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 ]

>> hello, everyone! good morning. my name is london breed. i tam mayor of the city and county of san francisco and i'm happy to be here today for a really important announcement. sthau -- thank you all so much for joining us. today we are announcing additional funding to fight unlawful evictions and prevent displacement of tenants in san francisco. many of you know i've been a renter all my life and i personally know what it feels like to face housing insecurity. in fact, a couple of years ago, when i was on the board of supervisors, my building was sold and i didn't know what would happen to me and the other folks who lived in the building.

we know that one of the best ways to prevent homelessness is to make sure that we keep people housed in the first place. some of us may be familiar with the fact that almost 70% of the people who sadly live on our streets that are homeless were actually housed in san francisco. before they became homeless. that's why as president of the board of supervisors, i pushed hard to establish the right to council so that people don't have to face eviction alone. and we did not go through the process of that particular legislation since we know that proposition f was put on the ballot and overwhelmingly passed by voter and we know that proposition f did not have a funding source attached to it, i as mayor have made a commitment -- [shouting] that we would fund that -- [shouting] that we would fund that -- [shouting] and people would not have to

face eviction. [chanting] the reality is our housing shortage is driving up the prices of citizens across the city. which can incentivize evictions. you know what's really unfortunate about this situation is we're all fighting for the same thing. and today what i want to announce is that we're providing $5.8 million here in the city and county of san francisco for the right to council for residents facing eviction. in the vast majority of these proceedings, land lords have legal reasons and representation antenanlts do not. we know sadly that most tenants can't afford a lawyer and don't know where to go in the first place when they are served with an eviction notice from their landlord. as a result, too many san

franciscans face eviction without knowing what their full rights are. it's not a housing policy that we want to advance in the city and currently the mayor's office of community development spends over $7.5 million annually on eviction protection tenant outreach and education and short-term rental assistance. but these programs do not provide the full level of scope that so many people need stay in their homes. as i said earlier today, assignment proud to announce that we're investing $5.8 million to fund this program over the next two years to support legal representation for tenants facing eviction. [applause]

one of the first things i did as mayor was to work to rebalance our budget to include funding for this very important program. starting in june of 2019, tenants will now have access to full scope legal representation and be better able to prevent evictions and stay in their home. we are the first city in california and the second in the nation to institute a right to civil council for tenants. and as we work to create more housing and increase affordability for all of our residents and invest in critical tools to prevent displacement, we have to make sure that we're paying attention to everything that's going on and making the right investments. i want to thank the board of supervisors for their collaboration in securing this funding and even though he is not able to attend today, i wanted to recognize asommably member david chu who created

the pilot program for legal counsel for san franciscans for civil proceedings in 2011 when he was a member of the board of supervise source and i appreciate his advocate siz on this i believer ewe over the years. i want to thank the legal service organizations who are here with us today and will assist us in developmenting and implementing this very important program. so now with that, i'd like to turn it over to the district five supervisor, someone who has been on the front lines and an advocate for residents of district five for so many years , ladies and gentlemen, district valley supervisor brown. [applause] >> thank you and good morning. i'm valley brown, supervisor of district five. today is a good day for renters and the city. in june, of this year, the voters of san francisco asked and received right to legal

council when fighting evictions. assembly member chu introduced the idea when he was on the board of supervise source. today we celebrate this work put into place and the funding which is an absolutely important tool. thank you to the hard work and strong partnership between the mayor and board of supervisors, we were able to fund this in less than two months. [shouting] funding is very important. [shouting] it is naornlts we have a great stride to protect renters facing eviction. with the recent passed budge, we now have the necessary resources to fund eviction defense for the residents of san francisco. thank you, mayor breed, for working with the board of supervisors to ensure this critical first step in its funding. going forward, i would -- i am planning on working with my colleagues on the board of supervisors and mayor breed to invest in programs that will

help people stay in their homes. and create more opportunities for affordable homeownership so the need for eviction defense becomes a last resort. when we look at funding for rental subsidy programs that help working families and low-income residents, keeping roof over their heads, existing programs and partnerships are helping folks, but we must explore expansion funding and strengthening of existing rental subsidy programs. while also looking for new opportunities to help san francisco -- san franciscans stailz in their homes. so >> so, the next speaker we have here today, the executive director from eviction defense collaborative, martina -- are you here? >> yes. >> thank you. come on up. [applause] >> good morning. my name is martina and i'm the

executive director of eviction defense collaborative. on behalf of san franciscan tenants, we thank mayor for prioritizing keeping people in their homes. we also thank the collective advocacy of the homeless emergency services providers for their tireless efforts in securing these funds. we also thank san francisco tenants union antenanlzes togethers for their work surrounding prop f and the voters of san francisco who ensured that prop f became the law of the land. we are pleased the mayor is acting diligently to provide an immediate influx of $1.9 million to help keep san francisco tenants in their homes. we haven't seen the devastating impact the housing crisis is having in our communities for years. and we as a community have been failing to keep people in their homes. we know that evictions have been rising at a dramatic rate over the past five years. we know that land lords have been represented by attorneys at a rate of 6-to-1 compared to

tenants. we know that having an attorney increases a family's chance of being evicted by over 70%. we know that being evicted from your home in san francisco means being evicted from san francisco. our family, friends and our neighbors are being pushed out of this city. we also know that protecting tenants preserves affordable housing. unfortunately, the united states of today is a place where is how much money you have dictates your access to basic human rights, including your rights to a home. san francisco residents are saying no more. they are saying this is our city. these are our homes. and we will defend our rights. and with these funds -- [applause] >> whew! that ok right! and with these funds, mayor breed is pushing this agenda forward. she is stepping up as a leader for this movement.

she is acknowledging that housing is a human right and she is commited to leveling the playing field for this city's tenants. this combined $5.8 million is a start. while we have a ways to go, i know that i speak on behalf of all the tenant services providers when i say that we're excited to work with the mayor and city staff. we are ready and up for the task of bringing tenant right to council to san francisco. thank you. [applause] i'd like to now introduce tom drohand, supervising attorney for legal assistance to the elderly. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. i work at legal assistance to the elderly. one of the many community organizations that provide direct boots on the ground, full scope legal representation for tenants in san francisco.

we've been providing free legal services for seniors for nearly 40 years. we help seniors who are victims of elder abuse. we help seniors with their social security benefits. we help seniors preserve their health care. we help seniors with debt relief. but san francisco's current severe housing crisis now over 60% of our calls, are seniors calling for help because they're in distress because they received eviction notices. each year we receive hundreds of calls from desperate seniors threatened wtih eviction. many are low-income, long-term tenants paying low below market rents and they're falsely accused of minor lease infractions or wholly made up alleged nuisances. for them, having an opportunity represent the scouter a difference between keeping their home or being on the street. i worked in l.a. for over 25 years. for a long time i was the only housing attorney there and the

hardest part of my job was telling a desperate senior that i couldn't take their case because i was already overloaded with too many cases. with this increased funding from the city, the number of cases we are able to take has increased greatly. but there's stille a need. no one, and especially not our city's most vulnerable citizens, should lose their home because they can't afford a lawyer. [applause] when we take a case of legal assistance to the elderly, we take it to win. we aggressively litigate eviction case on behalf of our klienltzes. we take cases to trial and we win. this year we won at trial where the landlord was trying to evict our client because other members of the family were involved in an act of domestic abuse. a major land nrords san francisco was alleging that the rent ordinance that we have to

protect our tenants did not alie to them. we won the case for that te nanls and also for all the other long-term seniors in that housing. we have a long history of fighting for our clients and keeping them in our homes. this additional funding means legal assistances to the elderly and all the other tenant organizations here can help many more seniors and others keep their homes in san francisco. i'd like the introduce to you a senior who rerecently helped fight her wrongful eviction and has kept her home and is here to tell you about it. ms. wong? [applause] >> thank you. and good morning to everybody. my name is virginia wong. i came from the fill leans in

1983 and i have lived in a place -- in an apartment where i am now. my husband has been there living since 1974. i have always paid my rents. and all of a sudden there was a problem. i didn't understand why the landlord said i owed money. i was afraid i was going to lose the small place that i am staying. so, um, -- and that means i would be leaving my small place. i would be leaving my friends. i would be leaving my church and my doctors and my friends. in the community.

then i met tony at the legal assistance for the elderly. he said he would help me. i felt my darkness became lighter. in the end, it turned out the landlord was wrong in the calculation and my attorney got the case dismissed. i also [inaudible] when i heard this and at that point it meant that i was going to be able to stay at home, which is my place. and i'm thankful for the legal assistance. that helped me. and why do we have to choose people who will live in san francisco who, after all, this is san francisco the name of the saint who was so poor but

helped -- who was so rich and became poor to help everybody. thank you. [applause] >> again, thank you and san francisco. only in san francisco. gotta love san francisco. nonl san francisco can you do something like provide $5.8 million for right to counsel to tenants facing eviction and have protesters. thank you, guys, for being here today. [applause]

>> this neighborhood was lived for approximately 22 years. >> yeah, like 21 years. >> 21 years in this neighborhood. >> in the same house. >> we moved into this neighborhood six months after we got married, actually. just about our whole entire married life has been here in excel. >> the owner came to the house and we wanted to sell the house and we were like, what? we were scared at first. what are we going to do? where are we going to move into? the kids' school? our jobs? >> my name is maria. i'm a preschool teacher for the

san francisco unified school district. >> my name is ronnie and i work in san francisco and i'm a driver from a local electrical company. >> we went through meta first and meta helped us to apply and be ready to get the down payment assistant loan program. that's the program that we used to secure the purchase of our home. it took us a year to get our credit ready to get ready to apply for the loan. >> the whole year we had to wait and wait through the process and then when we got the notice, it's like, we were like thinking that. >> when we found out that we were settling down and we were going to get approved and we were going to go forward, it was just a really -- we felt like we could breathe. we have four kids and so to find a place even just to rent for a

family of six. and two dogs. >> we were going to actually pay more for rent and to own a house. >> it feels good now to have to move. it feels for our children to stay in the neighborhood that they have grown in. they grew up here and they were born here. they know this neighborhood. they don't know anything outside san francisco. >> we really have it. >> we'd love to say thank you to the mayor's office. they opened a door that we thought was not possible to be opened for us. they allowed us to continue to live here. we're raising our family in san francisco and just to be able to continue to be here is the great lesson.

>> 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 this time. please silencer mobile devices. we will take role at this time. [roll call] we expect commissioner hyland to be absent today. on the agenda is general public comment. this time members may address members of the commission. with respect to agenda items, the opportunity to address the commission may be afforded when the meeting is addressed -- the