want to bring to your attention is i worked in public health and i worked at d.p.h. for 18 years. i saw day in and day out what the effects of not having adequate housing or not having adequate income to live in your housing does to people from a quality of life standpoint, from a public health standpoint. so i want you guys to get our department to do what's right. we don't have that many, you know, buildings where d.p.h. is in charge of supportive housing, but we do have some, and so i'm asking you guys to get on the phone with grant colfax to talk to the

commissioners or meet soon, and do what's right here for our tenants, for legislation that has been funded. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. there are three callers in the queue and 14 listening. if you'd like to provide comments, now is the time to press star, three, otherwise, we'll take this group to the very end. welcome, caller. >> hi, supervisor. my name's david lee. i'm a [indiscernible] holder 370. i'm in a really different situation here. i actually am in a different situation. i couldn't borrow money, so i borrowed money from my parents,

$250,000. no customers, no paid leave, so i really can't make any money. the city should refund our money because it's not fair if uber and lyft can drive for free if we can't drive for free? thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir. next comment? >> thank you. my name is [indiscernible] and my pronouns are she and her.

let's talk about the teleconferencing. i think moving forward would be something like [indiscernible] because it's ridiculous to require masks in spaces where everyone is vaccinated, and of course, if you're unvaccinated, then you can participate remotely, but i also want to talk about our unaccountable d.p.h., which our previous caller mentioned. you can't e-mail them to complain about restrictions, he can't e-mail the health commission. i can't even e-mail my own specialist for my vaginoplasty.

even though d.p.h. has the funding, the city is not doing anything about it. the department of public health is not held accountable here, so that's why we're having a rally on december 7 in front of the department of public health. we need to make sure that this funding is here. it's just fucking bullshit that i have to keep doing this, and i think it's bullshit that i have to keep giving up my time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, we have four callers in the queue. let's hear from the next

caller, please. >> my name is [indiscernible] and i am medallion holder. i want to remind you that every other city in the city, it's completely different. san francisco [indiscernible] purchase medallion, we put the name to the lease to get free. [indiscernible] we're talking about 30 years ago. san francisco taxi medallion, so it was [indiscernible] because it's nothing is like new york. i put my name to the lease for more than 18, 19 years that

force me to get the medallion, and i have to get free. and i buy this medallion $250,000 to benefit my retirement. now, i am zero. no future for $250,000. i ask you guys, please. refund our money and the difference be owned to the bank, you want to take it, take it, but these promises to us, the medallion prom is filled. it is your responsibility to buy them back at the purchase price.

please [indiscernible] -- >> clerk: thank you, sir, for your comments. all right. we have three callers in the queue, 13 who are listening. let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hi. my name is victor [indiscernible], purchase medallion holder. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> hi. i waited on the taxi medallion list for over 15 years, and that tied me into the cab industry, my prime earning years, waiting to get this medallion. when i finally got near the top of the list, they had a pilot program of selling and giving away the medallions like they did around prop k. when i was homeless to the top of the list, you ended the program and the city told me i had the option to either go away or buy a medallion.

at that point, i bought a medallion. the city was selling the ability to regulate a market. for whatever reason, the city could not regulate the market, and the medallion did not sell what it should have sold for. now i'm living under tremendous debt under the bullying of the sfmta. now they're trying to find a half baked way out without really giving us relief out for our economic disaster. it's like passing on debt to your children after you die. so in a city like san francisco, the city should help its citizens and not prey on them. we paid over $68 million to the sfmta to use for their pensions

and all sorts of things. we need you guys to help and do the right thing and that is to take the medallions back. thank you. >> clerk: all right. we have three callers in the queue and 13 who are listening. we will take this next group to the end until we have another caller. mr. atkins, can we have the next caller. >> hello, supervisors. my name is brad [indiscernible] and i'm the owner of medallion 1557. i'm so sorry, supervisor ronen,

for the loss of your father. i think we should have more debate and talk with the taxi medallion owners. i was one of the ones on the list that waited for 19 years, and then when i was at the top of the list, i was told that we were selling them out from under me, and the s-medallion program for the seniors who had never put their name on the list, i waited for that, and then, i was told that i needed to pony up money for the medallion. 19 years of working for a gas

and gauge driver, i was told that a medallion would make my life better. the gas and gate drivers that i know that work shifts are paying far less that i'm paying to keep my cab and keep it rolling on the shift, and it's very difficult to find cab drivers that want to work shifts, so i'm up 24-7, which isn't sustainable for my wife and my family. >> clerk: thank you, sir, for your comments. please accept my apologies for cutting you off. we are setting the timer for two minutes. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes.

>> hi. my name is jay scott evans, and today, i was turned away because the meeting was closed. it's very difficult to discern that from the information that's on your website or agenda, so i would ensure that you do a better job of making sure that meetings that are supposed to be public are made available. lastly, i agree with item 33. i think this item needs to go to committee. if it's good to have vaccinated in person meeting inside for hotels, restaurants, theaters, bars, etc., it's good enough for the board of supervisors, and you should put yourselves on the same onus that you put

on us and set an example. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. we appreciate your patience. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> hello. my name is [indiscernible] fonseco, and i've been a medallion driver for 34 years. supervisor ronen, may you be blessed, and may you and your family have the strength to carry on. i wrote you a letter yesterday, two pages long, and it's regarding the taxi industry situation and what the m.t.a. is up to.

you know, it's -- it's very hard to call you and not show emotions when addressing the situations of the taxi industry. the medallion fail program is a human tragedy that can only be blamed on the city of san francisco. it's up to you to make it right. the failure of the medallion sales program to this point has affected all medallion buyers, and it became a drag on the entire taxi industry. in my letter from yesterday, i referred to prop a again [indiscernible] so you can

really provide debt relief for -- debt relief for medallion purchases, so i hope that you will look into this matter with more time more carefully. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> operator: madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: mr. president? >> president walton: thank you to all the callers for calling in. seeing no other callers, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, let's go to our for adoption without committee reference. >> clerk: these measures were introduced for adoption without committee reference. a unanimous vote is required for adoption of these resolutions today. any supervisor may require any resolution to go to committee.

>> president walton: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i'd like to sever item 31, please. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. seeing no other names to the roster, madam clerk, can you please call the role on items 32 and 33? >> clerk: thank you. on items 32 and 33 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president walton: thank you. without objection, these resolutions are adopted unanimously. madam clerk, will you please call item 31.

>> clerk: item 31 is a resolution urging the san francisco federal credit union to collaborate with the san francisco municipal transportation agency on agreeable medallion prices, loan forgivingness for medallion holders, and other reforms. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i think the title sums it up, but it should probably, as we heard from medallion holders during public comment, be more clear that the collaboration should, in a meaningful way, involve medallion holders, specifically purchase medallion holders. otherwise, i think we're all on the same page in the wake of the recent litigation brought by the san francisco federal credit union, and this simply urges the parties to come together, put down their

swords, and work out an overdue relief and loan forgivingness package as we saw in new york set forth in the purchase resolution. but to make it abundantly clear that we are urging the sfmta to do it in a collaborative manner with the meaningful input of taxi medallion holders. i would like to insert on page 2, line 18, an additional whereas clause that says whereas negotiating its own path forward, sfmta and the credit union can learn from the perspective of purchase taxi medallion holders that will be impacted by the result of any impacting compromise. and finally, on page 3, at line 1, a further resolved that is -- that says further resolved that purchased taxi medallion holders should be consulted with on any potential compromise, so i'd like to make

that motion, and again, thank you to my cosponsors, and hopefully, we can get it together and work stuff out with the credit union to work things out with the purchase medallion holders. >> president walton: thank you. and we have a second by supervisor melgar. and that motion passed, and we can take that same house, same call, and that resolution is adopted. madam clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items? >> clerk: there are none. >> president walton: thank you. can you please the in memoriam items? >> clerk: today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the late coach gerald rankin, jr.,

and on behalf of president walton, to be on behalf of supervisor ronen, for her father. >> president walton: colleagues, that brings us to the end of our agenda. madam clerk, do we have any further matters on our agenda? >> clerk: we have no further matters before us today. . >> president walton: thank you. this meeting is adjourned.

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e

community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are

refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ]welcome to the san franc

planning commission hearing for thursday, december 2 2021. hearings require everyone's attention and mostof all your patients . if you are not speaking please yourmicrophone to enable public participation . sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing life and we will receive public comments for eachitem on today's agenda . comments are opportunity to speak are available by calling

1-415-655-0001 . and entering access code 2496 096 6194. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted that is your indication to beginspeaking. each speaker will be allowed three minutes and whenyou have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a china indicating your time is almost up .i will announce your time is up and take the next person to speak . best practices areto call from a quiet location, theclosely slowly and quietly and mute the volume on your computer or tv . i will take role at this time, commission president koppel . [rollcall] thank you

commissioners. it forced on your agenda is the consideration of items proposed for continuance, item 1 case number 2121 001219 drm at one 228 funston street proposed for continuance to december 2021. item 2, 2020 007481 cua at 5367 diamond heights boulevard, a continuous additional use authorization proposed for january 20 2022. item 3, 2016 005365 cua at 230 anza street proposed for continuance to february 4, 2022. further commissioners on your calendar item 11, case

20/20-0133 cua 222 vicksburg street, a conditional use authorization requesting a continuance to february 10th and item 13, case number 2017 0071 cua 425 broadway conditional useauthorization requesting another continuance to december 16, 2021 .those are all the items i have opposed to be continued so we should open up public comment. if you would like to any of the items proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance, press star 3. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, publiccomment is closed and those items opposed to be continued are before you . >> president: commissioner

imperial. >> i propose for all items to be continued. >> clerk: on that item, commissioner tanner. [roll call vote] so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 720 and that will place us on commission matters for item 4,adoption of draft minutes for november 18, 2021 .you should open up public comment. if you wish to the minutes this would be your opportunity to do so by pressing á3. when we indicate your line has been unmuted that is your cue to speak. >> caller: good afternoon. it'sgeorgia shrimp dish . i wrote an email to mister

ionin for the mandelman ordinance and he said he would make those changes and i appreciate that he did that. thank you, take care. i won't hang up, i'm going to talk later. it's veryconfusing. goodbye . >> clerk: thank you forcatching those questions . there are no other comments so public commentdisclosed the minutes are now before you . commissioner imperial. >> moved to adopt the minutes.

>> second. >> clerk: on that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner tanner. [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 720 placing us on item 5, commission commentsand questions . ... commissioner tanner. >> this is unrelated i suppose to just our questions but i wanted to say i'm back from th holidays and it's good to see you all . i don't know when we will be together in person but i want to congratulate the wolverines on their victory over ohio state so go blue. i wouldn't be agood alumni if i didn't mention that so happy holidays .>> clerk: okay.

if there are no other requests from the commission to speak, we can move on to item 64 case number 2021 009 crv for remote hearings. commissioners this is the resolution that enables us to continue our remote hearings through the month of december. and i do see a member of the public requesting to speak so we will take that colornow. from the chair, you have two minutes and when your line has been unmuted that is your indication to speak . >> caller:this is sue hester. i request the commission federal and agenda item before the next session of the remote hearings . next on the advanced calendar

is for january 6 so sometime in december lease gradual and agenda item for a discussion and input from the planning department staff and any other city hall staff about how we can return safely to live hearings. remote hearings go on longer and they are really difficult for the public to give any input on. thank you for doing this. i appreciate it but please calendar, schedule that with input and some discussion for the public andyourself . thank you. >> good afternoon. it's georgia. i understand miss esther's frustrations. that's why i kind of keeps saying that i wish you could g , if the commission could please go to the tender time for people to speak.

you know, the thing that's so interesting to me about these hearings is that in some ways it's easy to pay more attention towhat the commission and staff says because we see you all in a close up .it's very dramatic if you think about film, a close-up is a dramatic thing and you all have the close-ups butthe public doesn't . the only thing we have is our disembodied voices speaking and we don't even understand the impact that we can't see your body language like we could in room 400 when we speak or put something onthe overhead . so i guess until the we resolve the whole issue with this pandemic and now the new variant and the governor i think said we have to be separate till march to lift the emergency i think that's what he said. if this seems like it would be a good thing to give the standard traditional time to speak even though it's over the phone and it's remote.

i don't think you cando a zoom for everybody. that seems wildly impossible but who knows. but that'sjust why i think you should go back to the standard time . i guess that's everything i wanted to say. thanks a lot . >> clerk: last call for public comment on this item. okay, seeing no additional requests for members of the public public comment disclosed commissioners , i will just say that resuming public hearings in person is somewhat out of our control. it's out of control of the department staff and it's out of control of this commission. until we get the green light from the mayor's office and city administrator's office that we aswell as the public can safely presume hearings . it'sreally that simple .

it's got nothing to do with me. it's got nothing to do with the seven of you. it's got nothing to do with the director so i'll leave it at that and put thisresolution before you now . ... commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i just went yesterday in person on my job for alarger meeting. probably the first one we had with that many people in one room . in sometime , it will be 2 years in march and it was refreshing and great and i know some hearings in some cities are resuming and people are getting back in person and that's why i say it's a welcome change iwould be prepared to support the resolution today . i just hope that we're almost there where we can gather in

person for hearingssued and can work to get out . i would hope definitely by january or february at the latest but i would be prepared to have a discussion right now but would love to hear other commissioners whatthey are thinking .>> clerk: commissioner imperial. >> and also in support of the resolution especially in light of the omicron variant that we just have. but we have a first case here in san francisco. i do understand it was miss esther explaining in termsof the remote hearing . i do believe that the planning department, that we have been trying hard to make sure the remote hearing is accessible. and the fact is at the same time there are digital barriers, issues when it comes to low income communities. we cannot deny that. it's also beyond the control of

the planning department and i think what we can improve on though in the remote hearings are access . and i think this is a new challenge and we have done that in some of the hearings that we have but it's very sparse and is also per request. so in terms of like the language access i think there's thing that can be improved on whether it's through our website or through the sf gulf tv and also the instructions on how can people request for language access cause i do get sometimes questions from the public how to do the language access requests and i know mister ionin you've done in terms of this request but i think it's because the fact that there is still a big digital barriers you in the city and in building in california also but i think we need to be more accessiblein terms of the information .

so i'm not sure if other commissioners would be willing to have some sort of a hearing in terms of like how we can improve or perhaps but the item for me is something that we can look at improving our digital remote hearing. but again i want to come to the resolution andoffer support and i would move to approve the resolution . >> seconded. >> thank you commissioners. if there's no further deliberation i will note commissioner that on the very front page of each of our agendas is to contact for disability and language accommodations . but i do your point. on that motion then to adopt the resolution forextending remote hearings another 30 days . [roll call vote] so moved

commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 70 and that will place us on item seven under departmentmatters . >> good afternoon commissioners, nonew announcements today. you had a good break and agood holiday . >> item, review of past resolutions . i have no reportfrom the court ofappeals . and the historic preservation commission did me yesterday . mister skylar. >> manager of legislative affairs and atlantis week the committee considered supervisor ronan's ordinance that would amend the planning code to include massage within the definition of health services and to regulate massage establishments with health

services controls the commission for this item june 3 and recommends approval with modifications . those modifications allowed massageaccessories to personal service onany floor . so much of the exception proposed for hotels . maintain a more permissive control for massage establishments even if health controls are more restrictive in that district and thenother lyricalmodifications . during land-use there were three public comments , two in support of the ordinance and linda chapman in opposition. supervisor peskin had questions about terminology and supervisor preston requested to be added as a cosponsor. the committee made a motion to accept the amendments and this motion was approved unanimously. the committee thencontinue the itemone week because the accepted amendments were substantiated . this motion was also approved unanimously . supervisor chance ordinance that would repeal article 12

past and the mayor's office that would exempt the divergence of medical cannabis dispensaries to cannabis retail from section 311 passed its first read and supervisor stephanie's ordinance that would allow projecting signs and signs on awnings passes for three. that's alli have for youtoday . happy to answer any questions you might have . >> clerk: thank youmister starr. we do not have a report from the board of appeals . historic preservation considered several applications. the first 319th avenue, a personalfavorite of mine, tia margarita . the performing arts workshop incorporated on san jose avenu . two lawn vietnamese restaurant on sixthstreet . dark garden unique course entry incorporated on linden street. as well as the height street

studios on haight street. they forwarded a landmark designation for the golden gate carnegie library on greenstreet. if there are no questions or comments from members of the commission , we should move on to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public than the subject matter jurisdiction accept agenda items with respect to agenda items opportunity to address the commission will be afforded and the items reach the meeting. each member may address the commission for 2 minutes and when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit general public comments will be moved to the end of the agenda.

this is your opportunity to enter the queue by pressingá3. when you hear your line has been unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking . >> caller: is georgia.the october 21 executive summary from the staff , sb nine said on page 10 that the department was working on a financial analysis of the viability of sb nine development scenarios and would be done in late october. that summary was agood summary by the way . it was very comprehensive. but this information from the financial analysis would be good informationfor the supervisors to have on the departments housing experts . on page 12 of this october 21 executive summary was a listof neighborhoods . most of these are in the southern part of the citywhich is fundamentally all are each one . one of my concerns when raising the issue of the caps particularly section 317 b2b was a housing in these neighborhoods.

especially the excelsior coming noe valley which had the same outcomes as demolitions would be the loss of affordable housing replaced with high-end housing. whether it's predatory actions that lead to cashing out for evictions from single-family homes , measures areneeded to prevent this sense sb nine goes into effect injanuary as you all know . take care,have a good day . well, be safe . >> clerk: last call for general public comment for items on today's agenda. please press star 3. seeing no requests to speak , general comment ... i take that back.

go ahead. >> caller: i would like to request you include on the regular agenda hearing on the remote hearings. we need to have public in person hearings of the planning commission and this needs to be discussed in public, not just pro forma passed each time each month. so put it on the regular calendar. thank you. >> clerk: okay. seeing no additional requests to speak members of the public general public comment is closed. commissioners, i am somewhat confusedthese continued requests to have a public hearing on the remote hearing . it appears on the agenda so members of the public like

today are free to comment on that item. it does not need to appear under the regular calendar. just because it appears on other commission matters does not preclude ambers of the public from submitting their testimony and as always you ca deliberate on that matter as much or as little as you would like . i want to make that clear to members of the public that it does appear on the agenda and you are entitled to submit your comments on the matter every month we have it on the agenda. so i will stop there and we can move on to your regularcalendar commissioners for item 9 . 022510 crv at 240 through 250 church street. this isfor adoption offindings. staff , related to your presentation . >> good afternoon commissioner

. the item before you is findings related to the requested waivers in development for height section 250 pursuant to state law and planning code section 16 as well as affirming and adopting planning for the california environmental quality act. the project proposes the demolition of a one-story limited restaurant and the construction of a seven-story 24 unit residential building over a 1900 52 square foot ground-floor restaurant as well as the occupied under the previous tenants program. 18 of the units will be two-bedroom units and six will be 12 bedroom units. three of the units and all of the residentialunits have a shared roof deck . it will provide parking and instead provide 25+1 bicycle

parking spaces both residentia and retail . the project will meet 100 percent of the housing requirements on site by providing a minimum of 13 percent of the dwelling units. all the affordable units will be made available through low income households with affordable sales vices at the 80 percent. private sponsor is on-site. >> i'm going to interrupt for second . could you speak closer to the mike? half of your words are getting swallowed. thank you. >> is that a little bit better? >> so much better, thank you. >> did i need to repeat any of that? >> if you don't mind starting

from the beginning. i had trouble hearing part of it and the people you know, they had trouble to sell with the other commissioners indulgence i would appreciate it . >> okay. for the next slide department staff the item before you is a request toadopt findingsrelated to requested waiver and development standards . section 250 of theplanning code . pursuant to the states law and planning code section 206.6 . as well as affirming and adopting findings under the california annual quality act. the project proposes the demolition of a one-story limited restaurant doing business as thoroughbred and a new construction of a seven-story 24 unit essential building over a 1992 square foot ground-floor restaurant which will also be entitled

thoroughbred at 240 church street. 18 of the units will be two-bedroom units and six will be one-bedroom units. three of the units will be inclusionary units all residential units have access to a shared roof deck and free open space. the project will provide no vehicle or parking instead provide 25 class i and class ii bicycle parking spaces for the residential and retail components . the project will meet 100 percent of the inclusionary affordable housing requirements on site by providing a minimum of 13 percent of the dwelling units as affordable. all of the affordable units will be made available to low income housing. the affordable sales prices assessed at 80 percent ami. the project sponsor may use their on-site inclusionary units to qualify for a density bonusunder the state density

bonus law .the site is located in the upper market near the commercial district which regulates density by a maximum permitted building quality, not as a ratio of units to lock area.the amount of density bonus allows based on the affordability. because the project is providing 13 percent of the units or three units at below market rate for low income households up to 80 percent ami project is entitled to a 24.5 percent density bonus or approximately 4997 square feet of residential use. under the state density law the project is requesting one waiver from development standards for height. planning code section 250 restricts the height limit in this zoning district 240 feet.

plus an additional fivefoot bonus for active ground-floor retail uses . the proposed building will extend to 74 feet 11 inches total. with without the waiver the project will be physically precluded from constructing th additional four dwelling units . which are permitted under the individually requested state density bonus. preventing the project from achieving a 25percent bonus . the project is notseeking any incentive for concession . to date the department has received two letters of support for the projectnoting the enhancement of the space and retention of small businesses . the sponsor hopes when meeting was attended and one note i'd like to make to put in the record is the land-use cable in your packet is updated and has since been modified to reflect the project with three of the

units and request privileges. in summary the department finds the project is on balance consistent with the market area plan and we we object to the policies of the general plan. the project would provide 24 residential units alleviate sa francisco's severe housing prices . additionally threeof the residential units will be dedicated to low income households .the department is supportive of this project and recommends approval of the findings related to the requested waiver under the state program and adoption of findings under ceqa. the project sponsor has prepared a presentation which concludes my presentation and am available for questions . >> president: thank you bridge . department sponsor, are you with us? >> yes. >> president: you havefive

minutes . >> president koppel commissioners i am jared with strong architects. thank you for this hearing. we'd like to thank bridget for shepherding us through this review process. slide 2 please. the project is located south of the intersection of church and market well served by public transportation within a one block walking distance of whole foods and walgreens and surrounded by castro restaurants and entertainment . church is the ideal location for urban living about the need for private transportation . our project is to construct a new 70 story building utilizing the state density bonus by providing three on-site inclusionary units we are proposing a 25 percent area bonus. this allows us to fit in 24 units in total while preserving them as open space.slide 4.

this is a typical residential floor design on the floors 2 through 7. the residential units embrace unique shapes offering configurations and the unit layout is efficient and 75 percent of the floor plan bein two bedroom two bath . this is the ground-floor. many of the design decisions for the use and functionality of the ground-floor were derived from the need from the french every thoroughbred currently occupying the building. to continue in accommodating thebakery was given exclusive use of the rearguard for outdoor dining . the interior space is reconfigured to provide greater street percentage and street presence. the space also allowsfor additional interior customer seating . slide 6 please. and we show the building fully

rendered so ground-floor fagade i want to emphasizethat entry to the commercial space by locating it in the center of the building and framing it with a heavy square art . the project sponsor is working withthoroughbred tofacilitate the transition back to the space . we do have a challenge to identify when exactly construction will begin but we pledge to work with the bakery to facilitate that . in conclusion the project will provide for 24 new dwellings where none currently exists. that neighborhood bakery will have anupdated space to return to. the project will provide permanently affordable housing for three units , two of which are two-bedroom all adding contextually appropriate building. the project has been reviewed reviewedand fully complies with the residential design.we respectfully ask that you grant the density bonus authorization and approve the project .

>> that concludes the presentation and we should open up public comment. this is your opportunity to address this project by pressing á3. seeing no requests to speak i take that back. you have 2 minutes. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. i am from the bbq cultural district. sharkey steiner played a critical role as a quality 24 hour diner that offers food and safety to all and a 2 to 3 dollar cup of coffee. people of all ages frequent this diner and the loss would not share the proposed development which would welcome onlythoroughbred bakery to 24 lucky homeowners and their guests . we therefore support the proposed development at 250 church street announced to the

developer in light of the sites historical significance. it's cultural heritage and the housing crisis in which our community members have now become imperiled due to the pandemic. excuse me. we are deeply concerned that the proposed development only three of 24 units for affordable homeownership and those are 80 percent ami. the project clears a clear space making way for the marginalized community many of whom are valued as lgbtq residents. none of the unitswill be rent-controlled . it allows the community to remain in its lgbtq district. many in our community pay higher housing costs and have lower opportunities from the age of 18.[inaudible] we are

also guaranteed to be pushed out. our community needs affordable reparative housing that is easy to access and rent-controlled and we encouraged the developers to make their proposal project more centering and affirming such as providing clear gathering space to be inclusive of market rates and not damaging to current zoning and special use districts . we urge the planning commissio to delay the approval until the project developers can engage with the district . >> this is suehester. there are two buildings by each other on this triangular box . next to church and church and market.

2135 market street is coming through also as a state density bonus project and it abuts directly on the site. the developers showed one of his clips was a picture of walgreens and another block with walgreens marked on it. i believe it's next to walgreens. so i would ask for basically show the two buildings in relationship to each other. so we can understand how this state density bonus on a weird configuration on a block going through the planning department at the same time. i believe 2135 market is going to be continued but it was scheduled for next month. thank you very much. goodbye. >> clerk: last call for public comment on this item. press áthree. seeing no additional request to

speak, public comment is closed and thisitem comes before you commissioners .i will be supportive of staff recommendation today . commissioner imperial. >> i have a question to the project sponsor . can you explain or can you describe the kind of community outreachyou have done ? especially with the lgbtq community in the area? >> can you hear me?we had our neighborhood meeting i believe it was 2018 where we mailed to all the neighboringgroups and residents . we ended up meeting with some of those folks from the triangle neighborhood

association . twice. and the owner also had outreac with the customer emergence association . i don't believe we've ever heard from the lgbtq group. we would be happy to engage with them but just as a point of reference, sparkies diner closed down over five years ago before this project was even envisioned so i'm not sure how relevant that is. >> i have a question to the staff. miss hicks can you confirm whether this is in a lgbtq cultural district? >> i do not believe that it is. >> since this is historical around the castro district, for

me it's more the committee outreach and whether people of the surrounding area on it can also be part of this or have more discussion with the project sponsor. i do believe the density although i have personal issues when it comes todensity on this project . the kind of waiver they're asking for in height and it doesn't comply with residential design guidelines but also at the same time the committee outreach to the surrounding neighborhood especially if you're asking for gathering usesshould be heard by the project sponsor but i would like to hear what other commissioners have to say . >> clerk: commissioner more. >> i am in principle in support of the project but i have two

questions for mister schaub. mister schaub,sylvester mentioned a few minutes ago 2135 market street . i have the same question cause we've seen a lot of the church street project and another state density project on market street will have to havesome form of interaction. have you thought about that and if so could you talk about it ? >> we have thought about that and both our project and the proposed one at 2135 market are fully code compliant rear yards so they will not be abutting. i believe the market street project is going to in fact increase their rear yard depth with their proposed bill.

>> you will havebrackets of western light while they will have records of eastern light, as that and taking into consideration ? >> we feel that all the rooms have plenty of light that will be coming and will be out to. >> the second question has something to do with the bakery . the baking goods being consumed at this particular location, will they be baked on-site or off-site? >> i believe they will be mostly on-site. >> i'm just wondering. bakeries in particular require when you bake on-site certain types ofequipment and ventilation shafts . have you thought about it because the diagram pretty much shows spacious restaurant space with access to the outdoors and then i was kind of wondering how you were thinking about the mechanical functionality of the space.

>> that's a very good point. we have a few tentative locations for mechanical shaft . mainly some closet areas we could reconfigure but that ultimately will come down to the working stageespecially when you get a structural engineer on board .>> what type of construction are you thinking aboutanyway ? i assumeyou are thinking about concrete . >> that's right. >> that's all, so the building is code compliant and what i like to see is slightly stronger transition to the corner building of church and market and i am in support of the bill. >> commissioner tanner. >> accu. i'd be in support of the project as well and i want to see this text i know you were looking into the map of the cultural district .can you confirm it is or isn't within the boundary of the cultural district ?

>> thank you, it is not within theboundaries . >> i'm in support of the project as well. i think i just want to applaud the design team on asking for exception from height, keeping access to open space, light and air and all the things that make it a great space to live. and i do want to share commissioner moore's concerns around making sure the bakery and the residents can live in harmony. i had the unfortunate challenge of being part of a board of appeals case where the sellers of the restaurant were causing conflict with the neighbors and it was not great for anyone so i encourage you tolook at how to mitigate the impact . to commissioner imperial's questions regarding outreach, would yoube interested or able to do additional meetings with the community , perhaps

thinking with organizations around the accord that might include the overtures towards the lgbtqcommunity and other such aspects of theproject ? >> absolutely . >> it actually is in the culturaldistrict . that is one of our requirements but it is. >> i wanted to give you a chance when you're lookingand talking it can be difficult and you are on camera so that's a lot to do . even that itis in the boundaries of the cultural district .i would be open to conditional project to revisit the district and think perhaps about maybe i don't know mister schaub if you thought about any temporary murals on some of the upper levels of the building if thatwould be something you would be open to as well ? >> i guess we are open to it i guess what i'd like some

clarification what you meant by temporary on theside of the new building . >> on the side of the new building and understanding if buildings areconstructed adjacent to those walls that part of the art would be covered up eventually . whenever that happens. >> absolutely. >> those would be my two ideas and iwonder if other commissioners wouldhave a position . >> clerk: commissioner imperial . >> i have one question to miss hicks. if the current building is subject to rent control and it's going to get demolition. >> the building is a commercial building so it isnot . >> thank you. >> clerk: commissioner more. >> i want to pick up on acknowledging that the project lies within the cultural district so the caller identified a potential asked for meeting space. in addition to these i would like to see that is being

considered. >> clerk: is the maker of the motionamenable to that amendment ? >> i did want to hear from mister schaub about that if he had an idea as to whether meeting space could be made available or is it something that community members could use or maybe workingwith the bakery on things that can be reserved . >> i am the owner. we have worked with them very hard to be a space that is good for their needs and the commissioner needs.anything else, we don't want to interfere withtheir ability to operate the business .

our present is rather small in this building. before we commit to anything i would like to speak with thoroughbred to make sure that willnot interfere with their ability to operate their business . >> certainly and i would share the concerns. first of all share that i'm happy to see the business will be able to be located in the site. that's a great thing. we don't want to lose anything that would allow their business to operate so if i were to make a motion it would be to consider how to provide meeting space but i don't know i would condition it's on providing community meeting space. >> there was never any intent to condition it because when you start to encourage community engagement is ultimately in thechemistry of how these people can and won't get along with each other . we can make suggestions but it is ultimately wishful thinking inthe right direction .

>> i think we are on the same page on. the commissioner had a comment but i will make a motion to approve this project with the condition that they meet with the cultural districtand at least discuss items suchas meeting space and work that's being incorporated into the project . >> second . >> clerk: commissioner diamond . >> i want to make sure the condition wasn't requiring meeting space while we are engaging in a discussion of whether or not thatmight be. but that's what i think i heard after the end of the discussions . >> i would move further to say there may not be a room that's dedicated to community, maybe a space that then canbe closed off to meetings from time to time with the bakery or it might work with the housing development . >> clerk: thank you commissioners and if there's nothing further there's a motion that has been seconded

toadopt the findings approving the project . having a condition that the project sponsor meet with the cultural district community members related to appropriate art installations and consider community meeting space. on that motion commissioner tanner. [roll call vote] so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 720 and we will place this on 981 to see you way and 1268 17th avenue. this is aconditional use authorization and staff are you prepared to make your presentation ?>> i am. goodafternoon, matthew with planning department staff

sorry if i sound a little muffled . computer shut off during the last item and imac might ask where i need to wear a mask the product before you is requesting conditional use authorization to demolish an existing single-family dwelling at 1268 17th avenue to construct horizontal and vertical position with two new dwelling units at the second single-family dwelling at the front of the lot. the project is located between lincoln way and urban street. this project also requires conditional use authorization pursuant to board of supervisors file 2013 zero which is all old and now has the interim zoning control for large residential projects in the rto districts conditional use authorization is required because the project is not proposed to maximize residential density allowable on the property . it increases theproperty the building by more than 25

percent and increases the size of the existingdwelling unit already larger than 2000 square feet . the department has received one operative project from the committee group . the department recommends approvalof both request for conditional use . the demolition of the rear single-family dwelling and expansion of the remaining single-family dwelling moves a noncompliant structure and brings the propertyinto code compliance with respect to development standards such as community art . while also proposing an increase on the property when dwelling of 2 to 3 units. department recommends approval of the request pursuant to the interim controls. one product does not maximize density with an increase to the overall building envelope but the products newly increases the size of the existing units that exceeds 2000 square-foot from 2162 two 2171 square feet and reduces this unit from occupying three floors to 2 and proposes a newdwelling unit of

comparable size to the rear and an additional family size 3 bedroom unit . the existing lot configuration the department finds it will not maximize density and is necessary and desirable because increased densities or the second size of the existing units in keeping them comparable to their current squarefootage is fight the alterations the building will undergo . additional your input is confirmed in writing and is both existing dwelling units are subject to price control meaning that the proposed project will demolish a controlled dwelling unit. the rent board has stated the proposed dwelling unit onthe third floor would be subject to price control as well because it's located in a residential area for the subjectprice control . the total project proposes no change to the number of dwellings and increases the desirability of theproject . on balance department finds the

project to be compatible with the general plan and recommends approval with conditions . this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions . >> thank you. commissionersunfortunately do not see the project sponsor or the project sponsors information as provided to us . the name can lead does not appear under the list nor does the project sponsors phone number as submitted in my records on just going to go to general comment and open up public comment at one of these colors is the public's concert but we would afford them five minutes for other members of the public, not the project sponsor you will have to minutes andwhen you hear your line has been a muted that is your indication to speak . >> caller: i am a member of the westsidecommunity coalition and would like to urge you to deny the conditional use authorization for this project

. the proposed development 17th avenue in the sunset it's clear this development developer's intention are to work against the goal of making housing more accessible. i first trying to remove rent control from this unit and now by splitting the property up into rent-controlled and non-rent control units. without there being a system to track these different types of units this wouldcause confusion for tenants which could be exploited by a landlord . furthermore developer is proposing such demolition that it's likely the dvi inspectors will increase the scope of demolition work which would potentially lead to the loss of all rent-controlled units and that is not a risk we are willing to support and through this project the developer could have created modestly size units and modestly priced instead they are choosing to enlarge the units to more than 2000 square feet which is an obvious attempt to upscaled the property and thereby make it inaccessible for low let alone

middle income families to afford so these are crucial issues that we cannot avoid. project sleep these are transforming our city house by house, block by block into exclusive neighborhoods. i would urge you topartner with us to hold developers accountable to its goal of equity by voting to reject this project . thank you. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. myname is tonya and i'm calling on behalf of the westside association . i too urge you to deny conditionaluse authorization or the project that is proposed for development at 1258 17th avenue in the sunset . this project works against the

equity and affordabilitygoals of the city which the planning commission have adopted as a matter of policy and which our organization shares as a priority . thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, westside community coalition. i urge you to deny conditional use authorization for this project in the sunset. the community coalition breaks its development that provides accessible affordable housing . the planningcommission passed a resolution in 2020 . committing it to center equity in all its decisions. you have an opportunity today to take a stand against the project as it intends to gentrify our community and benefit a developer andtenants that can afford upscale luxury rooms . action 317 of the planning code states thecommission must evaluate demolition proposals through the lens of

affordability . the controls on our end zones have a similar intent to make sure development meets a greater housingopportunity and greater housing affordability . this project deliberately creates a confusing environment or tenants where there are some rent-controlled units and one that is not . their project issuper sizing for non-rent-controlled units so it will clearly not be affordable to anyone close to low income and on the scope of work , with it will lead to a situation where demolition will increase. either at therequest of the developer or building inspecto and the likelihood of losing rent control in all units is even greater. the best outcome would be to renovate the existing buildings . the front building could be renovated to accommodate 2 units . this would be a more modest scope of work but no demolition resulting in a more modestly

sized unit and in the addition of one unit consistent with the dollars proposal . there would be no ambiguity as to whether there isrent control. no demolition and the project would deliver three modestly sizedunits that meet equity and affordability goals of this commission and the interim controls . please reject this proposal and direct the developer to rethink their project along these lines . >> caller: good afternoon, my name is sandra traveler and i resided in the district over 35 years. i'm here on behalf of district rising and faith in action this couple church. this project is located in another neighborhood the concerns i will express as citywide issues arising as developers use policy intended to create more affordable housing in the city to instead create upscale units that no middleincome family would be able to afford .we appreciate that staff has clarifiedthe

rent control status of the unit . our concern remains if the project as a whole works againstthe goal of the interim controls for our end zone properties . we would ask the project be closely monitored as it makes its way through the permitting process as the extent of the demolition required to achieve the completed structure will likely approach the 75 percent threshold for demolition which would change the status of the properties . we need to work together to holddevelopers accountable , to goals of equity and affordability . please vote toreject this project . thank you. >> caller: [inaudible] >> clerk: sir, i'm sorry to interrupt you . it is very difficult to hearyou

. >> caller: i'm sorry, is this better? >> clerk: not much.>> caller: i'm notsure what i can do about that . i was going to say in the last couple of months we've been ... [inaudible] and how it impacts our most vulnerable communities . we have since seen little evidence ... [inaudible] to demonstrate whether you'regoing to have any meaning. the intention of the developer is evident here . it cannot be anything other

than circumvent jurisdiction at any evil ... [inaudible] and the continued gentrification thatis displacing working people and making housing increasingly unaffordable . i'd like you to deny this ... [inaudible] thank you. >> clerk: okay, last call for public comment on this item. pressá3 until we indicate you have been on muted. raise your hand, pressá3 and submit your presentation.

seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public or public sponsor public comment is now closed. this matter is now before you, commissioners. >> sorry to jump inhere. we are trying to contact the sponsor and not having any luck . >> in review of theinformation i am still supporting staff recommendation . commissioner imperial. >> mister dito i have a question on the nature of the demolition . it says there is ademolition of the rear of the property . so first confirming this is to dwelling units, not just one and that the demolition will be

beginning at the rear and then another unit will be more of a expansion . so would it not be subject to demolition findings of the two units? >> you are correct.these are two separate single-family dwellings currently existing. the rearsingle-family dwelling is proposed for complete demolition . the firstsingle-family dwelling is proposed for expansion . it's a significant alteration but it's not particularly close to hitting the cat cannot triggers. it's retaining around 60 percent of the exterior wall of the foundation level and it two thirds of it horizontal so those two triggers kind of prevent it from getting close to a tent about love.

so the upfront billion classified as an alteration and it is subject to the demolition calculation separately from that rear unit and it's something that we would obviously be looking at to make sure it also is not demolition . >> you're saying the unit in the front that the demolition covers about four of the alteration that you're saying is about 60 percent. >> without getting into the specifics of the numbers it's not close to hitting the tantamount trigger at the front building. and if we evaluate thatbuilding individually , without the rear building they are each part of their own calculation. >> it mentioned in the packet the planning department recognize that there's increasing square footage up to 300 percent. so i am kind of like confused with that. if this is more of an alteration but there's also

such a significantincrease of square footage here . that for me it does kind of like that propels into more of the tantamountto demolition . what i guess that's where my concern comes in. it's that the increase of the square footage and saying that this is more of analteration . so therefore there is a residential demolition of the rent-controlledunit . another thing to that one of the public has sent a letter to the planning commission is the certificate of occupancy and in it seems like there is a contradiction of what the planning department interprets of the certificate of occupancy versus the rent for. and can you explain that in terms of the transport interpretation for versus the planning department

interpretation. >> i saw the comment you are referring to . it was inaccurate essentially. we, look we cleared this with the rent board so there is no discrepancy in our position. i'm not very familiar with the occupancy and how they play into what the rent board does. but all i can say with certainty is that for this project we reviewed it with the rent board and the what i say during the presentation about how rent controls in particular apply where that information camedirectly from the rent sport. that's not our opinion . >> so just a clarification, th certificate ofoccupancy will be the whole building . not for unit . >> i'm not familiar enough with where they decide on the certificate of occupancy or we

have our housing specialist here so maybe she can jump in. >> kate connor, thank you commissioner imperial. typically the survey certificate of occupancy is considered new construction so typically price controls don't apply in that scenario but the certificate of occupancy is per-unit not by building. so in this scenario, we have the certificate of occupancy for the existing homes to price controls the second unit is to be taking some of that area so relying on the original certificate and then there's the third unit which is going tobe in the space that was not used with any residents as a residential area so considered new construction new certificate of occupancy . >> thank you for that clarification. my i think the issue that i'm trying to grapple with here is the implementation. once it's let's say there are three certificates of occupancy

for different these three units. how will this be implemented whether by planning department or the rent sport that they do remain rent-controlled because i can't see this happening as more of, it would result on more of acondominium . whether we through this and this becomes a rent-controlled unit. two of the units remain rent-controlled. it will not stop for to make it a pac or a condominium since there are separate certificate of occupancy easier. how is this going to be tracked that this is actually going to be arent-controlled unit ? that is my what i'm trying to grapple with here because the in the information that's being given for its that occupancyis for the entire dollar . so my question here is how the facility can make sure that they are going to remain rent-controlled , there is no

way of implementing this. this is going to be rent-controlled.and it's more of a yes. that's what i guess my question to you ms. connor. >> and it's a great question. this situation isn'treally new for the rent board or for planning . previously if there's a multi family building on a lot and there was construction of a new unit in an area that was not previously used as residential, youwould end up with these kind of hybrid properties .but you're completely right. this is a difficult thing for us to track. we do not have a mental registry that looks at what units are subject to price control and what units are subject to infection control. we have an incubation with the rent sport onhow we hybrid properties are handled . andessentially if the landlord increasesthe rent over the

allowable rent control increase , the attendance would have to file a petition contesting that increase . then that's just compiled with that the report is working. unfortunately there's not a formal record of a given properties rent-controlled status. but one thing i would add is this motion especially including the specific finding regarding rent-controlled it's super helpful information for a tenant if they end up in that situation where they would be filing a petition .>> however, as we are here at the planning commission trying to text the objectives and goals of the general planlooking into the preservation of the rent-controlled building , however even there is still i guess this is more of a policy issue is that we are replacing, we are demolishing rent-controlled units and increasing them instead but the replacement has an issue in terms of equalization. that's my issue is we are

replacing rent control units instead of preserving them and i think that is something in terms of the goals of preservation of the rent control units, how is the planning department and rent for interpreting that especially when there's different certificates of occupancy will be separate per unit. so does seem subject to displacement. or even eventually it can be up to that. that is my main concern is the way we here at the planning commission and planning department will look into the rent control. those are my comments. i would like to hear about what thecommissioner has to say . >> commissioner moore. >> i would like miss tony to explain the use of the word rent-controlled to using these wordsinterchangeably .

and i'm not familiar. i of presidential ever in the discussion of rent control. >> so the permitted section 317 refersto rent-controlled.it's a rent-controlled consists of a couple of different things and one is price controls and not allowing that only certain percentage increase in the rent . for tenants each year. and then the other person is infection control so that's looking at just infections and protections for tenants so those are kind of the twopieces of rent control. i think typically when you think about statelegislation and like our planning code findings it's typically talkin about price controls . it's usually what it's referring to . but in january 2020 infection controls became applicable to all units within the city . refer to the number of units or age ofunits so there's always

going to be protection for tenants whether it's a single-family home etc. . i think now as we're trying to add more detail to our motions to draw that distinction because in manycases you could have a single-family home that's not subject to price controls if there weretenants they do have protection under eviction controls . >> thank you so much for explaining that . i definitely needed the refresher. i when i have public comment somehow some of the concerns expressed by the westside community coalition made me think that there is some truth to that and it's hard for me to believe and unfortunately we d not have the applicant here in front of us . to rebuild i don't want to say most likely, it will. will rebuild a three unit building in which two units will be price control. i have a hard time believing

that is based on true intention and unrealistic financial forecasting. without having the ability to ask the applicant this will be a question that rings true with me for potentially other motives. there's one question which i'd like to ask the architect. i would like to know as to what the department has participated in adiscussion with the fire department . the rear of the building is an external fire escape that in most cases are not even being concerned by the fire department anymore. it is very clear that unless the staff can confirm that the fire department agreed to this, i have questionsabout the viability . so some more questions and if

anybody could answer the question perhaps i would like very much like to hear from yo . >> on the topic of the project sponsor i understand they are in the hearing now . with instructions to raise their hands unless the commission know that their presence but so far we haven't seen that happen. just it briefly to briefly touch on your questions about the fire safety at the rear. it has not been reviewed by the fire department as there is no permit applied for yet. the standard sort of process would be in place is this permit gets to the fire department and they say that that fire escape is not suitable. it what would give it back to the planning department and we would work with the sponsor to come up with a suitable option at that point. >> do you know what a suitable option is for such a solution as an external fire escape or

with the building. it has to go into the inside which is a project that's not in front of us and that particular technicality raises a big issue for me about the viability of that project that is infront of us . thank you. >> clerk: commissioner tanner. >> i wanted to ask miss potter if she can verify something for me. both in terms of the enforcement of rent control on this unit and similar to other units if a tenant were to receive what they believe is an illegal rent increase tenant then needs to reach out to the rent for and thatwould be true for this unit but also any other rent-controlled units in the city, is that correct . >> for this particular situation yes. if it is something where it is

subject to rent-controlled there is no requirement for the landlord to inform the tenants whetheror not something is subject to specific price controls. in other scenarios , there are conditions that we placed on projects but that's only with sp 330 when we have the ability toapply conditions . this is the scenario where it is just how price controls are applied within the city . so honestly in terms of enforcement ... >> my point is in most price control situations it isn't as though the owner sends a request to the rent for to say i'm going toincrease my price control units by this much. if they make a mistake it's usually on the tenant to catch that there's a mistake . so i think there's concern as well. there's a mixed kind of building with some

rent-controlled units and some non-rent-controlled units but either way if they were all rent control and the tenant was unaware that they were subject to rent-controlledthey could be taken advantage of. that i think is relatedto the efforts to kind of educate and make sure folks know that they have rights and that those rights should be respected . and i don't think having , there's 2 rent control units now and in the future there would be to price control units so i don't see having a nonprice control unit as affecting the tenants ability to have rice control implementing or enforce any more than it would if the project could stay unchanged. maybe to price control units and the tenants would need to be aware that there's a price control in order to sort of double check their landlord if there were any increases so commissioners, i see this is a relatively modestincrease of existing units. and then theadditional rate unit . so i'm prepared to support the project . i just want to confirm that there are no currenttenants on

the property right now or are you aware of any current tenants . on the property?>> i'm not aware. of the tenants at the rear building in particular that will be demolished has been vacatedand since the current owner to control the property . >> thank you very much. i'm preparedto support this project . >> commissioner. >> i have a couple of comments now iwanted to make . first thank youstaff . thank you for the report of the findings. under section 8 the loss of the residential units and demolition i think this was a really pleasant video and i appreciate the close collaboration between the rent for the our department to make these terminations . it hasn't always been the case that we have this specific language in this staff report so please this is great. it's very helpful to have this information on the commission . i just wanted to follow up on a

discussion about whether the demolition. that discussion with commissioner imperial. my understanding is this project doesn't come close to triggering that and it's i just wanted to let this information be clearly embedded in the findings of the motion. on the question of how the city enforces rent control or price control , for properties that might not all be under price control, this is something that you could have a look at with more clarification in the future or on a memo or something just to understand how this is happening? i would be interested not just for thisproject but thinking about encouraging pdus . there are rent control other the waiver program. just how would it work to have all of these units, to fruition and to really make sure that they have these intents of rent-controlled price control.

>> i was intrigued by the suggestionthat maybe there could be some way to retain existing buildings and modify the project . both to maximize density but also to not demolished the rent control units. so i wonder is it possible for the sponsor of the architect to walk us through some of that thinking about alternatives and why it became necessary to propose a demolition? >> so the property owner on the pollen line i don't know if we want to reopen public comment to see if during thepublic comment line . i don't know if we want to reopenthat to see if they will get them in . >> if they are there they can press start three like anyone else to raise their hand . but the number that was provided to them does not appear in the attendee bucket list . we will hear someone raising their hands.

>> caller: my name is jack you. i'mowner of the property . 1268 avenue. yes, i tried to raise my hand earlier but i hit the wrong key. for the demolition of the two units, that unit, that separate unit in the back is half half the occupants so it's kind of like dangerous because it's the foundation is off. so that's just due to oh mostly. mainly that's the reason we want to match it. and in theplan on the roof , there's a leak in the roof. also the structures for the

building. so those are the main reasons for what we are trying to do here. >> thank you for explaining that. that's allows me to kind of have information to make my subject. so i think for me, this is also interesting because it may be the second case we're seeing is object to the large residential project in internal controls and from our discussion i think the last time we saw this there was some question about what is the threshold for triggering the commission to exercise discretion. ithink for me looking at the extension of the existing residential units , that's about 2100 feet. we seensomething like 2500 square feet. it can be a modest expansion of

square footage . i don't the legislation doesn't have a specific number but this is where the commission can make some discussion andto me this seems like a must extension . increasing the square footage by300 percent , i do know this is split among three units and all the units are under 2000 square feet and for the unit mix i think that seems to me to be the most so i am leaning forwardtowards supporting this project but i will see what the other commissionershave to say . >> clerk: commissioner imperial . >> i have a question whether mister dito can answer this. thedemolished dwellingunits will be replaced by a one bedroom which is on the top floor on the fourth floor .

and that will not be rent-controlled . >> that's correct. i want to clarify the term replacement. i know in the motion it does refer to replacement here or there. it's a replacement in terms of size. it is not a code or state-mandated replacement. i know there's only pieces of legislation going around that involve stacks being the main one. it's not a replacement unit in that sense. it's a replacement in terms of it matches the general size it's more of a policy replacement unit if that makes sense. it will not be subject to control space on one of the rent board has told us so far. >> thankyou for the clarification in terms of what replacement means .i'm not sure if the planning department will have a different term for replacement but i guess just to be more clear on that

replacement by square footage if that would be the clarification there. so my comments here is that i do not approve of this recommendation for staff. first is it's because of the interim zoning controls that there is in this area and that this is more that there is more again, the square footage for the building all well i'm seeing this more as the staff had said this or in the packet has said that there's an increase of about 300 percent. so it does, i do look more into the compliancewhether it's in the interim zoning control . and second of that is that even let's saywe demolished that dwelling unit . the replacement in square footage will still not be arent control. so for those reasons , we are i am not approving this project because it's not issued, it's

subject to interim zoning control requirements and that is not relativelyprotected for the building to use existing housing . >> clerk: commissioner fung. >> i'm going to move to the conditional use and that is creating a new unit. it's renewing older existing units into newer units. and is bringing the project into code compliance within its own zoning. >> commissioners. seeing no further deliberations to be between commissioners, there is a motion that's been

seconded to approve proposal on that motion, commissioner tanner. [roll call vote]. >> so moved commissioners, that motion passes 5 2 with commissioner imperial and more against . commissioners, that will place us on item 12 for case number 2018 item 015061 cua at 1016 pierce street. >> thank you. good afternoon president koppel. i am department staff. the proposal is a conditional use authorization to legalize the merger of two dwelling units into one dwelling unit within the rm three zoning district. lanning code section 317

requiresconditional use authorization for the removal of dwelling units . as you noted the project site is 74 and three and these districts are predominantly devoted toapartment buildings of six or more units . three units permitted by right of parcels of any size with a maximum density to one dwelling unit or 400 feet of block area. the author of the building is two families according to the reported residentialbuilding record . the authorized building layout consists of two full laps on the end and third floors with storage at the basement level. the two units have emerged without permit into a 2000 45 square-foot single-family home. in 2014 , a foundation permit was issued by dvi. the permit authorized conversion of storage space to

expand the flat on the second floor of approximately 1000 square feet to 1500 square feet. the layout consisted of a living room, family room, office and two bedrooms. this was approved over-the-counter byplanning but not completed by the applicant . a copy of these plans is included in the hearing packet. the applicant is requesting the commissions legalize the dwelling unit merger plus new work to convert the ground-floor roomsinto an accessory dwelling unit commonly known as an edu . it should be noted that the proposed 80 you is not a desirable substitute for the full floor flat by the applicant. additionally as second unit cannot be created on the ground floor without mandatory discretionary review in various approval. a dwelling unit on this level without the full plaque and the unit has no conforming usable

open space for dwelling unit exposure because the ground-floor room based on to a six foot rear yard . edu's under new state regulations do not require open states or dwelling unit exposure. the department welcomesthe additional 80 you . if desired the applicant can apply for a permit even if this dwelling unit merger is diverged. alternatively a sizable edition existing two-bedroom units will be the use ofground-floor roads was approved by planning in 2014 . the applicant can work with dvi to reinstate or reapply this work under a new permit.as noted in the executive summary, the department has received for comments from neighbors in support of the project. after the packets were distributed, two more emails in support of theproject were received . it apartment recommends is to

disapprove the dwelling unit record. as noted in the executive summary , the project and session work completed without city permit. the project would move to small naturally affordable plaques on the city's housing stock and legalize the single-family home

>> we have given this house a complete newfoundation which if we didn't have the intent to

stay in this house we would not probably have done because it is enormously expensive . and because the public required by the city but we put the foundation in because we wante to support the people and lives living in it, our children and by extension everybody else . lives in this house to come. we for the last 20 years and i should say we had three children. they all spent their lives here. the last 20 years colin has served as founder and executive director of the nonprofit organization that provides enrichmentprograms to kids in low income public schools in san francisco. i'm a writer and journalist . i'm also a museum guide and i work with the education department i tour school groups . in grades three through 12. when we first moved in we live in the top floor which is a one-bedroom and rented this floor into 2007. we had two children that live in the hallway. when that became insufficient or our growing family where we hadthird needed some more bedroom space , we moved into

the lower unit as well. as our kids have become teenagers, this has become even more important. we now have large children they have some remote school in the pandemic and this is has been super important to us. our hope is to stay in this house andit has been in this neighborhood for as long as possible for our kids . we've been 20 year residence and we think of family living on this space is an honest benefit to a place where many of the people stay for the people who are in and out in a year or so andi think having some stability and families that live here is a benefit . we want to make this house livablefor our family . we don't want to revert back to what it was which was to one-bedroom plaques i don't think really is what families frankly can live in and it probably would be a one or two people max situation living in

them. also this i really want to emphasize. we want to authorize the agency for long-term rentals because we fully and completely understand the need for housing in san francisco. accurately we need the rental incometo afford the mortgage and beginto live in the city. as you all know it's expensive but the housing unit is beautiful .it's filled with light . >> if we can go back to a slide sarah. back from some slides. we will tell you when. so again, just acouple of important questions. the same issue we have not rented thesecond floor since 2007 . we sleep in a one bedroom on the top floor. the kids are on the second . one where it continues to be. the current use is consistent with the original architect design of the 1880 house. it does not require this ugly

unnecessary doors and walls. next slide. specifically to the additional dwelling units. which i mentioned part of the seismic retrofit new foundation excavation because ceiling -like, yes. sorry, i know we're going to run out of time. this is a beautiful and big space. >> full kitchen. >> the standard within the neighborhood, larger than what's in theneighborhood. available in the neighborhood . thenext slide just again , we have some additional questions here but this when we did this foundation excavation created that space we did open it for rentals both short and long

term and now only long-term because that's what the rules are. but these are the comments people say about this unit. it's nicelydone. it's an a+ beautiful apartment . one more slide. one more slide if you don't mind. >> i've got to pause you there. commissioners may have additional questions after we concludepublic comment . pressáthree. when you hear line has been muted that's your indication to speak. >> caller: my name is bill ginsberg and i am a friend and

professional colleague of pollen and i know janievery well . i wanted to just thank you in advance for your support for anything that you do to keep this company in san francisco. a little bit about colin which i don't know if you had an opportunity to share colin's executive director of sports the area that is in its 20th year of working with underserved kids . helping them develop into caring and healthy young adults through a mix of creative soccer and poetry. jenny has devoted her career to our school system to arts and education and youth development. this is exactly the family that we want to keep in san francisco. they have done so much for us and san francisco really needs to step up for them. so i am hoping commissioners you can find a way to support this caring and giving family.

>> caller: jeremypaul coming in . i am not a working with this case directly but it's been of interest to me because of america scores and their perfect work that pollen does for schoolkids in san francisco . i want to comment on the necessary and desirable qualificationsnecessary for the conditional use here . as the breeze pointed out, there have been new dwelling units approved on new construction including the 317 demolition and included in pdu is smaller than the one that i proposed here . and as recently as september is aspointed out in the brief . i'll give you and it's important to note those things have been approved for the benefit ofgovernment projects and branded, new construction

is needed . all those housing units that add to the housing stock etc. but when it comes down to the desirabilityand necessity of making , using your discretion and using 317 to allow a family to make the best use of their home that they can so they can stay put, this is a great example of that. ithink this discretion should be exercised here. i hope you will grant the conditional use . >> hello. mister mall, i'm a neighbor across the street from jenny collins and the kids. we're building them since they moved here we've been here since 1989 and can attest to what jenny and collins were saying. they really done yeoman's work with their family and their

home. we've been less privileged to have such neighbors. like them. words can't explain what they mean tous . there are people. they are loving people and caring people. the children have gotten a lot bigger now and they're doing really well. and it would really be devastating to a lot of. to them,the people that love them if they had to leave their home . not to mention just the kids but thegrandparents maybe one day may have to live in a home . that's this is what i wanted to say. thank you for the opportunity to speak on theirbehalf . >> caller: my name is bridget brownand we've been here a long time . we've seen even the neighbors that were there before us and we're just happy to have colin and jenny and their family in our neighborhood and you

couldn't ask for a better neighbor. please allow them to stay in their home. it would be a detriment and a loss to see a family go that's been so supportive to us as neighbors. and the children are the best children that you could ever ask tobe in your neighborhood . we just want them to have good memories of the neighborhood. not their last memories of being taken away from our home now we have to move. pierce street has always been a loving neighborhood and the community and all the neighbors love it and we want them to stay. sowhatever you can do is help them stay in our neighborhood . thank you. >> my name is dimitri.

i am a san francisco native. apartment building owner apartment agent in san francisco. and i also own the property right next door to 1016 pierce street. i am calling to say i support them and i would like for you guys to consider the approval of the merger of the two units in pdu and simply put, i do disagree with the fact that if it were converted back to two units it would be too affordable one-bedrooms versus what it is now. in theory that pdu will rent for less than a one bedroom flat and the two units combined as it is would be more affordable technically because it would be four bedrooms and went for less per room than those who one-bedrooms were. which only cater to one person as opposed to a family or even

a multi room situation. that being said, i support them and i hope it gets approved for the conditional use and with that i am done. >> i'm stephen gomez. i'm a native san franciscan and i am a writer and in i published bilingual poetry i've been part of america scores now for 10 years. i think it would be a huge detriment to the latin community if these folks could not stay in san francisco. i think they serve a huge amount of benefit to our latin community with what they do and i think it would be a horrible loss. i think what they're asking for is reasonable and i think it's just extremely important that the city keeps its diversity and has folks like this around that support the art community

and with their really amazing work. so please approve of whatthey are asking for. thank you so much . >> this is claudio colby, i am calling to support jenny and colin and their family in this project . i don't have much more toadd after what has been said . i think it's been demonstrated they are just the kind of family you want not only to live in san francisco but toget back to this community and liv here for generations . i hope with that you will agree to approve the project . thank you so much.

>> my name is chad gill and i'm calling on behalf of quality and jenny. and i hope that this project is approved. i have known pollen for 20 years. i've worked under supervision and because of him and i've found so many great things with our extension. wehave touched so many families over these years . it would be really upset if a family like this did not get something like this approved. so i hope that this will help them. we do need more people like colin. we definitely need them here in the bay area. thank you and i hope everything works out for pollen and them. thank you. go ahead sir. did you want to finish your

statement. >> that will be needed, thank you. >> last call for public comment on this item, you can pressá3 to be added to the queue. seeing noadditional request to speak public comment , i can't get back. >> this is jonathan randolph. i think that in general you should regulate not the user and the end use and for every story a spy sympathized that there are other hard-working families that are not as interesting or where one person doesn't haveanother sympathetic family and occupying the house but you never meet them . they haven't bought yes house yet. so in this case it appears the family performed a mergerwhich

the zoning administrator has the right to hear the city attorney to sue them . if the zoning administrator chooses to do so. but basically because we've heardall these empathetic arguments , i think the stories here shed some light on the planning commission to have some unity in the attempt to apply a planning code when we attempt to harden planning code 317 or two tighten demolition control for example in the future because we should not be as arrogant as to think that to know what every unit should be used for in the city. sometimes the needs change and we should be able to be flexible as in the case of this project.

>> clerk: final last call for public comment. seeing no requests to speak public comment is closed and this item is before you . >>once again i will be going with staff recommendation . >> clerk: commissioner tanner. >> thank you. iwanted to ask the project sponsor a couple of questions . you lived in the house since 2001 and worked in 2014and some of thatwork was not done according to the permit . can you explain why you made that decision ? >> can you see us or just hear us? >> we just hear you. >> i don't know if that's on my end or not. >> it's everyone

it's not a setting you can correct . >> i guess maybe to refer to some specific items here, the series ofprojects , the private was possible. we have a situation that's applying here and we ended wit the contractor and try to finish some of the work ourselves . so that, part of that figure project was on at the end and just it's a very confusing situation itselfnavigating a lot of it . the other thing that has been referred to is the dwelling merger really caption in 2007 when we stopped renting the secondfloor . and removing the doors that separated the entries to the different units.

that was a violation clearing, technically butthat's when we stopped renting it . this is again the issue at hand now is can we make that legal and conforming really with the house, the architect of the house the way itwas originally designed . that's at the core of this in a way. >> i don't know if the planning staff who performed the inspection of the violation are on the line. i know that was some time ago. the first section maybe in 2018 i'm just curious about the condition of the interior of the home and kind of if you could provide an insight into the type of work that when the

workwas performed without benefit and the testimony about the door being removed . if youcould elaborate on that scope of work that was unpermitted . >> this is laura aiello. planning is not here today but typically we do notattend these hearings . she is on vacation currently. this case came to us by the office of short-term rentals. i don't know the specifics but i believe the applicant was applying for a short-term rental application for the ground-floor rooms which were never completed in permit by the way. and at that time they realized that the unit had been merged so our case gains the term section. >> so there's unpermitted work in terms of the basic rooms or ground-floor rooms. is that the ground-floor?

or is it subterranean or the greatest different so it's at the backyard,it's a great at street level . >> that is correct.>> i'm trying to piece together everything. so that area then in the yellow was the area that wascompleted without the benefit of permit . back in2014, is that correct ? >> i guess i want to confirm what we're talking about. >> i understand sir from the staff report that was submitted and the testimony that the planning staff has given is that there were some work that was performed including the completion of a room without benefit of permit. that basicallywas acting as an independent unit but that's not how it was permitted, isn't that right that's my understanding . >> that is correct, the 2014 permit out of the down to be connected internally with the

unit above and expanded that unitfrom thousand 1500 square feet . >> that's where i guess the commissioner where i am. i'm sympathetic to your testimony as giveni do want us to have flexibility but what makes it difficult is work completed without the benefit of the permit . and then the merger . and the sale of the merger is kind of removing some of the doors because it wasn't necessarilyconstruction related to the merger of the unit would you say that testimony is accurate ? >> the work that was done to merge the unit was all done internally . there are external doors to the unit the two flats that had to be modified were all done. >> i guess i wanted to say the

applicants removed doors that were separating. do you know if that's accurate or was additional work performed to create internal connections without the benefit of the department ? >> work that was done went beyond the scope of what was approved by planning in 2019 but the plans submitted by the applicant it's difficult to discern what was removed . >> i think that's the question and back to the project sponsors, that's what i'm trying to understand. what is making me lean towards supporting the staff recommendation unless you or my fellow commissioners can persuade me otherwise is that there was work formed other thanthe permits number one and number two that was continued by additional work to merge the unit it was as simple as removing a door off the hinges , that seems like a very common mistake someone can make but what we also see our folks really down walls and do other

things to merge unit without the benefit of a permit that is something that then undermines our protections that we have two main our dwelling units and makes it very difficult to support thisrecommendation instead of having you pursue that through the properchannels . the determination you provided thus far , i can't discern what work was done to merge the uni . so that's a point for me. i'll give you a few how to alter interior of the unit in order to merge them together. >>. [please stand by ] >>

>> we were trying to understand short term rentals and long term rentals. we wanted to rent something because we needed the money. so we requested the city come and say what do we do here and it's now, that's why we're here we have to go back to and what's going to be acceptable and affordable. >> commissioner: yeah. i'm certainly sympathetic to the challenge that you're facing, but it just really is very challenging for me to support even if it's accidental when folks do work without the benefit of permits. how do you respond to the rooms down that you've completed and were kind of renting as a separate unit? is that what you intended to happen and did you file the right permits? how did that come about? >> yeah. we believed through that

permitting and approval process that the space was approved basically. i don't know what's been out -- i don't know what's outstanding on that issue other than maybe a formal designation of some sort. again, i don't know if it was an expansion or addition. that's what we're trying to sort out. we want it to be authorized. >> commissioner: sorry. for one second. can you help to explain what portions of that project exceeded the scope that was authorized? >> i can bring up the 2014 plans if given control of the screen and i can try to walk you through it, but i think the property owner is better versed. >> commissioner: well, he's telling me he doesn't know what was ex