>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing. for thursday, february 16, 2023. to enable public participation sfgovtv is broadcasting and strolling this hearing live exactly receive men for each item today. each speaker allowed upon to 3 machines. when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime. i will take the next person queued. we'll take from persons here first approximate then the remote line. for those persons participating via web ex, raise your hundred when public comment is called for the item you are speaking to. for those calling in to submit

testimony you need to call 415-554-0001, access code: 2487 758 1058 ##. you need to enters the password 0216 and press pound. you need to wait for your item and per public comment to announce to comment enter star 3 to raise your hand. you will hear a property that says, you have raised your hundred it ask a question. wit to speak until you are seawalled upon. when you hear the prompt you are asked to unmute, press star 6. when you hear you are unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. i understand sfgovtv is work to get rid of the star 6. hopeful low we will not have to go through all that. why we thank them for that.

>> indeed. >> best practices to call from a quiet location and mute the volume on your computer. for those in person line up on the screen sifted room. speak clearly and slowly if you care to state your anymore for the record. i will ask we silence mobile devices that may sound off. and at this time i like to call will roll. president tanner >> here >> vice president mor. >> here. >> commissioner braun. >> hee >> commissioner diamond >> here. >> commissioner imperial. >> here >> commissioner koppel. >> here >> commissioner ruiz. >> item it is for continuance item 1, 1700 california street a cu hrgz is propoeds to february 23 of 23. item 2, 276 grant vow avenue a cu authorization is proposed for march second of 23.

item 3, 332 delores a dr for march 16th of 23. i have no other items proposed for continuance. we should take public ment this . is your town to address the commission on any of matters proposed to be continued. if you are in the chambers in forward. if you are cull nothing press star 3. on web ex raise your hand. no requests to speak, commissioners issue public ment on continuance is closed. and it is before you. >> are there comments. commissioner improll. why move to continue all. >> on this motion to continue, commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. why commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye >> commissioner moore

>> aye >> president tanner. >> aye y. that motion passes and place us on consent. before i call the items commissioner diamond you have a disclosure? >> i want to disclose that i have a prior relationship with a lawyer who is a partner in the law firm of brett gladstone. brett is the attorney on the howard street matter on consent. business relationship for a personal merit ended 20 months ago but within the two-year period required. had nothing to do with this matter and i don't believe it will have impact on my ability to be impartial. why thank you. all matters here constitute consent are considered to be routine by planning and may be acted upon by a vote of the

commission. there will be no separate discussion unless the commission, public or staffs. then it will be removed and considered at this hearing. item 4, the property 221 main street a cu authorization and item 5, the property of 554 howard also a cu authorization. members, this is your opportunity to request either of these be removed from consent and considered at today's or a future hearing? if you are here come forward if you are cull nothing press star 3 or raise your hand. seeing no requests, commissioners, the condition centical calendar is before you y. motion to approve. >> second. >> thank you.

on this motion to approve both. commissioner braun. aye >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye >> commissioner mor. >> aye >> president tanner. >> aye. >> this motion passes 7-0 and now commission matters item 6 the land acknowledgment. ramaytush ohlone acknowledgement the planning commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples

>> thank you. >> item 7 consideration of adoption draft machines february 22nd, 2023. members ever public you may address the machines. if you are here come forward if you are call nothing press star 3 or raise your hand via web ex. soing no requests public comment system closed. and they are before you. commissioner braun. why move to adopt the minutes. >> seconded. >> thank you. on that motion to adopt the minutes commissioner braun. why aye >> ruiz. >> aye >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial. why aye >> koppel. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye >> tanner. >> aye. why this motion passes 7-zero and places us on item 8. commission comments and questions. seems like rutone one tragedy after another. i want to rescue noise the shooting at michigan state

university and my home state of michigan and i have relatives in lancing it hit close to home. everybody i know is fine. want to have a mobile home to rescue noise those victims and survivors and i was thinking i should not say something it frequent well this is the point it happens so much you don't want it to be numb to what is happening and hopeful low we will are folks at gentleman who will take action to prevents more transgender deals like this. our thoughts are with those families. are there other comments or questions today? seeing no questions from the commission. department matters item 9 director, announcements. >> nothing today. why thank you. >> item 10 the past events of the board and historic

preservation commission. >> good afternoon aaron starr manage for legislative, faris. this week the long awaited article 8 on amendments. experienced by supervisor dorse. planning heard this on november 17 of last year and recommend approval with modifications. those modifications included to one exempt childcare facility and residential care from s, r limit in r ad districts. remove the language references adequate lighting and the planning department's lighting guidelines. and remove the changes that relax night time entertainment control in zoning and amend the ordinance of the night time entertainment for propertyos folsom between 7 and division.

>> related to night time entertainment use with 200 feet of districts. the supervisor did includal of the planning commission modifications and in addition they removed the lip rollization of controls for general entertainment and replaced with the same or targeted prop for night time controls. unfortunately than i were not introduced as a substitute ordinance during lan use this required it to be continued one was substantive. supervisor peskin had question and concerns about the changes regarding group housing in the sally district and the 1,000 foot buffer around adult businesses. staff will look into the changes. the mittee final action were to sept amendments and continue to the item to february 27.

at the full board this week the ordinance that does the same as the article 8 allows night time entertainment on folsom past the second read. and this week the board considered the appeal on the imposition of market and octavia improvement fees for 245 valencia. the greek unite the greek orthodox church. planning considering and approved this on september 15 of 2011 as a c u authorization. the fees emposed for the construction of cathedral and impact fees were included in the motion. city failed to collect the required fee at the time of permit issuance in 2013. construction took approximately 10 years. the city notified the owner in line 2021 the fees must be paid per courteouses occupancy being

be issued. it was a replacement for one demoed and replaced with a parking lot and the now building would noted have new impacts the church community use today since 1930. further they claim it would not increase users. views not a replacement but a new project constructed on a parking lot the de feo is triggered with new construction or 800 gross square feet of nonresidential use and does in the allow for department level discretion. there were 2 speakers. appellates represent and a public mentaler who attends the church and in support waiving the fee. robe extent melgar asked, yet planning code does in the review this as replacement and why the fee applies even if the church would not increase users. ronen denied the appeal knowing

the planning would not support over turning assessments of fees and that passed unanimously that concludes my report happy to answer questions. >> seeing no questions i have no report from the board of appeals the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and took up the department's budget and work program and adopted a recommendation for approval and considered several legacy business applications this included the blue light on union street, the hing lum on stockton street. mr. bing's on columbus avenue. design media on 21st. playmates preschool on 42nd avenue. love on haight on haight street, dragon seed bridal on clay and

recommendations for approval for all of these legacy business registry applications. they also heard the planning code amendment for home sf you will hear today. and then finally adopted the modernistic styles 25 through 1965 city wide historic context statementful if there are no questions, we with move on. to general public meantful at this time members may address on items of interest within the jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the chigz will be when the item is reached in the meeting. each member may address the commission for 3 minutes when speakers exceed the 15 minute limit general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> georgia, no way are you getting. >> good upon afternoonful this

is for the commissioners i'm georgia, this hand out is something i gave out to people to the commission in march of 2021. but i felt like i want federal give it out again. 5 categories of demolitions. and some of those are serial permitting. and projects this did not have demolition calculations eldoverado, nothing happen thered it is empty lot. and it was last i locked and 21st street they built on that and 49 hop consistency. nothing happened on the cites they are sitting there. i add had illegal second unit and sold for 9 and a half million dollars and did in the

mention they sold it as a single family home. number 3 on the list is ones that should have been covered boy a flat policy exactly be in the future. and i gots time i wrote na3790 and 92, 2st street was not completed and you can add that one. and there are some that exceed during work and enforcement actions and seen some of thoseletly. and -- the fifth one is -- projects where they don't quite cross the threshold. the current existing thresholds but close and questionable. like the one on sanchez and day, which has not sold the second time it sold in july 2020 for 9 million dollars. never really lived in. back on the market. for upon 14 million and they drop today to 10 it it is unoccupied it is off the market that is acorn are lot that is

one you struggled with. and this is something this really should have been torn down no not remodeled. anyway. i will add about the fifth category i understand the staff is now instituted warning letters if than i are irrelevant close. and if you cross this threshold you better let us know. i know there was one recently for a project on remodel on homestead street that was dred left year but it was settled and you never heard temperature this is the list. i wanted update that, thank you very much. >> thank you. last call for general public meant. if you are here come forward. remote, press star 3 or raise your hand i have web ex. general public comment is closed

we can move on items lefrn a and b, for the home sf planning code amendments. >> good afternoon, commissioners veran caflorals planning staff. there are 2 ordinance related to the home sf program today the first was introduced by supervisor dorsey who upon represented by madison tammy and the second was introduced by president pes pel represented by [inaudible] today i will go ahead and invite them to provide a brief introduction and i will return for the presentation. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon thank you for having us here today. this legislation bush is sponsored by supervisor dorsey with peskin president peskin a close partner.

over the past summer both expressed sdoir to work together on legislation for reason control units dorse is subject to post 1979 rent control and sprieshz peskin supports rent control. we discussed how home sf allows more people to benefit for protections of reason principle. it is the density bonus program developers provide on site affordable in exchange for density limits and additional hiechlt home sf is providing an additional option. [speak fast]. the new option keeps the spirit boy requiring on site bmr and subjects the others in the project to rent control. today's reason control units are more expensive it protects the tenants from the market allowing

families to remain in units. the 2020 husbanding element states a major of renters live in rent controlled house nothing neighborhoods little mission, choina town, knob hill, tenderloin, and out are richmond. it can bring rents control units to neighborhoods that don't have anymore several are in the outer sunset a high opportunity neighborhoods that has met low single family homes i hope to have your support and now i will pass it off to sunny for the other part. >>il keep it brief. thanks to prierz dorsey for his wonderful partnerships i adjust on to what madison said per of when we recognize with the addition of reason chrome opportunities and agreements for the develop thes the smaller

ones is recognition that ultmitt low affordable bmr units are very controlled and regulated locally and the state and federal level. and rent control is a way of saying that the market will dictate what rent and property ordinance hope to recoop. you know it may seem this is a hole foordzable housing project in 100% of units the units when vacated the land rord everlord can reset the reasons to the price they want. as to the second piece buffer today. very simple, cut and driveway. i think the supervisor's intent is to rescue noise our historic districts they are really, make up less than a percent of the city's built environment. very postage sized.

really should be taken in context of the district and not individual projects. and hopeful low you will consider that when looking at staff recommendations, which we as president peskin said yesterday at historic preservation are not in10 to take up at the board but appreciate the staff work that has been done on both piece. veronica? >> before she continues they are to separate piece of legislation you can take upper separate low or together when you make your motion. >> thank you for being here and your comments. >> all right. thank you, everyone and thank you for joining us. so, just as a reminder you are wear of the home sf program the local density bonus program in increases inclusionary the project sponsor received bonus

up to one-two stories and a set men useful modifications they can choose from which i want to highway light that supervisor dorsey agreed to include clean up items as well as an additional zoning modification for reduced, private open space requirements this mirror the common open space requirements that already exist they were listed under the amounted amendment section in your packets. diving newscast first ordinance, this would amend the planning code to allow protects to pursue a new path that would provide a new batch reason control units. instead of providing the increased inclusionary housingum to 30%, the project sponsor can elect to provide the required inclusionary for that site and then subject the remaining of the dwelling units under rent control. llow this, they would achieve

the same benefits of density decontrol, bonus store and hes option to elect the many modifications. the department recommends the commission approve the this proposed ordinance with a few modifications. the first relates to amending the legislation stating this projects future than 10 units will be able to participate in home sf boy subjecting the entire building to rent control under this new alternative. so inclusionary is in the required for projects less than 10 units. it is zero percent the remaining is subject to rent control. >>.

>> under this path to the reason limitations of rent ordinance the first time seeing the large batch of rent controlled unit this is came about in coordination with the rent board. so -- um there is suggested language in the packet for you and it is to inform residents of the rights they are subject to the rent ordinance including rent control. the third modification is to eliminate the shadow, wind and historic resource topics from the eligibility criteria of home sf:going through environmental review. this does in the bypass ceqa in any means. this recommendation is to remove these environmental topics from

the eligibility criteria which creates uncertainty of a project is eligible for home sf or not. with the recommended modification there will be time savings for the experiences they will know if they pursue home sf. hawill happen under this modification is a project can submit home sf application. ceqa will commence special then if the project does in the meet the environmental screening for the topic it will be analyzed for shadow had historic resources are applicable and from there if there are significant impacts mitigation measures set to reduce or e eliminate such impact. this it is not under the code today. those projects would be preclude automatically from home sf it is after all that time and the analysis where there waiting for

that determination. additionally, this recommendation alines with the housing element goals of reducing constraints on housing development. and is called out in impelementation action number 7.2.9 to treatment line home sf and increase housing production. the last recommended modification for this first ordinance relates to resunrising the eligibility precludes a home sf project demoing any unit the development of one unit. just one. when home sf was enacted the program does not allow the demolition of residential units in hopes to protect the existing housing stock and all of the existing tenants.

all will existing units to provide replace am units with at least as many that were demolished. there are additional tenant protection in accomplice. so we are homing that those will be able to satisfy a lot of the protections that we are with the original intent of home sf. that said, the department recommends that the current eligibility be amended to allow the demolition of only one unit. and this prevennes demolition of duplexings or learning are housing complexes and protects more existing tenants. this modification opens up more sites to home sf and we are seeing this as opening along the neighborhood/commercial districts home sf coping with the neighborhood character and

the block fails. supervisor dorsey confirmed support of the first 2 recommended modifications. and than i have not come to a conclusion whether they support the remaining 2 modifications related to eliminating environmental factors from the eligibility criteria or the demolition of one residential unit. the sejd ordinance in front of you would many the home sf program it exclude all properties in the historic district under article 10. and the recommendation is aprove with one modification to only exclude a resource individually listed on the national, state or local registers, or a contributor to article 10 historiedic district. there are properties located within historic district but not themselves individually listed or a contributor. president peskin of not in

support of this modification. but we believe that this will still meet the intent of the proposed ordinance and balancing with the goal of expanding sites to home sf. and also today, i have a resolution for you related to this second ordinance. and the first change is related to the recommend modification i just described. the draft resolution in your packets meted that individually resource or contributors to historic districts cannot be demolished it is to exclude them from participating in keeping with the original ordinance. and the second change is related to ceqa. the draft resolution in the packets refers to the 2022 housing element eir, however, this ordinance in and of itself is not will considered a project

under ceqa and that finding has been corrected in the revised draft resolution for you. after the packets were published the department received 2 letter in support of president peskin's ordinance and opposing the staff recommended modification related focusing this to the individual listed resources. and citing protection of the over all historic district character. additionally, you received a comment from the housing okay co, ligz supporting the upon ordinance that provides a new path for rent control units under home sf and that letter stated they were against it excluding home sf from historic districts it make its harder to build house nothing san francisco. these 2 items appear in the front of historic preservation commission yesterday am after much discussion regarding the additional height ramifications

under home sf and the state density bonus program the commission adopted recommendation from approval of both ordinance without taking staff recommended modifications. and one last reminder there are 2 ordinances for you today. we will look for 2 separate actions from you in this concludes staff presentation a.m. available for questions. thank you. why thank you. >> open up public comment. members if you are here come forward. if you are cull nothing press star 3 or raise your handled via web ex. >> i have manage i like to ask to you pass out if you would not mind. also i like to ask how many time have. 3 machines. i try to be less, thank you. good afternoon, commissioners i'm stan haze from telegraph

hill dwellers. part of what you have before you item 11 b seconded of the 2 items exclude article 10 historic district fist the home sf program. we agree with president peskin. we support this ordinance as originally written by him. we don't support planning staff's proposed modification. that limit home sf exconclusion to a few collect historic buildings. the home sf exclusion should apply to the entire historic district. a historic district is not just an isolated set of select historic buildings rather it includes the historic character of an entire district. this is/khrer in the purpose you set fourth in article 10 calls for preservation and protection in the just of structures or cites but of whole areas as well. providing for this and future

generations, examples of the physical surroundings past generations live. we are concerned staff's modification could dilute the affect of the ordinance. risking historic bj damage from home s footwork construction. so. what if built a modern out of scale and out of character high rise home sf project next to a building on the national register. it would be less damaging to the historic district than buildoth national register site next door? as you can tell, from this figure. copies of this in what i handed out. you see from the figure the affect of the ordinance on the home sf program city wide would be normal. there are maen 14 article 10

historic districts together they comprise less then and there a % of the land area of san francisco. within this area a small number would be affected. this ordinance would haveingly or no significant affect on the home sf pool. support this ordinance as original low written and reject planning staff's modification. thank you. >> thank you i'm fran. i spoke yesterday before the h pc. i'm back because of my interest in preserving the historical zones in san francisco. i happen to live in a historic area in telegraph hill. i own property on platomic, one

of those purple dots on your hand out you got. i done get interested in this until i bought the property and a fellow next door was now passed away. gave me a book about our one block street that had detailed everybody who ever lived there. and it was fascinating and it is gotten me interested in this topic. that's why i am here today. i think the comment i want to make is that it doesn't make sense to me 2 days ago i was visiting my daughter and grandchildren on platomic street and there was a big fire a block away that fire could have been on our block. and if a house had burned down in our historic district, it could have been replaced without with the amendment with the chinks that have been suggested

it supervisor peskin's amendment. could be replaced with manage out of character. that does not make sense you have to look at a historic district as something as a whole not just little parcel by parcel. so, i think that the historic the historic concern in san francisco are personal or person it our tourism for sure. and i would urge you to support supervisor peskin's amendment without the changes that have been proposed by planning staff. thank you. no additional members in the. public. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. on behalf of the housing okay coalition i will speak on both items. item 11a, as previously mentioned we are in support of this item. who i we hope that future modifications to home sf make it an appealing option. [inaudible] it is currently. we believe this this opt in program is a strong antidisplacement policy demonstrates how production and protection can w in crediting a more affordable and stable san francisco. on item 11b, as mentioned, we are in opsuspicion because we don't think that we had be restricting the city's ability to build housing and the intent not the intent but the affect of this legislation i think would blunt home sf's flexibility. with that said, we are

encouraged by the cent am of planning staff's modifications and are excited to see where that goes. thank you very much. go ahead, caller. i see you are unmuted you have to press star 6. >> hello. >> yes. >> good afternoon. mooim [inaudible] call nothing as neighbor oshg [inaudible]. i lived. >> i'm going to hold you off there. you will have to call back and

press star 3. you have to press star 3 again when we reach the cannabis item y. last call for public comment on items 11a and b for the home sf planning code amendments. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed this matter is before you. these items are now before you. >> i thank supervisor dorse competence pes pel for bring thanksgiving legislation. thank you for being her to answer questions. i don't know if commissionersment it start i'm happy to jump in employment to open the floor. commissioner moore? as i have said many times i believe or legislator spends time talking with everybody to appropriate legislation come in front of us. upon often i appreciate planning department look and making

suggestions in this case, i believe that even supervisor dorsey only supports 2 amendments and supervisor peskin expressed his thoughts about other suggestions. the fact that history irk preservation weighed in not fo to amend 11b makes me feel what we should stick with had is in 41 of us without staff's recommendation and i want to call out supervisor dorsey for making suggestions at this time i extreme low appropriate and timely. they are indeed, discussions among planning commissioners to expand and make home sf more attractive as it stand in contrast to the state density bonus in order to help us find aing solution for increasing

housing stock but with more locally taylored measures. thank you to him and i support both piece of legislation minus the suggested staff amendments. >> thank you, commissioner imperial. >> thank you. so in looking in the planned to planning staff recommendations in terms of the lefrn a, i approve all of recommendations by the planning departmentful and the fact there were discussions with the rent board. that is something i truly appreciate on this. i do have a question in terms of recommendation 4 in terms of the revise requirement -- allow demolition of one unit.

one unit a single family home there is a home sf project. is this like the target of this or what. with respect to neighborhood commercial districteds we think about one residential unit tucked behind the commercial store front at the front of the store, because of that sometime its it is a small u are nit they are preclouded from participating home sf that was the primary examples we were looking at. and again along the neighborhood/commercial district we see there could be tounlt for home sf, however, with the existing eligibility they otherwise are not able to pursue home sf. only build up to development per

under loyaling zoning or state density or other programs like that. >> thank you. for -- thank you for that explanation. i think for 11 ai do approve of the staff recommendations all of them. and in terms of the 11b historic i think i would i would like to hear more in historic preservation. it is their ment does weigh. in terms of the staff recommendation on this, i think i'm also adhere to what the historic preservation commission i would like to hear more the conversation there. >> yes. so, yesterday a lot of questions centered around height, additional height and what the no audio.

[no audio] all of our micro~ phones went out and now in become hoist. >> so. i was recapping the discussion

yesterday of historic preservation mission. there were questions on height. and under home sf you can reach one or 2 stories of height that is the max you are able to get. and the number dependses on rate of inclusionary your project provides. under state density bonus can be 2 or 3 or 4 stories, we don't know how many stories they'll pursue and we have limited powers in bring that height back down to the 2 stories similar to home sf. home sf, well is a cap -- and -- during historic preservation commission they are concern against what the additional height would do to the neighborhood. and to the historic character of the district. when looking at the 2 different

programs one has a cap of 2 store and hes that is as much s we go. we have power to shape that further depending on the context the other program they can be 3 or higher than the 2 stories and we have little power torous this further. so that is the key difference in the 2 different programs. gaerng a project sponsor can choose which program they want and a lot of yesterday's discussion revolved around this. ultimately the historic preservation commission adopted a recommendation to approve the ordinance as proposed citing the protections for the historic district. they have -- if we ecclude october from home sf they will like low pursue state density

bonus on the property and we have limited power to really revisit the height from there witness they choose the state density bonus. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> questions? why commissioner braun? i want it say for the first legislation i'm appreciate the clarity that legislation brings and also put nothing accomplice a way to expand the reason controlled housing supply. it is the met person to thes we have for maintaining neighborhoodses in the city and so i like on the whole the legislation seems great. i agree with all 4 of the staff recommended changes to the legislation. it seems like a good way to expand the clarity and usability

of home sf. on the second item, 11b. for the staff recommendation. i'm of mixed minds right now. i understand not wanting to create more fuel add more to the fire. people chos to build, buildings out of scale with historic neighborhoods. at the same time there would be new buildings within those existing historic districts. and then it was very helpful to hear about the fact that the state density bonus law would be another alternative. i am curious to hear haamericans have to say and i'm thinking about that amendment. >> commissioner diamond. >> a question for staff for

supervisors supervisor dorsey's office first? if i'm understanding correct low, you are -- you support the first 2 amendments that staffmented but sill 11 on the second 2 amendments i wonder what your officers was concerned on. joy think we worked with supervisor peskin's office on this legislation. i think there is shared concern on i can peek to the demolition piece. there is a lot of legislation potential low moving throughout board stll to address demolition. and this is i small subset of projects we don't know if this is where we had be addressing demolition. there might be. better avenues in the other legislation coming up and again we don't know if this is the way it address this. >> how about the seek watt piece

on shadow and winds? staff's recommendation number 3. >> i will defer to the district 3 office for concern this is came up around that. thank you. of i we did have meetings with our city tournament and supervisor dorsey's office. i think this we would be open to that. i'm00 eye think that this will definitely be a discussion that will take place with the legislative legislators and land use and transportation committee. certainly, the ability to still go through the ceqa process and get your not in the door and get your shadow studies inform pay for those up front. and you know able to offer mitigation should there being significant condition impacts that in from that ceqa review seems reasonable.

i think that in the end, our real concern was around the demolition controls allowing openingum and putting the nose under the tent of demolition which i then and there body talked about the ability to track and enforce when our powerhouse are to really be thoughtful and responsible about huwe are revving litting and machine toring had developers are dog in this respect and the permits they are pulling. we have a lot of concerns from tenant community about the kinds of -- impacts that demolitions have on the surrounding units the constructive eviction this is happen as a result of just the re11less construction activity, noise, that you can't mitigate and enforce and this is an on going issue we have in

telegraph and knob hill. and aircraft lot of the neighborhoods that my office represents so i think that as madison referenced we have been talk category the city attorney about legislation that -- we believe could be intrementd as being able to maximize units and criminality toward our over all housing element goal in other ways and perhaps this is not the legislation to try to solve that problem with. if that is helpful. >> okay. i will ask a couple others. with respect to the ordinance that your office is proposing, had i read the staff package, i was thinking about the same issues that were raised a couple machines ago, okay, we can limit it to the entire district and in the go with staff's recommendation but that does

nothing to help out in a situation where state density bonus project is approved. how do you been that? with respect to this. which is yes we can say mow to home sf projects but that does in the stop someone from the state density project which might be greater impacts on the district then and there i home sf project. >> i refer to plan nothing how many new projects put in for state density bonus applications. in the 14 article 10 historic districts. i don't were i think the things that is appealing about the home sf program it is a smaller mid sized option more attractive for the historic districts that are smaller in scale. still dense and built out but

perhaps not high rises. so, i think that the sponsor's instent to put a flag in the grundz and say this is our local program and local option and you know we are setting an example for what it is we hope developers consider had choosing where than i will build and what it looks like and contributes to the neighborhood. is it in keeping? the other having worked along side former supervisor tang's office in the develop. original home sf program. it was trying to get at development and options for development on the west side for the neighborhoods small are developers and residential builders and some respects for the historic districts that are concentrated on the city and

elsewhere in the south of market this , is not perhaps this it is not the program for the district and saying this clear low. you know in setting forth our local alternatives clear message to developers we hope the options on the other side of the city, firstment i don't know if this is helpful. >> yes. we are struggling with this issue. it raises the issue that we think about on a broad are base, what happens had what do we do to encourage people to use local program this is allow for taylor to fit in when we have this state density bonus program this is attractive to many of the developers. i understands from staff we see an increasing number of applications on those projects. so, i worry about unintended

consequence. with the ordinance that might be worse than what staff is proposing. just think burglar that. i do have one more question for supervisor dorse. du talk with the developer xunt about your ordinance and whether or not this track that the reason control would create might encourages them to produce more hosing. i had a couple casual conservations and they gave comment and the idea with members and this new option and attractive to them. >> thank you. one last question, no. dithinked you correct low the

mic was going out. this h pc recommended for or against all 4 recommendations oft first ordinance? >> so. with respect to the first ordinance they only hear the recommendation to e eliminate environmental topics from the eligibility criteria. that was the only aspect they reviewed yesterdays. they did not have discussion or comments regarding the other ordinance and moved to approve as proposed without staff recommendation. they approved supervisor dorsey's ordinance as written. without the 4 amendments but no discussion on the 4 amendments. >> they only would have discussed the one recommendation relate the to the environmental

topic. eliminated from the criteria. >> yes. >> so was not a decision against the 3. >> correct. >> thank you. that is helpful. why and if i may just to add-on to what was shared; again, with respect to the recommended modification to eliminate the environmental topics from the eligibility as well as the related the ordinance excluding home sf from article 10 districts. ceqa will be conducted on all the project and the projects will be reviewed for significant add verse impact on article 10 historic districts. that will still happen either way. >> thank you. >> on the demolition issue, this

it is for staff. how do you respond to the comment by supervisor pes's ordinance that we don'tment this ordinance to be the wedge in to deal with demolition issues. and that this ordinance should not be addressing demolition i assume proposedurement to increase the amount housing and the ability to demo one unit would open up more opportunity so home sf might be used broadly it is not used much now; correct ? >> yes. >> i understandal of that, how do you respond to their concerns about this is not the right place to dooem deal with demolition. >> just to say we are looking at allowing demolition of one because this is an eligibility criteria there is a large are discussion to be had regarding

demolition. and to clarify, for large upper changes to 317 or demolition populations, those are separate conversation however it is listed here within the eljibltd criteria for home sf. even if it is tweaked has to be other efforts and other on going efforts regarding demolition aspect. the example i shared i hope it did not confuse the commission but one example that we could see openingum sites to home sf if the recommended modification were to be enacted on. 3 sfaenldz still awe if you got a cu for demolition you would need that currently you if you got this and the commission you can'ts [inaudible]. >> okay i'm alined with

commissioner braun, i seat first ordinance and the 4 amendments that makes sense to me i'm struggling. with this not the second ordinance the amendment that is proposed by staff, which is i get you don't want this andip understand the h pc approximate suspicion to affect the district but when you got an alternative, is home sf is better then and there the state density program. i'm not surety discussion lead me i think it added my level of concern about which way we had go on this. i'm curious to hear. on the first ordinance. i am in support with all 4 amendments as proposed and in favor of the second ordinance just the amendment i'm struggling with. >> certainly. il make a few comment and call on commissioner moore or others.

thanks to the legislation glad to see us tweaking and giving more options that's when we need to do to make home f successful. the 4 amendments for the first file seem acceptable to me. i think with number 4 i wonder allowing demolition of one unit i can imagine all of the places you are talking about where it is one unit above a commercial. and not really used as housing anymore. and limit being development. i wonder about more closely linking the demolition of residential with that typology. i see it concerning we might knock down a house. can be unauthorized dwelling and can be tenants the [inaudible] [speaking fast] i wander if the

supervisors may be spicht and narrow this recommendation to that type onology a residential unit that is connect today a commercial unit i believe home sf is allowed on commercial districts. it seems to reenforce we talk about commercial buildings becoming housing versus knocking down housing and making more housing under this program. i don't know if the aids have a response or manage we can consider doing and linking the commercial unit to that residential unit. i will say, again we are look to incentivize home sf looking at ways we can openum sites to the program of we would love to keep the amendment as is. had you ever if this is the way to open up more cites we are amenable and can continue the

conversation. invite us to think about this body exit think the idea of talking about demolition there is a question with the legislation do it hol ~ically where we talk about demolition in light of the housing leadership or look at the different program in this scenario is the trade off worth when we are getting? i argue most home sf gives more than one unit the trade off is there and providing affordable housing in every project it is giving more of the things we doment. not with standing the need to have a large are demolition conversation supportive the staff recommendation for. in historic districts i was like, can see both sides. and iment to commends the staff analysis the theoretical.

should we allow new buildings along side historic building in a historic district. general low, yes. preserving history is preserving the resources and district this is someone when grew up in a historic district and allowing new things to come we have the past and present coexisting this sell my view. that said there is not this many historic districts the amount of pace is mall temperature is difficult on get a history u district not like we hand them out all over the city. the limiting impact of preserving historic districts in real life is limited in this case. my one concern would be that folks who are not interested in having more neuroneighbors use the program to further curtail access to develop export get their neighborhood to be a historic district and you see a bunch folks trying to have their

districts historic districts. this it is just say you go can or can't do home sf and add confusion staff in ajs saying, well, if you look at where you can do home sf, you look at the historic districts are in the west side this development would be able to produce more housing through home sf than the state density bonus because home sf includes density dekrell that weighs back to allowing home sf and state density bonus won't don't have a choice and seeing that some might choose or local program will be less severe. american moore than commissioner

imperial. i like to acknowledge the presence of both supervisor offices here. we don't have the benefit to have the legislators being represent exclude had it come it a discussion like this, i say that we can make a recommendation or can vote on this. however ultimate low the legislators will determine that is useful and will what is not. and so i like to make a motion to approve the planning code amendments for both 11a and b. as proposed without staff recommendation. with the caveat that comments that were made here to extreme low important and valuable gifrn how intense we are discussing this. are being as much communicated

in your on going deliberations. that would be my motion. is there a second. >> seconded. commissioner imperial did you have comments. >> yea. i remember when home s footwork legislation came out. it was a big there was a lot of community feedback on it. and when we had a lot of discussions here as well to make a local program density bonus program to be more attractive. i remember in terms of home circumstance f the goal was to create more develop the in the west side. this is targeting the mid size development. the amendment number 3, is a

practicality. in a way i approve that. the recommendation number 4, again when looking in the pragmatic way of the demolition. and i do agree there needs to be a separate discussion about demolition and a separate legislation on demolition. but when this one is attached home sf, again the focus is on the west side as i see it. so i do find the recommendation 4 acceptable and also there are state laws that are putting replacements in terms of rent krell units. again, needs to be have i differents legislation about demolition with tenant protection and rent. whether tenants are going to be

displaced. so, however i think there are some kind of when we are look nothing a project that is let's say mid size. i think it makes sense for the home sf. again, the number one and number 2 is something i appreciate of what the planning department recommend nothing terms of 10 units and less. well is in the going to have inclusionary unitos those and so it it is best to have all them to be rent controlled and to have the loses saying that these are rents controlled. i think those are top number 2 recommendations are greatly agree and 3 and 4. i agree in terms of home sf program. recommendation 5 is i would add here to that the hb c recommendation instead of the

staff recommendation. at the end of the day commissioner braun, well is a state density program, too much i'm thinking of a way we need to make the home sf project for san francisco and tourists flk to san francisco because of our built environment as well. there are things we need to protect. so i would actually again support the planning staff recommendation number one-4 but not 5. and yes. that would be my -- comment. why thank you. i would say, i am alined with commissioner improll and not support the motion made. i believe staff put fourth recommendations 1-4 life to see that discussed. i think inspect 5 we are

different the h pc makes sense it is a small fraction of the city covered. it is out of hand but something we need to monitor going forward. you want to speak, commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioners if tr is no further deliberation there is a motion seconded to approve both piece of legislation as proposed by their supervisors. on that motion commissioner braun. >> no. >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye >> commissioner diamond. >> no >> commissioner imperial y. no >> commissioner koppel >> no. >> commissioner moore. >> aye >> commissioner president tanner. >> no >> this motion fails 2-5 with commissioners braun, diamond, imperial, cop and he will tanner voting against. is there an alternate motion. >> commissioner brun?

yes. i make a motion to approve item 11 awith the 4 staff recommendationless and the revisions to the draft resolution provided. and i think let's take that one. >> second. >> mission secretary. the resunrised draft resolution is associated with item 11b. this motion would not include that item >> i e eliminate the draft resolution modifications. understoodful commissioners is this amenable to the seconder. >> so i make sure i understand. we are voting on supervisor dorsey's 11a with ordinance with the 4 amendments. >> yes. >> correct.

>> the 4 amendments modifications recommended by staff. >> yes. >> okay. . >> the audio is cutting in and out for me. can you clarify what we are voting on just lefrn a with -- with staff modifications. >> okay. >> on this motion commissioners to approve with staff modifications for item 11 acommissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. why aye. >> commissioner imperial >> aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye >> commissioner moore >> no >> commissioner president tanner. >> aye that passings sick-1 with commissioner moore voting against. >> the motion for 11b.

commissioner braun? i move to approve item 11b without the staff modification. >> second. and incorporating the resunrised draft resolution items begin boy staff. >> the hand out we got. >> >> could you restate the modifications on the second motion, please. >> the first change related to the recommendation it states, with individual lists resources and contributeors not demolished they should be exclude friday home sf and the second is related ceqa, it states that ceqa under the housing element

eir this is for the first ordinance and the second ordinance is in the considered a project under ceqa that has been corrected. why one is incorporating the first? >> in light of his motion which is -- the amendment [inaudible]. your microphone is not on. >> i'm confused given that the motion is to adopt ordinance without the amendment, and what you just described was a modification to the amendment. dihear that. >> so the original ordinance propose system not krrdz a project under ceqa for 11 b. >> it is the 2 things we need to read in the record the ceqa part but commissioner diamond is referring to number one we are not read the motion does not proport to contain staff recommendation that part we don't need to have recorded.

we are not approving that. >> thank you. >> and yes. i can read the resunrised ceqa finding in the record. so that would be on the bottom page upon one or00 autotop of page 2 of the draft resolution and -- shall read, where as the proposed ordinance tomorrowed to be exempt from environmental review because it it is not defined a project under ceqa sections 15 am. 378 subsection c and 2 not flult direct or indirect physical change in the environment. it it is just that change, thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. so -- in the second. >> i seconded. >> to be clear. we are approving the resunrised

draft resolution without staff modification. >> correct. >> on this motion commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> no. >> commissioner improll. >> aye >> commissioner koppel >> no. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commissioner president tanner. >> no. >> that motion passes 4-3 with commissioners dimon, cop and he will tanner against. okay commissioners that will allow us to move on to item 12 for case 2022-003898 the property the 1019 ocean avenue a c u authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioner ryan department staff. the item before you is a c u authorization pursuant of

planning 2 where are 2.230 low and 755. to establish a new 80088 square foot cannabis retail vac an grounds floor space of 3 story mixed use building the site in the ocean avenue zoning district and 45x height and bulk district. the ocean avenue zoning district requires a c u authorization for condition bills retail use. this location complies with 600 foot rule under planning code 202.to. the closest other retailer is 4, 250 feet away from the site at 5242 mission. nearest school is 7th day elementary school 730 feet away from the site went general vicinity stars 5. childcare 28 feet.

unity plaza, 88 feet. shining star childcare, 956 feet. fun with mandarin preschool, 960 feet and childcare, 970 feet away from the site. these locations are not identified as schools under the planning code. in response at this time contact the cannabis store is designed to shield product fist vow if the street and maintaining tanz paraphernalias of the facade a strack strong security and staff monitoring the store fremantle. the department received 232 comments expecting support which include those from business owner and register have had neighborhood groups the ocean, cull roll participation project. and ocean avenue association and we received for you comments

expressing opposition. since the department received 2 comments of opposition the letter in support around the creation of jobs and providing security for you area. opposition express occurrence regarding the proximity to school. project complies with zoning and policy of general plan provides new business activating a vacant space. complies with stele's 600 foot rule and the city's equity program goal. the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. the applicant has a presentation to make. >> thank you you have 5 minutes. >> hello. good afternoon i'm patrick the

equity partner. um, born and raised in san francisco native. grew up in the forest hill district. i started school at arm union school on the west side of the city and graduated san francisco unified 1-5 grades and upon then moveod to hoover middle school grades 6-8. and then graduated arch bishop high school where the cannabis club is proposed. i worked most of my life in hospitality business. and ups of which later in my early life i was a victim of stop and frisk in yooen reno, nevada and arrested for

possession of marijuana lead to the amount of out of state court fees and you know, like putting down as criminal. and pot head and all sorts of things until day nightmy mom calls me a pot head i think she is calling me pat head. mean and my partner are exciteded move in and robot to the community we met with a lot of organizations went community. and we think wield be a great contribution just for the fact that this district alone is under served. especially in ocean avenue corridor and would be a not in the community with security, eyes on the street. relationships to people withhold frequent us and thez had don't. we got in good with the store front owners that work the

corridor. and we are xoit body that. and this is my partner i like to hand that over to him. tell you more. >> good afternoon planning commission i'm tile are. i'm patrick's partner and a lifelong san francisco. we have been working nonstop just to point out high lights of out reach. we had 2 community meetings on site community meeting the second one a chinese translate oror per qualify neighborhood. walkedum and down the corridor meeting with every business and tables set up at community events. we robbery in conversation with our district supervisor's office throughout this process. patrick exit are proud to say that we have collected hundreds of support letters more specific low 150 over 150 from our

surrounding neighbors including 10 handles that live upstairs. 12 from local businesses and 7 from community groups. patrick and i are excited serve our community. let me know if you have questions. can everybody here in support stand up. thank you. commission. this concludes sponsor's presentation open up public comment. member this is is your opportunity to address the commission. come forward and line up on the screen side if you are call nothing press star 3. raise your hand via web ex. we the provide 2 minutes to each speaker. go to the a couple ever gettingum. come up and listen up on the screen side of the room. go ahead.

thank you very much am i'm hush and i'm in support of this. i live newscast district. not far from the office. a mile and a half monterey heights i will be one of the customers. shop. i suffer from tin tightis i hear ring nothing my ears there are condition bills products that are successful in doing so. i live in monterey heights. and as you miknow there are people that are advance in the years. i'm so old but a lot of us are near by and you are middle age [inaudible]. and i think a lot of people are hearing issues and i think there

would be many people beneficial from using the products at the dispensary. there are several her in san francisco you know, sudden fran is liberal. and as a result of this i think we should realize that a let of these products will be useful not just from people of my age but from others as well. so i would request that the planning commission and you members of the board look at this favorablely because this is very positive to the community i'm sure you are aware of the vacancies and the fact result of covid issues there is a lot of unfilled occupancy. 20%. a lot of vacant buildings. this would help a lot of people

and constructive for the city. thank you very much. good afternoon i'm speaking on behalf of ordinance of west wood produce on 1712 ocean avenue. we are in support. we think it will be a lift to the community. going off of we don'tment to keep our retail rakant and i think these guys would help bring ocean avenue that is a vibrant community they out reach to us and every question we asked they answered whether we have been against or for. they have been straightforward we support when they are doing. thank you. seeing no additional members of the public in the chambers.

go to remote. i like to express my support for the opening of the dispensary it brings positive changes. [inaudible] boost the economy by creating business opportunity and increase security and providing safe business practice and an town for safer use of marijuana providing legal establishment the dispensary is [inaudible].

[inaudible] i'm also a strong supporter of open being up this cannabis dispensary. first traffic in the area many are interested [inaudible] supportships and struntss high school in the area. secondly, a dispensary will be valuable addition in terms of security. when cannabis is illegal or restrict thered is a black market that offers and lead to dangerous situations. by opening a dispensary [inaudible] [echo] and that prit within the law. this can helprous crime and

improve safety in the area. i believe that cannabis a source of tax revenue and [inaudible] beginning to recognize the official benefits and taxing the sales. i believe that this will be a [inaudible] for the [inaudible]. thank you. my name is abraham. securing the neighborhood and believe having this security guard there will keep an eye on the neighborhood and i think will increase foot traffic safety and bring back revitalization concerning the homeless people. i support this.

>> thank you. last call for public comment on this matter. again if you are in the chambers come forward and if you are call nothing remote press star 3. >> thank you. good afternoon i'm simon i'm here on my lunch break in my capacity as a private citizen. >> why am i here? as a safety advocate commenting on the opening of a dispensary. the wrong hand its can make a neighborhood less safe in right hand its make its more safe. i'm here because the ordinance

did their diligence and retched out to every organization and business and neighbor they could to let us when they wanted and how they wanted to do it. this it make it a safer and better place. will cult vitae healingy influence by creating jobs, earning tax revenue and attracting a clientele and will be in good standing. they have high standards, which is good because so do we. it is therefore the reasons i urge you to approve the organization.

final last call for public comment. no questions to speak commissioners. i take that back we have remote callers. go to the remote callers. you need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. go ahead, caller. on mute. spoke out of turn earlier [inaudible]. >> [inaudible] [echo]

>> okay. that concludes public comment. commissioners and this merit is before you. >> thank you. i want to commend the sponsors for the out roach it is impressist organizations that supportedure and neighbors. i want to say the examples of community out roach and it shows through today in the hearing. commissioner koppel. >> what is interesting regarding the incident in nevada that a state this now is cannabis is legal they wereen in the past literally convicting people of felonies that had

rolling per ses with no tobacco. imagine how far the state of nevada has come and sorry to hear what happened to you. hope to provide you with more of a democratic process here. this is a vacant store front. i'm in support. is this a motion. motion to approve >> second. >> commissioner ruiz requested. >> commissioner ruiz. >> thank you. >> that's okay president tan exert commissioner koppel. i wanted acknowledge how amazing our equity program is in my insure time of being on the commission i seen so many fellow san franciscans come before us proposing a cannabis club and it is amaze to seat local san franciscans come before us.

so completely supportive of the project. >> thank you. >> well is a motion that has been seconded approve with conditions commissioner braun. why aye >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. why commissioner diamond. >> aye >> american improll >> aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye >> commissioner mor >> aye >> commissioner president tanner. >> aye >> that motion passes unanimously. >> since we have reached 2:30 and do we want to take up all the translators are here as well for the san bruno item. had we take that out of order. >> that is up to you as chair. i need to i need to take a break i need to take a 5 minute break exit will come

> we left off on dr calendar throughouted chair we are going to go to our 2. . 30 p.m. calendar it is almost 3 o'clock for item 14. property at 2861- 2891 san bruno. and woolsey street a c u authorization. commissioners. we received a request for interpretation service. for this matter. in to cantonese and spanish. if you would like to item 14 in cantonese call and enter

conference id french 6959180 pound on the bit low channel for cantonese where are 216 planning in spanish call 415-960-4659 and enter id925548 and watch you need to go to the bitly channel spanish at 0216 planning. if you are in personful we have head sets available by the table on the table by the doofrm sfgovtv will be scrolling the numbers o and url's on the screens for the item. i request we speak clear and slowly to allow for translation in real time when it is time for

public meant those listen nothing will need to call in to the web ex number to submit testimony. i will ask this be translateed cantonese and spanish. [instruction in cantonese]

[instructions in spanish] thank

you. i think wore read for the presentation and upon sponsors presentation. why before we get starred i want it thanker interpreters they will be here until 5 o'clock and want to make sure those who are present and linking with hear most of the proceedings.

also for organizing the interpretation. >> good afternoon. planning department staff. the project before suit address notices of violation from the planning department and department of building inspection. removing 20 issue unauthorized dwelling units through merger or conversion, constructed without the benefit i permit within 5 buildingos lot 37. >> excuse me. >> may be we can do something about this i have i difficult time with the voices over the voice i'm having trouble knowing what staff is saying it is one of the interpreters are clearly hear. well is secondary conversations in the become of the recommend.

if people could cope the seconder conversations if you have to have them step outside of the room. >> and jonas we have additional updated materials for the commissioners. why thank you. should i start again or -- okay. good afternoon, commissioners planning department staff, the project before you is to address notices of violation from the planning department and department of building inspection removing 20 unauthorized dwelling units through merger or conversion constructed without a permit within 5 building on lot 37. the project site is authorized for grounds floor commercial, second floor, nonretail professional services and 10 dwelling units full 4 in thes

krosdz the third and fourth floors. the project also seeks approval of the de facto dem lifthz 2 unit over retail mixed use building at 2861 san bruno lot 22. that was approved a 2 story vertical addition remodel with grounds floor retail second, third and fourth floor residential expansion of 2 existing units. in total cross both lots the project restore buildingses to approved configurations. resulting in a total of will 12 dwelling units within 64 story buildings. with 12 off street accessory parking space. 12 class 1 and 3 class 2 bicycle parking space. project includes restoration of

the various architectural features not built to the plans. the project is also seek to change the managed of commroinls for inclusionary housing requirement from on site to the in lieu fee. some issues and consideration. as many of you recall, this project was brought buffer as an informational item last fall. no sorry it was spring. to discuss whether the city should pursue legalization or removal of the 20 unauthorized units. there, staff indicated the construction required to legalize the units will be so extensist tenants the be rivered issue evicted temp rarely. they could be legalized with approval a variance.

the commission indicated a preference for seeing a fully code compliant project which is before you today. as a result restoring the project to original scope. 20u nits will being removed including 17 existing households. most of the households are not english speaking. following left fall's spring's hearing, where the city heard from no tenants the city engaged in 2 proactive public out reach meetings hosted at the project site and the port ola library. through the 2 meetings the city was able to engage with the tenants who were un, wear of the property's history of violations. we provided information around next step and this hearing. we contact the connected tenants

with various city services and resource. these meetings were attended boy planning department, supervisor ronen's office, the d. building inspection, rent board, mayor's office of housing and community development. translation services were provided. in preparation for this hearing, the city asked the sponsor to provide a tenant plan a way of providing insight in the phase and timing of construction. so this 10 ats can have an idea of when they will be required to vacate their units. the planning department never received a plan and thus we created our own proposal for a construction phasing plan labeled exhibits c and mailed out prior to the hearing but we have now distributed an updated version with minor edits to you. we are asking the commission to

adopt that as part of the conscience of approval. the department findses that with the conscience out lines in the motion including exhibits c, the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policy of the general plan. the project approval would bring the building in compliance with the planning code and the building code and restore the build to original approved use and design. although the department is supportive of legalizing unauthorized units, in the case of this project, the amount construction required to legalize the units would be so expensive displacement of all tenants will be necessary during construction. in addition, legalization of the conscience would not be fully code commroinlts exclude need a

rear yard variance. finds its to be necessary, desirable ask compabilitiability with the neighborhood would restore previously approved architectural design and bring the outstanding i have lalgzs at the property to resolution. thank you, commissioners that concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> very g. thank you. project sponsor you have 5 minutes. >> thank you very much. commissioners. ryan patterson on behalf of the project spfrnls commissioners, i want to start boy thanking staff and yourself nothing about this project has been easy. amount of work gone into getting us here today exit want to acknowledge that and say thank

you. the tome this is wing on this at this point was brought in after the issues were discovered. is this not anyone from the original team that work on the original project or construction along the way. the project you see before you today is not with the owner's first choice. this is what we were instructed to bring to you. and our hope this is acceptable and allows us to close this chapter and bring it to resolution. i will keep my remarks brief. at this point a lot has been said already. briefly the new exhibits c you were presented, i need to object to a phasing plan imposed on the project since this is beyond the scope of this body's authority but to be clear the ordinance

are open to phasing instructions to minimize impacts. there are a couple issues with the phasing plan you have been be presented with. one, the time lines to compolice construction are short. the first building is required finish construction within 30 days which is i'm not sure if construction -- may be that is changed. that's when we were begin earlier. and the second will through 6 builds required finish in 60 days. unless this has changed these time frames are unrolistic we don't want to be in a situation weer setting ourselves up to violate the conscience. i would have something reason we can make sure we meet. the second item is the actual se86 of buildings. this plan proposes we start with

sick building and go sequentially building after building, you see from the last page the document exhibits c. that may work. but we don't know yet. this is not guilty commission votes and building department approves and real is a permit we don't know what the project will be and there may be construction sequencing necessities that make it faster or simpler or preferable to take a different ordering of the buildings. so we would appreciate the commission's deferrable. time lines to the building department permit validity periods and sequencing which buildings wed on at each time to the owner ands contractors once we know the project. >> a comupon minor points, well is still discussion about what

the in lieu fees are. i think we'll differ from what was before you today. this is discussed with staff. and there are currently 16 occupied units. so thank you again for your time i'm happy to answer question and look forward to moving ahead. >> that concludes the sponsor's presentation. we should open up public comment. commissioner diamond. i want to get a clarification. there apores to be a disagreement with staff and the sponsor as not time frame for construction of each bodies and before we take public comment i like to make sure we are all on the same page. >> certainly, i think e elimination of the phasing plan would be perhaps i deal, public commenters may have additional comments on the phasing plan. i have a question for you. my understanding is this city staff appropriate third degree.

your client did not even though it was requested can you share why it was in the appropriated by your client. i don't have full information about that. that it is a request we passed along. >> i want to make is clear it is upsetting to have it requested and not provided and have additional requests and i'm loathed to take any of this project and put it off until later that will not happen. thank you for your request staff can e eliminate about the phasing plan what it is and why we see it in the for mat we see it today. there were 4 person things we wanted ensure were addressed before the commission took action gifrn the fact there are so many phelps in the units. first we want to have confidence this the per mitt would be pulled in a timely manner. the way it works now the city

will approve then the discretion applicanted had than i pay and full to begin construction. there it is a generous time frame. we want that short that is one week of the plan we wanted to make that clear. second low, make sure that everything building would have a preinspection before construction starts. so that the journey contractor get on the same page with the city and the city familied know construction would beginful we thought that expectation setting and coordination was critical. third, we want to make sure there were defined construction time lines so construction did in the drag on for years special dksdz through the current press this ksdz happen through revisions and payment of fees. we wanted limitations on that. on that points, i doment to clarify what mr. patterson site side in the accurate. for the first is in paragraph 3

asubsection 1-2. 3 months not 30 days. and that building was far long we put a short time line on it. and the other bodiesings have 6 months associated with it out lines in photograph b2 and then subsections throughout. >> can you share the difference in time. is there. why the first is further along. the blgdz is far far along mid construction. >> the other buildings deconstruction. construction would be more work that may need the units we wanted more flexibility. fourth upon point of the plan and the intent was to give certainty and it mow the most important part to tenants around

options to either relocate elsewhere to other vacant units in the building finished or open or at least give a clear time line when they will be impacted and have to make choices had they need to leave. that's what this plan does. >> thank you. >> others have questions on this phasing plan. we gallon to public comment. this it is red lineod page 3 the paragraph 4b we did'd since we e mail today a note to sill the za has the authority to approve minor modifications without it coming back to the commission. this is typical language the za has authority to do. the purpose of this is if for whatever rene delay due to rents

bordz ajudecasion hearings or court proseeingeds things of that nature that are delays on behalf of the city or judicial functions that the za can allow for extensions based on those. >> that giving flexibility. there are unknowns and keeping things going a pace. >> of at this time we'll open up public comment. we have interpreters here for cantonese and spanish. if you are in need of spranz evertranslation service present testimony short intervilles to translate your testimony. each speaker allowed 2 minutes when you have 30 seconds you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up then and there i will take the next person will weltick public comment from persons in city hall first and open the remote

line. for those participating via web ex, raise your hand had public comment is called for the item you are interested in. for those calling in to submit testimony call 415-554-0001, access code: 2487 758 1058 ## then press star 3 to enter the queue.

if you are in need of translation present your testimony in insure innerrolls to allow the interpretors to translate. in person line up on the screen side. speak clearly and slowly. i will ask that the interpreters translate the instructions in cantonese and spanish. [instructions in cantonese]

[instructions in spanish]

>> thank you. come on up. you have 2 minutes i'm an attorney in san francisco. i appreciate your time and attention to this matter. this is an unfortunate situation going on for many years starting with owners who illegally constructed per minute in violation of the city's rowels. they flouted notices of violations for years and faced a lawsuit by the city and have done nothing.

the project sponsor cannot offer indication as to why they have not engaged with the city in trying to come up with a plan should be concerning. and there is zero assurance they will do anything to attempt to keep people housed in safe house nothing san francisco. i know it it is a major concern of yours and i appreciate you do what you can to keep people houses and i rescue noise you are dealing with a difficult situation that involves unsafe housing. i would appreciate the chance to engage in the dialogue with the city to helpous and i ask that -- here where the ordinance made hundreds of thousands of extra dollars rent nothing san francisco benefitting from wrongs they heldz to accounts and use that money to see even if temporary displacement it helps and may be as many of the families hard working residence

denials of san francisco can remain housed. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >>

>> um -- i just don't understand, yea, i have been living at this place for 6 years already. and we use section 8 to rent this unit. and also -- the department the housing department than i already invest at this -- unit before. and they agree this we can live here legally.

so now mow and my wife feel very helpless and don't know when we need to do. and once i think about i will soon become homeless and i really worry.

our situation is sad i hope the government is help us we are elderly people approximate don't know much about the housing policy. so i wish the government can help us and give us a good planning and i we need -- wish the government can help us -- to give us a good, rangement. thank you. that's his time skwoo i'm kim tu

i'm 71 as you heard from my husband about what the situation that we have been facing now. and when thinking about that we are going to be become homeless and have in place to live. and at this age you can imagine how sad what are we facing and then hopeless.

thinking by thinking of it we can't stop and can't control ourselves we cry. and especially had we think about when we are going to stay become homeless on the street and hoping that you can the government can hear us and police help us to solve this problem and deal with this issue. thank you. [inaudible] they are my parents living not guilty second flower on one of the [inaudible]. my paraphernalia reason that situation and the owner did not give them communication. verbally or written. we are hoping that the city take

responsibility to help them because the city did not do a good job to inspect the build and san francisco housing authority did not notice anything when they come to the unit to check the section 8 voucher. my parent is hope to get the following help. first, dthp voucher to have power to get the affordable housing so i can find a house to live and not be homeless. and even though the owner legalize the building my parent will not stay in the original unit. the third and fourth floor will be residential my parent limit anticipations they will not issue able to come up the stairs daily. and section 8 vouch are finding a place.

difficult in san francisco. 2, twengz give the tenant and my pirnt time to finds a place to move and figure out what the next step are. the lands lord need to take responsibility to pifor the cost of the temporary housing. hearing all my parent thinking and having the emotion break down is hard. not only for them butt entire fellful and i really hope you can help them and the tenants. thank you. good afternoon i'm lead spanish speaking councillor at housing right committee.

i was approached by city departments to help out roach to the tenants. we had a 3 successful meetings the last 2 we had over 20 in each meeting. you can see i have been working with them since november of left year the tenants are scared. they are scared than i will be evicted and scared than i will be displaced. we hear every day how landlords and owners find loopholes to e vict. it is not fair. we know what the landlord or owner did, right. we know that. but when are the victims here. the very muches are the tenants. imagine putting the tenability's lives at risk their families.

of some of them may be need ad a. it is unfair temperature is unfir for the tenants to be pay to mistakes of owner. the only solution i see is for the land lord or the owner to legalize all units and prisoning them up to code and pay to relocate them do work without displace am. and right to return. and rent we are paying. they also also seeking back pay rent.

another possibility would be for the city to acquire the property and rollize all units. we should the nobe penal iegz the tenants. that's your time. that's your time. thank you. next speaker. if you plan on submitting testimony line up on the screen side of the room. i'm a traent at -- 96 wootsy street and lived there 5 years. i was informed had was helping in the building. i'm sorry. don't hold that. >> it will not static.

go ahead. the building was badly constructed. the owner never informed us about what was happening. we never received any notification from combvenl or anybody to inform us what was happening. i'm worried about the risk this my family is in. we don't know what will happen now. our apartment we have 3 minors.

they near danger and we need an answer. and how can we save our family. there are many people in our building. that are worried about the same situation. we know the rent in san francisco is too expensive. and is very difficult now to find a place to live. for example in my case, i have a baby that is one years old. i work and go to school at the university. and i don't have the financial resources to pay too much for rent. now to find a new place would be

stressful. now i want to leave with the answer how will i save my family? thank you. ef i'm shanti beck. i am at 2837 san browno i have been there 6 years with my daughter. i also did in the know anything about anything this was going on up until november of 22. basically my ask is this you do legalize the unit fist they are brought up it code you allow a legalized 10 units will leave a

lot of families displaced. so my durt goes to school i work close biechl her doctor is close boy i prefer to stay where i am i foal the way that will help if the units are legalized. and brought up to code. thank you. any additional speakers in the chambers?

i'm georgia and i want to talk about lot 22. because i don't like to cast dispersions this is a sinful project. and i think part of the magic helped at lot 22. and i did i public record's ask. and found the demo for the cu with drawn by the previous architect. the same. it makes no sense if you think when it was put forward. i did make a make and the hand on the i understand i will it is i bruyou a correction. thing i

wanted point out about was i want to do the i got the environmental file if you mean look on the back of the handled out i gave actual is the african-american belling permit. for had the thing was built in 1950 t. is in your file and i saw it and the thing i put pink arrow on says building design more stories. no. this is lot 22 vertical expansion 2 floor its is unusual for these fake @ragszs. i had all the characteristic vertical expansion. facade changes. and horizontal i think that i don't know in this project set the foen tone where the gas station used to be but from 2009

to 2013 they were never adjustd and the staff in 09 in march said they would be adjusted so, that's all. thank you. is hope something works out for these people buzz they deserve it. why anyone else in the chambers come forward. i live on the second floor. i want to say it is not fair

that you pay for an apartment that is supposed toed be an apartment not an office building i pay 3 thousand dollars a month. >> of i have been there for 7 combroers have an 11 years old child with a syndrome who cannot move well. it is not fair we want to take care of our children it is in the good for him.

>> it is not fair i live on the second floor and cannot move to the fourth floor because of my child's condition not fair rules are imposed and may not be able to come back. i would say like to come back but like the units to be fixed. we work there and i work and i mode to leave my children well approximate know this accomplice is in the dangerous for them since we pay so much money.

i hope you can help us this was an abuse and frud they sell you combon had is in the when they offered. that's all thank you. i hope you can help us will all. if there are no one else in the chambers we go to remote callers. >> good afternoon. automobile row with san francisco [inaudible] and neighborhood council. this project is a [inaudible] for demonstrating planning racial and socialing justice is lip service. tick a good look at the people of color, elder low and low

income families in jeopardy of become homeless and tell us if you will, pruf this resolution. developer has not bothered provide a tenant relocation plan. the package for this project a blank page for common c and planning feels comfortable to present this so called resolution for am [inaudible] today. planning's recommendation in lieu of exhibits c is in the good enough the public does in the know what they are. hucould this be kosher? giving head's up to tenants when they should leave because of construction. is not relocation plan. it it is a benefit's plan for the developer. secondly, instead of providing bmo on site contradictless the need for housing that planning and this commission repeat over and over again.

this is devil's speak the developer should be forced to offer the units on site. and not [inaudible]. that is presented today rewords [inaudible] when will empty the building of attentive and people of color and elderly. low income if he want and sell the units including the additional ones for huge prices. tell us, is this okay to approve this project? request you public low approve this project. i urge you not to approve this project. think the people cost opposed to the construction cost.

take the next person admit chambers holdup on remote callers. >> thank you. i'm an attentive and to this moment we are still witting for response from the owners from the lands lords to tell when you say is going on. like had the pandemic started in person than i came to change my payments they challengered extra approximate hanked my payment

date. the how doing agent received money for may daughter did in the give her a rope it was 5 thousand dollars we lost this 5 thousand dollars because this person did in the give i receipt. we did not know had was going on i was suspicious buzz one of the

agents in charge came up the supposed agents. and so he was not coming it was later i call exclude said where are you. no , i showed you an apartment they are all the same. i went to sleep i work at night when i saw well was security personnel around i would ask what is going on up until this tail they have not responded.

you know how difficult it it is to rent in san francisco when i found this place it was heard to find then i have a minor daughter and the stairs were not correct. wield have to leave the dwelling

and in i rush there was -- the alarms would go off. the water sprinklers would go off. i would go across the street to see a neighbor and the same was going on with them. >> thank you. that's your time. >> thank you. anyone else that wishes to submit testimony do so now. otherwise we'll dp to remote callers. >> anybody else who wants to speak come forward now to share. du want to peek?

i'm bet i have been living there are for 6 years we did not know anything happening. i have 2 minors a baby, 6 year year old and bir low found out about this an among ago. my neighbor who spoke said people show up to inspect all the time but did in the know anything they did not say anything to us.

and so i went to 2 sessions and that's when informational sessions when we found out they are trying to e vict us and we have nowhere to go. i hope you can help us that's all. thank you. i will ask the interpretors to announce if other members of public in the chambers would like to submit testimony line up on the screen side so we can get people coming up faster.

i'm rose and he i want to know why the landlord is in the showing their face because the danger we are under is grave. we have 2 babysit at home and there are many of us in my house who have illnesses i fell down the stairs. i did in the go to the doctor.

why did nay not gives information and explain what was going on the motives and the reason why did they remain sill 11 we are human beings. they have to be responsible buzz when they have in the buildings are people nottan medicals than i have to expect us as well. in my case rinowhere to go. i earn little money i have nowhere tolls go with my family.

i want you to police help you to tell us how we will continue. buzz in my case i can't live on the street i have children. ip have been living there 6 years and they never gave us information. it was in the until i assisted i found out. ively expect you will respond and give us a solution and

support us. and you pay more attention and put pressure ordinance we are not going not guilty streets. that's all, thank you i hope you have a lovely afternoon. back to remote callers. you need to press star 6 to unmute. i'm alex hobbs part of a neighborhood association we have been part of dealing with the mess they have since 2018. and it is ash towneding that the

people who live here are finding out now. i don't know what to say as we upon enter a keeper circle in the mess. the narrative i hear is the developers tonight care about anyone's time they are wasting and they are electric to everyone he were to solve their problems they are not coming with solutions and i want to know and i think the board wants to know when is the city going to do. doesn't feel like anything is happening hillary ronen gone to rolly people who live in the units and the idea of -- creating some sort of a forced phased relocation project or a

way for and a first step it has to are dial in the the hold people accountable and community to the people who live there and the communicate. on top of everything else we are trying to build i green wait people who live here have green space. the ordinance have encroached on to cal trans public lands expanded their backyard. stolen this from the people of california. it went [inaudible] until we found out. and quiet low moved. >> thank you.

sthk. i'm maggie i'm the chair of the portoll neighborhood association i agree with everything. and i did want to note it has been a gross disregard throughout. i feel bad low for the tenants. the on going disregard by the developers creating havoc and unfair to the planning commission who has done great work here. so -- alec noted that there is still -- they need to encroach on the cal trans property.

the cull du sack with the parking is i mess i hope this will be something that address. 9 to 12 cars blocking at the cull du sack. it is unfortunate well is know option to pay their way out of affordable housing. and we than the portola neighborhood hope there is is action denied further building a city for each individuals involved and the business entity as they continue to demonstrate disregard. and i apologize to each the people here in the meeting for the impact and the i wish than i would dot same thing come forward, make apol joes and make it right. i agree that there needs to be they pay for the cover temporary house and rehousing for the tenants my heart goes out to you

all. thank you. i'm francisco decosta i have heard the upon responsible of the building inspection during the commission talk about this building. there is an article that says that this developer has agreed for 1.2 million dollars. to are theifiy -- what is help nothing the building. so, i am asking the planning department have y'all consulted with the d. building inspection? have y'all brought this to the

notice of the mayor? have you brought this to the notice of the supervisors so that every tenant can be made whole? this is am essential to the city. and the planning department must be have empathy but compassion. empathy calls for action. and i'm watching y'all the people are speaking, and i don't see empathy. you know. upon [inaudible]. come and share what? these people will get put on the street. have anyone us [inaudible] on the street in the weather.

making a mockery of yourself. call the mayor. call the sheriff. [inaudible]. it is time this owner goes to jail. that is your time. >> you need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. >> i'm dennis richards. this project is the absolute worse example of the kahl culture of corruption in the out of control criminal enterprise of the db i. senior building inspector plead guilty to felony fraud charges and awaiting singles. mr. president kearns approved

the final inspection not having other inspections done this is a san francisco sell a city and county liable for the absence of mr. kern see took. even after the 1.2 million dollars settlement the landlord the criminal developer enriched by selecting amounts of money from the tenants making minutes of dollars. should not have been asked to may rent the build suggest in the safe. should not had a cfc. tenants lives were put at risk you heard them say don't treat us like animalless this developer is a bad actor hato this day you heard the testimony they have not told they are live nothing an unsafe building. the construction of building i think the tenants prefer moving out. they need to move out [inaudible] at the owner's expense and the land lord is

prit nothing terrible bad faithure know that. it once hi move on the they will not move become inform please, commissioners don't fall for the tenant displacement argument. some of you new are commissioners wonder why we see these coming. and demolitions that got approved first then in become to planning for permission after. i give the answer, you, proving the bad actor and corruption. >> thank you that is your time. >> okay. upon final last call for public comment if you are in the brick out rooms on the teams, websites you need to call in to the 415 phone number to submit your testimony.

any last call for members in the chambers. okay. seeing nell skws commissioners issue public comment is close exclude this merit is before you. >> thank you all for coming out. i want to thank our interpretation staff for tenants here and the folks who helped organize them and there are folks in the here who helped speak. i can only agree with the callers we had a deep are level how the project goes from bad to worse in ways i could not have imagined and so we have our work cut out today in deciding how to go forward. i will give commissioner koppel the first round and comments. >> star boy saying how sorry i am this is helping to you guys. this is absolutely terrible. i hope we will do everything in all of our powers to make sure

this never happens ever againful this is unthinkable i'm mr. life safety soap box guy. but i really think this is gone too far and things need to be said. i went to 5 years of electric rigz school after college in mission street. we had various text book but one we had to bring to class every day. it was our electrical code book. which is our bible. and if you don't install things up to code you are responsible. everything fwlin that box is there because somebody died or i house burned down temperature is like stop signs and red lights. and those codes that are required to be adhered to are the bear legal minimum which must be demonstrated by a developer or contractor and proved to be compliant by an inspector to proceed to the next

stage of construction. construction cannot continue if inspections are not passed. if than i are not passed they need to be redone. it it is very simple it is pass or fail. that deputy not guilty happen here. and i'm get of like knowing bfrment i cannot stand behind a project and let people inhab at and dwl if not inspected throughout the process. this is what they drove in our brains for 5 years. there is one thing the bear, build to this book of codes. this is clearly written in black and white. it is just upon disgusting how much time we spent, you spent the department spent on certain

people's ability to fail at doing the bear minimum it is straj tragic. we feel everything you say to us. we are not happy or even put in this position as well. and if we are to legalize a building that was not inspected when precedent is that setting i'm not okay with that. something needs to be done for the tenantses a forced coordinated relocation program. not to e vict or displace but put nel in safe housing at the developer's expense the owner's expense whoever who installed the work improper leave is responsible. >> i will add a few comments. we heard from tenants who are here i want to thank you and add my dismay and sorrow you are in the positions. i don't think that we as a

mission have good options we have options but 91 of great dp none are perfect. a few months ago we considered what would we want to do. we struggled with like what is the right thing to do and peace of mind was displacement how do we prevent that and have a building that becomes safe we can have people live in. and we were looking at the staff report says variances and ways like what would it take to get the building up to the life safety code not planning code and retain the unists and require upon variances and other things from the planning code that could not be supported the bath was far from clear and my understanding would require relocation and some displacement for tenabilities. we instructed staff to bring a

code compliant project result in my understanding 10 units in the building. 17 occupied units the 7 families? 16. 6 families. that would not be able to retain residence here. i have questions about this plan. i think with the tenant issues i think one thing i am curious about and i want to see us put more time in and have it come back our department plague the lived clean up and taking care of things and figure out with ocd and agencies and social services when we can do for the families. we don't know who is moving when and who will get relocated and who is not. i want more in black and white the options. what resources are available what we look at for buy out list is guidance based on age and kids. i want to make sure it is clear if it it is not clear it is not for others. i want to make sure we are not

saying, well, n this department's job. it th isoir job and our commission will figure it out. i want to see more thank staff, the project sponsor could not come up with a phasing plan. i think addition to the sequencing i want more information for those who are disaccomplice when resource made available and when we can do. we need to treat this i remember there was an upon bunch folks living under a laundry mat we had to figure out what we would do tell have to more than the normal course of business this occurred not in the normal course of business through no fault of anybody living here. exhibits c is a good start we need more and i would like to see it come back for discussion. in the future. in addition we have a part of the motion is aroundom going monitoring. i want to make surety project

sponsor is paying for this our staff will have to do. we have to talk to attentives and talk to everybody. making sure things are happening i don't want the taxpayers dollars paying for that the vpns pace through fees or fines times and trlgs on deal with the violation there is is no way this should come ousts general funds or project fees to pay. it it is absurd. what else. i think i think the question has been raiseed public comments whether we is or condition legalize all of the units and i i am very, very troubled by people not having housing i have to agree with commissioner koppel in terms of safety. hearing there are so many kids that live here and it just it is scary. to think about the folks live nothing office that are built as housing.

this is absurd. so i want to see when we can do to make sure we wrap arms around families hor displaced. i want to make sure all of us have time to look at this plan. this plan was posted only this week and i don't know if everybody an applicant is not translated i want to make sure we are going above and beyond the one thing i'm sensitive to is time i don't want to keep this going on the project sponsor gets more rents everybody mont i want to make sure we are thorough and understand and miles an hour personally the attentives understands exactly had is in this relocation plan can how it affects themming. and so whether had is something operate that come become in a month. and we want to see it coming become to see how things are going. i will pause there to see if director hillous or otherers have comments. there are other staff from other agencies may be able to address

thing and then commissioner imperial. moore and diamond. >> we share your frustration the property owner was not cooperative. we need do cooperation from the property over or additional litigation against the sponsor to get this to cooperate. you know there has been a settlement agreement on some. the missing piece was the tenants. what upon happens to the tenant in how they are accommodated. so we are happy to put more resource. i think our staff and the rent board and city ahern have been involves. we want to have more teeth in what is in the plan.

tell is in conscience of approval. so we are happy. we share your concern. >> thank you. du want to add something. if you coming there. sorry. empwe'll thank you for this i would start that i think it just question i have is around we had the settle am green light that part was working with us to pursue this i don't know if a year is dill jenl say it is. what are options if we approve this are they not on the hook until the first dead line that is enforcement for what we are --. work with the city attorney to see if we can make the claim. and i think one piece that was not clearly laid out.

've whatever the press leads to. and i do continuing is something we follow up on not receiving the tenant plan that was something we were asking for part of this entitlement process we did not receive. there were other limitations. i hope your clients understand it is a requirement. we expect it to be perform exclude bruto the body i will call on commissioner imperial. >> thank you, president tanner. so, from the last i think --

there are many information that we hear at planning -- also and also -- in terms of exhibit c in front of us. i think i want to see more extinguishings on -- the upon dhands on the attentives exhibit c has in the covered when the tenants said in terms of the compensation and back rent, there are in this don't want to be relegate in the other units of the building during the construction. i think us in planning need to have a working relationship with the tenant's lawyer. that is something i would like to see in the exhibits c where there is specific guidance on the tenants.

of again, there are 17 residential units occupied they will be 10 units that we are going to dwelling units. it is 16. we don't know how many households are going to be displaced. and -- you know i think that is something that again, that will be a separate littinggation for tenant in terms of -- you know the back rent or compensation highly they stayed in those buildings. and again, those are the specifics i would like to see in terms of relegation for the existing attentives that will be for the units that will be

legalized. and the units that are and the families are households are going to be displaced there is a compensation for them. and -- not just -- again. the buy out or rent ordinance can push like a minimum they do have but -- i hope that the city and the tenant lawyer -- can work on something for a compensation at the best benefit the tenants that are going to be displace said. twlr seniors and people with families with children. that -- i don't think that hear in exhibit c in terms of relocation and time frips it

covers the needs of the tenants. i would like to see more of that specific. i think that from our last informational hearing, i think this was like the over all -- atmosphere by the commission is this we want to make sure the project actually responds to the needs of existing tenants. thank you, commissioner moore? is this so comppate indicated oui need 2 hearings one deals with the human side that would take 24 hours and no justice. the other is a technical discussion about the building itself. let mow give my kudos to the planning department of the the

applicant told more than 10 months ago to engage in drafting exhibits c. i talked with that about that with the supervisor. said, yes , it was last april when this was spelled out the most important connecting pieces to get feet on the ground with what happens here that was more than 10 months. i'm looking over the current to mr. patterson. represents client in many cases and met low on the ball, aggressively representing his clines and i wonder what happened here i don't need an answer i like that in the room. we go to the hardship a building

designed for 10 units occupies 30 units. that has reduced magically to 17 today it is 16. tomorrow it is felony as we go forward? that was known -- in 2017 when people were still moving in. on the building side that building thinked have been condemned the this time. i have a picture and i think it was done in 20 nan or 2020 where there was scaffolding behind the building because the fair exit was in the working. that was a second penalty. and nothing happened.

my question to the upon attorney is -- how will you be dealing with the severe reduction in numbers when you have more people qualifying for the few units that are there. will you have a lottery? will you let the people who live on the second floor go they can't go to third floor? what do you crip terwhy will we use to answer those very basic questions of fairness? we all know that section 8 is almost impossible to accommodate we will than. we hear that every day with homelessness and people having vouch and telling people we can't find anything because nobody will take thus is discrimination against section 8. unit number and numbers of people that need to be equal low having a shot at getting i nushgit. the second is, how are you going to deal with rent? the units that are occupied are

half of the size of when the few units we have that will be there in the future. we don't have amenities no open space we talk about you are simple low playing for square footage are we loeshthing anything about future rents am people move back in they are paying 3 thousand dollars now and some 5 thousand dollars is this a 10 thousand dollars unit? agree with commissioner improll i would expected to be touched on in the relocation agreement. relocation is only the moment of when construction occurs and people be put horror there or

every where. what is in the total when this building is restored to be a functioning bodies and who will live there. does in the team it takes math of numbers of people displaced and increases in rent that any of these people will ever live there. that is the most disturbing fact to me in addition to what commissioner koppel said. i have one question for staff. you meat a comment saying -- we are asked to basically approve the previously approved architectural design of the project. >> correct. >> and this is not what is in this package. >> we have seen the previous plan and seen an adjusted plan

and we are supposed to approve and the as built plan the wrong plan is still the basis of when we are asked to approve to approve. simple low by removing one kitchen leaving the other kitchen in the wrong place. leaves everything open to repeat of when is in front of us today. i would like you to clarify when you say approve design what do you mean jiechl was referring to the exterior of the building. original approval had features that were not built. the exterior is brought up to higher standard what they -- built there.

they are inviting to repeat the same mistake. >> in the red line version that i distributed today we added that. they go become to the original kitchen layout >> condition of approval 8 in the updated motion to move kitchen close to the front of the flat so the not the possible of the plumbing this is half the amount of what i heard on this project over the last few years. can you see that almost like a new phone book. i could not given we got side jump on all the things there is too much going of leave alone.

the disappointment about your draft has been rebutted. putting our tenability in jeopardy >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> like commissioner moore i think about the changes to the project in 2 buckets. one is wham we do with the building and a form this is liveable will. and the other bucket is what about the tenants and what our role is in our desire also if it is in the our role, in the to leave the poor people hanging. . champion is what it feels like now. >> feels you know they are in a horrible wagz not of their own

making and it can feel like a run arnold to them when we have different departments pointing and nobody is standing and up saying we other department that will over see. all parts of this solution. so. i than we as a planning department can and must do something and i have another questions around the tenant issues and how we get comfortable who is taking responsibility and when the issues will be worked out and what you know as a planning department we can and should do. the relocation splan a great first effort at trying to think how you get a building tenabilities live nothing it and redone in a sensible manner you are emptying out one build to allow it to be fully renovated

and the next build and keeping as many tenant in place for as long as you can. i appreciate the thought that went into this and the changes you made today i think you showed us the red line go a language way to alleviating some of my concerns. more nonyshl uses to go in there that was a good change. i was unhelp with the floor plans it felt like the floor plans did in the make sense and essential low trying to use what had been built oshg hoseed coming up with a sense b floor plan and lend it was to be subdivide in the the future. i think you are moving in the

right direction. i don't know if we are there but foals like the right direction. had worries me the most about the plan that seems like it is moving theerate way is what about a developer who may not do anything? you have a plan. we have this you know what is the leverage? the enforceability? hahappens if than i do nothing? mr. patterson is here but the landlord is not. and the landlord has been nonresponsive. how do we know this will help and attentives are not live nothing i building that may have all kinds of violations associated with this. it is much a question for staff as the city attorney's office what is the enforce am power and when if they don't do anything. jot short answer is the last line of the first paragraph on the tenant plan. failure to meet this time line

effectively subjectless the project to enforce am actions under the planning code. our intent if the time lines are not met we will go straight to notice of violation. that leads to penalty acrewd and ultimate low also lead to city earn referral and litigation. t. is more higher value pens visible you to. and for noncompliance. those other typical enforce am mechanisms we have and the reason we put this in there is we don't want to give a notice of enforcement and complaint our normal warnings for normal

related items we go to notice of violation when pens acrew. that is what intent is for failure for none compliance i will defer on if we get on a state of you know -- penalties accruing and not doing anything then what. that would fall in the city attorney's office >> before will she answers that. i noticed that there were no dates in here. when things have to happen. proceed to submit the plans. what does this mean. is there a determine dead date if than i have not taken action we'll do something it feels fuzzy. at this time reason there are no dates don't have a date by which the permits will be approved.

then when the city does apruf it what date that becomes we would be able to map out dates mile stoenls after. and so you know part of our intonight do that and develop date specific requirement and have a tracker this associated -- to those date when is it is approved the approval date is the one that can vary by a few weeks depending on staffing and comments become and forth. part of the requirement is if the building department sensdz a plan check letter the responsibles respond in a certain time. we put and -- dbi service system here he over cease the folk who is plan review. i know in the planning department we put a standard comment saying experiences respond within 30 days.

>> i can't find it quickly. did you tie actions to specific numbers of days after the building department signs off. >> yes. why so well is time. once that happens there are time limitations for when actions need to take place within 7 and 30 days. from the dates the permits are issued they foul request issuance within a week. on that day they must request an inspection and preconstruction inspection from dbi. they have 3 months from that date to build the first building when the cfc issued there are time frames. >> i turn to the city attorney.

what if nay don't do anything their electronic record is pathetic whens if than i doll. why that it is a fair question in the context we are dealing with here. our ability to enforce on the concern circumstances is small limited. because we have taken an action that result in the a settlement this is become ward looking. we have settled for their past violation and remedy was to come and get a cu approving a corrective project. that is when we are here for now. once this body approves something, some cu, then we have additional tools available to us and by us the larger city family. that is planning department and the city attorney's office. first of all, as the commission knows, when you adopt a cu authorization, you do so with conscience. those conditions then become a

part of the planning code and violation of a condition of a conditional use is violation of the planning code triggers the ability of the department to issue notices of violation and trig are the ability of the city attorney to take enforce am actions. if they violates the terms of the cu. city attorney could condition template unenforce am vkzar violation of the cu or a code 17200. any violation of a municipal code benefits building owner like this. being be a 17, 200 claim. nought cool for bring another lawsuit is violation of the existing sethment gentlemen.

if than i failed to comply with rent ordinance or order of the rebel board this is a violation of the law part of when they are required do. that stay limited tool when we need again we need a large are city family need to increase our tool best enforcement mechanisms is for an approval here. i want to make it clear the rent and relocation, must be resolved by the reason board not the planning commission this is not the purvow here. worn thing that could happen i hear what you are saying which is the issues are intertwined. is the commission could say, as part of construction sequencing could require of the sponsor to come become for a look back. and report on the status of

their work with the reason board on resolving relocation or buy outs. there are ways we can work through exhibits c, staffer here did reference the reason board in places in exhibit c buzz it is contemplayed we would work with them to resolve the rent and relocation issues. we being bove' that language in exhibit c and create some look back a revisit to the commission for a check in. to make sure they are in compliance. that is a long winded answer >> helpful and i appreciate it. can the attorney for tenability hos spoke could come up. i have questions for you. i don't recall your name.

you made a plea for help. and -- we are trying to figure it out. have you locked at exhibits c >> not in detail in terms of relocation i saw that my goal is to continue on meet with the 10 analysises. if i know mr. presidenter son well. may be engage him and talk with the body to see if it is public to broker something would work for everybody. i continue ask a quagmire you are dealing with. i looked at it briefly and glad toy will spend more time on it and talking with the tenants see hawould work for everybody based on varying circumstances. >> okay. do we stay there do we have anybody from the reason board here. we should have folks on line?

knob line from the reason board if can raise your handle there is no one. outside of staff that has been -- i see eric anduneis. >> eric. i think we can okay. modify to come back we can obviously have questions but we don't have anybody here from the reason board. i am listen and hearing what the city attorney said which is what's the scope of our per view if we are not the right department it deal with reason, we can't resolve them. i would like confidence this all the issues we raised are going

to be addressed by rent board i have many same questions as commissioner moore the space will be twice as large does the rent go up. offer same amount of -- the same price? had is the time frame for resolving the relocation issues? do they have an obligation of keep paying rent entitlement to repayment of the rent they already paid given the violations that occurred. i would like some confidence this these are all issues went purview of the rent board exactly be handled by the reason board on a time frame that works with exhibits c. you told mow this week tht reason board staff has reviewed common c? >> the city attorney's office reason board attorney reviewed

it. >> i would feel better if i said, i think it is moving in the right direction i like the suggestion of check in's. you know -- a check in back here at the promote point to make sure the reason issues are address said by the rent board. i would feel comfortable approve figure i knew that the tenability's attorney look the at this and had an opportunity to give you comments on it. and that reason board staff was voinl to answer our question dos get comfortable but this is being taken care of. and that the 10 abltss have the opportunity to meet again. and come become with more collective comments than i might have now that they understand what our role is and what the rent board's role is. i feel like from my perspective this is moving along in the right direction. i hear the urgency of the need

to get a c u permit issued so you have enforcement to thes to get gooing on this. and i in general i can in the have continuances but i feel given where we are this another week ownership 2 in order to allow n input from attentive's right attorney and an opportunity for the rent board to come become rat the next hearing before we, prove of this and have them say, yes, these other issues. we will deal with them, here is why in the time line we address them. here is when tell be a good time for you to impose a condition saying, report back. that would make me feel more comfortable in approving. that's the nature of my comment. yam as want to respond. they are in line with mine and i would put it more strategy low. in terms of i understand thap we are one body and the reason board is another. i need this document to include

the what the city can dom even though it is our part to ennorse is one thing but saying here is the policy and legal and city landscape to me that is fair to have this in the relocation plan even if another body is implementing it like we approve thing and goes to dbi. it does in the mean we can't consider issues related to the scope i need this to be robust exclusive get it translated so people understand what we are saying and the time lines this is really people's life. right this is the accomplice they live this we are saying some point in the future you may have to will need to move out. if you are still there when construction begins you need to move out and make sure it is clear. and i need to understand had is happening and if there a mir idea of laws right to return at amount and conscience.

if you have the income approximate this. there is vert i don't ned to know this for each household what i need to and explain is what is the land scape available to them. in addition to the diligence in sequencing. and further say open to suggestions from staff and other commissioners, what cooperation looks like. the applicant did not provide this. they did not comply with the terms of the settlement they did not provide something required as part. in my opinion they are already out of compliance with the settlement agreement. i don't know what it looks like for us to create the plan and they have no stake other than continuing to not do anything and the building sit there. i'm concerned if we put this great plan together xaps to it and goos to however many dwroers dbi not because of dbi the applicant can drag their feet

and not getting permits. i will let otherers talk i want top come back and i will ask about when dbi can do to make sure things are done quickly. i find the situation football heart break. for the attentives thank you for coming to speak. i don't have more comments. i'm in agreement with everything my fellow commissioners said today. when it miss to the i had, lot of occurrence enforceability of the relocation agreement as well. upon given all the factors raised here. and at then of the day there are going to be 5 tenants this will not be able to return to the building because there will be fewer units.

in this over all project >> and so i like to understand what are options for the tenants. i like to hear back do they get a buy out and that's that? or more support and so whatever happens it sounds like we are moving to a continuance to get a better handle the attentive plan. and i'm hoping i can better understand that part. what happens to the folk this is can't come become to the buildings well and how we support them. that's all i have to say. >> thank you. commissioner, commissioner improll imperial. is there were meants about the compensation or as also own

limations had it miss to the back rent. and again, i'm not sure how long you have been working with 10 analysis in terms of the of affects of availability and health issues. i gallons going to president tanner's were question. here at planning or the department can reference to the reason board. however, if the attentives are more than what probably than, i'm trying to figure out what is irrelevant going to happen for the tenants. and i'm also again echoing

hapresident tanner is say suggest that i also would like to see everything including san francisco housing authority and like the best the city can do. i ghs is my question to figure out had is the 10 analysis's demand and rights and you know how can we also learn about about this and again these are going to be multi[inaudible] work and yea. >> my plan is to immediately itemize the items so that you will know exactly what is considered. which is also what the items the reason board would consider and talk with plapatterson are they hope to vol teragreementsil do it immediately so have you comfort in knowing this it is moving forward and b, you will know when the issues they are

faith. the back rent and rent going forward. is that stayed or forgiven pending the plans. and relocation. so i will include legal authority. and i can talk to the city attorney's office who does a great job. that way you will have a brief from me. as to the items. so this you will have more information. that will help with the process. who should community with. >> secretary it provide briefs. commissioner ruiz. thank you. this is a robust conversation so many questions were answered. i agree that we need to prioritize the tenants.

we need a plan that spelled out simple low saying abiding by the sf reason control ordinance [inaudible] not an exert in the reason krell ordinance. i think it would be helpful for the 10 analysises to know what they are entitled to. particular thel and include everyone who needs to be at the table the attentive and hear the unique circumstances of you will of the tenants that reside in the bodiesing and their needs so that is incourt reportererated going forward. that's the most of my comments. i have 2 questions and i'm sad there is no one here from the reason board i don't know if anyone can answer this. but i was alarmed hear the rate of rent this some are paying

that is expensive. to live in a unit this is in the code compliantful are the 16 units still paying rent in >> to the best my knowledge they are i don't have knowledge of this at this time. >> and i would know they are in the reason controlled unit they are market rate. >> thank you. >> i justice don't whon can answer this. are we obligated to enforce attentives to pay reason for units that are not up to code in for some reason i thought there were protections in the reason ordinance that i said i'm not an expert. could the city attorney answer

or planning staff? upon everyone is looking at each other. >> can you prop the microphone we will have the tenant's right's attorney mark, >> there sell a state law until civil code that talks about when an existing violation of a gentleman entity exists for more then and there 35 days there is in abgation to pay rent and associated damages and such this is something i'm going to talk with the attentives about that issue and i will tuck with mr. patterson who is knowledgeable in this code section as well. i will also include that in the brief for you. anything like that feel free to contact me. did you have questions commissioner ruiz. >> yes. and may be for alicia as well from hrcmenting it gij how they

both feel about a possible continuance and i know this the urgency of the issue is 2 weeks enough time to develop a comprehensive plan that will protect the tenants? it may not be enough time. my i opinion how urgent it is it move this forward. if you wanted say 2-3 weeks and try to update as soon as public so you will have more information. it dependses on the project sponsor in terms of their plans. so -- we will defer to you all in terms of i know how much time you 70 on already. i would -- commissioner ruiz i don't want to jump in on the continuance time frame >> no just say i'm torn.

because i'm i'm concerned that 2 week system in the enough time. but there is life and safety issues for the attentive and there is so many unanswered questions i think i need to know more of. to be supportive of any approval. of the project. i will let you check in. why i agree with this. observe i go to you commissioner moore. one for mr. ferera from dbi. one of the things that would happen under this principle is this they will go through pursue the permits and begin the construction work and again given the time this e lapsed since we settlesd and they were on this pregnant i'm concerned it will be another 2-4-6 years of the on going noncompliance what can your department do in the bounds of our laws to have

quick are commroinls. quick are turn around when you give comments they shorten from 30 to les than 30 days. and it gets to a level of revision cycle 5 we say this is too much. good afternoon. building inspection. the building code december not have those enforce am tool in our process. we would use what was set out in the planning document of to guide people to respond quickly. we have nothing in our code to force us to force the applicant to come back to us in this amount of time. >> okay >> is well may be that is something we can say from our approval over all the time limit from x until pulling the permit

and with the za works with you if there are staffing issues it statute stele's fault we are not able to independent we can extend this time. but set a time frame watch this can your department put this the top of the priority list in terms when the permits the plans do come in you can i know there are men per mists on various defects could this be prioritized. >> certain we dolled that. thank you very much. for that. i think where i say, commissioners is you know i would say i hate to say an among continuance i language is aloment of work that will go on with the attorneys. with our staff, with the city family. i think that i would want to see a robust tenant plan and the staff heard had we want. had is more concerning and i'm scratching my head i don't know the applicant heard. i don't know if we are taking on crediting this plan.

and saying thou shalt do it you lost your hans to credit temperature obviously we will conifer but it it is like give us your comment and our ideas. open to ideas there. i want to see more time line when they need to get their building permit not after approved but a time line to mr. ferera's point i den want to go from combus than i have in the responded. we need an over all time frame that we expect things to happen to bring them back if they are not complying. i want to look at monitoring after entitle. more robust how exact low our department will play a role in helping to coordinate other city agencies working with the tenants. s well as you know translating things so folk understand it. a bit bfrment all the things that are happening. i would like if we have a

continuance to make sure if there is something you want to see let staff no so when is miss become we can take action. commissioner moore. as recall an applicant with a single name now i see 5 name and as family trust who are we talking to which 5 different owners and a family trust. is there irrelevant anybody who can be put on the spot to responded to questions because in as far as we know, our rules of engage am living here you ask a question you answer. that is a like lost in translation. something which is not working. when you had your dispute with

the applicant. were you talking to one party or who were you talking to? >> i was not the city attorney that handle third degree case the city attorney who did is in the room. if we could call her she could help us. i think that there is some how we are speaking to manage we are not talking to. >> could you come up them is deputy city attorney meaghan ryan. good afternoon commissioners. yes. commissioner moore, all of the owners so all i believe there are 5 without having the agreement in front of me are all partieses to the settlement agreement. and i understand this mr. patterson represents all of them. >> second part of my kweshgs credibility, what we are saying has resonance somewhere. has the settle. agreement been paid. is there money exchanged and credibility that first settle am

was taken seriously. >> yes, commissioner moore settlement agreement 1.2 mnl million hen paid in full and remains is the piece of the requirement to prompt low comply with all dead lines set by city agencies. i think as my colleague deputy sea attorney jensen explained the more city agencies give concrete instructions and deadlines, the more will be able to proceed with can enforce familiarity than i are not complied with. >> first dip is exhibits c that would be the first nonperformance. which is critical now you heard the last 2-1/2 thundershowers this commission and a big stepping stone. ultimately the transactions are about trust. and this moment there is a void to fully understand had is talking to whom approximate obeying whom.

so i would roik like to see that to hell us understand top get our message through. at the moment i think we don't have anything to get our armies around. i agree with president tan and her request. we need another week or 2 working what is in 41 of us to formulate of what we will ask for. >> thank you. so -- commissioner diamond and we are moving toward when we will do. before making a motion to continue i have questions for mr. patterson. my upon preference flsdz be to ask your cline your cline is not here. are you representing all parties to the settlement agreement. why ychls i represent all of the ordinance. >> are you able to get us your cline's comments on exhibits c

by the time frame we set between top and 4 weeks from now this is enough time to do that. i'm out on march second but otherwise i'm available. i will say it is helpful to the have the draft common c if staff. it it is a starting point to know hat city had in mind. from my part i was not clear on hat city was looking for. so i think there was confrugz on the client side on the owner side about that. i will go back to the upon client group the owner group and express to them your strenuous demand for this do you mean to be reworked and have their input and commitment and w with them and staff in the city attorney's office to try to find manage had

is workable. >> will you commit to me with the 10ament's right's attorney within the next 2 weeks. >> i will be help to meet with hem this is the first time learning he was involved. and likewise i'm not a landlord tenant attorney i'm a land use but theme mote with him and if necessary will bring in clothes to assist with the landlord tenant side. that would be important you heard from the commissioners as well we may not be the rent board we have interest in understanding how the tenants will be addressed with in a fair manner given this it is through no fault of their own and that it would not be okay to come become in a month and say we don't know about that. that the issues about how we work the tenants concerns in the document is critical. so we don't end up a monfrom now and have nothing that is --

plausible. i'm worry body that. seems to me narnt off the partyers meeting each other during this month including your clients. and are providing feed become to the planning department staff and city attorney so whoo when we get together we have a document that had your input and a better position for us to approve it and have semblance of hope. that they will add here to the schedule and hear that the schedule is unacceptable. with that, i move to continue for a month. >> seconded. >> commissioners, i am getting nudges that march 30th would be the preferred date for staff am i believe given amount information and cord nigz that needs to occur it is further out than one month but this is up to

you. one month would put it closer to march 16th. gain believe staff is requesting march 30. yet reason i said i month is because of the city attorney's insistence until we get a cup we have nothing to enforce. i'm concern body going out 6 weeks. >> a month, staff i continue it is tough i prefer to bring us when you can by then if we need more that is fine you i don't want to push it to 6 and then need more a month is sufficient. >> very good >> is there comments >> so you know we gotta dot report a week before that. we are trying to buy ilths a little. sends us an update like yesterday. i want to point out the conservetory moofk it tenant, a

building was demoed tenants relocated the rentses had they returned were determined i ask to look at that document and mark for identification that is had we did and a lot relateless to the tenants you asked to see. i think that is the detail we hope to get. i agree with that. >> there is a motion seconded to continue this matter to march 16th with very clear direction to all involved on that motion american braun. aye >> commissioner ruiz. why aye >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial. aye >> american koppel. >> aye >> commissioner mor >> aye >> president tanner >> aye. that passes unanimously. i like to thank the 5 minute br

again. >> thank you sfgovtv welcome become to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, february 16th 2023. we left off on the last item on your agenda on d r calendar item 3 for the property 1304 valencia street >> good evening am david winslow staff architect the item is public request for dregzary review of building permit to construct air third story vertical edition and roar,dition to add a dwelling unit to existing 2 story over ground level commercial building. the build suggest a category see

build in 1900. dr requestor seth [inaudible] thank you. of 1410 valence yet neighbor to the south is concerned at this time cause impacts to security and privacy. his alternatives eliminate the officer deck and nontransparent security fence. and then second to eliminate the third floor year the west balcony the department received no letters supporting or oshg posing the project. staff supports it as it come plies with planning and urban design the massing of the roar is articulateed ensure access to light. air and privacy.

staff deems there are no extraordinary, and not take dr thank you. >> thank you mr. winslow. dr requestor you have a 5 minute presentation. >> thank you to the commission for staying late and hearing our case and request for dregzary review. i'm seth, and this is nathan yell clinger we live on the residents south of the proposed building at 1304 valence why. i have a rue slides i will put up to demonstrate the main pointses i want to high limelight first, in october of 2021, there was a fire at the premesis. and nathan yell exit will rrm that our lives we took a garden

hose to make sure that no flames across over to our property before the fire department got there in the aftermath there were 2 residence denials displaced. we helped them in the immediate after method we sheltered them. got them sweat shirts med sure their needs were met. we have been a good neighbor to the owner of the building. we collaborated on many things i provided security camera footage had he had break in's we share an interest in see thanksgiving property rehabbed soon. you know and restoreed full working order. and in fact, we don't have any opposition to the fact there is a third it is going from 2 dwelling to 3 units we are help about this. that is 50% increase and

provides for the housing of the property. we have very targeted occurrence over the property that i hope this process will hear our occurrence i will put them before you on the over head. you are seeing the packet for the project. we are going to -- we are in this unit here. and um -- we want to call out the proposal for a mezzanine on the top floor. it is. this mepz 19you see from the rear view extends boost existing envelope and the height of the building and tell have an active space of this official balcony which is shown here by my finger. we are concerned this this front balcony as is provides a 3 foot

wall between our property and the 13 where are 4 property. we are concerned about the active uses of the space. not by the immediate tenant but future attentives with noise and security. this is above our bedrooms and so this represents a -- a big departure from the defacto condition. where -- the the 1304 property is flushed with the officer of our property. so -- we are in opposition to the mez neil. that would not if the mezzanine was dropped that would in the get rid of the third dwelling unit but will decrease the space of the proposed penthouse unit. and the second issue we have is that in the roar of the building there is a proposed third story

deck and -- and that deck is proposeed have a rue directly into our back windows which do not have a view. and it currently will provide a 9 degree view directly into go head and put that. tell provide a 9 degree view into our back windows this . is lower level kitchen will upper level bedroom and the third floor balcony will extend beyond the rear wall. and allow for views like feet within our [inaudible] windows. currently or the de facto or currently condition was this

addition that i think is probably subcode or noncode compliant. and the building proposal proposes to envelop this full building envelope the original belling envelope you see is a few feet further in and flush with the will bodying that provides for better privacy and security. thank you. that's your time youville a 2 minute rebuttal. >> okay. >> project sponsor you have a 5 minute presentation. why good afternoon, commissioners i'm an drew aushth for the project and good afternoon the audience the project in nz tw zoning and [inaudible]. the immediate area is dense residential apartment buildings verg several stories. men have ground flower retail

facing 24 if valencia. [speaking very fast] zero lot lines and all having views in the a jayce annual property this is is the [inaudible] zero lot lines and density of the area and zoning district. the sum row of the project there was a fire at 1306 valencia. here are the images. and current state. project -- [inaudible]. the concern state of the project is there. and -- so -- what we are proposing that completely gut with now ground floor retail serve as the place of business. and a beauty salon and the existing 2 second reasonals gutted and reason i haved and expanded. the renovated rental units from

1 bath and 1 bath to 2 bathroom and 2 bedroom. required open says with the private residents. the open space provide by the roof decks required open for the planning code section 135 and section within 35d this states that access to open space immediately accessible to the unit. this is the same that mr. clinger the 2 units [inaudible]. currently has and has direct access to his open space. the summary of naeshs we made an effort to meet with mr. clingy before the required out reach meeting the concern during the meetings were regarding construction noise and the last one with mr. cling are was mr.

cling requesting wepate rent for off site office [inaudible] during the duration of the project. now like to address mr. clinger's concerns of privacy. this is a site view of the project this is. these are photograph markings taken where the proposed front mezzanine deck will be and the rear desk regarding privacy [inaudible] this is the view. . upon taken at the front mez neil proposed deck. there is no way we can look in mr. clinger's windows.

there is snow way to look in his sky lights. he had issue with -- stheez other 2 windows at the light well in the back. and that is vo kaying of the proposed third story deck. there is no physical way we can look in the windows that is vow from where we are proposing the third story desk this is prosecute posing thereupon be a 42 inch height fire scombaul also am a privacy screen of bam boom. here is the view looking into 1308 and 10's balcony where they can look in our view.

though that view with the -- bamboo screen that is proposed. the building opposite this has windows looking in their rear yard this is is common with zero lot lineses and density of the property. another vow. where we have that's the rowel we have from looking in to the roar yards which is minimal. that is the view with the proposed privacy screen. and so -- that's i think that is the [inaudible] >> your time. >> thank you very much. >> you have a 2 million rebuttal. members of public this is your time to address your opinions to the merit. if you are here in forward if

you are remote press star 3. >> dr requestor you have 2 minutes. >> sorry did that personment to speak for the member of the public? are you part of the project team or. >> the owner of the project you can speak during rebuttal time. i department to rebut the views presented. the views really were from. this top of this roof deck can had allowed the perspective to being flush with the back edge of the wauchlt issue we bring is up not the light list or the sky lights it is with regard to the roar windows. because today we don't have any

type of privacy concern. with that. so we are targeted with our concern about the third floor rear officer deck that will extend beyond the building footprint and right up to this point and allow for like a 9 degree view in the rear of our residence. that is our concern. our other concern is this the proposal uses the building affordability for this is basically an illegal addition that was put on decades ago this is an access real recommend like a porch a screened porch. and the proposal actually prosecute poses to extend the building affordability up to the roar wall and so that represents a departure from the existing

[inaudible] of the building. as i -- pointing to here you see the down spouts here represent where the building [inaudible] there was at some point this rear screened in porch that was added and the proposal actually adds all of that square footage to the rear which extends beyond our rear wall. zoo yes. project sponsor have you 2 minutes rebuttal this is your opportunity to speak if you like. yes. hello. nice to meet you guys. we just if you can speak closer that will be helpful. thank you. why we wanted stay there.

and all my family. we are not plan on peeping tomming my neighbor. we like to have nice relationship. and my access created this way of blocking everything but that is the argument. i irrelevant don't know and hope we have good understanding. to share the street and [inaudible]. thank you. you have another minute. this is the vow we will have i don't know what else to do to mitigate the vow we have no interest in looking in the window this is not the intent.

and again this is required private open space for the planning code and if you were to deny this i you would deny a normal enjoy am everyone most houses have in san francisco. thank you. >> okay. that concludes rebuttals. dr is before you, commissioners. >> thank you. commissioner moore. i have a question for mr. winslow or morales. the dr request are mentions an illegal building over the front porch that will be easy to clarify if you could respond. >> i can't atest to the construction whether permitted or not the principle is within the bound easier of the required

rear yard. the required rear yard is 25% of the lot depth it is 90 feet that yield 22 foot 6 required year yard the dimension you have is a littles excess this is code comploying. mr. morales do you have a response to that statement? >> went planning code for the required roar yard. well is nothing this will doing that would require a variance or conditional use or anything. >> just looking at the plans and seeing the review by the department i personal low don't see anything exceptional or extraordinary. zero lot line dense residential dense residential development that situation is very typical. and in the city for all each and

all of ulc. including myself and i don't believe that we live in the environments look to other people's windows. i find the bamboo screen is effective they grow well in the city and create a dense folage you cannot see anything i move to not take dr and approve the project as in front of us. >> second. >> >> seeing no dlngz deliberation there it is a notion and seconded not take dr and approve. commissioner braun. aye >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial. >> aye >> commissioner koppel >> aye >> commissioner moore >> >> aye >> commissioner president tapper >> aye >> that motion passes unanimously 7-zero >> we are adjourned.

[music] my name is husheem anderson a lieutenant with the san francisco fire department born and raised in san francisco, grew up in western addition. both my parents worked for the city. my dad was a custodian with san francisco school district and mom a muni driver. when i grew up in san

francisco i never thought of the fire service as a career. not because i didn't want to be a firefighter, i just didn't know anything about it and it was literally the experience of trying to figure what i was going to do with the next part of my life where i decided to go to city college and take a couple classes. that is when i discovered there was actually a fire science program program emt program and paramedic program. if it wasn't for that opportunity to get the education training and meet several mentors that are some of my grood friends today, i don't think i ever would are have pursued this career. i was interested in becoming a paramedic so i did work experience at the ems division when it was actually in the presidio, completed that program, did my paramedic internship at the same time i volunteered with san francisco fire reserve and able to learn a lot of hands on skills

associated with becoming a firefighter. san francisco went through a period of 7 years without hiring, so we hired about a 130 people off of the 2001 test which is the first fire test that and ever sat for, so i took that test, did pretty well on it test, interviewed, didn't do as well as i liked so they hired 130 people off that list and didn't hire again for another 7 years, so here i was training to do a job where i was really excited, but there were no jobs after 911 so things slowed down and once the fire department started hiring again i was in the second class hired full time in 2012. because of the experience i had here at city college, it was always really important for me to be able to give back. so, when i got to the fire department, i didn't have a college degree, and in order to teach at a community

college you need a college degree, so quhile i while working as a firefighter i got my degree from saint mary college so i got a bachelor degree. i teach firefighter 1 and 2 curriculum for the program at the college. after i promoted to lieutenant, then i applied to be a instructor down at the training academy because i always loved to teach. my past experience is really helpful in terms of how i'm able to break down information and pass it alodge to brand new firefighters. so, for myself, i didn't know very many people of color who worked in the san francisco fire department. as african american working in this department i always felt a obligation to be that example, to provide a roadmap for folks who look like me, who

come from communities that i came from to make sure they have the same opportunities. now as a san francisco firefighter i can tell you if you work hard, you get along with people, you will be welcomed into this department but we can also do a better job of representation. to me as a company officer when i'm on the fire engine or truck it is so helpful to have a rig where members can relate to the public we respond to. to me that cultural diversity of the members on our fire engines, on the ladder trucks is important because if we can do a better job of representing the community that we are serving, i think we do a better job of relating to the community that we are serving, and to me that is something that is really important.

>> you don't know what will be inside the canister until you

open it. [♪♪♪] >> these are beautiful, historical drawings of san francisco. these drawings range from 1908 to 2010. [♪♪♪] [laughter] >> i build muscle. a lot of people don't know this, but we have a full team of architects that designed specific buildings and public safety. sometimes it is creating a brand-new building from the ground up. other times it is giving new life to one of our historic structures. [♪♪♪] >> i had to have some degree of artistic skill from a handcraft point of view to become an

architect at that time. it is an incredible amount of loss, in my opinion, to not draw by hand. that skill of having to manipulate a pencil or a pen to make line wait and to make the drawing we've. i have seen this development of technology and this huge transformation in the world his that you do leave some things behind that have beauty to them. [♪♪♪] >> now a day, technologies a completely different. we're not using paper, we are not using paint pencils, but we are using computers to model our buildings to produce drawings, it is different craftsmanship. >> in addition to the beautiful drawings, the person who was taking care of our file for almost 30 years was the one who organized those drawings and listed all of them in big binders with all the name of the

projects, and they were still using these which is amazing. >> 840. we are building an electronic archive of all the drawings for future use. the scanning project started back in march, 2018. we have scans about 36,000 sheets of paper and there's the remaining balance of 93,981. we can do about 100 sheets per day. hopefully by february 2020, it will be completed. >> we feel that our collection of historical drawings represents san francisco's a rich history. not only do we help make history , we also preserve it for the benefit of future generations.

today it is friday, february 17th and it ask 9:33 a.m. >> secretary fuller call the role. >> good morning. respond with here or present. segal. >> commissioner post. >> here. >> commissioner woolford. >> present. >> commissioner zoubi. >> present. >> with 4 members present we have forum for public works commission. due to the covid-19 health emergency and recommendations issued by the san francisco d. public health and the emergency