know. i'm happy to hear commissioner melgar's thoughts. i do think while there's a lot of data out there, it's probably not as robust as what you do get from an actual registry. the only other point i wanted to make, and i know i've been emphasizing this point about entitled versus built units a lot, i do need to make sure you understand that the majority of those are in the big projects that are covered by development agreements. so we don't have the ability on those projects to go back and say you are -- you have to built within three years or lose youren teet willment. and i think it's part of the reason for the delay is those problems are much more complicated to get financing particularly for the early phases. so i don't want to -- i don't want to mine miez that point that there are -- those larger projects are much more complicated. having said that, in the last

year in particular, there are individual building projects that are slowed down in particular in the last year because i think of construction costs and because it's my understanding that rents have actually not gone up a latrice in the last two years. as much as we all like to complain about how bad they are, they actually have not been rising that much in the last two years, so a combination of flattening rents and rising construction costs is making some projects frankly not pencil what i'm hearing. we need to look at that in more detail but that's the information i'm hearing an he can do can -- anecdotally right now. >> president hillis: go ahead. >> commissioner richards: i've read an article and talked to a couple of developers where the price sensitivity of the amount that you're charging for rent, it hits a ceiling.

i can't do 70% of my income. you can't just keep bundling all that into what you're going to charge. the market's going to say enough, and i think part of when we analysis that should take that into consideration, what's the upper end people will say before they move or crowd, so good. >> president hillis: thank you very much. it sounds like if we can have a hearing at some point, and that discrepancy getting at why we've gotten titled units and why they're not being built. i don't know if taking away the tiemts -- entitlements, but if we're in a period of building, how can we encourage those could be built. in adu's, it's disappointing to see the number actually built. it sounds like we're going to have a hearing on that, and it'll be good to understand why.

we've all spent a lot of time getting that legislation through, and i understand there may be code type issues that are getting in the way of things being built, which we need to have, but to understand that. and then, yeah, i mean i think the most shocking thing i felt was this map, too, of the region and why things aren't being built -- the much maligned 827 -- we may not want san mateo and contra costa county to have local control. if that daughter of 827 comes forward, can kind of encourage development in these areas and perhaps not where people are -- where counties are doing good work like in santa clara and san francisco, not there, i think it would be helpful. clearly, there's folks who have local control who are using it to not build housing, and i think that's unfortunate, especially in transit rich areas like san mateo and contra costa where we're building a lot of office.

commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: if we could add the secretary and office to the action items? you'll be giving us an update on. other thing is i read a statistic this week on price jumps on median houses. santa clara county actually jumped 26% year over year even though they're perusing all this housin -- producing all this housing, even though they're largest in the bay area, 26%. i thought it was shocking. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners. we can move onto item 12. [agenda item read] clerk this is for yo is -- >> clerk: this is for your endorsement. >> gamp, president hillis,

commissioners, drof rahm. my name is tam tran. i work with the citywide division in the planning department. i'm also part of planning staff for the connectsf program. this is the city's long range transportation planning program and a multiagency partnership between the san francisco municipal transportation agency, and the county transportation authority and the office of economic and workforce development. these are the agencies that are involved in the city's transportation and land use planning. conne connectsf purpose is to connect these agencies to identify long-term projects to build an effective, equitiable and sustainable transportation system for san francisco. i'm joined today by my colleagues from our partner agenci agencies, sf mta. we are here to seek your

approval for a resolution to endorse the connectsf vision. this 50 year vision will be used as a framework to guide or plans, policies, and projects that our agencies would develop for the city's transportation. staff went to commission in september of last year to talk to you about the scenario planning process and the public outreach activities that would lead to the secretaconnectsf v. this included focus groups in all districts, pop up events, on-line surveys, face-to-face meetings with cbo, as well as workshops. briefly, the vision is one where san francisco is a

growing equitiable city. there is a multitude of transportation options that are available and affordable for all. there is faster project delivery as a result of strong civic and government engagement, and in light of last -- of the last agenda item, i want to include housing in that, more housing built more quickly. at that time in march, we had publicly released the draft version and continued with our outreach to get feedback on this vision. the final version of this vision before you incorporates the feedback we received. the final document also summarizes the multiple ways that we conducted outreach, a description of the scenario planning process, as well as our responses to public feedback on the draft vision. this vision document is available on our website as well as a fact sheet which i brought copies of today.

we have already gone the next steps of the connectsf program. this includes a needs assessment to identify the potential projects on our transit systems, streets, and freeways that are needed to achieve this vision. that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, i or my connectsf teammates are happy to answer them. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, miss tran. any public comment on this item? >> chairman hillis, director ram, and commissioners. my name is ted olson. as a third generation san franciscan, i'm honored to serve on the connectsf and transit center task forces and numerous other citizen advisory committees, so i am familiar with our transit and housing issues, but i speak to you today only as a san franciscan citizen. i urge your support of the

connectsf vision report. we approved a similar resolution this week at our market actavia cac. i commend our outreach of stakeholders and the public to understand the multifaceted issues surrounding this effort. however, since this is a 50-year plan with commitment to review and update every five years, i urge that as a matter of civic education during the plan's life, we engage our communities either through sessions at our local libraries or schools to educate our citizens in these multiple issues in the process of scenario planning which could help all planning agencies such as yours in our city. i'm very grateful that our connectsf plan is regionally oriented, and an exemplar of such thinking, but particularly that it compliments and

implements the strategies of vision zero, now that at least the three largest urban communities in the bay area have made a commitment to this decade long effort which has shown promising results, rusing our traffic incidents by 41% recently, and that all agencies are united on this. i urge you as i urge connectsf to support ensuring our transit keeps pace with our residential density by developing along or major transit corridors exemplary transit paramedic with high-rise housing density with appropriate on-site bmr ratios. finally, since we are a peninsula, surrounded on three sides by water during a period of accelerated sea level rise at rates never experienced before in which marine transport will once again become as important as it had been before our two bridges,

all agencies need to work with the waterfront authority as well as with those in charge of our ocean shoreline to consider how your future developments might form a foundation to protect our city from such ravages and shrinkage. thank you for your attention. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. olson. any additional public comments on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up for commissioner questions and comments or director ram, you've got a comment? >> yeah. just wanted to first thank the staff, tam and team have done a great job. i also want to thank our partners, the t.a., the m.t.a. who have been at the table with us every step of the way. as you may recall, this is the first time that we've done something like this in the department where we have established with a partner agencies an overall transportation vision at a very high level, and i think i'm really excited about this fact that we have been able to do

this and get such great public support and input on it. and i wanted to just call your attention to the resolved clause in your resolution because these are kind of the more tangible products that already coming forward that will directly reflect what we did in this vision. so if you look at the bottom of the second page of the report where it refers to the transit corridor study, the streets and freeway study, the county wide plan, and the update of the city's transportation element. so all of these factors, all these programs will then tier off, if you will, this connectsf vision, which is the reason we did it. we wanted to make sure they were all leading towards the same end goal here. and i'm really excited about this. i think this is great and that we're all on the same page towards the end goal of our transportation system. so i just wanted to just kind of remind you this is meant to be the umbrella of all the work that's to come over the next

few years. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so the transit corridor study the same like we keep talking about the geary plan, where if you have the geary ert, can you raise limits? is it a comprehensive look at what transportation's going to do and how it's going to impact -- >> i think it's more about the muni's actual transit system and the lines and which ones should be upgraded and built new, but we can get into more detail. >> thank you for your question, commissioner richards. the transit corridor study will look at transit investments for certain corridors within the city. the akpg land use would be-- accompanying land use would be within the realm of authority and jurisdiction and would likely not be a part of the transit corridor study. >> commissioner richards: and i was in sacramento, i was really stunned to hear the committee chair, senator jim

beale from san jose say transportation in the future's going to be individualized. he said buses are a thing of the past, and i was like, i never thought of that. car's going to show up to your front door, so why base zoning on buses, that's what he was talking about. it's even beyond my imagination on some things, what it could be like. >> can i make a point? for your scenario planning process, it's really given us a broad look at the vision. you know our conversations today about the electric scooters, six months ago, i don't think any of us could have envisioned how that could affect our conversations today? who knew in six months, six weeks, six years, transportation will differ from today, but what shouldn't change it our program goals, our city's values, and our vision so i think as long as we abide by those values and look at new technologies, new trends

in that way, we could move towards a future that we want for our city. >> commissioner richards: good. that's great. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i participated in a conversation yesterday where somebody mentioned if i had thought about drones being used for individual pick up, for me, the emphasis is really more about what miss tran said, the equitiable transportation. the few will be driving themselves wherever they want to go, and the increasing will use the high tech transportation that will connect san francisco. we're putting many of our housing into out lying areas, parkmerced, treasure island, we need to make sure those out lying districts are equitiablely served and tide into the same kind of dense network that we enjoy when we live closer, and that is so far

away, and i think that should be one of our highest priorities in order to make that part of densefication and that we are massive built out of city expansion will be from the get go -- [ inaudible ] >> -- have avoided that for decades. there, as well as in asia, no larger new out lying development starts without transportation infrastructure being first, and with us, it is mostly only retrofitting and marginally expanding, etcetera, and we really need to rethink of how we really can grow and comparatively regrow to become the large city that we wanted to be. we started as a small city, while we have the reputation by name of world city, we are comparisonly small, and we need to start thinking bigger. we are smaller in land area

sha, but we are putting areas in bigger. i think we need to think globally and act locally and transportation is one of those first mandates in how we can think more as a world city. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i just want to echo, i have loved just watching the evolution of connectsf and the engagement of all stakeholders in our communities from the different departments to the communities themselves. and i think it -- that's right. we have no idea what the future of transportation is going to look like. this week, there were two articles. one -- that were really interesting to me. one was just about the falling cost of electric buses, and that funt amountly changially the landscape, and then sweden

making the world's first electric roads, and then also to change the infrastructure around buses and other forms of transportation. so i think it's incredibly important that you share that you have this northstar, and i'm so glad this northstar is -- and i feel that there's a clear mandate around equity and accessibility. thank you. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you. this is great, you're great. i would like to make a motion that we pass this resolution endorsing the connect vision. >> second. >> commissioner richards: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion, then, to endorse -- adopt the resolution endorsing the plan -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously

7-0. commissioners, that'll place us on items 13 a and b. [agenda item read]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. climay of planning department staff, you have before you a planning department request for authorization -- the property is zoned rh-2 and within the 40-x height and bulk district. planning code section 317 states that conditional use authorization is required to allow for the demolition of a dwelling unit within an rh-2 zoning district. the project proposes to reconstruct the two units within the original building envelope which had been vacant and left in a state of disrepair for more than ten

years. there is no known evidence of any evictions on the subject property. both dwelling units, one on each floor, measure approximately 660 square feet and contain one bedroom and one bathroom. bicycle parking for each of the units is proposed within the common garage in the residential building at the front of the property fronting california street. the partially reconstructed building has no rear yard and the proposed -- two proposed decks do not meet the minimum horizontal dimensions to qualify as private usable open space. neither of the reconstructed dwellings front onto a public street or a code compliant rear yard, therefore the project requires a variance to the rear yard, usable open space and dwelling unit exposure by the planning department which will be considered by the zoning administrator concurrent with this hearing. the planning department recommends that the commission approve the project on the basis that the project adheres to the policies of the general plan, is in compliance with all

applicable requirement of the planning code and meets the general intent of the general planning guidelines. this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm rodrigo santiago, and here on behalf of the architect who's not able to be here. let me just thampg the planning staff for the comprehensive review. it has taken a about the of time, but we are extremely pleased with the final results. we are reconstructing a two unit building on the rear of a 25 by 128 foot lot. here, it's a three unit building, over garage on the front. we're going to be providing bicycle parking within the front unit. we're removing a noncomplying stair that used to act as t-- s

the second floor unit of the rear cottage. we're increasing the open space between the front building and the rear building. of course, we're providing a whole new foundation, new structural upgrade. the footprint of the building would be identical to the previously demolished building, and again, the building was vacant for over ten years, and there's no record of any evictions on that building. again, i'm just a structural engineer. the architect is not here, but i'm here for any comments or concerns. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: mr. santos, i just have a question. >> president hillis: oh, sorry, sorry. i apologize. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: you have to speak into the mic there, and yeah, if you just put

whatever you want to show on there, it'll come up. just put it face up. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> i think someone living there 18 years would have been able to see it. you know, i just don't think it's right. the whole neighborhood had issues in the 1970s, it was torn down by the then owners because they felt there was not enough access. you're considering putting two buildings in a large square footage in a required rear yard, and the only way to get out is underneath the basement or

underneath the floor of a very large structure in front where they also have a very large roof deck, and occasionally, they have -- i don't know what it is, but some kind of thing with flames shooting up. it's probably disconcerting to look out your window at 2:00 in the morning when the parties are going on, and you've got flames. so i encourage you, please, let's get this building back to the size it was. >> thank you. >> i have a whole bunch of photographs. >> thank you very much. if you want to submit those photos, it may be helpful. >> i don't have them labeled. >> that's still all right. i don't think we have time for labeling -- >> you can certainly submit them. >> any additional public comment on the item. >> >> i had a question for mr. santos, representing the

architecture or knowing of him. i have a question regarding the reference to the existing building, the existing building had an application for something in 2015, and the plan of the existing building on sheet a0.1 shows a roof deck on top of the building that was an act of permanent at that time. when you look at google, and the google over that particular area is younger than 2015, there's no roof deck on there. the application that it's in front of us still leave it open that there would also be a roof deck installed at the same time. >> a roof deck on the back? >> no. i find it unusual that a drawing is being shown that's really not quite applicable to what's in front of us. it's a reference drawing, but the roof is showing what it's not there. that's an open-ended structure, i'm sure.

>> thank you, mr. santos for confirming that. there's a lack of transparency. obviously it seems there was a demo. we do want units. i'm not quite sure what it is like for adjoining owners since many of us live right behind it. all of a sudden, two additional units are popping up in the rear yard in this former carriage house or whatever. i'm just waiting as a question. the units seem to work, but it begs other questions. >> commissioner richards? >> so, ms. courtney, if you could just walk us through the photos you have, just put them on the overhead and point and tell us so that we understand what your concern is, please.

if you could, speak into the microphone. >> okay. this is all new. this photograph has the original roof, which is full of holes. it's kind of difficult to see that there are no pipes, no anything, except a lot of holes in the roof. 18 years ago, a lot of the building was covered in ivy. >> do you have stuff from the original sale, the sale papers, you said, it was marked as an x-unit property. do you have any of the mls info? >> no. i remember at the time, i knew the building was for sale. i was curious. i looked at the listing. >> what year was it? >> probably four or five years ago. >> do you have additional photos you can show us?

>> you can zoom out with the buttons on top. so this area is where this new edition i just showed you is now located. you can see there's nothing there. >> that was that plywood covered chimney looking thing? you showed it before? when you said -- that's the, quote, new addition, the original footprint of the building. >> right. >> this is google maps from 2010. they had just taken the ivy off it. >> point to that. >> you can see there's a little shed right there, and, you know, no big two-story edition.

i don't think the shed came as far as the fence. >> so is the big, gray square the building? >> yes, that's the building under discussion. it was a lot lower than it is now. they tore off the roof. they reroofed it starting at 7:30 on a thanksgiving morning. they're specklators. they don't care about the neighbors' lives. >> so is it your claim that the building there in the photo is a story shorter, 10 feet, what is the difference? what is the difference between what you say was there and what is there now? >> that is probably twice as

long, and it's now two stories high. >> was it one story before, though? >> it was kind of the height of a fence. i don't know if it was a shed. >> i was asking about the original building itself. >> the original building is just that. it's not the section i just showed you. the roof was also a lot lower and had a completely different pitch to it. >> was it two floors, the building? >> i don't think so. yesterday i was -- the planner emailed me the drawings for the project, which is the first i had seen of it. i was rather surprised to see what they had done inside. he showed two supposed units that might have existed maybe 30 years ago, but considering that the building didn't have

electricity or plumbing -- >> maybe we can -- do you have information you can share on kind of what the original building was? its height? i know we're looking at pictures, and i appreciate it, but if there's any data on what the original building was and the size of it -- >> the 3r report is dated 2013, and it classifies the rear building as a two-family dwelling. and in commissions packet, the environmental document after the plan set in the cadex, there's evacuation that goes through the history of the rebuilding. planning did a search of building permit plans for the

rear building. there were none available. so we kind of had to go a bit based on what the project sponsor has told us. we looked at aerial photography. the city has quite a good bit of air photos that go back to 2003. it does look like the building footprint has not changed. it's difficult to tell what the roof has been increased much. i did look at the two stories. it's possible that the roof may have been raised a little bit. it's hard to tell. i'm looking at the listing from 2014. it says the listing in the back was a single family dwelling. >> where is this? >> it's on the mls from 2014. the number of units on this property for sale was four. >> it may have been at that time. they have combined the units. i'm not sure. we're only going based on what the project plans of the sponsor are. >> your sense of the size, the

footprint and the volume of the building is remaining the same as what it was? >> it looks like it stayed the same. >> with some slight modification of the height? >> it's difficult to tell if the building has been raised. the building is two stories. whether or not the two units are combined to one -- >> the building, as it existed before the demo? >> we have what the project sponsor has provided us. >> commissioner richards? >> i'm going to do more searches. >> i'm the zoning administrator. a couple of points. one other piece of historical documentation we have is the sand maps that show it listed many, many years ago. regarding the listing, i think

we've even seen here that the commission, it's not uncommon for multi-dwelling units being listed as a single family home when it's actually two units. the listings are helpful for context when we're looking for information. they're obviously not definitive. >> so the report says five units. >> there should be a 3r report for each building. that could be a little confusing. you get a pr on that is this >> i think there's two units. he already said that. >> okay. the two-family dwelling in the rear. >> and that's the 3r report? >> uh-huh.

>> do you know this building was obviously built before 1979. so it was subject to rent control prior to the demo? >> presumably, yes. >> would it be now? >> that's the purview of the rent board. >> my sense is -- is the city attorney -- hello, ms. stacy. do you have any sense of that? sorry. i didn't see you there. >> commissioner, are you asking do i have any sense of what the new -- >> i mean, it's on a lot with a building that was pre1979. it was before rent control. is this considered all part of one property or different units? >> i'm sorry. i hesitate to give you a read off the cuff. i want to go back and research and talk to the attorney in our office. i don't know how to calculate that on the fly. >> i'm generally in support of the project.

i've got a building -- i mean, these exist around the building. there's one two doors down from me that has a building that's vacant. it was probably two units or three units. i would like to see it converted back into resident, use. we're confident that the volume and the footprint is the same. i would be supportive of this. i would like to see, are we able to do a cost hawkins agreement on this since we're kind of allowing for something beyond the existing zoning. it's a variance. it's not something that would typically be allowed in the rear yard except it existed before. so if it's being built back to its prior condition, it would be great to have the same prior kind of standing as an existing rent control, or those units be rent control. is that doable? if the project sponsor was

amenable? >> commissioner hillis, i would want to hear from staff as to whether or not this project would be cost to hawkins. there seem to be two questions here to resolve. one is if it was subject to rent control before, would it continue to be subject to rent control. i know that's a pretty careful calculation as to what is new construction in demolition, versus alteration. and the cost of hawkins agreement would really depend on a calculation of the benefits that the city has afforded the project. >> right. okay. >> i mean, to be clear, it was under rent control before this, probably not subject to rent control given that it's new construction. although there's the nuance of existing law and whether we can enter into a cost of hawkins. mr. santos, did you want to add to that or comment on that?

>> thank you, yes, commissioner. absolutely, we wouldn't have any issues at all, placing that issue of rent control. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> so i guess we need to give you time to figure that out. the entitlement we're giving them is to allow them to rebuilding something. if they're willing to put the units under rent control, i'm fine with it. do you need time to investigate it? >> i would recommend the commission approve it with an indication that if rent control can be continued to be imposed on the units, that the staff and the city attorney's office would look at that. >> maybe i will make a motion to continue and wait for you to come back and tell us, a week or two. >> second. >> we need at least two. our agendas are out.

>> okay. >> if there's any more data we can get on the change in height or volume of the structure, that would be helpful. >> commissioners, a continuance would put us on may 3rdrd. >> i'm gone. >> you have other items on that. the legal demo hearing on the 19th, we have to additional ones. 557 alvarado, right? 655 alvarado went to may 24th. >> let's go 17th. >> may 17th? okay. >> is that all right? >> very good. commissioners, there's a motion. it's been seconded to continue this matter to may 17th. [voting]

>> so moved. commissioners, the motion passes unanimously 7-0. the administrator, what say you? >> continue the variance hearing to may 17th. >> very good. >> commissioners, that will place us on item -- execute me. item 14 has been continued. item 15. [ agenda item read ] >> 100 church street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. veronica flores, planning department staff. the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow a change of use to a former retail gym at 100 church street at the corner

of church and debose avenue. the use that's greater than 3,000 square feet in size and before 6:00 a.m. 185 locations worldwide for the yoga business. most recently occupied by the formula retail pharmacy cvs. the proposal includes minor alterations in fulfilling the existing diagnosal interest at church street and debose avenue. between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., they welcome heated yoga.

they employee two please and 12 instructors, all who live in the immediate surrounding area and walk or take transit to work. the subject site is well-served by customers who do not object the traffic flow. there was a survey earlier this year, based on the survey, the confirmation is 300 percent of the frontage and approximately 18% of the total frontage. to date, the department has received three communications in support of the project, including the castro merchants, the neighborhood association, and the debose triangle. six community meetings, plus

additional outreach to the neighbors and other neighborhood organizations. and since the commission packet was published, the department also received two additional letters of support. and i have copies available upon request. the department finds the project is unbalanced. the project will activate a currently vacant store front and bring in traffic to the area. although it involves alterations on the resource, character-defining features are maintained, a and the alterations compliment the neighborhood. it meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. i'm available for any questions. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you very much. project sponsor, welcome. you have five minutes. >> hi.

sorry. i've never used one of these before. hi. good afternoon. my name is stephanie reubenstein. i'm with core power yoga. i know we've been in front of you before, but this is the first time i'm meeting you all, so hello. i hope you're well. as you may know, core power is based in denver. we've been teaching yoga for the last 15 years. and we deliver a workout that is both mindful and physical all in the space of one hour. with each student, they take yoga as a personal experience, but many students do find a community within core power and the connection with both our teachers and their fellow students. when we were looking for our studio in san francisco, there were several reasons we were drawn to this space and the castro dubose triangle

neighborhood. we love the neighborhood. there's so many shop and restaurants. it's so vibrant. it lends itself to fitness. a lot of our students are living in that neighborhood and have been requesting a studio there for some time. so we were very excited to find this location to be a great fit in the neighborhood. and as the planner mentioned, the space when we found it had been vacant for several years. it's located at a challenging intersection for many types of businesses. it's the entrance to the muni tunnel. we saw this as an opportunity to bring this corner to life. i knew that core power would be successful here. we plan to operate a business out of that space for at least the next 10 years. for the last year, you know, we've been working close by with

our landlord on both the exterior design of the space as well as working with the local neighborhood groups and preparing to present this to you today and the community in general. while we were doing this, we learned things about what was important to the community, what was important to our landlord. we learned about the iconic mural done by presido ayes and have been in touch with them to offer our support for maintaining the mural for generations to come. we also learned that the exterior signage was important and to keep in character with the building. so to that end, we created signage that would be unique to this particular space. we did lettering in black. we also shrunk the size of the core power signage so that this will be unique to the neighborhood. we're looking forward to joining the castro merchants association

and are looking forward to also potentially hosting some free yoga classes in dubose triangle park as a way to meet the neighbors and become more involved in the community. i'm here to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. we're going to open it up to public comment first. seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner? >> to put this project a little more in context, i think about the church and market safeway and the fact that on a couple of different edges of that property, let's just say we could clean it up a little bit more. so this site has been vacant for a number of years. the previous applicant was not successful whatsoever. [laughter] >> in moving in. there was nothing but heavy opposition due to the usage, but i think this one fits in very

well with the neighborhood. i especially like the compliment this is going to give, seeing there's a crossfit gym halfway down the block. you've got your mix of heavyweight lifting and then calm and relaxed yoga. i'm glad to see the merchants and the dta are on board and move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner? >> i was going to make a motion to approve. >> okay. >> very good, commissioners. there's a motion that's been seconded. to approve this matter with conditions on that motion, commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner johnson? >> aye. [voting] >> the motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. this will place us on the discretionary review calendar.

[ agenda item read ] >> for 071 hamshire street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. representing staff, our department, thank you. discretionary review at 7 701hampshire street. this is to convert garage space to two dwelling units, exterior modifications, a one-story vertical edition to a three-story, six-unit building. since the 311 neighborhood notification time period, the project sponsor has submitted

revisions which are also included in your packets and also was submitted via email to the commissioners as well as the members of the public as well as discretionary review filers to include a missing page. since that time, the revised plan includes that the vertical edition was proposed to add living space -- sorry. the existing 311 project included a vertical edition that was proposed to add living units on four and five and provide roof decks to these units. since the neighborhood notification that was sent out for notice, the plans have been modified so that unit four will no longer be expanded. [please stand by]

. >> issue number one related to displacement, resident of the third floor units will be displaced with the tenant

expansions. issue number two related to temporary evictions at the vertical addition will require extensive seismic work which will require all tenants to be relocated for a longer duration, and issue number three related to unaffordability, new top floor units and amenities will make units affordable and incongr incongruous with the neighborhood. the residential advisory team recommended modifications to the project in response to concerned raised to d.r. by the discretionary review filing which i outlined to setting back the roof deck railing and related to the proposed planters on hampshire street. with incorporation of the requested changes, the department found that the project met the standards of the residential design guidelines and that the project does not meet historic

circumstances on that topic. to date, the department has been contacted by five residents and neighborhood residents and 17 residents of san francisco in opposition to the project and in support of the d.r.'s, with concerns focused on potential displacement of residents and reduction in the affordability of the units, neighborhood capabilit compatibility, and the loss of parking and shadow on neighboring properties. the project sponsor provided letters of support from five tenants and neighbors note the project will physically and aesthetically improve the condition of the building. the department recommends the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed. the project is consistent with the guidelines and will add housing to the city stock. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer questions, and we have members of the

public to outline in more detail. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. all right so we have two d.r. requesters. are you presenting together or have you got separate presentations? all right. you can go first here. we have five minutes for each of you, then we'll take public testimony. >> jennifer fever with the tenants' union. so in 2014 the owners purchased this building for 1,425,000. most of the households are gone and very fresh tenants have moved in who are on the support side letters. three months later, the own--

[ inaudible ] >> -- the eviction notice was eventually rescinded after tenant advocates got involved and the tenant remained. the reason i filed this d.r. is that once again, the planning department is disregarding the rent ordinance and how permits affect existing tenants. planning's adu guidelines state adu's can be used in only unused spaces. we have established procedures if an owner wants to sever spaces, which the project sponsors are ignoring. overhead, please. i'm giving you copies of this. this is the annual buyout report from the rent board. you'll see that one of the columns includes garages and common space and a room for a figure for buyouts for those. landlords can try to regain

common tenant spaces designs but it is up to the tenant's discretion whether to agree or not. this discussion never took place and there's no agreement with the tenants. and to show you that i am not making this up, here's a letter from the rent board to a different landlord that states that they are violating section 37.9(a) by trying to take away a garage from a tenant that has always been part of this lease. we know that the owner has access to attorneys who understand tenant law because they recently issued a three day notice to linda and yuka who are here. so i don't know why they're not following rent board procedures. and yuka's three day notice is really suspicious. they were in japan at the time, so it's a pretty common trick for landlords to serve these notices so that the tenant can't respond, and then they get a default judgment against

them. we know that the owner has -- i'm not here to debate whether i like adu's or garages better, but if a construction permit is issued the commission is forcing tenants to hire attorneys. they can't create an injunction to stop something from happening like the courts can. organizations like ours have fought long and hard to give tenants security in their rights. some of these issues may seem trivial to others, like garages, but if we let this right go, what's next? chopping up people's apartments to give second bedrooms to adu's? who good are the adu guidelines if they are ignored? why is the planning department giving permission to the designs that won't hold up in a court if a tenant hires a lawyer to argue that there is no just cause to take them away? the current process is a waste of everyone's time, including the owner and the architect. i thought that there was a plan to hire someone to learn the rent ordinance and that there

would be more sensitivity to existing tenants in their leases, so i'm just wondering what the timeline is for these changes to be made. i ask the commission to take discretionary review and deny the entire project, and i'd like to cede the rest of my time to the second d.r. person. >> president hillis: i don't think we can do that, so if you have additional things to say. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: okay. all right. okay. so second d.r. requester. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: sure. if you just leave them right there, we'll get them. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: great. thank you very much. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: all right. go ahead. go ahead. we'll set the timer. you've got five minutes. >> okay. thank you. my name is nina