i ask for the appellant or the appellant's representative to come forward. >> good afternoon, i think we're awaiting the appellant just walking in the room. if it's possible to hold for a moment, otherwise i'll go and get started. >> president breed: if you could get started. we're on a tight schedule. >> good afternoon, brian patterson on behalf of the appellants. as we beginning to quasi judicial hearing i want to take

a moment to remind the board of two deeply held principles. justice is blind and the planning commission exists for a reason. no matter what you think of the project sponsor or the appellants of their neighbors or this historic neighborhood in the castro, you enacted the planning code demolition rules for a reason. the demolition of residential units is prohibited unless special criteria is met. the criteria you enacted are based on preserving rent-controlled dwelling units and enhancing affordability. those criteria are not met. in fact, it only meets 4 of the 12 criteria. before you today, is to demolish a unit and replace it with a home that will not be rent controlled. which is not code compliant.

it requires a variance because it's built in the setback area to the neighborhood's detriment. there is no need for the demolition cu. the project sponsor a group of speculators can just as easily renovate the building at 799 castro street as a reasonably sized rent controlled dwelling unit and still add to the other lot. without the cu. it's simply unnecessary and it's against the planning code. and worst of all, is the failure to follow the code's legal processes. the project sponsor had two alternative designs and the planning commission rejected them both, but approved the project anyway. that's not how this process should work. the commission approved the

project without a design. we have no idea what it will look like, neither the neighborhood or the planning commission will have any say in the matter. this is illegal. fundamentally, the project doesn't comply with the planning code basics. it's an r h2 lot and there is a two-unit apartment building there in addition to the subject building. once the project is demolished, it can't be rebuilt. they're performing a new structure. planning has bent itself into contortions to authorize the project. and for what? so that speculators can replace an affordable rent controlled unit with a non-rent controlled luxury single family home. their a domestic u in a -- adu in the basement is not included in the permit and there is no agreement it will be built. this project is wrong and the neighborhood does not support

it. please do not let this happen. deny the cu and let the sponsor proceed. i will now introduce our architect. >> good afternoon. we're concerned with the project's compliance with several themes discussed in the findings. first, surrounding development patterns, the granted variance increase the nonconformity with zoning controls including rear yard depth, open space, clients and density. it's not 20-25 feet as stated in the findings, it's 10-25 feet. the partial below grade bedroom of the house is nobstruction fo the planning code. the total building of the site far exceeds the district average. the new ad uses open space

nonconforming. the design of the project should be based on one of the findings that it should be a superb architectural and urban design of the staff has been instructed to continue working with the developer to improve the design. comments include over time this one isn't going to look good, looks like we tacked on some rick aback. can't do that to the neighborhood. the proposed design does not follow the major pattern of queen ann cottages. our third concern is about the affordable units. there is inconsistent recognition of the dwelling yunt in the findings. although the adu on the site is used as justification for this project, and its excessive density and f.a.r.

there is no conditions of the approval that link the permit to a home. it would seem that the creation of the adu, if it was so important, there would be a mandate to build it. it will create change of use from r 3 building code classification to r-2. it will increase the cost of the work and increase the pressure to have higher rents for the building. the new house does not create affordable housing. it eliminates a building. it can be converted into a two-bedroom unit, utilizing interior modeling and openings. it has access to light on three sides. they could add a story underneath if they needed more space. it creates a hybrid property that is a single home and

multiunit apartment house. whoever buys the home will become a landlord. this project begs to remove rental housing from the market. how many wealthy single-family homeowners want to be landlords to three unit apartments? the homeowner can use the units as they feel fit. why would this property not just become a compound for friends and family of a super rich owner? one goal of the finding is create family-sized units. looking at current sales prices this might sell for $3 million. from my calculation, future home buyer loan payments, probably require an income of $650,000. of course, the future owner would have to buy the apartment building, significantly increasing the purchase price. in closing, the project is not in keeping with the neighborhood

development patterns and character to extreme granting of variances. the architecture is not intesh, it's not identifiable. thank you. >> i own the home at 789 castro street, we've resided there for 20 years, i raised my family in that home. my concern about the project that is before you today involves the process that the planning department followed in having this appear before you today. this project involves a variance from the planning code. it is not a coat code-compliant project, they allowed the hearing to be heard at the same time as the conditional use and there is no final variance approved for the project. the variance is subject to appeal and the appeal has been filed. this flips the process for this

board to be the final decision maker on this project upside down. even if this board approves the conditional use, the board of appeals will have the last word on the project. that is not the way that the charter contemplates land use decisions, it's not the way planning code contemplates land use decision and is unlawful. this board is the final decision maker on land use decisions. allowing this project to go before the planning commission before a variance had been considered, approved and final, is not consistent with san francisco law, not consistent with our charter and not consistent with the planning code. i ask you to take a careful look and ask the right questions of your staff, ask the right questions of your rent control advisors. planning commission found that the unit, existing in the unit, in the home that is going be demolished is not subject to rent ordinance.

why the planning code is construing the rent control ordinance narrowly given the policies of this city and the policies that my office and myself have dealt with many years on the other side, is a question that this board should be asking. i thank you for your consideration. i know you'll give this the utmost consideration and appreciate your attention to the appeal. thank you. >> the remaining time i want to briefly lodge additional letters of support from the community in support of the appeal. as well as because there has been extensive debate leading up to this where the project sponsor sought to deny the dwelling unit existed, on the overhead, photos of the full kitchen, bathroom and sworn declaration from a neighbor who has dined and been friends with the sweeney family -- [bell ringing]. >> president breed: thank you. we'll open up to public comment

for those in support of the appeal. if you're here to provide public comment in support of the appeal, now is your time to speak. you will have up to two minutes. if anyone else is interested in speaking, please line up to your right. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is pat. i was born here. my dad was a steel worker. he lived in apartments, it wasn't great housing but i could live here. in 84 when i got married to my wife, we took every penny and we could buy a house barely today, my kids can't afford to buy or rent in the city. what did we do that we priced our children? it's a form of weird cannibalism that we're taking affordable

housing, tearing it down and building the biggest thing you can imagine, 5, 6 bedrooms, 3, 4 studios, makes no sense. why are we taking affordable housing and tearing it down? the most affordable we have is this. i'm a neighbor, live on diamond street, next block over. i did all the permit research. found the original permit saying there is a unit there. there is a unit there. it is still there. when i found it, i produced the documents, i got yelled at. there was an attempt to try to make the unit go away. i fought that. the unit is there. the unit is there, the city recognizes this as a unit. we are in a housing crisis. how it could be considered to be remove this unit to build, i don't know, four or five-story building and it's still not rented. it's rented out commercially. so there is no enforcement action to take a residential unit in a residential district

and continue renting it out as a commercial space? and they're in front of you guys to say, let's build something bigger that nobody in the city can afford except one-tenth of 1%. why are we doing this? >> thank you, any other speakers in support of the appeal only. there will be opportunity for those who oppose the appeal to speak as well at a later time in the agenda. >> my name is cat taylor. i live four doors down from the project proposed. this project has been going on, this argument over it for many years. it has movar evered and -- morpd and changed. it involves tearing down an existing structure. it involves a structure that is

out of size and scale with the neighborhood. it involves taking out rent-controlled location. it just doesn't make any sense and we've been arguing about it and trying to go along and make compromises and the way it is, it just doesn't work. i've lived there for 30 years. it just doesn't make sense to me. thank you for your time. >> thank you. any other speakers in support of the appeal? if there are any other speakers, please line up to your right against the wall. >> good afternoon, i'm reading a statement on behalf of ben and diane who couldn't be here. this year marked the 50th anniversary -- this is the statement he drafted in 2017. so this year marking the 50th anniversary of the summer of love here in san francisco. and the 50th anniversary of

"rolling stone" magazine that began in this city, where i was a writer for years. now i write a radio column for the chronicle. in other words, i love this city. and we both attended san francisco state in the 60s and been married since 1967 and witnessed all the changes in all the years. on our trips around town, we take note of the condos and apartment buildings along market street. the unending construction. including down the block from where diandiane, now works at t mts. well, change is a part of life, yet we can't help but have mixed feelings when we see structures rendering from the beautiful to the bizarre colliding against stately victorians, replaces retail stores, gases stations. now it's come to our

neighborhood. the castro district and kitty corner from our home. we've attended meetings with neighbors and i wrote a note. along with neighbors we're upset about the developers' disorder to our neighborhood. it will have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties. this intersection at castro and 21st is seen by everyone along castro and will show visitors what is happening to your neighborhood and not a good way. the developer acknowledged the project is not code compliant -- >> thank you very much, feel free to submit the letter. are there any other members who would like to speak in support of the appeal. public comment is closed. we'll have a presentation from the planning commission, you will have up to ten minutes.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm from the planning department. i'll be presenting the case for the planning department and i'm accompanied by manager of the southeast quadrant. the decision before you is whether to uphold or overturn the planning commission approval of cancel use authorization to convert an existing one story commercial space and dwelling unit to a three story home. while it is not a demolition, it does constitute a demolition for the planning code and requires conditional use authorization. under separate permit, the appellant is asking to construct a dwelling unit within the building at the rear of the lot. the appellant raises two main issues. first, the planning commission

did not approve either of the designs, but approved conditional use on the conditional that the project sponsor work with staff to redesign the project. and that the commission approve the project even though they have not issued a variance decision. in the brief submitted on april 13th, it does not meet the criteria under the planning section code 303 or demolition and you 317. in response to the first issue regarding design, the planning commission was presented with two designs for the project, contemporary and traditional. the applicant chose to do this because the neighbors were divided whether they wanted a contemporary design. at the hearing they approved the traditional design with the

caveat they continue to work with planning staff. this language is standard in most conditional use authorizations. it does not give the planning department a blank check to approve the different design. it must go back to them for review. the second point that the applicant raises was that the commission approved the project even though there was no variance decision. because the project requires both conditional use authorization and variance from the planning code, a joint hearing with the planning commission and zoning administrator was held so all aspects of the project were considered at the same time. the planning commission can take time prior to the issuance of the written variance determination. the zoning administrator has opined on this in a letter of determine nation that is under appeal. they have different jurisdictions. the purview over the new construction.

that said, subject building permit application cannot be approved by the planning department until the required conditional use authorization and variance are both obtained. therefore if one of the two is disproved, the project cannot move forward as proposed. i would note that they issued the decision requesting the rear yard variance on april 11 of this year. regarding compliance with the planning code, the commission found the project to be necessary and desirable because of removing noncompliant commercial use and replace it with a family sized dwelling unit. it is in keeping with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. the project will not be detrimental to the general welfare of people working in the city. because a proposed building is similar to the massing and building in the neighborhood. the proposed use of the single-family home is consistent with the land use pattern.

the appellant contends that the proposed project does not meet the criteria for demolition. the commission did fully evaluate the proposed project and found that on balance it did neat the criteria. for those findings, the commission found there are no enforcement complaints against the building. the building should be altered was not determined to be historic resource and thus no ceqa impacts. the unit proposed for expansion was not a rental unit as it has not been used for rent for several decades. the loss of the potential rent controlled unit would be compensated by the addition of a new adu at the rear of the building on the lot. the affordability would be maintained by the adu on the lot. keeping with the scale and development pattern of the neighborhood. it increased the number of family sized units. the number of dwelling units on site would not only be

maintained and increased. the commission carefully reviewed the proposed project and came to the conclusion that on balance, the proposed project met the criteria in the planning code and you section 30 # and 317. they gave the applicant clear direction on the proposed design, for these reasons the commission approved the project and now staff leaves the question in the hands of this board. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor sheehy. >> supervisor sheehy: i had a question for planning staff. so the existing unit being referenced is within a commercial? >> my understanding is that the building was originally constructed as a grocery store with a caretaker unit in the back. and since probably about the 1980s it's been used as a law office. >> supervisor sheehy: to this photo of a kitchen and bathroom

are in use by the law office and not a place where people live right now? >> that's correct, yes. >> supervisor sheehy: so there isn't a dwelling unit, we'll actually -- a rent controlled dwelling unit. >> technically, it is a dwelling unit. the dwelling unit was never removed through a permit. so from the department standpoint and the city standpoint the unit still exists, but it was not being used as a unit. >> supervisor sheehy: so right now, this commercial use is nonconforming, right? >> correct. >> supervisor sheehy: it's not like the caretakers, whatever the unit is, it's not like it's connected to the commercial unit, right? >> that's correct. >> supervisor sheehy: the owner couldn't turn around and rent that out because that's part of the commercial envelope, yeah?

>> correct. >> supervisor sheehy: the adu that is being put in, so you say it's a family-sized dwelling? >> no, the adu is a one bedroom. and the proposed building, the new building where the commercial unit is is going to be a family-sized unit. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that clarification on the previous question. mine has to do with the design and i know you mentioned that the planning commission can still -- basically the project sponsors will need to work with the community on the design. so at what point does planning come back into the picture to review it and make sure that it is actually something the community has agreed upon? >> it's more about what the commission has directed the staff to do. so the commissioner was

presented with two designs. because the community couldn't -- there seemed to be two points, one contemporary, one traditional am they presented both of those concepts, same massing, but just applied different materials and esthetics onto the facade. the commission thought the more traditional one was appropriate for the neighborhood, so they instructed staff to work with the applicant to continue to refine that particular design and then approve it once staff felt that it was sufficient enough. >> supervisor tang: so, the project design will still need to go back before the planning staff for review? >> absolutely. >> supervisor tang: and for our purposes today, the cu is regarding the demolition, so it's not like we're looking at the design here, that's not under our consideration? >> it's the whole project, so you could comment on the design

or change that. >> ok, thank you. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor tang. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i just wanted to ask a few procedural questions that the appellant raised. first of all, while i'm clear that a zoning administrator decision is appealable only to the board of appeals and the conditional use under the charter is only appealable to the board of supervisors, the appellant raised a couple of issues. one is that we, the board of supervisors, should be the final decision-making body and that actually the board of appeals is scheduled to hear the appeal of the variance subsequent to today. what advises the city attorney? please stand by.

. >> supervisor peskin: it does seem procedurally a little odd that a condition -- i understand that when interesth project that requires a conditional and a conditional use, the commission and the administrator sit together. the commission decides it right there, and the administrator issues a variance or not, but it does raise a question and maybe it's just a condition, which is if the zoning administrator never issues the variance, then, the conditional use that's been approved is kind of null and void on its face. but you would think that they would be issues contemporaneously or that the zoning administrator's determination as to a variance

would precede the granting of a conditional use. am i missing something? >> well, the way it works, and the way it works here, supervisor, is the zoning administrator usually issues a tentative decision orally, which is then followed by a written decision, which is what happened here. so the simultaneous decision's the date of the planning commission hearing or the commission's decision on the conditional use, and the tentative oral decision of the zoning administrator on the variance. >> supervisor peskin: okay. so the zoning administrator, in essence, said on the record all of the conditions are here. i can find, and then, subsequently wrote it up. >> exactly. >> supervisor peskin: okay. thank you. >> thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, we will open it up to the project sponsor or their representative. you will have up to ten minutes. >> hello, board of supervisors,

my name is hasef muosimi, and this was a home for my family to move in. she was ten at the time and now is 20 and at u.s.c. going to college. i worked with the last ten years to work tirelessly with the neighbors, planning, dbi, everybody else to get it to this point. for the last eight years, i've had my architect who's thank god been with me this long to come here in front of you to make this decision. thank you for your time, and i'm going to introduce my architect, who's going to take over. >> president breed, honorable supervisors and staff, i'm with techta and associates. i've been the project architect since 2010 on this project. i'm here to object to the cu of

our project at 799 castro street. before i start, i h'd like to y i object gravely to what i heard. i object specifically to the letter from ben fong torres, who i really enjoy, but his letter was written in 2017 when we had a very different design. it was a very different time. we now have a much more traditional design, and i seriously object to the characterizations of our design that are completely and utterly irrelevant to this time, after having put so much time in it. this is the next step in a ten year obstruction process by the next-door neighbors of 799 castro. i was there when my client was told he was going to be fought to the supreme court. and so far, with every action we've taken, no matter how

benign, they've been good to their word. when my clients -- my clients started this project in 2008. i've been on the project since 2010, the second architect to work on this project. we first met with the zach's planning consultant and spent a great deal of time figuring out a solution in the end that he said would check off all the boxes. we've been arguing ever since. at issue have been the architecture of the building, the size, the competition, and most recently, what we are building. we worked with the rdt to design a style, and we've since met with the neighbors and staff and the planning commission twice in doing so, and in an effort to achieve accord, we've made many changes. we've removed a floor, we've changed the front, we've pushed

the front back in, making the building smaller. we've pushed the back forward and made the back smaller. we've -- we've made the -- the back yard larger. we've taken what they -- there were a lot of words that flowed around. we've taken out the party deck. we've taken what -- what we would characterize as a luxury house and turned it into a very -- into a very conforming and traditional home. we've changed the -- we've changed the architecture of the building entirely, and we've relocated items that are offensive to the zachs, such as the elevator. we relocated the entrance so it wouldn't conflict with their -- with their property line window. we've done all of this to no avail. at the -- at the last hearing, the commission asked for -- asked for staff to work with us on the cosmetics of the trim. really, it was by and large an issue of trim, and the

cosmetics of the trim, which is a minor thing. in regards to the unit, in 1905, a grocery store and family was permitted on this lot. in 1980, the grocery store was removed, and an office was put in its place. the residential component of this grocery store was an accessory use to the grocery store. so no residential use really exists, but to avoid the whole rigamarole of an appeal, we got the idea of putting an adu underneath the other two units that are already there on the adjacent building. and we did so at a great expense to my client because we have to put the retaining walls and dig out and do other things. but it's something that -- that serves the community and providing an additional unit, and we're happy toic ma the

neighbors happy. but i do not think the zach's ledbetters would like to have an additional unit. so our unit is a real unit. it is a unit that both has light and ventilation and access through french doors to a -- to a back yard, and it has a full kitchen and a nice back yard, and it's going to be better than the break room that is there right now in the office. we've given from the front, the back, the top, and the sides, the competition, the style. we' we've agreed to spend more money in building this building, and neighbors, planning, the building commission, and even the tenants' union are on our side, and we very much hope that -- that you will see things our way, as well. i'm available to answer any

questions. >> president breed: thank you for your presentation. now, i will open it up to public comment. speakers will have up to two minutes. those who are -- those who are in opposition to the appeal. first speaker. >> hi. i'm jennifer fever with the tenants' union. i'd like to speak in favor of the sponsor's plans and reject the appeal. they reached out to our organization which shows me that they are sincere about community concerns and tenants. i am satisfied. so is the planning commission, so are planning staff. they are adding a rent controlled adu unit. we really need housing. the commercial space has not been occupied by tenants as far as i can tell. you know, 1980's, there's no tenant evictions on record. the neighbors opposing this

renovation are well known in a firm that specializes in evicting residential tenants. they live next door. i find it pretty rich that they are putting this kind of pressure on the project sponsors and trying to keep out a rent controlled abu from being built next door. this is classic nimby that is worthy of a news article, this is classic hatfields and m m mccoys. it just feels like this is the neighbors throwing around their weight because they're a very scary law firm, so thanks. >> president breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor breed, members of the board of supervisors. my name is james creech. i'm a san francisco resident, i'm a san francisco native, and i'm a constituent of supervisor breed's. i personally object to the

appeal, but that's not what i'm here for. i'm here to read a letter from one of the neighbors, who live at 3836 21st street. their words are: we are unable to attend the public hearing on april 24, 2018 for the appeal of the conditional use permit for the proposed single-family residence at 799 castro street and the additional residential unit at 3878-3880 21st street, but we wish to register our opposition of the appeal in support of the project. we have resided at 3836 21st street since the early 1980's and are pleased our neighborhood has retained its residential character while allowing property owners to improve their buildings and remarkably increasing the property density without adverse effect. from what we know of this project and the property owner, his design team and the planning staff have worked together fors to ensure this

project is keeping with the developmental scale in the neighborhood and while trying to respond to reasonable concerns of the neighbors. we were quite concerned to learn after all the issues raised in the planning commission meeting of november 2017 had been addressed and the satisfaction of the proposed planning development had been approved, but the neighbors immediately adjacent to the project still objected and were rallying other neighbors to support them in this appeal of the permit. we strongly support this project and believe that it will contribute very positively to the character of our neighborhood. >> president breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. we used to say that good fences make good neighbors. it sounds like everyone is watching this van waters law and debating the color of gracgrac

grass, shape, shade, fertilizer needs, and borders. if the grass isn't on their side of the fence, i don't understand what the bother is. >> president breed: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak in opposition of the appeal? seeing none, public comment is now closed. the appellant will have now up to three minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you, president breed and supervisors. ryan paterson. i want to respond to a few inaccurate claims that were just made. first all with all due respect to what planning staff said, it may be true that there is some language about continuing design revisions included in other projects, but i have never seen the planning commission approve a project while denying the design that's proposed and kicking it back to staff to redesign. i've never seen that happen in all my years practicing at the planning commission. this is extraordinary for them to do that, and it does not

follow the law as required. the design is included with the cu. that's what was approved by the commission, and that's what's before the board here today. supervisor sheehy i think wisely asked about the existing unit, whether it is a residential unit, whether it is rent controlled. the answer is yes. it was never lawfully removed. the only reason that that's not being rented as a dwelling unit is that the project sponsor has chosen to rent it commercially instead. they could very easily remodel it as necessary, if necessary, and rent that residentially as a rent controlled dwelling unit, which it is lawfully. the offer to makeup for the loss of the rent controlled unit that would be destroyed by -- destroy approving the commission's action, to makeup for it by adding an accessory dwelling unit in the basement

of another building is not apples to apples. we're talking about a lawful family-sized dwelling unit within the existing structure that has been used as such for many, many years as opposed to sticking it in the basement of a different building. it's somewhat offensive. and whether there's no connection or -- or no wall between what was the shop and the shop keeper's unit, perhaps the project sponsor or a previous owner removed that, but there's no permitting record to support that. and furthermore, there is no guarantee under this approval that the adu will actually be built. that's under a separate permit. supervisor peskin asked if the building permit can be appealed to the board of appeals. the answer is no, that is incorrect. the building permit is subject to a conditional use permit -- >> supervisor peskin: that's not what i asked. >> okay. apologies. i think that was offered by the city attorney.

the answer is no, it cannot be appealed. this is the forum where this gets decided ultimately. and as for the architect's question, why has this taken ten years to get through permitting? the answer is they continued to propose a project that does not meet code. there are two buildings on this rh-2 lot with more units than is allowed. they're asking for a variance, they're asking for a conditional use permit. that's not what the code allows. this is a nonconforming structure that they're proposing to rebuild. thank you very much for your time. >> president breed: thank you. and that is the end of our hearing. this hearing has now been held and is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> president breed: this matter is now in the hands of the board of supervisors, and i'd like to start with supervisor sheehy or supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i was just going to say one thing for the record, i'm completely aware that building permits that are issued pursuant to

conditional uses are not appealable to the board of appeals. the question -- and ultimately, if we were to deny there -- you know, no building permit would issue, but that wasn't what i asked or what i think the city attorney said. i think the city attorney just said as a matter of record, the building permit is the last thing to issue, so in essence, the board of supervisors is not the last step. i think that was the point. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: yes. so i had a question for planning first. so right now you've got two structures on this lot, right? there's currently two active housing units there? >> at the rear building, there were two units in that, and at the front building, which is the subject of this appeal, there is a commercial space and what is legally a