context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪♪ for thursday, february 6th, 2025. when we reach the item you're interested in speaking to we ask you. >> line up on the screen side of the room or to your right.

each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have three. when you have 30s remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when you are a lot of time is reached i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queue to speak. there is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time is left and watch your time tick down. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care. state your name for the record. i ask that we silence all mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. finally, i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruptions or outbursts of any kind. at this time i would like to take roll. >> commissioner campbell i think is absent or expecting her later. >> commissioner mcgarry commissioner williams, your. commissioner braun here commissioner imperial here, vice president moore here and president so here we have six commissioners president.

commissioners first item up on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. currently you have the following items proposed for continuance item one window replacement standards proposed for continuance to february 27th 2025. item two 1533 sloat boulevard conditional use authorization as proposed for continuance to april 10th 2025 item 3147 14th avenue discretionary review which has been withdrawn. in addition commissioners we received word that item number 64225 lee avenue the condition use authorization is proposing to continue to march 6th 2025. >> at this time we will take public comment on the items proposed for continuance. if there's any public comment on the items proposed for continuance, please step up to the podium seeing none. commissioners okay so i'll

start with the land at knowledge man. >> no, no, no. i'm sorry. someone do motion. sorry. commissioner imperial moved to continue all items as were both second grant motion made by commissioner imperial seconded by commissioner ron braun. >> thank you. >> commissioners on the items proposed for continuance. commissioner mcgarry police commissioner williams i. commissioner braun i. commissioner imperial i. commissioner moore. >> hi. and commissioner so i grant those items are continued items one, two, three and six. >> commissioners we'll move on to our next item on our agenda the consent calendar. all matters listed here consent constitute a consent calendar and are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single whirlpool. >> single roll call vote.

there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests in which case the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. currently on your consent calendar we have the following items. item number four three grant avenue request for an office allocation. >> item 516 beer sheet conditional use authorized session and item 725 25 phelps avenue conditional use authorization. at this time we will take public comment on the consent calendar. if any member of the public would like to remove one of these items from the consent calendar, please step up to the podium or any commissioner seeing none. commissioners commissioner moore a move to approve second motion made by commissioner moore seconded by commissioner imperial on the consent

calendar items number four, five and seven on your consent calendar. commissioner mcgarry i. commissioner williams. all. commissioner braun i. commissioner your imperial i. commissioner moore i am. commissioner so i that item passes 6 to 0 and we are on to our next item on the agenda. >> commission matters starting with our land acknowledgment. >> nice. thank you. looking forward to this one. so the commission knowledge that we are in the unceded ancestral homeland of rahmatullah aloni who are the original inhabitants of san francisco peninsula as an indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions the raw material loney have never seen it lost or forgotten in their responsibility as the caretakers of this place as well as for all peoples who

reside in their tradition territory 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 dramaturge aloni community and by affirming the sovereign rights as first peoples. >> great thank you. commissioners will move on to your next item which is consideration of adoption of the minutes from your hearing on february 16th and scuse me january 16th 2025 and january 23rd 2025. on your consideration of adoption of meeting minutes we will take public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on the consideration of adoption of minutes from january 16th and january 23rd please step up to the podium seeing none. >> commissioners commissioner moore moved to approve second

second grant. >> the motion was made by commissioner moore seconded by commissioner imperial on the motion to approve the minutes from january 16th, 2025 and january 23rd 2025. commissioner campbell i mr. mcgarry i. commissioner williams i. commissioner braun i. commissioner imperial. i. commissioner moore and commissioner. so i. item passes 7 to 0 and we are now on. commission comments and questions. item ten on the agenda. >> okay. commissioner seeing no comments or questions we'll move on to department matters number 11 directors announcements. >> okay. director does does not have any announcements. we'll move on to item 12 review of past events at the board of

supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon commissioners darren starr manager of legislative affairs. this week the land use committee considered the inclusionary housing ordinance sponsored by mary lurie. this ordinance allows the use of the california debt limit allocation committee tax exempt bond financing and tax credits for certain affordable housing projects. these projects would need to provide additional affordable units or deeper affordability levels than required by the inclusionary housing ordinance . commissioner, as you heard this item on october 24th of last year and adopted a recommendation for approval with modification plans the one modification was technical in nature. the amendments were incorporated into the ordinance during the land use hearings. supervisor söder pronounced like otter as we're all learning introduced the proposed ordinance. he also provided an overview of the proposed project and d3 located 1101 sutter at the ordinance would have helped facilitate.

sartor also introduced amendments to the non-potable water ordinance. the amendments would exempt housing projects using federal state or local subsidies to fund its inclusionary housing requirements pursuant to the new waiver under the proposed ordinance. supervisor chen also suggested additional amendments which include first increasing the proposed waiver waivers additional onsite unit requirement from 10% of applicable inclusionary units to 25% and require emotes in each cd to provide a report to the inclusionary housing technical advisory committee also known as the tac regarding the projects that pursue this proposed waiver. there were more than 15 public commenters in support of the proposed ordinance. supporters cited the need for housing now the urgency of the item to to support the project at 1101 sutter street and support for housing and public investments. commenters also noted that the cedar street project would

provide a child care facility, would make pedestrian improvements to the area and includes 100% union jobs. after public comment, supervisor chen made a motion to incorporate her respective amendments. supervisor mahmud made a motion to amend the ordinance as described by supervisor sartor. these included both the input amendments and the technical clarifications from the planning commission. both motions passed the item which is twice amended was continued to next week on february 10th and then this week at the full board. the health services use in the west on labor commercial district passed its second read that was sponsored by supervisor melgar and supervisor dorsey's ordinance for 99 rhode island street passed its first read. also last week while you were on recess, the board of supervisors heard a sequel appeal of the statutory exemption for the mid valencia curbside protected bikeway project. the project would replace an

existing two way center running bikeway with curbside protected bike lanes on valencia street from 15 to 20 third street. the appeal was filed by julio ramos, the lawyer for vamanos a group of valencia street merchants, artists and residents. this secure section exempts sustainable transport nation projects from sequim. the department has used this exemption facilitate the secure process for more than 25 bicycle pedestrian and transit projects since it was enacted by the state in 2021. the appellant meant the appellant did not dispute the department's findings that the project met the statutory exemption criteria but instead mistakenly raised issues relevant to appealing a mechanical exemption which did not apply. about 15 individuals spoke in favor of the appeal and about 20 individuals spoke in favor of denying the appeal. following public comment, supervisor fielder asked staff to clarify the purpose of the statutory exemption. she also asked why the appellants arguments concerning environmental impacts to historic resources and

inadequate public involvement do not apply to the project in this case. supervisor dorsey also spoke indicating that while he's in favor of hearing opposing policy views he's against the weaponization of sequoia to oppose environmental priorities such as those promoted by this statutory exemption. >> supervisor fielder introduced a motion to deny the appeal and affirmed the statutory exemption which was seconded by supervisor dorsey. the vote passed unanimously on a ten yeses with supervisor mendham and recused. >> that's all i have for you today. happy to answer any questions. thanks. >> hey, good afternoon, president. so commissioners corey teague's zoning administrator. the board of appeals did meet last night. over the course of their last few meetings they haven't really ruled on any cases that are would be of particular interest to the commission. it's been mostly rear deck permits lately but of note they did have their election of officers two weeks ago and

commissioner trasvina was elected as president and commissioner eppler was voted as vice president. >> thank you. >> great and commissioners i can provide an update on the historic preservation commission. they did meet yesterday on february 5th. the only items on their agenda were the department's budget which was there for their review of which they passed a resolution affirming a positive recommendation to you all on the department's proposed budget. and then they also had an informational discussion on 1687 market street which is the mccloskey building site. that's a landmark property that's using ab 2011 to build affordable housing on it. >> so and that is all on their report and seeing no questions we can move on to number. item e on your agenda. general public comment.

at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except for agenda items with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit. general general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. any members of the public that would like to speak please line up on the screen side of the room and welcome georgia. good afternoon. 2:00. happy february. i sent two emails to the commission this week and i hope you had a chance to read them. one shows the need to adjust the demo counts. the other is about the definition of demolition and i think there's a linkage there but i won't get into that now. but anyway, demolition what exactly is a demolition? and that has become an issue lately. the city has a definition of demolition and the planning code at section 317 available to planners d by inspectors

developers, homeowners, tenants and this commission. here it is right here says definition. and it goes on to describe it. >> the commission should please make sure this definition is used in reviewing projects. and please make sure there is compliance with state laws regarding demolition of housing occupied by tenants. even if most of us are bothered by state laws and the loss of local autonomy particularly with the upcoming rezoning that is being rammed down our throats, if there are protections for tenants and requirements for housing at the lower arms available per these laws then those loopholes should not be allowed. additionally, the commission should please use the legislative authority under section 317 b2d to adjust the counts. thank you.

here's my 150 words for the minutes and here copies of what i sent last night at 6:00 hard copies. >> thank you very much. have a good afternoon and good luck with 5:00 any any members of the public that would like to provide public comments on items not listed on the agenda ,please come up to the podium. seeing none we can move on to our regular calendar item 13 for the leland avenue neighborhood commercial district. planning code and zoning map amendments. >> good afternoon commissioners. veronica flores planning department staff. the item before you is the leland avenue neighborhood commercial district ordinance sponsored by supervisor walton. and at this time i'll invite ms. natalie g to introduce the item. >> thank you for joining. good after being present so commissioners and director

hillis, thank you for your time and consideration of this important item today. i want to provide some background on this legislation on behalf of supervisor walton. in september 2023 and maybe a little bit before that the community and local merchants initiated this effort to establish the leland avenue neighborhood commercial district and. they extensively study existing and cd laws, legislation and controls across the city and collaborated closely with our office and the office of small business to lay a strong foundation for the state of the nation. this has been very much a true community driven process with residents and business owners dedicating hundreds if not thousands of hours collectively to make this vision a reality. >> leland avenue specifically the area that we want to designate as a ncdhhs sits between bayshore boulevard and cora street in the visitation valley neighborhood located in district ten and in the southeast corner of the city.

leland avenue is a vibrant corridor and a gateway to the city's cross trail or crosstown trail. >> despite its central role in the neighborhood, it has never been formally designated as a ncd. the community in partnership with our office and the office of small business has led this effort to cultivate a more dynamic, pedestrian friendly commercial corridor that not only meets the diverse needs of local residents but also preserves the neighborhood's unique charm and character. >> additionally, leland avenue is located within the visitation valley stage special use district and is in close proximity to the bayshore caltrans station. positioning it as a key hub for connectivity and economic growth. the goal of establishing this entity is to enhance foot traffic, foster a welcoming environment for small businesses and create a corridor that maintains what makes leland avenue special while also linking businesses to the visitation valley greenway.

the proposed controls were carefully chosen by community to align with these goals ensuring a more pedestrian friendly streetscape that attracts visitors and supports local merchants. >> beyond its economic benefits, the city will also activate long term community engagement and participation. the annual review process will strengthen local unity foster neighborhood ownership and also promote investment in the corridors. long term success and quality of life. many in the community do feel that visitation valley and leland avenue have often been forgotten by the city. however, this is a thriving and vibrant neighborhood where residents and merchants have been working tirelessly to enhance their neighborhood as well as the commercial corridor. and this effort is a testament to their commitment and dedication. >> our office fully supports the committee's vision and respectfully request that the legislation move forward as written. while we appreciate the department's recommendations, we believe it is important to uphold the community and merchants decisions.

after over a year of hard work and collaboration it is important that we ensure that there's alignment between the planning department and the community rather than creating any sense of disconnect. >> lastly, i do want to express my gratitude on behalf of supervisor walton to the leland merchants circle especially ken and kelly mccord of mission blue as well as creative ideas good chocolate and so many of our leading merchants for their leadership in this process. i also want to thank the office of small business executive director katie tang and her staff member carrie bring about and our deputy city attorney heather goodman for their support in drafting this legislation. thank you. >> and at this time i'll just go over what the proposed ordinance does and outline some more of the specific changes. >> so the proposed ordinance would rezone the area described again, it's a long leland

avenue between bayshore boulevard and core street. this is currently zoned and c-2 and the proposal is to rezone this into the new leland avenue and the controls will remain primarily the same as the two controls from today. but as mr. lee mentioned, the ordinance proposes a few changes to better reflect the community's needs so the controls that would differ from today's and c2 controls include conditionally permitting liquor stores and several institutional uses on the first floor. currently they are principally permitted today and the proposed ordinance would also prohibit fringe financial services on the first floor. these are also principally permitted today. >> lastly, the proposed ordinance would also incorporate the various technical amendments to reflect

the proposed nct. >> the department supports the overall goals of the proposed ordinance because it does take into account the community's feedback and relate their desires and goals for the neighborhood particularly with respect to liquor stores and the fringe financial services. >> however, the proposed ordinance would conditionally permit several institutional uses on the first floor. despite all of the past efforts to make it easier to open childcare facilities and residential care facilities throughout the city. so the department recommends you adopt a recommendation of approval with modifications and and that one modification is to principally permit child care facilities and residential care facilities on the first floor. >> i understand the supervisor is not inclined to take this recommendation but i did want to take the time to really emphasize the difficulty in finding providers for child

care facilities and residential care facilities alike. >> but the report you receive rvd did outline the past efforts in removing the land use barriers to opening these types of uses, adding a q a requirement would further burden these prospective child care facilities and residential care facility providers. this is seen through a minimum of about $2,000 in fees and also adding several months to the process. >> but if the proposed ordinance were enacted as as drafted the staff would want to prioritize these applications and potentially include them with a priority business processing program. >> so the recommended modification in front of you today really focuses on the child care facilities and the residential care facilities. again, this recommendation is to align with the current and

c2 controls. >> and it also would align the way these two uses are regulated throughout the entire city. >> so this recommendation again would make it easier to open these types of facilities. it would specifically support early childhood development within the child care facilities when there are currently only enough licensed spaces for about 55% of children aged 0 to 5 years old in san francisco. >> so that's a big gap in the proposed ordinance may to tear some of the perspective of child care providers especially in underserved neighborhoods. >> child care facilities are principally permitted in all zoning districts except for industrial zoning districts and the recommended modifications seeks to align the controls with the rest of the city. >> moving on to the residential care facilities data shows that

there's been a 20% decrease of the number of residential care facilities in san francisco. the years for that is data point where from 20 12 to 2018. so that's really more than ten years ago. >> and what we're trying to recommend in front of you today is just really emphasize the importance of residential care facilities locating them within neighborhood commercial districts. this will make it easier for seniors to get to retail, get to services without needing the use of a car without needing to drive. i do want to emphasize that residential care facilities are principally permitted in most residential districts and ncdhhs and so again the recommended modification seeks to be consistent with the controls throughout san francisco for these reasons the department recommends that you adopt a recommendation of approval with modification. this concludes the staff report

and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. thank you. at this time we will take public comment on item 13 for the leland avenue neighborhood commercial district planning code and zoning map amendment. if anyone has any public comment please step up to the podium. >> seeing none commissioners commissioner bryan. >> yes. you know as far as legislation goes the creation of the ncd i'm in support of the idea at this leland avenue corridor is a very attractive and appealing and vibrant place. and you know, as has been said, it's a place that's accessible via the crosstown trails visitation valley greenway as well and i am hoping and thinking those might also be drawing even more people to this area and giving it more attention. i do have so i have no concerns

about the basic legislation. i do have a question for the supervisors office though. so the the recommendation by department staff and the analysis they put into it and the issues raised it was really compelling especially around the child care. and the distinction that this would be one of the only places in the city where child care as a conditional use requirement. so i'm just curious to hear reaction to that recommendation and maybe if there's some additional background that exists about sort of why it's there's the desire to have it conditionally approved in this area, that'd be helpful. >> sure. thank you for that question, commissioner. and so when we work with community and we look at visitation valley as a neighborhood as a whole, there's child care facilities like spinco throughout the neighborhood. leland avenue is the only commercial like like district or street for that area where if we have that as a child care facility it takes away from other uses of that name out of that street that's only about

three blocks long. so it's not really a long or a big commercial corridor. it's very small and it what it's what makes it unique. so child care facility doesn't attract the same like foot traffic as like a restaurant such as creative ideas or the newly opened 1945 bar and lounge those folks kind tales that visit those businesses also visit other businesses on the corridor. thank you. >> okay. yeah, thank you for that. um yeah, i'm still thinking about this a little bit more and so um and with other commissioners comments so i'm curious to hear their thoughts as well. >> thank you. commissioner vice president moore what has always been amazing about leland is that it's the best kept secret. >> it is so small that you hardly notice it and uh, over the years there were several projects which kept me in that neighborhood for quite some time. there was like a lark which took forever and never that is so long ago that you started it

yourself having participated in it at that time the importance of leland became really important because at that time they were reaching for significantly larger neighborhood street than they are now but they've always held their own and that is the beauty about it. then came a fight about two cannabis dispensaries and that took forever to two to work out uh then a very, very remarkable senior housing project is actually at the upper part of leland which is totally amazing . it's kind of like a little village on its own. it's was actually for us to go to as an example of good architecture and how people should do it. then came the fight about the green belt connection and that was a long, long fight. then came housing projects which kind of started to challenge the overall character of of leland and how it affected the at the back parts of the property and on and on and on know and then the other project which come to mind it's

for that reason that i believe that this particular small street has held its own even as an nc tool for so long and then no one to take the next step and i'm so happy for them because this is actually two acknowledged of and what a supervisor of his has done this one the one of the better pieces and was thoughtfully explained piece of legislation i've seen for a long time it's extremely sensitive it's extremely tuned and for that reason alone really seeing the signature of the community in there i kind of would like some i would like to support the legislation as it came in front of us and even with to see you they can sort that out themselves and so instead of by a ride saying oh anybody could move in here i want to give them a little bit more room because three blocks you got to fight hard to to keep it together. >> so that is where i'm coming from. thank you. thank you.

and commissioner williams, thank you commissioner moore for that. i have a friend who lives on this street. >> it's a small little corridor and how it's it's come alive recently and so it's as much as i appreciate the planning department's take on on this and the recommendations. i also appreciate the year of community effort and the community came to this to this conclusion and and i'd like to support that without the recommendation of the planning department. it's it's a small area. it's three blocks long. it's not consequential. it's far as i can see to affect child care and and and other things that have been brought up so yeah thank you

commissioner imperial thank you and thank you for coming to the planning commission and explaining about the the efforts that have been made for the last year. i really appreciate the the community outreach that has been done and there's part of me that also rings with commissioner braun in terms of the the residential care facility and the child care facility had at first when i when i read the packet and the recommendation i was more compelled to add as permitted to maintain the institutional use. however, you know when looking into it the child care facility is still permitted on the second floor and third floor and residential care facility is still permitted on the second floor and a third floor. so we're not really taking away

a use. if anything i think i appreciate what the goal of this legislation is to really activate and really support the you know, the the community needs at this point. so what i'm in my on my end what i'm seeing is that we're not taking away uses it's it's just reprioritizing on what our needs so i support the the legislation as it is. >> thank you. thank you commissioner campbell thank you. thank you. thank you for the presentation too. >> i think i don't know who my question is going to be answered by but i i'm a little bit curious. i mean i think in general i appreciate this legislation. i think in a different market and maybe maybe this is maybe i should ask my question first do we know what the vacancy rate is on the ground floor basis? the last i heard was there was

13 vacancies but i think we were able to fill that more. so there's not a lot of open shops on wheeling but like the merchants in that area are working to fill the remaining vacancies. at one point it was one of the highest corridors with the highest vacancy you see and in your community outreach were building owners as part of that? >> yes. through working with the merchants they also work with the landlords who own the buildings on the land. okay. that's helpful because i think what's going through my mind is just knowing that there's so many empty storefronts throughout our city and i'd hate to i prefer a larger catchment area and more options for tenancy rather than limiting it especially with two categories in our city that are underrepresented in the form of childcare and support for our seniors. so i'm enjoying this conversation. i think it's it's helpful but i am i tend to lean with the staff's recommendation with

everything in mind but it's helpful to understand the vacancy and if owners were participating in that dialog. >> so thank you. >> it's just a little bit of background. there is a residential care facility on lillian by peabody so that one is already existing and again as i said earlier too there's also like other areas in the neighborhood that serve those purposes. it doesn't necessarily have to be on land. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for those staff report and thank you mrs. g for their presentation. i in general i respect the policy perspective and alignment with our land use on our overall san francisco in terms of establishing the neighborhood commercial districts but then also however i'm also find myself in a pickle here where because

community outreach and also listening to what the neighborhood really want and in the time like this of really re re try to recover any commercial corridors for any of our district it's a a fine balance 13 vacancy within three blocks it's pretty jarring to to look at it and in 2025 but then i'm also torn to i know that child care for the infant and you really need to be on the ground floor that is a building code requirement than child care code requirement because by the nature of infants and babies they because they can't leave on their own they can evacuate the building when it's the building it's in distress or natural disasters. >> so i am i really appreciate supervisors walton's office robust community outreach and

looking at overall not just that three blocks but the neighborhood surrounding that area and i did drive by that area quite a bit and took some busses line out there and i do see a lot of small scale daycare operations around that area with a nearby park. so this is one of the things that i felt in my own perspective that for supervisor walton's district this is i really rely on his office to have eyes on the ground to listen, to hear what the community things that really can work for them front this time being. and i hope that in the near future if there's a need for a chalk childcare facility or residential care facility really want to go in to this three blocks and i really hope

that our supervisors office and the neighbors and the merchants will really work nicely with them to allow them to come out with a much more active use of their storefront to make their space more animated and feel more lively. i think that this seems like that is one of the concern about try to how do you activate a commercial corridor at the time being that we have so i'm more inclined to accept the ordinance as is sort of i'm sorry i want to call your supervisor imperial commissioner imperial before i make a motion but can i ask a question to misty has there in the community outreach has there been expression of that there are businesses that

whether a child care facility or residential care facility in the you know, in the creation of the cd has there been business owners that been saying that they would want to put a child care facility on the first floor and the ground floor? no, not with the merchants that we do like me i wish we worked with all the merchants alley in the avenue there was an express concern here that the thing was they wanted to turn leland avenue into a more vibrant corridor and they're not saying that child care facilities can go in. they just want to be able to weigh in on that process if there is a proposed one. okay. thank you, miss g. thank you. so i'll make a motion to approve the approved of legislation without the modification second great. thank you commissioners on that motion made by commissioner imperial and seconded by commissioner williams to approve the ordinance without

taking the staff's recommendations. >> commissioner campbell no. commissioner mcgarry thank commissioner williams. hi commissioner braun high commissioner imperial i commissioner moore and commissioner so i that motion passes 5 to 2. okay we will move on to our did not class and you next agenda item item 14 for know that again this such i mean there are there are some 500 laguna street a conditional use authorization. compelling arguments that there is some actions that the landlord did not act in good faith. >> good afternoon. hello. good afternoon commissioners >> i have a question to the project sponsor whether whether matthew chandler planning department staff before getting into my presentation and i does you know is that is the would just like to note that the preliminary recommendation was incorrectly listed on the agenda as outlined in the 100% affordable housing that motion and as well as my you know back with mayor ed lee forthcoming presentation. is that something that i mean so the item before you is a what happened to that? why did it not go through?

request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 3o3 to >> we're a little perplexed by modify the conditions of the the the testimony that approval of conditional use there was an agreement that there was a rumor that authorization number 2019 circulated there have been discussions between mr. lee and hyphen 201506 to see you a two the owner, but there was never any any commitment by the owner extend its validity period for to anyway, that's that's that's a term of two years. the best i understand i have of >> motion number 206 two seven what happened eight, nine, ten associated with this application was granted on years ago. >> it was so you there is no kind of agreement or promises january 23rd 2020 and the motion authorize the cannabis retail use measuring not to my knowledge no it's commissioner knowledge. approximately 1335ft2 within a vacant ground floor retail okay. thank you. i'm sorry. space of an existing three storey mixed use building >> that's i'm just telling you what i know, commissioner. okay. without any exterior changes or expansions proposed. yeah. i just want a very close mayor >> while the performance period for the conditional use was again. initially valid through january >> i just want to remind members of the public that 23rd, 2023, it received an unless the commissioners are addressing you directly to automatic one year extension to refrain from additional comments and to allow the proceedings to continue, you

know, again i do find this january 23rd 2024 due to a zoning administrator letter of determination that extended the situation very tragic and even though this is a d.r. and i do validity period for approvals and overlap with the covid 19 i do think that there are exceptional and extraordinary emergency. >> this request before you is circumstance in a way that how we again in terms of the in applied for by the property owner mr. correct attorney and seeks an additional two year extension from 2020 or january compliance for our own housing element that is also mandated by the state and i believe that there is also a state law where 23rd 2020 for until january 23rd 2026. >> the project site at 500 housing elements actually should be in compliance with laguna street is a corner affirmative further fair commercial tenant space at the housing. >> i believe that is i would intersection of laguna and fourth street and it is almost entirely finished treated with a686. so that is something that you transparent windows and know in terms of how we are you doorways to allow visibility to know, in in terms of our the inside of the space. it is within the hayes golf nct disapproval or in denial of this project are some zoning district and the market in octavia area plan compelling arguments whether we conditional use application are in compliance with the state law and in conjunction number 2019 015062 see eua was with the federal law at the same time and also at the same applied for by business owner time with our own priority equity geographies elements as

mr. chris callaway of mr. c's. however the conditional use has well. validity period has ended and >> there are i think you know i there is no active lease don't know if this going to the agreement between the business court but i hope that you know, owner and the property owner extending the conditional use there are you know, we can authorization would allow the property owner to lease this space at 500 laguna to a provide sufficient evidence whether whether the city different cannabis retail business. provides sufficient evidence that there is actually a >> additional applications are on file with the office of cannabis for a cannabis retail negligible act by the project sponsor itself. >> it's it's hard for me to use within 600ft of 500 laguna street. hear that the city did not >> however, these applications pursue any legal action against this because there were many are on hold because of the 500 families that were displaced because the authorization of and commercial that were 500 laguna street essentially displaced. and you know and i just find a buffers out other cannabis tragic because we have had retail businesses within 600ft of that site. items before us here where you >> to date the department has actually the city pursue some received 14 letters requesting that the commission revoke the legal action against a project sponsor special when in conditional use authorization including one from the hayes valley neighborhood violation of the planning code association. the letters received cite the expired authorization period and also in violation of the building code. lack of community engagement on behalf of the property owner, i am saddened that that did not

the property owners neglect and happen. >> so those are my comments for tenant disputes in the past and they generally support returning the building in the now and like to hear what other space to a general retail use feeling that it could better commissioners have to say as well. serve the neighborhood if the >> thank you commissioner williams first of all i want to commission chooses to extend the cannabis retail use thank everyone who came out authorized at the site then it tonight from this neighborhood must grant a new conditional from the mission district. use authorization for the requested two year extension of this is a tragedy. the previously approved conditional use number 2019 hyphen 01506 to see if the it's hard it's hard for me to sit up here and listen to all commission chooses not to extend the cannabis retail use of it once again and just you authorize at the site then it must revoke the previously know, one thing i i want to granted conditional use. relay is is during this time >> the department's recommendation is that the commission revoke the conditional use authorization this action is on balance consistent with the mark in the impact to this community optavia area planning through all the fires that objectives and policies of the general plan. happened there was there was i the conditional uses period has have a actually have a there's ended despite having extended validity or validity period

compared to similar entitlements. an article that came out in gq additionally, the conditional use limits the ability for other property owners and magazine june 22nd 2017. it's titled san francisco is cannabis retail businesses within a 600 foot radius from moving forward with a cannabis burning and and in the article retail use the application and i just i want to read this presented to the planning commission was for a business that will not occupy the site just to kind of give some context to what this due to the lack of an active lease agreement between the two neighborhood was going through and you know, for those that weren't here during that time parties. any future application for cannabis retail use within the and it reads the mission has vicinity will have undergone an in-depth review by the office been a refuge for immigrants and low income san franciscans of cannabis before being presented to the planning commission for their decision ever since the spanish founded based on the application and testimony provided at that mission dolores in 1776. it's also been gentrifying for time. >> this corner commercial space with transparent frontage is ages but never like this. well-suited for various uses permitted within the zoning district. the past few years have seen sustained tech worker the department also finds that the revocation to be necessary colonization. property prices have ,desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood skyrocketed and something and not to be detrimental to strange and terrible has started happening a spate of persons or adjacent properties within the vicinity. mysterious fires there were 45 that concludes my presentation. i'll be available for questions of them in 2015 and six 2016

and the project sponsor is also in attendance as well. displacing 198 people and killing three including a child. legal evictions in san francisco are costly and the project is the project difficult and so a lot of sponsor of a presentation. locals have started wondering >> great. come on up to the podium please could there be a plot by . thank you. landlord arsonists to clear out the district to make way for the tech people in june 2016 a local politician who was a supervisor at the time david as i. campos went as far as to write in the san francisco examiner there is nothing i want more okay, commissioners. than to assure my constituents that arson is not a factor in these fires. unfortunately at this point i my name is kaushik titania and i'm the trustee of the trust cannot say this with certainty that is the owner of 500 laguna street. i'm here in support for the conditional use extension being sought.

>> the current current current . so i have a couple of questions use authorization was granted for planning. >> first of all, on the the in 2020 by your board. the prior tenant at 500 laguna number of units it's there's criscuolo way was to make ten there were 60 people that were improvements to the space and displaced from from the site after the fire. open a cannabis retail store. additionally mystical it can we we we agree on that. right and so it's pointed out expressly agreed to paint the exterior of the building. those 17 units so 60 people mr. callaway did not complete his obligations. he did not finish the tenant were living in 17 units is kind improvements. he did not paint the building of it's not really it doesn't and he did not open for business. it's not really believable and so and there's a lot of, you completion of the permitted know, conflicting information like that that's not concrete. tenant improvements at 500 i asked the planning department laguna was mr. holloway's responsibility and under the to provide the exact number of businesses that were displaced under his control the landlord and there's they don't know could not complete them until the expiration of the lease

that's kind of like the the the with mr. callaway on july 31st, you amuse that that we've seen 2023. around the city where the you >> in regards to the reason we are here today for the planning know there's there's people living there but we don't commission to review and really know that they're there because they're not uh they're hopefully grant a routine extension of an already not you know legalized and so i approved conditional use authorization. would i'm just i'm just saying there have been multiple delays and hindrances instigated by i think it's a lot more than 17 mr. callaway, the primary opponent of this extension units. being sought for 500 laguna. it's probably more like 3460 >> soon after the lease at 500 people at least. laguna ended. our understanding is that mr. callaway canceled the building >> so that's one issue i have permit that were obtained which that you know there's there's a we believe was not within his rights but doesn't matter for lot of conflicting information about the demolition of the the improvement at 500 laguna. fire. thereafter he began objecting to my application with you for >> i mean the demolition after the fire there's and no none of

extension of the c-usa. that was kind of summarized in he challenged your board and requested a letter of our planning packet a lot of information was missing and determination challenging the it's important to understand 600 foot requirement for a that, you know, when we're competing cannabis business. looking at a project we need we although his challenge was need to have all the rightly rejected by your board, information. i think that was a piece of crucial information that wasn't afforded to us and so i'm the process took ten months. bringing that up but also the meanwhile 500 laguna remained planning department in its vacant at no fault of the findings said that that it's in landlord while i waited for the resolution of mr. calloway's submission to you and my opportunity to make the requested request to continue to see you for the landlord has general compliance with what the with the housing element. been diligent throughout the process. once mr. callaway left the >> and so i have some questions premises the landlord took over about that how does this the space, got the improvements permitted issue resolved and

project comply with section 249 improvements necessary to open .97 the priority equity the space have now been completed. geographies in special use district and i want to just the space is now turnkey ready read for people again exactly for another cannabis retailer what that what that statute to be approved by the office of says it's there somewhere there cannabis. if i can get to see you a . so this is a part of our planning code. extension i can move forward so the purpose the priority with getting a tenant in place equity geographies study is and we'll have the building comprised of areas or painted. as explained in detail in my neighborhoods with a higher density of vulnerable email to all of you on february populations. the 2022 update of the housing the 3rd, the primary reason why element of the general plan 22 we are in this mess for what is housing element identifies several neighborhoods in san a routine extension request is francisco that qualify as priority equity geographies because mr. calloway failed to based on the department of public health's community fulfill his obligations regarding this leased premises assessment needs, this needs assessment the 2022 housing and the building. not only did mr. calloway hold element encourages targeted possession of 500 laguna for

direct investments in these areas and identifies them as re over five years he denied his valid neighborhood of the quiring improved access to benefit of a thriving local well-paid jobs and business business. after all this, mr. calloway ownership where the city needs filed for bankruptcy in an to expand permanently affordable housing investment effort to dispose of his where zoning changes must be tailored to serve the specific payment obligations. >> sir, thank you very much that your time? needs of the communities that live there and where programs that stabilize communities and >> at this time we will take meet community needs need to be public comment on this item. prioritized. the purpose of the priority equity geographies study is to if you have public comment please step up to the podium. help implement the goals and policies outlined in the 2022 this is for 500 laguna and the conditional use authorization housing element. by the way. >> and five years ago i stood >> and so my first question is does this project comply with before you and you kindly granted me a conditional use authorization for cannabis retail that i really hoped section two for 9.97? would improve my life and improve that neighborhood and that storefront that had sat hi. so the controls of that section vacant for a decade before. and i apologize if i get a

little emotional during this. eight pertain to sections 311 and 317 which is neighborhood there's no way to possibly notification and the demolition describe the toll that this permitting process has taken on me just to try to activate this storefront. pur three three section three our dispute began in 2019 because contract attorney and 11 and priority equity rodrigo santos performed a geographies all new seismic retrofit of that property and i was shown one construction has neighborhood notice and this project was set of drawings and then kaushik and rodrigo swapped out noticed hence the filing of the those drawings in the last minute. and i know matthew said that dollars that we're hearing today. this property has windows that are transparent. two of those windows have now >> and then under section 317 been blocked by concrete walls which have designated that which is for the demolition of residential units since the historic victorian. >> not only that, titania then attempted to pass on the cost site did not have a building on of the entire retrofit to me burdening me with a massive it, there was no queue triggered under that section. amount of debt that i could not possibly afford. so 2020 i get approved for so that is the compliance with cannabis retail here the world ends. it takes me two years to just the controls of that special navigate the building use district. department process to get a job card. >> okay. and that's because hoshiki so how does this does this well you might as well stay there didn't do the work that he was supposed to do in the seismic he didn't upgrade the ada. because i've got a couple of more questions for you.

>> i'll just stay right here. he didn't fix the staircase. he didn't do the entry. he didn't do any of those yeah. yeah. thank you. i appreciate it. thank you. we'll get through this. things because he tried to pass on those costs to his tenants. >> so how does the project the people that can't afford to comply with our housing element pay that. equity provisions? there are countless stories of people that causing to tiny is well, again, compliance with ruined. and i could have packed this room full of those people made an entire circus out of this the general plan is on a whole commission. but i didn't do that. . not every project will meet i respect this commission. i respect your authority. every single policy goal in the and i know in my heart you're going to hear my story and general plan or the housing understand that there is no element. and i think it is noted that person here that has put more money into fivepoint in laguna in the last 20 years than me. there's nobody here that wants while it is a market rate it to see that space activate it will provide the required more than me. affordable housing. that space is beautiful and i love that building but he many of the general plan clearly does not. >> it has broken windows that have been that way for months policies speak to the city's on end. he's just waiting to pass on this cost to yet another cannabis tenant that has to be work of developing our own an equity tenant and that person is going to be just as zoning controls and policies to further those goals. equally taken advantage as i was. >> every single one of his so sometimes the broader goal commercial tenants either ends up in bankruptcy or financially ruined and that is evidenced by is not directly applicable to an individual development project or can be seen as on a

the people that have sent you letters. and i hope that you read those because they come from the heart as well. i don't want to really just whole you know an on balance of burden the commission with all what is part of the city's work of the back story of this. i really just want to kind of focus on what is really best in how we craft our regulation for this space. during the pandemic i was able to activate it as a flower and our zoning and good job and shop, a retail shop and it business development. could be a variety of uses and >> you're gentrifying and that's really what is best for the neighborhood. you're ready for it. >> i hope that you'll join us please be please be quiet again unanimously just as the valley i will ask you to refrain from neighborhood association and the israeli merchants association all unanimously are asking you to please revoke additional comment and let the staff respond to the this entitlement so the corner commissioner's questions. >> thank you. can come back to life. all you have to do is just take so as noted it does not meet one look at that building and you'll know that this man does all of the policy attempts it not care for it. it's a historic treasure. meets some of them. >> you do not reward someone who treats our properties like yeah it it seems that when it this in san francisco with a comes to the racial and equity valuable land use entitlement. >> i thank you for your time provisions that more than not and any other members of the they're not being met. so that's why i bring it up public. according to our previous housing element years 2014 to if you'd like to provide public

comment on item number 14 2022 we built our market rate please step up to the podium. and luxury housing by overbuilt seeing no other members of the our market rate and luxury podium commissioners. housing by 170% and under built our affordable housing projects do you want to commission a only building 34% of the area need that's just a statement. vice president or more? oh so this project at a time when it was heard was actually competing was a project right around the corner a project but how is this project going which has been very beneficial to address this disparity in to the community and has been our housing element production thriving and being really an additive to what it should be. since this project seemed to be now blocking potentially other the commissioner is just like applications, equity applicants chime in too like one you're you you have every right you to come forward. uh, my sense reading this story know you're ultimately interpreting the general plan as well so you know if you which is a little complicated on a personal level is to disagree and think this is not actually take the healthiest compliant with the overall paths and revoke the conditional use also addition. objectives of the general plan, you know you've got that authority and ultimately that's those would be my few thoughts on this. that's what's before you on this.

>> thank you. thank you, commissioner campbell. i'm in full agreement with i mean i think some of the issues you raised you know the issues you raise a very commissioner moore for all the same reasons. legitimate like how do we get to the 45,000 48,000 units of thank you. we want to make a motion. affordable housing? commissioner imperial will thank you commissioner moore and commissioner campbell. i think we've had that discussion here before. we certainly hope you know, i think this is a tragic ideally we would and i think we were in discussions with the project sponsor and the situation that happened and community to see if there was an ability to buy this site for whether you know whether this is at fault of the the landlord the city to produce 100% affordable housing kind of so we agree like that would be the or by you know i think or by ideal scenario here is to build the tenant, the fact the fact 200% affordable housing just like what happened at 16th and is this this is already expired and also da other applications mission. you know in looking at opportunities to figure out how the city could actually that i think we that should be purchase that site. also be seen. so i'd like to make a motion so happy to continue to go down unless other to to revoke the c that path right as well with you to look at like an affordable housing option here. >> yeah. and i appreciate that dr. hillis. you a second. >> i'm just i'm trying to can you revoke the c. thank you so missioners okay. understand it's like so we have on the motion to revoke the this housing element that was passed by this commission that

conditional use authorization was, you know, sort of ratified for 500 laguna street made by by the the the state and but yet we're only we're only commissioner imperial seconded by commissioner williams no for fulfilling some of it when it me. >> commissioner williams you comes to racial and social want to speak to oh i second and second seconded by equity and affordable housing. commissioner moore. we for some reason aren't >> apologies just i was just fulfilling that part of our curious to see is this the same rodrigo that dos santos that obligation under the under the housing element and it's just a was has been in foiled or remark it's just a remark that embroiled in a bunch of other i want to say out loud because i think it's worth hearing on projects around the city? >> yes. december fifth, 2020 for this yes. okay. >> thank you. this commission endorsed the >> okay. mission action plan 2030 commissioner being here to speak though, i really strategies to address eviction appreciate those to hear the housing conversion pressures in struggles of stories you know i'm sorry that we put you the mission district that were through. i'm sorry. threatening the ability of low sorry you have already have your five minutes. moderate income families to i just really appreciate everyone's here and we need to secure affordable housing, be respectful for neighbors and preserves cultural spaces and tenants and i really want to

see how this valley thrive. i want to see this building sustain small businesses between 2020 15, the mission being upgraded to be consistent lost more than 8000 latino with the rest of the hays valley merchants association standard. i love this neighborhood. residents. how does this project respect i love that german bakery the community vision? across the street. i would love to see this building take good care of and i agree. i'm i'm in line with my fellow i think the community is what you passed on may 2020 or commissioner and thank you endorsed on map 2020. you know is some of the work staff for your unwavering we're doing on 24th street. it's prioritizing affordable diligence on this case. thank you. housing investment in the mission which we're doing. all right. i think again you've got to look at this in its entirety. okay. i don't think when we adopted commissioners, if there's no further comments on the motion the housing element you know, we expected that all housing to revoke the conditional use authorization at the site. commissioner campbell. would be built in well resourced neighborhoods that there still would be housing >> commissioner mcgarry. commissioner williams. i. built on the eastern side of the city and priority equity commissioner braun high commissioner imperial i. vice president moore. geographies. but the hope was more housing would be built in in more i am president so i bring that item is revoked by motion of 7 well-resourced neighborhoods throughout the city. so but i'm talking about this this project in particular to 0 and we'll move on to our next item which is the again on balance i mean we've got to look at it on balance and with those things in mind conditional use authorization for 1815 market street.

again you're ultimately the interpreter of the general item 15 good. plan. i think we're giving you our interpretation which is looking at everything on balance. certainly we want to prioritize affordable housing. certainly we want to implement >> good. good afternoon commissioners the priorities in map 2030. matthew chandler planning >> yeah, my my i mean you know department staff the item before you today is a request for conditional use my point is is that you know, we passed these area plans and authorization pursuant to planning code sections 145 this project is pretty much in .2303 >> and 752 to permit an contradiction with some of the outdoor activity area that is ideas that we laid out for the community and it's and you not at the front of the building and seeking to operate beyond the limits of the know, it's not in a vacuum. i mean the reason why we planning code section 2o2 point passed, you know, area plans to a seven and 140 5.2. like this is because there's >> the project site is 1815 been harm done to our communities and so here comes a market street within the next project that comes along and three zoning district and an 85 x height and bulk district. it's not compliant really with >> the project would authorize a new outdoor activity area in any of the area plans or this the form of a roof deck area plan. associated with the proposed nighttime entertainment use. it's not you know it doesn't fit under the peg the priority >> doing business as dante's inferno which intends to

equity geographies but yet function as a restaurant with a place of entertainment permit somehow here we are and so you and abc license type 47. know it's it's like when is >> the project includes merging two currently vacant tenant does planning look at that i mean just plan does planning spaces facade alterations as look at these things seriously well as vertical and horizontal because they're they're serious additions to the existing one store commercial building. >> the project will result in a total gross floor area of issues and they they affect people and so and you know approximately 3943ft2 to be used by the business. they're part of the planning code and we're not following the vertical addition will include a service bar storage them is my point so yeah so rooms sorry deposit. >> i mean if the public would like to have some debrief among your so would you mind to do it outside the chamber? it's it's frustrating you know sorry about that because we would like to have clarity from i don't want to talk too much the presentation of our staff. more but it's very frustrating >> appreciate it. to see this play out where we if you like to speak about we go through the trouble of, yourself please do so outside you know, doing all the work to of our chamber because it interfere with the presentations and our create a housing element that has racial and social equity

commissioners are having difficulty hearing our staff built into it and address presentation. >> thank you. displacement and then we here >> continue please. thank you. we are present day with a >> so going back to project includes merging two currently project that doesn't really meet any of those goals and vacant tenant spaces facade alterations as well as a standards that we we set forth vertical addition and horizontal addition to the to achieve. existing one storey commercial building. the project will result in a total gross floor area of >> i just want to quickly to recognize like state law you know, will at times conflict with our housing. approximately 3943ft2 to be used by the business. you know, may at times conflict >> the vertical addition will include a service bar, storage with our housing. for instance, we i think there room stair and elevator access was an attempt in the housing element and you know in a goal . in the housing element to >> the plans show an provide more discretion in priority equity geographies approximately 780 square foot roof deck area situated toward the front half of the building where at time state law kind of and fronting along market street. limits just your discretion >> the roof deck will be nearly enclosed by soundproof that we were trying to achieve perimeter walls a horizontal in the housing. >> well, i mean i appreciate screening element and the that, rich, but i mean it's vertical addition. the application materials part of the law as well, right? indicate that entertainment activities will take place it's you know, at your indoors except for amplified discretion i mean i get that.

sound through speakers on the roof deck until 10 p.m.. but you know, it would be great >> please note that after if we prioritized the racial publishing the staff report and and social equity piece and put draft motion that the applicant that first as opposed to other modified their hours of things. operation so that those listed on page five of the draft >> that's all i'm saying. motion are incorrect. >> the proposed hours of okay. thank you, commissioner. operation including for the roof deck are as follows i'm done. thank you. thank you, commissioner. monday, tuesday and wednesday and thursday from 4 p.m. to 12 >> vice president. more as time goes by it gets harder and harder. not to feel frustrated but a.m. friday from 4 p.m. to 1:45 a.m. saturday from 10 a.m. to 1:45 a.m. and sunday from 10 thank you first for being here and showing the experience of a.m. to 1:45 a.m.. the project sponsor hosted a the last ten years and it's kind of hard to sit here and listen and take the burden of what you're describing pre-application meeting on april 16, 2024 and follow up seriously and i have to thank commissioner imperial and correspondence with nearby particularly commissioner residents after the department williams for really laying out what the challenges are and i has received letters of do acknowledge the planning opposition from four members of the public noting that others department for being very, very also share similar concerns strong in policy and see we but which are centered on the

just like the planning department there is a big gap possible impacts to the between theory and practice and possible impacts the operation may have on the adjacent the big gap between theory and practice is not at our own residential units. >> the project is categorically exempt from sequa and the choosing although we have the determination is included discretion to sometimes stir us within the staff report. the department finds the in certain things in a project to be necessary desirable and compatible with different direction and it would be up to me and it would the surrounding neighborhood be up to many others sitting and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties here we would do it all very within the vicinity and differently. but i'm not going to get into recommends approval with conditions as outlined within the politics of why we can't the staff report. and they're bigger than what >> the project complies with all applicable provisions of comes down from sacramento but the planning code and conform sacramento doesn't help us to the general plan and is either. so i want to ask a very simple consistent with the stated purpose of the nc t3 zoning district. question for me personally sitting here i believe that the >> market and the market octavio area plan. the project has been background of this project is thoughtfully designed to respond to the immediate not properly described. context to minimize potential it starts with the information adverse impact to the residential units nearby. >> furthermore, the project activates a currently vacant about 1747 and 60 and that is space in the area within an area that is well-served by what the public themselves transit and will provide job

figured out when they looked at opportunities and serve both the website and then look at the report where these numbers the immediate neighborhood and are kind of not use consistent the broader city. >> the department recommends approval. >> that is the end of my today and i'm not blaming presentation but i'll be anybody. however, there should be available for questions and i know the project sponsor is records about how this building here as well. was actually used and again the assessor says one and so when the board says something else and we all know that that happens a lot in record keeping >> project sponsor you have five minutes for your presentation. feel free to come up to the because the city has obviously layers and layers of podium and as soon as you're differentiation and in use and numbers etc. but in this ready i'll start your time. thank you. particular case there are the tools. what do the real plans for this building look like when you look at the wisdom of this building and the vintage of this building and i'm going to speak just about the physical attributes what i look at when i start looking at any building or any case in front of me this is a building that had the wisdom of a residential building was fire escapes lulu hello. serving two units. when you look to the county try >> hello. to replicate or count the potential units. my name is dante buckley.

what is puzzling to me is that i'd like to first off say thank you all for the opportunity here for me to present my there should be plans somewhere restaurant, my vision, the why even in old microfiche records that show where are the kitchens and the bathrooms and behind it and to explain how it'll impact and benefit the how do they relate to the units community. quickly, i'd like to also, you if indeed the second floor was used as commercial the layout know, introduce my team. i have greg nasser from bourne for those units would be quite different because not each of the units would have a kitchen llc. he is running operations. he's opened over 50 restaurants and not each of those units in california. he's our ops guy. would have a bathroom. there would be laid out for businesses and for those we have jason jones from our businesses you would go into side. he's a senior architect from the tax record again. you would figure out what type our design there over in the of business license were there east bay. he's been helping since the and how how many were there. and i'm not talking about very beginning with our design and which you guys will be establish six ground floor seeing today. and lastly chris jerram, our store that whether there is permit expediter he is just some forensic evidence which clearly establishes how this he's been awesome. he's been in the trenches working with all the departments and helping us get, building was used. you know, on on target with everything. and the other thing that i lastly before i jump into our believe is missing is somewhere slides i want to say that as you guys have heard i really do along the line somebody filed a care about, you know, the police report, somebody dealt neighborhood and the community with some insurance matters. and have made sure to mitigate why did the first fire start?

as much, you know, concerns as possible. why did the second fire start and how did the third fire and i believe that, you know, working together we can find a solution to anything. start? >> so is this evidence that i believe and some form or and with that and not knowing i another has to be part of the had five minutes, i will go record of what happened? >> you and i think the through this quickly. so this is dante's inferno. community sometimes seem to know by my memory more than as you can see, it is a very unique looking building and what perhaps a planning restaurant. it's a restaurant, a rooftop department could access. and again there are limitations lounge and bar. >> if any of you know the story of dante's inferno, it's about but those are questions that are essential for me to going through the nine circles establish first of what are the of. >> it's really the four divine comedy we've got purgatory and real numbers? is it really 17 and i would we have paradiso on the rooftop agree with commissioner gilbert with heaven. and commissioner williams so so >> here's the interior. you can see it's but it's a classy form of. commissioner williams if you you'll come in and have a drink divide a 60 people into 17 ,you know, hang out with everybody else as you can see units that makes about 3.5 in the bottom right there we have our stage. that's where performers will be persons per unit. musicians. we'll have things like spoken word so poets, writers, artists that's a very high number. i knew we would know what the can come out in the neighborhood here is going size of these units were. we would have a clear of towards the bathroom area. feeling of what may may have

been going on in this building you can see they're passing by the elevator right there on the left with that red door. . unfortunately there is nobody who lived in the building or there's a wash area too. and then four stalls for all in could talk to us about it after ten years. that's kind of a long time but the back. >> so here is the roof deck it's not so long because the memory of the importance of the area. >> it is a very you know, chill buildings including who lived area. it's supposed to be relaxing. there seems to be very much alive. it's heaven. it's a place to have a cocktail those people who spoke in front to enjoy some good jamaican food brunch and you know, of us today and for me that is something amiss and that is basically tying to this project listen to some tunes as well. as i said, we have a canopy to the reality of what happened. that not only blocks off the sun but also helps with what was this project ten years ago? mitigating sound on the right who lived there? how many people actually lived? and left our wooden panels that what businesses? what business license did you help project sound towards market street. have? because i want to get i want to >> another side you'll see a get a more realistic handle on pool table for the for community. the affordability question. i love pool personally and i 17 units out of 181 is a very, always wanted to have one on very low quotient and again i'm the spot so if you like that we've got it. the whole reason for a lot of this really i'll just jump straight is i want community and openness. i don't know if you guys have noticed after the pandemic but i'm not here to make somebody a lot of people have kind of gotten colder. you know, there's less communication, less eye contact wrong but there is something

,smiling and just connecting. amiss for me to feel that this i want to help change that. and you know, with businesses closing and people leaving the isn't something exceptional and extraordinary about this city, i wanted to do my part to help revitalize it. project and i am personally >> there's no rooftop bars in the immediate area. challenged by seeing this if you go to new york plenty you go to miami, florida, plenty you go to la. project to be a litmus test of there's so many but we only have so few here. so it'd be great to have that how we as a commission really address and deliver affordable first generation jamaican here in the u.s.. housing because this is where my parents are from jamaica and there's no good jamaican food here. the rubber hits the road and >> and so i want to help bring some cool stuff some some elevated food for everybody to try and yeah, some good music i'm not quite sure how to meet you all know about the hours so a litmus test but i'm going to listen more with my fellow i'll jump past that. commissioners have say but you so straight to community concerns. one thing i want to state is we have made a very convincing and strong argument of what it are not a nightclub. we are a lounge. there's a very big difference needs to be and never made. between the two at a nightclub the music's turned up to 11 and there was a gentleman in the audience who who spoke but people are yelling in people's ears trying to talk, spilling couldn't finish a sentence drinks. about a video and i think the there might be fights going on just really, you know, stuff gentleman sits in the last row that's not what we're about. if i can is i see that

there was an article written about dante saying new correctly? would you mind coming and nightclub but that was not an accurate representation. it was just based on renders. describing a video that spoke to merely promising the so i'm here to clarify that today. we also will be doing salsa night. that's the closest thing to i'd community that this would be say a dancing we'd have. and as you guys have seen the space is pretty small so it's affordable housing? not a lot of people down there dancing. there have been instructor as well moderating. and to reiterate everything >> it was a long time ago but again this is going to have we're going to security on what i remember mayor lee and i premises of course limited to no cell phone usage. i hate when people are like on don't know if roberto hernandez their phones while you know is still here he may he may you're having a meal or drinking and it just bad. also know of barely in front of i don't want people on their phones. and then audio noise concerns the in front of the building before it was torn down and he or working with experts. the biggest expert we're working with is an audio had a it was like a community meeting on the street there and company called saltaire incorporated. they've worked on over 900 that's when he said he wanted projects around the world. they're headquartered in san francisco and yeah, they're to do it for all affordable housing and let me check i'll awesome. they help soundproof buildings you can think of like a recording studio, you know, you go inside, it's loud, you go try to find roberto because he may remember more than me here

outside. >> it's very quiet because of the materials used quickly will if a gentleman roberto could have privacy you cannot see. >> thank you again for your come and not that would be time. if they have additional questions for you they'll happily call you up to the helpful. i would like to hear it and i would like us to take that into podium. >> absolutely. thank you guys so much. consideration. >> at this time we will take public comment on item number 15 for the conditional use authorization for 1815 market street. if you'd like to provide public comments to the commission, thank you. greetings here and here to please just come up to the podium. disagreeme i i so all right. so i'm steve shelton. my family owns a house next door at 1807 market street. >> and we feel that the noise on the roof would bother our tenants trying to sleep. and we feel that having a music being played on the roof is just a bad idea. thank you.

>> hi there. um, i live on elgin park and share a backyard property line with the proposed project with my partner and our two kids. and we love living in a busy, active mixed use area and we're excited about a restaurant coming into this space, especially after so much vacancy. we would support this project enthusiastically if it weren't for the roof deck with amplified sound and early morning hours. all of the direct neighbors with shared property lines including us and our residents with historic wood buildings constructed in the early 1900s. our walls are wood slats. our bedroom at our home. the bedrooms look directly out onto the roof deck. the proposed roof deck and we're really concerned about the noise impact because from the design the only noise

abatement is canvas. it's really not, you know, anything substantial. so the mitigations to keep noise issues in check are completely dependent on the establishment reminding patrons to keep voices down. we aren't aware of any roof deck in the city that is open directly next to properties of this nature. and compounding this is the hours proposed which don't seem to reflect the residential nature of the neighborhood. our kids go to public school that starts at 7:50 a.m. on a school night having a roof deck that's open or in a restaurant that's open till 1:45 a.m. just doesn't seem like a set setting them up for success. we think the project you know could have a real impact on our on our lives. so we would love to support a

vibrant business as our neighbor but we're hoping that the proposal could better adequately address the noise concerns we have. thank you. >> hello. my name is sherman art and i am the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed property at 11 to 17 pearl. i both actually work in the building. i have my office there on the ground floor and i live on the top floor with my wife. >> i've lived there for ten years and have actually lived in the neighborhood for about 15 years. >> i want to start by saying i overall support the project. >> i want it to succeed. i've always had a tremendous relationship with our neighbors and our business owners in the area. >> i, i love san francisco and

i want to activate the empty spaces and i hate the empty storefronts and would love to see more great food in the area frankly. at the same time, i think we need to be thoughtful about how we grow. and you know, dante mentioned wanting to emulate miami. >> i don't think we want to become miami. where late night entertainment districts are operating until the early morning hours and residents are left dealing with noise disruptions and loss of some character. >> i think this city is really special because it balances the vibrant businesses with livable communities that i'm proud to live in. >> i specifically have trouble with the rooftop the rooftop going till 1:45 a.m.. i think would really push us in the wrong direction. >> i actually met with my own architects to discuss the noise mitigation that was proposed and they actually laughed. >> they said like this is a canvas covering there's no there's.

they said this is no noise protection. you're going to hear everything our our windows look directly out feet from from the proposed rooftop. >> and it's my hope that we have children in the near future and their room also would look directly out onto it which would be which would cause pretty significant and i think unavoidable noise pollution. >> i think the late night hours in particular are problematic. >> dante had mentioned previously there'd be live music and and i think it's just going to be a very loud environment that is going to be immediately adjacent to multiple neighbors. >> i'm also a little bit worried that the noise may not stop when the music does. there have been times the neighborhood where people are congregating outside. i do have some concerns about that. i appreciate that there'll be security and i hope that that'll be mitigated. but i have some worries about that. >> so yeah.

>> long story short i urge you guys to deny the rooftop deck portion of this proposal and if it's you know if it's to move forward, i think there needs to be very significant more elimination of the live music or amplified music portion of it. and i think the hours are unsustainable in a residential neighborhood going till 1:45 a.m. several nights of the week is just unacceptable. >> and again, you know, i want this business to apologize. >> your time is up. thank you. thank you. >> hi. my name is kurt waters. i have been a resident of 1809 market street for 40 years. 1815 market street. that's the building i live in and would share a wall with the rooftop bar. i reside on the top floor and

my windows which immediately overlook the roof. business owners plan to add a rooftop bar for customers and extend the open time. i am concerned about noise that will be generated after 10 p.m. from the customers and the elevator. the conditional use permit filed is an expansion including the hours this area of market street has an expected amount of noise during the day but after 11 p.m. it becomes very quiet. >> i invite the commission to visit the area at night to understand this. there have been establishments before and they've always closed at decent hours. 10:00. the walls proposed block all north facing windows on both my floor and the floor below with block. it blocks the light, the air everything. i do not have faith in the

soundproof wall to block the noise. so my concern is the hours that are after the 10 p.m. the rooftop lights on till 2 a.m. speaker and music on the roof. a rooftop bar serving alcohol in patron is open till two and people lingering outside later on in the night. so thank you. >> all right. thank you. last call for public comment. any additional public comment on item number 15 for the 1815 market street conditional use authorization? seeing no further comment, commissioners commissioner

braun the project sponsor just want to say i really appreciate you bringing forward such a big an interesting project and you know putting a lot of effort and blood and sweat into this and i really do appreciate that. >> i do however have a lot of concerns about the noise and the late hours that are associated with with the deck and you know, even looking through the examples that you didn't get an opportunity to go through about the rooftop decks that were in the slides. those are largely much taller buildings that don't immediately but against even taller buildings in this case, you know, these residential buildings are right up hard against this even though the deck is toward the front, their windows are more towards the back. it's still it's still very tight and very close. i'm wondering if i would like

to just further see and hear more explanation of the measures that are being taken to mitigate sound on the deck and i'm looking to be convinced that this isn't just going to be putting neighbors into the ninth circle of. so is there is there someone on the team who can speak to the the acoustic mitigation that's involved and the afternoon commissioners my name is jason jones. i'm the architect on the project and i can't say that we primarily we we understand that we will be required to comply with the requirements of the san francisco san francisco noise ordinance and having said that, we've from the beginning known that sound will be a very sensitive issue with this

project for the the roof deck. we actually completely redesigned the project because initially we had the the roof deck area toward the back of the building to try and contain all of the the sound emanating from it. we redesigned the project to move it towards market street because we understood that there's going to be a lot more just ambient noise from market street as it as an open roof deck will freely admit that mitigating sound transmission is going to be very difficult because it is open but we have done what we can to create absorptive screens on the side that will absorb some of the sound from amplified sound devices. also the vertical elements in the back, the stair tower, the

elevator tower will serve as a buffer for sound headed toward the rear of the property and also the placement of the speakers the the canopy structure which is canvas and admittedly will not do much for mitigation of sound transmission. it does serve as an armature to allow us to mount the speakers so that they're all firing downward and that should help keep the sound contained in that space somewhat. um so yeah i think that's a good overview. >> okay. thank you for that. i have a question for department staff as well and so um, you know our standard hours for outdoor activity areas are until 10 p.m. i believe and

correct me if i'm wrong but i think it's 10 p.m. right? >> that is correct and yes for an outdoor activity area to have hours past 10 p.m. they do require a conditional use authorization which is part of this request. >> yes. and so what were some considerations for the department supporting the late hours of this space? >> right. so of course we did kind of take into consideration the existing context being right next to residential neighborhood and residential uses. however, we kind of have comfort in knowing that there are other safeguards in place beyond you know, if a land use is established here. there's still as previously mentioned the noise ordinance regulations any business that has a an entertainment commission permit which this business would need for limited live performance they also those permits have conditions

of approval attach them as well which has a lot to do with monitoring noise to where essentially from my understanding with our discussions with the entertainment commission in case of any sort of complaints about noise or nuisances of that sort then the entertainment commission will do investigations sometimes in real time and ultimately can lead to revoking their permit. and then also just with the understanding that this this land use district does not have any limits to the hours of operation for any uses other than of course as you mentioned, the outdoor activity area does have limits because it's an outdoor activity area but then also just the general plan and the planning code overall really sees market street as the ceremonial corridor of the city. so it's kind of the the type of area that's designed for, you

know, more intense uses such as this. >> thank you for the explanation. and then just to be clear, so with the revised hours of operation that were shared today, the amplified music would still have to be shut off at 10 p.m.. >> is that right? >> according to the application materials that they have submitted in the initially it always said that they were going to be stopping any sort of amplified sound by 10 p.m. and to my knowledge they have not submitted anything to change that and i believe maybe the presentation did go into that but perhaps the slide was not shown. but yeah, their application materials do clearly state that they'll stop any sort of outdoor noise by 10:00. okay. thank you. one last round of questions for the project sponsor. so could you share a little bit about your thought process for why the hours of operation are so late?

i mean monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday till 12 a.m. friday, saturday sunday to 1:45 a.m. yeah. what what is it about sort of or how would the space be used what's the sort of vision for the business that is drive those hours totally. >> so it's it's kind of following in line with a lot of other places next door. i don't know if you guys have been to martinis. that's a great place i love to go to to go sing. i believe they're open until one it's either 1:00 or 145 as well. pretty late. that's right across the street on the one on one you can go up to another one down the street. i love to sing there too. >> the karaoke lounge. i'm sorry. i should i should clarify i am not concerned about the late hours for the interview. >> okay. the exterior. yeah. yeah. it's it honestly to be completely frank, it's better to start with as much as you can get and then you negotiate from there and i'm totally willing to bring those hours down if need be for sure. so for example, shamans i

believe they're open at 11 on the weekdays and 12 on the weekends. we could totally do that too if that would help. i just wanted to propose that as a starting point and to hear what you guys had to say about that too. >> i appreciate your flexibility. absolutely. on the hours for for the deck being open and you know what i, i would be interested in kind of cutting back the hours. >> i don't know exactly if other commissioners have thoughts on this but um, you know, i was thinking on weekdays something more like 10 or 11 would be seemingly more reasonable and then on the weekends i'm a little more flexible but up to midnight seemed fairly reasonable. so yeah. thank you for the responses. i thank you for your flexibility and openness about this and i'm curious to hear what other commissioners think about the hours to thank you. thank you commissioner imperial

and thank you commissioner braun actually those are also my concerns too and i think you present good i would say good proposals because my issue in terms of the roof deck of of course after two hours or the music stop of course people will still hang out and are still i'm assuming that the the roof deck will still be you know will be open for bars and for people to hang out and to to chill or eat. so so in that sense i, i do agree with commissioner braun in terms of having the the roof deck hours be reduced on monday, tuesday, wednesday and thursday to 2:10 a.m. and. oh 10:10 p.m. sorry that's a big difference but 10 p.m. and

on the weekdays all weekends to 12 a.m. i guess my question to commissioner braun will you consider a sunday what are your thoughts on sunday sunday i was thinking more like 10 p.m. again. hmm it functionally is a weekday for a lot of people or you know leading into the weekday you know i agree with that too so yeah i agree with you on that. i'm also willing to hear what other commissioners would say to thank you and commissioner and vice president moore oh what what what matters to me is a thoughtful conversation and i think we having that basically weighing it from all aspects we've been sitting if we use and you know hearing that the city really doesn't have any nighttime activity it's all dark, dark, dark and this proposal comes in a manner that kind of intrigues me.

the roof deck is small enough. it's basically like the size of a living room 700ft2. it's tiny. it's like it's like a studio apartment size and i kind of thought if there would ever be a place i'd want to go really after 10:00 and everything instead this maybe it will be exactly as a place also in a location where i would want to go and again to to all positive sides as the other side consideration for others and many times in the past when we talk about nighttime entertainment etc. ultimately the devil is in the details and how somebody operates a place is really essential. i felt very comfortable having the presentation and thoughtfulness brought to this discussion. the staff report itself did not shed light on menus in many of the nuances that were presented and so that is kind of like wanting me to support it because i would like to have a

city which is a little bit more 24 hours. we are not a 24 hour city. the fact that the west one of the bar the rooftop bar faces to market street for me is a no brainer because that is the only place i would basically support it. it cannot be facing the other way missed us so does acoustic consultations are well known to any of us in the profession and so we have worked with them from the services symphony to literally everything else over the many years that makes me feel comfortable and perhaps twiddling a little bit on the hours monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday to ten i think is reasonable. saturday, friday, saturday, sunday 12 would be fine by me and again it's all a question of how you operate. that's all it is and so that is

what i said was different than hers. i'm sorry however that was different just shaving it back from monday, tuesday, thursday to 10:10 p.m. which i think is reasonable and then leaving it friday, saturday, sunday until 12 i would be comfortable with that. >> okay. well we have we have friday saturday to midnight but then sunday to 10 p.m. right i myself support 12:00 on on on on a sunday on but i'm i'm open for other people to rethink that don't tell me well okay all right got it. well let's continue the debriefing. commissioner mcgarry i arrived in san francisco my toes in 95 ,so and i lived in clinton park. i know this area very well just on the other venues you mentioned frequent those in my

youth plenty of times but they didn't have a rooftop rooftop bar. so i am concerned about the rooftop and none of those examples are actually flanked by residential on either side and residential behind them. i get the market street because the sound can go out there but it's the lingering for the neighbors that i have a problem with and they know the area well. >> i would support the 10:00 but on a sunday i look back to 10:00 to because those children do have to get to bed like they are neighbors and it's really important your neighbors ain't going away, you know, and they're going to be your customers and if they want to get out, put the kids down, get out and have a drink and have a chat, they want to go to your your place but not at 12:00 on a on a well i'm thinking about the 6:00 monday morning where they're trying to wake up the kids and it's not the 12:00 it's the lingering after that's the that's the problem so i would support the 10:00 the

12:00 but sunday i got it back to ten just for your neighbors . thank you very much. wow, that's a lot of hours back and forth. i do. i think we kind of come to some what of hours of operation but back then i kind of want to ask a question to the to mr. dante where is the salsa dance class happening? >> yeah, that's down below not on the roof on the ground your on the ground floor. you moved the furniture. we're going to move the furniture out the way. okay? i see. >> and how many people in the occupancy capacity you are allowed to? yeah. so we are rooftop on the rooftop we could technically allow let's see 47 people we won't have 47 people up there. i'll tell you that right now let's not be super cramped in that tiny little section but

based on code we could technically have 47 people. >> i see. thank you. we what is your potential business operation projecting in these late hours we're talking about reduce it down reduce it by two hours in average on every day that you propose. >> say that again. i'm asking you do you anticipate what time of magnitude of your costs in profit lost? >> oh how much impact sales at that time i think greg if you could it would be much no, but how greg talk about it. >> can you just speak to the microphone so we have it on record. thank you. >> yeah. when we wrote i own a technology firm too that does restaurant intelligence and so when we looked at projected revenue for dante's space the

roof actually added about 40% of its total revenue. but we actually wrote in the hours of operation for to close at ten. >> so it doesn't it doesn't impact the roof that much. >> thank you. okay. so my other question probably is to the architect i you mentioned that you had retained mr. charles alter's company to do acoustical consultations and may i ask what is your design criteria for the seats rating for the entire restaurants? we haven't established that yet. my understanding of the our next step will be getting a place of entertainment permit and we'll have to go through the commission hearing. we our next step is to commission mr. salter's office to do an ambient noise analysis

of the area and that will help him establish the cdc criteria . so we've we've developed all assemblies and selected sanded sorted materials but we haven't really finalized those assemblies until we get the ambient noise and then we can establish the studies. >> okay. well i am very familiar with how this things might potentially evolve and usually mr. charles alters company is nationwide a highly reputable company. i myself have done a lot of projects with his group is amazing but his stuff is usually very very expensive stuff and usually it will get value engineering out during the construction phase. so how are your team mitigate or anticipate that from happening? because i am really concerned about not just the rooftop noise but also the vibration

noise that usually people don't think of it when you think about music and noise but usually the subtle vibrations of the base of the sound really translate to the neighbors and like many people had missed work today to show up today to talk about the concern of their own family and children and also through concern of their own tenants. so i like to talk to maybe perhaps well you're the architect so you're you're responsible to make sure that you design and work with all the consultant to put what is the ideal best for this location for this program to thrive. but the owner and the operator and the investors are the one that actually make the call when to cut the budget and cut the construction because this thing's going to be expensive. i would like to hear do you have do you budget for that?

so i'm the kind of guy that you know when i put my mind to something, you know i do it and i'm going to do it right which is why i'm here right now to talk about this whole project. so i'm going all the way with this thing. i care about the city. i've been here seven years. i got my name on it dante's inferno whatever this thing cost to get done i'm getting it done so i can promise you that. >> okay. but yes, we have a preview of any budget that is written and it doesn't count for and there's a there's a feeling in there it sounds very romantic right now i want some assurance, you know. well so a little context this isn't my venue won't be able to open that true up i'll say this is my first business. >> i ran a startup before and you know i used to make video games. that was a creative start. i sold my company a couple of years ago and now i'm here to give back and build something really cool so okay so you will open up your own personal

savings to make sure that this thing built. >> yes to some probably we're talking about assets rating about 55 to 60. this is pretty intense, right? like regular housing it's about 45 to 50 just so everyone know. >> so i got your word we have every on record. absolutely. my other question is actually prior to you mr. dante since that's the love of your next i don't know that of your life for this property. thank you for picking this place to open up as a very great location. i love that location. that's the neighborhood that i frequent to i would love to see more than just the martini bar that i can go and with salsa dance. but i wonder if we're talking about or talk about business operation hours and noise. most of the concern i think a lot of the neighbors say to say that a lot of the neighbors not

against the operating of a nice jamaican restaurant which i will love to eat some real jamaican chicken. >> absolutely. think about have you thought about in light of hearing all my colleague talk about the concern about noise and shrinking down the operating hours? >> have you thought about this thing called silent disco? i'll say this we could do could do some nights like that i don't want to say it'll be every night but you know there could be something interesting i'll say that much because you know bottle rock use it all the time and it's worked really great for for them even though weather in the middle of everybody's singing right and a lot of people actually love it in the city so you might consider if you will be inclined to do that i wonder if my fellow commissioner would think of friendly i would say i wouldn't be an every night thing. >> it could be a one off. you know, i do think those are kind of cool.

>> yes. already okay. okay. okay. >> all right. that's i was just trying to think out of the box for us rather take some hour often require everybody wear a headset. oh, yeah. okay. all right. got got it. thank you guys. that concludes my question and commissioner campbell for well, i want to applaud the sponsor and your vision. i don't live far from this spot actually ride my bike by it every day and it is exactly what is needed. i think it's what's needed all across our city. so i really can't wait to come there and eat jamaican food because i've been to jamaica and it's great. it's a super ambitious project too. i just looking at the plans and seeing the investments you're making in this i, i really appreciate the level of design and intervention that you're doing. >> it sounds like the neighbors do too. i think everyone's really supportive. so it's this roof deck which is giving us some problems and the noise and the hours and i guess

at the same time i want to be super pro-business. i think the city needs to be more pro-business. we need to support, you know, small businesses like yours that are trying to do the right thing. i'm not like i'd be a lot more comfortable. it's i appreciate your openness like adjusting the hours but i also want to support your business so i want to make sure the hours that we're throwing around here that there's precedent for it, that we're not just feeling like a ten feels right or so is there is there precedent for ours and that we're in or are we being kind of this just feels right or is there anything can anyone speak to that which i have been i've been here as director and on this commission facing the same issue before because we've been through this. >> so you know roof decks and rear yard you know activity obviously cause noise and issues so we have done the same

thing in the past. i can't say it's always consistent but kind of reduced hours for for a roof decks and rear yard spaces. so i don't think this is inconsistent with what's been done especially with this kind of change from weekday times to then. >> right. but you know what those hours exactly generally similar i mean i think we had this bath because like 10:00 sounds are like late to some of us it sounds early to others that really are looking for something fun to do in the evening nightlife is not the greatest in san francisco. so again this is a lounge. this is a fun destination. this is going to draw foot traffic. this is going to be really good for the neighborhood in many ways. of course we've got neighbors we really want to respect too. >> so just had a quick did. sure. come on up. so again there are very few businesses sort of this like to speak to the mic i just yeah yeah okay so obviously the other businesses that we were

talking about none of them are immediately adjacent to residences and there are very few reflects that are there very few reflects in the city which is unfortunate but the one roof deck that i can think of that's anywhere near residences is i'll touch it on top of for in cinema like well indoor yeah they're hours they close at 9 p.m. except for on friday and saturday when they close at 10 p.m.. i last point i want to say is you've talked a lot about how we want san it's going to be a great place for nightlife i think we also want it to be a great place for kids and my wife is texting me like i don't know if we can stay in the city anymore. we have to move out because our kids won't be able to live here. >> so i just like you to think about that. >> i may too. >> i i i was a vice president of operations for la linda and el tacho for back of the house restaurant group so i have experience operating el toucher

and so we had a great open place in terms of the noise ordinance and shutting it down within the required required time period. so like i said before i think you know 10 p.m. on those weekdays is for me from an sop standpoint operator standpoint no problem. >> so then what about on weekends? on weekends i mean 12 a.m. for dante's vision is what you propose. >> okay. all right but i but i have experience with it so just yeah, that's really helpful. >> thank you. ten vice president well it was at the same you know she wanted 12 a.m. and that's nine okay. okay go that's all my comments. thank you. >> take it away. commissioner brown um, i am going to make a motion and again thank you the project sponsor for bringing forth this

really exciting project and thank you for investment in the city and its nightlife. um, i'm just trying to find the right balance here between, you know, respecting the neighbors and the very hemmed in nature of the site with the residential area while still giving you latitude to operate and have the roof deck really be beneficial to the business benefits of nightlife benefits to the neighborhood. so i would make a motion to approve but with amended hours of operation of the roof deck we would maintain that the amplified music must end at 10 p.m. on every night. i believe that's how it was written and yes and then the roof deck would need to close at 10 p.m. on sunday monday, tuesday, wednesday and thursday depending i mean okay and then

and on friday and saturday the roof deck would need to close at 12 a.m. second and the commissioner williams just want just want to thank the the neighbors for coming out and and i think this is a good compromise also good luck to you in your new venture it's it sounds exciting and good luck to you i call the question okay commissioners if there's no further discussion on this item, commissioner braun made a motion to amend the hours of operation for the roof deck for sunday through thursday and limited until 10 p.m. and for friday and saturday to limit it to 12 a.m. or 12 midnight seconded by commissioner imperial on that motion commissioner campbell i commissioner mcgarry high commissioner williams all right

commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner moore and commissioner so i that motion passes 7 to 0 so commissioners at this time we will take a short recess and then be back at 5 p.m. for your special order item. so members of the public, those of you that are here for the special order item of 16 a and 16 b for the discretionary review for 2588 mission street we will be back at 5 p.m. to start that item. okay so . >> good evening and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday february 6th, 2025 and our special order item for 5 p.m.. >> we did receive our request for interpretation so we will be live interpreting the intro introductory parts for our speech today. oh you want to use the mic?

>> the mic we want to satisfy those glasses. what is that? okay so during this session. >> no no mental they got them what age we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or chair the richer this nasal lavatory commentary public or the upcoming item on the presentation the party personnel followed to this part a cage as petitioners description that is because audio out on the cow we will then take public comment is a

revision discretion area. >> subsequently we will then take we will have a presentation from the project sponsor followed by public comment for members of the public supporting the public. >> the project or those members of the public requesting translation services looks here we will increase your time to four minutes each. >> i will know to allow for life. >> it is a production to ensure translation of this item we will ask members of the public needing translation service

that will be here to head to room four oh one of our translator one of our interpreters will live translate the discussion for items for public comment. we will then ask members of the public to return to the room for their to provide their public comments. >> the committee public remember to speak clearly and slowly be be lento and if you care to state your name thus we ask that you silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the elements.

>> finally i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruptions or outburst of any interruption. we will now ask members of the public needing translation services to head to room for those of you and one of our translators will live translate the okay i'm not seeing any members of the public requiring translation services. we will move on to item we will call item 16 a and 16 b42588 mission st discretionary review

and we will begin with the staff presentation. >> good evening president so and commissioners david winslow staff architect the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review should i speak slower? >> slower. okay. of planning application 2018 hyphen 013877 pray to construct a ten storey over basement mixed use residential building with 181 dwelling units 330 838ft2 of retail sales and service use and 1470 six square

feet of community facilities. >> the project includes a dwelling unit mix consisting of 74 two bedroom units and 107 one bedroom units. >> the project utilizes state density bonus law to garner a 50% density bonus and requests waivers from the following planning code requirements one rear yard dwelling unit exposure off street loading height and bulk. the project would also seek concessions and or incentives from the ground floor height requirement open space and affordable excuse me affordable city tier requirements of the planning code. >> the site is an approximately 112 foot nine inch wide by 250 foot deep vacant lot corner and three lot in 2015 a fire destroyed the original three story 1907 building which had

17 dwelling units and i apologize the staff report incorrectly identifies 47 units there were 17 dwelling units. the remainder of those units in that number of 47 were commercial units at the ground floor and offices on the second floor which also included commercial storefronts on mission and 22nd streets and a mercado of no less than 12 small shops fronting bartlett street. >> there are three d.r. requesters the first larissa petrocelli of 1875 mission street apartment one 110 is concerned that the rights of the 60 residents and 15 small businesses displaced by a fire are being overlooked and that the proposed project does not conform with the housing element objectives related to displacement of vulnerable population sions and that the property owner is attempting to profit from his own gross negligence that also had left

one person dead which will also further gentrify this mission neighborhood. her proposed alternatives are to one make the project 100% affordable housing with a larger percentage of family size dwelling units to include a ground floor mercado to accommodate multiple small community serving businesses including those displaced and three to ensure the right to return is offered to residents displaced by the fire. >> the second your request for kaushik to thani trust the owner of 3224 to 3248 22nd street the immediate neighbor to the west is concerned that there have been no studies of the impacts of air quality of light to his residential units that that the new construction will impact the quality of life and health of residential and commercial tenants during and after construction and the proposed project fails to analyze the impacts to and preserve the visibility of the cultural icon dharma mural on

the east side of his building and there has been no study of the impacts to his foundation and noise and dust. their proposed alternative is to include mitigations that include relocation costs for the tenants of the trust for lost rents as well as reimbursements for lost rents during construction. >> the third the third d.r. requester kim lant representing the veto owners association of 45 bartlett the building to the immediate north is concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to scale at the street and articulation to minimize impacts to privacy, light and air their proposed alternatives are to revise the massing so that the building is eight storeys facing mission street five storeys facing bartlett and 523 4 to 5 stories facing 22nd street. to date the department has received 19 letters in opposition and no letters in support although the department

although the planning department shares the concerns regarding gentrification pressures and the mission the need for affordable housing and the tragic history of the site and effects upon former tenants the department does not have the legal authority to require that the project increase the on site affordable units beyond those levels required by law nor change to 100% affordable housing project further determination of a right to return for residential tenancies in the jurisdiction of the san francisco rent board staff has determined that the subject building is eligible for and conforms with provisions of the state density bonus program as part of the state density bonus program. the project is entitled to waivers from code provisions and design guidelines if it would enable the construction of the density bonus. >> the project is not subject actually to the residential design guidelines as those apply only to residential districts at additionally the

project site is located just outside the cayetano 24 cultural district and therefore is not subject to the k24 special area design guidelines. >> however, staff provided recommendations based on the urban design guidelines and the project has incorporated several of those guideline principles in the design excepting where they conflicted with waivers eligible under state law the scale and massing of 2588 mission at ten storeys is not without local precedent . the proposed height and massing on this corner building is in scale with the adjacent eight storey building to the north and the ten storey office building at the southeast corner of mission and 22nd street. the proposed building includes a side yard court that reciprocates with the existing adjacent building the vito's adjacent building side court to enable mutual use for both buildings. the residential lobby located in the mid-block of 22nd street

frontage is accessed via a recessed forecourt to allow the mural on the building at 3224 to 3248 22nd street to remain visible three commercial spaces are proposed to fronting mission street and one along 22nd street and community fills facility spaces proposed at the ground level of bartlett street trees are also proposed to enhance both 22nd and mission street frontages therefore staff recommends not taking discretionary review and approving because this is a state density bonus in order to proceed the commission must also approve the project and adopt the findings related to the request waivers for development standards including rear yard dwelling unit exposure off street loading height and bulk and incentive concessions from ground floor height, open space and affordability tiers pursuant to the planning code sections. thank you. this concludes my presentation

. >> thank you. and now we will move on to the r requesters. we will call up the d r requesters in the following order. larissa petrocelli cattani and then kim loud hdr requester will be given a five minute presentation followed by two minutes of public comment. for those that are in support of the d r requesters again if you do require translation services and i can i can i can try again if you do require translation services you can head to room 408 and one of our interpreters will live translate for you. >> we are going to record the talk okay sorry.

>> all right now on a piece apple people on a pc sorry. >> no worries. i'll start your time when you're ready. thank you. okay. yeah. yeah. oh, my god. we got it. thank you. >> okay, starting your time now. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is larissa petrocelli with united to save the mission

2588 mission street was a site of a building one of 19 owned by haacaaluu where he and his family gained their income from residential and commercial tenants of protected classes immigrants, elders disabled folks and others providing housing that was substandard in negligent and negligent, negligent and hazardous use. these residential tenants and community serving businesses were a cornerstone to this indigenous and latin x community. >> at this building haacaaluu employed a fraudulent fire alarm contractor to set up and manage the buildings fire alarms which failed to sound as fire swept through the building on january 20th 18 to 20 eighth 2015 leaving many occupants learning of the fire as fire engines arrived displacing over 60 low income residents and 26 small businesses, injuring six tenants and ending the life of 38 year old mauricio orellana.

>> today we have a speculative project proposal before you haacaaluu seeks to capitalize on his negligence furthering harm to this community in lieu of a restorative outcome long promised by this owner who shook hands with then mayor adly vowing to sell the site for affordable housing, growing evidence and multiple studies including a recent study by minjee kim of the department of urban planning at ucla demonstrates that streamlining market rate housing in low income communities such as the mission district can be expected to have harmful impacts and lead to further displacement particularly of low income tenants. >> in fact priority equity geographies were created in our 2022 housing element with the california housing and community development oecd's blessing to combat accelerating displacement and further fair housing in communities like the mission. >> our community has suffered the loss of over 14,000

residents over 10,000 of them latinos has seen a dramatic rise in conditions of overcrowding, has seen a 55% increase in homelessness and the doubling of family homelessness. american indians in our community are four times more likely to be unhoused. >> the city has allowed streamlining programs to move forward in isolation and supersede priority equity, geography policies and action in violation of the 2022 san francisco housing element. >> the city has a mandatory duty to act consistently with its housing element is not at liberty to ignore or decline provisions created a further for housing nor to move projects that are not in compliance with these policies and actions some of which you see listed here. >> the city is moving this project forward in violation of core commitments of the housing element and ccds affirmatively furthering fair housing directive to meet the needs of

protected classes in moving this project forward. the city has also neglected to make a determination of right to return for tenants displaced by the fire under the city's rent control rules and regulations and has neglected to clarify the replacement rent control units as required by the housing crisis act of 2019. there is currently a discrepancy between the 47 units listed with the rent board and assessor's office and the 17 units the project sponsor is narrating. clarification is critical to prevent a net loss of affordable housing the antithesis of furthering fair housing. >> the extraordinary circumstances of hoc lose a negligence including negligence in protecting the site from subsequent fires that destroyed evidence and the rest of the building and in maintaining the site in order to facilitate his removing the foundation despite a directive that it should be kept should have led the city to take up a formal assessment as the starting point in moving

any proposed project forward on this site. >> it is the responsibility of this city to aggressively pursue the rights of protected classes formerly housed running businesses and holding jobs at the site and to ensure that any project proposed here is serving the protected classes of this community to uphold their legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. approving this project without clarification of the accurate number of replacement residential units and without a right to return determination would violate the city's obligation under the city and state law. commissioners myself and members of this community ask that you halt this noncompliant project, request the city prepare a formal assessment of requirements for development on this site including right to return and the exact number of replacement rent controlled units that were demolished. >> thank you.

>> thank you. we will move on to our second your requests for cattani or representatives from cattani. okay. >> if the da requester is not present, we can move on to our third your requester. kim landers from the veto owners. and then i will just send another reminder out for anyone requiring translation services that you can head to 408 for a live translation of today's proceedings and i'll ask our interpreter. >> thank you. and when you're ready. all right. your time has begun. thank you. hello. my name is kimberly and as you all heard, i'm here on behalf of the vita. the building next to the

project location. >> first i'd like to thank all of you for taking the time to hold this hearing and for consideration of our concerns. we do not dispute the need for a new development at 258 mission street. we understand and agree that something must be built on the lot at some point in time. our purpose of submitting the application for discretionary review was to raise concerns related to the building scale and form as is currently our shows a height of ten stories on all sides. we believe the project as designed does not match the scale and form of the surrounding buildings especially related to the buildings at the corner of 22nd bartlett which are only 2 to 4 stories. making this plan development incompatible with the heightened depth of surrounding buildings. in addition to that we wanted some clarification regarding the light pollution concerns of the new building facing into our residential units as well as whether or not the mural that was burned would be

replaced. >> thank you. >> if that concludes your presentation, are are there any other members of the any other parts? excuse me. we can now move on to public comment for those that are in support of the discretionary review request. if you'd like to provide your public comment and are in support of the two d.r. requesters please come up to the podium and line up on the screen side. >> yeah i'm concerned you guys that are at this meeting saying that what the housing element is requesting is illegal based on state law and they just said the contrary. they said the housing element is a serious san francisco instead of california law. >> so why why why why not listen to what they just said and i'm fine. i was living in bernal heights. i may have gotten cocaine a

house somewhat burnt down. ran out of pills, tried to recreate with fire. i remember when this guy guy i remember was a lover of the news. okay, so i remember all that. i'm here to say listen to what the people get now said housing for everybody, housing for all the displaced people and housing and support and make it affordable. make it 100% whoever and why. i said in order to have a portable housing you have to have it market rate housing i guess i'm referring to private property. i know what city state property it's not that way. so maybe nationalized housing you know no more real estate your estate then we're going to fall for that. but when you could do something i'm living in a senior subsidized housing. i'm very grateful for local, state and federal helping me pay the rent and it has helped us tremendously. there are a lot of

asian-americans here a better latino african-american. there are whites and it's great because we get to live together. >> we get to be among each other and there's not this hatred, this hostility, this racism, this nationalism. i just wish that would be the same percentage of people like this that say can a thousand people are central tech boom and 10,000 latinos are being displaced. my name is sharon mechatronics . >> thank you. all right. thank you. >> next public comments are good evening commission was director liz my name's mary travis. helen i'm here as a representative of the american indian community and i want to remind everybody that this piece of land and all of san francisco is a native land the

dramaturge. >> jelani, why are we here? we are here as one voice and has a community that is strong ,resilient and proud. we are here to test that planning supports our community by making the owner and developer of 2588 mission keep the promise for this site to be 100% affordable housing and those that have been displaced from this location be given priority to return 2588 mission street is where there was a fire in 2015 that was attributed to the failed alarm system where mary ariana lost his life life and 16 low income families were displaced and 26 immigrant businesses were lost

. the owner who took responsibility and made an agreement with the late mayor me to sell the property to the city for affordable housing but with the blessing of mayor lee the agreement has been reneged upon and the desire to gain wealth outweighs honoring the agreement and human life. the current housing element is the first that mentions the american indian community policy 21 objective to see increase accountability to the american indian black and other communities. >> thank you san francisco and this commission committed to housing that's a right repairing the harms of historic racial ethnic and social discrimination. >> i apologize and building housing so we need to move on to the next public commenter

well if you're true to your commitment do the right thing. thank you. next public comments are when as much as direct director and commissioners thank you so much for being here tonight in this weather i know we're very cold . my name is santa rosa and i'm the executive director of gala event equator latino cultural district. >> tonight i'm here to ask you to please support the communities aca for 100% affordable housing a 100% affordable housing built in the mission creates a pathway for people who work, play, learn and spend in the mission to be able to return to the neighborhood we call home. as we face times when people who have walked this lands since before the border crossed us are being singled down and demonize. i proven 100% affordable housing allows for american indian and communities of color

to live with dignity and respect when we provide 100% affordable housing we not only provide homes to our community members but we also strengthen our neighborhood by making it diverse in culture and economy a recipe that has proven successful on 24 on caravan park cuatro where we have successfully sustained a very low vacancy rate. please as you consider just remember that when we have diversity when we and not only in ethnicity but in economic we grow up faster, we grow better and we make our community more beautiful. >> thank you. continue. thank you. next public comments are in support of the d.r.. >> good evening commissioners and director. my name is diane jones. i've been a homeowner on 22nd street in the mission for the past 45 years where i live in a three generation household a proud mission residents i'm

also a retired hiv nurse who spent 40 years at san francisco general i'm here to add my voice to the community voices that are asking for 100% affordable housing for 2588 mission street and the right to return for the previous tenants. my family shopped at the markets that used to be there prior to the fire daily i walk my granddaughters to school past the gaping hole that used to house families and businesses that supported our community. housing affordability is a number one issue in san francisco as you well know. district nine in the mission in particular has been one of the few districts in our city that has welcomed the projects that you all have approved for low income and affordable housing. >> i have at least 5000 new neighbors in my immediate vicinity that are living in affordable housing. i've since i moved to 22nd

street in 1980. we welcome low income and affordable housing units here. unlike so many other districts in the city. only through your principled diligence here at the planning commission can we make sure that this city will house the families of the essential workers who make this city work. as we learned during covid, the magic of san francisco that drew so many of us is a city of refuge for thousands of years lies in maintaining and expanding affordable housing and you and the planning commission can make this happen. thank you from members of the public. just since we have a number of people providing public comment if you want to express your support for the public comment please refrain from clapping and go with some happy jazz hands in the audience. so we will move on to our next public comments for good evening commissioners and director hillis my name is lucy

oregon. i am the director of the san francisco latino parity and equity coalition representing 23 organizations that serve the latino monolingual and bilingual residents in san francisco. i and i'm also member of the equity council for the planning commission so it's great to be here before you again and will continue to work in this manner. >> i also want to express my gratitude specifically to president so and commissioner williams for ensuring that this hearing was accessible to our community and for taking the time to listen to the story of what we call la theme. >> this side holds deep memories of sorrow and la loss and our community deserves a say in his future. the people who lived and worked here many of whom are protected classes were displaced and it's the city's responsibility to ensure that any project moving forward truly serves them rather than pushing them out permanently.

i urge you to ensure that these units are recovered for working class and low income residents this cannot become another luxury development. >> the project sponsor has not provided a clear payment plan for replacing the rent controlled units as required by the housing crisis crisis act of 2019. there is a major discrepancy between 47 units listed with the rent board and the assessor's office in the 17 units that the project sponsor claims. >> without clarification we risk a net loss of affordable housing which would go against the city's obligation to prevent displacement and further fair housing. >> so it is critical that the city holds the project sponsor accountable and ensure full transparency. we are counting on you to do what's right. >> thank you. thank you. next public commenter. >> good evening.

>> my name is alejandro rubio and i am a resident of nine long term artis community member. i'm also here to ask for 100% affordable housing on the lot of 22nd in mission and the right to return for all tenants. i was like 14 years old when i actually watched this building burn down. i lived on 21st in cap. i actually made a home design of what the building looked like prior to the fires. it was a very rich cultural pillar. it held a lot of markets and businesses. and what is very disheartening is all that has come after especially hearing how this project is proposing 1 to 2 bedroom units. this building used to house a lot of families and families are what makes the mission the mission in culturally rich especially our monolingual and immigrant communities. and so i'm here asking for you

to consider them and their voices. many of them probably have not and will not show up given i current political climate. but i want you to take them into consideration what the decisions that you make. and as well as i'm looking to preserve my neighborhood that i grew up in, this is the neighborhood that my family took refuge in when the refuge and when i was 12 years old. we felt very at home and in safe in this community because we found people who spoke our language and had businesses that were familiar to us bringing in more luxury units will only further displace these very important businesses in community members that again create this neighborhood. thank you for your time. >> all right. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm here in support of the

community's demands for replacement of the rent controlled housing and that that be ensured as per the housing crisis act of 2017 and that the site be used for 100% affordable housing. >> i'm astonished that despite this frankly that this process has even gotten this far. >> this is a case of obvious and blatant strategic. i think it's safe to say that it's blatant street. >> this is a case of split and strategic neglect on the part of the owner given that there were three separate fires at the site not to mention another fire at another site owned by the same owner. >> i am really astonished that the city has found a way to refer to avoid rewarding this strategic neglect. >> you could even say arson by neglect and instead acting to

protect the stock of rent controlled housing. acting to see that the site contributes to the 48,000 affordable housing units we are required to build during this cycle by law and you know and thus preventing homelessness and much suffering. >> please do the right thing and reject this application. >> uphold the first dear. >> do. thank you. thank you. next public commenter. >> hey iris biblio it's been in the mission for about 50 years. as a nurse i see the devastating fire to five eight mission street and the plans to rebuild as exceptional and extraordinary and 100% affordable housing is the only solution to protect the public interest. one nightshift a shift worker, mauricio laureano died. 16 families were displaced and

traumatized. that painful reality is made even worse by this seven years of fire violations. years of gentrification have only intensified the severe hardships for the displaced tenants, the majority of whom are low income latino families in the mission latino black native american, asian american families, seniors and people with disabilities have been evicted at alarming rates over the last few decades. there are now 437 families who are homeless in san francisco. i got to know one of the mothers of the families who were displaced by the fire. they were traumatized, anxious ,the children frightened and confused after they had lost all their belongings and their community. in my work as a nurse i've witnessed the deteriorating health of people who've lost their homes through fires and evictions. people suffered strokes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, high blood sugars, insomnia,

poor appetite, poor nutrition increased signs and symptoms of diabetes, parkinson's the inability to concentrate feelings of hopelessness and depression and more. if the landlord is focused on making a lot of money and not on the well-being of families and communities that have been struggling to survive then it's up to the city to step up with plans for housing, justice and healing. it's time to decide the 2588 mission street must be developed for 100% deeply affordable housing. thank you very much for the hearing. >> thank you. next public commenter. good afternoon. my name is justice and also i'm the president of small business forward. i am a mission resident and mission small business owner. i'm here to speak in support of the first discretionary review and we had my voice to the chorus calling for 100% affordable housing at this

site. we support affordable housing development that allows workers and owners to live in the same city as their small businesses and we reject the more unbridled profiteering. development will achieve more affordability based on the current proposal. we feel the city has done an inadequate job of protecting small business tenants and residents who are at this site by failing to follow through on a determination of right to return under the city's rent control rules and regulations. the city is betraying the over 60 tenants displaced by the fire, many of them in protected classes. moreover, we understand that the current proposal fails to provide adequate new space for small businesses with a plan to provide only a proportion only lesser amount of community is serving commercial space where 26 small businesses were once located.

being at this location isn't a priority equity geography. the city should be furthering fair housing and providing opportunities for community serving businesses, not furthering gentrification and displacement. >> thank you very much. >> good evening commissioners. my name is lou dematteis and i'm a professor of photojournalism at city college of san francisco and a long time michigan resident at my class. our campus is literally a half a block away from the building that burned and the night of the fire. my fire was had class in session. i let my class go. my students went to cover the fire. i took some photos from the mission campus and then i went down to where the fire

department had a room on the campus where the tenants of the building had to be evacuated. a number of them were in this room and they were you know, the fire department was trying to help them. and one of the big questions was what's going to happen? now the fire lieutenant that was helping that night i listened to him as he told the tenants that they had expected the building there was fire damage to the roof and on the third floor there was no fire damage on the first and second floors and there was some water damage. but the most important thing he said was they they inspected the foundation. they said there was nothing wrong with the foundation. the foundation was not hindered at all. it was not there was no destruction to it. and the lieutenant said that it

was a historic building and that it could not be just torn down and that it was the it was in a good enough condition to be rebuilt and this is what he told to the you know, to the tenants who had lost their their home. so you know, if you let this go by, this is negligence. it's because he didn't he didn't have security to keep you people come in to where the two fires happened and they never put anything on the roof. thank you again for your public comment. okay. so when the rains came it thank you again. >> good evening, president. so commissioners director staff my name is steven torres. i am a mission street resident and i am requesting that use

your discretion not to approve this project. this property once housed a significant community of low income families and local small businesses and the arcade below and a historic landmark that created an ecosystem whose loss from a devastating fire in 2015. >> this fire also resulted in loss of life and the landlord who is before you tonight with this project has never been fully accountable for his role in this tragedy and has a long history as a bad actor with this and his other properties. as a former commissioner i understand as it is important to consider the fact the facts in the docket before you and heavily weigh staff recommendations when making your final determination. however, i think you would be remiss to consider this with only the context of the extremely negative impacts this case has already had on the community. but the message this commission will be sending to our most vulnerable in a time when many of them are imperiled and fear what the next day might bring already has become clear that the laws of our nation are being contorted to favor the wealthy and well-positioned and reward bad actors.

this is in complete contradiction to who we are as a city and the values we hold. if we do not use the discretion available to us to keep bad actors accountable to the communities we represent, then what does it say about our values? i strongly urge you not to approve this project and send a clear message to the residents of the mission that their community still holds value in the eyes of our city. thank you. good evening. >> my name is lee lovett. displacement has been a social pandemic in san francisco for over two decades. >> in my recent role i have served a lot of constituents including those displaced by serious fires in district five. >> in 2015 i worked at city college and that week was working at the city college a mission campus very close to the fire and seeing the impacts not just to the smoke of the smoke but to all the residents

in the areas after broken promises from the owner hok lew to sell the property to the city for affordable housing. we are seeing now a market rate project with no rate of return for any of the low income tenants who are displaced. ten years ago almost to the day since the tech boom in the 2000s over 10,000 latinos have been displaced from our communities in san francisco. residents are hanging by a thread and i know this from having worked with folks who are trying so hard to sustain their families here in san francisco. >> we can't afford to pay lip service to the equity objectives in the housing element and also the principles of affirmatively furthering fair housing without standing by these in the decisions that we make as a city. >> those tenants displaced from 25 88 mission have the right to return. the owner can't claim that the paltry number of affordable

housing units 17 very low income will address the needs of folks who have been pushed out by the city and we are in an era where we see erasure from the federal. words that you cannot say but we will in the city programs that serve the low income and most vulnerable. >> and it is time that we really stand as a city for this important principles. we owe it to the very communities who have built san francisco and they have made this the diverse, vibrant city that it is today. >> thank you. >> my name is gloria la riva. i'm the vice president of the pacific media workers union and i'm with the party for a socialist liberation. >> and i think to tell us not to clap because it'll take a few seconds away from people walking over to the speaker and trying to really make people

feel like we can't fight back. this is a rubber stamp because we've seen the other projects in the city for gentrification and 19,000 comments against the housing project and none for says it all. i was there the night of the fire. i rushed over there when i saw it because i live nearby. i live on the mission. i live in mission street and i saw a man who was so shocked he was a tenant and he ran into the walgreens and i was talking to him. he said he had gone into the bathroom which was across from where he lived in the hall and he said when he stepped out there was a line of fire down the hall which means to me it was arson. >> i've always believed that this fire was arson and despite regard regardless of the cause of it, there was neglect by the landlord which should have just eliminated any kind of rights he claims before you. >> now you explain before all

the restrictions that keep you from taking action on our behalf because well, he's following the law. >> but we're tired of seeing you all use those excuses. the people have a right to housing and we're also facing in the mission and across this country the threat of deep rotations, the threat against latinos who are the majority in the mission. and we saw last year the attempt to raise parking meter rates past 6:00 until 10:00 at night. what would it do to the business? what would it do to the people who live there? or sunday 12 to 6. i mean everything is being put in on our backs and the workers who have been displaced and the people who were driven out of the mission they have to live way out in the east bay way past the east bay more cost for bart, you know, and it's on our backs that you're making us 100% housing for the people you

. good evening commissioners joseph smith affordable housing and tenant advocate and i urge you to support your request for number one after the 2015 fire tvi issued permits for repairs to the building instead of repairs. the owner demolished the building. now he's alleging that there were only 17 residential units before the fire when the rent board has a record of 47 residential units, the state's housing crisis act of 2019 from sb 330 requires replacement of every one of the prior rent controlled units and ensures the tenants are provided the right to return the demolition permits were not completed and final inspections done until july 2020. making this project accountable to the state law don't reward the developer's negligence and abuse. >> please support d r a question number one and stop this project until it includes

replacement of all 47 rent controlled units and until there's a written plan to notify all prior tenants of their right to return at their prior rents. i would say i didn't know then this this argument is of course in line with technical argument in line with your request for number one we understand the legal limitations that the. of the commission's deliberations tonight but honestly this should be 100% affordable housing for the community. >> thank you. >> hi, my name's elizabeth bell. i've lived in the mission since 1986. i'm not going to call hock lou a murderer but arguably guilty of negligent homicide if he hasn't spent any time in jail, he should. >> the idea of him making one penny off of this is disgusting . he should give this property entirely to the city and it

should go to low income housing. >> i'm not saying affordable because that word has a lot of play and everybody can fool with it. i'm saying no hot glue, no money to hock glue and 100% low income housing. >> members of the public i will just remind you we do want to try and contain outbursts the commission does not permit basically audible letters of support. again, reminder you are in support of it. we do want to respect the proceedings so if you do give a little wave of the hands thank you. >> hi commissioners. i'm here today to ask you to honor the livelihoods and businesses that were lost in fire echoing what many have already expressed, the mission needs affordable housing not another mercury development that residents of the nation cannot afford. and will lead to further displacement of protected classes like community members have flagged the city's rent board has said there are 47 rent controlled units on site

while the developer is saying 17 units. this is a significant discrepancy according to the housing crisis act, the project needs to replace the rent controlled units lost. this will help maintain affordability in a neighborhood that's already facing extreme displacement as rent control units are one of the few ways that residents of color can still afford to live in their community today. until this and some other issues mentioned have been resolved, the project should not move forward. i urge you to listen to the community and its various community organizations that are doing the groundwork. the planning department has set itself and the creation of the priority equity geographies. i said that these areas have a higher density of vulnerable populations and quote. changes must be tailored to serve the specific needs of the communities that live there and quote housing only equity policy one states the objective of a quote eliminating community displacement with the areas vulnerable to displacement. >> yes. approving this project in light of conflicts with equity provisions of the housing element will directly contradict planning's prior commitment to equity what's the use in building new housing if it displaces the community and

people who need it cannot afford to live there. thanks for your time. thank you. good evening commissioner. director hillis my name is rachel thiel and i'm a community organizer with boulder olive health. >> have already given you the technical reasons why you should not approve this project . >> but i will say that. unintentionally or intentionally if this commission moves this project forward you will be signing off and making all of the fires that happened in the mission to push out people from that community. you will validate all of that and you will reward all of those bad actors including this landlord who intentionally did this to me so that he can maximize his profit. that rent controlled building would be essential right now to stabilizing the mission. and so what needs to happen is those promises that were made with mayor ed lee need to hold up just because he passed doesn't mean that the city has

passed. so those promises were to the city, not to the mayor. so please. >> on your conscience they will lie if you push this forward because you will be validating all of those fires and that will be incentive for more fires to start. i just want you to think about that very seriously because we will remember this. >> thank you. thank you. we do appreciate this. if you are a witness to let me know rivera is three trees the colorful detail and know how burke your has played a real and meant the last authority that

. confused and i'm upset because it seems to me that the authorities are not taking us latinos poor latinos into account when it comes to housing specifically in this project on 22 on 22nd in mission it seems like the city is supporting. money and not us the people of

the neighborhood. thank you for those of you that are in front of the door one of you is sitting against the activator for the handicap. i have no words

and i come here representing. house workers and people that work for new areas all and to be honest i'm here asking for more for more affordable housing and when i when i talk about affordable housing, it's not only one unit apartments. the people that live in this area are families with one, 2 or 3 members and we just don't

need more condos here. what we're looking for is more affordable housing because there is a lot of people on the streets. a lot of people live in shelters and and we need a solution for that. >> thank you. and as part of this my imploring not . >> good afternoon my name is

lorena and i'm also here representing people that work in in housing and i'm here are also asking for affordable housing because we cannot afford paying for luxurious condos as as they want to do with this project we. i'm also here asking to respect our rights not only as workers for the community but as immigrants. >> thank you commissioners. my name's andy gillis. i've lived in the mission for 30 some years. i watched this building burn and i had friends who lived and worked there. so i just would ask you to consider the following. we need to get over this outdated and disproven notion that building mostly market rate housing will in any way alleviate our housing crisis.

we need to get beyond the trickle down housing model which has proven over and over again not to increase the supply of truly affordable housing for low and middle income earners. we can decide as a city and as a society that we will build the housing we need for the people who live here and who san francisco's is supposed to represent. we don't need to build more luxury housing for affluent people who some want to move into the city. we need affordable housing for the people who already live here and who've been displaced or risk displacement from the years of trickle down housing policy. building one and two bedroom units will not fulfill the needs for the families who are being displaced.

>> so i think it's the city's obligation to approve projects that minimize displacement and let's see you know, i read my own writing and yeah and to serve the people who live here already. this project does not meet that criteria so i think that the that the laws and the housing element give you the latitude to approve a much better project that's more appropriate for the for the mission. >> thank you for. >> hi my name is dwight. i live at 28th and guerrero part of food and bombs and a more for alex nieto this entire situation reeks of injustice injustice for the shoddy living conditions initially and justice for those displaced and justice for the community who

have lost their neighbors including businesses and justice for those of us who knew people there and did business there. it has exacerbated that declining character of the barrio and increase homelessness. >> the planning commission years ago was on board in this situation regarding low income housing so we need you to step up to the plate and make this happen not more luxury high rise buildings. there's a right to return. not at the level maybe of the palestinians but important nonetheless for the people who are displaced. >> we can't trust mayor laurie and his cronies including trump donors like sam altman to lift a finger regarding this issue. so we need you guys to fix this injustice.

>> hello commissioners. my name is ian james. i'm a district eight resident and renter here to ask you to halt this noncompliant project and take steps to ensure the development of 100% deeply affordable housing instead the mass racialized displacement of low income and working class people from san francisco is a stain on our city. we have a collective obligation to build housing that can help to redress this displacement displacement which was furthered and deepened by the fire at 2588 mission. i also work for a homeless service provider and have seen the number of families experiencing homelessness especially the number of latino families experiencing homelessness reach new levels of crisis in the city. homelessness is caused by a lack of affordable housing and the homelessness crisis in san francisco has been caused by the loss and the destruction of deeply affordable housing. >> do not let this project continue the process of

displacement and homelessness in san francisco. please support the development of 100% deeply affordable housing a 2588 mission. >> thank you. >> hi my name is benjamin. i moved into the building next door the morning of the fire and was displaced by the fire and was afraid that i was going to die and be burned by the fire. >> hawk blue has repeatedly shown contempt for laws building codes, fire codes and mandates. one of the issues that contributed to the fire the escalation of the fire was because haacaaluu hired an unlicensed contractor to install functioning fire services fire safety systems verifying a contractor is licensed is a fundamental duty of a building owner. when the fire department inspected the building and identified non functioning fire alarms, haacaaluu did nothing.

when residents tried to escape from the burning building they found the fire escape doors locked maintaining functioning fire escapes is another fundamental duty of a building owner after the first fire rather than fulfilling his duties as a landlord to restore the building, he allowed the building to fall into a state of disrepair. haacaaluu then ignored requests from the city to fix the damages and allowed it to burn to additional times. when the city ordered haacaaluu to demolish the building he languished and allowed it to fall into a total state of dilapidation. >> hawk lu's contempt for the law is consistent habitual and spans across multiple buildings that he owns. the past is prolog. >> why is this planning commission so willing to entrust development rights to haacaaluu when he has failed as a landlord and to adhere to city regulations laws and ethical standards so many times

in the past when as much as companeros companeros the la commission which had the right to el presidente i saw you commissioner of the williams he told his desk an issue. possibly this thing went through but i think estamos orlando they want repeated or offense or to

them and all of you for putting this encounter together. it looks like we're talking about a repeat offender. no and with hot blue. >> what i want to speak to tonight is your role, your revolutionary role, your commission role of social

responsibility to stop the robber barons and the predators who would like to turn this city into a dubai where if you don't make $250,000 a year you don't belong here. >> you have the role to be able to stop this behavior and really bring us back to affordable housing because what we're seeing here tonight is the production of homelessness. this is how it happens. this is exactly how it happens. it's not people having drugs. it's these kind of decisions that allow a skyscraper to come up rise, raise the prices so none of us can afford to live in the mission and we don't leave 77% of the unhoused in this city are san franciscans. >> we don't leave. so you have a role to be able to afford afford us the ability

to live here and and this is what i want to ask you to keep to the commitment and the promise that was made to the city 100% affordable housing crisis. >> he he he he translated it and it was zachary friel with the south and market action network. sam kinison full support of the community needs demands to turn this site into a 100% affordable housing and to ensure the right to return for tenants displaced by the 2015 fire is respected and enforced per the city's housing element. >> the city has a legal obligation to approve 47,000 units of affordable housing whether in the mission soma or in other priority equity geographies. the city has no plan to meet the housing affordable needs of our communities nor has it engaged in meaningful collaboration with our communities to determine how this housing will be built. the city cannot continue to say it upholds racial and social

equity while ignoring our demands in affirmatively furthering the displacement of our communities. >> we cannot address our homelessness crisis or serve as a sanctuary city. if you continue to prioritize mercury eight housing that low income residents will never be able to afford. approving housing projects like this will only further erode the trust that our communities have in a city that has repeatedly shown that is unwilling to serve us. we need a city that is accountable to our communities and listens to our needs. >> thank you so much. >> hello and good evening commissioners. my name is michael rupak. i am the vice president of political affairs for the latin x democratic club and i am also a district nine resident. i'm here tonight to speak in favor of the preliminary review. i think some valid points were raised when you began this meeting. you initiated you initially brought up the discussion of does this meet the density

criteria? does this meet the law? does this meet we can only operate under the law and i hope that everything you've heard tonight is compelling because this is community this is what community looks like. this is what we're asking for and we're asking for guarantees that were promised as a promissory to the folks who were displaced that the city simply honor it. with power comes responsibility. and tonight we're asking you not to follow the law but to do what's right and justify it and make it work. you have a responsive ability to the city and we have a responsibility to our communities. so please tonight consider all the points that were raised. my favorite point that somebody raised was our friends from poder who also said if we normalize this we are normal normalizing this behavior and this violence directed for forcible displacement of our of our communities and we must stop it now. thank you so much.

>> good evening commissioners president so thank you for holding this hearing. my name is kevin ortiz. i'm the president of the san francisco latin x democratic club by a show of hands. >> how many of you want this project to be sold to the city for 100% affordable housing? >> the community is out here in force asking for this. >> we just need to call this what it is. >> this project was murder by neglect. this project burned down not once, not twice but three times due to the neglect of blue hawk. >> it's been exactly ten years since that original fire has happened since 60 residents and 27 businesses were displaced. >> a city inspector actually pled guilty to falsifying the reports with this project. >> most folks who could work here can remember during that time fires were happening all over the mission to burn out the community public fire funds of victims by fire, of displacement by fire were established.

>> a nurse earlier eloquently put the traumas that so many fire victims face when you see victims of fire who have lost 55 years of their lives in that building for family heirlooms, sentimental items. it's heartbreaking. and we've also seen projects that were fire sites reborn as 100% affordable housing three 3300 mission on 29th street is going to be 100% affordable housing. lou hawk is actually with us in the room today. and so i would implore you mr. hawk, please sell it to the community for 100% affordable housing. >> it's the right thing to do. you know, for the commissioners i just ask that you forget the legality of this project just for a moment and really think about morally and ethically the right thing to do with this project. you are compelled to deny this project. we're confident that you will make the right decision today. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. my name is christopher melgar and i was born and raised here

in san francisco. and i just want to speak on the fact that displacement displacement is nothing new. this has been going on for since i was born. i was born in 2002 and i've heard about this throughout my whole life. i implore you guys to to to approve in favor of affordable housing because the community the community needs this. everybody's here. we're all advocating for it and it's just the right thing to do. so thank you so much for holding this hearing and i hope you guys will make the right decision. >> good evening commissioners. my name is alicia russo sandoval. i was born and raised in the mission district. we all know how how it's changed on the 90s gentrification. we know that it's change i've also i'm also a tenant advocate. i've been fighting for turning against evictions for almost ten years. >> so we hear we hear stories how tenants are being displaced due to a fire.

>> these are fire victims. what happens when a landlord in this case the landlord was negligent to the tenants? this place which is a historic building i grew up in the mission. >> i remember me and my sister would go to. there used to be an ice cream parlor in this building. >> we used to go and go get ice cream on sundays. it's something that we did together. >> that part of my child history is gone. we need to hold the landlord, the owner accountable. >> we need affordable housing. we need a 100% affordable housing. when tenants are going through a fire and they're victims, a lot of landlords don't want to fix right away. sometimes they take their time. it can take them a year, two years, three years. >> that's telling the tenants and sometimes they don't even communicate with the tenants. >> when i first joined housing rights committee i worked there

for eight years. one of my first cases was to a couple an elderly couple were displaced due to a fire. they ended up living in a car. they were homeless for two years. these are the stories that we hear that we hear every day from people. people who are in shelters, people who are out on the streets because they've been displaced due to a fire or or due to other issues. but it's really important to know that we are the community here. >> i'm a resident of the mission. i came back to the mission after being displaced for so many years. >> it's really important to hear the community. we're here and we're demanding . we want 100 affordable housing at 22nd in mission. >> thank you. thank you again. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is jennifer fruit embark. i'm the director of the coalition on homelessness and i'm also a resident of the

mission and was around for this fire and you know this building was really in a lot of ways i think kind of the heart of the community with the food court and a thriving building with tenants, working families and when it burnt down there was a lot of you know, a lot of tears and a lot of heartache and expectation was that it was going to get repaired and then we all just watched as it stayed empty year after year neglect gutted and then completely torn out leaving this big gaping hole that every time you walk by it causes more heartache because it's representative of unbridled greed and a lot of injustice for folks. and so you have decisions in

front of you and you know, i think all of us in this room were asking you to have the courage to do what's right. we have a situation in san francisco where from the last to last homeless count to this count the number of homeless families has doubled. our waitlist for shelter has sprung up to 500 households. the city was so was looking so bad they basically kicked off 42% of the families by changing the criteria we have families that are living in rvs. we have families that are living in hotels and garages that are double double. we have mothers with children that are putting up with domestic violence because they have nowhere to live. we have moms that are engaging in survival sex. we have parents that are sleeping in parks with their young ones. we have a really serious situation here y'all and this gaping hole what a sell if you turned it into 100% affordable housing and we turn something

rotten into something beautiful. >> thank you. >> hi. my name's marie sorenson. i'm with chi venti quattro and i'm i'm really distressed to see the planning department still has that form that they that people check. >> is this project ugly? >> yes. okay, we'll take it. >> it's really an ugly building . that's just my little rant. you've heard a lot of compelling arguments as to why this project shouldn't proceed. but morally it shouldn't proceed. i mean the fact that somebody died six people were injured, 60 people were displaced. >> i mean you're hearing this over and over again. >> it's wrong. should a building owner be rewarded for essentially neglecting his building to a

tear down stage to be able to have it rise from the ashes to build a luxury project? >> it's ridiculous. a friend of mine who's on the rent board said we have 60,000 empty units right now. do we need more? do we need more luxury units? we really don't need them in the mission and a luxury project in the mission is miserable. it will cause more rents to rise. it'll cause more displacement. it'll cause businesses to be evicted. >> people evicted. evicted. it's it's horrible. >> and to quote nancy reagan, just say no more. >> i was standing out. i was the greeter. i was telling everybody to come up. a homeless man came up to me and said to me, what's the hearing? >> i said, wolf, we're we're protesting the project at 22nd and mission. he said my voice isn't very

good. can i write something out? >> and i said sure, i'll read it. so he wrote to whom it may concern i totally disagree with the current building project. >> i come from the mission and since something is mine and bob allen harris wrote that he's in protest to hello commission my name is diane contreras. >> i'm a born and raised in the mission district. i represent over three generations and over 65 years of family and i'm also a property owner in the mission. >> a lot of compelling arguments against this project have been brought forward. but i also want to take time to remind you of the risk of extreme and expensive litigation that the city is up against. i need to remind you the city

has failed to issue an issue of determination for the tenants right to return. the owner himself has ignored the tenants legal right to return. on top of that there's compliance issues with affirmatively furthering fair housing laws and do not meet the requirements. >> you are incentivizing this type of behavior. >> you are providing a blueprint for the well-heeled and the wealthy to be able to spit in the face of tenants of residents and you all here he is playing you all for a fool and using whatever technicalities to get you to push him in his direction. >> he is responsible for not securely securing the building which provided incentive for the following two fires and also went ahead with destroying the foundation. again you are incentivizing

this, you are promoting this and if this goes through this is just another black eye on the mission district and everyone looks at san francisco looking at us like you're all bought, you are all paid for, how can i hustle each and every one of you? you know this is wrong but also remind you that moving forward puts you all in risk of further litigation. >> this fight is not over. all right. when i notice things are good

. >> good evening. thank you for this opportunity and thank you for hearing our voices. we are here asking for affordable housing something that we really need in our community. >> thank you

. >> and good afternoon commissioners. my name is jasmine castellanos. i'm here representing noble soul and day laborers. >> i feel terrible for not

having the protections that we deserve. my family has been displaced after some of them being born here and why after all the efforts for example, i have here with me my granddaughter layla and we used to go to that market on the 22nd to get her ice cream and buy other things. but this thing that you are creating is death for our community. you don't know the impact of what all of this is creating for here in the community. i ask you to take into account our voices. we are low income families but we are also american citizens. people that voted for you. >> we have seen a lot of levels of changes in our community. but we are asking here for 100% affordable housing. we are day laborers, day laborers but we also have rights. thank you.

>> good evening. my name is julian bermudez and my family runs rancho gandhi appliances and my business provides services to fix home appliances at an affordable rate. my business has beaten me and my grandpa have been running this business well since i was born. for almost 28 years. we're a long standing business and having affordable housing helps my business thrive. to finally have an opportunity to create general wealth for my family a latino having generational wealth. you never hear that. and building affordable housing will not only help my business but will help every single business in the mission district. >> and even more than that the latinos as a demographic spend more in an hour on economy than any other person. and that is something that san francisco needs right now if we

want to build a better san francisco. >> we need to build a better economy. no. i want to help the latino community grow. do you want to. do you want to help us grow? do you want us to build generational wealth to own property and to finally achieve that american dream that a lot of us came here to to live? >> we are already facing hard times with the trump administration and all we're asking is for you guys to toss us a bone to have somewhere to rest our heads at night. why is it so controversial to ask to have a place to rent? >> is our money not good enough? thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is eric gagosian with private equity cultural district and behalf of our 260 members 55 organizations and over 1300 signatures that we

brought to you today we asking you to return this project back to the planning department and make sure that it's in compliance. we talk a lot about the law and the right to return is a law the housing element is a law that was approved by the city of san francisco and also approved by the state of california. so if we're talking about the law, this is what we need to do. please send this back. the american indian community has co-existed with the latino community in the city for decades. the mission is the home for both the latino culture district and the american indian culture district. today these communities have faced displacement but endured the challenges by supporting each other. the foremost challenge has been the need for affordable housing for these communities to thrive . thank you. and i just want to submit these petitions i. >> my name is mark desantis. i'm a member of guide 24 and i

had the honor of speaking to a few indigenous people from osaka the other day. they were talking about how they believe that we all came from the earth, we came from the trees and the animals and that's the very beginning of who we are. so when this fire took place it destroyed the thread of who we are. it destroyed us and these are good people. >> these are people that will do anything for us. they will work for minimum wage. they will not complain. they'll show up at our houses and clean our grandmothers torches while we sleep peacefully knowing that they're in good hands. >> they deserve to have a home to live and they don't want for much and we just cannot trust this previous landlord because he's already killed one and he's violated so many laws he's put them in so many danger he's going to do it again. he has shown no respect and it's shameful how he just does

not care about human life. and i just think we need to make this 100% affordable. >> i nominate of the mission district here in san francisco co-founder of our mission and no eviction and we started the organizing ation around the time when twitter got a tax break and where is twitter today gone where are the twitter workers gone what tech did for our city particularly in the mission was cause violent gentrification action. over 10,000 people were evicted in a short period of two and a half years. >> we organize and organize and through the help of many lawyers and many organizations we were able to save 17,000 people. >> but you got to ask yourself where did those 10,000 people

go? >> well, they live in garages. arby's tents. nobody ever cared about them. >> but yet twitter got a tax break. >> mayor ed lee at the time was our mayor and we asked mayor ed lead to look into this fire because at that time there were many fires that were going on in the mission. that was one of many that fire that building burned down one time and it got caught fire a second time and got caught fire a third time. then it was not rebuilt a bull. >> how do you put a building on fire again? mr. blue hawk is here and i know for a fact and you can ask him that we may and lee went to his business low cost meat market on 24th street and met with him and ask him to rebuild that and he said no was there.

then mayor ed lee asked him to sell the site to the community and meadow put in an offer to buy the building. he never accepted the offer. today he wants to get this reader's island entitled so he could sell it for $30 million. >> ask him why he's not going to rebuild. good evening, sir. this my name is peter sebastiani me numerous piercey i am one of the vice chairs of these san francisco acp and today i am not actually speaking on behalf of the ranch. today i am speaking as a black and mexican man son of a mexican mother. today i am speaking as someone who like you understands public policy as a graduate student and master's in public administration and with the university of san francisco and

the university of southern california fight on. so we speak the same language here. okay. give me okay. the city has more than enough condos for the rich in the skyscrapers of district six in the east cut and in treasure island more than enough. >> i recommend an immediate more tourism on market rate and luxury housing development in san francisco. >> this city needs to give maximum effort to building 100% affordable housing. the rich don't even want to live here anyway. the proof is in macys and bloomingdales and walgreens all living out of here and twitter too who lives here? >> we do like it there. >> the kid is very lucky that people have spoken build us build for us and with union labor we have the state legislature backing affordable housing union workers are ready to build now let's not stop with this site. we must build 100% affordable housing on all outdoor parking lots in this city and county of san francisco. we should prioritize housing

people not cars modulated containerized shelter units can fit in each vehicle slot for every 100 car spaces in a parking lot. we could be providing shelter for 100 people. it doesn't have to be that complicated to house people. it's 2025. how much longer must the unhoused of san francisco get rained on and freeze in the elements? i grew up in the east side of san jose called henty. i grew up in apartments all my life and i'm blessed that my childhood home is still here today. these people have a scar that needs to be built back better, bigger, better and faster. people are happy. we serve a mighty god. it can be done. it must be good. it must be done. thank you. good evening, commissioners. my name is rick lucha. i'm a a resident of san francisco and also a property owner and i just want to say i'm glad i came here tonight to

listen to what people had to say. i want to tell you that i'm a property owner and i struggle and i sacrifice to keep my tenant safe so if i do, i think he should also take accountability for some of the things that i've heard tonight. thank you. >> hey, my name is barreto. i work for compass family services. it's one of the obviously place that serves about 7500 families last year. it's just big concern obviously with we're incapacitated and we don't actually have a lot of space to house a lot of the families out there. so this is a grave concern. obviously this property right now would be great for affordable housing and that would be mean below market rate not you know, at market rate which is absurd. but yeah, that's just just kind

of what's going on and you are obviously you know about the same age there's still coming to you guys or people are still trying to advocate for another extension which is the homeless supporting houseless initiative and that's who runs san for the state of california as far as a homeless services and in san francisco. but yeah you should basically make it affordable below market rate and hi my name's eric is mike and i'm representing the west side tonight and deed forward is the name of the group and we're affiliated with rep if this goes through the weird diabolical comes to mind please tend to don't let this go through but i want to talk to the staff or be here. i listened really carefully to what you said. it was very hard to hear you but it looks like you really really check the law but not the housing element. not the commitment to equity

fair housing. did you check those? did you really go through that with a fine tunes tooth comb that is not the housing element. well who are you working for if my question and i'm asking mr. hill if are you working for the developers are you working for the community and i think you're actually supposed to be working for the community that you're actually working for the developer. you've been i've seen it over years but we engaged with you as the community and we work on trying to find equitable solutions to you in our mind affordable housing and we think we're talking to people that are listening. but when i hear sort of a recommendation to pass this through that it meets everything and i recognize that we're getting lip lip service for the most part. so please find a way to not approve this today and let this

slide through. >> thank you very much. >> good evening commissioners. my name is john mendoza and i've been in this neighborhood for about 30 years. i would tirelessly with a program called mapi. for years i worked on the lord 2014 laborers and merchants association for 17 years and i recently retired from driving the clock through as one of the founders. so tonight i'm here as a resident and i remember back in the days of lord 24th street neighbors and merchants we used to talk to nuha sitting right next to me over there and in the process of this fire coming and all the stuff that has happened, he has refused to meet was in the process where they meet with the community he didn't even have the nerve to show up. i'm i'm appalled that he showed up tonight a man that is morally bankrupt and here's has

no self-respect and dignity for what's right. i also at this program met met a cop who was the first one on the scene that night and who said before he could even see the fire that there was somebody jumping off the fire escape with their arms burning and there was so much unquestionable feelings about that things were not up to code and this and that and then the fire marshal quit so she wouldn't be responsible for it . and there is so much that you if you look at it as other buildings are 24th street, they're decaying with lead paint and he and at the time i remember having a conversation with him years ago the reason he went through the routine was because he wanted to keep it low, because he wanted to protect the community. >> okay. he has not protected the community. he used his community to benefit his pocket and he's trying to do the same right now. >> i say please reject this project making do whatever we got to do to come back in and given affordable housing. thank you

. good afternoon. my name is roberto. last name was not audible. i'm here to support the women's program and in this case of

negligence in the fire and with the alarms and to support the displaced people. thank you. good evening, commissioners. my name is crystal, senior business navigator at glitter. when this fire took place is severely affected a big piece of our community and i ask that you also please focus on the latino businesses that were displaced. those are businesses that have yet to return like legacy businesses albania who were there for 40 years. small businesses are the source of our community's economic independence and this project should guarantee first rate to the businesses displaced to own their commercial space. >> and i urge you to make this 100% affordable housing. thank you. >> hello my name is rudy

craven. i was born and raised and still live at 19th and gap. i've watched firsthand gentrification ravaged through my neighborhood. the displacement and gentrification of the mission is a disgrace that the city, the officials and the elected should be deeply ashamed of and trying tirelessly to rectify instead of actively supporting and contributing to say no to luxury developments with the intent to serve the rich and the tech industry has already done enough harm to this neighborhood and city. >> not only are these luxury developments horrendously ugly but they represent the enormous greed, exploitation and leeching off of the livelihood of communities of color. we must uplift the rights of the mission the rights of the michigan residents to live in their home with their community and with 100% affordable fair housing. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is violeta vasquez and i'm here to let you know that since time immemorial the city of san francisco has displaced

those indigenous to the alamo unceded dramaturgical only land disenfranchizing indigenous people and further marginalizing communities of color. housing is a social determinants of health and it should be a right of those who maintain support increase and the rate of which this economy operates. >> 100% affordable housing is a need of the city if the city wishes to make any strides towards restitution for the long history of displacement and disenfranchisement. low income housing is not accessible and really is a risk to those of us who are breaking our back to make a living and provide for the youth and families of san francisco. tenants have a right to return to their homes even if they were unjustly burned down and displaced. the city had a long track record of making public access their last priority. i come here as a resident of san francisco whose family has resided and built the streets of this city for over a century. >> i am the fourth generation to live and to demand justice for my neighbors and the incoming generation of free

school kids. >> i demand that you all abide by the original agreement made by ed lee or further sweeten the agreement for the residents and those most impacted by these developers. your salaries are paid by the blood, sweat and tears of those who are standing here today. so please listen, observe and apply and ensure that you represent the best interests of our communities. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is sophia stella. i'm born and raised in the mission but was displaced in 2014 when i used to live on 20th and cap. after my displacement my mom lost her job. my family had to move around and it took us a whole year to find the place where we lived today. i'm lucky enough to still be able to live in the city up until now and i have seen my neighbor, my neighborhood the mission change so much the past ten years as a graduate student studying public health and urban planning. it is a shame that i have to be here and express the financial and social impacts that this

development will cause on residents the residents that make the mission what it is today. we have an elementary school that is being even used as a shelter and continuing the cycles of black and brown people in displacement and generational trauma. and so i am here today demanding that the planning department please meet the original agreement that was made by merely thank you. >> hello my name is the rest are in my care and i'm here representing people that i have been organizing for environmental justice and the mission for about 30 years and i think that i'm here to demand that this commission uphold the promise for 100% affordable housing at la majorité. >> that was one of my favorite places to go through my teenage years. i used to be at albania because they had the best gardeners

collaborators and and and it was really really sad when that burnt and i think what was really really sad was that there was no investigation. what was really, really sad was that the fire department was so underfunded that they couldn't go in and figure out what had happened. and i think for me my heart was broken when there was lives lost, there was a life lost. right. of someone who had lived there for so long. >> and so i think this we know has been built in the mission. we know it's the majority luxury condos. we see them all up and down harrison street. we see them and we see a lot of them empty. we see we know that a lot of these luxury condominiums even though you know the folks that come and build them want to make their their money, they're empty. >> and so why are we going to build something that's going to be empty or that's bringing other folks into our community when there's so many folks that specifically in this building

lost the place that they had lived their whole lives lost where they had, you know, memories with their families. and so i just think we have to uphold that promise as a city. and as a planning commission to bring back those families, there needs to be some type of honoring. >> right. that this is going to be 100% affordable housing and really truly affordable for the people . >> the average median income of people in the mission right. >> because you know, we have too many families who have built this city who are not able to live in the city that you know generally who generationally they have built. so please, please, please, please, please make this 100% affordable housing and bring back those families. >> thank you. >> i'm so glad i made it. my name is juana.

i'm representing five elements youth collective and also just the community member here in san francisco. >> i'm here for the tens of thousands displaced over decades. i'm here in honor of those who lost their lives in the fires that destroyed this building. i'm here in support of the families who fight for the right to return. and i want to be very clear that i fully support the right to return from frisco to palestine. so i am really hoping that this board can do the right by the people who really make this neighborhood and our city what it is as a whole. i want to remind you of your obligation morally and politically to keep your word to uphold the promises made by ed lee whether he's here in the physical form or not. there was a lot of you know, this agreement that he said was for a for a truly 100% affordable housing for our families. and as much difference as i had with that mayor at the time this was one thing that i agreed with him on. this is something that the community has consistently mobilized for. if you all are new to this

board, i'm still familiarizing myself with everyone here. but if you can look at the historical records over decades people have been consistently here demanding truly affordable housing not luxury development . and so i want to remind us that, you know, for four, ten, 20 years plus since the 60s, folks have been fighting for this city. and i hope that we can honor the the policy vision that we had at the time which was really about accountability to the community who's still fighting here today. >> thank you all. >> great call. last call for any additional public comment in support of the d.r. requesters. if you have not provided public comment so far and want to provide your comments to the commission for support to the d.r. requesters, please come up to the podium and i'll ask our translators to also reiterate this in spanish to call for

public comment in support of the d.r. for now. okay. hello. >> good evening. sorry. just real quick, members of the audience, please allow members of the public per either public comment. >> hello. good evening. my name is alan tello and i'm 16 years old. and i just want to say that deeply affordable housing is super important. it's vital for our communities. i was displaced from my home when i was nine years old and that was one of the hardest things that i ever went through. >> and i can't imagine anybody else having to go through displacement. >> but especially we don't we don't need any more market rate housing. and i think that it's it's so

hard to watch people living on the streets and in trailers and you know, in the rain and in the cold and you guys could make this building affordable and really change a lot of people's lives. and i hope that you guys make the right decision in supporting us and 100% affordable housing. okay. if there are no other members of the public providing their comment in support of the d.r. clusters, we'll move on to the project sponsor presentation. >> i'm brother publico chiquita that a boy you.

good evening. thank you for holding this meeting. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you and to present project. my name is ian virtual a v and virtual and associates were the architect for this project that we've been working on since 2018. happy to be here and i'd like to start with some overview of the project and to go through this as quickly as possible so that another member of our team can talk to you about some of the specific issues that have been addressed tonight by the community. so as you can see, we're proposing a building of course on the corner of mission and 22nd. it's a ten story building and just under 100ft tall. can you go to the next slide please? this is the current context. the top right image shows the empty site with the adjacent building on 22nd street. the bottom left image shows the mural that was painted on the

side of that building when the original building on our site were burned down and was later removed. excuse me. next slide please. quickly here, top left is the current empty site. top right is the site plan and the bottom center shows the first floor plan color coded for retail commercial uses and they use light purple color residential and the pink and the green to the left is the proposed community space on bartlett street. >> next please. close up of that first floor plan. the main entrance is off the plaza on 22nd street where the red arrow is that plaza has been cut into the site to allow for exposure and display of the mural on mr. dutton is building the community space on bartlett street is intended to be taken

over by the community for their use and the use is yet to be decided with them. three retail spaces and the gray spaces the trash pickup dumpster the courtyard is in two levels as one is at the basement level and a portion of the courtyard at the first floor level courtyard is shaped to reflect the courtyard in the v the building which is in gray above the lot line next please . this is where i wish i got my new prescription today so the this is the data for the project. i'd like to reiterate that there were not 47 residential units in the adjacent buildings . there were 17 and we are replacing those with affordable units. the rest of this is just data

on the size and the number of one beds and two beds and then a list of the variances and excuse me concessions and waivers. next slide please. >> these are going to be difficult for people to read from the audience but these represent some of the waivers and concessions for the next few slides. this goes to the massing of the building, the height, the limits that are there as a baseline zoning. so everything that's in this light yellow color is what we've asked for to allow us to build more units on the property. simply put we can get more units with the state density bonus and taking advantage of the concessions and waivers that that process offers us. >> next please. next is the holding.

it doesn't want to let go. okay. hold on the slide, please. so the site well, let me say that the frontage along 22nd street slopes up hill from mission towards bartlett street and this slide shows how the we've adopted the change in ceiling height to accommodate code required ceiling heights in the light blue and colors and green light blue so from right to left we have compliant compliant just under compliant in the purple and less than compliant with the community space which is shown in orange . basically that allows us to keep the floors at the same level. next please say so this is back to the general massing. the veeder building is on the right hand side and you can also see the marquee for the reach for the cinema.

next slide please corner view showing the intersection at mark mission and 22nd next and this is the view from 22nd and bartlett showing how the building is masked and sits next to the adjacent vta building the current historic buildings that are on the site right now are shown in the foreground wrapping around the corner. next slide please. >> so this is the basement plan. it opens up to a courtyard. as i said before, that blue area is not a swimming pool. it is a fire a backup source of water for the first 45 minutes of an emergency event. so it's covered paved over not accessible literally a tank yellow one bedrooms the pink mauve color two bedroom and

excuse me the blue areas are back of house storage. we have 137 bicycles in the gray area and then occupant resident lockers and the light blue next moving to the first floor. but text blocking is blocking the entrance but you can see the red arrow at it's delivering to a reception area mail storage excuse me mail pick up mail lockers and then color coded units around the rest of the floor. there's a bridge link out to the rear yard, the upper portion of which which covers the water tank and then the lime green at the left is the community space. as yet this is not a defined use for that because that's not been resolved or discussed yet. next please. typical upper floor again same color coding. i just want to point out that these units while they're

continually being referred to as luxury units, the spatial averages of the size of the one bedroom and the two bedrooms is less than what we normally we do a lot of housing what we normally do as large comfortable family homes and that's so that we can get as many homes as possible into this building and also make them as affordable as possible. >> so by you know, by trying to keep the construction costs competitive and as reasonable as we can get in the market. next please. >> top two floors are a step back from the facade to create massing breaks. >> next please. these are the community facilities on the rooftop. there's a cookout area relaxation areas, sunbathing.

there's nothing there that's like a super luxury condominium kind of provision. this is basically just outdoor open space required by the planning code. next please. >> and this is the courtyard level the two levels of the courtyard the top level top right corner is the uppermost level that's housing. and the lower level is where we have the water for the reserved water for the fire system. next please. this is the corner of 22nd and mission. we're proposing a sliding fold away store front windows that can open up this corner to be part of a sidewalk activity. so this is just an example of how this corner could be handled and dealt with.

photographs on the renderings on the left indicated what it looks like close and then open . and the purple is the full area of that storefront excuse this right. >> this rendering shows the massing of the proposed building sitting adjacent to the veeder. and and also indicates the open space between the two buildings that allows the sun from the south to get into the courtyard of the veeder. next please. again the same corner 22nd mission. next please. and this looks down on the 22nd street frontage indicating the current structures and our proposed building. next please. if you're looking up 22nd to mission. next please.

i don't know where we got that tree from but i want to take it back. >> that's the entrance to the building caught on the left. >> next please and thank you. that is your time. one more with your past. >> that's it. thank you very much. appreciate you. okay. at this time the commission will take public comment in support of the project sponsor. >> if there are any members of the public who are in support of the project sponsor please line up on the screen side and provide your public testimony to the commission in this in this those moments, those comments and those tomando commentary will public all of our proposed support. so we're going to slide it to okay i'll just remind everyone to please refrain from additional comments from the commission so that way we keep things orderly if we don't see

any members of the public wanting to support the project sponsor. >> we have time for a rebuttal or two minute rebuttal from each of the d.r. requesters. so we'll call up each your requester for their two minute rebuttal starting with larissa petrocelli followed by cattani and then followed by kim. >> thank you. you know, hot glue isn't the only one trying to profit from this tragedy. clearly he has a team of people that would like to profit as well. >> how clu did not follow the laws in maintaining his building haacaaluu did not follow directives to protect that building and two subsequent fires destroyed evidence and there was believed to be evidence of arson. haacaaluu did not maintain the site and tried to, you know, work rearrange like demolition. you can look at all of the

permits that are there. >> he didn't even get final inspections until right before he filed for this project and now he wants you not to follow the law furthering affirmative fair housing is the law violating the rights of protected classes is against the law and this housing element is the law. rent control is the law right to return is the law and the housing element says that it is required that you eliminate community displacement within areas vulnerable to displacement which is what priority equity geographies are. >> you have all the tools at your disposal to halt this project and follow the law if you choose to follow the law it's up to you and this community is asking you to

follow the law and require a project that meets the housing element including the construction of over 42,000 affordable housing units, over 28,000 of them deeply affordable low income affordable units you need to follow the law and sb 330 is the law. i mean there are multiple laws here. you can't just arbitrarily decide who you follow the law for. >> thank you so much for your thank you. now we will hear from a rebuttal from cattani. i do not think your presence and followed by akim if you have a two minute rebuttal. i do not. >> okay project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> if the president so vice president moore and commissioners. i'm david blackwell. i was hoping i'd have to put in

two minutes so i'll keep this very brief. you know as i'm listening to the comments tonight, it i think most of the speakers think that this is a typical d.r. process. it's not. this project is expressly governed by the state housing laws which were adopted over 40 years ago to promote the development of market rate and below market rate housing. and the two that are that are pertinent here are the housing accountability act and the density bonus law. >> the staff report addresses these and our project sponsor letter dated january 3rd gets into great detail about how those statutes govern these proceedings. >> and under the hra we'll start with that. the only basis upon which you can disapprove this project is to make a finding that this project would cause a specific adverse impact on the public health or safety. and that finding has to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. i submit there's no such evidence in the record here.

what you're hearing have been concerns about social equity and social justice. and i'm not discounting that by any stretch but that is not appropriate for this forum and that is not relevant to this to this agenda item. >> and please maintain silence until he finish please. and the second the second statute is the density bonus law which really no one's talked about but basically the there's no evidence to there's no evidence to deny any of the incentives or the waivers that are requested here. the record is replete to support them. and no one's even talked about the density bonus for the hra. so i'm i'm sorry. you may dislike the project. you may dislike the project sponsor but this is governed by the laws and the state laws. here are what apply and what govern this project. and and i and i respectfully request that this commission follows the staff's recommendation. >> thank you. okay.

this concludes the public comment and the presentations. >> public comment is closed. commissioners, before we debrief with our commissioners come in. i would like to have our staff kate connor to explain a little bit about the questions about the rent board. >> thank you. thank you. president so kate connor planning department staff commissioner imperial had asked some questions of the rent board and we do have a written statement from the rent board that i can read into the record. >> no one from the rent rent board was available to be present tonight but if you bear with me let me just read their statement. >> so the questions were does the project sponsor have obligations for tenant relocation costs and has there been such actions implemented by the rent board under rent control? >> does a project qualify for the right to return and if so, what is the process for it?

>> so the rent board responds the protections available to tenants under the san francisco's rent ordinance and rules and regulations. >> oh it really can take it in sure will depend on whether the tenancy was terminated by the service of an eviction notice or whether the tenant was forced out of possession by a fire or other disaster. >> okay. sorry that take a moment. do we need to translation? yeah we can certainly if there's requests for translation we can certainly provide the translation. >> i was assured by the group that left in 408 that they no longer okay they all left. i interpreted till the last one left. >> okay, commissioners, just to let you know the interpreters have checked in with the individuals who requested translation services and they are no longer here. >> oh okay.

thank you. right. sorry about that. the interruption please. >> no, proceed. so with regard to relocation costs in order to evict a tenant from a rental unit that is covered by the rent ordinance, a landlord must have a just cause reason that is the dominant motive for pursuing the eviction. for example, a landlord may evicted evicted tenant pursuant to ordinance section 37.9 if the landlord seeks in good faith and without ulterior motive to demolish or to otherwise permanently remove the rental unit from the housing use tenants who have resided in the unit for at least one year and receive an eviction notice for demolition and are entitled to receive relocation costs from the landlord under the rent ordinance half of the required relocation cost must be paid at the time that the eviction

notice was served and then the remaining amount is paid when the unit is vacated. however, the rent ordinance does not require payment a relocation costs to tenants that are forced out of a unit due to a fire or other disaster ordinance. if a landlord evicts or tries to evict a tenant unlawfully for example without complying with the various procedural and substantive requirements under state and local law the landlord may be subject to substantial civil and or criminal liability. >> any dispute regarding the lawfulness of the landlord's actions must be determined in court as the rent board has no legal power to determine whether an eviction is lawful or if tenants are entitled to relocation costs. >> so regarding the questions

about right to return if it tenancy is terminated pursuant to a demolition or eviction notice under the ordinance there is no right to return to the property at a later date because the tenancy has been terminated. >> if no eviction notices were served and the units could have been repaired after the fire then the displaced tenants may have a right to return under the rent board regulations that section provides in part that a tenant is forced to vacate his or her unit due to fire disaster that the landlord shall within 30 days of completion of the repairs to the unit offer the same unit to the tenant under the same terms and conditions as existed prior to their displacement whether the rental units could have been repaired or whether the units had to be destroyed at

some later point due to the owner's failure to maintain the building is a question of fact for a court to decide even if there is no statutory right to return that exists, displaced tenants may have a claim for constructive or wrongful eviction if they believe that the landlord did not act in good faith. >> thank you. thank you commissioner imperial thank you. >> first i want to thank the committee members for coming and you know this fire has you know, just like other committee members are remembered this fire happened in 2015. i was a case manager at that time and it was all over the use and this is a very a it's

just like with other committee members share your same sentiment that this is such a very tragic event that happened . so you know there are things that i still have. question and thank you ms.. connor for providing some answer on the in terms of the relocation costs and the right to return >> and it looks like you know, there are some in terms of the right to return the during may have a clean and for construction if they believe that the landlord did not act in good faith. >> i do have a question in terms of let's go back all the way back in 2015 in terms of technicalities. >> so what did the rbi in terms of an investigation, the actions to the project sponsor and also i do have a question in terms of the demolition the final demolition that happened

on the ground floor. can some in someone in the staff provide some background historical background on the dba i actions i do i can't speak for oh you can speak. >> i'm sorry i cannot speak for the details of dpi's action in 2015. >> okay so i mean there are many comments that percent you know that percent that there is negligence and there were three fires that happened in this building and so from my inmate and perhaps whether did the deal request or if there is some knowledge about the d b i actions, can you please come forward and explain? absolutely. >> so the building was

repairable and if you look back at the permits there were permits for repair of the building and in permit 20 1549 for 71 it they declared and explicitly stated that the building should not be considered vacant or abandoned and it was only after years of him not maintaining the property and blight allowing it to be in a blighted condition that and complaints multiple complaints from neighbors in the v a building about safety that ultimately be allowed some demolition of that foundation but they even when after the third fire when the building could no longer be repaired they explicitly stated for him to leave the basement and the

foundation because those are tied to right to return as you heard and you know when when the final demolition for the basement happened it happened in a series of permits that changed the sequencing of demolition and allowed parts. >> so there are probably i can't remember the exact amount i'm sorry but there are probably like 12 permits associated with that demolition and the requirement for him to put a permanent fence around the property. there were requirements for him to fill parts of the property was soil. >> it was a whole series and none almost none of those permits were finalized or had final inspections until july 9th 2020 and august 4th of 2020. and then the you'll see the application and this process starting a few for this recent

iteration of the building a few weeks later. >> do you know if those permits where repaired by project sponsor and perhaps i'm sorry i didn't do you know if the projects bonser adhere to dbe permits to repair? well it wasn't possible because he didn't secure the building so ultimately when the building was unsecured it allowed access to the building and that's how the two subsequent fires happened. thank you. thank those are my actually form you know within the that within the housing accountability act and this sb 330 and also in you know there are some dba actions and perhaps a project sponsor actions i'd like to give a time for a project sponsor to explain to whether they did you

know whether what what kind of protections did they do in order to say that this is they did not do negligible action? i have no idea. >> and that's really i'm sorry with all due respect that that's really not what we're here for and but these are i can't ask i'm sorry. >> i'll make it short then. >> i can't answer that question. i don't know. sorry about that. okay. thanks. thank you. >> i understand that this is not for that but i think there are some compelling arguments in here. i know we are here for the d r the discretionary review but we're also in my opinion we're also looking into x exceptional and extraordinary circumstance . the thing is that there is a fire that happened here three

times and there are i mean many of the comments all of the comments mention negligence at this point. >> and so my question here too is like of course what did this what are you see the actions that you know whether it be i or the city did in order to prevent some such negligence in terms of the you know i also want to clarify again right now we're being clarified that there are 17 dwelling units that is i guess based on this size first record. >> however, there are also public comments that said that according to the rent board there are 47 dwelling units. so can we clarify that? >> yes. based on the report of residential record. >> okay. the three hour report there are 17 dwelling units where there were 17 dwelling units in the

building. >> the tax assessor lists the 47 units but that incorporates commercial and office units as well as dwelling units. >> so i think i members of the public i just want to ask you to refrain from providing additional comments. this is the time for the commissioners to provide their commentary on this item and if they have questions for you they will request you to come to the podium. >> thank you. and i also have a question in terms of the you know, there is no formal right to return declaration and and unfortunately there is no debate here to to answer this. but you know, in terms of the right to return for formal declaration of their right to return, i mean this is something problematic that the

dbe or whether city agencies

thank you for the time being we show can continue our commissioners comments and then when mr. roberto comes in then we will take his comment. thank you. >> commissioner braun yeah, i really appreciate everybody coming out and sharing the stories and the context and the history of the site and just

bring all this back up again. this fire was was some time ago now this has been so dragged out and it's been such a nasty history of the site since that fire as well. two more fires, demolition, all the things we've been talking about. and i think as other commissioners have said, you know, if i could wave a magic wand and make this 100% affordable housing project, that is absolutely the first thing that i would do if i had the tools at my disposal to compel the property owner to sell to the city or the city to have the resources to buy this project or bring all that together that is to me the most ideal outcome. but i'm instead sitting here needing to consider the legal and regulatory environment that i'm operating in here. it has been really good exploration by the other commissioners about how our

general plan and our housing element are relating to the analysis of this project and other legal obligations and it's actually raised something for me that i feel like we haven't necessarily gotten into a whole lot at the commission at times which is i'm now trying to kind of better understand, you know this project is subject to the housing accountability act. it's you know, coming in with a state density bonus. >> so we're talking about a situation where they're exercising rights under state law and i'm wondering if staff could just shed a little light on on how and why it is that state law is so seems the specifics of the state law seem to kind of supersede some of our broader policy goals in our general plan. >> i know it's a big question and possibly something the city attorney's office might need to say something about too. but it's this sets up that

conflict. it's here you know, as it's been explored here, you know, obviously state law is applied throughout the state and you know, some of our policies which as dr. hillis mentioned, we would wish to have more discretion state law has been curtailing that in efforts to force jurisdictions that are maybe less housing friendly to move forward with their housing projects and state density bonus law allows pretty much unlimited waivers as long as those waivers are necessary to accommodate the bonus density and so it can conflict with a lot of what we have in our policies our design guidelines ,zoning because we are forced to waive those where they would

conflict or or constrict against the waivers that they are granted under state law to build that density bonus. and you know similarly it's noted 19 units is considerably small out of 181 units and that is because state density bonus law grants those bonus units and the required affordable units is based off of the base project. >> so sometimes as you know you can be at it can seem contradictory when you have multiple laws all trying to address different aspects of housing. >> yeah i thank you. i think that's yeah that's just the reality of it and i think it really to me it points to

how over the past several years with a lot of the state laws that have been passed they've done a lot of good especially in jurisdictions that have resisted like rate housing or affordable housing but you know, there are cases like this where ultimately it's creating a situation where i just feel like we have a lot less room to maneuver in very bad situations like this in a project with the history of like this one does, you know and so this is it's it's a different framework and world that i'm now kind of operating in compared to what's happened in the for example in 16th and mission that project was raised and a lot of the the tools for that were used to sort of discourage the market rate project from moving forward on that site. they're not actually available anymore because of the state laws that are now subject to in

terms of you know additional hearings in terms of you know, opportunities to modify the projects. you know, we have to apply objective standards to the project now we have sort of a shot clock on on timing for some of the approvals um, so i find this this project is really difficult for me and it's very troubling. i'm trying to figure out if there are the specific legal findings for the health and safety considerations and for me i'm really struggling to get to what that could be that would stand up to any kind of legal scrutiny just as far as my perspective goes. um and you know the i will say one thing that i find helpful in the tiniest tiniest way is this idea that potentially if there was the property owners failure to maintain the

building then there could be potentially an opportunity for the tenants of the prior building to prevail in court for the right to return if this gets built. but that again is out of my hands. it's out that's not part of this commission's purview. we can't just say that's how it is. and so you know, i i'd like to hear just a little more from other commissioners about i would like to hear what are the exceptional extraordinary circumstances i can kind of hang my hat on that would i i, i feel would stand up to scrutiny legally as well because at the end of the day what i don't want to do is deny the project and give false hope there there are hundreds of people have come out against this project thousands of people have come out against this project and if i deny it i believing that this is just going to get our decision will just get overturned in a lawsuit in the blink of an eye. i it feels like just stringing

along a lot of people and that's where i'm i'm going back and forth so you know that's that's where i'm at right now really i guess the question the question is just please please i really police think i really appreciate your i really appreciate being here and i also really appreciate all my fellow commissioners and and everyone here. please thank you and commissioner imperial thank you, commissioner braun. you know, i think we've had, you know, times here where the state density bonus and you know, again not all commissioners agree with the state density bonus or state laws and trying to maneuver as well with it. but at the same time, you know, we have a i do believe as a commissioner and as kind of

like interpretation interpretation protection, protective of our general plans and our housing element that we do approve that we have to protect it as well. >> i do have a question and to the city attorney in terms of sb 330 and whether the whether sb three 330 has specific whether a timeline or what in terms of the replacement units . the thing is that i again i don't have the right information or the troy information in terms of the demolition of the ground floor and according to sb 330 and correct me if i'm wrong that rent control units need to be replaced and i believe there is a provision that it should be within the last five years. but if the but if the series of

demolition to have happened and have happened in the last five years will this should this be compliance of replacement units so i don't know if this is okay. >> deputy city attorney austin yang so under sb 330 a unit that is subject to rent control can constitute a protected unit and there is a in general i believe a five year look back but i think there may be some questions about the applicability of that law in this case. >> yeah. yeah. it looks like it's going to be the appropriate applicability ability of that demolition in the series of timeline. i mean that's something going to be in question as of now unfortunately i don't have that information in and that makes

me kind of again you know if the demolition because one of the public speakers said that the demolition of the ground floor happened in 2020 and that is within the five year and then this project should be in compliance on that. >> another i want to have a and also you know i have question to the project sponsor in terms of having a due diligence or good faith action in helping the tenants after the fire. >> has there been assistance even though your you even though you may not be required but under rent control or rent board has there any in diligence in assistance to the tenants and the commercial tenants as well pretty commissioners my name is patrick. >> no i'm the attorney for sorry i just speaking to the

mike please speak on the microphone. >> thank you patrick miller i'm the attorney for the project owner and just a answer that question there were a number of lawsuits that were sponsored after this terrible tragedy. okay. but those resulted in settlements considerable settlements to each of the tenants that were present there. and i just want to speak to commissioner moore's question with regard to the number of units that were in this project. i have three documents here that indicates the three floors one floor was occupied with office space. the second floor was occupied by i'm sorry the bottom floor is occupied by commercial spaces and the tenant floor was occupied by 17 residential units. there was no control over which of the units contained how many people our client had reached

rental agreements with individuals and if they moved more people in there that was not something he was apprized of. >> so that just i will supplied the commission with these documents if they'd like that lease gives you an idea of how the building was broken up as to the other issues in terms of the equity i'm not sure with us how the addition of 17 below market rent units would not serve the issues that were brought to our attention by commissioner williams in terms of equity. they address that there are additional units there that will go a long way to addressing the needs of the community for more housing as well. >> so as to what commissioner imperial indicated about the cause of the fire, i personally was in that building about two

weeks after the fire i saw the condition of the building. >> i also spoke to engineers regarding the status of the building afterwards over a million gallons of water report into this building. >> all of that sat down below and impact did the structural stability of the building. it's also important to know with regard to the secondary demolition that is the demolition of the foundation. interestingly enough, this building was built in the early 1900s and they use salt water that they mixed with the concrete and it it wasn't rebar but it was support systems within there that salt water deteriorated the support systems and that's why the secondary slab was demolished. >> so with regard to these questions, i mean there's a lot of feeling a lot of emotion that's going on in this community. it's understandable. it's appreciated and our client who has been there with the

small business along with his father for over 50 years it seems to me that in the course of the litigations that occurred, if the circumstances were such as we've heard there would have been some negative reactions by tenants with regard to haacaaluu and i can tell you having reviewed each of the depositions of all the tenants, all the people that were compensated a result of these lawsuits, not one had a bad thing to say about mr. lew and i think that's indicative. so i think for the purposes of what the board i'm sorry with the commission has to do is it's following the law. i don't think there's anything in this plan that is contrary to the directive that's given by virtue of state law.

so my response to the questions are asked me. >> i have had my name and my number and my address out to everybody that wanted to ask questions about this project and i can tell you right now as to the issues of arson and references to murder or manslaughter or i walked that project i saw where the source of the fire was the source of the fire was and this is corroborated in a news article was a singular unit in the residential area where a pot boiled over and there was a pot that was on the ground that was photographed with a hole in it and that is the evidence that indicated the source of the fire. so you can say all kinds of things and you can make judgments based upon what is heard here tonight. but the facts are pretty straightforward. >> thank you. thank you for your comment.

yes. you know, i. >> i used to work with tenants. it's a case manager in terms of the tenants rights and of course you have to look into the factors and and that's why i asked in terms of has there been you know due diligence and sounds like there has been settlements that have happened you know with my background tenant advocacy usually usually all buildings would have habitability issues. >> but again i don't have that facts right here in front of me now i don't want to make any kind of presumptions at the same time to the i mean in terms of the you know, the because this can in a way like this building may still be qualify for the right to return and it needs and the thing is that as you know as a city

anderson and in terms of the obligation that i think we need to uphold in terms of how do we protect our own housing element i mean the idea of having our own housing element is you know, we put a lot of policy policy standards into it whether to mitigate the the displacement and again also to give an opportunity to create more affordable housing. >> i think i mean if we are coming to a point where you know the state dictates because of state density bonus law, i think we also need to also defend the housing element and the geographies and the plans that we have also passed here in the in the planning commission. >> i think the city needs to pursue that in terms of you know, again we try to make

these plans in which should in compliance with the state law in an in in federal law as well and and i know that there are some loopholes that you know that sometimes either either parties go to but as i see here ,you know, as i'm trying to navigate whether you know, i just cannot see myself approving this or perhaps putting something in findings where you know, there is some sort of obligation. but this idea that the city needs to do some obligation to what happened here there is again the the facts right in front of me in terms of the you know, i know there are whether

they're ignored to fix the repairs but for us at least we can adopt some findings where we would ask for the city to declare a right to return to issue a right to return declaration or to create assessment of compliance whether this building is actually in compliance with with our own housing element or affirmative further fair housing. i think the setting is to make a stance at this point because there is this is a tragic event. this is compelling. this is a you know, there are 60 tenants that were affected by this and so what do we do? >> you know, it's kind of like that for me it's it's a moral dilemma and at the same time, yes, there is the our state laws that limited us but i think we should also find a courage to also, you know, for

the city to protect you know, our most vulnerable communities. and again these are two protected class and we think you're talking about these are seniors and families with kids and low income. i think it's time for us to make that kind of stance. so i if you know, if we're going to have some decision today, i would like to see a finding where there are this kind of that we have this kind of conversation about the right to return and creating an assessment about the compliance and in terms of our own housing element which is mandated by the city. >> so and i hear you commissioner bron that you know, we don't want to lead people on you know, in terms of the of the action that we're going to do. but at least you know and also like you know again as part of the findings is to take explore having 100% affordable housing being built in the site again

that that should be also in the compliance that you know we're trying to meet our goals for affordable housing i mean that is you know rent in our housing element so so yeah that is where i'm kind of like going for in terms of you know, how do we proceed today is that we adopt something that that is actually you know, we're trying to comply with our own housing element that is mandated by the state and also an affirmative for further housing and whether we're exploring that in some way. oh thank you very much. oh yes, roberto back. >> thank you. roberto is on his way. >> we'll be here shortly. thank you. thanks. we'll have him speak when he appear here. >> thank you for everyone to be

here. this is approaching to be a ten year journey of everyone on all psi and i feel for the pain and a lot of communication that should have happened that might not be happened in the appropriate way throughout this whole decade long of miseries that is for everyone in the community and also for the owners. i truly believe that in normal circumstances no one wants tragic tragedies to happen. i don't think anyone in this room want anyone alive to be taken away and i found that the situation is really troubling where we are we're still talking about this there are so

many constraint outs and oh roberto so after i speak and i'll bring you back. okay. thank you for coming back. i felt that there are indeed quite a bit of community concerns and hurt and unjustified that had happened and then there are also for the owners of this property he had to try a lot of work. i'm not sure if he would like to speak for a little bit for himself right now but i felt like i did not know until now and the gentleman actually said that there were some settlements have been given to families that have been injured and displace and thank you for doing what you have to do in the eyes of the law.

and i like to bring up one thing for all of our fellow commissioners to just is there's a lot going on here. there's a lot to consider in a in a in a place where it's in the mission. i live there i, i know i can smell the smoke when this fire happened and so as many other fires that actually happen in the mission i've been living in the mission for a now over 20 years so i know what it's like . but then i also found this situation quite troubling is because the planning commissions responsibility is to evaluate a project's proposal on land use and i think that's what we are still grapple with the quandary we are talking about here tenants displacement for all the right to return or any other

settlements. >> it is a very critical part of people who live in san francisco but unfortunately that's not really exactly what the planning commission charge to do. it's what the rent board control has the jurisdiction over the regulations. >> um i really hope that there are ways and avenues to since we have these coalition of so many community here to gather some tenants attorney to see if there's some avenues that you can continue to pursue with some of these it seems like there might be something here to to look into about in what scenario could be the right of return. um that is the part that it's

not really under the land use purview to us and and that's not pretty much what the d.r. is to date either but i think we all feel that frustrations and anger and a lot of things that happen that it's it's because it's everybody's live and everybody's livelihood in our community. so that was that is still continue to be deeply heartfelt for me i appreciate the sharing of the document of some of the before the fire for plans and i kind of wanted to understand a little bit better of when the gentleman who represented the property owner when you mentioned second floor as the only floor of housing units you meant and according to these these floor plans you meant

third floor. >> would you be like yes please. because when you mentioned second floor and i and you show up with the second floor plan, there were indication of room numbers that they could appear to be retail or something else and then the retail offices and then the third floor it did indicate one bedroom units studios, right. >> commissioner? >> yeah, if you don't mind. that's right commissioner. that's the third floor was the residential floor. >> i misspoke. i can tell you the names of every business that occupied every office, every downstairs mercado and every resident that had a lease on the building. >> so i can give you a whole list of that and if if the commission wants to see a list of that, i will certainly provide that to them. >> well, you can walk me through here from just explain

to us what you provide us so then we make sure that we understand what you are sharing. >> sure. with with everybody as well. >> we have a lot of conversation that is hinged between that discrepancy between the 47 or 16. right. so while we have everyone here and let's not make this another decade of topic of conversation, i really want to make sure that everyone is clear and deserve to hear their information from the true source. >> sure. >> so for the purposes of our discussion we call this the third floor diagram. you can put it flat. >> yes. that's going to read of somebody more technically capable handle this but on the third floor it starts with unit 300 through 319 and they're not serial units. >> there are several just as i've come covered can you go to the overhead?

all right. you keep going so quickly get you over. >> yeah . >> okay. this diagram is a diagram of the residential component of this building. it's the third floor units 300 through 319 and they're not serial order again, i can give you the names of every tenant and each of the units were occupied by a single tenant but that tenant acquired more roommates and in this case

several counting boxes just to kind of 3016 okay. just for the record. right. i'm sorry counting your diagram boxes there are 16 16 but there's also one additional for the effective onsite manager so there are 17 okay. okay. so that's how we came to the to the 17 okay. there is a as to the second floor the second floor is the office suites units again not in serial order 200 through to 26. i can give you the names of every tenant in that. >> those are office suites as to the first floor in the mercado i can give you a list of tenants that occupied that as well. all right. and we could certainly provide those to the commission should they want that. okay. but i can tell you that that the three diagrams pretty much lay it out and in the third

floor it lays out what the which existed at the time what you diagram just so we everyone you want to see the other two diagrams yes just share with everyone since everyone is here this is what we you might want walk us to like third floor now second floor if you just looked at the third floor you want to when you're going top and the middle bottom. >> so thank you. all right. this is the second floor again. this is the floor with the office suites. okay. and that has units again one, 200 through to 26 and again not serial or there weren't 26 units so there are not supposed to sleep here. these are i'm sorry they're not supposed to sleep here. >> they're just well no nobody slept there. your honor, these are office suites and again i walked this site after the fire. i went through every floor after the fire department allowed us in i believe i walked through the basement up to my knees and water. it wasn't you know, it wasn't a

circumstance that okay, you could tell by the property that was left over that these were office suites and in fact there were lawsuits spawned as a result of the fire for the office holders as well as there were for the commercial tenants and olive ridge who reached settlements and were compensated. >> okay. and what about the first floor? thank you. i'm sorry. show us the first floor. thank you. >> first floor. this is the what i think is been referred to as the mercado . okay. >> thank you. okay. thank you for so yeah, if the commission wants a list of the tenants and we can certainly provide photos of the

conditions of the property after the fire okay okay. >> thank you. >> thank you for your offer. i would like to see i would like to hear because since so many people have made reference to the property owner himself as actually being in this room i like to offer the opportunity if he would like to say a few words or he he can also decline just giving the opportunity oh ,okay. >> all right. and and then roberto we'll come back. >> i was wondering or our commissioner vice president moore had a very special, very important question for you. >> i just one of your colleagues was recounting the moment when i merely spoke to all of you and spoke about this

being becoming an affordable housing project and your colleague mentioned that you were the one who also was there. could you please remember for us of what happened in that moment? >> so i again let me introduce myself my name is robert hernandez born and raised and worked in the community all my life when the fire happened and the first thing we did was we got the community together to help all the people that were living there and i have an initial conversation with the mayor about it. >> the second conversation i had with the mayor was that the building had been red tagged by bye. are you all familiar with red tag? >> okay so i was concerned that it was red tag because as the representative just for the owner just spoke that he walked through the building, i was concerned that why was the building red tagged?

so we actually got an engineer and a contractor to go take a look and the building should have never been red tagged. so i called the mayor and said why was the building red tagged the mayor had i come back out and do another inspection and the red tag was pulled consequently after that there was a second fire and i called the mayor because the fire department a member of the fire department actually called me because i lived close by and said hey, the building's on fire again. we're on our way. i went out there myself. i called supervisor campos also at that time as well as mayor ali deeb. >> i came out again and found that there was no need to put a red tag in the fire happened a third time and i called the mayor again at that point i

asked the mayor and if because of all the fires that you already had when your colleagues read that article, i asked the mayor if we could have the fire commission to hold a hearing in the mission district that the mayor granted that hearing and called the fire commission. the hearing was held at mission neighborhood centers which is at 362 cap street and this fire was one of the main topics of that fire commission. we and and for you to understand that this building was owned by the current owner, mr. hawk but prior to that it was owned by his father who passed away and he benefits was that it was handed to him. if you look at the record to

gbi, that building had been tagged numerous times from gbi and in fact if you go to the fire department and you go to their records, you will find that the fire escape was in an up to code as an example on the mission street. so that was another discussion i had with mayor atlee and so i can go on and on. you get the idea here that i was the person that consistently had conversations with the mayor. >> it was clear to us at one point that he mr. hawk was not interested in rebuilding and giving it back, having everybody come back. that was a conversation i had with the mayor. and so at that point i asked the mayor if he as our mayor would meet with mr. lou hawk and us. the mayor basically told me he did not want me to go to that meeting. he didn't want anybody else from the community to go to

that meeting. so jeff buckley, some of you know jeff buckley used to be the director of housing for me and lee jeff buckley made the arrangement to have a meeting with mayor ed lee, mr. lou hawk the mayor actually went to his business one of his business gazebos several businesses a low cost meat market which is on 24th street. the mayor immediately called me that evening and told me that he did have a meeting with mr. hawk and that it went very well and that mr. hawk agreed to sell the property to the city and the community so that the tenants and everybody could return consequent to that it was agreed that the process to

make that happen was that mayor which is are you guys all familiar with mather okay which is a nonprofit organization that does housing the mather then put in an offer to mr. lou hawk and they were in negotiations on the price consequent to that mayor ed lee passed away and i may he rest in peace. thank you roberto yeah. so i really agree with my fellow commissioners especially commissioner brown mentioned that if i have a magic wand should that be 100% affordable housing in the site? yes.

but i don't have a magic wand and the our city attorney had advised us that the state law for replacing of the same amount of rental units and also the displaced tenants the the statutory limitations is five years and it is now approaching 9 or 10 years. so it is a very troubling situation. i think that we will definitely love if the city has money when they can consider really buying this property and it sounds like we did have that attempt by our reluctantly mayor atlee with with mr. collaboration with mr. but they didn't really come to fruition so we can commissioner we could consider

continuing to have this project to come back and continue and to talk about this but it was still with the with the same information that we have and i can certainly see that there's opportunity to purchase this site, this property anywhere throughout the face of this project. it's not like when if we if this one if the oro we got just whatever ruling that come off today doesn't imply it won't be purchased or it cannot be purchased right so i want to everyone to understand these things are not they're not mutually exclusive if that makes sense.

yeah. so i feel like there would i hope that there will be some organization i think sometimes some of the nonprofits could generate a fun specific use to purchase building for 100% affordable housing or some land trust mechanism that i think we all as a community could need to to think things more creatively for that i think there's no incentive to work with the community. >> and you're also there ma'am. i'm sorry but this is not the time for discussion right now. what decision you're making right now, ma'am, i'm sorry but the time for discussion with the commissioners is over. >> so this is the current so the commissioner so that's the problem and we know that this was currently this is currently time for commissioner comments please respect the proceedings

that we have in front of us and let the commissioners finish their comments. >> do you want to say something? you come here and say you only have one minute to say it because i think this is really disrespectful. seriously i think it's disrespectful that you're relying on state laws to prevent you from doing your moral obligation on this commission like commissioner imperial said, it's time to take a stand for what's right and push back. you're not supposed to sit here and take it from the state the state isn't here. >> they're not from here. they're not like familiar with the neighborhood. >> they don't know what we need. that's your job. >> that's your job as president. and i stood there quietly through the whole hearing. but really you're coming to a conclusion where there's no dialog with the community, there's no engagement, there's no resolution to some of the questions that were up here. >> so if you're going to rely on this law to protect you from the decision you're about to take, we're not going to take it.

>> okay. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. i hope you really respect that we actually offer this hearing to actually hear every one of you and when you speak we did not interrupt and there is some law and procedures are here otherwise i don't even i don't want to go there but as a commissioner we had upheld certain standard. we're here to try to make a conduit between you and our city and our city is governed by the state. this is city and county of san francisco. we do have some responsibility on both sides. >> i, i really appreciate everybody's spend time here tonight. i really appreciate that and i appreciate everyone work overtime and all my fellow commissioners sitting here we're many of us are here looking at this case a lot shorter time than you all have

known about this case and really trying to do the best we can with what we can do within what our responsibility the mayor and the board of supervisors appointed us to serve here. there is i hope you do understand and hope that maybe at some point you do respect a little bit of what we're really here to try to do the best we can and i'm just offering some perspective here that make sure that we are focused on what our commission is responsible to do and that's not about taking over anybody's right or infringement against anyone. i truly respect everyone and that's why i serve the city. by the way, we're all volunteers, okay? we're not sitting here getting

anyway. i just i don't even want to go there and i just want to make sure that my heartfelt for all of you and that's including the people who actually own the piece of property we all need to move forward and we all need to make something to move forward to this and a commissioner imperial has a lot of good suggestions. i, i really respect that. >> okay. just i really wanted to give some time for some of my commissioners that haven't spoken having their time to share what they think and perhaps maybe there are some illumination moment here that we can all hear and i really appreciate everyone seriously i work with commissioner williams over the past four months including christmas eve and christmas day try to make this happen and this is happening today. i did not take my vacation off

because of this project. i just want you to guys understand that i really, really think this is a very important piece for our city. >> commissioner williams, please. i just thank you. i just have a quick question for the attorney for the personal attorney for mr. hartley. you first. i want to thank you for for coming forward. you seem like, you know, a genuine genuine person and i appreciate that. and you made a comment that said that hockley with this project is supporting the community and i just wanted a chance to respond to that and and just say that if mr. hockley really wanted to do right by the community he would

address the gentrification and all the impacts that have happened to the community over the last 20 years and i'm sure he's he's aware of it and he would make an a project that was community friendly that that had more affordability to it. that was actually something that the community could embrace and i think you know, it's it's not too late and so i would just you know, i would appeal to you to you know, think about that if you truly want to do right by the community and the communities you've been in the community for many years and and so i grew up in that community and i went to your store you know, i lived on 21st in alabama when i was a kid and so so i just

wanted to put that out there. i think at the nub of this issue at least one of the issues is the right to return and i don't think there's anything stopping the mayor's office of housing or the rent board to reach out to the displaced tenants and secure a response from them as to whether they want to return. it's certainly within their purview to do that. we provided or at least the plan is provided for an equivalent number of units as there was before and in fact it adds more units because there is no office space there. so i'm not quite sure what commissioner williams is asking in terms of making this project differential and actually adds to the residential component in the community and provides an equivalent number of units as

to what there was before you can make more affordable housing there. you know you can you can you can activate the ground floor space, you know and have that part of a community um place i mean you could do a lot of things that that i haven't seen done and so you know i'm just saying there's there's still things you can do. >> there's still things you can do to make this more acceptable to the residents of the mission district and be you know, there's been a lot of pain here and part of that healing process could be something that was again more affordable and

more acceptable to all the conditions that have happened in the mission district as far as gentrification. >> so that i don't disagree with you philosophically i probably am farther left than anybody on this commission. >> okay. but i would say to you from a perspective of what you've spoken to before that that isn't really the issue that's before us. the issue is whether this project is compliant and i think the planning commission has determined that it is compliant. >> so there are a lot of things that can be done with this and ultimately as the project develops because we're going to wait some period of time before a site permits happens there's all kinds of changes that can be made but in terms of this moment i don't think it's an appropriate moment to make a commitment for anything other than what is compliant with the law. if there was a resource or an

entity or the city of san francisco that wanted to make this property 100% affordable again i provided my address, my phone number, my emails to everybody that reached out to our office and i received maybe five phone calls. i've met with a number of people in the community at various meetings and i could tell you there has been nothing substantive that has arisen. all right. i don't know what to say about the speculation about the source of the fire, about the displacement, about the claims of criminal activity, arson. >> those are just beyond response. and so generally in answer to your question, i think that equity is being served. we're replacing the units that are there before we are providing more units 181 units and as mr. burkle indicated, these are not luxury units. these are going to be units. they're going to be occupied

people that are paid by families, two bedroom units. so i don't know what more could be done under the law. the project is as planned and it's placed in your hands. >> but again, i stand ready anybody can call my office. all right, supervisor field to call my office today. this is the first time i've spoken with supervisor campos. all right. in the past they've all had my information and again, i'm the spokesperson for mr. low and you're certainly welcome individually or collectively to call me in or ask me questions and i'll provide you any information you can have. all right. other than that, i think mr. lu has been an exemplary member of the community. he's been there for a long period of time and i think any of the comments that relate to the negligence or activity were fully addressed in court. >> thank you.

you know, you mentioned i campbell oh, i'm sorry, mr. lu does he want to to i relate to nobody. >> okay. nobody is hot lou i'm the owner of the property. nobody knows more about the conversation between nobody no any more of the conservation between me and ali he i can swear to god he went to my meat market. he really, really, really wanted to help and i told mr. ali mayor right now i'm being sued. i, i i been to 2000 a lawsuit i have to say to talk to this lawsuit before i can even think about the poverty laws.

suit after the lawsuit that's all i can say. no recording, no video. i swear to god. and i don't know why he possibly you know, in one month and actually i went to his grave in cyber launch. okay. he is the best mayor. why why equal due to cyber launch? because i put a lender i want to be with him. okay? that's why i want to see thank you. thank you. thank you for being here. thank you. commissioner campbell, it's 9:00. >> okay, i'll i'll try to edit my my comments. i do want to thank everyone for coming out tonight.

it's sobering and there are a lot of things that have stood out to me. but i think what i want to focus on is i, i do echo clarifying that i think everyone up here wants to do right by the community. i don't think we'd be on this commission if that wasn't our commitment. but we do really have limitations to what we can and can't dictate on this. >> our power is very limited and we can't. >> affordable affordable housing is it's codified we of course want more affordable housing but we can't force a developer beyond those codes to make more affordable housing. they have their own business plan and pro and and affordable housing is incredibly hard to pull off and i do assuming that there were 17 units to begin with i do think this project is doing good by replacing those

in fact providing a few more are are authorities also very limited on this particular matter for the housing accountability act and i think i'm aligned with commissioner braun in that i don't know if i've heard substantial evidence discussed here yet that is extraordinary and except exceptional and its circumstances and i think legally we don't have i don't feel we have a basis to to go on here to not take the discretionary review. >> but i see there are a few more people that want to talk so perhaps there's more out there that we can discuss. but that's all i have to say. >> thank you, commissioner campbell. commissioner mcgarry, thank you to the entire community for coming out.

>> i'm just write notes here the whole time because basically it's the same theme. >> sorry. thank you for everybody to come out. i'm just for us for actually writing notes here and everybody wants 100% affordable. i want 100% affordable. the whole world needs 100% affordable on every block. >> this is a heartbreaking situation. it's morals versus legalities. i'm going to say everything that everybody else has said here this this this evening but it's the it's pretty much the same. the state allows this project to proceed. state law curbs our ability to stop or halt or hinder in any way this project unfortunately a right to return must be decided by the courts. it would appear not us here today we just don't have that power. but the report does and the

community is definitely truly scarred by this tragedy that has for the past decade. we all want to have the power but we don't have that power here today to do anything about that. the courts are the only avenue per right to return for what i get and to speak to commissioner imperials point regarding demo permit of 2022 and the five year lookback and the 30 days i'm not too sure can the 30 days be after the occupancy? >> i don't know but we're scratching here and like i'm desperately scrambling to try and come up with some form of something to grab a grapple to . i don't know can the five year be tied to a certificate of occupancy from 2020 to today? is 2025 but if we start this

project today it's going to take 2 to 3 years to complete. so then we're up to eight years that we're past five years. >> so we're we're in a pickle and this property does belong to this individual and this individual has the right to do what he wants to do with that property and and we're we're in about we're in a bad spot. >> there's 17 spots here units affordable which is what is legally allowed or required to be rebuilt and i'm grappling to try and find something the 30 days after occupancy but that's going to be eight years down the road seven maximum which pushes pushes at least two years past the the five year possibility for that to happen for the rent board. so we don't have the power unfortunately legally to do what the community wants us to

do here today and i think we're all saying that but i have to say that unfortunately i cannot put the moral over legal here today because it'll just be overturned a week from now. >> so should not stay long. i ask all i would basically put that over to legal to define that that's the law that does yeah you know what i feel like okay i really hear you. >> okay so would you mind to come up here and talk? sorry i raised my hand. i really appreciate that too. but okay, just and other members of this community feel like you're looking for cover in one state law and not

looking at another state law that was upheld by the supreme court. you can choose you know, you can't just like ignore one state law over another and you have a state law behind you and the city you know, that's part of what the city's attorney office does when you make these decisions. >> they're here to stand for our community. >> they're here for to stand for san francisco and ab six 86 is state law and we are asking you to abide by state law. >> there are extraordinary circumstance answers. we know for a fact that this property is not just about building affordable housing. >> i know that's been talked about and there are all these extenuating kind of conversations going but market rate housing causes displacement and you're going to cause people around this

property and in this community to become homeless and these are people of protected classes and that is illegal and historically we've been arguing this for a long time but there wasn't the data and the data is coming in and we have the data and we have the reports and ab 686 a state law and you can make this decision and it's up to the city's attorney's office to fight for this community and historically san francisco has made decisions like this whether it's same sex marriage or other things. >> that's why we lead and you have the power to do that today and you have all of us behind you and you have civil rights attorneys that will be behind all of us. you have the aclu that will be behind us and the lcr and help

you have like this whole chorus of people that will support you and we're asking you to make that courageous decision and what's the worst thing that could happen? >> they sue successfully and what does it do cost the city some money? >> what's the best thing that could happen as you make that decision? >> we fight this fight and we decide that we as a community and a city and a state choose to uphold this state law an affirmative we further fair housing and end the displacement of protected classes in our cities. >> thank you city attorney. >> would you like to enlighten us? i really do. but do you want i'm happy to just give a little more context

about that state law. that's a state law that encourages public agencies to consider you know, permanently fair furthering fair housing principles as part of their decision making. it also amended the housing element law which this commission did comply with when it certified and passed the general plan amendment to revise the housing element. so those principles are in the housing element and as commissioner williams pointed out, you know, they're policies that are part of this commission and the city's guiding principles in the law, isn't it? >> choose your own adventure path where you get to pick which laws you comply with at the risk of others. >> some of the most some of the core principles about the laws where you have a law that's more specific you would govern, you would follow that specific

law over a law that provides general sort of obligations in this instance this is a land use entitlement and there are plenty of land use specific laws that govern this the city's decision making about that. so you know, i think we have to consider all of the laws including ab 686 but you also have to consider the other parts of the code related to state density bonus and housing accountability act. thank you for the explanation. thank you. city attorney for explanation. >> i believe that the commission i mean i know you know we've said we've sit here many times before and we always advocate for affordable housing and i think we we do need we have this kind of obligation. i don't you know, usually i don't like saying here until but this is one of those, you

know, items where it's worth it to stay here till midnight if it i have not experienced that before. >> however i do want to you i would like to make a motion and i think i want to show faith that the city is exploring and also trying to and also trying to comply with other state law and within our own housing element i'd like to make a motion to continue this in which the project sponsor and the city will explore the will explore for the 100% affordable housing site for this location. >> i hope we can have the mayor the support of the mayor and also the the support of supervisor fielder in looking into resources to build this

100% affordable housing. >> i'd like to have that chance for the community and for the project sponsor. i'd like to believe that the project sponsor has in good faith in working with the city and with the community as well and also for us the city to meet with our housing goals for affordable housing. so i'll put that as a motion and yeah, hear it from there. >> i'll second that motion. >> i second the motion and i would like to say as we are continuously widening the gap between our needs for affordable housing and these types of projects get us further and further away numerically that this could be a try to start doing it differently. that's still is conforming to state laws but it's done a little differently. >> commissioner ron i don't see any harm with giving more time

for this to be explored. the the commission's interest in this is pretty clear in our desire to outcome. it's very clear as i said before, you know, if this comes back and nothing has changed i'm i think that the project i would likely have to reassess it at that time but i do have a question for for staff i do want to make sure we're not inadvertently de facto approving the project for some sort of timeline issue. again, under state law. so is there any maybe this is something that needs to be explored or to have a firm answer from planning department staff or from the city attorney's office but is there a certain timeline that we would need to bring this back under i hate to say it de facto approve just because of some loophole or something just just to be i mean we've had some

discussions with the project sponsor and we're happy to continue to have those discussions. mr. hernandez was was part of one meeting at least we had an mo cd so again, i think there was a willingness from the property owner to explore a sale to the city. i think you know some of the hurdles are does the city have the resources? >> you know we were able to do it at 16th in michigan through an agreement with ten south fence and we looked for opportunities and we can continue to look for opportunities that may be synergistic with another project happening. part of the problem is we don't have a ton of other projects happening but happy to to pursue that. i think the timeline you know we're probably if not close to beyond the timeline where we should be taking action but again there's nothing to compel us. we can continue to have those discussions and in good faith talk to the project sponsor and calendar this not for a for a

date certain i think to in the interim time period if you do grant that continuance we'd want to come back with you because i think there was some questions about the demolition permit and when this was actually demoed and we can get some of that information from dubai as well as get some of the additional information about the tenancies and the number of units. although i thought that was answer to some extent here. >> but we can give you additional information if you do choose to continue it. >> directorial is do you have any recommendation in terms of a timeline? i'd say two months, two months and i would still for us to have be in compliance with housing accountability i, i mean i think that's a that's a that's something that that's that's not going to happen. you know we're not we're not going to be in compliance if it's more than if it's within two months it we're already past that. >> it's our path. i think there's nothing that we may be beyond those dates but there's nothing that says that automatically triggers an

approval. okay. you know, again, i would have to be, you know, action litigation take i'd like you know, i'd like it when it come back and there are actual results, you know out of out of those conversation not just like two week you know three conversation but yeah yeah i mean that's where i'm kind of like like in terms of determining for the timing for a continuance on this and yeah okay. and i'll just say one last thing about this you know getting this to be a 100% affordable housing project it's going to take action from three different at least three different parties that i can think of right now. but one big one is the community to continue to keep up pressure. as we said at this commission we ourselves don't have the ability to just say this is 100% affordable housing that has to come from the community. maybe the pressure with two other parties, one of which is mayor's office of housing and commune development exploring funding from the city and you

know that's that can be quite a process and i don't even know the ins and outs of that but continue to highlight this project with them could potentially be the path for them focusing resources i just don't know and then of course the third part in all of this is the is the property owner who has to make the decision to sell the property or participate in some some project other than the one before us and so i'm just going to say i'm it's a tricky thing and i hope all three parties community mayor's office and property owner that you keep talking to each other keep up the pressure and hopefully there can be a positive outcome. >> thank you for the question commissioners and looking at your advance calendar, might i suggest april 10th as a potential date for the continuance if you're looking at about two months out? okay.

>> april time. okay. any additional comments, commissioners no. >> okay. on the motion on the floor made by commissioner imperial and seconded by commissioner moore to continue the item to april 10th 2025 with a note to say for the project sponsor and the city to explore 100% affordable housing at the site. in addition, as a note from director hillis to provide additional information on the demolition permit as well as other information from the department of building inspection that would be commissioner campbell. mr. mcgarry nay commissioner williams. hi commissioner braun. i commissioner imperial i commissioner moore right. commissioner so i that item passes five to two and this concludes your hearing and both

items have been continued to the april 10th hearing so this

ad states of america the republic for which it stands as one nation under god with liberty and justice for all present last let's take roll please