compared to how people -- what people say. thank you. >> thank you. mr o'reilly? >> good afternoon commissioners. i am amazed that after the extensive discussions of the topic of job, housing and balance in the centrosome upland, many hours were spent. nobody has raised this question for this project. and of course, the whole bayshore group of projects, a huge amount of development, both residential and commercial. this is the most important question for them all. the bay project is dramatically short because of this tremendous and ballast storage and balance. this tremendous composure and -- component. the giants project, mission rock is significantly shorter

providing enough housing for all it's employment on sight. the pier 70 project, if they max out the residential, can at least approach an actual job housing balance. this particular project is perfect to do that. they -- there is sufficient room to have all of the housing that all of the employees, in numbers, clearly not one that individuals will live in one complex, but in terms of the numbers of balance, that the component, the nonresidential component, the employment workforce, they can do it. the question is, does it? and nothing was presented here today to answer that question. so whether or not, we are not just urgent, demanding the department do the proper memo to analyse this particular project. how many, what is the workforce, what is the household generation? what is the housing demand total

creed not just the san francisco share, but the entire share, and then the pivotal issue of the fit. we know that a lot of the employees in all these projects could not afford market rate housing. this is well known. yet the rest of the analysis is to what extent will affordable housing be sufficient for all those who work there households in the future project that cannot afford market housing create that need some version of affordable low income or middle income. the department has to put these facts on the table in writing well in advance of the approval hearing that is scheduled for july 26. the board of supervisors members, believe me, will have the exact same question. provide us the data. hopefully cap this project would be in balance. it has a chance. if it isn't, then you should change it so that it does. >> thank you. miss clark?

>> hello. four years in and we are just at an informational hearing. that is quite a timeline. we need to be doing this faster. we need to still be doing it safely and up to code but we have to make decisions faster than this. we have seen a lot of mega projects like this winds their way through the entitlement process and then make deals that they couldn't keep. as construction costs went up and we see a lot of projects that are now just sitting there entitled and not doing anything because it no longer pencils. because we put them through the ringer, through the entitlement process, and we extracted as much as we could from them, and then the numbers didn't add up at the end of the day and the developer is just sitting on those primitive units doing nothing. and so we have a lot of work to do to make sure that when this project finally pops out the other end, we have actually created something that will actually get built. we do not want to entitle

something that is going to sit vacant for another five, ten, 15 years. i hope that while we are looking at the community benefits package, which i know is an important part of san francisco, of every development, we think about the map and that we are asking for things that are actually feasible at the end of the day. thank you. >> thank you. anymore public comment on this item? with that, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> what is in front of us today is the initiation of the general plan amendments and i do appreciate being reminded about this project being mature and thorough. we included before, it is a remarkable project and i am pleased to hear the neighborhood, who i know has been working on this for many, many years, to create their own vision, having found the partnership with the architects and developers. i am in full support and support

to this. that is a motion. >> second. >> okay. >> there is a motion that has been seconded and while that motion include initiating and scheduling a public hearing on or after july 26? >> very good. on that motion greek commissioners? that motion passes -- passes unanimously. that will place us on item 12. case number 2018. on clayton street. this is a condominium conversion subdivision. please note, commissioners, on may 24th 2018, after being pulled off of consents, a motion to approve failed 3-2. commissioner richards, you were absent. it was continued to june 27th 2018.

in order to participate today, you have to acknowledge you reviewed the original hearing. >> further, a member of the public allege that one or more of the tenants convicted at that time helped protect the status. after researching the issue cap the department staff was unable

to find any evidence that any of the tenants evicted were of that status. further, the department of public works condominium conversion application only requested information on eviction of tenants protected or otherwise since may 1st 25 -- 2015. there is no evidence that of any evictions had occurred since for smack -- 2,005. thank you and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. we will hear public comment on this item. ok. there is no public comment.

public comment is now closed. any comment from fellow commissioners? so, it's great to see the staff looking a bit into the history of this property, understanding a little bit more about some of the claims that were made around eviction. i think in general, this brings up a larger issue that we've heard from members of the public, again and again, which is regardless of maybe the statute of limitations, just understanding both history of properties, and after's. or when they flout our rules and regulations. that we just have a bit more context. and so, just in general, i thank

the staff are looking into this issue. there is a larger issue of what we do if folks have gone against our regulation further in the past. >> if the question we asked has been answered, there is nothing in our way to make a motion to approve. i appreciate commissioner johnson's comment. evictions are very scary and hard to trace. we are reminded by the public, and we are forced to really come clean on it. in this particular case, it has been resolved. i moved to approve. >> i will second that. i will also thank commissioner johnson for her comments. i was one of the commissioners who voted against this item last time. and i want to make it clear that

my expectation is that, you know, these kinds of cases are well researched and that we have all the fact patterns. it is the most pressing issue in our city right now. and i think before making any decisions and encouraging any bad actors, we have all of the information and it needs to be thoroughly researched. i will second that motion. >> a very good then commissioners. if there is nothing further, there is your motion. it has been accepted. commissioners? that sets. very good. that motion passes unanimously. commissioners cap that will place us on item 13. at 331 pennsylvania street. this is a conditional abuse authorization.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i'm here on behalf of of my client. it is for the proposal 331 pennsylvania street to allow dwelling unit intensity of one dwelling units per 1500 square feet within the rh to zoning district. the proposed project entails a change of use from institutional to residential with seven dwelling units in the existing building envelope. the project will undertake an interior remodel, addition of roof decks, reduce the height of a penthouse, add roof decks that will serve as carports and change the exterior and restore historic elements of the building including work such as repairing the cladding and other ornamental features. since publication of the pocket, we have researched this receipt one public inquiry which expressed concern in regards to the height. please note this proposal does not include an overall increase in height. copies of this correspondence are included in your packet.

after analysing all aspects of the project, the department staff recommends approval with condition. specifically the project complies with the requirements of the planning code on the project is consistent with the objectives and policy of the general plan and showplace square. it is an appropriate change of use that will add seven new dwelling units while restoring historical resources. we were meant following conditional approval which which basically stayed a project sponsor shall submit a rehabilitation and maintenance plan as part of the building permit application which outlines a program for the proposed work and regular maintenance and repair for the historic building. this maintenance plan would improve the viability of reserving the building. the sponsor's president has prepared a short presentation and i am available for any questions and this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

we are the architects for the project at 331 pennsylvania avenue. let me walk you through the project. this is, there it is. perfect. this is the front elevation on the existing building three façade. the building was originally built in 1916 for the union ironworkers hospital, designed by frederick h. meyer and it was built for the bethlehem steel company. in the 1940s the building was sold and converted to a convalescent home operated by kaiser permanente foundation. in the 1960s, he sold the property to a doctor to change the name to the mission bay convalescent hospital. the facility, at that time had 56 beds and was funded mostly by medicare. in 2012 the state decreased the

funding for the facility and required more nurses and square footage per bed, and consequently, with the reduction of the medicare funding, and designing more overhead and less beds, they ended up closing the facility. in august of 2014, the vacant facility was purchased by a group of people. this is an aerial view of the property. it is located in the pennsylvania avenue, one lot off of 18th street. the lot is 100 by 100 feet and backs up to the freeway which you can see the top of the screen. the structure is a two-story concrete building and consists of over 11,000 square feet. it does have a basement as well. the structure is identified as a historic resource at a showplace square in the northwest mission historical resource

neighborhood. this photograph, looking up towards the side of the building towards the north. this is the rear yard and the three beautiful palm trees that we are preserving. what we are proposing to do is convert the residence does the residential care facility to a seven residential units which is the maximum allowed by code. we propose to preserve and restore the façade of the resource and remodel the interiors, under planning code section three '07 h. we will prepare a building maintenance plan for the future owners to preserve the building. the metal fire stairs, the med -- window planters will be removed and the windows will be replaced. all new windows will be installed on the wrought iron rails will be refurbished and the stucco ornament will be repaired. the original ambulance entrance

will be open to allow parking in the rear. the existing three palm trees, as i mentioned, will be preserved. the only real addition that we are doing is one story over the garage shelter, at the rear of the property. it will be decks for the townhouse units, the two story townhouse units right next to them. this is the basement for plan. on the basement level, they are taught what one-bedroom units of approximately 900 square feet. the basement also includes bicycle storage for ten bikes, a garbage room and mechanical space. the upper floors are five townhouse units. each unit is family size with

approximately 1400 square feet with three bedrooms and two and half baths. if you look closely, you will notice the columns are all, the concrete columns are intense but centres. this is meant for rooms, you know, for a hospital or for a convalescent home where you divide the room into ten by ten rooms. consequently, it is difficult to get an open living environment and bedrooms. you will notice there are columns in the bedrooms. it is very tough and very difficult. open space will be divided into the rear yard, private patios and roof decks and yes, there is no stair penthouses proposed access to the roof deck. i learned my lesson. -- lesson. the elevator paths will be housed to enhance some of the neighbor's if he was. we are not increasing the height of all -- up all. we are decreasing some of the mass. we presented the project to our district supervisor and discuss the plans of some of our neighbors and no one had any concerns as they were grateful

we were preserving the building. thank you for your time and we are here to answer any questions you have. >> thank you very much. do we have any public comment on this item? ok. public comment is closed. >> i think this is a good project. it is a great reuse of the building. i recommend approval. >> second. >> i think it's a great project. the only point i have to make as i regret that we are losing convalescent home beds. there is a very serious issue, and not to interfere with the discussion of this, this is a great project. we are losing 56 beds at exchanging it for seven dwelling units. i'm only trying to point out that we need to try to find opportunities in other buildin buildings, that for whatever reason and go through changes

that we can recapture and maintain and increase the ability for convalescent beds. >> thank you. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter. on this motion, commissioners? that motion passes unanimously. commissioners, i will place up item 14. at 160 sle avenue, a conditional use authorization. on march 29th 2018 cap after hearing and closing public comment, he continued the matter to april 12th 2018. on april 12th and may 10th, 2018, without hearing, we continued the matter further to today. commissioners, in order for you to participate today, you will need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous hearing materials. >> i did. >> thank you.

>> she is here. ok. very good. staff is just entering the chambers. give me a second. >> hello? good afternoon commissioners. i'm from the planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization to

demolish an existing single-family residence and an unauthorized dwelling unit. the item originally appeared before you on march 29th, during which time you requested staff to determine if a rent-controlled unit could be retained. as a reminder, the proposal includes the demo of the existing structures located within the required rear yard composed of one legal and one unauthorized dwelling units. the new construction three-story two unit building is proposed at the front of the property. since the original hearing, the applicant has determined that the cost of the rental housing act does not apply to the unauthorized units because dwellings are units that contain serious health, safety, fire, or building code violations are not subject. as a result, if the new ground

floor unit is ever rented out, that unit will be subject to the residential rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance. since the last hearing, no new public comments were received. as a reminder, leading up to the initial hearing, there were a total of 33 neighbors in support of the project, and about five neighbors in opposition of the project. some of which concerned relating towards affordability and city, @-at-sign façade design. i do have a copy of the concerns available for the commission upon request. after further review since march, the department recommends a proposed project for the following reason. the department supports the overall mapping and design of the proposed new construction building. the proposed -- proposal results in a net gain of one additional

unit which, if ever rented out will be subject to rent control. the proposal includes two family sized units on the property and a net increase of three bedrooms on the property. and lastly, there will be no displacement of tenants. this concludes the presentation and i am available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> to be have any public comment on this item? >> also i have the pot -- project sponsor available. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. there were not any cards left. i am here on behalf of other project sponsors. we went through the details of this project on march 29th. i will not repeat them here. i am here to answer any questions and also reemphasize -- reemphasize what she just said about how we come to an agreement with the city attorney's office regarding the ability to rent out the illegal

units that will be replaced. thank you very much. >> thank you very much work ok. now we will have public comments. >> my name is michael. i am here to speak in opposition to the project. the subject property contains two units built before 1995 that are protected by san francisco's rent control ordinance. the staff report proposed in the march meeting recommended denial of the project as it would result in a loss of both of these units. the commission was also concerned about the loss and requested that the attorney make a determination as to whether an exemption to the act could be used to legally and permanently placed the two new units under rent control. the public hearing on this item was continued twice, assuming that it was pending the city attorney's determination.

the current staff report makes no mention of said determination or if, in fact, one was made, if it was made, i've been able to obtain a copy of that document. give no determination was made for the request of the commission, then why not? also, the commission votes to approve the staff motion. it must be noted that there are no conditions requiring that a legally binding data in agreement be recorded to ensure that the units remain permanently subject to rent control. instead, language is provided stating the units, if they are ever rented at all, will be subject to rent control. it appears that that is discretionary on the owners. as it doesn't appear to be any issue with the habitability or rent control connected with the cottage, it could continue to be preserved as a rent-controlled unit and the owners could be ready to develop a single-family home at the front of the

property. finally, i would request the plans are approved and that an amendment be added requiring the rear roof be lowered and the walkway on the east side of the building be extended to include the southernmost window. if you need copies of my comments, i have them here. i have sent them to you earlier. thank you for your time and consideration. [please standby for captioner

>> what is unusual about it is not the building that is in front of us, it is more the condition that the owner can or cannot decide to rent the unit. so de facto, we are not adding a unit, we are adding the possibility of the unit and that is leaving us to speak to the city attorney, the situation that we have upon ourselves. i am asking the city attorney, we have, you see all of us speechless pick we know what you do. that was clearly stated that the

renting of the unit, given the condition that was put on the rental, as an option that the owner can pursue or not pursue. we are not adding a unit we are adding a big volume to the house. >> we are adding a unit that is up to code. the current unit, you know, is not safe. it has a list of deficiencies, it doesn't have a violation, but it does have a list of deficiencies including, you know, health and safety deficiencies. >> i guess my struggle with it is there was a bed in the kitchen and i don't know if it was rented out the month before, but the owner, somebody who had the house enjoyed the benefit of having the unit and now they are claiming the unit was so substandard.

that was my opinion. i would say, ok, i get it, you didn't use it. you're trying to have it both ways. i feel bad about this one, but i am really not supportive of the gymnastics we are going through here. it was pretty straightforward. >> since the project sponsors have owned it there has never been a long-term tenant in there. there is not a long-term tenant and they are right now. my understanding is there may have tenancies before they owned the unit. so to answer your question, they are apparently have been tenancies in the past but i'm not just aware of them at this time. but we worked with dbi originally when we were looking at this project and they told us to bring it up to code and we would completely demolish it. that was the only way to fix the

deficiencies in order to make this a habitable unit for a future renter and i believe we detailed that in our prior application about all the things that would have to be replaced in order for that to work. essentially, we have one legal unit and one illegal unit and what we will do the project is created to watch what you legal units. >> so you had run with -- one request, if we had a successor project. what was it again and query you are the next-door neighbour? what was your request if we approved this project? >> that the rear roof would be lowered to a flat roof and allow more light into the back of the property, along my property line and secondly, that the walkway be extended to the southernmost portion of my kitchen window. in other words, the breezeway to the back to allow more light to go in. >> the breezeway is on the west side of my building, access.

>> have you talk to the project sponsor about this? >> yes. i did earlier. not the sponsor by the architect. and then that was rejected. >> okay. i will go ahead and make a motion to approve this and i was out of the house and i don't know how a family can live in such cramped quarters. i was in the a.d.u. and i can't imagine staying there for more than five minutes because they are more serious issues with that. i get the gymnastics we had to go through with the city attorney and the costa hawkins but i think if we can provide some relief to the neighbor on some of the things that he wants and go ahead to make a motion to approve. >> it was a successful short-term run shall just rental under the current property ownership. >> so project sponsor, are you ok with that want to request a it makes? >> i just wanted to clarify at

one point that the architect has been working with the neighbor since the beginning. we've made accommodations for his windows that he just expressed in the project plans. >> are you satisfied with the changes? can you speak into the microphone? >> yes, i'm willing to accept those changes if i can see them. but there was no outreach from the project sponsor, or the architect to respond to my request. >> so i think if we can read the changes into the record, would you be satisfied that there is only five of us here? >> yes. >> yes project sponsor can you tell us what those changes are? >> i apologize pick i don't have plans in front of me. yes. there were some, thank you.

light wells that we added to accommodate the windows to the kitchen and it is my understanding that the project architect made the specifically for his property to allow more light and we are happy to reprovide these to him. >> the walkway on the flat roof. would you push that up? >> yes. >> the walkway and the flat roof. >> i am from the department staff. the proposal, which had not changed since the march hearing, includes a light well here, and then all up this rear portion of

the proposal has been set back from the property line in order to accommodate his concerns. >> how many feet? >> let's be clear on what i want, or i would like the commission to consider. as that the light well from the southern window to the rear of the property be continuous. the walkway. i would prefer not to stare at a wall. i would like to say go see a continuous well walkway all the way back and that the roof be flattened down. the architect worked with me on the windows before, because he had incorrectly measured the windows and to the spacing on my property. so i had not had any further conversation with the architect or the project sponsor regarding these changes. that's why i would like to see a physical drawing of what they

are proposing before i sign off. >> yes. >> i think, sarah, my reading of the drawings as they are setting back along your windows. i'm not sure i understand. >> what i am saying is there is a light well along the three rear windows and then there's building. there's a walkway. there's the breezeway that goes to the rear of the property and allows access to the lower unit. then there is wall. and there is a light well, as opposed to an open space. am i making myself clear? by the southernmost kitchen window. >> we need to get the plans up front. can you put the plans up? i'm not sure were on the same, i think my sense is they are doing what you asked them to do. it is a continuous walkway back to the new kitchen, right?

ok. if you look where my finger is, that is my kitchen window. there is no connection between that breezeway, and the breezeway going back to the rear three windows. there's a a disconnect. i want that breezeway to be all the way through. because it allows for more light. it allows for more light, not only for me, but for the tenants on the lower unit. >> it is beyond what the commission normally does with light wells but i see your point now. [please standby for captioner switch]