i'm a little shocked because we did talk about 3 feet for the longest time, and we did talk about -- there's so many nuances that i've approached. and now for someone asking for more than what we've talked about for the last six months is really hard to understand. i don't think we'll ever get to a point where everyone's happy, but i think what i've offered is something that i think is fair to everyone. this is -- this is a zone -- this site is zoned for seven units. there's this height limit. san francisco has the topography it has. i was born and raised here. i lived up on beacon street. i know what san francisco's all about. we build here, we try to do it with scale, we try to do it with material. you know, we try to work with the site lines as best as we can. and like i said, i even offered, and this is noted

somewhere that we would work with the neighbors to enhance the greenery in our back yard so that we can obscure as much as that base of the building as possible. i mean, this is a sloped site. there's nothing that -- i can't change the topography of the land. i think this is a really good solution. i think it's fair, and i hope that you could see that we worked very hard for the last two-plus years on trying to get this to this point, so i appreciate your time. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. okay. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so interestingly enough, i think the slope of the hill is extraordinary and exceptional here in the city. i know when i worked on market and okaytictavio, this is what happened. i completely respect your work.

i know you're doing what the project sponsors are asking you to do. the one thing that's interesting to me just as i talked with the project sponsor's team this week and we were looking at the project set back -- the set back from the property line and the set back from the rear, that i hadn't really looked at and just got clued in, we've got each -- you have 2,056 spaces -- 1,056 square feet on b-2, and 47 on b-1. 893 square feet perunit that's parking and storage. and the height of the building in the back is causing the issue, so that's really where i want to focus is -- you know, i don't think the units are exceptionally large. they're actually coming in at the average of a flat in isk san francisisk

-- in san francisco, so i'm okay with it. i really want to focus on the need for that additional 900 square feet perunit between storage and parking. if you look at b-1, and the parking spaces and all the different other space in the -- in that -- on that floor, i think they're -- there's enough room for a storage including on b-1, which hopefully will just be b, if other commissioners agree, for commission ornaments and things like that, you have closets for things you use every day. the storage downs, i honestly -- down stairs, i honestly believe for things you use once a year, you're going to be able to create on b-1. you don't need to offer an additional 900 commissioned space perunit, which i think is excessive. the question i have for mr. winslow is open space requirement, this is code compliant buildings, so is

there any open space requirement, you know, rm 1? >> i'm going to defer to chris towns, the current code inspector on this project. >> the answer is yes, there is an open space requirement perunit in this district. 100 square feet if it's private, 133 square feet perunit if it's common. >> commissioner richards: okay. the back yard itself doesn't qualify. >> it also qualifies. >> commissioner richards: but, if there was no roof deck, would the back yard in and of itself qualify for the roof space requirement? zbh i'd have to check that. >> commissioner richards: is there a pattern of roof decks in the neighborhood? >> not that i'm aware of. >> commissioner richards: i'd probably focus on the roof deck because it is towering over everybody. i don't think the backward's

that usable at a dougherdownwa but i think we have to look at the trade offs between the b-2, b-1 issue that i just raised. >> seven units, seven maximum -- minimum requirement of one perunit. they're proposing seven units, so they're doing the one perunit. they're allowed up to 150% of that amount, so they could go up to 11, so they're doing four less than what's required. >> commissioner richards: and b-1 would not be a great living space. i think the height of the garage is causing me anxiety for the folks on the west. i think there could be a solution where they don't really have to change too much, but you could actually get rid

of a floor that's really not for living at all. it's just storage. >> vice president melgar: commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i'd actually love to invite the project sponsor to comment on that, the thinking behind it. >> yeah. it's more of a technical thing. so we've started the ramp at the lowest part of the site because the site kind of slopes from east to west. >> commissioner richards: could you speak into the mic. >> oh, yeah. it flows east to west, so we started with the ramp. the problem with what you're saying, i would have to take that ramp further further down to drop everything. >> commissioner richards: on you about a -- because what we've seen on other projects, you drive your car, it's an elevator, and you go down. you don't need a ramp, you just need enough room for that elevationor to take them down to the floor. they're putting elevators in

tiny homes these days, so here's a seven-unit building you might be able to do that. >> we're doing that on much, much bigger projects, and a single-family home, the owner can actually do that because they're responsible for themselves. on a larger project, which we do downtown, we use elevators, but that's with a valet. the owner would never get in that car and do it. the problem i have here is because it's a seven unit project, they would have to valet that elevator unless it's a single-family home. >> commissioner richards: that's an osha requirement unless it's a single-family home. >> if it's a single-family home, can you do it -- you can do it, but if it's a multifamily home, you can't do it.

i'm looking at the topography on the site, to see the least amount possible to go down. like i said, this is a family -- it's kbaered towards family -- geared towards storage space. imagine you have a single-family home, like a lot of these people do. they have a storage, they have car, they have storage in their garage, and then, they have their home. this is similar, but this is just seven of them. >> commissioner richards: makes sense. i guess my question for mr. -- i'm having a brain malfunction -- and congratulations on your new role. i think we're going to be seeing you more in this position, that you're now the d.r. guy. okay. great. just tap me on the way out. >> the ides of march. >> commissioner richards: this

wedding cake terracing, is this common? it looks like the inside of a portland hotel to me? what's sculpting look like to you. >> our first comments were in response to the scale of the building at the back, and they were generic, take your best stab at respecting both the topography of the site as well as the scale at that midblock condition. i -- i think, you know, significantly sculpting the building, and that can take many and any forms, right, without being prescriptive. when it came back the second time, after the d.r. was applied for, we did get specific with respect to the terracing of the upper most floor, and the dplengs that takes height off the top, but also respects -- if you look next door to the building on the east, it has a top floor

that's considerably set back to the rear wall. so that was kind of the cue that we were looking at in being more prescriptive on that second d.r. review. so we aren't looking at the tower of babylon. >> commissioner richards: i'm a little bit not understanding what an additional 2 feet would do because the other buildings are 50 feet away in the back. >> i did a little research on that. if you look at the plan of those buildings adjacent to us on the east, they are massive. they're twice as wide as our lots, and the reason that these developers chose to pull those buildings back on the edges is so that they can actually get light and air to the middle of those buildings. we don't have that condition. we have back yards on one side,

so the 3 feet is what we're offering in order to get that planning strip. it also allows us to get windows along that side. but the reason that 5 feet is not a -- it's not a zoning thing that anybody created, it's induced by the developers -- >> commissioner richards: okay. so you agree to 3 feet? >> i totally do. >> commissioner richards: okay. that was number one on their ask. number two, you're willing to do 13 feet? >> 13. i just felt that rdat didn't recognize the west side at all. didn't ask us to most the west side at all. i think from a planning standpoint, doing in from both sides. they want something from the west, these guys want something from the top. the top is pretty far below here. even at 10 feet back, you're barely going to see this thing. 13 is fair, and i would set back the handrail, as well, so

that that stays back another 3 feet so it doesn't come to the edge to reduce that rich. d >> commissioner richards: and number three, we ask -- >> yes, i did that. >> commissioner richards: great. and then four, they asked for two more feet on the guardrails on the decks. instead of three, they want five. that doesn't do that much to your project. >> that doesn't do too much. >> commissioner richards: so it looks like you'd agree. >> yeah. >> commissioner richards: include neighbors in the process of appropriate planning, agreed. so i think you've agreed to the six of the seven. the 13 feet is the 20 feet is the big difference, and it looks like you've kind of gone halfway with the 3 feet and the 13 feet. i'm satisfied that this should work. >> it's going to look good. >> commissioner richards: i'll

let commissioner koppel make a moti motion. >> commissioner koppel: i'll make a motion to take d.r. with the stated conditions that commissioner richards just stated. >> clerk: 13 feet from which side? >> commissioner richards: from the back of the property. >> from the rear wall. >> right. instead of ten, it's 13. >> commissioner richards: 3 feet set back on the property, top floor to third floor, set back additional 2 feet, maintain an indentation in the original zieb facade. on the -- design facade. on the third floor, 5'6". >> no. >> commissioner richards: so this would be on the fourth floor. >> the third floor doesn't set back. >> commissioner richards: okay.

so then, it would be the fourth floor. >> no, the fourth floor goes back 13'6". >> commissioner richards: that's what i -- decks removed from the fourth floor, parapet on the entire fourth floor belowered to a curb, and include neighbors in the appropriate selection process of planning, so -- >> yes. >> commissioner richards: do i hear a second? >> vice president melgar: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. so basically, we are taking d.r. and approving this project with modifications pursuant to the ask submitted by the d.r. requesters, accepting items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, not 6. >> commissioner richards: right. >> clerk: and number two gets

amended to eliminate the third floor set back ask reducing the second floor set back to 13'6". very good. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners item 20 was withdrawn, so we are on item 21 for case number 2013.0847 d.r.p. at 1503 francisco street. please note on may 24, 2018 after hearing and closing public comment you continued this matter to july 19, 2018 by a vote of 6-0 and on july 19, 2018, without hearing, you continued it to today's date. commissioner richards, you were not present on that first hearing, and if you could acknowledge that you've reviewed the previous material and hearing. >> commissioner richards: i have. >> clerk: thank you. as this is the second time we are hearing this matter, the d.r. requester will be provided

with a three minute presentation, and the project sponsor will be provided with a three minute presentation. all public comment will be limited to one minute. >> good evening, commissioners. alexander kirby with department staff. the item before you is a request for discretionary review for a building permit for a vertical addition interior remodel and revised facade design at 1503 francisco street. as the commission secretary said, the item was heard before this commission on may 24. following public comment and discussion, the item was continued with a request by the commissioners with a project sponsor work with the concerned neighbors to address revisions primarily relating to the exterior design of the project. the subject building is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of francisco and octavia streets, and the immediate area is characterized by a mix of single and multifamily housing that range

in height from three to four stories. the project was reviewed by environmental staff and determined to be categorically exempt from further ceqa review. the subject building is not a you historic resource nor is it located within an eligible historic district. the request was filed by the owners of 1409 francisco street. they've rei they've reiterated that the revised proposals at this time may i approach tanz unusual circumstances, that the communal space of the ground story may not be used as such, that the roof decks are unnecessary and not typical of the neighborhood and that the units should have independent street access. the revised scope of work includes the same internal layout as the original design appropriatesal with two parking spaces and a shared common

space at the ground floor, two existing one bedroom units at the second floor, and existing residential units at the third and fourth floor with roof deck access at the roof and fourth floor levels. the existing footprint of the building would not be expanded. this project sponsor did significantly revise the exterior design based on the feedback from the commission and concerns brought up by the neighbors at the prior public hearing regarding the prior contrary design. the newly proposed design reduces glazing from 40% of the exterior shell to 26 with proportions to better relate to the finestrations of the upper site, and it proposes to change the original cast concrete ridge face to a kol too sooned brick finish to soften the pedestrian experience of the building. the residential design advisory

team reviewed the revised proposal and found the design to be compatible in design to the surrounding neighborhood. rdat noted that the windows are compatible in size, scale, and proportion with the surrounding buildings. the context exhibits restrained building articulation that is typically focused on window detailing and a delainiation of the entry and base and that this design articulates the base with a compatible material in the entry with a material differentiation in high recess. the upper roof deck is limited in size and set back from all edges, and the rear decabutts a blind wall in the street, therefore presenting no privacy impacts. the brick at the -- [inaudible] >> -- with other ground level treatments. the project has been reviewed for compliance with section 317 and was determined not to

qualify as a de facto demolition or a unit merger. the area of the existing units at the second floor would not be significantly modified. the project would retain the existing three units, and staff verified with the rent board and office of short-term rentals that there are no evicti evictions at the property. all three units feature independent accessing kitchens, and were the property owner to seek a unit mer jerge at a later date, they would be required to file for conditional use for the loss of a unit to be heard before this body. at the time of the prior

hearing, staff had received 25 letters of support and ten letters in opposition to the proposal. since the revised project was presented to neighbors, staff has received two e-mails in support including the neighbors to the immediate east with whose property would most be directly impacted by the roof deck,s awell as three letters and e-mails and a petition with 20 signatures, including those of the d.r. requesters and neighbor who's had submitted letters. the department -- [inaudible] >> -- and presents no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. i'm available for questions. thank you. medical melg we wi . >> vice president melgar: we will now hear from the d.r. requester. five minutes -- >> clerk: three minutes. [inaudible] >> clerk: well, let's fix that. >> good evening, commissioners.

my name's kristina mcnair, and my sister and i are owners are property across from the project. our family legacy has been tied to the marina since the early 1920's. our d.r. request represents the out pouring of community from the marina community opposed to the 1503 project and since our last d.r. hearing, we received an additional over 34 additional signatures, including the san francisco tenants union. our concerns include loss of our thinks toric community character, loss of vital housing stock, concern over deep pockets, forever changing a community for their own benefits. shortly after our last d.r. hearing, on several occasions, i attempted to connect with the 1503 team. on the 21st of june. we did receive updated plans, on july 26, d.r. representatives had a meeting with the 1503 team, and now

three weeks later we still have not received any further follow up. we'd allowed sufficient time for them to provide changes to the plans. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm the architect. i have ongoing concerns about the project regarding roof decks, unit mergers, and overall design. we request elimination of the roof decks, three or 4% of the buildings in this neighborhood have roof decks, and there's been strong out cry about roof decks, both in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods. there's a blind -- the next -- there is windows on the -- noted there's a blind wall in the report. it actually has windows. one solution to the unit mergers is to provide an open air lobby, which creates a connection to the street and -- and creates a more inviting, communal feeling in the community. current configuration easily allows the units to be merged

on the second floor. you can see this is a closed lobby, and again, the -- in the past, the department has forced unit interior reconfigurations based on known code compliance -- future code compliance problems. there is a current pattern in the neighborhood and in the city in real estate sales to merge units after sale into single-family home. this is exactly the thing that could happen here. it could use some massing changes on the exterior. it's still -- it w's a very bld simplified feature. the finestration is very simplistic. i think it has a need for further detailing, which has not been provided.

thank you very much. >> vice president melgar: okay. thank you. we will now hear any public comment in support of the d.r. requester. so this is the second time we're hearing this item, so one minute. >> hello. thanks for the time. i'm still opposed to this project. i do appreciate the other side making some changes since we were last in front of the commission. but to me, it comes across as a bit of a bare minimum effort and didn't address all of the points that were raised by the -- the insightful discussion that the commission had after our last hearing. in particular, i'm concerned about the motion of a single-family home really changing kind of the dynamic of

our neighborhood, and most particularly, the roof decks. there's also -- the same owners purchased the residence next door and there's a plan to have a roof deck on that one, as well, so we're looking at putting three roof decks in a very tight area in a pretty much over night. the city has new guidelines on roof decks, of which there's three or four points that are in violation. >> clerk: thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> hi. pam davis. i am a neighbor down at 1567 francisco, and i want to also thank them for redesigning some of the exterior. my concerns previously were regarding the glazing. that does appear to have been addressed significantly. my only remaining concern relates to the rear deck.

if you look at this photo, you can see this is francisco street where you see the vehicles. and then, the rear deck that's being proposed is actually what would be visible as a side deck from the street, and my concern is living just a few doors down from here, the noise that is generated from a side deck that is exposed and as open as this area would be is very concerning to me. so that is the feature that remains in this that i specifically have concerns regarding. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm margin requalley. i'm a 23 year resident in the marina, homeowner for the last 14 years across the street from the project. i'm concerned about the impact of the project on the nature of the neighborhood. in particular, there have been a lot of contradictions from the owner about what the intentions are for this building.

originally, it was talked about as being a single-family home. i think you've heard we have continued concern with the design seeming that that's still a likely intention in the future. secondly, it's been stated as using it for corporate housing, again, not keeping with the long-term residential nature of the neighborhood. at this point, there have not been any tenants in the units, so there really hasn't been any impact directly, but between 1503 francisco, this project, and 3255, which the owner also owns next door, four of the five units have been vacant. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good evening. philip meza, and i would echo the comments made by my neighbors earlier tonight, and i would also specify that we have concerns about the property becoming a single-family home. overhead, please. we have concerns about the property becoming a single-family home, and this is magnified that we now have concerns about the property becoming a single-family compound because the property at 3255 octavia received permission to in-fill the light well between the two properties. so i don't know what further evidence you need that this is going to become a single-family home and a single-family compound. thank you. >> vice president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. instead of echoing the same points that everybody has raised, which i wholeheartedly agree in one minute that i have or less, i just want to point out to the arrogance of power. in this case, mr. minaj is

trying to buy the support of neighbors by purchasing the properties, the surrounding building. i have no idea if the intent is to keep purchasing and keep purchasing the support of neighbors, but i just wanted to point out to you that residential mr. murphy here, overhead please, as you can see, he purchased mr. murphy's -- mr. patrick murphy's how's next door, and this is the same -- house next door, and this is the same house that everybody's pointing is going to be another roof deck on it. i'm just pointing out this is just not right. this arrogance of power is not right and should not be permitted. just, you know, please, you know, like -- okay. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> commissioners, mark hermann, i live directly across the street from this project. this project started five years ago with a well documented attempt to use the property as a single-family home. we saw it from 2013, a failed dwelling unit merger and the project sponsor's own statement at the last hearing. in the last five years, we saw this building being used at best as a corporate rental today we have an unchanged floor plan screaming for legal. tomorrow, we have the project sponsor's vacant two unit building next door with proposed remodel details, very suggestive of future unit accommodation. if this project isn't stopped now, i hope you've seen the future from similar projects in other neighborhoods where the planning department is mocked, neighbored are thumbed, and units in the neighborhood are

being marketed and sold at single-family homes. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you. if there are no more comments in support of the d.r. requester, we will now use the project sponsor. >> thank you. last we met, we came with a code compliant project, full support of planning, and 25 letters of support. a small group of opponents led my kristina mcnair met us by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at us, and more has come tonight, because as i've learned through this neighborhood kristina has a deeply rooted grudge with the city and their planning process. kristina received four citations from the city which she's fought for more than three years. she should not be policing the neighborhood as she thumbed her knows not once but four times to this very process. mark hermann told me when i

knocked on his door that his neighbor reported him for a deck he was building illegally in his garden. we were unprepared and remain taken aback by the lies and tactics that are being invoked by the pretense of architecture design. kristina remarks at the may 24 hearing were not her own words with you rather read from a letter of constance. what kristina didn't tell you is that constance is not within the 311 notification area. her unit is in escrow as we speak. kristina also didn't tell you that she herself empties parts of her building in the last year, there by adding to the density of our neighborhood and adding average rents. mark hermann likes to have conversations here at the neighborhood and at the

hearing, highlighting my wife's native origins, the size of her family, and i see had deep concern about using the building to how's her family memory -- house her family and not tenants. these are not acts nor statements of people endeavoring to act with us in good faith. they have not asked us to meet. we have continually invited them to meet us. in fact, just two days ago, we accepted supervisor's kathrin stefani's offer to mediate a discussion between the principals, and kristina and mark, like other times, rejected the invite. we don't want the good feeling of the neighborhood to be washed away with a few bad

apples, so concrete was replaced with stucco, wood, brick, to soften all materials widely used in the neighborhood. windows were decreased from 10 foot in height to 8.5 feet. the overall circumstance was decreased from -- >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> window patterns -- >> vice president melgar: your time is up. sorry, you have two-minute rebutt al. >> clerk: no, not on the second time. >> vice president melgar: okay. are there any commenters in support of the project sponsor. come on up. >> thank you. how much time do i have? >> clerk: i have a minute. >> my name's patrick murphy. i live at 1526 francisco street, directly across the street from the project. born and raised in san francisco. been on the street for 26 years. i'm very much in support of the project. my view is affected more than

anybo anybody else's, and that's the true view here. i think families should be allowed to expand existing units without getting rid of any existing tenants as many of these other people have. >> vice president melgar: thank you. so -- so we don't have a rebuttal. commissioners? [inaudible] >> vice president melgar: commissioner koppel? >>. >> commissioner koppel: just one question fore the project sponsor. what do you have planned for the basement? >> there is no basement. >> commissioner koppel: there's a basement in the drawings. >> there's no basement. >> commissioner koppel: just saying, drawing a-2 had a

basement plan. >> this is common space to that the building occupants can access the guard where my wife likes to guard, so it's for the benefit of everyone in the building. >> vice president melgar: is that -- is that it, commissioner? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i think the design's improved much over what it was before. i like the idea that the two middle units are around the same square footage. more power to you for expanding the top. the roof deck is small, so i have no issue with that. the only issue i have is the common space in the future becoming a new unit number through with the merger of the two units above, so i would like to take d.r., approve the project with a notice of special restriction to the common space if it were to become a unit in the future, it would become a unit as an a.d.u. >> vice president melgar: is

that a motion? >> commissioner richards: it's a motion. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion to take d.r. and approve the project as proposed with the condition that if the common space becomes livable that it become an a.d.u. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. adjourn. [ gavel ]

happy new year, everybody. i love the fact that we are doing a tournament here at the center. when i was in eighth grade i played on a basketball teechl.

team. i have to admit i wasn't very good at it. i always aspired to be an nba player. regardless of playing in college or nba, i expect many of you have be leading us because of the leadership skills you are learning on >> the mayor of the city and county of san francisco. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: you know, as mayor, you go around, and you cut a lot of ribbons, and you do a lot of great things, but i've got to tell you, nothing feels better than doing what we're doing here today, and that is protecting the homes and small businesses of so many families in the city

and county of san francisco. 21 units of housing, 21 families, which includes seniors, which includes children, which includes a property that is not protected under rent control. this is absolutely incredible, and to be able to do this with partners like meta, and partners like the housing acceleration program, it makes all the difference because some of us might know that the city is bureaucratic, and bureaucracies sometimes move a little slow. and that's why having partners in the community to move these projects forward as quickly as possible makes all the difference. to be able to keep six small businesses in business with affordable rent and 21 families

in their home with rent protection is absolutely amazing and is what we do best as a city. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and i am just glad to be here, and i am glad for eli and his family. he's going to be speaking and he's going to be one of the people who's going to be able to continue staying here. they were just telling me a story how they saw supervisor safai down the street, campaigning, and they asked for his help because they aren't under rent control, and they were concerned about losing his home, and here is a promise fulfilled because of the leadership of supervisor safai, and at this time, i would like to introduce the supervisor to say a few words. [applause] >> supervisor safai: thank you, mayor breed. i'm just going to take a minute to thank the people that are really responsible for this happening. eli and his family, i met him at the safeway, and they talked

about what we're all experiencing here in san francisco, which is a housing crisis. and this housing crisis is real. every day, we get calls, every day, we heard about families that are being forced from their long-time homes. so when we have an opportunity to work with community partners and to listen and to bring a policy and a program together that really works on behalf of stablizing our community, this is exactly what that means. so i got a call on a friday from caroline from meta. she says supervisor, you're not reading your e-mails. pick it up. and i said what's going on? and she said there's a real opportunity here. this is the first ever small site that we could do in your district. we have never done a small sites acquisition. one year ago, a little over a year ago, i stood at a press conference in the richmond where we celebrated the 100th unit of the entire small sites program. today, this is -- this puts us

over 200 units, which means in the last year, we've already doubled the program in one year. [applause] >> supervisor safai: so carolina and meta called me and said this is a big push. we're going to need a big push from the housing accelerator fund. we reached out to the community partners like poder and somcan that are funded to do the work that we're standing here today. they went in and met with the tenants. they lowered their anxiety. they said you're going to have an opportunity to stay in their home. and that's what they're funded to do. they're funded to build community and to really reach out and talk about the programs that can stablize and keep the richness and diversity of this district, and that's what this is about. this is a 12-plus million purchase, the largest in the

history of the small sites program. 21 residential and six commercial. it is the largest in the city's history, so i'm proud to have the support of this mayor. this mayor has made housing her number one priority and as someone that grew up in a community that was constantly under the threat of housing displacement and housing insecurity, you will have no greater champion in city hall than mayor london breed. so i'll send by saying any of the people that question why we fund community-based organizations, they're standing, and this is a true witness of that. the work that poder, that somcan and the work that meta is doing and the housing affordability is doing is real and can affect lives. and i'm going to call up caroline from meta

[applause] >> my name is caroline feng, and i work for the mission nonprofit agency. meta's purchase of 4830 mission street is a big day not only for us, but for the excelsior and the city of san francisco. 4830 mission street marks a huge first for affordable housing. today, we not just preserved affordable housing, we actually created affordable housing. let me explain. meta's purchase of 21 small sites in the last two years was largely rent controlled properties. in contrast. at 4830 mission street, we have a nonrent controlled property that was built after 1979. the realtors blatantly marketed this as a rare opportunity, i quote, a rare opportunity to own a nonrent controlled property. let's take a minute to

understand what that means. if a speculator had purchased 4830 mission street, they could have increased the rents by as much as they wanted. in fact, we saw that happen just a year ago when 400 london street, just two blocks away was purchased. when speculators bought that property, they forced small businesses to prematurely sign rents that would triple their rents, and the small businesses were at risk of being forced out. thankfully, the residents of 4830 mission street don't have to worry about that. [applause] >> with meta's purchase, this narcotic rate -- nonmarket rate rent controlled building has been transformed into homes for 21 families and six small

businesses. like the residents of 4830 mission street, the excelsior has a large population of filipino and latino families. most of them share perspectives that want to stay in this community. it's crucial that we buy buildings like this and it's crucial to keep families like them in the neighborhood. [applause] >> we need our city, our mayor and all of our supervisors to grow its innovative small sites program. this targeted approach has now been proven as the mayor and supervisor safai said as a major antidisplacement strategy strategy by taking homes off the private market. let me be clear, we need more money to take buildings like this off the speculative market. we need mormoney in the san francisco housing accelerator fund which provided critical acquisition financing so we could buy the building as

quickly as any other buyer off the market. we need more money in similar acquisition programs like meta's own program so we can compete aggressively, and we need more money for the mayor's office of community and housing development who as an ongoing partner has been willing to scale this program with us. meta could not make this on our own. i want to thank a number of folks. i want to thank the city officials for rallying around this work. many of you came to meta, asking how to implement the small sites program in your district. that includes supervisor safai. without advocating for this building and in your community, we would not have this district 11 building, so thank you. additionally, i want to thank the building owners, mr. omahoni and mr. sullivan. owners are often forgotten piece of this equation. in this market, our owners could have easily chosen to

sell to somebody else. they chose to sell to meta as a nonprofit to ensure that their tenants could stay in the city and keep their legacy in the city. [applause] >> and then, there are partner organizations, poder and somcan, who with the small but mighty meta team, sat with our tenants to explain what this program was and answer our tenants' countless concerns about their housing rights. our tenants can now stay here for generations to come. [applause] >> today is a day to celebrate, and let's all work together to make such celebrations the norm, rather than the exception, in all neighborhoods experiencing displacement in san francisco. so i'd like to bring up eli who has been in this building for

over 18 years. he has three generations in this building. he's what we mean when we say we are rooting families in san francisco. eli. [applause] >> good morning. today is a great day for me and my family because meta as acquired and converted this building to affordable housing through the city of san francisco small sites program. the small sites program is a project of the city. i believe the aim is to acquire buildings where long-term tenants are vulnerable of being evicted. meta has worked closely with

community organizations like poder and somcan to finally acquire this building, save this building and save its tenants. me and my clan of three generations have lived in this building for the past 18 years and will be able to continue doing that because of the small sites program. grateful to the leaders of our city, for meta, especially, and for the community advocates gathering together to make this thing happen. thank you very much. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and i just want to wrap it up by saying that when we talk about the need for housing in the city and county of san francisco. yes, we need to move forward aggressively and build as much

housing as we possibly can, but we equally need to focus on housing preservation. that's what this is about, protecting people and making sure that they're able to stay in their homes, and i couldn't be prouder of so many people who made this possible. thank you to rebecca fror bein here from the housing accelerator fund, kate from the mayor's office of housing, thank you so much, the folks from meta. thank you for one of our planning commissioners who's here, myrna melgar, for all you do to continue to promote housing and housing production. i'm proud to be here that this is one of the largest housing purchases we've made as a city, and i want to thank supervisor safai for being in tune of what's happening in thinks district and the needs of those who are here. thank you all for playing a part, and i'm just excited

about this. and i just can't even believe that we have been able to do something so amazing in san francisco. and let's continue, as was said, to make this the norm and not the exception. thank you all so much for being here today. [applause] ♪ >> about two years ago now i had my first child. and i thought when i come back, you know, i'm going to get back in the swing of things and i'll find a spot. and it wasn't really that way when i got back to work. that's what really got me to think about the challenges that new mothers face when they come back to work. ♪

>> when it comes to innovative ideas and policies, san francisco is known to pave the way, fighting for social justice or advocating for the environment, our city serves as the example and leader many times over. and this year, it leads the nation again, but for a new reason. being the most supportive city of nursing mothers in the work place. >> i was inspired to work on legislation to help moms return to work, one of my legislative aids had a baby while working in the office and when she returned we had luckily just converted a bathroom at city hall into a lactation room. she was pumping a couple times a day and had it not been for the room around the hallway, i don't know if she could have continued to provide breast milk for her baby. not all returning mothers have the same access, even though

there's existing state laws on the issues. >> these moms usually work in low paying jobs and returning to work sooner and they don't feel well-supported at work. >> we started out by having legislation to mandate that all city offices and departments have accommodations for mothers to return to work and lactate. but this year we passed legislation for private companies to have lactation policies for all new moms returning to work. >> with the newcome -- accommodations, moms should have those to return back to work. >> what are legislation? >> we wanted to make it applicable to all, we created a set of standards that can be achievable by everyone. >> do you have a few minutes today to give us a quick tour.

>> i would love to. let's go. >> this is such an inviting space. what makes this a lactation room? >> as legislation requires it has the minimum standards, a seat, a surface to place your breast on, a clean space that doesn't have toxic chemicals or storage or anything like that. and we have electricity, we have plenty of outlets for pumps, for fridge. the things that make it a little extra, the fridge is in the room. and the sink is in the room. our legislation does require a fridge and sink nearby but it's all right in here. you can wash your pump and put your milk away and you don't have to put it in a fridge that you share with co-workers. >> the new standards will be applied to all businesses and places of employment in san francisco. but are they achievable for the smaller employers in the city? >> i think small businesses rightfully have some concerns

about providing lactation accommodations for employees, however we left a lot of leeway in the legislation to account for small businesses that may have small footprints. for example, we don't mandate that you have a lactation room, but rather lactation space. in city hall we have a lactation pod here open to the public. ♪ ♪ >> so the more we can change, especially in government offices, the more we can support women. >> i think for the work place to really offer support and encouragement for pumping and breast feeding mothers is necessary. >> what is most important about the legislation is that number one, we require that an employer have a lactation policy in place and then have a conversation

with a new hire as well as an employee who requests parental leave. otherwise a lot of times moms don't feel comfortable asking their boss for lactation accommodations. really it's hard to go back to the office after you have become a mom, you're leaving your heart outside of your body. when you can provide your child food from your body and know you're connecting with them in that way, i know it means a lot to a mommy motionlely and physically to be able to do that. and businesses and employers can just provide a space. if they don't have a room, they can provide a small space that is private and free from intrusion to help moms pump and that will attract moms to working in san francisco. >> if you want more information visit sfdph.org/breastfeedingatwork. ♪

♪ >> president wolfram: calling this hearing to order. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation regular hearing for wednesday, august 1st, 2018. we remind members of the public that the commission will not tolerate any obstructions or outbursts of thim