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 exceeded.

>> correct me, the property owner told us he merged the units in 2007. we made our inspection in 2014 and based on the 2014 permit that was submitted, there were still two full flats. >> commissioner tanner: was any of the work of the scope exceeded over just the unit itself. was that permit completely performed and signed off on? >> that permit was issued. it was never completed by d.b.i. >> commissioner tanner: got it. that was never completed either. i see commissioner moore has her hand up. it's really challenging in situations like this when the work has been done on permitted and even as perhaps as unintended to be nefarious as it was is just challenging, but

i'm hope to being persuaded. thank you. >> secretary: commissioner moore rescinded her comments. she's going to pass for right now. so i'll accept for comments. commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: if we deny this, what work do they have to do to restore it? what has to be done specifically? >> the options would be to revert to the original layout shown in the existing plans on the 2014 permit or they could opt to work with d.b.i. to renew that permit or perhaps under a new permit since that permit is long expired. complete the addition to the flat on the second floor and in either case, adus are always welcome and an adu could be added to the site under a

separate -- >> commissioner diamond: i get that. i'm trying to understand what they would need to do to the third floor and the second floor to get back to the existing plan. >> they would need to re-install whatever walls and doors that were removed that made them both individual units instead of being connected and then the ground floor, if it's an adu, it cannot be connected to the floor above. >> commissioner diamond: right. but the ground floor in 2014 was not an adu. so we're not pursuing the adu, but they've got to go back to where they were which is two separate flats. maybe the project sponsor could join us and tell us what work you think they would need to do in order to revert it to where it was in 2014. >> yeah. it's the two doors and the wall on the banister. >> commissioner diamond: the wall on the banister. okay. and once you did that, you

would still have the ability if i'm understanding correctly, you would have a separate flat on the third floor, but you could try to renew the permit that you got in 2014 and have a -- the bottom floor and the first floor or the second floor i guess it is connected. so it's a floor and a half. is that correct? >> that would be an option, but not suitable for, you know, families -- our families ability. >> commissioner diamond: okay. and if they do that, there's no requirement, correct? maybe this is a question for staff or the city attorney -- there's no requirement they have to rent one of these flats? correct? they could still occupy both of them if they revert back to the 2014 flats? they're not internally connected in a way that's as functional as they've made it, but they could still occupy both plots?

is that correct? >> we don't do any monitoring of properties to verify that units are rented. >> commissioner diamond: it's not a requirement to rent it never mind the verification i guess i'm asking the city attorney's office.' there is no requirement to rent it to some other party. they could still occupy both plots themselves? >> deputy city attorney, that's correct, commissioner diamond. you would be reverting the units that existed previously. this is different than say a new construction where there's replacement of protective units like we talked about in the previous matter. so he would just be available as units owned by the project sponsor. >> commissioner diamond: right. okay. i am very torn here for many of the same reasons that were

mentioned by commissioner tanner which is i am extremely sympathetic in the statements that were made that it's challenging for growing families to find suitable space in the city and that the work that they undertook without permits clearly made this space better suitable for their growing family and i think we need to be very aware as a city how challenging it is to find space for growing families and try to work with families and work with our code to not put all of these obstacles in front of people and to make it easier for growing families to stay in the city. i am disturbed of the fact that they did this without permits. this would be a lot easier case for me if they had come to us and requested this without having undertaken unpermitted

work in the first place. so i'm pretty torn here and i am, you know, eager to hear what the other commissioners have to say. but i feel like the sort of two policies flying in the face of each other right now which is we don't want to incentivize unpermitted work. on the other hand, we should be doing everything we can not to put regulatory hurdles in front of families trying to stay in the city. so i'm eager to hear from the other commissioners, but i, you know, i'm at two minds on this one. >> president: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: i have a couple of questions and then i would probably like to make a couple of points.

first question would be to ms. iello, the adu on the bottom which you've indicated in the brief would require an exception because of the rear yard exposure. >> thank you, commissioner fung. the adu under the current state law would not require dwelling unit exposure or open space. >> commissioner fung: okay. what about the fact there is a third floor deck that covers that? see the property, the structure extends extensively into what would be normally the rear yard requirement. the third floor has a deck. does that change the code

requirement for occupiable space underneath? >> because it can qualify under the state adu program, that is not an issue. as a regular second unit, that would be problematic. >> commissioner fung: i see. okay. i would ask the project sponsor one question related to -- i'd be interested in hearing what he was going to say on the last slide that was showing where he was pointing out i believe trying to point out another example if he would like to finish the thought on that, i'd be interested in hearing. >> yeah. appreciate that and everybody's questions and comments here.

it was covered, by the way, in one of the public comment. it was referencing the recent pace of a new -- of a demolition and a in new family building, a 4,000 square foot building with a 390' adu and that's a single family house with an adu, but, again, it seemed to relate to this situation and sort of the end game that we're trying to navigate towards is a single family home with a suitable size secondary rental. so this really comes down to where do we draw that line in this property and maximize the diversity and the sort of integrity, you know, that's important. the architectural integrity of this beautiful building.

>> commissioner fung: understood. and this commission has struggled before with what is an appropriate size. for the other unit that is created to attempt to maximize density. i don't know where the other commissioners are going to go but if i was to make a motion to grant a conditional use, he would have to replace the wall

that covered the doors in order to be able to go back to the two flats. >> thank you, commissioner fung. that's a very tricky question. you know, i think any condition has to be reasonably tied to the request. i don't know. i think there's questions of enforcement obviously there. i see director hillis is here so maybe he has thoughts. >> we've done that, commissioner fung, once before when i was on the commission. it was two years, it was in a larger 20-unit building i think on knob hill, but we did make that condition.

i can't remember the property, but we required when the owner sold the property or rented the property they had to revert back to the two units and we can do some research and find that case. >> commissioner fung: i think, director hillis, we also had a similar case at the board of appeals. >> you may be right. >> commissioner fung: i am sympathetic to be able to how them to use. the question is whether they feel a 500 square feet adu is equivalent to providing a second unit to allow the merger of the two flats.

>> president buell: okay commissioner moore is next. commissioner moore, you may be muted. >> commissioner: i just wanted to briefly respond to the comment made by the applicant about an example of a building -- a second family home being torn down, replaced by a larger home, and adding an adu of small size. this is r.m.3 which is mixed use. i think what applies here is the mixed use of trying to identify. and i think that raises the bar for us. not only in terms of finding means to identify, but also

same with our basic principle for equity and i think i would very much lean towards what commissioner tanner described and she had some very poignant questions and i think based on that, i will lean towards supporting staff's recommendation. thank you. >> president buell: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, commissioner moore for pointing that out. the rezoning, that's what i was going to mention is that we've had -- we've tackled this kind of issue in a way perhaps indirectly in other hearings where there is a bigger size unit and then added with a smaller issue of an adu initially happening in rh 1

area. therefore, on top of that, i also support what commissioner tanner has mentioned earlier, the fact that there are worked on without the permit and i'm not sure if they -- the violations actually will result in a fine or penalty, the fact that it was done without the permit and it has to be done, go through with that investigation because of the application for the short-term rental that is again there is still work at the basement and still not done. so i'm actually leaning more -- so i am leaning to the staff recommendation of this approval. that would -- i would like to hear what other commissioners say, but that would be my final decision. >> secretary: commissioner

tanner. >> commissioner tanner: i want to thank commissioners for their comments. commissioner fung is trying to find a way that maybe some of us could feel comfortable and i don't know commissioner fung what you'll do in terms of making a motion, but i would certainly be interested to hear more, director hillis, about how we would enforce that type of restriction when it changes hand? would that be reported on the deed? so if the deed enters into another entity? how do we follow up and make sure that occurs? >> i imagine it would be recorded against the property. i imagine we'd want some additional time to investigate the case that i mentioned. >> secretary: all conditions of approval are recorded against the property as a notice of special restriction. it still poses the problem of enforcement. >> commissioner tanner: and that's what i'm getting at. how is it clear to the members

buying the property in particular. when they're buying that property, they're buying at that time, it would be a three-unit property that either needed to be restored before sale or they would have to restore after sale. >> director: that would presumably come up in a title. >> commissioner tanner: presumably, yeah. i'm just worried about it. i would either need more time to get comfortable with that for more research or something. i see commissioner moore's waving. maybe she has some insight from her years of experience on the commission on that matter. >> commissioner: i just wanted to remind director hillis about the case and questionnaire. this was a condominium situation where two units were next to each other owned by family -- by people related as a family and when one of the parties became ill, they found

it was more suitable in support of the person who lived in the adjoining unit to have direct access which meant creating an access door through the common -- basically common area of walls between the units and used that for the limits of time that the care needed to be provided and ultimately reverted back into two units. so it was functioning as one relative to access, but it was not nearly merged in a sense that it became two units which by condominium law wasn't possible anyway. it made an accomodation on the temporary basis. >> director: commissioner, you and i may be thinking of different cases. that wasn't my recollection, but i'm not 100% certain. it would also show the building as two units or whatever it is that we specified here.

>> commissioner tanner: commissioner fung, i would be supportive of possibly continuing to have more research for the -- i'm still really struggling and perhaps if we could create a condition that it did need to revert and that there could not be any short-term rental alloweded on this property. i would not want to see that used as a short-term rental. that would be the restriction i want to see. thank you. >> president buell: commissioner chan. >> commissioner: i think given the discussion, i am comfortable supporting staff recommendations. i think it's the issue of the density of the zoning and as a commission focusing on the use and not the user. we do need more land incentives to keep more families in san francisco. i don't think this is the proper route for this to happen. those are my comments.

>> president buell: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: perhaps we should -- i'm prepared to make a motion to support staff recommendation. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: and then commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: i was just going to say that i would support a continuance if that's what commissioner fung was planning to propose in order to allow staff more time for research. having draft such a condition and what physical improvements might need to be done in the interim in order to make it more easily enforced at the time of sale. >> president buell: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: given the number of questions that were raised, i would be prepared to move for a continuance to be able to answer those questions. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: okay.

commissioners, if there's no further deliberation at this time, there was a motion that was seconded to disapprove, however, there was a subsequent motion to continue which takes precedence as a procedural matter. therefore, i would call all to question to continue. we need a little bit of time at a minimum of two weeks. would the proposal to continue be for december 16th or possibly the new year? >> commissioner fung: i haven't looked at the schedule. >> secretary: right. of the events calendar would accommodate either way. i'm curious how much time staff would need to basically research this. why don't we put it on the 16th. >> director: i'd suggest a month or more. >> secretary: very good. in that case, we would be looking at january 6th in the

new year. >> commissioner fung: that would be my motion then. >> secretary: very good. on the motion to continue this matter to january 6th to allow staff to research any proposed solutions, [roll call] the motion fails 3-4 with commissioners chan, and commissioner cobble voting against. the original motion was to disapprove. on that motion, [roll call]

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-3 with commissioners chan, diamond, and fung voting against. commissioners, i have received a late request to excuse all of you and us early and to continue item 14 for case number 2020-008417cwp for the recovery strategies economic recovery update informational presentation. director hillis, was that for one week? >> director: yes, please. >> secretary: to december 9th, 2021. we should take public comment on that matter of continuance. any member of the public who wishes to comment on the proposed continuance of the informational items. seeing no members of the public

requesting to speak at this time, public comment is closed and the proposed continuance is now before you, commissioners. >> president buell: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: move to continue. is it for next week? >> secretary: just one week, yes. >> commissioner imperial: move to continue to the proposed date. >> secretary: thank you. on that motion to continue this item one week, [roll call] so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. enjoy the rest of your afternoon. >> president buell: we're adjourned. women's network for

sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did

new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program

basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that

everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining

the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.org hi everyone. i'm san francisco mayor london breed and i know that many of you have been anxious to hear what's happening with this new omicron variant. the coronavirus and we're here today to talk about and announce that here in the city and county of san francisco under the university of california san francisco and our partnership with the department of public health using the latest of technology, we have discovered our first case not only here in san francisco but the entire country and i wanted