Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20220423

sfgovtv is streaming this live. we will receive public comment for each item on the agenda. for those persons attending remotely can call 415-655-0001 and entering 2483 224 1786. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, press *3 to be added to the queue. for those persons in the chamber, line up on the screen side of the chamber and we will take you in that order. each speaker will have three minutes and when there is 30 seconds left, i will alert you. as previously stated, we will be taking those persons in the chamber first and then members of the public calling in remotely. best practices for those calling are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. for those in the chamber, i will ask that we mute our mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. when speaking before the commission, if you do care, state your name for the record. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: first on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. number 2019-022830 ahl, 3055 clement street. i have no other items proposed to be continued, so we should open up the continuance calendar. seeing no requests to speak, public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is before you, commissioners. commissioner imperial. >> move to continue as proposed. >> clerk: motion to continue. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: unfortunately i do not see commissioner tanner back with us. that passes unanimously. that will place us under your consent calendar. this item constitutes your consent calendar and is considered routine by the planning commission and will be acted on by a 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 event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item. remote callers, you need to press *3. seeing no requests to speak from any member of the public, that is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners. commissioner imperial. >> i'll leave it to commissioner diamond. >> clerk: commissioner diamond. >> move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to approve item 2 on your consent calendars. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: that motion passes unanimously 7-0. we'll place this under commission matters, item 3, consideration of adoption draft minutes for april 7, 2022. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes by pressing *3 or for those in the chamber, come forward. seeing no request to speak, public comment is closed and the minutes are now before you, commissioners. >> move to adopt the minutes. >> second. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: that will place us under commission comments and questions. >> i don't have any comments or questions. i miss being in the chamber. under the weather and glad to be joining zoom and glad everyone is doing wll. >> clerk: if there are no requests to speak, we can move on to department matters. director's announcements. >> just one announcement i wanted to let you know that the draft eir was issued yesterday. i'll make sure it was on the front page. we will have this before you for comment by you as well as the -- >> this week's planned use was a quickie. there is a new definition of adult sex menus. you heard this item on april 7 and recommended approval with modifications. those included to, one, expand the venue in which the sex menus are allowed [indiscernible] -- and clarify the definition of adult sex menus to make sure these are operate. and also changing businesses from permitted to not permitted. there were about three public speakers in the hearing, all in support. the committee made a motion to approve all of the commission's modifications and continue one week because there were amendments deemed substantive. at the full board this week, the designation passed. that's all i have for you today. >> clerk: there is no report from the board of appeal or the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and they actually received an informational presentation on the housing element, a 2022 update as well as an informational presentation from staff related to the san francisco survey and community engagement framework. and finally extended the certificate of appropriateness for the band shell use of the stage as for outdoor lighting and sound system. if there are no questions, commissioners, we should move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter of the jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to the agenda items, your opportunity to driveways the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speak ers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> i'm going to show where developers exceeded their limits. i presented this at the building inspection meeting yesterday. the first is for a three-storey construction of a bay without a construction unit at 2017 avenue. the bay was reattached to 25-17 avenue that was reattached to 25-17th avenue was actually constructed at 27th avenue [indiscernible] and this is illegally straddled two lots. [indiscernible] dpi and planning approved an administrative permit authorizing the reconstruction at 27-17 avenue, not 25-17 avenue. mr. brown should have filed a building permit to reconstruct the bay. he did not file any building permit. there were false claims of the -- the illogical conclusion left me no alternative but a whistle-blower complaint. i also submitted a whistle-blower complaint on another property. i checked this morning and there is no complaint in the system. there should be. thank you. >> we have lost 125 parking places before the parklets and 175 with the parklets. we cannot have a white zone. we cannot lose one place. they also decided to change all of our yellow meters that went from 8:00 to 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 to 6:00 p.m., so my retail merchants are suffering badly. we must consider retail. i'm seeing a trend in the city of everything for the restaurants. i small retail on chestnut and lumbar and union are very important and i want to let you know this. we also have a case of a formula retail that came in and opened up without any hearing. don't know how it happened. and we have one to five small businesses that have been chased out by a major developer and every single one of them formula retails. we must keep our balance. and i have -- my group has fought for 30 years to make chestnut successful and right now i'm seeing a trend that will make us empty like union street. please listen to our pleas. i would like each and every one of you to come out. you will be getting a letter to come and visit with us. thank you. >> clerk: seeing no other persons in the chambers requesting to speak, we will go to remote call -- well, come forward then, ma'am. this is more general public comment, right? as long as it's not on the agenda, come forward. you have two minutes. >> okay. 119 el camino del mar and it is a proposal -- >> clerk: 119 or 110? >> maybe 110. >> clerk: that's the discretionary review on the agenda. so we will take that up when that is discussed. >> sorry. >> clerk: that's quite all right. any other member in the chamber wishing to speak under general public comment for items not on today's agenda? okay. we will move to remote callers. when you hear your line is unmuted, it's your time to start speaking. >> i sent a follow-up letter after last week's hearing for the conditional use on 144 lahey. i hope the commission doesn't feel like it was rude, but i felt like the real issues had been not really discussed and that was the superb condition and the complete livability of the house. there was a distraction with the tenancy. and between the architect and the owner. and the architect explained the constraints of the site and the huge excavation necessary. the point i tried to make in the letter, even though the commission had two votes on it, the thought was the city would be getting four units and i still think that's the case. regardless of whatever size the a.u.s are, whether it's 600 or 800 or 1,000, those a.u.s are not going to hit the market. logically those homes are going to pay for $4 million to $5 million each. if someone can afford that, they don't need the reprehensible fee to pay the mortgage. there are only two expensive units. i don't think the excavation was explored enough. it is 2,000 cubic yards. that is going to be a lot of cement retaining walls and there are all kinds of issues environmentally with cement. with that, i hope you read the letter and hope i didn't think it was rude -- >> clerk: thank you, that is your time. >> oh, my time ran? i can't even hear that on the phone. thank you and have a nice -- >> this is sue hester. i'm in a curious space because the president is not in the room. i'm asking the president to preside at the meeting and when she hears that we have one or two minutes of comment, for the planning commission, it is usually three minutes. take responsibility as a president to impose limits. do not let the secretary do it. this is very distressing when a case comes back and is amended and there is a one-minute time limit. that should not be the normal procedure. so preston, tanner, impose responsibility. >> clerk: last call for public comment. seeing no additional request to speak, general public comment is closed. we can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 7 -- i'm sorry, commissioner koppel. >> can someone help us out and address dr. draddler's concern? >> [indiscernible] -- >> clerk: we can move on to item 7 for the shared spaces program informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners and the chamber. my name is robin -- [indiscernible] we prepared a few slides for you today which are up on the laptop. just a quick presentation today updating you all on the implications of recent legislation, an amendment to the shared spaces ordinance that the board passed last month. we would also like to answer some questions about when those provisions go into effect, how they impact operators. we would like to marry who is involved in the shared spaces program, who participates, how do they benefit, how does the program materially impact their lives as well as those that they serve. and a little bit on our equity strategy, specifically on your grants program. as a quick reminder, this program is open to commercial and non-commercial uses in a variety of different settings and in a variety of different parts of the public realm from sidewalks all the way on to vacant parcels. we would like to highlight our shared spaces sf heroes stories. we would like to encourage people to nominate the heroes. there is the commitment of small businesses and commitment of retail organizations for committing and stewarding their organizations. so please e-mail us with any nominations you have. for small businesses, 86% have indicated they dependenous for survival. another 70% depend on residents to survive. just to give a sense of scale. of those who operate shared spaces, whether a parklet or a shared tyning facility, for example, just over half are women-owned business. another third identify as immigrant-owned businesses. and over a third of businesses identify as minority-owned. after the last two years of the pandemic, this is the hope and expectation that small businesses have continued to operate out of shared spaces. since the program launched in july, there has been a huge adoption in the city. we have seen in the last 12 months a levelling off in the program, a trend which we anticipate will continue. most of the types of shared spaces out there being operated are mostly parklets, in the curbside lane happening and other parts of the right of way. we will talk a little bit about how this is built into the fee structure that will come online next year. one of those key interim strategies is assistance by way of grants. shared spaces is amongst a number of different grant programs that we coordinate in cooperation with the office of economic and workforce development. we do have a compliance grant development program closing on the 30th. this is bringing shared spaces into compliance with regulations for access for people with disabilities and fire safety. monica with talk about that. we also have arts grants as well as technical assistance grants coming online. we like to be transparent about how the equity strategy is framed up and how we prioritize awards selections. we are looking at strategies that were more vulnerable before covid and due to covid have experienced hardships more deeply in the pandemic than other geographies. the ordinance the board of supervisors just passed extends the program placed from 2020 to 2023. this means permit and business license fees will be waved through march of 2023. this means folks will have more time to fix any a.d.a. and fire accessibility issues at their site. the due date for a post-pandemic permit is currently set at november 21, 2022. with that, i'll hand the mic over to monica. >> thank you, robin. good afternoon, commissioners. i will start off my part of the presentation to share with what's on the screen that shows our single bill of health. a wonderful milestone that was several months in the making. all the departments pulled this together where all compliance is summarized in one location. a business would receive this one document to show the compliance of the departments that has jurisdiction in a one-stop-shop and show in a design manual where you can learn that. this is what's coming forward where we're speakering with business and specifically around enforcement. our design guidelines are the shared spaces design manual available only and has the specific details for parklets and shared spaces. we won't be talking about them all with you today, but i did want to call out a few in particular, those enforceable right now as part of the board of supervisors amendment that was recently passed around accessibility, fire safety, and sight line visibility at intersections. these are the three categories where we will not wait until the codified program until next spring. i'll share a little bit of those in detail on this slide. i really wanted to highlight those three categories on the ground. that's 6' pass of travel. 8 foot where necessary. 3-foot gaps important for emergency personnel. sidewalk conditions and success to building. as well as 42 inches sight line. reflective materials and address on the outside of parklets. flakable materials, requirements around that and the distance from a structure as well as crosswalks and visibility and day lighting. what that means is vision zero in sfik, committed to delivering on that program, daylighting on delivering on that program, daylighting on -- on the other side, day lighting is required. we will be noting those and working with those businesses that have those conditions to bring those into compliance. now, i'll just briefly share a few that are waiting and are not enforceable at this moment and will be new aspects of the program. one of them is around public seating to call out. obviously the legislation has specific requirements around a new public bench or equivalent facility in the footprint of the parklet available at any time even when the business is operating. something new for our sponsors and to expect for spring of next year. the fees are not until next spring, but that is a $1,000 application fee for public parklets, $2,000 for movable parklets, and $3,000 for the rest of the parklets. and a half off for businesses at $2 million and less for sfgov receipts. before wrap up, i would like to speak to one or two requirements that wait until the beginning of next year, the cap requirement, two-space cap which is important. i'll wrap up here to stabilize and meet the competing demands. this is a wonderful framework that lays out all the priorities and figures out where shared spaces figures into the mix. that completes my presentation. thank you so much, commissioners. we're here and available to answer any questions you have. >> thank you very much for your presentation. i'll open the floor to commissioners. and i would like to thank the commissioner for calling the commissioners. >> clerk: members of the public, you can address the commission on this matter by coming forward. [indiscernible] -- >> the enforcement of this must be written better. the other issue is currently as of this morning, i have a business whiching hands and in the interim it's become a camp for the homeless. i don't know what my legal stance is for this and i'm looking into it, but i'm going to make sure that it's cleaned up and cordoned off if possible. i'm going to try to write you something in detail about this because i've done a detailed study. thank you. i've got 13 seconds. great. i want to compliment the fire department. i have not met the predecessor i worked approximate. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. last call for public comment. members of the public, come comment. seeing no requests to speak, public comment is closed. this matter is before you. it is just an informational presentation. okay. if there are no -- commissioner imperial. >> i have a question to staff. it looks like there will be fines for edas. will there be site visits or complaints when it comes to -- >> thanks for the question, commissioner imperial. i couldn't hear you correctly, but you want to confirm how the departments are confirming and assessing the needs for compliance and also how we would be citing fees as part of our joint enforcement work? >> yes. >> thank you for verifying. on slide 17 of your presentation which was that chart, agencies have been inspecting and assessing commercial corridors throughout the entire city. these are joint operations between the the fire department, the department of public works, and the municipal transportation issue. looking at the deficiencies of recording those, we are in the process of issuing formal issuance of notices, like a single bill of health that explains all of the design issues at your site. our joint task force interagency team is working with the sites with the most complex issues and have identified the most intense or hazardous conditions. we're starting with those and slowly working through the rest of the city and the rest of the commercial corridors, noticing issues that may need to be ameliorated or abated. those that do involve infractions for access for persons with disabilities, those that impede the fire department or first responders to respond effective, they may have associated fines with them. the legislation passed in march does specify for those specific issues, the departments do have discretion to charge fees as part of the alert of escalation to gain enforcement. >> is there a process to fix it before going to penalty? >> absolutely, yes. so penalties and fees are one step. one of the highest and the ultimate or penultimate step in a ladder of escalation. our focus is first and foremost engagement, education, we have found that especially with regards to design issues related to accessibility for people with disabilities, that sponsors have been very responsive. they want to do the right thing and be good neighbors and serve their communities. it is up to the discretion of the department and the jurisdiction responsible for that specific issue to work with the sponsor to put them on a timetable or some kind of deadline i think. as long as the program and the program staff are seeing that folks are responsive, then we probably don't need to move to charging fees or escalating that high. >> my question was just perfectly answered. thank you so much. >> president tanner: okay, commissioners, if there's no further questions or comments from the commission. >> i want to thank the staff for bringing this forward and an update. i do hope the compliance issues can be answered. they can be tricky. i know it's a lot of work. i want to commend you for working with folks. thank you so much. >> clerk: we can move on to item 82019-020031 cuavar for 2861-2899 san bruno ave and 90-98 woolsey street this is also an informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. you have before you an informational presentation on the project site of 2861 to 2899 san bruno avenue. as you're aware, the subject property has a long and complex history. this informational presentation intends to outline the background of the approved development, the changes that occurred to the site, the current state of the site and to gain direction from the commission on key policy conditions in order to move to an abatement of policy conditions. in your packet, you have a detailed history of the actions by the city. the following is just a brief overview. the site is located at san bruno avenue and woolsen street. it involves lot 22 and lot 37. beginning in 2012 to 2013, 2876 to 2899 on san bruno avenue received planning commission approval and building permits were issued for the project. the approved scope of work was five ground floor commercial units, 10 non-commercial space on the second floor, 10 dwelling units on the third and fourth floor. we will refer to this as the main project. in 2015 the main project was approved for interior alterations but has no change to the unit count. in the same year, 2861 to 2865 san bruno avenue, a two-storey adition to an existing building was approved. this will be the addition project. in 2017 the main project completed construction and a cpc was approved. the property owners filed an -- affordable requirement for a blow-market-rate unit on site to the in-lieu fee. a case was opened at this time for failure to provide the bmr. in 2018, staff discovered 30 dwelling units and other unauthorized modifications to the building. a notice of enforcement was issued by planning. in 2019 the enforcement effort was escalated to include other agencies, including the city attorney's office. a joint task force site visit confirmed 29 dwelling units were built where 10 were approved. a notice of violence -- notices of violences were issued by dbi, fire, and planning. planning department in that same year discovered violations present at the adjacent project and that it was under the same ownership. so planning requested suspension of all active permits for that site. the property owners amend the suspension, put that appeal has been continued to the call of the chair at the board of appeals. in 2020, conditional use authorization was filed to abate the violations on both properties as one application. in 2021, the city reached a settlement agreement with the property owners. we need to note that this in no way makes an impact on the property development. that brings us to 2022. planning and nated other inter-agency review of the revised project and conducted a site project with dbi. today we are here at the informational hearing. the purpose of the hearing is to update the commission and the public on the status of the site, to gain consensus and direction from the commission on the following item. the total number of units to be legalized at the site, the location of the units in the building, and the desire for off-street parking in the building. we know there are other issues, but these are the items we need fundamental direction on. on the following slides, we will walk you through the floor plans and the occupancy. so this is an elevation of the woolsey street as built. this is san bruno avenue at the corner of woolsey street and then continued down san bruno avenue, the elevations which include the adjacent project which is shown on the left. as you can see, it really is integrated with the main project in terms of its style and form. at the ground floor, the adjacent project on the left was under construction and all permits were suspended. so that building is entirely vacant. the other ground floor commercial units are occupied as shown in red and green is vacant. so only the corner unit is vacant. at the second floor, likewise, they can see this is shown in green and occupied units in red. this is the second floor which has 10 residential dwelling units now and all but one are occupied. [ please stand by ]. >> having five dwelling units at the rear. on the second floor, the adjacent project has a commercial floor and the main project 10 dwelling units as adus. on the third floor, there are six dwelling units, all full-floor units. and on the fourth floor, the same six dwelling youtube units, full floor. now i would like to go over the changes to restore the approved design elements. so one of the changes that they need to do is to update all the street-facing windows from vinyl to fiberglass. the awning will be updated, residential street treatments, new signage, addition of stone cladding and landscaping. the treatment of the upper -- wood trim elements. many of these design details were in the original plan, but not installed with the original plans. we would like to note that there was roof decks that were not built. this is the woolsey street proposed exterior with all of the same upgrades. the current project is -- and dwelling unit exposure. the new ceu is required because this project changed significantly from the original approval and is [indiscernible] -- also the 15 new units do not meet dwelling unit mix requirements for two and three bedrooms. and the adjacent project was essentially an effective demo and we also need a c.u. under 16 for approval of an unauthorized unit. again, we're here to gain some consensus and direction from the commission. we know that there are many issues. this is what staff needs direction on in order to tie up other loose ends. we have staff from the department of building inspections and planned check services, fire, and the rent board. thank you, commissioners. that concludes my presentation. we are open for questions. >> kimberly, i would like to remind members of the public, if you are in these chambers you need to be masked. if you come back next week, the mask mandate will be lifted. either put on a mask or come back next week. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. line up on the screen side of the room. for those remote, call *3. [indiscernible]. >> will generate $720,000 annually. this ignores the increase in property value. the public wants to see a balanced solution that does not deprive the existing tenants of their housing, but also believes it is wrong to enrich the property on or abouts whose code violations are world class. the planning commission could address this issue by only legalizing housing issues for 17 existing tenants and demolish the other buildings. the city is free to take ownership and use prop i funds to acquire the building. the city did this with 308 turk street. let's address the root of this problem and not following the practice of sweeping an embarrassing problem under the rug by granting two cus. thank you. >> good afternoon, commission. i would like to echo the comments and point out this case was widely pointed out in the media. the settlement was substantial. here we are determining what to do. 20 units. that's enormous. what to do with the tenants actually occupying these units. so what you -- is the city willing to do something to uphold the law and be just and balanced. a just and balanced decision. that's what we're asking you. to me, the balanced decision and a just decision you could make is to make these decisions affordable. that is going to go against your arena requirements and that will be -- everyone is going to win. it's going to be a win-win situation. here we have tenants living in these units. we don't know if they are safe or not, but we don't want to displace these people. our ask is for the city to take over these building and make these units affordable. thank you. >> clerk: seeing no additional members in the public in the chamber requesting to speak, we will go to remote callers. when you hear your unit is unmuted, that is your indication to speak. >> i have been [indiscernible] following this project from the very beginning. this project is a travesty. what happened is a travesty. as you go back and listen to the planning commission when this project came before you for approvals, the developers, the architects, the builders, they stood before you. some of these units were said to be funny and they said to the planning commission they don't have plans to do that. they lied and you approved that. i support what the previous comments were, a slap on the wrist is not enough. to pay a fee or a fine and move on to market rate. make these all affordable units. don't let them do the off-site option. make them make the units affordable. every single unit should be an affordable unit. pay a fine, make it pretty, but don't allow them to have a market-rate building that was built illegally after they lied to the planning commission. thank you. >> we have been working on this project since its inception back in 2012. to be perfectly frank, we are exhausted by the complete lack of support we've received by the city and the corruption that came out of d.b.i. i'm calling you from stratigraphy as a volunteer when i should be working. this is what it's become, a volunteer organization has to spend all of our time trying to negotiate, renegotiate designs that we decided on at this point over a decade ago and we need the city's help. we need d.b.i. to step up who we deem largely culpable on this issue and we need them to start investigating the building at its core. we have discussions about what it hools and how it will be fixed. does anyone know what's wrong with this building at its core, will it withstand an earthquake, is there mold in the walls? we need that leadership. quite frankly, we're exhausted. on top of that we cannot support this proposed design. we got give more leeway when they did not build the rooftop decks. we did not support a.d.a. units in garage spaces that look over a paved backyard or a freeway with tiny windows. it's not just. it's not okay. we won't support it. at this point, we really ask that the planning commission stand up and holds them fully responsible for all the same standards that a new building would receive and that our neighborhood shouldn't be treated any different. we ask that d.b.i. steps up and takes ownership and fixes the problem that they created. thank you. >> i echo everything that was just stated. i also appreciate the input of the previous speakers. i believe that any and every unit should be forged to become market rate. my take is on safety. it is time to hold these owners responsible as well as d.b.i. thank you for all you do. >> clerk: last call for public comment. again, you need to press *3 to be added to the queue. >> this is sue hester. i'm asking the planning commission to step in. the planning commission needs to understand how corrupt d.b.i. was on this project and how inattentive the planning department was. you have the opportunity to have another session and dig in. d.b.i. had a meeting yesterday and, quite frankly, the d.b.i. commission had a meeting yesterday. they haven't paid any attention to this as a commission at all. d.b.i. was corrupt on this project, the developer was corrupt on this project, and you cannot award the developer. you need to have space to step back and say what additional information do we need as a commission? and these units should be largery immersed. we need housing in this area. so give us affordable units at the planning commission level, planning department level, planning commission level. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is another classic example of dishonest and more developers, attempting to wiggle away from their original plan. we see this where developers think they're above the law and knowingly changing the proposal is adding units. i agree with previous callers that these units should be converted to affordable housing. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. final last call for public comment on this matter. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you, commissioners. i see commissioner moore requesting to speak. >> thank you. before commissioner moore speaks, i want to say a few words. this is an intense project for a lot of us. i know i have a lot of questions, a lot of thoughts, a lot of disappointments that this project is even here as of all of the corruption and the lack of permits. i want to thank staff for their work. i know you have been working diligently on this project and i think you framed the number of units, direction of units and off-street parking. what you said makes sense. i do imagine if other commissioners feel like i do, there is framing around the question. this is informational. we're giving staff some direction to make their next step and to come back to us. i know myself, i'm thinking about safety first and foremost for this building for the current and any future occupants. and also thinking about what is the best outcome for san franciscans. i want to think about not just the specific staff framing, but how we got to where we are. there is what we -- the plaque planning department fixing a role in a problem we did not create, but here we are in -- current and future residents if there are any of this property have a safe space to call home. i want to start with that and then i see commissioner moore and commissioner fung also. >> i would like to speak -- [indiscernible] 2013 approval of this project and even at that time it was stretched to be a strong project. even on this street, it ultimately was approved. i empathize with staff doing a herculean job to try to dig into the past to fix what is wrong to become potentially right. i see the project on more than one level as something that almost appears unfixable. the reason i'm saying that is the following. i believe the commission needs more background and time and detail to fully understand what is happening here. we're hearing a narrative form of what happened, however, i believe in order to have a baseline we should really go back to the 2013 drawing set of what was approved. this unit has now been bastardized into something that is hardly recognizable as when it was approved [indiscernible] in order for this project to come forward, either the same or an increased number of units, i think it is our responsibility to fully ensure that every unit in this project, preferably affordable unit is designed to a level of standard that meets our obligations for social and racial equity and at this moment looking at the hard-to-read diagram, we seem to be far away from that. one of the base things this commission would be asking for, this project needs to be fully code compliant and there are no waivers and there are no exceptions. the size is large enough. if this building cannot deliver it, particularly because it is out for for units than it was particularly confirmed for, it is flawed from the beginning. code compliance is a major issue. i'm interested in to know does this project provide elevator access from the small drawings that were in the package that was delivered, i cannot see that this project is a.t.a. accessible. any residential building with three or more units needs to be fully -- and i'm putting emphasis on fully -- accessible. by the way, what i see, i do not see an elevator nor a unit sketch that shows that these units are accessible. i do not believe the department can undercut this. we need to be able to approve something that is fully accessible or fully redesigned that would again be [indiscernible] -- what's in front of us. i do not want to dive into the issue of tenant protection, the issue of why people were even allowed to live in a non-complying building with [indiscernible] i've never heard of anything like that in this country, at least not in the 21st century. so this project is so flawed. it is so incredibly unworkable that i would be curious what other commissioners have to say. i can only ask staff to go back that the project be compliant and a.d.a. accessible and [indiscernible] -- >> thank you for that. i do wonder if staff can respond to the accessibility question. i did have that question as well. how is this building compliant with the a.d.a. and providing access. i also did not observe elevators. i could not see that on the drawings. >> thank you, commissioners. one of the reasons we continued the project is they redesigned it to have the dwellings at the ground floor as the a.d.a.-accessible units. it is my understanding and we do have d.d.i. on virtual and they can speak more technically to the a.d.a. requirements that you can have an exemption if you are providing a.d.a. accessible units on the ground floor and therefore the elevator would not be required. >> commissioner moore, did you want to respond to that? >> yes, i do. since this is a market rate building, we cannot expect that anyone who wants to live here has to live in an a.d.a. unit on the ground floor. three or more units [indiscernible] -- that is my understanding of the code and i actually did check with somebody else. this was confirmed to me as being the case. >> thank you. commissioner fung. >> let me continue with questions for staff. the discussions that we have had regarding some of the technical questions i think i got answers from staff. one area that is still a question mark in my mind is the inclusionary housing requirement. can staff answer, since this project is before us and entirely new in metrics and in terms of new design, this number of units as proposed, what would be the inclusionary housing requirement? this was a new application today. >> thank you, commissioner. if this was coming in as a 27-unit dwelling unit proposal at today's rates, on site would be required to have six b.m.r. units and the fee would be 30%. >> thank you talking about the in lieu fee? >> that was 30%. >> what would that number be compared to the numbers you're using? >> using 30% on today's square for theage at a rate of $230 a square foot would come to around $2 million. currently since this was a grandfathered project based on the date that the environmental evaluation was filed in 2012, that was calculated under a previous methodology based on unit types numbers of bedrooms. so actually, using the older methodology given -- and this is -- as the project changes, these things change. the zoning administrator can better explain that. right now the short answer is the current calculation based on the older methodology is requiring a $2.3 million affordability fee. today it would be less because we changed the methodology. i'll turn it over to the zoning administrator. >> thank you, kimberly. good afternoon, commissioners. nice to meet you in person. i'll start at a larger scale. i think we all know this at this point. this project really is a code rubik's cube in the sense that there are so many variables involved. when the project evolves, the plans change. it changes whether it's the planning code or the building code, apply to it. it's a complex change to it on the fly and even not on the fly. the evaluation is changing because of the interplay between these variables. speaking especially to the affordable housing issue, between 2015 to 2019, there were a ton of changes to our affordable housing programs, the legislation, et cetera. part of that was things that are important. one is some grandfathering provisions that are very specific to regional filings and also in 2018 to 2019 within we did change our methodology from an affordable housing fee that was based on a one-bedroom unit would be $175,000, a two-bedroom unit would be $250,000. i'm just throwing numbers out there. we changed that to go to a square foot system to get at every square foot. the old system can have issues. you can have two bedrooms that are different levels. when you change the methodology like that, it creates some interesting math between projects. so we actually had at that time some projects who had come in under the old system and they wanted to change to the new system because it would be a lower fee for them based on the math involved. even though if we came in on a brand new project today, the percentage rate for inclusionary rate would be higher. the calculation under the old system is slightly higher for this project of what it is currently proposed than the previous project. things are constantly changing, even the number of bedrooms which affects everything. based on what's in front of you today, just to put a finer point on this for commissioner fung, the specific conditions for the grandfathering. we require this to be held to a grandfathered standard, that results in a slightly higher fee based on the changes made at that time. >> okay. i don't know whether these questions -- my other question would be addressed to you or kimberly. in any event, i know you can probably respond to some of these. there are three waivers being requested. what would it take to have no waivers here? >> i think that's going to depend on how you define a waiver. this project is going to trigger a c.u. because if they're proposing to legalize what is there now, it needs a new c.u. because it is vastly different from the previous c.u. this requires a c.u. for that development based on the size. similarly, because they did a number of unauthorized dwelling units, the proposal is to reduce that by two, that is a reduction of authorized dwelling units under 317. no matter what, it's going to have to come back for a conditional use authorization. there are questions about what are the specific code provisions that they're not meeting and they need specific permission to grant a waiver or a variance for that. to that, it really comes down to primarily the variance. the variance for the rear yard. one of the main reasons for the variance is when the five buildings were originally built, they didn't need a rear fire escape. once the violence was discovered and people were living there, it was an emergency decision to put up the temporary fire escapes so that that was provided for those living there. the kind of fire escapes they would need to address the situation is largee than under the planning code. that triggers a rear yard variance, adding more units, depending on whether they're standard units or a.d.u.s increases the rear space requirement. so if it's a standard unit and you're not meeting your standard space requirement, that's an a.d.u. so kind of going back to this rubik's cube analogy, it's not a really straight answer because as you make changes, there are different scenarios. going back to commissioner moore's point, that project didn't require any waivers other than the c.e.u. that is a starting point and we could go from there and there would be it rations that wouldn't require any variations or waivers. >> let's go through that in more detail. the open state requirement could be solved by rof decks? >> yes, functionally, but that is access requirements. that is fire code issues and the challenges for the buildings as they exist now and what would be necessary in terms of additional building renovations to make any such roof deck viable. >> understood. what we're talking about is a framework potentially of what may be approvable versus what the technical difficulties are with existing construction. the other issue was related to the light and air and i presume that's because it's a corner lot. >> well, for exposure, there's -- any of the units really that are facing the street are going to be final generally speaking. the challenge at the rear is that for exposure you can front onto a co-complying yard or a space that needs certain dimensional requirements. when you add these fire scapes that don't meet the codes, you don't have a code-complying rear yard. if you don't meet exposure that way, then the rear yard would have to be larger or set in to allow light and air [indiscernible] -- or a.d.u.s and whether or not those units also have frontage on the street. >> understood. i wasn't -- perhaps my last point would be i'm not sure i was totally acceptive of the a.d.a. acceptable ground floor units. they're very small and they're in essence the same repeated instead of having some variation in the unit size. >> sorry, was there -- i didn't catch the question. >> it was a statement. >> sorry. >> president tanner, i would like to hear everybody else, but i may have a couple of other positions that i might take coming back toward the end of the session. >> president tanner: okay, that's great. i know other commissioners have raised their hands in the chamber and we will take them and come back to you. >> i just wanted to highlight some of the comments around desire to see more national guardability in the project if we are to go forward and to legalize this and just wanted to get a sense. do we know the cost of rent currently in the project. someone made a comment of $3,000 a month per unit. is that [indiscernible] -- >> the project sponsor is here. >> can it is project sponsor provide us with average or median rent? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i do not know exactly how many the rents are, but i can find that information out for you and provide it after today. >> thank you. yeah, just in terms of protecting the tenants and seeing if we could provide more affordability, what would the city have to do? someone made the comment as well. >> there would have to be some domain process to acquire it. not something i believe the city has explored necessarily with the project sponsor. we share some of the concerns that others have raised that the building wasn't properly inspected and certainly code compliances are certainly one that would come to mind about the potential acquisitions. you raised the concerns about pre-existing tenants. we haven't heard obviously in this forum from the tenants. we posted or required that the notice be posted. we met with supervisor ronen's office to figure out how to contact the tenants. i think we asked for contact information from the tenants. we've been unable to get solid information about the tenants. you can ask the sponsor to reiterate the request that we made. >> thank you. is that something the project sponsor would be open to? >> potentially acquiring the building and converting it to affordable housing. >> we're willing to have those discussions with planning. i don't think that proposal has been made to us, but we're interested in hearing what you have to say. >> we can certainly facilitate discussions, but it would be made with those who have a queue to acquire. you can certainly ask. >> supervisor ronen has been involved in the conversations. i don't know what their office desires are. i don't know if you have an idea of what -- >> i think they share your concerns and ours about what may happen with the tenants, what are the conditions with the building. what could happen to the tenants if project was denied and had to go back to a smaller building. [ please stand by ] we couldn't require them as a department to provide them on site and adhere to the current standards so we get those fixed units in the building? >> good afternoon, again. so the inclusionary housing program is a fee-first program. used to be housing first in-lieu fee, but it's a fee-first plan and someone can elect to do onsite, offsite, et cetera. because it is a fee-first program, the project sponsors get to choose the method they want. if we're talking about looking at requesting or requiring like additional levels of affordable housing or additional payments, that would be i think a conversation with the city attorney's office because that gets beyond what the planning code permits. >> and just, mr. teague is right, it's fee first, but you are granting c.u.s. i would pose the question to the project sponsor if they would be willing to entertain onsite. >> is that something the project sponsor would be open to doing? >> i can discuss it with our clients and see if that's something they're interested in. at this time i'm not sure. >> okay. and then thank you so much. and then for -- so if that were a possibility to provide b.m.r. sites within the building, would the -- could the tenants inside that may be deemed vulnerable benefit from that, or would that be not within our current system, it have to go through the -- >> tenant b.m.r. is handled by ohmcd. they've dealt with existing tenants and making that work. but i know that is headed on challenges because there is a separate process as well. but generally speaking, that would be something we would have to cover with mohcd on and what they could do. >> that's something you want us to explore, b.m.r. on site, the potential of current residents being allowed to stay and qualifying for those units. this is something we can explore. -- >> yeah, i'd definitely be interested to see. thank you so much, those are all my questions. >> thank you very much. and commission koppel? >> commissioner koppel: yeah, i think in general people take building construction codes for granted. the thing that really sticks out to me most about this project is that they're dwelling units and people are sleeping at night. in case of, you know, the worst accident, people at the bare minimum need to be woken up and given a clear access path to safety. and that's just the result of properly going through the planning and the permitting and then the installation and the inspection that leads to occupancy process which i really don't think was followed here. the building and construction codes they're not arbitrary, they're like stop signs, they were literally put in place because someone was injured or killed or a building was damaged or caught fire. they're not there just for no reason. and all of these codes, whether it's building, plumbing, electrical, these codes are the bare minimum that are required. i'm going to say that again, because i still can't believe people don't understand this. it's the absolute bare minimum that is required for someone to safely -- not just enter a building, but dwelling there, sleep there at night. and again, these aren't being followed. and i'm not going to be okay with that. i don't know if i ever will be. there is so much here it unpack. i could write a book just on this one project. we've seen a lot of projects where the scope succeeded an and things were done illegally, and i'm having a hard time as the days go on believing these statements. i don't see how anyone is okay with that project. people are living there? and absolute beyond the shadow of a doubt safety is more important than displacement. and that's -- what i'm responsible for is giving these tenants a place to live and you members of the public aren't responsible for that, but i mean, somebody has to be. this is potentially like life safety issue stuff we're talking about here and i'm literally almost at a loss for words, because there has been so many things done incorrectly here. and i don't think any of us are asking too much for this to be done properly and i don't feel comfortable having anyone live in this building, not for one more day. that's all i got for now. >> i'm vigorously nodding along with every word that you said. i want to thank you, commissioner koppel. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, commissioner koppel. this is -- i have a hard time processing this project and in terms of what's the future for this project. first, i'm not going to lie that i am pretty angry about this project and how it went. and for the project sponsor and for us, for the city as well, to come into settlement, this is the minimum that the city could get and i felt like we need to do better, especially in the d.b.i. i'm not going to lie. and i do not like personally when things have to be legalized and come back to the planning commission when things were wrong during the process, during the construction. and then there is -- so there that is one, the permitting process, the illegal construction of this. and then second are the people living here right now being lied to and not living in a safe place. and now we have to think about their future at the same time, too. so, i am in a way torn about this and there are parts of me that, yes, have to penalize, but in this commission we don't usually talk about penalizing the landlords, we usually talk about whether it's up to the planning codes or up to the codes. and in terms of the -- what the city attorney is trying to propose of legalizing units on this, it's hard for me to make a decision to legalize this unit when also we're talking about, again, just the overall scope of this project, adus are at the back of the garage or at the back of the commercial space and then they're altering adus. i think there will be 15adus for the proposed project. and then if we are going to turn this into a b.m.r., then we also lose the tenants in this process as well. i am for director hillis, in terms of making this building up to the code, and then at the same time the current tenants that live there, my concern is also their future, too. so, is there -- i guess also my question to the city attorney, is there a pathway really for the city to acquire this building whether declaring it through imminent domain or what other possibility or pathway? >> just before the city attorney jumps in, i want to say that the project sponsor is proposing to legalize. you don't have to. nor does the settlement agreement say you've got to legalize what is being proposed or a version of what is being proposed. you could deny and we go back to the project that was approved. the settlement agreement just to be clear was to penalize for the code violations and then, you know, we start from there. but you're by no means required -- and that's why we're here frankly to get direction on the path forward, you know. is it to legalize some or all of the units and try to protect some of the tenants that are there, or is it to go back to the project that was approved which could have ramifications for the tenants. so we're hoping to shed more light on that and get direction from you. >> commissioner imperial: i understand, director hillis, but i would like to understand the maximum we can do as the city. at the same time, the sustainability of these current tenants? >> so, thank you for that question, commissioner imperial. deputy city attorney. i'll start with the last question in terms of the rights for the tenants and how -- what options -- what the city can do, i think that's a question better posed for the rent board. they are -- i believe they are tenants under the s.f. rent ordinance, so there are some rights there that the rent board could better describe. and then in terms of -- there has been talk about acquisition and -- of the property and i think director hillis really articulated acquisition using funds would be a broader conversation with other city departments. eminent domain is not something we talk about lightly. it requires litigation. it's a very lengthy process. and that's something that, you know, we could -- we could give you some briefing on another time. i could look into it a little bit further. i'm not sure the specifics of this project and how that would play out, but that's kind of -- i mean, i think this -- what's here before you is options for legalization. and as director hillis mentioned, the settlement is a backward-looking document. it captured violations up to a certain point and the sponsor was required to pay penalties and they're required to legalize. what that means, you know, there is some discretion for the commission about going forward what that means. >> commissioner imperial: as i understand it, because of the settlement, units have it be legalize, is that what i'm hearing? no. okay. >> no. >> commissioner imperial: but the proposal for us, or the plan direction that the planning department needs is the number to be legalized? >> there is an application before you that the request is through -- there is no use authorizations to approve what is there, the layout there now. but what was approved in 2013 was a very different project, so you can deny. you can send us back to, you know, look at a different project somewhere between what was approved previously and what's being proposed currently. so, i think that's what we want to flesh out here, what you would like us to do given the balance with what commissioner koppel raised, that this is a safe building and protecting the tenants and where they go and what happens to the tenants in the building. >> commissioner imperial: okay. hmm. i'd like to know what other commissioners have to say, but i would actually, in terms of what was approved 10 units, we could start from there. but there is also a big part of me to completely start with a new project. >> thank you, commissioner imperial. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: thank you. i start where commissioner koppel started, which is this isn't a safe building then i don't know why we're having this conversation. i feel like whether they want to legalize what was approved originally or some variant, all of it is irrelevant until we get comfortable that the building is safe or that it can be made safe. so i'm going to start with that and say that i feel like for me that is an absolutely necessary and non-negotiable first step and that needs to happen immediately because we have at the end of the day that are currently living there. -- because we have tenants that are currently living there. i share commissioner koppel's concern, we have people that are there and they need to know it's safe. irrespective of anything else, we need to know what was built, met all of the code requirements, and can it be corrected? and if it can be corrected, then we need to see how fast that can be done. i assume that part of that correction, if we are taking the stance that either there was no problem under the building department codes or if there is, it can corrected, but in the course of doing the corrections, they want to know what they're building or what they have permission to build. so i want to ask a question to staff to start with. you know, which is, do they have the right if we simply turn the building into what was approved originally, meeting all of our requirements, coming back to us for any approvals? can they redo the interiors and build what was approved originally? is that an option without coming back to us for any approval -- us, meaning the planning commission -- do they have the right to do that. >> it's a really important point we want to make. the short answer is no. because of the context of what's happened, the sixth building went beyond scope of what was permitted. either way, the commission is going to have to approve something, right? if you want to approve kind of like the max d.u., the more d.u. project, then you're going to make approval of that. similarly, if you want to go to the other end of the spectrum and say it has to go back to 100% what it was before, 10 units, et cetera, then you need to grant a conditional use authorization for the use of the adus. >> either way we have discretionary powers? we need to find the project is necessary and desirable, is that correct? >> yes, absolutely. >> commissioner diamond: for me, assuming we can get comfortable that there are no building code violations or that they can be corrected, then i am interested in seeing a code compliant proposal. something that comes to us with, you know, unit count that meets our current codes with no variances. i don't understand the request for variances. i'm not seeing exceptional circumstances of the kind that we would typically see for variances. in light of that and the outrageous nature of how this got to us, i would like to see a proposal that comes to us that also not only has b.m.r. units, but goes beyond the bare minimum. it's, of course, up to the developer to propose, you know, whatever they want to propose, but i am not of a mind to approve the project as being presented to us today, because i don't see that it's necessary and desirable. nor do i see myself getting comfortable with approving all of the variants that are requested. i believe this needs to be a code-compliant project and have in light of the pathway of the project to get here, i want to see onsite b.m.r.s and that may require a great deal of discussion with the rent board about the protections that are available to any tenants if those tenants can't stay as a result of the work that is required to bring it up to the building code, or reduction in the number of units, we need to make sure those tenants are given maximum protection possible. that's it. those are my thoughts and how i think we ought to proceed. but i do want to say that, you know, i agree with all of the other commissioners' comments. i think every comment made is something i would say myself, i agree with all of them. i'm trying to give you, you're asking for direction, i'm trying to give you some direction about what would make sense to me, which is code compliant project maximiing the number of units with onsite b.m.r.s with any protection of tenants that have to leave as a result of the circumstances that we just did. >> one clarifying point, when you say maximum density, does that include adus or do you want us focusing on dwelling and density? >> i would allow adus here, but i want to make sure that we're allowing adu, but not priemdz -- compromising on any project that comes to us. we may want to -- they're not comfortable. so, i don't know if that's responsive to your question. in general, i don't have a problem with using -- but i am going to be concerned if the adus come to us and there are dark bedrooms in the back and very substandard. >> is that what you needed? >> yes, thank you. >> i have a couple of comments and questions. i really want to align myself with the just extreme concern i have about safety. i almost can't believe people have been sleeping in this building for many, many nights, for as many years as this building has been occupied given what we know about the building and its history. so i noted in the packet in the letter from d.b.i. from last year, dated august 2021, it's stated that the fire department and d.b.i. did not take steps -- i wonder if the representatives to the fire department and from d.b.i. could speak to that. what gives you confidence to allow folks to continue to occupy this building night after night for these number of years? >> commissioners, fire marshal, san francisco. this project you asked, first thing i want to say, it is safe. okay. so to a lot of us, our predecessor worked with the ownership about finding a way. so i think we need to figure out -- when we say 10 units, it's two per building. the code varies. three or more units, you have a different code. r3 building is two units or less. and it only requires one stairway. and so when they split it and added more, now especially on the fourth floor, you need another way out. hence the reason that the scaffolding which is really a stairway, it's not a scaffolding like on a regular construction site, the building is fully sprinklered. so we had a workaround for displacing people from the building. it is compliant in a roundabout way. i know commissioner koppel, it is odd how it is, but with this new plan we are requiring use of a fire escape, which is allowed because the original building plans is a change to the building and, therefore in san francisco we can allow the fire escape. we worked with the developer to actually increase the ease of exiting out the rear, because now they actually put doors in that lead to the fire escape instead of having to climb out of a window. we ensured that we can get into the building quick and using water is available. same thing with the sprinkler system in the exiting areas. they create a water curtain. so people are using the fire escapes, they can get out and not be harmed and it does have a full compliant fire alarm system. be ensured that we're not sacrificing life safety with wherever decision you make, whether it's stays a 10-unit building or 27-unit building, we did not compromise under that. we do have to work with d.b.i. ab005 which is a equivalency, which is used pretty much every day in the building department. it says to do this and this. ideally, if you had a four-story building you would have to have interior two exits. and you would obviously displace everybody in the building to put a second stairwell in there and redesign the whole building. we looked at that possibility. and you can decide if you like them to put a second stairway in the interior, but everybody is going to have to leave to do it and i don't know if it would actually work out. that's why the fire escape went on the back side of the building. and be assured we're not sacrificing life safety for the residents of the building in its new or proposed configuration. >> would like to talk about what they've -- >> yes, thank you, mr. coughlin. inspector duffy, i can't see who that is? >> ready. sorry. commissioner joe duffy, deputy director of inspection services at d.b.i. i want to start off by saying that i agree with everything i heard from the public and the commissioners. as a building inspector for over 20 years before i became the deputy director and senior and chief, it was a disgrace what i saw there when i first went to the building last august. i've never seen anything like it. the abuse of the permit system as commissioner koppel said, you get your permit, you build it, we expect you to build it right. it wasn't built right. it wasn't inspected right. it was inspected by a former employee from d.b.i. and i can tell you one thing this process -- will never happen again. we've -- it's been widely reported in the media this building. it's been the subject of the integrity review from the controller's office. we have presented at the board of supervisors and land use committee on it. and, you know, at the end of the day as mr. coughlin just spoke there, whatever happens to this building, it will be fully code compliant. we will get full code compliance. in regards to what happened in 2019 -- early 2019, when this issue did come up and the notices of violations were issued over the task force speculation, immediately -- and i want to say within 4-6 weeks -- we had a fire alarm system, a sprinkler system installed. the scaffold on the back i would agree, it's not as we would call a construction scaffold. i walked the four levels of it with d.b.i. staff. we do frequent visits to the building for the common areas to check on the life safety of the building. it's not going to be a permanent solution in any way. and, you know, the one thing i'd say, the longer the process drags out, whatever happens, you know, we want to give those people a fully code compliant exit. in regards to the scaffold it will work in event of emergency. the landing scaffold structure and the current fire alarm and sprinklers will work and that will give a good level of fire safety, but obviously, at the end of the day whatever has to happen -- there are other aspects of the -- the building code does address when you do work without a permit and you cover up parts of your building and you cover up walls without inspection. this one, year going to use the code section in this regard. it's a little bit unusual because this would normally be to comply with the notice of violation. this was work with a permit which our staff, we have an inspector apparently inspecting. we do not have a good record of inspections on the building. so it will necessitate us having to get walls opened up. testing or compression concrete. plumbing, electrical systems the human factor for me is the people that are living there. there are people living in the building today. that's going to be disruptive to them. there will have to be a plan if this does go ahead. figure out relocation where they're going to be in the building and that was one of the concerns that i had that was something you would want to have a really, really good plan in place for these people that are living there. you know, a lot of immigrant families, i saw a lot of non-english speaking people in the building. and my heart goes out to them, really does. but i will say, standing here, i would be in agreement with mr. coughlin that there is a good level of fire safety in that building currently until this is resolved, but we would like to see it not forever. >> can i ask, mr. duffy, thank you so much for being here, just in terms of us understanding that open walls would certainly be disruptive to tenants, is there a reason to not do it sooner? do we need to know what the final building is going to be to inspect the integrity of what exists because different buildings have different levels they have to reach? or can some of that stuff be looked at and tested to ensure integrity even today without a planned future project in place? can you describe that a little bit? >> yes, president tanner. really good question. i think it was brought up by commissioner as well. i did say the building code typically will ask for us -- it does allow us to get -- if it's called for inspection, or whatever work is performed without a permit and in cases where it determines if the building are considered unsafe, the building official may require that such work be exposed for examination. typically, if we're dealing with this, we would see the permit first to do the legalization and the work for that work. at that point there would be discussion with the inspectors as to what we want opened. so we typically have the permit in place before we go down that road. we don't do it before -- we wouldn't typically do it at this stage, but this is a very unusual project. we're willing to do whatever the planning commission might request. it's something as i say it would typically happen afterwards. we're even thinking in this case that there was special inspection reports for example turned in on this project. that's a third party inspection on the record that we have. we're not even sure whether we're going to trust them. we may look for a totally independent third party inspection agency to come in here and open up this building and see what's there. one thing i will say, there was no visible signs from any inspector there was structural failure with the building. it is something that is going to happen and it doesn't usually happen at this earlier stage in a project when we're looking at something to legalize work that was done without a permit. >> president tanner: i can understand that. i would say to the commissioners, i would possibly be in interested that happening sooner than later, because it's already 2022 and it hasn't happened. and i don't know when we'll see the project back that can have a permit that can be looked at. certainly interested to see what other commissioners. commissioner moore, do you have something on the topic? i was going to the rent board yet. >> vice president moore: i wanted to ask deputy duffy, in the event that inspections you find anything which indeed would prove that something was wrong with the building, what is the fallback position you have? what can be done if there is something very critical in your experience which would not -- out? >> they would have to do a revision permit to document that. it would be part of the process. we're going to go in there and make sure -- for example, if the structural plan showed there was a sheer wall and we go in and get the areas open up, which we're going to need to, and if we find there is deficiencies with that work, we would require that work to be brought up to code. and it would be done under a revision permit if it's not shown correctly on the plans already that we're looking at. i hope that answers your question. >> vice president moore: it does and it doesn't. i watch closely retrofit in my building and i realize that the subtly of inspections is so subtle and so frequent, how can you retrieve all of these steps and be confident that you have what you need? >> that's the inspection process, commissioner. the work is done. you'll have your building inspector looking at it, the third party looking at it. it has to be done for approved plans. it is part of the process. we are going to make sure that whatever meets the code has to be -- has to be inspected, the code and passed. otherwise, it has to be brought up to code at the time of the inspection or otherwise. >> we all know that a building that has two units is different than a building with 10 units. it's a different occupancy load and that's where the subtly of inspections and other codes. that leaves for me a lot of unanswered questions. >> yes, i think -- i would agree, commissioner moore, it's like a circular logic, because they inspected based on the end project. and further more, if we're doing revisions to a n.o.v. that hasn't been resolved, now we haven't decided what the end product is going to be. it's really complex. i want to move to thinking about the tenants. my thinking overall, if the building was not occupied for me the complexity of the project is a little less and it becomes a code compliant project. that's what i would love to see come back to us, a code compliant project that we can take a look at and approve. and understanding because of the removal of adus and the cu, but the variances for rear yard and other things, i would love to see those eliminated for the final project. however, there are folks living here. from what i understand from the staff report, 19 of the units were occupied. so i want to turn our attention to what can the city -- not necessarily just the planning department, but what can the city writ large do to help those tenants? i want to start with the project sponsor representative if they can share with us. has the project sponsor communicated with the tenants throughout this time period the state of the building and the violations that are in place? what has the communication been like between the project sponsor and the current occupants of the building? >> yes, thank you. we actually received i think around 20 letters of support from tenants in the building for our project. and also six letters from the neighborhood. so there is tenant support for the project as proposed. the tenants have been notified of all the inspections. they're aware of what is going on in the building. and, you know, we want to keep the tenants. we want to do whatever we can to not have tenant displacement, that's our goal. >> president tanner: can i ask, it's indicated there has been effort by the department and city to reach out to the tenants. certainly respecting their privacy, is that information regarding the tenants, contact information as well as their rent information you can provide to the city and we can make sure to have outreach to the individuals? >> i know the city has the addresses of all the tenants. in terms of their contact information, we would need to get permission from the tenants. but the rent information we would be happy to provide to the commission. >> president tanner: okay. we would appreciate the rent information. what i'm thinking is some ways that the city can do some more direct contact with the tenants. i think we're going to have the rent board online, are they available? i'm not sure who is here. >> hi, commissioner tanner, i'm here on behalf of the rent board. >> president tanner: hi, how are you doing? >> thanks for having me. >> president tanner: i have a couple of questions. some you may not be able to answer. that's okay. what i really want to ensure is that every tenant in this building is informed of what their rights are. that they know what avenues they have available for them. they know what they deserve, so that if they choose to avail themselves of resources that are available in san francisco that they can do that. that they can get if they're entitled to any financial support or relocation support, whether it's through the project sponsor or through other city programs, that they understand what it is, that they have access to it. if they need remediation. maybe you can help me understand, it's an unusual case, are there resources available to the people living here? what is available to them? >> if you mean what type of counseling is available, they provide counseling to tenants landlords, but certainly one of the tenants could obtain more information about their rights by calling the counseling line. we also have a vast amount of information on our website. we have limited office hours where folks can come in and ask questions. >> president tanner: with access either at the counseling or office hours, there may be folks with a second language -- >> yep, yep. >> president tanner: great. not knowing the situation of every individual here, are there certain protections available fort tenants, either protecting them from being evicted -- for example, eventually folks get evicted because of the construction or because the planning commission doesn't approve a project with, you know, 19 dwelling units, but that's no fault of the tenant and what happens in that situation? do they have certain rights, protections or resources made available under that circumstance? >> yes, in the event that the tenants are evicted or permanently removed because they're in an unauthorized dwelling unit, that would be just cause to evict the tenant. for no fault evictions, any tenant, regardless of age, who has resided in the unit for at least one year is entitled to set mandatory relocation costs. and they're adjusted every march 1st, so i'll just give you a ballpark. currently relocation costs per tenant is $7400 with a cap of $22,000 and change per unit. and because the law recognizes it's more difficult for seniors and disabled tenants and families with children to move, there are additional amounts that would be owed to tenants in those categories, about $5,000 per unit. >> president tanner: thank you very much for that. so, where i end up -- i shouldn't say end up, because i know we have a couple of other folks who want to speak. and i think we all have a lot of challenge trying to figure out what is the way through this project. it would seem to me that ultimately the tenants would have some access to counseling relocation, costs if the project results in their eviction. i understand relocation costs does not mean that the family can find an affordable unit that has the benefits and amenities. so i don't want to say it's equal to that. but even if the city were to comply with the building, it might lead to individuals and families having to be evicted or removed from the building whether permanently or for a certain amount of time while construction is happening. so i would like to see a way for the city, whether it's moving forward as a leader and other agencies if they have a role, to have meetings with the tenants, try to reach out by phone, e-mail, in addition to mail, in multiple languages. make sure they're aware of what is happening, aware of their rights, aware of the resources that they're entitled to and that is available for them so they can begin to take advantage of any remediation. i want to be more proactively involved with the tenants to see if they want or need assistance. i would love to have the project sponsor provide the rents that are being paid in the units. that helps me understand how vulnerable the tenants are. would they find units similar to the rent they're paying currently? or are they having a problem because they are living in the build that was -- that is how i can find out how the tenants are treated, cared for. what we can do. as far as the building goes, i'm just angry and frustrated that this project has gone and this is where the project sponsor and the building inspector that was complicit in helping this project get signed off on without the benefit of the proper inspections. it speaks to the questions of what happens when folks violate the rules that we have in place and how does the city deal with it? and to me, it does not mean you have additional dwelling units and get to do something different. it means you need a code-compliant building or go back to what was originally improved. i'm not inclined to authorize the additional units because of all of the violations and not knowing they're safe to be in. i find that very difficult. perhaps someone can persuade me if that's what you're thinking. i want to make sure the tenants can land softly and get a building that we can be confident in, that doesn't need a lot of exceptions to be constructed. i see commissioner moore and i know that commissioner koppel raised. >> i believe i was after -- >> sorry, commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: in terms of my position on this particular case, there is no doubt that all of us will support code compliance. the question that has been raised, however, is that safety codes are one thing, ada codes are another. the issue of safety as brought forth in terms of what is more -- by the fire representatives and by the building department representative leaves one to think that perhaps the more time-sensitive life safety issues are to a certain degree accounted for in terms of both the sprinkler system, fire alarm -- and i assume they've looked at smoke detectors and things like that. less time-sensitive issues in terms of the seismic response of the building, what to do with ada, and all those other things can occur once our commission provides a direction to staff and where the nature of this project is going to go. and i think we all support code compliance. the question relates to the element of the planning code which has been brought forward which is not necessarily in compliance. if this project had gone through either the state density program or the home s.f. program, those issues that were brought forth now as variances could have been dealt with as part of the c.u. process within those programs, which based upon the increase in density allowed and the commuted benefits from a greater affordable housing, more than likely would have been accepted. when you talk about exposure requirements. when you talk about perhaps less rear yard, et cetera, et cetera. primary issue for me to hear is the fact whether it's 17 tenants currently or 19, both numbers have been raised -- the fact that those numbers are greater than the 10 that was previously allowed. so what are we going to do about that? if we force them to go back to what was originally done, then some people are going to have to look for new units, new places to live, or be on the street. if they had gone through either state density, bonus program or home s.f., the density probably would have been fairly close to what they're now proposing. -- as compared to what was originally allowed. i would be supportive of the legalization if all of the units that were built in excess of the 10 that was permitted are designated as affordable units and would be onsite. and that's what i would support. >> i'll say i could get behind that. thank you, commissioner fung. i'll call on commissioner moore and then you, commissioner koppel. >> vice president moore: i wanted to by way of background, 2013, state density bonus were not an issue and even the four-story building in this location was disputed given this is a much lower density to even get the community support. but that said, i have a question for perhaps mr. -- if he's still around. the question i have for you is, in your career, have you ever had any similar case like the one we're discussing today? >> every case that comes before is unique, but this is a really unique one. this is, you know, the administrator referred to the analysis of the cases as a rubik's cube, kind of ott same thing from a rent control ordinance perspective. very complicated and highly unusual facts here. i can't think of another case that is the same. >> vice president moore: the reason why i'm asking is, why does the rent board have to shoulder the protection of tenants? why is the -- why is the community, the city, not asking for obligating the developer who has taken advantage of people who live there, live in unsafe circumstances from day one on, who have been harmed from day one on, to shoulder the entire responsibility of the current conditions, including what it takes when the building is brought up to be code compliant? this is where i think our social equity kicks in. i do not believe the city has to hold the bag or any board has to be the safety net. the developer having profited from illegal activities for an extended period of time should be called to basically do what is right and that's taking responsibility and make wrong things the right. i believe -- that is my position. i believe the rent board gives guidance as what needs to be done, the rent board should have the developer pick up what the developer's responsibility to solve themselves. >> commissioner koppel: i wish i had a better time being a little more lenient with this project. i'm not going to be okay with it. i mean for those of you who know and don't, the construction process happens in a very linear way, obviously, buildings are built from the ground up. materials are installed. inspected and then covered up. that's why they're inspected, so they can be covered up. once you compromise that process, all bets are off. something may work. that doesn't mean it's going to be safe. i'm not disagreeing with what anybody here is saying or testifying to. and i'm not going to say i'm the most perfect electrician in the world. i failed a couple of inspections. i had to rip it out, reinstall it and get it reinspected. that's where i'm going to land on this one. i'm not okay with something that wasn't inspected to still stand and have people live in. i feel very comfortable with the new project. >> president tanner: thank you. >> commissioner ruiz: i just have a question and i'm not sure who this is for, if it's d.b.i. or the department, but are the tenants entitled to additional compensation if they were living in a building that was not code compliant, just in case -- if they had to be temporarily displaced and the compensation stated by the rent board was not sufficient? >> i think it's probably better addressed by the rent board. >> thinks the rent board. the question is, are the tenants entitled to additional compensation above the mandatory costs just by virtual of the fact that -- virtue of the fact that they were occupying the legal unit? is that the question? >> >> commissioner ruiz: yes. >> under the rent ordinance, no. there is no automatic right to any costs. now whether or not they try to recover some additional costs, damages in court via litigation, that's a different question. there is nothing automatic by far. >> commissioner ruiz: thank you so much. that was all for me. >> president tanner: thank you. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: a couple of things. i do think at this point, the kind of proposals -- i think of difference scenarios, whether -- thank you, commissioner fung, for going back to the point as i'm kind of like thinking it through in terms of like whether to go back to 10-unit building, again what comes back to me, what happens to tenants? when it goes back, when let's say the scenario is this acquired by the city, of course, the budget and timeline for this and then the current tenants also needs to be involved. and even that, there is no, i guess the city attorney can intervene on this -- but the current tenants, the right of return for them will have to go through some -- i say a special preference for this. and then if let's say we use the -- some home s.f. project or market buildings with b.m.r.s, what will happen with the current tenants is they will still be -- go through a process and they have a special preference for them at the same time. so, the way i'm thinking through this is, i support what commissioner tanner, to give us more information about the tenants' occupancy. i would really like to see that and in a way design the project according to them, according to the people who are living there. and in terms -- yes, i mean that's where my head is coming. i mean, what kind of building this is going to be. if this is going to be -- if let's say all of us in the commission decided to demolish this building, there has to be some settlement to the tenants. at the end of the day my decision here is according to the current existing tenants. so this is, i guess, perhaps when it comes back to us, let's explore different scenarios on this what is going to happen to the tenants. thank you. >> president tanner: okay. so i think we've had probably two rounds of comments and questions from commissioners which has been really rich. i don't know that it has given staff any consensus on what to do and bring back to us. i want to ask commissioner koppel, in your ideal scenario would it be that they went back to the original project that was originally approved, or bring forward a different project? what would be your ideal, understanding that it would all have be reinspected or demolished and built again. what is your ideal scenario? >> i can confidently say i'd like to see a code compliant project. >> president tanner: i think most of us have said that. maybe if i could just pull a little bit on the fire escape and the way that it impacts the rear yard. could you describe how that, the degree or maybe literally the dimensions of what the fire escape in the rear yard, such that it makes the year yard noncompliant. is it inches? >> right. so the planning code now allows some features to go into setbacks with limited dimensions for fire escapes in the rear. they can't obstruct more than 4.5 feet deep into the rear yard. and the kind of stairs and landings that are proposed here for fire access or, you know, being able to get out of the fourth floor unit in an emergency, they can five feet deep. so it's a 6-inch difference that is not huge, but that kind of cascades. because once you don't have a code-complying rear yard, that can trigger other issues like exposure for the units. on that specific issue, it's talking about the six inches of extra depth on each of the five fire escapes that are proposed. >> president tanner: okay. assuming that, there is no way they have the fire escape meet the needs we have and not have that six inches? >> and obviously, i can have other agency staff speak to that specifically, but my understanding is these become the minimum size necessary to meet the building and fire code requirements in this situation. [please stand by] [please stand by] -- i think that the challenge i think that commissioner fung raises is that, you know, i think that as a planning commission we thinking about the planning code, six inches is not a big discrepancy and it's typically our doemation. i think that i'll go to you. >> commissioner fung: i would like to remind the commission that you have not seen the 10-unit designs with the units themselves are of marginal quality. and i think that it is our responsibility, aside from having a co-compliant project for all of the particular aspects of code compliance, that you are delivering for basically a market-rate product, which is indeed the requirements that we look for in all other neighborhoods of the city. and i'm not going to give any waiver of quality for unit design, particularly as it is currently quite indiscernible, the use behind the commercial spaces [indiscernible] and we have to make a very big decision on what type of units should we go for in additional 10-unit builds that we want. we may kick out a commercial space or ask for the commercial space to be smaller, because all we're doing here is packing the developer's need for this, with the living space. and co-compliance has to be paired with units that are livable and comfortable in size and quality. and i think we need to bring that forward. and you spend more physical time looking at these units. and move in a direction that we should. do they feel they have a handle on where this is going to go? >> i mean, i can to start with the code compliant project approved in 2013, and there's been a request, we're getting one to meet with the tenants and to pull together the rent board and i think we can work with supervisor ronen's office it sounds like. but the project sponsor is willing to provide us with information for the tenants that we can contact them and have a meeting with them and city representatives to talk to them about their concerns and what rights they have and to increase the density beyond what was allowed previously if there are some concessions from the project sponsor regarding affordable housing in protecting the tenants that currently resist. we'll work with the fire department and dbi to ensure that the building continues to be inspected and accelerate the inspections that were talked about to ensure that the building is safe. and we heard -- go ahead. >> president tanner: there's a lot of things to look at and making sure that the building is seismically safe. >> yeah, so those are big picture and you mentioned other things like the units, the units in the rear were not preferable, so as we look at the increase in density we can already improve what is at the bottom of the list. >> it is important to consider and we're not supporting just some design here. >> president tanner: i think that, commissioners, that the director captured my comments and i would add in response to commissioner moore, that i hope that the project sponsor is helping and maybe paying for this and reaching out to tenants and to convey the messages. so that's why i would like the city staff to make sure that the message and the information is getting to the tenants directly, just because i don't trust them to do the right thing. now is the time to speak or else we'll move to the next item. >> i wanted to add also that looking into the possibility of acquisition and i know that would have to be a conversation with the openness of the project sponsor, but if we could get a report back on that conversation, i'd be really interested to hear how that goes. >> sure. >> thank yo >> clerk:. >> commissioners on that point, in terms of eminent domain it starts with a resolution by the board of supervisors so that's something that would have to happen outside of this commission. >> clerk: okay, commissioners, if there's no further deliberation on this matter, we can move on to item 9 for case 2020-008133cua, at 228 vicksburg street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president tanner, and members of the commission. the planning department staff. before you is a request for conditional authorize to allow for demolition of a residential building and for the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit at 228 vicksburg street. the commissioners here in person are being provided a materials pack threat includes the sponsor's presentation, a copy of the revised motion that was provided to the commission and public last night. and a full set of the exhibit b plan set, and the case report posted online was missing several sheets. and we emailed these to the commission earlier today. the subject property is located n within district 8. parcels within the immediate vicinity consist of residential and mixed-use two and three-story multiple buildings and small dwellings constructed mostly in the early 1900s. and almost all front on to either elizabeth or 24th street, creating a unique double lot -- double key lot configuration for the site. and the vicinity of the project site include rh3, residential house family, and to the north and the west and the 24th street noy valley and cd to the south. and it's on the west side of vicksburg street between elizabeth and 24th street. within the zoning district and 40x bulk district. the 2,900-square-foot lot has a depth of 100 feet. the lot slopes upward towards the rear of the lot and laterally to the north along the street frontage. it's a one-story, 1,270-square-foot, three-bedroom, one family dwelling. and this total area includes what has been a removed one-bedroom unpermitted dwelling unit. a the building was originally constructed in 1912 and a permit to construct a second unit was by the department of building inspection in 1974, however, a certificate of compliance was not issued, and, therefore, the building was never categorized. and the existing one-story, one family dwelling was an unauthorized dwelling unit and the new construction of a 6,325 gross square foot four-story, three-family dwelling which includes a 2,262-square-foot two-bedroom dwelling unit and 1,499-square-foot twelling unit and a 1,235-square-foot two-bedroom dwelling unit, and a 789-square-foot garage, providing two vehicle parking spaces and three class-one bicycle parking spaces. and the building presents as four stories at the street but due to the upsloping lot is three stories above grade at the rear of the building. and the building is compliant with the 40-foot height maximum of the district, and the lots 45-yard rear yard line and a 12-foot-deep popout encroachment into the rear yard with five-foot setbacks to the property line. and the company had an unauthorized dwelling unit or udu screening for the project and found no udu to be present. and the project was continued from the 2021 commission hearing without being heard due to the department receiving statements from persons stating to be former tenants of a second unit, 230 vicksburg street, that existed at the subject property the stuff had outreach via email and phone calls which resulted in confirmation of a second unit being previously located at the site within the rear portion of the existing building. the case report, exhibit c, is a sketch of the likely building layout with the udu which would have made the building consist of a two-bedroom unit and a one-bedroom unit. although the udu has already been removed, the project is -- the project is required to provide findings for the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit per planning unit 173. and with the property as a two-unit building and under code 66300, the crisis housing act, it's subject to the city's rent ordinance and they are considered a protected unit and are subject to replacement and relocation requirements, dependent up the income levels of the current or the previous tenants. i have provided to the tenant the draft motion that has been revised to modify the findings and the conditions of approval related to the true replacement units required for demolition of the two protected units. at the time of the publication of the case report last week, the sponsor had not provided income verification statements for tenants in a manner that could sufficiently confirm that the units had not been previously occupied by low-income tenants and therefore, the department had two replacement units as deed restricted units available to households earning up to 50% of ami. since that time, the sponsor has provided signed income verification statements from all previous tenants that show that no low-income tenants occupied either of the units. and, therefore, the findings and the conditions of approval have been updated to reflect that the project would provide both of the replacement units as rent-controlled rental units. the department has received one letter of correspondence in support of the project, and approximately 15 letters of correspondence in opposition, including one from the nuoy neighborhood council. and the issues of loss of existing structure, tree protection, construction impacts, the new building scale massing and related impacts to light and air, and the affordability of the new units. for outreach, the sponsor performed a pre-application meeting on february 4, 2020, and since that first hearing continued in december 2021, the sponsor had community meetings that facilitated by supervisor mandelman's office. with that, the department finds that the project is on balance and consistent with the policy of the general plan and the building is code compliant and in keeping with the pattern and the neighborhood character. although the project includes demolition of the existing single-family home with an unauthorized dwelling unit, it would create a total of three new larger units, and a total of three additional bedrooms on site. thereby, maintaining the allowed density of the project while creating additional family-sized housing. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the community. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you, is the project sponsor available? >> i'll stand here, nobody needs to look at me. i'm earl rice, the architect on the project. and hopefully we have a slide up here. i don't see it on the other screens. there we go. this is the existing project in the middle. it should be noted that the building to the left faces 24th as a matter of fact, the only building on this side of the street is the pink one to the right. and it's also mentioned that it's both an upslope and a side slope. this is our proposal it. proposal. it should present as three stories on street. and the pink one is the only one that actually faces vicksburg street and we tried to relate to that so it wasn't orphaned. not much to work there and they did have a bay window so we chose to go with bay windows. en keeps talking about a four-story building by planning and building code, it is three stories given the upslope. we step back as the site steps up. the existing building right now should be 25% rear yard and the rear is a single story over a crawl space with a pitched roof so it's about 20 feet. and it is pushed up against the north property line on the elizabeth street project. we are proposing to bring that back to 45%, and then do only a two-stories per 136, so it will bring the rear yard open space -- it will reduce it at about 20, 22 feet. there's a lot of concern with shadows. these shadows -- we geolocated them and made them available to the planning department and this was taken on december 21st at 1:00. and really we're not going to have an impact. the other shadow impact that we heard of was from 24th street neighbors, but the reality is that given they live in the shadow facing north, our building will do more to reflect light than to block it. this is a 3d mapping, another important thing is that we voluntarily stepped the third floor -- what you are calling the fourth floor -- back on all sides, including the sides, because we knew as a double key lot that that was going to be a big deal. last slide here, there's another massing model of how that's going to sit in the rear yard. that's all the time that i need if somebody else wants to speak but i'd also like to take questions if i have time and any of you have any questions. >> clerk: i would complete your presentation though. if they have questions it won't take up any of your time. unless that completes your presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am denise led better, a counsel for the sponsor, dave o'donnell, and i wanted to bring to your attention the things that planning staff indicated earlier. this project was originally identified as a single-family dwelling and there were no two units. unfortunately, over the course of time it was discovered that there were two units, one of which was illegal. the reality is that the project sponsor purchased a home, a single-family home, and after time it was determined that the project had the single-family home had been divided into two units and the two units were primarily divided -- there were many, many instances of the tenants dividing it into two units. so i think that it's really important to keep in mind that under sb-330, there needs to be objective and quantifiable standards to continue the conditions and policies with respect to creation of housing because of the housing crisis. and if you're going to take property such as this that unbeknownst to the developers they're going to have restrictions -- significant restrictions -- that are not made aware from the get go, there's going to be a significant chilling effect on the developers coming in and purchasing properties and then discovering through neighborhood information that there were two units, thereby, requiring below-market rental or an imposition of significant devaluing of the property. and i think that based on that specific instance, and i think that it's going to happen repeatedly over and over again, i think that there needs to be some sort of objective standard with respect to how you're going to impose those conditions. thank you. >> clerk: if that concludes the project sponsor's presentation we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. for those calling in remotely press star, 3, and if you're in the chambers, please step forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners, neighborhood council and san francisco land-use coalition. i certainly hope that there would be a chilling effect on untruthful developers who misrepresent their projects as a single-family home. and they actually commit the connection of two units illegally. if you actually look at the history of this project you will see that there was a complaint filed on illegal work that was being done shortly after the developer took possession. we don't have pictures of what they did but we suspect that they actually connected these two units. secondly, mr. rice's depiction of what this new building is going to look like, again, i would urge the commission to question that and ask him to put up that slide, and also the slide of the current condition on the street, because he -- there is only a two-story apartment next door, and he's showing his four-story building to look like a two-story building. so the depiction is a complete lie. i just want to take this opportunity to thank the staff for doing the leg work and also listening to the previous tenants to correct the condition of the property. and changing it from just a single-family to actually a duplex. and vis-a-vis the application of the housing crisis act, i would urge the commission to question whether or not the developer is going to have these units for rentals, or he's planning on selling them, because from what i understand the condition of sale, vis-a-vis sb-330 is completely different than the rentals and for how long he's going to be holding on to them, and whether or not he can just turn around and sell them once you actually give him the entitlement. this is a very interesting application and i really urge you to ask these questions. thank you. >> good day president tanner and fellow planning commissioners. i'm anastasia anapolous, and we're with race and equity and all planning commission. i have lived in district 8, a block from the proposed project, the 220, and 228 vicksburg for 37 years. since the planning had findings in a draft motion that's in your packet, the project sponsor has asserted that no former tenants were low income. also, i'll point out that there is no garage at the subject property. the speculator/developer hopes that you'll approve a massive four-story three-unit building that towers above all of the nine neighboring properties at this double key lot, and includes a 789-square-foot garage. a single-story affordable home and a second dwelling unit at the site will be demolished. and replaced by a two-car garage. labeled "basement level" on the plans. commissioners, i ask you, is a two car garage a necessity in our transit rich neighborhood, considering that the subject project is close to muni, bart and bus lines, connecting to all parts of the city and beyond. excuse me. this particular proposal replaces two affordable units with three luxury units, clearly making them unavailable to those in need of affordable housing. personally, i'm sickened at heart. my son who was a teacher and his young wife were unable to find housing they could afford and left san francisco. the long-time tenants occupied building on 24th street sit on the ground floor basement level of proposed project and they'll lose all of their natural light and be left in the darkness. am i done or -- >> clerk: that is your time. thank you. okay, if there are no additional members of the public in the chambers who wish to comment, we'll go to our remote callers. and i will remind them that when you hear that your line is un-muted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: hello, my name is julia costa and with my husband and 3-month-old child i live directly behind and north of the proposed four-story development arguably, our project will be the most impacted in terms of light and privacy as the proposed four-story building will completely shadow our property. i want to make three points. first, i want to remind the commission of the community impact that the structure will have. nine homes share a property line with this proposed development. at least 15 families and individual residents in those properties will have a negative impact on their light and privacy, and 10 different families as previously mentioned are concerned. three of the residents actually who wrote letters have lived in their homes for over 25 years each, and many on fixed income and they don't have the means to pack up and move somewhere else so these are the real people impacted, measurably impacted, by the proposed project. now, given that we have been trying to look and understand for the possible positive impact but we really can't seem to find it, but for the profit that it would bring to the developers. the current structure is not a single-family home, it's a two-unit rent controlled building and this sounds like it's somewhat recognized by the commission and the developer, which is great, but we have yet to see the action to make that affordable by design. virtually this is a three large condo and that's not affordable at all. and we have a strong desire for the planning commission to reduce the footprint or take off the top floor so at least two of these units can be affordable for units seeking rent. >> caller: good afternoon, planning commissioners. i am jim harvey and my wife own and live at 379 elizabeth street, right around the corner from 228 and 236 vicksburg. that is a two-unit developer and the developer is proposing to greatly expand this property in size and bulk into a 6,300-square-foot building and we have opposition to the four-story construction of this three luxury residences, ranging from size from 1,200 to 2,200-square-foot each. we agree with the goal to have affordable housing but this replaces two affordable units with three luxury units. as we reported, it was recently report that the average price of condominiums is about $1,100 per square foot. should they be put on the market to sell it puts them at $1.4 million to $2.6 million each, currently making it unavailable for those in need of affordable housing. if they were rented it would be $5,000 to $8,000 a month, again, not very reasonable. in addition to the unaffordability of the large units, the overall mass of this proposed project is too big, altering the natural light and the air flow into surrounding homes and yards and removing the privacy for the adjacent neighbors. this will be taller and larger than either the existing residences at that address, or the nearby properties. the buildings will be out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. this is a key lot that extends deep into the block and, therefore, it influences many adjacent properties on elizabeth and vicksburg and 24th. we ask the planning commission to require a reduction of height and bulk in this project in order to relieve some of the significant negative impacts on the adjoining neighbors. and you should reduce the size of the units, thereby, making them more affordable. >> clerk: thank you, sir, that is your time. >> caller: thank you. >> caller:oh, hi, it's george soutus and i wrote a letter on the 18th about this one and it was restricted ami, which sounded like a good thing, but i guess that's not going to happen now and that's very unfortunate, specifically, because it is nudoy valley. and i have mentioned the flat policy that doesn't cover this because it went to the flat but it would be good to have an update on the plat policy. and, you know, there's been a lot of units lost in nuoy valley, in part because of the [indiscernible] and this project sort of brings that home. but i'm very sympathetic to the neighbors and their loss of light and air and privacy, especially now with the fact that it's going to be market rate housing. so i hope that will be considered as you vote on this conditional use. and that's it i guess, it's really unfortunate that it's not going to be restricted, and that was a good thing and it was good that the staff worked hard to uncover that and with the neighbors. and i hope that is a template for the future. thank you very much, bye. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. layla stanley, counselor with the san francisco tenants' unition. [indiscernible] it depends on the kind of housing. san francisco does not have a shortage of luxury housing. and it has been reported that there are tens of thousands of these units in the city. san francisco does have a shortage of affordable housing. concerning the current project and why it should not be approved as presented -- first, consider what is lost. two smaller affordable rent-controlled units are lost to lower-income tenants. consider the replacement. the big, larger, unaffordable luxury unit. yes, the law requires that two of them are going to be rent controlled, but at initial rents that are set at market rate which very few people can afford these days. a project that is out of scale with massive square footage and four levels. it doesn't have the quality of light for the long-term tenants with their natural light and privacy. and so what can this commission do? you can focus on affordable by design. you can reduce the scale. build smaller units that are more affordable for renters and more affordable for starter homes. be concerned when money becomes the only thing of value from this city and the only voice that is heard. approximately 55% of residents are tenants who should be valued and heard and are deserving of enjoying their premises. will there ever be a penalty on applicants who lie on their application? why are permits not denied when this is apparent? thank you for your time. >> clerk: okay, thank you, last call for public comment. you need to press star, 3, or please come forward. seeing no additional request to speak from any member of the public, the public comment is closed and, commissioners this matter is now before you. >> president tanner: okay, staff, i want to call on commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: i have a question for -- in conversations with mr. -- sorry -- warren. my question is the second floor units, one and two, shows non-complying sleeping rooms. the non-compliant sleeping rooms or bedrooms that sit on property lines and require elevated windows, and they are not operatable and don't let the air in. and with an easement to the adjoining property, with these property lines these windows would disappear all together. why would the staff not call this when the building itself is basically like a very oversized building and should hold back on the property line and non-compliant sleeping rooms that is serp serp and i'm asking mr. horn and mr. teague to respond to that. >> thank you, commissioner more jeff warren, planning staff. i do think that mr. teague is no longer at the commission. so just to clarify the rooms of question, this is on the first floor? >> vice president moore: no, it's on the second floor, 882.2 north side unit, unit u3, sleeping rooms facing north. >> so these rooms -- according to the sponsor -- well, in our review the rooms are -- have -- egress, um, on that north deck. >> vice president moore: that is typical which is a fixed windows and fire glazing j. >> staff does our best to review rooms for compliance with all building code issues but that is a true requirement of the building code, it is something that would be reviewed during their plan check review. >> vice president moore: no, it says it on the drawing and so if you read the drawing label it identifies it as non operable windows and not compliant sleeping rooms and it's very easy to say because it says so. >> yes, commissioner, with the property line, the intent is that the egress requirement for the bedroom definition is coming via the wall -- the eastern wall which runs on 24th street. >> vice president moore: no, it's not egress, it's basically access to air as well, right. >> egress and ventilation. >> vice president moore: i don't understand why this is not in the same way that the third floor was. that would give more breathing room for the property on elizabeth street and relieve the oppressive massing of this building and make it a more livable building for immediate or future use or adjoining property to expand on to their own property line. so i find this project very difficult and it struck me as very unusual for very large units that it would have non-operable bedroom windows, that is something to bring to the commission's attention. and with the discovery of rent-controlled units in the past, this project is still difficult to get my support. thank you. >> president tanner: thank you, commissioner moore. i have a few questions. just a little bit about the process of kind of understanding the tenant history here. the staff report that previously when we were all looking at the project that staff did research and to look at the meters and the mailboxes and the billing records. just out of curiosity to understand, when that occurred, did you find that there were separate meters for pg&e or there were separate mailboxes or you didn't find those and you said that there was no history of evictions and i'm trying to understand more about the connection to the street. >> yes, commissioner tanner. so the project was sent through the udu screening review procedures and those were some of the items that were indicative of kind of the physical evidence of a second unit being at the site. the two meters, that was something that was actually viewed through the time -- the time back review available on google review and that includes the mailboxes. there were photos presented by the neighbors, as well as online marketing materials for the property that showed an address of 230 on a second door. there were physical things that alluded to a second unit being at the site. a second unit was never shown on any plans within the record for the project although there was a permit as referenced in the case report for the construction of a second unit back in the 1970s, which was never completed per dbi records. in regards to -- our udu screening has two components, the physical layout of a building and the use of it as an independent unit. and the department found references to the 230 vicksburg within the voter rolls. but in terms of deeds or leases, there was no evidence that we had to say that this unit had been there, and it had been independently ever leased out. so at the time of this project's first hearing the department could not make those -- answer both questions was there physically a unit and was it independently used as a separate dwelling unit at the time, and that's why the original conclusion was that the house was a single-family home as presented on the plans. >> president tanner: okay. i guess that is the subject of another hearing but it's interesting that there's some physical evidence to point to understand that you couldn't necessarily say definitively that there were tenants but happily they did come forward and provide information regarding their rental rates and incomes and things of that nature. for me, you know, this project is certainly interesting. i think that it is something that we will probably see more of, not only in the udu aspect which is kind of a separate thing to me, but just in terms of taking a single-family home and adding more units to it and it becoming taller, bigger, than what is currently there. i think that it is certainly the direction that the city is going, with policies that the commissioners support and going to the board of supervisors and things that we'll see. i want to ask the project sponsor a couple of questions for their representative if they are available. i am just wanting to understand the history of the property, and if there was any awareness at that time if there had been affected units or any of the marketing or the interactions with the real estate, the seller, that there was a second unit and we can understand what happened at that time. >> thank you, commissioners. at the time of the acquisition it was a single-family home and when it was discovered that through the neighborhood discussion that there was a second unit, it appears that there was a second unit. the second unit was created by tenants of the property. we have no idea when the second unit was removed. and through the process of hiring -- pursuant to the requirements of the planning department -- my client hired a private investigator and went back through all of the people who had ever lived there. and spoke to them. and the documentation is in the file with respect to the income levels of all occupants. so there was no confirmation, there was no representation that there was multiunits at the property at the time of acquisition by my client. it was discovered only later through the process of -- the neighborhood talking to the planning department. >> president tanner: okay, thank you very much. so, commissioners, i am unable to support this project today but i'd like to hear from others who would like to speak or offer comments or motions. mr. ionin, does anyone have their hand up? >> in general i support this project, especially that it's going to add two more units that is going to be rent controlled. but i do have a question to mr. horn in terms of, like, what if this project -- what if the project sponsor tries to do this, and tries to condoize this building, is there going to be -- does that mean it has to come back to the planning commission if they try to turn it into condo units? >> thank you, commissioner imperial. jeff horn, planning staff. so, yes, the housing crisis act has two scenarios for when a project has been determined that it needs to replace protected units but also due to income verification have determined that those protected units have not been inhabited by two low-income units. and so the controls or the conditioning of the new units are dictated by the tenure of the project moving forward. so the case has been prepared based on discussions with the sponsor under a rental model for the two units and so, therefore, the units are being conditioned to be rent-controlled units. per the housing crisis act, if the project sponsor had wanted to propose the units for sale, those would have been deed restricted and affordable units at 80% of ami for 55 years. and those conditions are not related -- or included within this case report. for our project sponsors, our condo sub-devoided projects in the future that has an application through the department of public works and that application is -- those applications are referred to the planning department, and at that time that application would come to the planning department for review and theoretically, the planner assigned to that would review that against the current entitlement before you today. and the conditions within that entitlement. i believe that at that time if the ownership -- or condoizing the subdivision of those two units were proposed, there would effectively be a hold and a look at that project and a potential to see how those mirror against the conditions of approval that are before you today. >> commissioner imperial: so can we add a condition that this cannot be condoized, can that be added? >> so -- >> i think that we should ask the city attorney, but from understanding mr. horn, if it is and it becomes ownership, they would be subject to a cap of 80% of ami, right. they'd be affordable at 80% of ami. because they have those two options, or when they went through this process, one to do as rental? >> commissioner imperial: it sounds like they have to be deed restricted. >> a for sale unit would be deed restricted at 80% of ami and that's the current requirement of the housing crisis act. they're not explicitly mentioned in the motion and condition before you today because that's not the tenure that the sponsor is proposing but that would be the requirement for sale. >> commissioner imperial: can we add that to the condition that they follow those requirements which are outlined. >> to clarify that, per units two and three are the two replacement protected units, and unit one has no restrictions on it under the housing crisis act so the rent control is applicable to units two and three in the proposed building. >> commissioner imperial: so i would like to make a motion with condition to add that if it's for sale, that it would be deed restricted at 80% ami. >> president tanner: i'll second that motion. >> clerk: okay, commissioners -- >> president tanner: excuse me. >> i would be more comfortable if we limited it to units two and three, if that's what we're talking about here and you specifically referred to the government code provision that we're talking about. >> commissioner imperial: i would be amenable to that, commissioner diamond. >> i would as well, second. >> clerk: okay, if there's no efficient deliberation, there's a motion that is seconded to approve the project with the revised motion that was submitted by staff with conditions as amended by the commission to include a condition that in the event that units two and three are to be sold, that they adhere to current controls and be deed restricted at 80% ami. on that motion [roll call vote] >> commissioner diamond: it would be a reference to the code protection and i didn't hear you say that. >> clerk: i believe that was the original motion. the motion said deed restricted at 80% ami. >> i offered an amendment to that. >> so the original motion was td three, and that is in the government code section 666300 housing crisis act. and so when -- when i -- you know, approve for the amenable, that as far as i'm concerned that you're only concerned about the units two and three and that was also in the original motion because that's part of the government code section. so what mr. horn is saying is that when the units two and three are up for sale, the government code section allows it to deed restrict it at 80% ami. >> commissioner diamond: right, i'm not disagreeing with any of that, i want the condition to refer to the specific government section. >> clerk: that would be 66300? >> yes. >> clerk: very good then, commissioners. and the maker of the motion and the second and all are amenable to that. so to approve with conditions, including a condition that in the event that units two and three are to be sold, that there be a reference to them for government code 66300, and that would then deed restrict them at 80% ami. on that motion [roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes up 1 with commissioner moore passing against. and we go to case 10a, b and c. and 2021-011722cua, 3251-3253 steiner street. and 22005, and 2207 lombard street. and there are two conditional use authorizations for the two separate addresses. essentially on the same property. that you will consider, and there's a variance request for the address that the zoning administrator will consider. >> president tanner: at this time i would like to suggest a short break, five minutes and come back at 4:25. while the project sponsor is set up. >> clerk: thank you, you must have been reading my mind. we are going to recess for five minutes >> the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to code section 712 to allow the conversion of a two residential flats on the second and third floors of the subject building measuring approximately 1,150-square-feet and 1,300-square-feet respectively. these conversion is to convert these into service uses. the project also seeks a variance to remove the condition of approval associated with the variance case -- >> clerk: i apologize to interrupt you. sfgov-tv can we go to the slide presentation. >> the project also seeks a variance to remove the two off-street parking spaces and the ground story garage for the two dwelling units. a related project at 2205 lombard street proposes to establish a cannabis retail use within the ground floor commercial space. this project intends to use the existing garage space for the cannabis retail use. the subject building as you can see in the slide show is at the southwest corner of lombard and steiner streets and consists of a three-story front portion, a one-store middle portion and a two-story rear portion. the ground floor has commercial spaces assigned to the street. and the second floor consists of a two bedroom at 251 steiner street acht the front a roof deck in the middle and a commercial space at the rear. there's a two-bedroom residential, and the units are used currently as offices for non-professional services. the original building at the subject property was a three-story construction in 1986, the property owner filed a conditional use authorization in 1986, case number 86.19c to convert from residential use to commercial used which was denied by the planning commission. a request for yard variance was filed in the same year and it was approved and a two-story portion at the rear was built in place of a six-car parking lot -- sorry -- in place of a six car parking lot along with the condition of approval that the ground story garage and the existing three-story building be converted back and accommodate two parks spaces for the residents per the code. and it was found that the two units on the second floor and the third floor were illegally converted to non-retail service spaces without a permit. currently, the second floor unit consists of law offices and the third floor consists of therapist offices. subsequently, the staff conducted a site visit in february 2022, where it was observed that the partition area of the flat have been per the authorized drawings but the kitchen facilities have been removed to make way for an office space and the bathroom spaces are modified to remove the shower facilities to have an office use. the staff would like to amend the following, the documentation filed on february 13,2004 has eviction notice where a tenant was evicted with the cause listed as capital improvement and that no building permits were filed. the applicant has submitted proof of electrical work in january 2004 which stated that rewiring work has been carried out for a commercial office mixed use flat. and the brief show cased the erroneous information with the land use in the form of anecdotal information and images from the city's old record systems and they acknowledge that the authorized land use may have been reflected in our info there's a search for the land use is listed as residential. and maintained from 199 to the time of construction lists the use as a two-unit residential building. in 1988, a certificate of completeness was issued for the unit which carried out the expansion of the ground floor commercial space and the rear addition authorized through the 1986 variance. the cfc states that the authorized use is two dwelling units as well. and the former history shows that permits from 2012, and 2014 and 2015 list the building as residential and two-family building. they have the original motion documents from 1986 that state the denial of the residential conversion in 1986 and also acknowledged the variance application to expand the ground floor commercial space. as of the date of publication, staff received one letter of support from the law offices in the building and staff has not received any letters in opposition of the project. in summary, this states that the authorized land use for these units are residential, and the department recommends disapproval. the department finds that it is inconsistent with the objectives and the policies of the general plan and does not find the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. so considering the hardships that this recommendation might pose to the existing tenants, the department is sympathetic to the sponsors' circumstances and is willing to work with them to agree to have a pragmatic protocol to allow for the restoration of these units to be within the timeline that the commission deems appropriate given the history of this case. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. my colleague laura will now present the details of the related cannabis use application. and the applicant has a presentation which they'll be called upon later. thank you so much. >> good afternoon, president tanner out in the virtual world and members of the commission. laura ioello with planning staff. part three of the entitlement applications for this site is a proposal to establish a cannabis retail use during business as rosemary jane. the planning code requires conditional use authorization for cannabis retail within the nc-3 zoning district. these zoning districts are located along heavily trafficked thoroughfares which serve as major transit routes. neighboring businesses include tourist motels, eating and drinking establishments, and personal service uses. the surrounding properties not located on lombard are primarily zoned two-family residential. as noted in the previous presentation, the project site contains a mixed-use building at the corner of lombard and steiner streets. the authorized use includes two residential flats with a two car garage fronting on steiner and four commercial spaces fronting on lombard. the cannabis applicant proposes to internally merge a 1,040-square-foot ground floor tenant space with the adjacent, 642-square-foot space. the larger space was formally a restaurant that ceased operation in 2020. the second tenant space is occupied by a realty company with plans to vacate by the end of the year. exterior changes consist of the addition of lighting and security cameras. proposed business hours are daily from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on-site cannabis consumption is not proposed. and it is not permitted per the draft motion. the applicant is also seeking use of the attached 277-square-foot garage. if approved the roll-up door will be replaced and the new door will include a manned door transfer of the garage is not supported by the department and the use of garage is contingent on various requests that is also on today's agenda. should the variant restriction be removed, the department recommends to converge the garage back to commercial storefront space. as noted in the executive summary, the sponsor conducted outreach under the office of cannabis good neighbor policy which includes providing a mailed notice to all property owners and applicants within 300-feet of the site and having an outreach meeting. there's one comment based on the number of approved cannabis stores on lombard street, increases in crime, and open drug use. after the commission packets were distributed, 20 public comments in support of the project and two comments in opposition were received. one of those comments was from a neighbor and the other was from the golden gate valley neighborhood association. both cited concerns about oversaturation of cannabis retail in the neighborhood. as you know, the planning code requires a 600-foot separation between cannabis stores and the nearest cannabis retailer in operation is the apothecarium on lombard street. and three additional cannabis retailers have been approved in the vicinity. and the closest at 3109 philmore street approximately 700 feet from the subject site. followed by 1885 lombard, and 1700 lombard. however, to date none of these stores have completed the building permit process. so they're not currently in operation. the executive summary and draft motion were written based on the department recommendations to restore both residential units and to retain the garage for residential use. this is reflected under condition number nine in the draft motion. should the zoning administrator approve the variance to remove the parking restriction today, and the commission's support legalizing the conversion, draft condition number nine can be removed from the final motion. additionally, because sites with active code enforcement cases typically require zoning compliance cases to be abated prior to the approval of other permits, condition 10 was added to the draft motion. however, i would like to read into the record that the zoning administrator has requested that this condition be removed so that zoning and compliance staff can retain direct oversight of this issue. in conclusion, the department recommends approval of the conditional use application with the exception of the parking transfer from residential use. the project meeting all applicable requirements of the planning code and the proposed use would complement the mix of goods and services currently available in the district and contribute to the economic vitality of the neighborhood by occupying a vacant storefront. this concludes my presentation and i'll be around to answer any questions and the project sponsors are here to address the commission. thank you. >> clerk: okay, thank you. do we have the project sponsor for the conversion? okay. you have five minutes. >> thank you, mr. ionin. good afternoon, john kivlin on behalf of the property owner. there's a lot going on with this case so i'll try to simplify it as much as possible. in july 2021, rosemary jane had filed for a cannabis retail store on the ground floor. and staff realized that there was a discrepancy where the commercial use did not match the record of the spaces as residential units. there was a 1986 variance that required a small garage on the ground floor to be parking serving the residential units. so in order to move forward with the planning commission, staff required that we file a conversion cpu to solve this dikrepsancy and to limit the parking restriction on the garage area that the cannabis retail intends to use for storage as well. and so we're here today on three actions. the residential conversion cu, and the variance, and the cannabis retail cu. and now with respect to the residential conversion, our brief included a detailed overview of how these units ended up as commercial spaces. and by the way we are not in any disagreement that these were two units as of 2002 and that they were never -- they've never gone through the process to be converted to another unit. work was done for commercial space but it had not been converted. the property owner at the time was renting the units he had an intent to continue renting them as residential ice. use. when she went to the city to get a permit to fix some electrical issues and she was told that the units were commercial and that they would not process a residential electrical permit, that she must use it as a commercial use. considering this feedback from city agencies, marjorie was forced to send $80,000 per unit to convert them to commercial use. she's since been renting the spaces to commercial tenants, a law office and a psychotherapy office has been there for the past 16 and nine years. and the psychotherapy office refurnished the offices in 2001. and both have provided letters with the hardship that an eviction would be on their businesses. to force her to undergo another expensive remodel and conversion back to the residential is exceedingly unfair to both her and her tenants. fortunately, we have begun discussions with staff regarding the paths forward to resolve this issue and in light of this, with the staff recommendation of disapproval on the residential conversion, which would allow us to engage in this conversation in earnest to solve this issue in a fair and equitable way for all parties. with respect to the variance, with the continued access to the garage space on the ground floor creates complications for the proposal and also since the cannabis retail operation does not require vehicle access to the space, we are modifying the proposal to fill in the curb cut and use the space solely for storage by the cannabis retailer. so we'll be taking that vehicular access off the steiner street which is a lower density residential street compared to lombard. as such, we are on the same page with staff, and the focus can be on the proposal in front of the commission which is cannabis retail use. i'll let them speak on their own behalf with respect to the proposal but i want to emphasize how critical this is for marjorie. she is retired and taking care of her 93-year-old mother at home currently and soon the remainder of the ground floor commercial spaces will be vacant and the rent from the cannabis retail is needed for living costs. she's not a real estate professional and only followed guidance from the city staff in 204 and to now, and to proceed with the process with city staff and the enforcement team and please act on the cannabis cu today and in particular with the removal of condition 10 with respect to allowing the enforcement process to move forward on its own. so i believe that we actually have marjorie, the building owner, on the phone and she has health issues and wasn't able to be here today so i'd like her to take a minute or two to provide some of her thoughts. mr. ionin, if you have her on >> clerk:unless she's calling in on a number that was not provided to us -- i don't see the number that she gave. >> the one they sent earlier. >> clerk: we were provided 415-317 -- and i'll leave it at that. >> yep. look, she can -- if she calls in during public comment if she could speak during those two minutes that would be appreciated. >> clerk: you only have 40 seconds remaining. okay, project sponsor for the cannabis retailer. yes, you have five minutes. >> should i start -- there we go. okay. hi, i am a little nervous so please bear with me. i don't love public speaking. hello, good afternoon, and thank you to the planning commission for allowing me to present today. my name is michelle kim and i'm the c.e.o. and verified equity partner for lombard street equity, doing business as rosemary jane, a proposed cannabis retail facility at 2205, 2207 lombard street. with me today i'm joined by john underwood, the co-founder. shawn cunningham, our architect. and our attorney, and mr. felix, our president. and so rosemary jane is an equity owned business and our goal is to improve the lives of all people by offering cannabis as a wellness lifestyle for all adults and providing employment and wealth building opportunities for women, people of color and those disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. thank you. to show how we are living by our values we are partnering with mission alliance non-profits like the ones that you see on the slide. we will prioritize hiring those who were formally incarcerated for non-violent cannabis convictions. we will feature diversely owned brands in our store and provide diversity and equity training for all of our staff, and provide a compassionate care program where we distribute 50 vouchers a month to our partners. so this our leadership team and i'm proud of the diverse leadership team that we have here who bring a wealth of experience and knowledge and the regulated cannabis real estate and hospitality industries. as you can see we're women of color led and i'm the c.e.o. and mr. felix, our president, served on the board of harper side. we care deeply about public safety in the neighborhood and are committed to being great neighbors. our commitment is to the neighborhood that i listed on the slide and i won't read it, just in the interest of time. our success hinges -- next slide, please. our success hinges on the deep relationship that we're building within the community and our ability to be the employer of choice. so all of our employees have received the benefits listed here and we are committed to creating 15 to 20 jobs, new jobs, and generating an estimated $500,000 in tax revenue annually. our customers -- we care about our customers and we will provide them with the best customer service experience, grounded in comprehensive cannabis science education. so that they can make the best choices for themselves and their unique body chemistry. so this is the proposed cannabis retail facility at 2205, 2207 lombard and as mentioned it is currently vacant. we will make minimal changes to the existing facade and we want to like blend in with the community. and in the corner you will see a rendering of the aesthetic that we're going for with the interior. and as discussed, whatever you all decide that we need to do with the garage we will do and we're fine with the recommendation of the sidewalk as per your recommendation. so the next slide is our timeline. we started our community outreach in may 2021, and we provided you all with a summary of our efforts, but basically we have reached out to local community organizations and associations, and supervisor stephanie and her staff and we had three meetings and canvassed the community on foot. with part of the san francisco cannabis retailers alliance, and with supervisors neighborhood pulse. and we received 21 letters of support and 74 existing rosemary jane open customers signed as per a condition to make available to you. and the community is positive and quiet. some have been curious and ask questions about our business viability and how we'll operate, with our proximity to residences and we said that no products are visible from the exterior of the store. and the facade of the story will be well kept and aesthetically pleasing. these are our supporters. and that is our presentation. thank you for allowing me to present. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes both presentations and we should take public comment. the members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on both of these matters. members of the public in the chamber, please come forward. members of the public calling remotely, you need to press star 3. >> good afternoon, i am christian ulbrect and i live on greenwich street and i have been going door-to-door in my neighborhood in a two to three block radius for the last few weeks and i have secured 137 signatures against the cannabis store. i did not send it to the planning committee yet but i have copies and i have it on a drive, and i will send it to you and the planning commission. this would be -- there's three operating cannabis clubs in the marina and there are two under construction and one at 3109 philmore and one at 1700 lombard and then three other applications in processing and another one just submitted. and they're all within fairly close proximity. and the one at 3109 it would be within a five-block radius and that would be up to nine cannabis clubs. i have talked to my neighbors and they're not against cannabis at all, medical or recreational, but they are concerned about a saturation rate and the fact that 2205 and 2207 is in close proximity to a montessori school, and there's another school that is actually a math school tutorial on the corner of lombard and philmore street. and so let me just look at some of my other notes here. do i have three or five minutes? >> clerk: you have 30 seconds now. >> oh, 30 seconds, okay. i put together exhibit a in my petition and i spoke with 148 neighbors and i got 137 signatures and that's a 92% rate, that actually signed. and, you know, if approved it would be possibly the sixth cannabis club, and i'm just concerned for the safety of our neighborhood and the kids nearby. and -- >> clerk: that is your time. >> one question do i need to get this to somebody? >> clerk: you can submit that here if you would like. or just give it to the case planner. either way. >> thank you very much. >> we support the department disapproval of the conversion of the units. we support keeping the parking and residential units because we have lost so many. now, we were not informed correctly by the developer about this. and i thought that the application was for 2205, and then i find out that the a combining of 2207. that's another one of our small retail shops, whether it's real estate or whether it's retail, and we're going to lose another one. every time you lose one, the price goes up because of lack of the numbers. number three, 3100 philmore, it is within 600 feet. the cannabis group's own map shows the circle that it overlaps. the last time that i called in i was so frustrated because i had called in about 1881 lombard and it overlapped 1881 union. so how many of these applications are overlap something now the 3100 is in its final inspection as of this week. and so there may be an overlap on this. what do we do? i don't know. but i want us to follow the codes, whatever they are, and i want us to look into this very closely. saturation of any use is not good for our commercial districts. whether it is cannabis or whether it's restaurants or whether it's retail, you need a mix. thank you. >> clerk: okay, any other members in the chamber wishing to speak. if not, we'll go to remote callers. again, as a reminder when you hear that your line is unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: thank you, commissioners for the opportunity to say a few words in support of item 10c. my name is ed donaldson, i'm a part of rosemary jane's executive chain. -- >> clerk: sir, i'm sorry, i will interrupt you there. if you're part of the executive team, then you are part of the project sponsors' team and your time to present would have been during their presentation so i will take the next caller. >> caller: hi, my name is amy louis. i live at 3241 steiner street and i'm calling in to represent my family and my neighbors at 3190 -- 3251 and 3253 sometimer on this block we have eight families with teenagers and children and we enjoy a very small area on chestnut with restaurants and small retail stores. i think that it was neighborhoody and quaint and seeing a cannabis storefront right now is not in keeping with the neighborhood character. of course i would prefer a restaurant storefront and/or a retail or just broken up into smaller groups. i don't know why the store needs to be so big. the fact that there is a big billboard on top facing lombard side, i am hoping that it won't be used for only cannabis advertisement, mainly this company. and there's two streets between chestnut and union and it's really important to keep these as residential. this commercial is really peripheral of the commercial area and it may be suited better on chestnut or union, just a little further from these very few residential streets. but it was between the two big streets. in our area with all of the covid issues we have seen more crime in the area, breaking into garages and cars, and i fear that the cannabis dispensary will be very attractive as a target being so large, carrying expensive products and holding a lot of cash. in that way impacting the residents' safety. could i also remind that because there are schools, especially the middle school -- >> clerk: thank you, ma'am, that is your time. >> caller: thank you. >> caller: hello my name is jenny jonah and i'm the owner of [indiscernible] but i want to be clear that i'm not here talking today in a professional capacity and i'm not being compensated for speaking here today. i have known [indiscernible] for many years. she doesn't like to cut corners and she follows the rules. she's not the kind of person who would try to do something without a permit, especially with legal considerations. in 2004, she relied on the city telling her that this property was commercial, not residential and, in fact, she was requested [indiscernible] to upgrade new electrical in the building to comply with what she was told was a required commercial standard. the city briefly said that incorrect information [indiscernible] [broken audio] and this went well beyond. and i urge the commission to look at the letter from the actual tenants that the city took the position of the property was commercial and publicly available information about the building represented it as commercial, not residential. the applicant is a senior. she is in her 70s and is taking care of her 84-year-old mother. she and her brother who is also a senior have [indiscernible] for all three of them. she's not in a [broken audio] and she is forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, converting it back after she was told that it was commercial. i ask the commissioners to give the applicant counsel opportunity to work this out with the city staff in a way to provide a reasonable solution. but everyone to bear in mind the real world consequences for reversing the status of a property that three senior citizens depend for their livelihood. >> caller: hello i am laura campbell, an attorney representing some of the homeowners in the neighborhood and i would like to talk about the need for more residential housing in the city and why that is in keeping with the preliminary recommendations to approve the conversion. this has been touched on points made by the presenters and then finished by making some points on behalf of the owners regarding the concern with the cannabis storefront. with regard to residential housing and i don't want to beat a dead horse, everyone knows that san francisco is charged with adding residential housing however they can, but to highlight the figures to drive this home, the bay area is charged with adding 441,000 additional housing units over the next five years to accommodate the anticipated growth, and specifically charged with adding over 82,000 units and 35,000 which need to be for a moderate income person. so while the two units are used for commercial, i do not believe that it is in keeping with the city's plans or policy to have these converted to commercial use when it stands as they could be used for residential use. particularly as the city has the ability to work in a pragmatic way. i don't think that -- it seems to me that she is forced to evict her tenants, and that is not the case. this is a great opportunity to incentivize a pathway where the tenants could move to the vacant space in lieu of maintaining more commercial space and joining two very, very large commercial spaces for yet another commercial space, particularly given the city needs residential units over commercial units. and the large amount of new construction in the city and it's indicative of the fact that we need more units and not fewer. and the remainder of my time i'd like to address while the owner's position is sympathetic, [indiscernible] why there's commercial standards -- >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. >> caller: commissioners, nick mulvaney and i live around the corner on greenwich street and thank you for allowing me to speak. in my lifetime i never thought that the city of san francisco would have an office of cannabis, but we do. and the office of cannabis is thoroughly embedded both the applicant and the business model. and has sent this forward to you for approval. i have spoken with my neighbors, and i have spoken with other neighbors and friends that live in other parts of the city that have recently had cannabis stores opened. and they are -- have told me that they felt that the security presence at the stores, the fact that these are bright and inviting commercial spaces have actually reduced crime in their neighborhood and not exacerbated crime. lastly, i have followed the permit history here. and it seems to me that there's definitely some confusion on what took place back almost two decades ago regarding the allocation of commercial versus residential space. and it seems like there's a plausible explanation from the project sponsor how this happened. i would encourage the commission to take both sides into account when making your decision and understand that there are two sides to this story. and i think that the project sponsor has provided credible documentation demonstrating how they got to where they are today. thank you, commissioners. >> caller: it seems to me that if -- >> clerk: caller, you need to mute your computer or television, please. okay, we'll come back to you. >> caller: my name is eric shnauble, and we have been partnering with rosemary jane since -- i guess maybe about six months ago when we first started the process of starting to develop businesses in san francisco. and they approached us around setting a track record, working with non-profit organizations. they approached us because we provide reentry services to transgender people from california prisons and jails and people coming out of prisons and jails. and they have a practice of hiring people, and those coming out of prisons or jails. and we could possibly start a partnership that could lead to -- [indiscernible] for a long-term employment. we have found them to be really open, very community oriented, very much interested in promoting communities that have traditionally been excluded from both the cannabis industry and kind of the public or private industry in general. especially folks that have been formerly incarcerated. and a great partner to work with. and so i just want to encourage their application to be supported. i think that they have been really great partners to work with and we would like the commission to support their application. thank you. >> caller: hello? my name is marjorie and i'm the owner. this all -- >> clerk: excuse me. through the chair, since your presentation has already been made, the chair has agreed to provide you with 30 seconds. that was the time remaining. okay. >> caller: okay. thank you. okay, hello, everybody, i just wanted to say that i did all of this with permits. i went to the city and i was told to get these permits. and change everything. it wasn't my choice, it was what the city made me do. and even now the city, if you go online the zoning department, 3251 and 53 steiner say that you're authorized to do non-retail businesses. this is really confusing to people. especially for me when i have been there for 20 plus years. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am, that is your 30 seconds, however, the commissioners may call you up for additional questions. >> caller: good afternoon, i live at 3245 steiner, directly adjacent to the subject property. in may 2021, i attended a meeting that rosemary jane hosted and i voiced concerns associated with their tenancy then. i have the same concerns now and even more. also, a number of the changes proposed currently, including the conversion of residential units and combining into other retail units was never discussed at the time and i definitely feel misled on that front. my wife and i, we have a 1-year-old daughter and my neighbors who live below me have three children and we're concerned about health and safety. we know that there's documented evidence that cannabis dispensaries is a target of robberies and break-ins. and we're also worried about secondhand smoke, considering surely people will be smoking outside the store. it's impossible to police that perfectly. we're really worried about traffic and parking. again, i live adjacent to the building, so we constantly have issues as it is with people parking in front of our garage, and a cannabis dispensary attracting vehicle pickup traffic is going to exacerbate this issue for us. also importantly, when we chose to make this block of san francisco our home, we didn't have in mind the massive cannabis operation would be next door. especially if you are now considering to allow the garage to be converted into storefront as i come home every day i will be -- my door will be right next door to a large cannabis dispensary. it's not in line with the character of our neighborhood. also this isn't a local business, it is a very well-funded and well advised both from a consultancy and from a council perspective organization, and we believe an alternative type of business could be more of an amenity to our neighborhood, and, you know, then another cannabis dispensary. so thank you very much for your time and i hope that you consider the feedback from myself and my neighbors. >> [indiscernible]. >> clerk: caller, you need to mute your television or computer. okay, caller, i will give you one more chance. okay, last call for public comment. you need to press star, 3, or if there's anybody in the chamber that wants to come forward. >> hello, thank you, my name is shawn green and i'm the deputy director for the transgender cultural district. based in san francisco. and we are calling in support of rosemary jane. i would like to mention how community focused they are. we are partnering with them. they have been very eager working with us on our entrepreneurship program. providing vital assets, not only to the lgbtq and transgender extended communities, but also do extended work with the elderly, providing care and services, education for communities of color. a business like rosemary jane is actually an asset. and they do work well with other non-profits and extend resources to where typically they have not been extended. so we are calling in support of rosemary jane. thank you very much for taking my call, commission. i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you. okay, that concludes public comment. so this matter is now before you, commissioners. >> president tanner: thank you, staff, project sponsor for the presentation. i guess that i will start off as we are waiting for other commissioners to join in. i wanted to thank mr. copeland for the record they have provided. i found the record to be pretty persuasive that the project sponsor was told by the city that her residential unit could not be residential units and it needed to be converted to commercial units. so i'm interested to hear from the planning staff and the city attorney how you understand the records that were provided to us. how do you explain the reports and the other documentation showing that the conversion to commercial was approved when, in fact, it wasn't approved? explain to me how you understand those documents. >> president tanner, we did a very in-depth analysis of the records that are maintained by dbi in their system which go back all the way to 1924. and they show a lot of moments where the use and the occupancy of this building has been listed, and we have seen through our research that it's consistently listed as r3 which is residential. plus b2, which is for the commercial use on the ground floor. and the number of dwelling units have been consistently listed as two existing and two proposed existing on all of the copies. >> president tanner: okay, did you review the documents that provided what was given in the brief. what did you think of those? >> we do acknowledge that, you know, there has been some discrepancy in our city's older records and the database, but consistently we have found that the copies of the documents show the occupancy as residential and a number of dwelling units as two. i have a copy of the permit history to be passed around if wanted. >> president tanner: okay. so, i guess that what -- you're saying that it's been consistent, but when you say it's been inconsistent -- if there are records that show something else, wouldn't that be an inconsistency in the record? >> i'm sorry. i can clarify that. there probably have been some incorrect information that might have been published, you know, in our older online systems. but, the original records of the previous conditional use, the variances have been very clear and it states that the variance was approved separately and any other permits filed, and signed by the owner because the permit records do also show signature of the owner on the copies and it shows that the number of dwelling units have been listed as two. >> president tanner: right. not to cut you off, but that is the applicant's point that she consistently testified to the unit that there were two drel dwelling units there, and in 2002, around there, she was told by the city that, no, it was, in fact, not that. and i believe that one of the exhibits showed a report stating that the conversion to commercial had been approved, which is incorrect. and so that would have then led to a series of advice and information that she would have received to continue to have this convert from residential to commercial. >> right. i understand that. and i think that it was listed as an anecdotal evidence that they were told that it was commercial. but -- >> president tanner: no, it's not anecdotal. >> i'm sorry -- sorry. there was also a screenshot of the conditional use application showing as approved, mistakenly, when it was actually disapproved by the previous land commission and the department acknowledges that and there have been incorrect, you know, records shown in the earlier database. but the document states that it's a two-family dwelling unit >> president tanner: okay, i will ask the city if anyone wants to add anything, but i don't want the other commissioners to think that i do not support conversion of dwelling units to commercial for sure, but to me i just feel that there is evidence that the city provided erroneous information to the project sponsor and to me as a city that's on us. and that's our mistake and i don't think that it is appropriate to have someone else bear the brunt of that mistake. but we'll see what others think commissioners, if you want to jump in here. >> corey teague, jumping in. and i think just to step back a bit, the challenge here is that there was a very strong history in the record of it being two units and there was a proposal in the 1980s to remove the units that was denied. and as others reported there was consistent permits throughout, even after the conversion, that it was still two dwelling units this is an unusual situation where, like, we can't really speak to obviously what other agencies provided information on. it seems that the information in our database had incorrect information about the original cu being approved and that was the only kind of part of the planning department database that would seem to be incorrect so there was like a very thin veneer of information at that point that said that the cu had been approved but there had been no other permits, no actions, nothing else in the record to document that. and because it was the time in 2004 when we don't have the records that we do now and the system that we do now, we're in an unusual place where we have an abundance of records that say one thing and an acute situation here from the project sponsor's perspective that creates a challenge that we've kind of recognized is an unusual situation. and that's why i think that the recommendation was made the way that it was. >> president tanner: okay, thank you. commissioner diamond and then we'll go to commissioner imperial. >> commissioner diamond: i think that we need to distinguish what the permit history looks like to staff planners who are immersed in this and know when to go to look for additional information when they get conflicting signals and what it looks like from the perspective of this woman who went to go to get electrical permits and was turned down by the building department because she was told that she had to bring the units up to commercial standards. and it shows that it was approved for a conversion to commercial. and i think that the question is, what is our expectation of the public when they get conflicting information from multiple city planning departments. you know, it could be that any of us sitting on the commission or in planning department would know that given that confusion that maybe we should write a letter to the zoning administrator or go to the land-use council or planning consultant to try to straighten this out. but i don't think that we should expect the public to have to go to hire lawyers to work this out if they get confusing information that comes from multiple departments and there's a record to support what it is that they're saying, that we need to be pretty sympathetic to their perspective. i don't know whether the right answer here is to allow it to stay as commercial, or to have it amortized over some people, or to give the zoning administrator discretion as to the timing of enforcement. and i'm quite sympathetic to her position on this. and i agree with commissioner tanner, that it's on us. we gave incorrect information. and while we would much prefer that it be residential, clearly, even more so now than back then, i thank we need to understand how much she spent to switch it from residential to commercial and how much more she'll have to spend to switch it back. so i have a lot of concerns about this issue and i want to know understand more, and we say that it has to be residential, what time frame are you thinking about for enforcement? >> thank you for the question. when it comes to enforcement, you know, the zoning administrator has a good deal of discretion. (please stand by) so we can look at that information here too and we can be reasonable on the timelines. generally, i'm not -- i'm just thinking off the top of my head and i don't know that we've -- if i can think of an example where we have allowed anyone to stay in a situation like that and an abatement situation for more than, say, a year, and i don't know what the existing lease is -- and i don't know when they are set to expire for the commercial tenants that are here, but that is all information that we can take into account and we can definitely work on the timeline that would be reasonable and longer than, you know, kind of the immediate requirement to vacate for the commercial tenants. >> commissioner diamond: what is the remaining term on the leases? >> thank you, commissioner. let me make one quick statement before i tell you the answer -- marjorie, as we emphasized and you have heard is not a real estate professional. when she went through the commercial upgrade she began leasing to commercial tenants, one of which has been there for 16 years, and one which has been there for nine years. and not being -- being someone that this isn't their business, the situation is such that they were both leased out. you know, subject to initial leases. and since then that the -- the situation has been stay as long as you like in the space. and so specifically speaking, there's no remaining term ona this has been a 16-year tenant and a nine-year tenant in the space understanding that they have the ability to stay there as long as they want. >> commissioner diamond: so that is helpful because it says to me that this is not a very good criteria in order to make this decision. i am much more worried about the amount of money that she spent to convert from residential to commercial and then the amount of money that she'll have to spend to convert it back from commercial to residential. and so, you know, mr. teague, how do you take that into account in your decision-making? >> well, we look at all of the information available and relevant when it comes to timelines for abatement. so, you know, there's no specific response to that other than that we would work with them about basically what they felt like was a reasonable amount of time and evaluate that based on the information that we have available to land on kind of a common understanding. >> commissioner diamond: okay, before i turn it over to other commissioners, i want to ask a couple of questions about the cannabis shop. there was confusion i thought in the testimony about whether or not the proposed cannabis shop is within 600-feet of another cannabis shop or not. could someone clarify that? i thought that was a bright line for us. is it within 600 feet or not within 600 feet? >> laura iola for staff. the project does meet the requirements for distancing from both schools and other cannabis shops. >> commissioner diamond: okay, so it's like many other projects that we have seen in front of us, where, you know, there's a lot of concern expressed by neighbors about proximity to preschools or the density of cannabis shops in the area, but it still meets our criteria, is that correct? >> that is correct. the office of cannabis does an initial review and then we double-check that. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so i am having a hard time seeing how i would not -- i mean, let me put it this way, i would be in favor of the cannabis shop because it seems to me that it's not much different than any other cannabis shop that we have approved during my tenure on the commission. so i will just put out there that i would be in favor of that. i am, you know, i'm still very torn about whether or not we should turn down the request foe residential space to commercial, and allow it to stay as commercial, or whether or not we should -- let me see -- i feel that we have two choices from my perspective. what i could see is an argument that we should allow it to convert to commercial stage due to the unique circumstances and the misinformation that she was provided with that she relied upon. or two,, if we're going to say that she needs to turn it back to residential, then i need more guidance, you know, more information from the other commissioners about the time period that we should be giving the city administrator guidance on. i don't want to just leave it completely open because i'm concerned that a year may not be enough time, given the amount of money that she'll have to spend so i will stop there and those are my comments. >> president tanner: thank you, commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: so i agree with the questions by commissioner tanner and diamond and seeing as those these units have at least operated for commercial or 15 or 16 years and they're literally wired up to be used a commercial spaces, i'm in favor of leaving them in that manner. and i'm also in favor of granting the approval for the cannabis dispensary. we have seen nothing but mostly opposition to every cannabis project that has come in front of us and, again, we're -- our duty up here is to fill storefronts and to give businesses the tools they need to succeed and stay, and keep those storefronts filled. and with the proximity to lombard street, i'm even more so reason why i'm okay with the overall commercial uses staying >> president tanner: thank you, commissioner koppel. commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i support the zoning administrator for 3251 and 3253 steiner street. again, it comes back to the earlier conversation that we han a dbi and it comes back to the planning commission to correct it, to rectify it. and actually i do not like that process that we are the one rectifying the mistake of a different agency. as a commission, we are kind of like the safeguards of the planning codes and we need to uphold the zoning codes so i do support the zoning administrator in terms of the guidance. i think that these are the kinds of conversation that we'll need to have with the landlord. i don't want to create some sort of a timeline that is just arbitrary without conversations with the landlord. in terms of the cannabis, again, for this one, i do listen to what the public comments have been saying and also the saturation of cannabis around this area have been prevalent and i do not support the cannabis cu for this. so those are my comments and my decision. >> if you decide to deny the authorization to remove the units, that's a straight denial and there's no conditions of approval. so just thinking forward to the enforcement, then, again, even though that falls to the zoning administrator for enforcement, as part of the hearing you could provide guidance for what is the appropriate information and inputs and potential timelines and we have committed that is if that is the way that this goes we'll be as reasonable as we can on that issue. so i want to shift gears for a second and talk about the garage because even though these are two separate projects on the same property, the garage is kind of linking the two projects together and simply because, again, the building expansion in the 1980s that was approved required a variance and it was only approved with the condition that the garage being used for the residential units. so if you do actually grant the cu to remove units my decision on that -- changing that condition is pretty easy because it becomes moot at that point if there's no residential units remaining. if you do not grant the cu and the dwelling units will remain, then it would be helpful to get the commissions thoughts on how you feel about that in general. if it remains as part of the dwelling units and if you should switch over and to be used for the cannabis and they had a hybrid proposal of closing up the curb cut and not using it for parking and loading but only for storage. so one way or the other the question of the garage issue has to be addressed, kind of relative to both projects or both aspects of these projects before you today. so i just wanted to make sure that while i know that the focus is really so far been on the dwelling units and that history, i want to make sure that we're also thinking forwardly about the garage as well. >> clerk: commissioners, alternatively, if you choose to not take staff's recommendation to disapprove the merger, then i recommend a motion of intent to approve to allow staff to prepare an appropriate motion with appropriate findings and conditions. >> president tanner: thank you. i just want to -- in response to commissioner imperial and your comment, and it's important to look at the mistakes of other department. and this mistake and the one previous and that this mistake i believe was an honest one versus a corrupt building inspector approving an uninspected project. so i than we get other -- and it's just one of those where it's unfortunate but she had tenants who had lights not working and she's trying to correct that for the tenants and do the right thing and it was an immediate need and it brought this up that you need to rewire your whole building for commercial use because that is the only thing that the department will approve with electrical work. so i'm beyond sympathetic. i think that it is an error that the city caused and had make this person to take on the cost and the burden of that mistake for decades really, and now we're heir. so i'm not supportive of the staff recommendation and i will not support that recommendation regarding this project as far as the cannabis dispensary, i do believe that the board needs to take action. i think that 600 feet is too close personally. and that's the rules that we have today so i don't see why i would disapprove the dispensary compared to any of the other dispensaries that we have considered that are also close to other ones but still within the boundaries of the law and what the law directs to us do. so i hope that the board will take up this topic soon and consider the saturations but i don't see how to disapprove the dispensary with all of the ones that i have approved previously commissioner diamond. (please stand by). >> clerk: there is no motion to accomplish that task. i mean, theoretically, you could articulate findings and conditions of approval if you chose to, but i suggest since this is a 180 from what the staff's recommendation is that it's a motion of intent to allow the staff to craft the appropriate findings and conditions. >> as the maker of the motion i amend it as described by secretary ionin. >> clerk: thank you. i'm sorry, did i hear a second? >> yes. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further should we take up that motion? okay, on that motion then to approve the merger -- excuse me -- the conversion of the dwelling units to commercial. on that motion of intent, and then we should probably also act on a continuance, how long would the staff need, two weeks or three weeks? >> three. >> clerk: three? three weeks would put us on may 12th. i believe. [roll call vote] commission that passes 5-2. with imperial and moore voting against. >> continuing the variance to may 12th, but with an understanding that if the conditional use is authorized to remove the units that i will grant the variance to remove the condition of approval. >> clerk: very good. and you did close up the hearing. >> clerk: that leaves item 10c for the cannabis retail establishment. >> president tanner: any commissioners feeling to move to making a motion or to comment further. >> i move to approve. >> president tanner: >> in terms of congestion and seeing a lot of double parking and i just witnessed that, and i'm just wondering if rosemary jane could speak to what they would do to mitigate some of those concerns. >> hello, regarding double parking there will be security guards in front of the building that would ensure -- and they're required to be there during all hours of operation. to ensure that people don't double park or further congest the street there. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to add that we hadn't seen the petition until today and i don't want to conflate the two issues. it did appear that the petition also referred to the variance request for the residential units upstairs and i just wanted to be clear that wasn't just about the cannabis dispensary. >> thank you. >> clerk: so i had a motion for -- or commissioner koppel, did you have a comment? >> commissioner koppel: jonas, quickly, is that taking the staff recommendation or the project sponsor recommendation to close the cur cut and to use that -- curb cut and to use that for storage. to make sure that it's clear for the curb cut and the garage. >> the staff's recommendation to remove the curb cut? >> commissioner koppel: i believe it was to remove the curb cut and to restore to a commercial storefront but the project sponsor proposed to remove the curb cut but essentially keep it remaining as it is physically and use it as storage as opposed to parking and loading. if i mischaracterized that at all -- >> clerk: i understand your motion to be staff's recommendation. >> i think that i would like to hear from the other commissioners to discuss that issue what they want to use that garage space for. >> just to clarify, i have been understanding correctly -- under the staff proposal -- excuse me -- it would be like a transparent kind of ground floor active storefront, that is what staff is proposing. versus as it is now, you know, that you can't look at it and it's still a garage and the door will be replaced i understand, but it wouldn't look like a storefront, is that correct?

Related Keywords

United States ,Togo ,Acton ,California ,San Francisco ,America ,Shawn Cunningham ,Jeff Horn ,Joe Duffy ,Layla Stanley ,Jim Harvey ,Denise Ledbetter ,Michelle Kim ,Corey Teague ,