i do believe the diversity of our city and the identity and the different ages of our neighborhoods require a little bit more room to find themselves in the legislation and have the ability to preserve that territory which is uniquely theirs buzz they understand it best. i like to support those who ask it and i think it was commissioner tanner and got support by commissioner chan to continue this item and revisit at a slightly earlier part of the day and take everything we have heard and spend it in more time pursuing it. those are my comments.

>> commissioner: a lot of the ceu processes in our city are not required, overdo it and i am prepared to support this attempt to simplify the process and so move the adoption today. >> second. >> commissioner tanner? >> i wanted to ask if the maker of the motion would be willing to with the provision in china town. and to add that to the motion if

that is second nature. >> i would accept that. commissioner moore? >> commissioner: i would like to ask that the neighborhood commercial corridor provisions are retained to the full extent and ask the maker of the motion to include that as well. >> commissioner moore, can you repeat that? >> i would like to to be maintained in the same fashion that commissioner chan is asking to protect chinatown. >> i don't necessarily agree with that. >> commissioner diamond. >> i wouldn't support that

either. but i was also going to ask whether the maker of the motion that was amended by commissioner chan's provision, whether that included the modifications that i think staff asked for today. and that the motion is as comprehensive. >> i would be supportive of that. >> commissioners, just to be clear, a lot of things kind of happened very quickly there. if i understand the motion, it is to aaprove the proposed legislation removing the provisions related to chinatown but i just want to confirm, commissioner fung, that we are including the modification proposed by staff?

>> commissioner: that's correct. and the second -- >> i think her request was specifically for the edu portion and i think that is the only thing that is specific to chinatown, i believe. >> that is correct. >> commissioner: how about formula retail? commissioner moore is up next. that was commissioner moore. with the protection mentioned for the mission street are included in this mission. >> commissioner: that shows that we are negotiating for parts of the city. and who has more muscle through the force of what is continuing

with the motion for continuance and overrides and i would like to make a motion for continuance. >> commissioner diamond? >> i'm trying to understand the motion to delete the portion to china town and is only related to the adu, correct? we are adopting the legislation in our package, eliminating the adu portion from chinatown and including the two modifications that were presented today. that is the motion that has a second on the table, is that correct? as the maker, yes, that is correct. commissioner imperial? >> thank you. i want to voice out that it seems like part of this is not

comprehensive enough as we have the deliberation and to vote and not support this. and i don't think this is comprehensive enough. to pray with commissioner moore and just negotiating on this. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore, you may be muted. >> commissioner: i want to point out that i believe that ccdc pointed out other concerns and

that we are watching this and will feel better once the vote is through. this requires more time. we have been at this for eight hours and it is impossible for us to just try to angle on who is going to win this. why aren't we together? to be responsible about what needs to be done and what doesn't. to address commissioner moore and others. part of why i was supportive of commissioner chan's amendment to china town is a pretty specific ask for a change in the legislation. my notes that i have and followed up on it and i followed up on comments on those who called in and found myself satisfied with the answers they have provided. i can certainly understands that

it was late and got many more items yet to discuss. i do understand the request for continuance that you are making. i don't feel that it is just kind of a power struggle but listen to the public and ask questions and made adjustments to the legislation based on what we heart. that is my perspective. >> commissioner chan? >> commissioner: thank you. i want to thank the commission for accepting the provision to the adus and thank commissioner moore and imperial for their comments and i think out of solidarity with kind of the diverse neighborhoods that we have throughout the city and leaning towards anything that we need more time to have that outreach and make sure this legislation works for the unique diversity. >> you call the question, jonas? >> i will. i just want to clarify.

commissioner moore made a motion to continue. i did not hear a second. the only motion on the floor is the one i will read into now. the motion i have, commissioner, is to approve the proposed planning code amendments, removing the provision related to adus in the chinatown neighborhood and include staff's modification. on that motion -- [roll call] >> do we need to clear up the motion for continuance first? >> there was no second. >> commissioner chan. >> no. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> i'm sorry, no. >> commission president koppel. >> so moved.

that passes 4-3 with commissioners chan, imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, congratulations. we have made it about halfway through your agenda today. we are now on item 10 for case number 2019-006114 prh and this is an informational hearing. mr. christianson, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am, jonas. good evening, commissioners. michael christianson with part of department planning staff. and the demolition of the existing auto service no exand associated structures, removal of underground tanks and construct a 160-foot tall tower containing 130 dwelling units and 1,144 square feet of ground floor retail sales and surface space, 108 bicycle parking

spaces and zero off street auto parking spaces. within the mixed use residential zoning district, the central soma use special district and others, the project is submitted under the housing planning district which was adopted as part of the central toma plan are a min steerial review process. and the project must be code compliant, provide market rate units on site, must comply with relevant mitigation efforts of the central soma environmental ands essentially, the project must obtain greenhouse gas free energy. the section provides if the project uses state density bonus, it must not result in a

significant impact sand not eligible. the requirements are a combination of both state and local code requirements. additionally this project is the first project utilizing the housing sun tanment district. and required that all projects which utilize the housing and the product does represent a density bonus u and just a shout out. through the bonus, the project requested a 35% bonus and request raifrs from a height limit, dwelling unit exposure, block coverage and the exemption from the open space to require condition use authorization.

there is an exception for pedestrian streets to support the addition of housing and walkable, bikable and transit friendly neighbors. the project is not here for an entitlement vote today. to issue findings is delegated to finding director. today's hearing is to answer any questions that the commission may have and provide feedback. staff has worked with project sponsor on the design, particularly the ground floor, to create a pedestrian oriented ground floor. project sponsor also has a presentation for the commission.

>> thank you, michael. project sponsor. as soon as i find you, there you are, your slides are up and you have five minutes. >> commissioner president koppel, vice president moore, and commissioners, my name is jake shoemaker and i am here on fifth and paulson investors llc and it is my honor to introduce the first nonkey site residential project and first housing sustainability district project in central soma. the hsd represents an exciting policy to expedite the creation of housing neighborhoods anticipating tremendous job growth in the coming years. since the project's inception, the team has conducted two preapplication meetings and

presented the project to you nated playas and united center and have discussed the status and forum with the project with community members. and now i would like to turn over to the architect to discuss the development project. >> we're not getting any alternate audio. thank you, project sponsor. we are not getting any other

audio after your first initial presentation. >> i can go ahead and jump in here. so slide one. tca is experienced in developing multiple housing groups in california. slide two. besides fixing the northern portion of central soma. and the existing service station and teaches three extremely large curb cuts and the three dangerous pedestrian and cyclist and potential collisions and you will see from the image on the

right are now site plan is very pedestrian friendly. and also provides seize i access and slide floor. the ground floor level features active retail and a lobby and fitness center towards fifth street and direct access -- and i need to regroup here. next slide please. >> this is a typical floor plan. you will see the reduced rear yard with a few units facing that space. force steps back on the general

story. this is the 16th floor plan and partial roof deck, amenity space and few residential units. next slide please. this is our roof deck. you will see, again, more open space and planters and also some mechanical equipment and exterior roof deck with the stairwell connecting the two space and a living wall as encouraged by the central soma special use district. next slide please. this is elevation showing the scale of the building in relation to the project. next slide please. and again, another exterior

rendering. you will see a 20th century reflection of the legacy with the punch windows representing a more modern, sleek, glass wall and retail space. and that is it. we are here to answer any questions. thank you. >> clerk: perfectly timed. thank you. members of the public, which is your opportunity to speak to the item by pressing star and then 3. to the chair, you will have one minute. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is the indication to begin speaking.

>> caller: i am a strong supporter of this project and think it is great it is adding housing and replacing a gas station. we talked about what it means to support the unique culture of the city and stuff and every time we fill up our car, they fund the republican ballot. and that is one nay san franciscans are not living up to the values and after january 6, that is one way every gas station in san francisco is

frankly undermining our democracy. and so i think it's great that we're doing this. >> thank you, sir. that is your time. >> man, that was brutal. >> caller: hi, i applaud your stamina, commissioners. i just want to say i support this development. this is exactly the sort of thing our city needs. it includes bikes f it has the rooftop space, affordable units, market combrunt units, this is great. i support it. thank you. >> caller: good evening, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. not going to repeat comments from the report card, but did want to restate that we had 50 plus people sign a petition for this project as well and encourage you to think about

them when making your comments tonight. thank you very much. >> caller: i am calling in to support this development and i think it should go ahead. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, members of the public. last call for public comment. you need to press star and then 3 to be added to the queue. commissioners, public comment is now closed and the mater is before you. i will remind you this is an informational item only. and we do have one last late request to speak. you have one minute.

>> caller: -- and not just for soma. -- >> clerk: go ahead, caller. okay. never mind. public comment is closed. commissioners, this informational item is now before you. >> president: commissioner moore? >> commissioner: i wanted to express my support for the project and only have one question for mr. christianson. commissioners received a letter this morning and you in your presentation spoke about a shadow study. could you please reaffirm that there is indeed no shadow on the, what i call, the middle school playground? >> i would like to be clear. we did do a shadow study that was examining any potential significant shadow impact under ceqa or any shadow impact under planning code section 295 which

governs shadow on properties under the jurisdiction of rec and park commission. the shadow study found that the project would not cause any significant shadow impact under ceqa, but because the middle school playground is not under the jurisdiction of the rec and park commission and also not enrolled in a shared schoolyard program, that was not specifically analyzed through the shadow study. i do believe there was a shadow sand created but there was a determination that there was no significant shadow impact of the project. >> commissioner: thank you for answering the question. thank you.

>> president: commissioner tanner, go ahead. >> commissioner: great to see this project coming in. used to go by that gas station a lot and glad to see bike lanes and fewer cars in and out of the bike lanes. that will hopefully soon not be a gas station there. i wanted to encourage the project sponsor to think about enough bike sparking spaces for each unit in the building and being in that really great bike friendly corridor and having the number of studios and things and have been at least one biking space per unit. i think there are 108 class one spaces and encourage you to have more bike parking available for the future san franciscans. thats an it. -- that's it. >> clerk: okay. if there are no further comments from the commissioners, that

will conclude this item and we can move on to item 11, case number 2013.0614enx, at 600 south van ness. this is a large project authorization. >> good evening, again, commissioners. michael christianson, department staff. the item is a request for large project authorization pursuant to planning code section 329 to re-authorize a previously approved and constructed project at 600 south van ness avenue which constructed a 27-unit presidential project with ground floor commercial space and 17 off-street commercial spaces and within the urban use mixed district. the re-authorization of the project requests to amend conditions of approval for motion 19-378 and changing the method of compliance with the inclusionary housing requirements of section 415 of

the planning code from the provision of four on site bmr units to the payment of the affordable housing fee. no physical change is proposed to the already construct and occupied building. planning code section 415 provides a menu of options for a project to choose from to meet the requirements of the section. a project sponsor can elect to provide below market rate units on site, provide the low market rates offsite and pay the affordable housing fee and some combination that results in full compliance. when a project sponsor elects a certain option, they may change it at a later date. however, any reduction in the number of on-site units requires planning commission approval. that said, the planning commission discussion is when reviewing the cases is limited to the issues related to compliance with section 415 and the commission cannot prescribe or require a project sponsor to

choose a specific option for compliance. projects are only precluded from reducing on site units if the units were required in order to be eligible for the type of approval they were granted. and such as by obtaining the state density bonus and in the project you just reviewed approval through the housing sustainability district. for 600 south nan vesz, the project sponsor selected on site units a z the method of compliant between section 415. however, as the building was constructed t project sponsor desired to pursue a mixed ten your approach and in the below market rate units while resulting in a single entity owning 85% of the buildings and thus, having full and complete control over the homeowners session and would have extremely

limited options for the financing of the units. when the plan was presented to mocd, the marketing plan was rejected and on december 27, 2019, the notice of complaint was issued to the property for failure to provide the required below market rate unit in a compliant fashion. the project sponsor vuz provided as mentals to match the ten your of all the other units on the property or to pay the affordable housing fee instead. the project sponsor elected to pay the fee, necessitating this new large project authorization request that you are reviewing now. the commission nnd review of 42 otis requested additional information on the number of and included in your packet was a table details the four examples within the last three years where this reduction and on-site below market rate units for an

approved project has occurred. prior to 2017, the planning code did not require a project to on obtain commission aprooufl for this type of change. however, it was a department policy to bring projects forward. department staff has not received any formal comments on the proposed project, although we are aware of some requests to use the affordable housing fee generating within the mission district and and while the fee would be paid into the city wide project and neighborhood. mocd issued a letter of intent to use the fee generated within the mission district on eligible projects. although the project results in a reduction in onsite below market units, the project is compliants have and the as such,

the department recommends approval as conditioned. this conclude my presentation. prior to sponsor's presentation, supervisor ronen's office member would like to speak to the request. >> good evening. can you hear me? >> yes. >> great. thank you so much. good evening, president koppel and and it has been a long afternoon and evening, so thank you for allowing me the brief we marks on behalf of the supervisor. the decision before you today is highlighting significant gaps if the planning code with regard to affordable and including to mitigate and to mitigate that

impact. 600 south van ness and was there to do the staff report for the 2015 initial hearing. and when it came out of commission and with the reasons of approval for the lpa that stated the project was dividing the units on site. recently it came to our attention that the project sponsor had gone and the project was approved with ownership and affordable mo and having the affordable number of condo ownships in a market rate rental building was impossible to finance. the upshot is if the sponsor received certificate of final completion in july to 17 and has been working out the market rate units and the bmr units have sat

empty for and failed to meet the mitigation and struck things in and mitigations that have been impacted from the city and community and and very much appreciate your partnership and planning in working on this and i just want to also re-emphasize what michael christianson said if you include the change in conditions of approval today and do allow the project, we intend to capture this moving forward as originally approved. thank you. so this concludes staff presentation. we also have our housing staff and i believe the representative

from mocd available if the commission does have urt questions. >> you have a five-minute presentation. >> mr. vettle, are you with us? i don't see his phone number in

the list of attendees. at this time, commissioners, we can take public comments. members of the public, press star and 3 to be entered into the queue. i see no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. i take that back. through the chair, you have one minute. >> caller: hi. my name is rose. i have been living in san francisco for 15 years and i have been living in the neighborhood for over five years. i am just calling to support this project at 353divisidero street. i am not sure if i am being heard. >> clerk: you are, ma'am.

>> caller: okay, great. >> this is for a different item, jonas. >> clerk: i'm sorry? >> miss, i think you were talking about an item, two items from now. she was speaking about -- >> clerk: i'm sorry. i was a bit distracted. a lot of things happening over here. >> caller: i am so sorry. i thought i was in the right queue. >> clerk: that is okay. you will have to call back and speak at that time. so i got word that the project sponsor will try to call in. [please stand by]

>> good evening, everyone. lydia healey. i'm the deputy for housing at mohcd. i'm hoping at this hour that i can get the attention of my colleagues at the below rate market area housing.

it's going to be hard for me to answer that, but i'm hearing from my folks. [inaudible] about using the proceeds -- using the fee for housing projects in the mission district. >> lydia, i can answer that question. this is carly grove. >> thank you, carly. >> the mixed concept for us was very difficult. we anticipated that the b.m.r. and market rate units were [inaudible] and the ten-year

dictates the rate at this point. so i think we initially worked with -- mohcd and the project sponsor worked pretty diligently to figure out if a mixed tenure option was a viable option, so there was a bit of a delay in really trying to understand if enough lenders could come to the table to allow the b.m.r.s to have a shot. the other was around the h.o.a. formation. the h.o.a. has to happen at the state level, so we've kind of realized that that process does take a goodyear and, you know, we were waiting on the h.o.a. formation to finalize, you

know, the marketing plan. you know, the b.m.r. team can speak to the ins and outs and the chronology, and i'm happy to send that to you as an e-mail follow up, but those are the reasons for the four-year delay. >> commissioner diamond: and miss bynar, if you're there, i'd like to know what the legislation is intending to accomplish. i'm fine with them paying the fee, but what's troubling is how long it took to get to this stage, so what are we doing to ensure that doesn't happen going forward? >> well, if i may -- hi,

everyone, again. lydia healey, mohcd. i do have a little bit more that i can share that might address your question, commissioner diamond. the marketing was delayed when it came to these units. the marketing was delayed for a year with the h.o.a. the mixed tenure concept was illuminated, and we all agreed that that was not the intent of the legislation.

>> and i'm sorry, lydia. i didn't mean to interrupt you. >> yeah. >> we've been working very closely with supervisor ronen's office, and amy, she can speak to this, as well. one of the primary goals of the legislation was the b.m.r. tenure has to match the tenure, and that wouldn't have come up if we hadn't checked in the code. >> we're really drilling down in the entitlement process at mohcd to make sure that we're passing on m.s.r.s to mohcd.

>> commissioner diamond: so are there any projects in the pipeline that are mixed-tenure projects that are under the same scenario? >> there are a couple that we're still working through. they're a little bit of a different scenario because they're a bonus density requirement? we're trying to keep the door open for a mixed tenure concept. we don't want to necessarily close the door on any unique opportunities for future development, especially if you're looking at a project the size of a transbay project, but we've really tried to outline some type of guardrails for the process. we're really trying to understand how we can set up a

project so that mohcd and planning can look at this from the beginning. >> commissioner diamond: right. it would be a troubling situation if we're seeing more situations where there's auto multiyear period of time, where the b.m.r.s aren't being sold or rented and yet the market-rate ones are. that seems like it's counter to what our goals are. >> agreed. >> if i can add one thing. i mean, i do think it's true that the planning motion and the n.s.r. for this project has kind of unusual language in them that made it harder to interpret and implement, and now there's so much more collaboration between mohcd and

planning at this stage and even earlier, that we don't think it'll come up again. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, we do have the project sponsor. you have five minutes. >> okay. can you hear me, jonas? >> clerk: yes. you do have another device, and we're getting a little bit of an echo, so i would mute that line. >> okay. joseph taveccho, taveccho group. [inaudible] we're here because that was an inability for the marketing plan to be approved. let me give you a little bit of background as to why joseph has chosen this b route. he and his family recently

created the affordability project as a nonprofit developer [inaudible] to provide the capital needed to launch each affordable development. recently, the group acquired a site at 5250 third street for the first affordable development. [inaudible] will develop approximately 102 units, about 70 are proposed to be low-income or below market rate

development. the process did not result in the approval of a marketing plan. even though the code at the time and the procedures at the time did not prohibit the sales of mixed tenure units in the building. despite the best efforts, mohcd required the marketing plan and either required that they become rental units or [inaudible] but agreed to mohcds other alternative and submitted this in-lieu fee to the department in june 2020. we continued to [inaudible]

resulting in the need for today's hearing. after paying the in-lieu fee [inaudible] which will increase the market value of that building. [inaudible] south van ness to be refinanced to generate the capital financing for the affordability project. that is the reason it is not an acceptable solution. we believe this solution is a win-win the solution also provides over $1.9 million fee

revenue to mohcd to finance affordable housing in the mission, including possibility a small site acquisition. the result will be an additional 40 units on the mission as well as many more affordable units at 5250 third street. for these rather unique reasons, we ask for your support. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. vattle. if that concludes your presentation, we will open this up for public comment, and there were no requests to speak. i'll ask for final call for members of the public to submit their comment at this time. seeing no public comment, commissioners, the presentation is closed, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i am in support of the project and

move to approve with conditions. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion to approve this project with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. 4712 third street was continued to may 13, placing us on item 13, 2020-010329-cua at 1215 29

avenue; a conditional use authorization. before we proceeded, i believe the director wanted to make an introduction. >> director hillis: thank you, jonas. vincent has been with planning since 2019, but it's his first time at the commission. he's from southern california, holds a b.a. in urban studies and planning from u.c. san diego. he's in our code enforcement team. in his free time, he enjoys hiking and playing the piano, so i'll turn it over to vincent. >> thank you, director hillis. good evening, president koppel and members of the commission. my name is vincent page, planning department staff. the project before you is to remove two unauthorized dwelling units or u.d.u.s from

the ground floor of an existing three-story, singing family residence. this project was filed in response to the board of appeals notice of decision and for the record. the zoning administrator had previously found that the project site features two unauthorized dwelling units. the property owner appealed the zoning administrator's decision to the board of appeals, which rejected the vote in a unanimous hearing in august 2020. the owner, in order to avoid the assessing of a penalty, would be required to file a [inaudible] one for the unit legalization for ordinance 4314, and the second through the addition of an a.d.u. or obtain conditional use authorization for the removal

of both units. to date, the department has not received any letters in support of or opposition from the public, however, we have received three letters from the public requesting position about the project. the department finds that the project is on balance, not compatible with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project would result in the removal of two unauthorized dwelling units subject to the rent stabilization and arbitration ordinance. considering the city's housing needs, the loss of two units under city protection is not in balance with several city policies. in addition, the owner has failed to maintain the project site in a manner that conforms

to planning code and applicable department policies. the project would result in a net reduction to the city's housing stock and is not supported in light of the current housing affordability crisis. a denial of this project would result in a net increase of legal dwelling units to the city's housing stock and in a higher -- and a greater willness to protect against loss of life in a housing or other disaster because the owner would be required to bring the units in compliance with all relevant city codes, including the building and planning codes. the owner maintains that it would be infeasible to bring

into compliance the two units but has not provided any specifics. i believe the project sponsor would like to present, and i have a slide presentation for them to use. i'm sorry, jonas. do i -- >> clerk: mr. hammock, i'm going to ask that you mute your device. it's creating an echo. >> unmute my device or computer? >> clerk: either one. >> how is this? >> clerk: very good. you have five minutes, and your

slides are up. go ahead, mr. hammock. >> is this better? >> clerk: much better, yes. >> hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. go ahead. >> my name is lee hammock, and i'm the project sponsor. greetings, president koppel. >> clerk: well, i believe you muted yourself, mr. hammock, somehow. there you go. you're back. just remember stop pressing buttons. >> i'll start over. is this okay? >> clerk: yes, please. >> okay. my name's lee hammock. i'm the project sponsor.

i would like to start with some introductory comments, and i won't repeat my greetings to all the commissioners and vince. but at any rate, when christie west purchased the property in 1982 for her family home, the unauthorized units were already in place. the owner and landlord feel they've been singled out from the thousands of landlords and similar owners given the difficult choice of remaining the units with the department's authorization or removing the units at tremendous cost or incurring punitive damages damages which would result in the loss of the family home, which i think is suggest. some comments are necessary regarding planning department's executive summary. owner compliance with application requirements. the planning department claims that the owner has refused to

cooperate with certain aspects of this procedure but that is simply not true. the owner has repeatedly stated his willingness to comply with all requirements for this application, but the department has refused to accommodate any additional time about the owner's concern about exposure to covid-19 to complete the necessary work at this time. second, prior eviction history. the department incorrectly suggested that tenants have been evicted from the unauthorized units. first, the department relies upon the bare allegations of tenants seeking financial gain. second, there have been only two evictions in the history of the project. in 2016, two tenants were found to have been maliciously harassing another tenant and refused to correct their behavior.

2018, another moved from the second to first floor bedroom due to physical restrictions and but for these proceedings, intends to continue residing in that as her family home. joe o'donohue mitigated a meeting between the parties. any complaints were addressed in approximate a reasonable and prompt manner. further, ms. west understood that further enforcements on the units were indefinitely suspended. the intents of the property is to restore the building as a

single-family structure, maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and eliminating any health and safety concerns relating to occupancy of the unauthorized units. due to the low ceiling height of the ground floor, it is unfeasible for the owner to fully legalize these units. instead, the project calls for conversions of these units into day rooms accessible from the upper story of the house. key elements of the project include, first of all, full interior access. onun already has interior access to the main house via existing interior stairs, by conversion of the units going into day use space, all of the area will be accessible to the

house. affordablity. the proposed work can be accomplished at a reasonable cost and without significantly disrupting the occupancy of the tenants of the main house. additional submissions in support of the application. the plan check comments of december 30, 2020 requested additional plan inspections of the building including full latitudinal and longitudinal inspections of the house -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. commissioners may have questions for you later.

members of the public, this is your opportunity to comment on this matter by pressing star, three to enter the queue. seeing no members of the public wanting to comment, the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: welcome, vincent. i am in support of staff's recommendation. commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, vincent, for your first presentation, and hope you're enjoying your time with us. i have a question. i don't know if mr. page can answer this? are there still existing tenants in this building? it looks like they are still in this building. >> when i was issued the plan check letter, and it requested

confirmation, they responded that yes, there are tenants in both units. >> commissioner imperial: and i guess this is my question to the project sponsor. it looks like this has been -- the ground -- or the unauthorized units has been around for about how many years now, and you were given a chance and still were unable to authorize and still unable to provide financial responsibility to legalize these units. how come you're not able to provide the financial feasibility for you? >> commissioners, my name is norman [inaudible], and i'm the attorney for the -- >> clerk: okay. sir, you've got a [inaudible]

echo on your end from your device. >> okay. is this better? >> clerk: yes, significantly. >> we did disclose financial information in a separate packet that we did submit to mr. page. we did send some spreadsheets that were prepared by a financial accountant or a forensic accountant that was intended to maximize the value of the house. essentially showed that the owners have very little income. they've maximized their ability to leverage these houses just to -- and their net income from the rentals of this property and their other properties are barely covering the existing mortgages and other expenses of

the house. this was proven to the satisfaction of the superior court in another proceeding which is currently on going, and that is the financial information we have today. we haven't gotten current appraisals that was requested by the planning department because that would require interior access, and we've got concerns with exposure to covid-19 and the same thing with detailed -- actually, the cost -- we did get a survey of cost estimates by mr. nolte, but our time ran out before he could present his findings. the cost to legalize the property and raise the ceiling by about 6 inches would cost somewhere between $550,000 and

$700,000. >> commissioner imperial: okay. thank you. so my comments on -- regarding on this project, and i am sympathetic to tenants in a dwelling, especially in an unauthorized dwelling unit. however, i do find -- i'm sorry. i'm making comments right now. i'm not asking a question anymore. so my comments on this, you know, of course, my heart is -- goes out to the tenants, and my -- also, another worry on this is that, you know, there were -- i believe there were opportunities for this to be legalized and seen but still didn't get to, and the fact that, you know, you are gaining

rental revenues in this in how many years, i believe that is quite, you know, unreasonable for the tenants themselves in order to live in unlegalized units, so i do support the planning department's proposal for the legalization of the unauthorized dwelling units. and for the tenants that are living in this -- in this -- you know, in this units is to seek also to the rent board if there are any kinds of living or habitability issues that we're putting here, but yes, i think this units needs to be legalized, and unfortunately, this needs to happen. and it's also quite -- for the project sponsor not to provide

financial feasibility on time and enter the units unreasonable. so those are my comments, and i do -- i guess my motion will be to deny this -- to deny the -- or [inaudible] deny this legalization of the offer. sorry. it's been a long day. >> vice president moore: there's a second if it reflects the department's recommendation for the denial. >> clerk: that was my understanding, commissioner moore. and correct me if i am wrong, commissioner imperial. i understood your motion to be to disapprove. >> commissioner imperial: yes, that's a good way to put it.

>> clerk: okay. commissioner koppel, i see commissioner diamond wanting to speak. >> president koppel: commissioner moore, was that all you had? >> vice president moore: i seconded the motion of denial. >> president koppel: okay. and then commissioner diamond, you're next. >> commissioner diamond: i'm sorry. did commissioner moore have a comment? >> vice president moore: i was just explaining that i supported the motion of denial and a second. >> commissioner diamond: okay. just a question for staff. did you review -- did they submit some kind of construction packet? did it meet our standards? can you explain something about supporting this $600,000 for the conversion and fill in the gaps? we sometimes in front of the commission get submission in a

timely manner where the costs have been verified, and we do take that into account in our decision making, but you didn't really mention that in your decision making, so it would be helpful what you thought about that. >> of course, commissioner diamond. thank you for your question. so the financial information that was submitted was submitted after the deadline and after we'd published the packet, so i talked to my supervisor and then forwarded the packet to the commission for your review. >> commissioner diamond: right. >> and then, my supervisor helped me review it. david winslow helped us, and we said the submittal does not meet our standards, and i think the simple reason was we were not sure whether the plans were accurate, whether they really represent all conditions on the property, and we're not sure whether the financials that were submitted are accurate,

and i think if rich wants to -- i would like to defer to my supervisor, rich sucre. >> sure, supervisors. happy to help. i think because of lack of materials and lack of being given access to the property, it was suspect. we have costs of property, and we usually ask for two of them, and we weren't able to do any of that. the material that's represented in the packet that's accurate based on the information that was provided to us, so we didn't feel comfortable opining on the additional result provided by the sponsor without being able to, you know, verify it in the field, which is typically what we would do. >> commissioner diamond: right, and the project sponsor, when he heard that was your view,

didn't request a continuance to provide, you know, the necessary information that would meet our standards? because i completely agree we can't make a decision upon information that doesn't meet our standards. i'm just the project sponsor didn't -- or maybe he did make a continuance and you just didn't grant it. >> yeah, i'll chime in. i think given the decision by the board of appeals and the interaction with the sponsor to date, staff felt it was appropriate to bring the project forward to the commission with the recommendation that they did -- that we've had. there's been ample opportunity given to this sponsor to provide information, to provide access. this project has happened precovid, and it's taken us quite a while to get to the point that we have, so we felt it was beholden on us to try to

move forward on the process based on that. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. if there's nothing further from commissioners, there is a motion and second to disapprove the project based on representation. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes, 7-0. that places us on item 14, 2020-009148-cua, at 353 divisadero street.

>> good evening again, commissioners. michael christiansen with the planning department. this site is located within the divisadero street neighborhood commercial transit zoning district, and a 40-x height and bulk district. the project was submitted by equity applicant jason everett to the city's department of cannabis on august 1, 2018. the file was referred to the planning department on april 9, 2020, and a formal plan was officially filed on april 13, 2020. the planning department reviewed the proposal and has found it compliant with the

planning code. [inaudible] within the business, however, because of the layout of the space, the only area where the lounge could be placed was right up front against the storefront. the health code requires that all cannabis consumption cannot be visible from public spaces, and the planning code maintains the store windows must be maintained transparent. the two cannot be maintained at the same time, so therefore, the smoking lounge was removed from the project. your packet did include a security plan and an odor mitigation plan that was filed. these plans are reviewed by the office of cannabis and other agencies after a location is

approved by the planning department. these plans will be amended prior to license issuance, and the odor mitigation plan will be reviewed by the department of public health, and the security plan will be reviewed by the police department. for the future, staff will include a note on these plans that they are preliminary and will be reviewed by relevant agencies if the location and physical characteristics of the site are approved. staff would also like to note that the land use table was missing some information on existing retail uses at the site. there are two existing retail spaces, one approximately 1300 square feet, and the other approximately 700 square feet. this project would occupy the 1300 square foot space. no new retail spaces would be

committed, and other residential uses on the site would remain exactly the same. staff has received four letters, 32 form letters, and 105 signatures in support of the project and four letters in opposition of the project. letters in opposition cited concern regarding parking, cited an existing medical cannabis dispensary that exists a quarter mile from the sight and cited concern that the business would bring in outsiders who would disrespect existing residents. staff has reviewed the file and recommends approval, given that the site is fully code compliant and meets the city's equity goals. this concludes staff's presentation, and i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you, michael.

mr. mousley, you have a five-minute presentation. are you with us? >> yes. my name is jason edward. i'm with equity. -- i'm the equity partner. >> clerk: you are coming in very, very faint. i don't know if you can get closer to your microphone or speak up, but you have five minutes. >> good evening and thank you for hearing me this even. i'm jason everett, and i'm the partner of the [inaudible] at 353 divisadero street. my father has lived in the tenderloin for 50 years with my mother and just retired from the [inaudible] hotel after 20-plus years. i have 20-plus years in the service industry. as a deejay, i have worked with

organizations like the st. francis organization, the tenderloin health project, and the united nations children's fund. i have worked with my partner, mike mousley, for ten years, and we have been district 9 partners for five years. we filed this cannabis application in 2018. while the three-year process has been arduous, the city has done a great job of explaining the stringent and [inaudible] standards in advance. [inaudible] standard operation procedures that have been drafted to be compliant with the city. there will be no consumption allowed within 100 feet of the building. i really appreciate the trust

my partner and city have bestowed in me from this project. i spent years in and out of mental health facilities, group homes, multiple arrests, probation, culminating in multiple cannabis felony charges in the year 2000. i credit my father 20 years ago for helping me to get my life on track. i started working in the cannabis industry five years ago as a delivery driver, and i saw firsthand the benefits of cannabis as a caregiver.

to show support for the special needs community in our district, i've lobbied for one delivery vehicle with a dedicated garage parking space. i've also lobbied successfully for veteran, disabled, and neighborhood resident discounts. we will also be pet friendly, of course. with our team, i feel we are positioned to run this dispensary the best we can. i will be there personally to take responsibility, manage, and provide our neighbors with the highest quality service. thank you so much. i'd like to introduce alicia, our compliance manager. >> hello. my name is alicia [inaudible]

and i've been working in the cannabis industry for 21 years. over that time, i have owned and operated 13 compliant dispensaries [inaudible]. >> clerk: project sponsor, are you still with us, or does that conclude your presentation? project sponsor? >> yes? >> clerk: did that conclude your presentation? >> no, it did not. >> clerk: okay. you've got 30 seconds.

>> okay. we've got alex [inaudible]. >> hi. i'm alex aquino, a partner of this project. [inaudible] and also started the sweepers project on eighth and would like to start a sweepers project on divisadero. >> clerk: okay. that is your time now. the commissioners may have additional questions for you later, but at this time, we're going to take public comment. members of the public, through the chair, you each have one minute, and when you hear that

your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> hi, there. i'm speaking as a divisadero frequenter local and bike rider, and i wanted to express my concerns with this project, considering the exact location of the proposed cannabis dispensary in divisadero? that location is dangerous to bike riders as it is because it is such a busy and important street to the neighborhood? and furthermore, there are issues with the parklet as it is? so for example, with uber and other drivers double parking to access this facility, my concern is this could become a very dangerous intersection for bicyclists because of the nature of this business, so i'd like to express my deep distaste for the possibility of a cannabis dispensary in this

location for the safety of residents, for the safety of bicyclists, and i think for the necessary good traffic flow in the district. i think it's not needed because of two dispensaries in the location, so i'd like the commission -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> yes, hi. this is kristin evans, and i'm a small business owner and d-5 resident. i've known him and his family for many years. mike and his family own several small businesses, and they've been a real asset to our community, contributing to the efforts of the haight-ashbury business merchants association and the efforts they've done for the community. i support their application and encourage you to support it, as well. thank you so much.

>> good evening. my name's mark brennan. we manage the building across the street from this proposed location, and although i do have some concerns with parking and other elements, we have a dispensary on [inaudible] and haight, which have given us some problems, i have expressed those to mike, and he's a pretty good owner, and i think he'll be able to keep control of this, so i do support this application. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is mark henderson. i am a property owner, multiple properties in district 5. i know the sponsor, the [inaudible] family and mike over a decade, and i know them

as excellent stewards of real estate and phenomenal operators. i support this project. especially like seeing sponsors invest in and activate spaces at street level, especially during this time, so i'm a property owner in the area and support the project. >> hi. my name is katrina, long time d-5 resident. i think this is an a-1 team that you can definitely trust to run a really responsible business here. i know alex totally turned around the 4-20 event that attracted the most amount of san franciscans in any event ever, and they totally trashed the neighborhood every year, and since he started running it, it's been completely different, and he's been able to turn it all-around.

i think they're going to run a really responsible business here and address any concerns of outsiders coming in and ruining the neighborhood. they have a great team that's been operating dispensaries for decades, so i think we're in really good hands here. i'd love to see more options in the neighborhood, i'd love to see more equity businesses in the neighborhood, and this is right on my way to work when i take the 7-bus downtown. this is super convenient for me. i don't have to drive downtown. i'm in super support of this project. >> >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> thank you. >> my name is tom hamilton with the divisadero merchants association.

an overwhelming number of merchants were against the dispensary to establish itself in the neighborhood. the main reason were security and safety concerns, operating concerns, parking and transit concerns, and the actual need for another dispensary in the district. one community meeting was heard by the group behind the dispensary to address the concerns, and sufficient explanations were made at this time. they have made attempts to speak to other merchants but have not held another community meeting since that time to address the issue. thank you. >> hi. my name is ryan stubbs.

25 year resident of the city. jason and his family are amazing people to work with, standup citizens, great property owner, total pillars of the community, so i fully support this project. thank you. >> hello. my name is christopher [inaudible]. i'm owner of [inaudible] social, which is right next door to the proposed site. i know mike, and mike has always been very kind and standup with myself. i also am a member of or a former member of the economic recovery task force, and -- and in looking at that and the economics behind it, we know

that it would bring more jobs to the -- to the -- to the neighborhood, and i think that would be a great thing for our corridor, as well, so i support -- >> my name is michael nolte, and i'm a sixth generation san francisco and a former resident of district 5. i'm in support of the c.u. and also of the equity partner, jason everett. i believe that we need these kinds of businesses, cannabis retail, in san francisco, and i think, you know, the commissioners need to support this project as proposed. thank you. >> hello. my name is rose harliss. i have lived in san francisco

15 years and district 5 particularly for the last six or seven years. i also work in the cannabis industry here in san francisco, so it's both my personal and professional belief that the neighborhood and the city would both benefit in the long run. it is well known in the cannabis generation years ago. jason is honest, cares about the community, and i support this project at 353 divisadero. it's also within my professional opinion that all of the complaints about parking, multiple dispensaries in the neighborhood are unfounded, and there are ways to address all of these issues. they work and bring jobs into this neighborhood, and with all of these people with all of these jobs, they're going to be boosting economy by buying

lunches and etc., and it's all going to be positive. thank you for your time. >> hi. my name is justin frankelsen. i have been involved in politics since high school on the youth commission and am an entrepreneur right now. i've known michael and his family for years now. they are great outstanding citizens, supporters of the city, and i know this would be a great project for the neighborhood. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star then three to be entered into the queue. you have one minute.

go ahead, caller. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is anthony, born and raised in san francisco, currently work for san francisco as a health care employee. i've known jason for 20-plus years. he really cares about the community and really cares about people he's around. i really support the project at 353 divisadero. looking for the future of cannabis, i think the more cannabis dispensaries we have, i think we will have less lines outside of the doors, and parking is a problem everywhere in the city. i think any kind of store that would be there would be causing any type of good traffic flow problems, you know? thank you. >> hi, this is [inaudible] mccarthy calling in on behalf

of jason everett. i've been an s.f. resident for over ten years now and have known jason my whole life, and he's an honest, hard working, caring person in our community, and i fully support this dispensary project at 353 divisadero street. thank you. >> hi. my name is john amaro. i'm a 20-year resident of district 5. i live in upper haight. i support the 353 dispensary, and i support mike. i've known him for 15 years. he supports the communities where he has businesses. he's been a major contributor of the haight street fair as long as i can remember, and with the proliferation of the dispensaries in the city, he should be considered an asset.

i support the 353 and mike. thank you for your time. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> oh, hi. my name is -- hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> hello. my name is michael xavier. i'm a haight-ashbury resident and merchant, and i'm also a merchant of the haight-ashbury street fair. i think that this is great for the corridor, and i think that anything that arises can be taken care of regarding traffic and crowd control. i support this project.

>> clerk: okay, caller. last chance. all right, commissioners, that will conclude public comment, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: before calling on the other commissioners, i will say i'm supportive of staff's recommendation. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: given the presentation and the testimony to the applicant's character and general business acumen, i'm in full support of the application. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i agree with commissioner moore, and i would move to approve the application and the project as

proposed by staff. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there's no further deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, placing us under your discretionary review calendar for item 15, case 2020-006525-drp at 1990 lombard street. this is a discretionary review. mr. winslow, are you ready? >> i sure am. hate to ask, but can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. thank you. happy earth day to all, what's left of it. president koppel, vice

president moore, commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of -- i lost my -- of building permit application 2018.0327.4744 to convert the two upper floors of an existing office and commercial building to residential use, a total of six units, including a new roof deck and stair penthouse to an existing three story building within an nc-3 zoning district. the d.r. speaker is thomas

dougherty and tenant of the ground floor commercial space who is concerned that the conversion of the ground floor to business could impact his business, and he would like to have rerouting of restaurant exhaust and other concerns remedied before approving plans. while the department also strongly supports small businesses, the accuracy of the plans, and the impact of the proposed work cannot be verified by staff nor are the phasing of the operation and impact on existing businesses within the purview of planning department to monitor or

regulate. drawings related to specific work are usually submitted to the planning department as addenda. therefore, staff deems there are no extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review. this concludes my presentation, and i believe that d.r. requester is ready with the presentation. thank you. >> clerk: unfortunately, i don't see the d.r. requester in our list of attendees, nor do i see his phone number, so i would just request the d.r. requester, if you want to make your presentation, you'll need to give us an indication of your phone number if you're calling in on a different one than you've provided to us, and if you're on your computer, i don't see your name, so i am going to -- unfortunately, it's rare, but the first three digits is all i've got to work with with the area code, and

there are two callers with the same first three digits. i'm going to go with the project sponsor for three minutes. project sponsor, are you with us? project sponsor? project sponsor -- project sponsor, is this you? okay. i've unmuted both callers with the area code 415 and first three digits of 412 for jeannie shen, but i don't -- i'm not getting any -- i'm not getting much of a response here.

>> jonas, we're on 1990 lombard, right? that should be thomas dougherty as the project sponsor and [inaudible] as the owner of record. >> clerk: okay. rahm is with us. you have three minutes, project sponsor. >> hi. i wanted to go to -- we started -- i wanted to go to our presentation slide. if you could look at page one, tom dougherty contacted our office on august 5, and we immediately contacted him,

corresponded, went back and forth with him, i believe it was the first of december, and then, i wrote the minutes of the meeting to him, and we went back and forth. on december 14, just because we realized, being a small business owner, myself am a small business owner, we said we'd be happy to go and look at the first floor kitchen as well as the basement, and then, we explain to him when we do the addendum set of drawings, all of your concerns would be answered by us because we would have and be consultant, we would have a structural engineer, and he would address all of these issues as the plans would be drawn up for construction documentation as well as the building addendum phase. so our intent is, you know, total openness. you know, we are, you know, obviously concerned, and

there's nothing here that we think require a d.r. because on the 14, we clearly mention to him that we'd be happy to, through the ownership, you know, go through his first floor and basement and document and then take care of all these issues during the building permit phase of drawings, and that's all that i need to say. >> clerk: thank you. mr. dougherty has now joined us, and you have three minutes. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners, and good evening, david. i'm actually -- my name is dawn [inaudible] architecture. i'm stepping in to present on his behalf. slide two, please. just a real quick introduction of the restaurant.

it's been in business on the ground floor of 1990 lombard street since 1979. recently, it's also nominated as a legacy business by supervisor stefani, so the business is not just a business, it's an important part of the community. slide three, please. the project timeline, this has been going on for two years, since 2018, when we first saw the submitted drawings. they were full of errors and omissions. specifically, there were no work being depicted on the ground floor as well as there were a basement. so essentially, half of the building was not represented in the project scope of work at all. and last year, there was a new submittal with a newark etiquette, who you just heard. it's the same problem. essentially, he took the last architect's drawings and changed the title block and

resubmitted with no change. next slide, please. number four. the issues we have with the proposed work are the following. we have been excluded from the 311 notifications twice. the drawings submitted both times are essentially the same. there are errors regarding the basement, and the construction will impact the basement greatly. it will trigger seismic retrofit, which would cause closure of the business. the proposed roof deck is completely currently in conflict with the current rooftop mechanism, and there's no proposed relocation on the plan at all. there's no trash accommodation, which we know is a planning

code requirement. new plan will trigger fire code upgrades, which are not shown. so these, the actual drawings submitted as noted, the gray plan is the correct set of the basement, which is not included in the submittal, which is the entire footprint of the building. there are meters located on the outside of the building, which are not shown, as well. next slide, please. the layout of the restaurant is not correctly shown? there's no indication of where the trash toters would be located for both restaurant as well as the units about? next slide, please. this is a roof plan, and you can actually see that on the google street -- >> clerk: thank you. i'm going to interrupt you. that was your three minutes. you will have a one-minute

rebuttal. >> thanks. >> clerk: we should take public comment if there is any. members of the public, now is your opportunity to speak to this item by pressing star, three to enter the queue. seeing no requests to speak from the public, public comment is closed, and i'm just going to go to the d.r. requester again for a one-minute rebuttal. >> yeah. >> d.r. requester, that would be me, yeah. so i just wanted to make clear that we are not opposing the scope of work, which is the housing element, but the accurate depiction of the project as a whole is right now, there is no work below, which is not true. you cannot completely gut out two levels without triggering some major work below, and this is inconsistent with the planning and the d.b.i. request for complete drawings to be

submitted to the city. thank you. >> clerk: great, thank you. project sponsor, you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> like i mentioned before, on our e-mail on december 14, we confirmed through e-mail to tom, and i think, for some reason, tom's e-mail got bounced back. and i did send an e-mail to dawn, who got it, where we said we'd be happy to drop the basement and show the kitchen and we'd coordinate this access to the owners, and the restaurant concerns would be met during the construction document phase. >> clerk: okay. that concludes -- if that concludes rebuttals, then, the public hearing portion is closed, and commissioners, the item is now before you.

>> president koppel: i'll be supporting staff's recommendation again. commission moore? >> vice president moore: i only have one brief question for mr. winslow. mr. winslow, the basement plans, is that required to be shown or not? is there any impact on the ground floor? is the drawing submittal as you see it typically to what we see during this stage of the game? >> it is. for a planning submittal, usually, all the technical things are not included. those are provided once an approval is granted from the planning department, but the issue -- just for clarification and some of the questions brought up by the d.r.

requester, one of the requirements of adding housing is bike parking, and when it became evident that that was not accommodated in the plans, we request that be sorted out by the project sponsor, which they did do. by providing they also owned the adjacent lot next door, and they're providing space for the bicycle parking there, along with what i believe, if i'm not mistaken -- correct me if i am wrong, mr. rendig -- the provision of the toters for the trash for the residential units. but as far as mechanical plumbing and seismic structural work that needs to be done, that's typically subsequent to planning approval. >> vice president moore: thank you. i am in support of the project as shown.

>> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i accept staff's recommendation and move that we do not take d.r. >> vice president moore: second -- and approve the project? >> commissioner fung: yes. >> vice president moore: thank you. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. [roll call] -- >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and we approach the final matter on the agenda, item 16,

2020-002333-drp at 2814 clay street. this is a discretionary review. >> good evening again, commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. this is a public initiated discretionary review of building permit application number 2020.0203.3400 to construct a two-story horizontal rear addiction to the existing two unit, three-story over basement building within an rh-2 zoning district. the resident of the adjacent building to the east of the proposed project, is concerned about blocking light and air to

property line windows, foundation and water drainage issues, and maintenance of their western wall. her proposed alternatives are to down size the master closet and bath of the proposed additions in order to leave space between the buildings at 2812 and 2814 clay street. today, the project has received no letters in support and no letters in opposition of the project, however, the staff recommends taking discretionary review and approving the modifications. there is no record of no-fault evictions. at issue is the protection of several property line windows of the d.r. requester's

adjacent building, and the department does not generally protect property line windows as they're considered existing noncomplying features. the project sponsor has accommodated the retention of a proper line window with the light well, and since the writing of this report, it has come to my attention both from the d.r. requester and the project sponsor that the remaining property line windows serves a stair to the basement of the d.r. requester's property. i had requested -- the impact is negligible, and i am modifying my recommendation.

this concludes my report, and i am happy to take questions, and i believe the project sponsor and d.r. requester are standing by. thank you. >> clerk: d.r. requester, you have a three-minute presentation. d.r. requester, are you with us? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: okay. you have three minutes? >> can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. go ahead. >> i'd like to thank the planning commission for the opportunity to speak. my name is elliot maxwell, and my wife and i bought 2012 clay street in 1984. we have an adjacent wall facing 1814 clay street. the owners are proposing to expand it by over 1,000 square feet [inaudible] and the

windows and vents on that wall. slides, please. the air vents which will be blocked are air intake vents which are required for the operation of the 2812 furnace. if they are blocked, it would require a major renovation to heat the building. the proposed additions would potentially block four windows, which are seen on this diagram. the four windows under discussion include two blocking which would cause exceptional damage to our tenants. w-1 provides sun light to the kitchen and dining room on the first floor. next slide, please. this is a picture of the kitchen. the other -- w-3 provides the only air and light to the study

and on the second floor. we asked that there would be a light well to protect these two windows, but the owners have rejected this. [inaudible] the plans increase the likelihood that water will pour over and introduce our ability to address any problems. the plans would have the impact of removing a rental unit from the rental market. i can't speak to the merits, but i understand that there are allegations that the plans proposed by a previous architect were used without her permission in a previous proposal. the city's map correctly shows 2814 with a ground-level

apartment. in 2019, the tenant in 24-a moved out, and the tenant in the garden apartment has just moved out apparently. the owners are trying to remedy the nature of the garden apartment but they're [inaudible] the plans seem to confirm that they plan to take over that unit and build a substantial deck and an apartment that was used over the last 40 years will be removed from the rental market. we ask that the essential air intake vents not be blocked but that the owner tenants of 2814 clay be made to pay for the air intake -- >> clerk: thank you. that concludes your time.

we will allow the project sponsor three minutes. are you with us? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: okay. you have three minutes. >> my name is dane bunton. i'm the project architect for 2814 clay street. just to go into three of the issues that have been raised. the number one would be the unauthorized dwelling units, the second would be the air intake and vents, and the third would be the roof deck. the first i'd we'd like to address is the authorization of the u.d.u. page three, please. the homeowner purchased this home in 2019 as a two-unit building. the report that we received shows it as a two-unit building. the purchased home was vacant at the time with the exception of a tenant residing in the basement unit. we have, on behalf of our

clients, filed with d.b.i. to legalize this unit. page 4, please, the coverage of the lot windows and vents. the adjacent property owner's home has been built out to the property line. it is our understanding that there's no basis to prohibit covering the neighbor's illegal windows and vents. we found this is a common pattern in the neighborhood. california law and codes in the city do not protect property line windows as stated. these windows and vents are not legal. they present a significant hazard to our property.

the adjacent property owners have requested a five-foot set back. we find it an unreasonable request as the d.r. requester provides no alternative of their own. page six, going to the next item is the southern important of the deck, which was skipped over by david a little bit. so the southern end of the deck, we're looking at w-4 in a previous diagram. it's a 1'3" project window. the d.r. requester has not taken notice, but there should not be no expectation of privacy from this window. it's a closet window. the sight line issue shouldn't be an issue from the deck as it

allows no visuals into the closet or out onto the deck. next slide, please. this window is surrounded by other windows in the light wall on all three sides already, including directly in front of it, therefore, reducing the deck has no impact on privacy. in conclusion, the d.r. requester has not met their burden, and there is no reason to take d.r. and deny this project. in closing, we would submit you take d.r. and approve this

project. >> clerk: thank you. now is the time for public comment. seeing no public commenters, public comment is closed. d.r. requester, you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> the expansion now causes the potential for having to completely renovate our heating system which was designed in compliance with the code at the time, and there's been no changes since that time. the other thing that's important to remember is that the two windows that are being affected most are places where the tenants are affected rather than the window which we

explicitly claimed from being protected when we first met with the owners, so we hope that, in fact, they're moving to have this expansion and not providing any remedy for the windows that have existed for the last 40 years and causing us to having to renovate all of our heating system is -- justifies the commission acting on its discretionary authority. and if they are not to be fixed by order of the commission, then they should at least be able to recompense us for the renovation of the heating system that's been in place for 40 years unchanged. thank you. >> clerk: project sponsor, you have a one-minute rebuttal.

>> hi. this is jeannie shen. i am the homeowner, and i just wanted to take a minute to add to dane, our architect's thoughts, on this matter. you know, a year and a half ago, we bought this house as our long-term family home. we've tried to remedy the u.d.u. situation by filing the paperwork to legalize it, and we are committed to doing that, and we will do that. as far as the windows, you know, we mean to cause our neighbors no harm, and we've looked at this every which way. we've reached out to them several times, but we've received no reasonable solution, and instead, they've demanded a five-foot set back,

which is something we cannot accommodate. they have lot line windows, and we believe we should be able to use our property in the same manner. our project is code compliant, and we hope that the commission would view our project in the same way so that we can -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. commission president koppel, we have a late request for public comment. shall we take that caller? >> president koppel: yes. >> clerk: you have one minute. >> yes. well, thank you, commissioners. i've been waiting for nine hours to get on the line here, and the wonky system didn't let me in. i am the adjacent owner on 2816 clay street. i sent in -- mr. winslow was incorrect. i did send in a lengthy e-mail

to him later today. i have been given hardly any notice. there's been reference in the submission to the commission that there were neighborhood meetings and attempts to work with neighbors. i've had none of that at all. i object to this entire process. a nine-hour day, and we're sitting here at 11:00, and we're addressing this now under a one-minute, which you're going to cut me off. so i'm going to incorporate by reference the contents of my e-mail by mr. winslow. i'm making a record and putting everyone on notice that as client's attorney, i am going to reserve all rights, and i have a number of issues that i wanted to discuss. i had a very brief informal discussion with miss shen's husband that i initiated outside the building several months ago before any of these plans were finalized.

>> clerk: thank you. that is your time. members of the commission, that will conclude the public hearing portion of this matter, and it is now before you. >> president koppel: following further commissioners, i will voice my support for staff's recommendation. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you, president koppel. i -- looking at the information, commissioners, i would agree with mr. winslow's revised recommendation to not take d.r. to the folks who called in, the neighbors, we're here to really look at the project, to understand its merits, and understand how it does or does

not comply with the codes. we're not here to adjudicate issues of property lines and damage and things like that. i hope you can resolve these matters and work together, and you'll be living next door to each other, so hopefully, the relationships can improve, but i find the project to be code compliant and there aren't any special or extraordinary circumstances here. i move to not take d.r. and to approve the project. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: if there is no more deliberation from commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved,

commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. i congratulate all of you on your endurance today. everyone wanted a little bit of normal. well, here's a little bit of normal planning commission. we normally used to end about this time, so congratulations, and i will see you next week. >> president koppel: you too, as well, jonas. >> vice president moore: good night, everybody. >> commissioner fung: good night.

who told you we were going to be here? it was supposed to a secret. i got a call thursday from mayor breed saying "i want to come down." and it literally brought a tear to my eye. before i introduce his honor, willy brown, who i want to tell you a quick story. there was a rumor he was going to run for mayor and i ran into him in north beach and i just put my hand out and i said would you make your first campaign promise and he said "yeah, whatever it is. what do you want?" i said, "i'd like to see water running through lotus

fountain." he said, "you got it." and it wasn't an easy project. if they put water in it it was going to actually blow up. so i'd like to bring a long-time lotus flower supporter. earthquake celebration. and celebrated those brave souls who rebuilt the city from the ashes. so it's my honor to introduce his honor. and wish him an 87th birthday. >> i am, of course, delighted to again be here with all of you for the occasion of memorializing and remembering how difficult it must have been in 1906 for lots of people in

san francisco who at the time the clock struck, the city began to fall apart and before it was over within a few hours, the city had fallen apart. but, as usual, if you read yesterday, you know in the chronicle that, in fact, the city came rolling back. and it always coming rolling back and when lee housekeeper approached me in the middle '90s asking about this fountain there was a time period where absolutely i said, "i don't understand why that fountain isn't already working." i had no idea that fountain hadn't worked in hundreds of years and no one bothered to do anything about it. fortunately, there was a fellow named ed lee. he stepped up. i gave him directions on what i

needed to have done and ultimately, it did get done. it got done because many of you were participating in one way or another providing the inspiration. and, since the time that this fountain began to emit water again, every mayor thereafter has made it his or her responsibility to see that that fountain continues to spray water, that you continue to come here on april 18th, early morning for the express if you were of making sure that san francisco continues to remember what we are all about. and, believe me, it was a very special breed of people who in 1906 actually started the process of the resurrection of san francisco. so it shouldn't surprise you

that some many, many years later, more than 100 years later, the word "breed" is still the foundation of our city. the new mayor is "breed." i don't know if that's her real name. i have no idea, but i do know that it represents everything this city is all about for so many years and i am just delighted, believe me and i was told by lee housekeeper that again we would be celebrating. i actually thought i might be here alone. i remember one time i came here and they said "you've got to speak." and it was like one minute before the phone would ring and low and behold i said not enough time. on this occasion. ladies and gentlemen, the mayor

of san francisco and the lady who keeps the fountain going, mayor london breed. >> thank you, mayor willy brown. we appreciate you being here early this morning. and let me just start by saying i appreciate the city so much and everything you all have done to keep us safe when we had to shut this city down a year ago. today, we commemorate the 1906 earthquake and we also recognize our first responders. we have our fire chief janine nick olson today as well as our police chief bill scott and the person who has been leading during this pandemic, the emergency operation center thank you all so much. dr. colfax didn't get up this early in the morning. when i think about san francisco in the 1906

earthquake and how far we've come, just think about it. 250,000 people were homeless because of the earthquake and the fire. when i think about san francisco and our resilience, that's what we've been talking about this entire pandemic. we've come so far and we have made magic happen out of tragedy. the 1989 earthquake. many of us were around during that earthquake. maybe not the 1986, the embarcadero was shadowed by a freeway and now it's open and bright and available for all to enjoy and to see. the same with this pandemic with san franciscans. we go through earthquakes. we go through pandemics.

we go through things. when the time comes and we need to rise up like the phoenix we are, we stand strong, proud, and together and that's what the people of san francisco did in 1906 when we rebuilt this city and that's why we come here today to show appreciation to the guardians of the city, to show respect for the people who risk their lives to remember the 250,000 people who were homeless and the thousands of people who lost their lives. at this time, we commemorate the 1906 earthquake and we recognize how amazing and strong we are as a city and so i'm given the signal from martha cohen that we are almost at a minute. are we there, martha? all right. and our sheriff paul miamoto is

here. thank you so much, sheriff, for joining us. and, at this time, in recognition for those first responders, for the people we lost during the 1906 earthquake, for the people we lost during this pandemic. let's take a moment of silence.

thank you all so much for joining us in prayer. we're glad you've seen us survive 150 years. thank you again to the fire department and our chief and the police department and the department of public health, our sheriff's department, our first responders, the people who will continue to be the guardians of san francisco, we are coming out of this pandemic and we are coming out stronger than ever. thank you so much. ♪ san francisco open your gate here is your wondering one

saying no more ♪♪ ♪ san francisco welcome >> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes,

prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value. remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply.

download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens when the total value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million. let's say you have four properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at $200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you

would still have $100,000 left to pass on. what happens when you pass on the last property? this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000, and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000. as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000. when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property will remain at its existing value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words,

350,000, with a total coming out to $450,000. a similar program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website or

>> chair haney: this meeting will come to order. this is the april 28, 2021 budget and finance committee meeting. i'm matt haney, chair of the committee. our clerk today is linda wong. i would like to thank sfgovtv for streaming this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. committee members will attend the