you, madam clerk. colleagues, both the appellant have requested the additional time to finalize their agreement. with that, i would like to make a motion to continue items 43 to 46 to the november 2nd, between 21 meeting. can i get a second? seconded by supervisor peskin. >> clerk: mr. president, we may have some callers in the queue who would like to speak to the continuance. >> president walton: my apologies. we'll now take public comment on the motion to continue. >> clerk: operations, do we have any callers interested in speaking about the continuance of items 43-46, please. welcome just press star three to get back into the queue. at the time the item is called get back into the queue to speak. do we have any other callers, operations? okay. all right. welcome, caller. okay. we are taking public testimony on -- welcome caller. we can hear you. >> caller: [inaudible] >> clerk: press star three to put you back into the queue to speak for another item. we are taking public comment on the continuance of items 43-46 november 2nd, 2021. let's hear from our next caller. welcome. there are four of you lined up to speak on this item. >> i'm trying to get out of it. star three. >> clerk: sir, are you interested in speaking to the continuance of these items? 43-46? >> caller: negative, ma'am. 46-49. >> clerk: all right. you can hang up or press star three to enter back into the listening queue. welcome, caller. >> caller: hello. good afternoon supervisors. i'm a former tenant of 249 texas street. i [inaudible] from november 2014 until november 2018 with the valencia family. the other side lawyer made it seem like the leases -- >> clerk: sir. i'm pausing your time. i'm sorry, sir. i believe you're speaking to 249 texas street. that item has not yet been called. we appreciate your patience. just press star three, that will move you back into the listening queue. okay. currently, we're taking am testimony on the continuance for 43-46 to november 2nd. is there another caller in the queue. all right. operations, maybe we should go to the next caller. all right. welcome, caller. all right. it appears the callers in the queue may be ready to speak to a different item. let's try one more time. operations, do we have another caller in the queue interested in speaking to the continuance in the items 43-46 to november 2nd. we welcome your comments. >> madam clerk, there are now callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, kindly. mr. president. >> president walton: thank you. seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed. now on the motion to continue this appeal to november 2nd made by supervisor walton, seconded by supervisor peskin. madam clerk, would you please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to continue items 43-46 to november 2nd, 2021, [roll call] there are eleven ayes. >> president walton: without objection to continue this hearing and motions to november 2nd, 2021, is approved unanimously. madam clerk, can you call our next 3:00 p.m. special order items 47-50. >> clerk: items 47-50 were continued open july 7th, 2021. it's interest in the aprom of a personal at 249 texas street to demolish the existing 3,908 single-family dwelling. and construct a new three-story 4,364 square foot residential building containing two dwelling units above a garage with two offstreet parking spaces within the rh2 zoning district and a 40x height zoning district. to approve a item 49 is a motion to disapprove the department's decision by the board in support of this determination. this item has an eight-vote threshold. and item 50 to the preparation of finding in support of the board's disapproval of the proposed conditional use authorization. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, we have before us a hearing on the appeal of a conditional use authorization for the project at 249 texas street. the board will vote to approve or disapprove the planning commission's approval of the conditional use authorization at 249 texas street. without objection, we will proceed as follows. up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellant or their representative. public comment, two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to 10 minutes for a presentation from the planning department. up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor. public comment, two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal. and, finally, up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or their representative. are there any objections to proceeding this way? seeing no objections, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. and now i don't have any brief comments at this time. i will have comments at the end of the appeal. i don't see anyone on the roster. so we will now ask the appellant to come forward and present their case and you have up to 10 minutes and i believe we have the presenters present. >> thank you. honorable president walton and board of supervisors, thank you for your time today. i'm speaking for the opposition which includes 60 neighbors, over 60 neighbors who are not represented by council. what started as concern for our homes evolved into something bigger when we encountered a rigged system. we had the privilege to investigate and appeal with the support of many union coalition and community leaders who backed us, but we remain concerned about the cases where people can't or don't know how to fight back. to justify a demolition they deemed necessary and desirable by stating the existing building as a single-family home that will be replacing a two-unit home. that's adding housing stock. in reality, a two-unit naturally affordable rent control building that housed two working families for decades will be replaced with a studio basement for one family. yet, at the first hearing, both planning and the sponsor repeatedly denied the existence of the second unit even after it became evident. the sponsor falsified the plans that showeded the interior of the second unit. these plans change at every single iter ration of the case to cover up the fact that exists a second unit with three bedrooms, all code compliant ceiling heights. two of them getting lots of natural light from their windows. all of them have either internal or mounted closets. in fact, it was remodeled in 2016 as we showed in our brief. the analysis we are referring as a necessary and desirable project that adds housing. the exact opposite will be true. naturally affordable rent controlled housing will be permanently destroyed. invoking sb-330 is neither here nor there because they never net planning code section 317 in the first place. even if they had netted, invoking sb30 in the planning bull 10 would violate the law. after the fraud was exposed at the first hearing, the planning commission triggered a continuance so the planner and the architect could go and get their stories straight. witnesses met with director rich hillus on april 14th where he apologized for the planning department's mistakes. we should just focus on seeking a pro myself on design and put these compromises forward at the next continued hearing. so we followed his guidance. we put forth our compromises and we wanted to protect the tenants. according to planning code section 303 there was a cover-up of material information. despite director hillus' promise to be transparent and moving forward for which they openly thanked planning for helping them to creatively and interpret and apply sb330 to their benefit. planning to the sponsor were to reveal now, allowing the attorney to comment on portions of the city's brief or writing part of the city brief is a failure of judgment. the sponsor's deception regarding the existence of the second unit was never mentioned again in front of the planning commission. the continuance was supposed to address the prior. this created a lot of confusion to the public and we believe to the commission. we suspect that planning encourages neighbors many of which we've met throughout the city who think that they don't stand a chance and that they should just nip and tuck they should ask for nip and tuck to the other buildings for planning mistakes and this is how projects get pushed through at the expense of affordable housing. invoking sb330 is counter to the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. the bill is meant to retain affordable housing and address the housing crisis. it's not meant to be used as a loophole for the wealthy to evade section 317. invoking sb330 without complying with its own requirements is also unlawful. they need a separate application which they never filed. two, they would need to replace the bottom protected unit with a comparable unit. now, even if the unit is unauthorized, the bulletin makes it clear that u.d.u.s get the same exact protection as authorized units. three, they would deed restrict the bottom unit that they build to 50% of 80% of adjusted income. planning said it was too difficult for them to file their own requirements and bulletin. if you can't determine the and, by the way, it was not that hard. we have tracked down that tenancy with ease. now, planning requires to follow only one criteria of sb30 which confused everybody. so to -- they said they would put both units under rent control which is smoke and mirrors. the building can never inherently be affordable. the misuse of sb330 as a way to circumvent a clear violation of the general plans which makes it clear you cannot trade the existing rent control housing for units of market rate housing. further, only four to maybe six at most of the 18 criteria were met under section 317. the sponsor and the department justifieded the demolition by saying to bring the u.d.u. up to code would be financially burdensome and unfeasible. commissioner imperial found this baffling and we agreed. but really, think about this. to build an entire new luxury large home almost 500,000 square feet, four stories, luxury features and elevator full of glass picture windows is listed in the city record as a permit for $815,000 but to legalize the second unit below is $416,000. it just doesn't add up. as a cost of suring up the foundation for the whole structure. conflating these costs. even if our quote is an underestimate, it is nowhere near 400,000 excavate less than a foot of 20% to 50% of the area at most of the living room that doesn't have code compliant ceilings. now, there never has been nor will there ever be any set of facts to support demolition under the current laws today. not for the planning code, not the mayor's directive and not the general plan. citing sb330 just makes it like there's no other option to approve. the sponsor has really hammered the napd. they set their high-powered attorney on us. he's using undue influence on our neighbors to get letters of support. and every letter of support was either outside the neighborhood or a couple of letters within the actual radius of where we live and those people never participating in the prior commission hearing. now an overwhelming and intimidating display, they have hired one of the most powerful lobbying firms in san francisco for residents in a middle and working class neighborhood. this family had the right to remodel, but no demolition can be permitted. find a way to retain the existing second unit with deed restrictions on rent control and income for the law and no more cheating with the help of planning. start back at square one with a plan for a reasonable remodel and be transparent and respectful to this neighborhood. pay restitution to tenants who were mistreated during the height of the pandemic. the tenant's union is going to speak about that later today. we urge you to listen closely to the public comment, especially the former owner, the tenant unit and the tenants who took off time to be here today from their jobs. was i just cued to finish? >> clerk: yes. that is correct. >> thank you. >> president walton: now, at this time, we are going to open this up for public comment specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. madam clerk. >> clerk: the board will now hear public testimony specific to items 47-50, the appeal of conditional use authorization approval for 249 texas street. you'll have up to two minutes to provide testimony in support of the appeal or against the project. a bit later in the hearing, the board will hear testimony from the speakers in support of the project. currently, the telephone number should be streaming on your screen. it's (415) 655-0001. when you hear the prompt enter meeting id 24484896769. press pound twice and you'll have joined the meeting as a listener. you'll hear the discussion, blue you'll be muted. to be added to the speaker's queue, you'll press star three and when it is your turn, the system will send you a prompt. listen carefully for you have been unmuted and just begin speaking your comments. with us today we have interpreters from office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs. i'd like each interpreter to introduce themselves. for cantanese we and spanish. welcome. we are grateful for your service. >> translator: [speaking foreign language] thank you. >> translator: [speaking spanish] . >> translator: [speaking foreign language] . >> clerk: all right. thank you all for being with us today. now, let's get to the testimony. we have 47 listeners and there are 18 callers in the queue ready to provide testimony. we're setting the timer for two minutes. operations, let's hear from our first caller, please. welcome, callers. >> caller: hi. my name's mary bockturn and i'm a mother of three boys with deep roots in san francisco. i know how hard it is to organize the neighborhood and i commend the appellants to come forward and not back down. they're not being treated unfairly and are being discriminated against. they own a large two-unit property in noe valley and one other property in sunset. in addition to the property in the hills they would like to build their dream home. their attorney is a regular fixture at the planning department and a registered lobbyist themselves who has stuck an even more lobbyist on the case. this behavior's not okay for any part of san francisco. their architect who works with the planning department and has developed guidelines has built cookie cutter homes throughout the city which includes sham studios and in-laws with skirted regulations. at the expense of affordable housing and the desires of the countless neighbors. they are refusing to meet with the neighborhood themselves. then when our architects and attorneys lie on record, they say we are not the liars. they say if we're professional, you hire and pay to do your doing and do your bidding, then it's all the same thing. let's just focus on following the law. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue who is interested in providing testimony regarding the appeal of the texas street project items 47-50? welcome, caller. >> caller: counselor with the san francisco tenants union calling in support of the appeal. neighbors and advocates contacted planning staff long before their commission report to plan out the importance of a second unit and tenants currently living at 249 texas street. appellants asked for a counseling while project permits were being reviewed. the rosy story the architect told the tenants in june was not true. now, the sponsors finally admit the departure was due to a covid related lay off and their refusal to renegotiate through a crashing housing market and eviction moratorium. for years, we have tried to get planning to acknowledge and harm done to them by renovations or demolitions. repeatedly, we are told that planning staff can only concern themselves with code compliance. still, the general plan is quite clear that protecting existing rentals is a priority assigned to them. our experience with the planning department has been beyond frustrating. being 63 of the planning staff forgot to turn off track changes. for the public and offered comments to the draft. we wish tenant advocates had this privileged access. this cozy relationship is highly unethical and if that's what's happening at d.b.i., there should be a procedure to investigate. whether tenants and rent controlled units exist before issuing permits. we need to honor the general plans objective to preserve rent control housing and you can do that today. but reform is required of permit approval procedures so demolishing units does not foster tenant displacement. >> clerk: thank you to the caller. all right. let's hear from our next caller in the queue, please. welcome, caller. >> caller: good afternoon, board of supervisors. i am a bi-racial and transgender person. i've tracked this case since the first hearing on march 1st so i want to take time today to focus you on a pattern from a policy standpoint. it is the mischaracterization that makes it easy for them. the department of alteration permits filed over the past three years includes over 180 permits of which at least 110 and permits to legalize an authorized unit. 60% of the applications received offer unauthorized units located in single family homes. it is safe to assume that single family homes are the most common building types. this conduct of the situation in the present case. in the present case, the department did not even bother to go through the analysis before rushing to recommended approval. mayor london breed wanted to fast track building. it's not meant to it's not a good use of resources that the board of supervisors has to spend their time during the planning commission and the planning department's job. staying with the middle and working class. stand against gentrification. thank you for your time. >> clerk: all right. we have 15 listeners and 14 callers in the queue. let's hear from the next caller. welcome, caller. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is jerry dratler with the san francisco land use coalition. i'm in support of the appeal. the project sponsors presented in the plan to demolish a single-family home at 249 texas street that was actually two units of rent controlled housing. the first floor was a three-bedroom unit and the second floor was a two-bedroom unit. when their story fell apart, the project sponsor under sb 330 without filing an sb330 application and without adhering to the planning department. the plan approved by the planning commission does not comply with sb330. it reduces the first floor unit from three bedrooms to a studio apartment and increases the number of bedrooms on the second floor unit. this results in a reduction and the moderately affordable housing unit in san francisco. i'm asking the board of supervisors to disapprove the conditional use authorization for 249 texas street. the board of supervisors allows the planning department and the planning commission to consistently disregard their own rules. in a few years, the planning department and the planning commission will be as bad as the department of building inspection and the building inspection commission. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue who would like to provide testimony in support of the appeal or against the proposed texas street project. welcome, caller. >> caller: hi. i'm a hispanic mother of two children. i grew up as a daughter of working class people. we had hardly anything and i was happy. let's make sure in san francisco w-we continue to allow the people to make san francisco a place to live. make it so that the only rich. the project sponsors with the help of the city that's supposed to be neutral. one that has the facility on top and the other working class of family and renters. all over the city, planning reports all over the criteria to meet the demolition doesn't add up. when right now there are two rent controlled family housing such as teresa lando. she's in her 60s and has been rent controlled for over 20 years next door. they're both public health workers working for the most vulnerable people in our society with the long demo the sponsor getting the support of their attorney or through their kids private school is incredibly inappropriate for a matter like this. it doesn't take long to read between the lines in this case and what is happening. during this tough time in history. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have 49 listeners and 17 callers in the queue. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon. this is bruce bowan. others are detailing the specifics of the appellant's analysis with shortcomings and failings the commission district and authorized conditional use for this project. the impacts of this proposed development on the city's existing relatively affordable existing stock and also the impact of the planning department and commission's compliance with their own procedures and applicable law including this case, sb330. i'd just like you to be this architect is replacing units with larger and larger monster homes. the planning department analysis staff determined that 40% of relevant demolition to the city was under this architect. and he is responsible for 40% of these demos also. these projects have also evolved so you should be careful with the testimony. however, i know these previous demolitions have not involved demos of rent units or misplacement of facts needed. this project is alarming. this is expanding and with this case, you have the record to do so. please approve the appeal. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: hi. i'm a tenants rights council and i support the appeal for 249 texas. i just joined this in the last hour in case some of the tenants would not be able to call in because they're working. when i learneded about what's going on, i was appalled by the fraudulent behavior of the sponsor and what i'll charitably call the incompetence by the planning department specifically, i'd like to note the sponsors took advantage of the covid-19 pandemic. they refuse to grant the previous tenant's rent increase of 10% after one of them lost his job to the pandemic. on top of this, they tried to charge them for breaking their lease. then, when the new tenants replaced the unfortunate old tenants, the sponsor tried to get these tenants to sign away their rights. in addition to disapproving this project, i begged this board to develop a stronger connection between tenants'' rights and planning decisions along the lines of mandelman's adu legislation. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right, we have 46 caller who is are listening. and we have 15 callers in the queue. we're taking public testimony if you are in support of the appeal or against the proposed texas street project. we will hear from operations. let's hear our next call. >> caller: hello. this is john decastro. i support the appeal. i'm opposing the planning commission's approval of the conditional use authorization. for over 40 years. my home is within 300' of the project as i mentioned for identification purposes. i was present in the patrera booster's association from 1999 to 2003 during the live work era. as i read information about this project. it brings back the neighborhood nightmare where they've built 3,600 and i don't know what else was going on in the background, but it was not pretty. during one of the protests. back then, developers were in rough shot over the approval process and found every loophole possible. i hope the supervisors direct the developer to explore options to further, i hope there's a concerted effort by the board of supervisors to prevent mcmansions being created out of affordable housing like they're attempting to do at 249 texas. thank you very much for your time, president walton and the supervisors. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please. >> caller: hello. i've been a neighbor of 249 texas street for seven years. unlike the vast majority of letters which came in, i've been at both hearings prior to this and spoke both times. also, unlike every person here, i was at the preapplication meeting and i also met the tenants. i just want to note that two planning commissioners voted against the disapproval. those being commissioners moore and imperial. commissioner imperial called the planning department's baffling and because they accepted the sponsor's claim that it would not be financially feasible. i agree. how can it not be financially feasible for the owners of the building to legalize when they paid more than $1.5 million for the place and they're going to build a luxury home from scratch at this property. this just doesn't make sense and then this he try to support their claim with some nonsense about it costing over $400,000 to legalize when the average cost is closer to $60,000. how can it be when the foundation is relatively new. when it was relocated from james late and patrera hill hads. the units don't have to be rented. it is clear that the sponsor will never rent the studio in the basement. they said it was for one of their mothers and they're putting an elevator in the unit so the mom doesn't have to walk up three flights of stairs. and i think that is why these commissioners evaluated the project. and i want to thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please. >> caller: thank you board of supervisors. i live two doors down from the building. i'm a mother of four and community college instructor. i participate in prior hearings and ask to attend even the preapplication hearing that was informed not allowed to be there. first, i want to say the applicant brief attacked the character of the tenants. i'm just going to be really real with you about that whole situation. the deal was considered before any of the hearing. i think many people would consider it, but not if she does not take the deal. i honestly think they were confused by the deal. they had to answer them like four hours. at the time, i remember standing outside. wondered if they could use the money to help the neighborhood instead of keeping it all for themselves. even then, they were thinking about the community. i remember telling her i wish she would just take the deal and this would all be over. she caught wind that this same thing is happening all over the city so she has to keep fighting and she has. i was there at the march 4th hearing and i can testify there's outright deception of this project. with the new owners that wants to bully the neighborhood. it does not belong here. please keep the neighborhood accessible. don't reward lying and cheating. the planning department and commission must remain neutral and partial. make the newcomers show concern for the existing neighborhoods. they really do plan to live here. >> clerk: thank you. i do apologize if i'm interrupting anyone. we are setting the timer for two minutes today. so we have about 15 callers in the queue and about 50 who are listening. let's hear from our next caller, please. we're taking testimony currently from those in support of the appeal or who are against the proposed texas street project items 47-50. welcome, caller. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm in a two-unit as chair of the booster's development committee. i often hear from people who are concerneded about nearby projects. the neighbors adjacent to 249 texas were worried about impacts to their homes, but also told me that the former tenants were under duress. in february, i got an e-mail with owners stating our initial renters had a lease from march 1st, 2020, to february 28th, 2021. they informed us in september that they planned to leave the city and were exploring the housing outside san francisco. we rented the house to another couple from november 1st at the original lease to the initial tenants. the original tenants paid for the difference between their lease amount and the lower lease amount for the remainder of the term of the lease, end of quote. before the commission hearing, i wrote planning about potential tenant issues and talked to architects about some of the design and concerns. i also checked the permits and that the permit should remove the lower unit had never been signed off on. at the march hearing, i was shocked to hear project sponsor insist on the record that this was a single family home and the owners offered the tenants lower rent one of the facts and their own words say otherwise. based on miss representation that this was another unit to a single-family home, the commission approved the project. changing the story in a second hearing didn't make the project necessary or desirable. it remains neither. i urge you to support this appeal. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have 45 who are in the queue listening and 11 who are in the line to provide testimony. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. welcome. >> hello supervisors. i'm the previous owner of 249 texas street. my mom and my dad purchased this home in the 1950s. me and all of my brothers were born in that home and inherited it from my parents. i lived there my entire life and with a friend bought out my brothers in 2006 to take ownership of the home. the bottom unit where my family and i live, the other room that doesn't have code compliance is the living room. i leased a room in my unit and the five years before i was forced to sell when the other owner of the building died. i remodeled the unit in 2016 and the unit was in good condition when i sold the home. i sold to the shapiros because they said they loved our home and neighborhood. saw themselves living in the community and wanted to remodel it, not destroy it. instead, they suggested that the fabricate tenant leases, that i didn't own the home in 2006 and that i didn't live there my whole life. they submitted plans that have mischaracterized where i live. they provided an outrageous quote because it is far more than the one i obtained to legalize the bottom unit. the truth is easy to approve. the shapiros don't love this neighborhood or else they wouldn't have such a strong opposition from so many houses in the ratings. they were going to demolish the ratings and their letter to me suggested otherwise. hurts to see my family home and my neighborhood treated so poorly. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller. welcome, caller. >> caller: hello supervisors. i am emily block, a anybody of 249 texas street and i was friendly with the first set of tenants who live there. they pay as an act of generosity that is actually evidence that we have been hoping for all along to become forward. the tenants were too afraid to give to us. i saw with my own eyes how upset they were. they left there under duress because the sponsor couldn't cut them a break when the 2020 moratorium and shelter-in-place were an asset. the sponsor's actions may not have been illegal, but their attorneys know how to stay right above the law. why would anyone want to do that to their tenants when they're just trying to make ends meet. with regards to the current tenants who were required to sign a lease. these kinds of leases are against the law unless they include degradements. i bet it was a hard call talking about whether to release those e-mails because it's not a good look for them. but they had to because they wanted to make sure their claim wasn't an eviction. no one ever said it was an eviction, but it took place during the moratorium. these tenants had no clue and the landlord has a duty to tell them. these people are frustrated when land lords like this give all landlords a bad reputation. i wanted to focus on that. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you to the caller. all right. we have 45 listens in the queue and there are nine lined up to make their testimony. we have public comment on items 47-50. we thank everyone for their patience. there will be testimony taken on behalf of everyone who support the project a little bit later on in this hearing. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: okay. good afternoon board of supervisors. i'm a former tenant of the home that currently stands at 249 texas street. i lived at this home from november 2014 to november 2018 with the valencia family. i am a real person and i lived there for years. i was fortunate enough to find this place to rent through a common friend of the valencias. $860 a month with access to the kitchen, bathroom, living room, laundry room, and back yard. in addition to that, i never had a rent increase in the four years that i lived there. i lived there comfortably and i even took care of their dog rocky when they would take vacations. we became more than tenants and landlords, we became friends. we shared great moments together during thanksgiving and christmas and such experiences on texas street. all i ask is don't hurt the community by making it available to low-income and working class. please make it an affordable house. thank you for listening to me. >> clerk: thank you to the caller if for your comments. let's hear from our next caller, please. >> caller: board of supervisors, my name is elliott. i spoke at the last hearing on june 3rd. i opposed the demolition of affordable rent controlled housing on 249 texas street for the sole purpose of building a dream home for wealthy san franciscans who already own multiple properties in the city. they need a dream home these as big as the four-unit apartment building next door? i want to point out too that it's in very poor taste that the shapiros are using their mother who has dementia as a prop in their case. why are they using a picture of their mother with a black eye for any other reason. i find this very offensive as i have an asian-american wife, children of half asian descent and asian in-laws. frankly, the shapiros would be better off sharing the potential tenant and the only way the unit would be adding stock to the housing market. supervisors, please uphold the appeal. stand with district 10's working and middle class stand against practices like this. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue in support of the appeal or against the proposed texas street project? welcome, caller. >> caller: good afternoon, president walton and members of the board. i'm carolynn kennedy, chair of the delores heights improvement club in district eight supporting this appeal. this appeal clearly needs to test for your approval both on procedural and substantiative grounds. [please stand by] . >> -- and sometimes we rented rooms there, too, to nice working households. the sponsor's presentation of the interior home, they want to destroy it dishonest. the plans they submitted changes the bedrooms into storage rooms. this is simply a way to make the house seem unliveable and unsafe so they can justify destroying it. the brief from the applicants [indiscernible] latino working class families and the other neighbors instead of focusing on the facts. their statements that my stepdad did not own the house until 2006 is untrue. he was born in that house but because he couldn't financially afford to own it outright, he had his best friend purchase it with him. we were forced to sell from a t.i.c. position, and my father fought for that house then as he is now. the existing neighbors should be just as important if not more important than newcomers coming in disregarding the needs of the neighborhood. a knowledge equity is at stake in this case. thank you for listening to me. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from our next caller. i think we've got six in the queue and 48 who are listening. welcome, caller. >> hi. my name is kim lavell, and i live across the street and slightly diagonal to the project in question. i have been participating since the first hearing in terms of written protests, speaking at board meetings, and watching for developments, but there has been no outreach from the sponsors. i was participating in the first c.u.a. hearing when they said that the project would have no second unit. a large percent of the neighborhood signed onto the appeal, it's actually more than that because they don't count tenant signatures, and there are many long-term tenants in the area, including my duplex, but most importantly, there was no outreach from the sponsors. i want to say when i planned construction on my property on arkansas a few blocks away, i consulted with tenants in a large radius around my property and took their feedback into consideration, so i would have expected there to be outreach from the sponsors to the neighbors surrounding this project. this oversized project disrupts the preservation of the neighborhood without adding honest and significant units. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? i believe we have six who are still in the queue, lined up ready, to either speak on behalf of the appeal or against the project. welcome, caller. >> hi. this is zachary wisenberger. i urge you to support the appeal to oppose a project that will result in the loss of two rent controlled units. planning failed to abide by the law, which should make the board's decision an easy one. there are no criteria to justify the demolition as the project does not qualify under s.b. 330. personally, the project violated state law by failing to submit an application, and separately for housing projects that would demolish any existing protected units which includes protected dwelling units, s.b. 330 requires that the unit have the same enthusiastic of bedrooms, while in this case, the -- same number of bedrooms, while in this case, the studio replaces three bedrooms. the sponsor's initial applicant falsely claimed it was a vacant single-family home when there were three tenants living in the units. please act to preserve these much needed housing units in district 10. thank you for your time. >> clerk: okay. operations, i believe we have 49 who are listening and six callers in the queue. let's hear from the next caller who would like to provide testimony in support of the appeal or against the proposed texas street project. welcome, caller. >> i'm john brossard, and i'm not a person of color. i oppose the project because the facts of this case make it clear that the building should not be demolished, and the deception cover up by the sponsors and planning department was really clear to anyone who listened. frankly, it wasn't just them, it was the planning department. i hope you read the briefs and saw the hearings. it's all there, plain as day. i have three small kids, and it's not easy on me to wait on the phone while i have them. face your neighbors by trying to work with them. don't discredit latino working class families who had the house for generations. that's revolting. their briefs to the commission brought out all these personal details of mr. valencia's ownership history. do you know how harmful that is to working class people? the valencias have so many history here as well as many families that are working class. i'm not going to mention the supplement that satia and matt refused prior. they have gone up against these powerful people. why else would they have some powerful people and unions behind them. let's cut out the deflection of the laws and avoiding the comments. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. if you are wanting to provide comment in support of the appeal or against the texas street project and you are one of the 50 listening, now is the best time to press star, three, otherwise, we may take this last group of four individuals to the end. all right. welcome, caller. >> hi. i'm kyle toppin. i spoke at both commission hearings, noting that the sponsor had no support in the community. the recent support after hiring their lobby firm and lawyer comes from people who don't even have or know history of the case or live outside of the radius. the opposition is consistent, strong, and has been here all along. we are based in the facts of the case. the approved project at 249 texas streets only meets four of 18 criteria for demolition of the planning section 317. it's plain and simple. the project removes sound, naturally affordable rental units that are replaced with rare market rate units. that's prohibited. it's extraordinary to see how the planning department pushes these projects through. for example, contrary to the report, this project does not preserve neighborhood, cultural, or economic diversity by trading rent controlled for market rate housing, and the project certainly does not provide permanently affordable units. and more importantly, the project does not increase the number on the site of bedrooms in the bottom unit. if these criteria were evaluated fairly by the planning commission, this project would have never been allowed to go forward. there's no reason to demolish and set a precedent. a mansion on top of a basement studio is not ever going to provide housing to anyone. the owners say they don't have to ever again. how is this necessary or desirable? thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> good afternoon. ozzie reaume with san francisco land use coalition. president walton and board of supervisors, the culture of corruption that goes well beyond d.b.i., p.u.c., and d.p.w. on one side, we have super rich and well connected owner with an army of lawyers and [indiscernible] misrepresenting the property as a single-family home, forcing their tenants out at the height of the pandemic, and on the other hand, we have ordinary neighbors and working class residents who raised all of these issues to no avail. let's face it. this is fraud, and all along, the planning department has been aiding and abetting this fraudulent behavior. to this day, planning admits the first floor aren't up to code even though the sponsor's own drawings have ceilings 8 feet in the bedrooms. every fraudulent climb is on this project was refuted by the neighbors, yet planning did not even bother to show up at the site to verify the facts on the ground. the facts on the ground do matter. what's at issue is the floor-to-ceiling height of the e.d.u. and the owners placing a bogus estimate of $450,000 to make it financially unfeasible to rehabilitate it. [indiscernible] for low-income tenants. these are serious violations that disqualify the approval of this project, and that's why we're turning to you to reject this project application and reprimand the planning department. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have seven callers in the queue. let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hello there. my name's gavin murphy. i live two doors away from the project location. i have lived here ten years. i have four children in the neighborhood, and i'm calling in support of the appeal. this seems to not be the way to run a planning commission evaluation. so many people have established the falsehoods of this evaluation. i don't see how the commission can make a thumbs down, thumbs up after bypassing all of the proper processes and humoring the disingenuous project applicants and reprimand the people that are violating the trust of this city and the neighborhood. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. i believe there's about five callers in the queue. >> hi. thank you for your time. my name is leanne, and i used to live next door to the house in question and still spend at least three days a week in the neighborhood. i don't believe the project is appropriate for the neighborhood. why is a house for one family as big as a four-unit apt building next door. why does the studio down stairs not have a front door and you have to enter behind the main house? make the sponsors play fair, and the neighborhood will welcome them with open arms. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. we have six callers in the queue. let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hi, thank you. my name is edmund drake, and i vote to uphold the appeal because otherwise this is going to promote the loss of affordable housing and promote the gentrification and keep evaders from obeying the law. there are no sets of policies that are going to justify this under any scenario. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. hello, caller. you are on the line. >> okay. hello. my name is frank mon. i am in support of the conditional use permit. this is a family that is seeking to house their elderly mother, and i think the terms are consistent with the family moving in to live there. i think with the affordable housing issues, the city has committed to construct affordable units that should satisfy communities in terms of meeting demand. this property itself is an old victorian, originally as designed, was a single-family home. over the years, you know, units were added, but i think the family deserves an opportunity to take care of their elderly and take care of their child, so please support the conditional use permit, and that's my opinion. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for calling. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is -- >> clerk: i'm sorry? go ahead. >> hi. my name is jennifer murphy. i attend a public high school in san francisco and i live two doors away from the proposed building. i am calling you today to support this appeal. i am watching and observing what happens today. i saw what happened to the evicted tenants. people let rich owners do that to tenants or future tenants by taking away affordable housing. do the right thing. enforce policies. keep affordable housing for the working class. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> good afternoon, this is anastasia iovannopoulos. the project sponsor's proposition at the planning commission seemed highly suspect because a project sponsor is required to first file a preliminary application separate and distinct from a development application. there's no indication the project sponsor ever filed this application as the law required for demolition under the emergency housing crisis act of 2019, s.b. 330, or was an application removed. no paperwork filed under replacement units [indiscernible] conditional use authorization packet. why did planning staff ignore their own directives in this case? after project sponsors admitted the existence of a second unit during commission hearing, project sponsor sought and obtained approval to demolition the u.d.u.s and replace it with a studio apartment. a claim that ceiling heights don't conform is easily dismissed with a ceiling measure. s.b. 330 requires the replacement unit has the same number of bedrooms or more, replacing the three bedroom u.d.u. with a studio does not satisfy that requirement. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i understand there are two callers in the queue and 49 that are listening. if you'd like to provide comments in support of the peal and against the texas street project, now is your opportunity to press star, three. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm stephanie peak with the san francisco land use coalition. i ask you to please approve this appeal. you know, at one point, the sponsors of 249 texas presented their project as the demolition of a single-family home. by now, you know that the property actually had two units, rent controlled buildings. the sponsors forced out the tenants during the moratorium and shelter in place orders and then asked for a demolition based on s.b. 330, but they did not meet the requirements for that law. then, the sponsor said it was financially infeasible to legalize the ground floor unit because the ceiling was too low, but we know that's not true because the ceiling is 8 feet or possibly 9 feet. the owner said it would cost $500,000 to raise the ceiling height. this seems an argument to avoid a rent controlled property, and we need rent controlled property in this city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from our next caller. >> hello, supervisors. my name is henry [indiscernible], and i'd like to raise that first of all, 249 texas was never a legal two-unit building, and therefore, it was never under rent control. there was a complaint filed on the lower level, and it was never cleared up, and there were problems with that and that's why that exists. the shapiros have been my neighbors since 2006. in the hearing, in the protest document, their individual characters have been maligned. [indiscernible] the level of bitterness surprises even me with my decades of experience being involved with san francisco real estate and the planning process. it is also ironic considering joanne is herself an immigrant and the couple have lived in san francisco for many decades. i know joanne and kerry personally. they're kind neighbors and people of integrity. they're often seen walking their dogs in the neighborhood and stopping to chat with people in the neighborhood. it bothers me to hear such bad things spread about them. that's why i lend my support against this appeal. in addition to speaking with joanne and kerry, i have also done my own due diligence on the project [indiscernible] which is speckled with inaccuracies -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> operator: madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you, mr. atkins. mr. president? >> president walton: thank you. seeing no further public comment, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, we will now have up to ten minutes for staff from the planning department. >> thank you very much, president walton. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs and board liaison. i'll be making this presentation to the planning department, and i'll be assisted by alex westhoff and rich sucre. the appellant raises two main issues in their written appeal. first, that the planning commission mistakenly found that demolition of this type of housing as being necessary and desirable for the community, contrary to the need of the neighborhood during an affordability crisis, and that it falls under s.b. 330. in response to the first issue, the commission found that the proposed three-story property is keeping with other residential properties in the neighborhood and is complying with the san francisco planning department and residential code guidelines. the existing building contains a lower story unauthorized dwelling unit that is not code compliant, request no code compliant bedrooms. the current ceiling height is substandard in the bedrooms and do not have risk [indiscernible] windows. further, the ceiling is 6'9", for 70% of the space. it's required to be at 7'6". regarding concern number two over the implementation of s.b. 330, under that, if existing units to be demolished are under the rent control ordinance, and the tenant has 80% of a.m.i., then, the units must be replaced by a unit with the same number of bedrooms. understand s.b. 330, the replacement units are required to provide the same number of bedrooms. in the case of this project, more code compliant units are being provided. these three rooms, however, do not meet the building code requirements for bedrooms, as none of them are code compliant. the project includes one four-bedroom unit and one studio unit. thus, the project is a net increase in the number of coat compliant bedrooms from two to four. for the reasons stated, the department recommends the board uphold the decision reached by the planning department. that concludes the presentation, and we are happy to answer any questions at this time. >> president walton: thank you, mr. starr. i don't believe we have any questions -- oh, supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor walton. i do have a couple of questions for staff on this one. so in your presentation just now, mr. starr, you say that there's no evidence that there were any low-income tenants residing in either unit. i'm wondering if you can take us through the steps of how you made this determination? you're muted. >> i'm going to defer to alex westhoff. >> sure. we have an affidavit from the tenant in the upstairs unit, the application from the last tenants that resided there until earlier this year, and this -- the [indiscernible]. >> president walton: mr. west ho, we're not catching most of that. there's some technical difficulties. maybe if you turnoff your video, that might be helpful. >> i apologize about that. can you hear me better now? >> supervisor melgar: yes. >> president walton: so far, so good. >> so we have an affidavit from the current tenants who live in the upstairs unit. we have the rental application from the last set of tenants that lived in the upstairs unit with their incomes, and finally, the lower unit has been owner occupied by the previous owners, and they have not rented it out since the new owners took over. >> supervisor melgar: and so -- so you had the affidavit from the previous tenants. did you do income verification for the lower unit? >> the lower unit was owner occupied. there's no tenants in the lower unit now. prior to that, it was occupied by the owner. >> supervisor melgar: i see. and then, when you say there is no evidence that there have been any lower income tenants residing of either unit, you are based on the affidavit that the owner submitted? >> that's correct. the application from the previous tenants, and the fact that the lower unit was owner occupied. >> supervisor melgar: so if there is no information or if the information is lacking, doesn't the department then have to record a deed on the -- on the unit under s.b. 330? >> as a condition of approval, they must comply with s.b. 330 requirements, correct? >> supervisor melgar: okay. now i have a question, i think, also, for mr. star about the policy -- -- mr. starr about the policy -- in your presentation, you stated that, now, the application is for a home upstairs and a studio down stairs, and you think that's a comparable replacement of bedrooms, but doesn't s.b. 330 require that there be comparable replacement of the units? >> well, the existing unit on the ground floor had no code complying bedrooms, so we look at the studio, the comparable replacement to that because there was technically no legal bedrooms in that. >> supervisor melgar: it's because it was not a permitted unit, but doesn't s.b. 330 take into account the unauthorized units, as well? >> it's not just that it was unauthorized, they were not code compliant. they were not up to the building standards of what a bedroom can be. >> supervisor melgar: and i'm sorry. who made that determination? there was a d.b.i. -- there was a violation? i did not see that. >> the contractor -- we had -- the applicant had a contractor go in and inspect it, and that's the report that came back. >> supervisor melgar: so the project sponsor's employee made that determination, and based on that, you're saying it's comparable? you see how that's a little bit of a conflict because this is the project sponsor. okay. okay. those are all of my questions for now. >> president walton: i have a couple of questions. how many bedrooms are in the top unit? >> i believe there's two. alex, can you confirm that? >> that's correct. >> president walton: [indiscernible]. >> when we were made aware of the u.d.a., it was very planning commission hearing, and that commission was continued until the drawings can be revised, so we don't make them reapply, we make them reupdate the information. >> president walton: was there ever an effort to update the information on this property? >> not to my knowledge, no. >> president walton: do we know why that is? >> well, i think they were going with this project, so they were seeking to construction two units at this site, so they were seeking to demolish the building. >> president walton: and just a question for mr. westhoff, building on supervisor melgar's question. i believe you said there's no income of a prior low-income resident. >> that's correct. >> president walton: if there's not, why is planning saying there's an attempt to preserve a rent controlled unit if there's no evidence of it ever being a rent controlled unit or am i missing something here? >> that was -- the sponsor's agreed to do that basically to comply with s.b. 330. that was something that came out of the planning commission hearing. >> president walton: and that would comply because there's already a rental relief unit there? because you just said there's no record of it being a unit that was under rent relief, so i'm trying to figure out why is that -- why is that compliant with s.b. 330, or am i missing something? >> if i may, president walton, there's no evidence of a low-income tenant, but that's difference than rent control. rent control units can be rented at market rate. it's just that the rent can only increase a certain amount every year, so they're two different issues. >> president walton: thank you, mr. starr. appreciate it. that's all the questions i have right now. supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: thank you, supervisor walton. just a couple of questions. first, i just want to get clarity. is this an s.b. 330 project or, mr. starr? >> it is subject to s.b. 330, so we've determined that there's two units subject to rent control, and they have to replace it with two units subject to rent control. and that is reflected in the commission's conditions of approval. >> supervisor preston: isn't there a specific requirement of a separate application for an s.b. 330 project? 'cause i don't see that anywhere in the filed, so maybe just start with is a specific application for s.b. 330 required in your opinion? >> my understanding of the application wasn't in existence when they applied. the application happened a couple of months after s.b. 330 came into effect. i can find that out for you. i have our s.b. 330 person on stand by, but she's not in the meeting right now. >> supervisor preston: yeah, that would be great, and obviously, we have some time here. if we could get back to that. >> yeah. >> supervisor preston: and regardless whether it was part of the application as originally submitted, somewhere along the way there has to be a separate application. if not included in the original application, i'm wondering if there was an amendment or anything else that would meet the requirements of s.b. 330, but it sounds like you want to check that with your other folks. >> yes, i do. thank you. >> supervisor preston: great. thank you very much, mr. starr. and something that came up in the papers that i want to find out a little bit more about is some tenants were displaced from this unit in violation of the state tenant eviction moratorium, and i wanted to just give you a chance to -- to share the department's understanding of whether there was an accurate claim. let's start that tenants evicted the unit in 2020. >> we did an eviction history, and nothing came up on the property. >> supervisor preston: that's a different question, and i appreciate the information. let me phrase it differently. at some point when this was before planning or the planning commission, was the department made aware of the claim that tenants of the property vacated in or about october 2020 as a result of the dispute regarding rent? >> i mean, that -- that was a comment that came from neighbors, many who spoke earlier. the planning department does not have any evidence to back up that claim, though. >> supervisor preston: there was a claim made by neighbors and later by appellants, but you weren't presented with -- or there was no effort to ascertain the veracity of the -- of that allegation, would that be accurate? >> correct. there was -- there was no evidence provided to back up that claim. >> supervisor preston: got it, and can you just tell me what is the department policy around a claim of that type? you mentioned checking with the rent board. sounds like that was done to see whether something was filed there. is that the extent of what an investigation would be or the research that the department would do when someone claims there was an eviction or a displacement on the property? >> yes, that is our standard protocol, correct. >> supervisor preston: got it. and if that was accurate, if tenants vacated, and if there were in violation of existing laws -- and i'm not asking you whether you believe that's the case or not, but if that's the case, would that impact the planning department analysis or the appropriateness of conditional use being granted in this case? is that a relevant fact? >> i believe it would be. i don't recall any recent cases that have dealt with that at all. our s.b. 330 person can speak to that when they come on as to that kind of institutional memory, but it hasn't happened recently that we're aware of. >> supervisor preston: do you know if it would preclude moving forward with this project if that were, in fact, what it occurred, if tenants had been caused to vacate in violation of tenant protections in to 20? would that have precluded this project from proceeding to get approved? >> i'm sure it would be something that the planning department would have to take quite seriously, and again, our s.b. 330 person could speak more to that. >> supervisor preston: okay. thank you. i may want to follow up with that -- when your 330 person is available, and thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. i believe there are no other questions for planning, so now, we are going to call up the project sponsor, and you have two minutes, and i believe we have scott emblich on behalf of the project sponsor. >> yes. can you hear me? >> president walton: yes. >> [indiscernible] that i provided available, madam clerk? >> clerk: mr. emblich? >> are the slides that i provided available? >> yes. >> okay. great. thank you. my name is scott emblich, and i represent the sponsors. when completed, this home will house three generations of joanne and kerry's family. as the slide you have there shows, the existing condition as it exists and the home that joanne and kerry want to build. this slide shows the project from a wider view of the block. frankly, it's a very attractive addition to the neighborhood. it creates a large upstairs unit for joanne, kerry, and their daughter, and a smaller down stairs unit that will be used by joanne's 81-year-old mother. the problem is not complaints with the planning code, the problem is falsehoods that have been spread and that deflect from reality, and the only way i know to address those falsehoods is to give you the facts and the documentation that backs up those facts. first, s.b. 330. there is an s.b. 330 application on file. it wasn't made at the beginning because s.b. 330 didn't exist. why is s.b. 330 in the picture here? that's because joanne and kerry wanted to make sure that rent control would apply to these units in the future. s.b. 330 changed the landscape, and in discussions with the city attorney's office and planning staff, we determined that s.b. 330, if applied to this project, would authorize the city to impose a rent guarantee on both units. this is a win for everyone. kerrie and joanne get their multigenerational home, and the city can be assured if the unit is rented in the future, will be rent controlled in the future. [indiscernible] other than create two code compliant rent controlled units, an outcome that should be applauded, not derided. they say the subject doesn't add the same number of bedrooms as the existing structure, in violation of s.b. 330. as you've heard, this is simply false. the current building has two code compliant bedrooms on the top floor. it has three rooms on the bottom floor that have apparently been used as bedrooms but are not code compliant. one room has ceilings below what is required, no windows, and it has a gas meter on the wall. the second issue that you keep hearing about is evictions, the mistreatment of tenants. this playing the eviction card is simply false. there have been no he vacations and no mistreatment of tenants at this project. when kerrie and joanne brought the property, it was vacant, and there is no history of anyone being evicted at the property. in fact, there was no history of anyone renting on the property, but apparently there have been people leasing the lower property in the past. there have been two tenants since joanne and kerrie took over the property. there was a one-year tenant, but they asked if they could break the lease. we provided you the full e-mail string between those tenants and joanne and kerrie. here, you see the first e-mail, where they, they approached joanne and kerrie, saying we'd like to terminate our lease early, if that's possible. we want to move out of the city. joanne and kerrie worked with them to help them accomplish that. slide four, please. rather than being coerced or have their arms twisted, this shows that they worked together, the landlord and the tenants. joanne found a new tenant to take over the premises and relief them from their rent obligations. they say yea, that's really great news. we're happy this stuff worked out. these were not tenants that were evicted. they wanted to leave, and joanne and kerrie accommodated them. issue number three, the accuracy of the plans. they're alleging that john and kerrie and their architect [indiscernible]. this is from the assessor's record, and you can go and google it right now. assessor's record lists it as a one unit status. the 3-r report provided by the department of building inspection says it's a single-family home, and mr. valencia, the prior owner, when he provided his disclosures, says it's a one-unit residence with one dwelling unit. that's because it is. that is a single-family home. that is completely different than there being an unauthorized dwelling unit, and rather than hiding that, the plans that they put together showed the unauthorized dwelling unit in what should have been the garage on the ground floor. regarding the ceiling height, this is an issue that was raised before and shot down by the planning commission. we had an independent architect who did drawings, measured the ceiling heights. they were subsequently verified by an independent appraiser who verified the property, but rather than believe people who have never been on the property, believe the people who have been on the property, who measured the ceilings. not only did the contractor base his opinion on false information about ceiling heights and there are gross -- therefore grossly underestimate the cost, he neglected to include that in his property. neighborhood outreach, that's another issue that you've heard people complain about. they continue to attack joanne and kerrie despite the fact that it's well documented that they held the preapplication meeting attended by neighbors. they subsequently engaged with their neighbors about their concerns. they made their architect available to field questions and provide information, including performing a shadow study on the neighbor's sky light. and speaking of the neighbors, let's address the issue of a bribe. the issue of money came up when joanne and kerrie offered to pay their neighbor $20,000 to installing more sky lights to improve lighting in their home. the response? if you make it $30,000, you've got yourself a deal. these are the documented facts about who was bribing who. supervisors, this process has been a long and tough one for terry, joanne, and their family. they've heard people who they've never met villainize them in public hearings. over 30 letters have been submitted in support of the project. supporters include neighbors in potrero hill, joanne and kerrie's current tenants, activists, and neighbors who struggle to care for their aging parents in san francisco. the planning commission found that it's code compliant and complies with the neighborhood character. we ask you to please reject this appeal. thank you. >> president walton: -- on the roster -- is this working now? hello? thank you for your presentation, and i don't see any questions from colleagues, so at this time, we will invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. at this time, the board will hear testimony, up to two minutes, for speakers in opposition of the appeal or in support of the project, items 47 through 50. i understand we do have some listeners in the queue, and there are some individuals who are lined up to speak. i will apologize to you now if i'm interrupting you as we are setting the timer for two minutes, and we do need to hear from everyone. we have 49 listeners and eight callers in the queue. if you're one of the 49 and you'd like to provide testimony on behalf of the project, now is your opportunity to do so. you should press star, three to get into the line. all right. ops, let's welcome the first caller. welcome, caller. >> hi. my name is [indiscernible] and i live with my husband [indiscernible], at 249 texas street. we are in support of this u.a. and hope to give a tenant's perspective and joanne and kerrie's housing plans. our landlords were in the process of applying for a housing permit with the city of san francisco. in no way are we being evicted. we have a positive relationship with our landlords during the time here. the previous tenants, matt and hannah, originally showed us the house at the end of 2020. they openly shared with us how helpful the landlords were at addressing issues around the house, such as installing wall heaters and a dryer, etc. when we asked what made the two tenants decide to move out, they mentioned that they would like to take advantage of the working from home place to explore the united states, starting with spending some time in northern california. based on our brief encounter and some e-mail follow up, the previous tenants seemed to have a good relationship and good standing with the landlords. our own interactions with joanne has been transparent from the start. the honesty and transparency made us sign the lease. furthermore, we -- this plan for a one-year lease worked out for us because we may have had to move back to the peninsula to go back to our offices, so i want to restate that we have been fully aware -- >> clerk: thank you to the caller. apologies for interrupting you. we are setting the timer for two minutes. okay. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> i believe i'm next. my name is debbie lu. good evening, supervisors, and fellow san franciscans. i'm a first generation immigrant, and i've lived in san francisco for 20 years, first in the upper height and now in the sunset. my two children were born here and attend san francisco public schools. it took me four years to remodel my current home on ortega street so that my 80-year-old mother could live with me and my children, and i'm calling to speak on above of joanne and kerrie. i've known joanne for 30 years, and she is the first person who would support programs and policies that promote social justice, more affordable housing, economic equity. i know her to have a deep love of family, and she has an incredibly close relationship with her mother, which is why she's trying to create a family home, so that her mother can live with her, and joanne and kerrie's daughter. [please stand by] if you'd like toprovide comments or testimony for now please press star 3 to get into the line. let's hear from the next caller . >> caller: my name is stacy corey and i have been in san francisco for about seven years. i live in nobhill and this situation was brought to my attention by a friend of mine who lives in the neighborhood and i think what concerns me about situations like this is just that we live in a major city and there is going to be growth and change and people want to improve their homes and where they live and for me as a homeowner i appreciate that because i want the value of my home to go up and also i want thecity to be a better place to live over time . and if you go into places like christina heights , the minute sales come down the scaffolding goes up and this is part of san francisco and the city that is improving and changing over time and in some ways it is changing for the better. i know i wasn't living in the city at the time when there was the freeway that ran through hayes valley but i heard the horror stories of what it was like before and the only thing that made it better was by rerouting the freeway and putting more money and energy and time andresources into that area to make it the area that it is . for me , i'd like to css improve and i want to see it improve so my heart goes out to people are well-intentioned and just wanting to live a better life and to have a nice place to live and then i just wanted to say that i'm in support of them and i'm also in support of the city being improved overal . so thank you. >> you for your comments. next caller please. >> my name is sevilla and i have been following this case since the article earlier this year and fully in support of the conditional use authorization one afternoon as i was walking by my home she ambushed me describing what i now know as a perfectly reasonable single-family home and a monster apartment building with three people. i told her i wanted to look into the facts and she took my email. that surprised that i never heard from her because she knew anyone knows how bogus the propaganda is and never signed anything. the planning commission reviewed the fact and yet here we are now. this is yet another example of the chaos and entitlementwhere we've seen all over our country . it's a perfect reason for outcomes anddecisions as we go against our wishes . maybe what you wish for is misguided and bigoted in the first place and something i want to call out is the disconnect between concerns over loss of affordable housing and the reality of one central apartment and the building extra work renting for $32-$3700 a month, two times the affordable rent. therefore i request we approve the conditional use authorization and put an end to this misinformation propaganda that has been scaring many neighbors intoopposing this project . thank you for your time. >> clerk: thankyou for your comments. we have six colors and 49 were listening . sometimes these calls go quickly and if you are wanting to provide testimony you should press star 3to get through the line and otherwise let's hear from the next caller . >> on reading the statement on behalf of sheila hutchins. your president walton and esteemed members of the board of supervisors i'm sorry i am unable to participate in person as i am at the hospital with my mother who is undergoing surgery. this is a follow-up to the letter in support of the san francisco planning commission proposal of the coa 4249 texas. carrie and joann have designed their homes to accommodate the needs of their family including joann's 81-year-old mother whose house continues to decline. their goal is to transition to a multigenerational household so joann's mother canlive the remaining years of her life and comfortable surroundings while they monitor her care . my understanding is joann's followed the planning process and regulation and have worked with city planning staff for many months to propose a project that addresses all sf building codes andresidential guidelines, requests from the building department and staff and request from the planning commissioners . given the planning department supported the project at 249 tester street and the planning commission approved this project it isextremely distressing to hear about the appeal and manner in which the neighbors have and appellants have been together to oppose this construction . they are mean-spirited and vitriolic attacks have been personal and the appellant seems to manage their campaign keeping the shapiro family out of theneighborhood . iurge you to reject the appeal to support the commission's approval for 249 texas street and allow carrie and joanne to build their new home thank you on behalf of chanel hutchins . >> president: let's hear from our next caller please , welcome. >> caller: my name is mike hollins and i'm a san francisco resident of the last 20 years and the last 14years in betrayal hill . mister president and the esteemed board of supervisors i'm here in support of joann and carrie because i read about their plight in the prairie review a few months ago. i don't know joann or kerry but i was able to reach out to her via linkedin and i dug into this a little bit more. and just reading the articles what spurred me on is because just reading the quotes there to me it was a very simple ... people just don't want the house built next to them in of you that's goingto block their life. nobody likes to have buildings don't next to themand go through that construction but we live in a big cityand congested city. they're following the rules . they gone through the planning commission . we need to let the planning commission do their jobs . what is theimpact of this that we are saying that they're wrong, they do the wrong thing, or being bought off ? that sets a realstrong precedent and tune it looks like vigilante justice . there bantering people around and doing all these hearsay and these things. these people who like i said i don't even know but from what i read and what i've heard talking with joann they are good people. let them build their home. it's a beautiful home. it'smultigenerational immigrant jewishfamily . it's abeautiful home and it fits in with the neighborhood . it's perfect, it looks very nice . i'm so happy we can do that and i'm in support of, i'm against the appeal. i'm insupport of the sponsors . thank you very much. >> thank you, operations. next callerplease . >> i live in san francisco full-time and i'm an immigrant to san francisco from out of country. i came here without assistance and i live in a household of four but we now live in a secure house five blocks from san francisco.and i love the city but i learned about this project in an article in the local newspaper. i don't know the owner but the bottom line is the process is illegal to the client which is no small feat on the planning department, building code compliance has allowed demolition on these units and that's why the apartment improved the application. they are excellentat their job and diligent about cityrules . that should be the end of the discussion .it takes all these appeals focusing on subjective issues. one, the process is consistent with the beauty of the neighborhood there's a mix of old and new houses . just our neighborhood is stuck in the past and we want to change. second this family want to keep their family in san francisco. and by the way, if you look closely at the mother's picture that's a birthmark.some of the comments i couldn't believe. it takes a commitment to live in san francisco with a family versusliving in piedmont . the owners of the manner born, joann is an immigrant . they're successful, not wealthy. they're living theamerican dream and want to continue living it in san francisco . it's been a couple couple tough years. >> clerk: thankyou for your comments. we are setting the time of two minutes . we do appreciate your testimony. so this is the last call. there are 4 colors in the queu . if you're one of the 47 listening and you'd like to provide testimony please press star 3 to speakotherwise we will take this last group . welcomeour next caller . >> caller: hello. my name is jimwhittington, i am a resident of san francisco and i've been here since 1983 . several years ago i had the pleasure of meetingjoann and carrie . i heard about their situation and it really upset me because you know, i'm also an immigrant and we've managed to buy a house here in san francisco and been living here for so long and i've seen so many changes and how the city has developed. many of these neighborhoods were not desirable places to live and as a continuing pattern people keep moving in and we don't find these neighborhoods. were also i'm also part of a multigenerational family and even though our home is 2000 square feetit's very tight for both grandparents and 2 kids . and to parents so i understand that you need a certain amount of space to live together and for everybody to have their own space but what their building is not unreasonable and it was approved by the cityplanning commission . these peoplemaking personal attacks on people they don't know , i find that very un-american. i even as a person who knows kerry barely gets to see him because he works so much. i don't know these people making these comments so i'm i support of the project . i hope they go this beautiful home sothey can live with their mother and their daughter together many years to come . i hope you guys let them proceed and build this home for them.>> thank you for your comments sir. operations let's hear from our next caller in the queue. >> caller: my name is robert passaro. i am a resident of the trail hills since 1999. i've lived in threedifferent locations . tworent-controlled apartments and now in my own home on the 300 block oftexas street . i echo the comments from the supporters here . in supportof this project , the bottom line is that the project is compliant through the hurdles that the planning department puts in place to get housing in san francisco and that is really all that should be considered. i think all the other accusations that have been discussed in this are irrelevant and inappropriate and i hope that the board of supervisors supports this project. thankyou. >> thank you for your comments. operations, welcome our next caller please . >> caller: my name is kim lavelle and i've lived in san francisco since 1983 and i'm been at the herald for 26 years. and this is not an attack on the people personally. this is an attack on the process of or dispute on how to compliance has been weak. there was some missteps and how the compliance was reached so when yousay they are in compliance let them go forward . but i also saved for my house from the ground up. i came here living down the street and then in a van and then saved for many years to on my house so i'm deeply invested in thehome and the neighborhood . and i plan to stay here until forever. but when i did have another property, i was fortunate enough to get a second property on the hill and even though i was in compliance, my neighbors were not happy and on that with them repeatedly to get them on board with what they wanted and make the changes and i don't agree with how this is pushed forward with a lot of unhappy peoplein the immediate surroundings . i think it's onlyfair that this is given a second look . and a look at also how the compliance was reached. i just think that's their. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. in the event that i missed that we are taking testimony in support of the project for anyone who might be against the leader of the oppositionto the appeal . so let's hear from our next caller please . welcome caller. >> caller: hello >> clerk: we can hear you . >> caller: this is a san francisco native, 1968 and i've been calling for this project off and on and i'm calling to voice my strong support for it . these small info socks are hard to develop and the folks behind it have spent a lot of time and energy trying to get this far. it's been approved and it's right, it's a small site right next to a 12 story building. and it provides much-needed housing for middle income people and i think the city needs to encourage and encourage more projects like thisand i strongly support the board to approve it . you. >> clerk: we have several callers who are listening and i handful of individuals in the queue. if you're one of the 46 who are listening and you like to provide testimony this evening please press star 3 now. let's welcome ournext caller please . >> caller: my name is dave hassler and i really appreciate everyone's desire to make san francisco the best place possible for all of us. i also want to thank all the advisors for their time especially my supervisor president walton . hopefully all of you read my letter. i am here to show my support for the conditional use authorization for 249 past street. i live in patreo hell for 15 years and i know the street very well. my wife and i have chosen to raise our kids in patreo hill and we love our neighborhood. this meeting is a great example ofhow the city could be improved . the planning department commission approved this 5 to 2. these people are experts and when you make adecision after weighing all the rods of fast their decision continues to be second-guessed . i feel like if you don't like the current rules orlaws and it's up to i guess the supervisors to change them . but there seems to be a lot of arbitrary decisions about this renovation is okay in this spot and this one is not even though from the planning point of view and from the building point of view there to say. my main motivation actually for being here is i'm very frustrated with the hypocrisy i'm seeing going on. i think it's unfair to see joann and carry her own under the bus in a battle over who are the havesand have-nots . i think ironically the leaders of this of you are part of the house and they in many others on the appeal are landlords who i strongly guess and in fact no have no problem renting out at market rates for even renting out to places like airbnb. housing is a big issue in sf but i strongly ... >> clerk: thank you for your comments, i verymuch appreciated 4 callers left in the queue . let's welcome our next caller please.>> are no further callers in the queue. >> caller: >> thank you for everyone who called in and seeing asthere are no more colors of that comment is now closed . lastly we will invite the public to present a rebuttal argument. you will have toup to three minutes . >> and ion? >> you are. >> i had to pull together a couple of quick slides. first i want to say that ... let's see, i need to share my screen . i want to start by saying this is not an sp 330 project as we saw mister starr fumble through that answer. they say it's not and want to destroy it but in the same breath they say that it is 2 units so they can use and fight sp 330 to destroy it so itcan't be both ways . it's in our brief that having never met 317 to begin with. we did take a deal. we've already said so. this was before anything like the deceit and all the issues that came forward in the case. we refused the deal then but conveniently the sponsors did not include the email where we said we're not taking the deal becausethere's too many ethical issues at stake but we did forward it to you all if you want a chance to read it . there is clear evidence of owners in the unit. we provided evidence of this months ago. there's emails. the tenant came forward today and i can send a housing verification even to me over the weekend that shows the low income tenants was only making $16,000 at the time when he lived at 249 texas street so even though mister westhoff said it was only owner-occupie that's not true. and can occupydepending on the does meet criteria for that five-year look back . also , apparently with sp 330 application ihave the bulletin right here . it was made in january 2020 one so if the requirement was there the application wasready . i'm not sure where it disappeared from magically when wechecked days ago it wasn't there . finally they are relying on the sponsor to determine code compliance. the sponsor has been sothat prevented the untrustworthy . we've been on the property before and many of the neighbors that came forward around here. in thathouse . we've beenin that house. the ceiling heights are in the bedrooms are compliant . and again, we also i'm sorry. ourindependent contractor did actually look at the foundation . it's quite visible to our two housesso he was able to take pictures and look at it . and then also i'm sorry, i wasn't able to pull up a slide i just made but their email of the tenants that left under duress they highlighted only the section that they wanted to but they left off the very obvious section on page 14 of every where it shows a for rent reduction and were denied. >> thank you so much. >> sorry to talkso fast . >> we have heard from both parties so this public hearing has beenheld and is now final . as previously discussed we will now consider whether to approve or disapprove the appeal of the conditional use authorization at 249 texas street. colleagues, do we have any collegecomments to make ? supervisor preston. >> i just wanted to check back in through the president of planning and find out whether you have located someone who got to the outstanding issues we discussed about the existence and timing of the 330 application as well as any additional details around the weather tenants were displaced or not in october. >> we have 800 online is with sp 230. >> thank you for the questions. sp 330 is a complex bill and i think there's been a lot of comments over whether it's an sp 330 project or whether it's not an sp 330 contained four big large parts. one is amended like the house and accountability act and prohibits down zoning if there's not a comparable zonin . the creation of any sort of subjective standards andfinally , it also has a preliminary application that was created and that's to free all planning code requirements but the one i think is pertinent today is the relocation andreplacement controls . these will apply to any project filed after january 1 2020 regardless of anysubmittal of an application . the application we have that's been published is a preliminary application whichfreezes the planning code requirements . we have amended it to add additional information about the relocation and replacement butthat was not in effect at the time when the project sponsor went to the planning commission . that being said we had conclusive evidence as far as the primary unit being occupied by a tenant that was above 80 percent ami and when you have a tenant that's about 80 percent ami as a city we will then restrict that unit provided it's a rental project as a rent-controlled unit . the planning commission there's been confusion about the unauthorized dwelling unit and how that was occupied and i think there's been some process as far as if there was a tenant in that unit. it's always been owner-occupied aside from the possibility of renting out one room and how we'veinterpreted sp 330 in terms of replacement and relocation is it has to be rental of the entire unit . i can definitely answer any other questions . >> chair: i'm still i think a bit confused on the pre-application material that wasfiled . it doesn't explicitly reference 330. when does 3/31 come into play? >> what actually comes into play in a couple of different scenarios. the relocation and replacement requirements of sp 330 come into play for any application filed after january 1, 2020. however if we have pipeline projects the preliminary application which is what that statute created and many jurisdictionshave it published .we have our , that can be applied toretroactive projects in the pipeline . let's say you had 2018 project wanted all planning code requirements as they stand. once it became effective in january 1 they could do that. it could apply to older cases. same kind of thing goes for the house and accountability act amendments that sp 330 had and that five hearing limit looked hard but it amended so many sections of the government code so you each one applicable to be a little tricky but for the relocation and replacement as long as application came in after january 1 2020 it would apply. >> thank you. and i didn't want to hear there was reference about your apology to a low income occupying the five-year look back and i wanted to hear the response to that. >> our understanding in terms of the low income tenants that would have been in that five-year look back would really apply to the unauthorized dwelling unit that we had always heard was owner-occupied aside from the rental of one room . that doesn't really rise to the occasion of being subject to the relocation and replacement. if you're only goingto rent that one room versus theentire unit , we're going to look at differently . in terms of that primary unit, we did have evidence it was occupied by tenants that were about 80percent emi. and because of that we can replace it with a rent-controlled unit . >> can you expand on that though? so there's no dispute there was low income tenants in one room. the issue is from planning perspective that because there's only one room and not the entire unit the rental that doesn't trigger the replacemen requirement . >> that's been our interpretation we're going to be looking at the entire unit . >> that's a little concerning. is that in a letter, like where's the guidance for that and how did planning arrive at that termination. >> for sure. it wasn't a lot of guidance as with many of our state bills. that being said it always refers key units rather than rooms so we would think of the unit as a complete unit rather than just a bedroom. >> is that different analysis been in for example the 317 analysis where you're looking without looking at 330 in terms of processing the occupancy, is it done under room by room or unit by unit basis ? >> it's been a unit by unit basis. >>. >> thank you and just back to the other tenants. and i should just make a preface this with more of a comment i think of some of the concerns thathave been raised . it's really i think some of the concerns raised in the appeal and potential for abuse more broadly of basically if you can eliminating the rental housing to replace it with two units of rentalhousing . we i think really do need to look closely at the circumstances in which if anyone will display from those units . so there was also the issue and the respondents to the sponsor presented some of the emails with the tenants who did vacate who rented the unit. and i just wanted to follow up through the president to the sponsors counsel on the circumstances regarding the tenants vacated. in the fall of 2020. and so did the owners notify those tenants of their right to pay 25 percent under state law rather than full rent? >>. >> president walton, supervisor peskin there was no notification because that's not the way the conversation went. the conversation was the tenants asking can we please terminate our lease early with a fixed term lease and they were theoretically onthe hook for several more months of that lease . they asked if that can terminate early because they wanted to leave san francisco and joannand carrie worked with them to try to find a way to let them terminate early and get another another tenant in their . there was no question about them wanting to stay and pay less. it was we like to terminate early the entire email stream is in your packet . i'm not picking and choosing, or the slides pick and choose the beginning and the end of the conversation but the entire email string is in your packet . >> the emails are there as well as i think the text that's attached with the appellate supplemental response and the communication. with the former tenant. i will say that when the assertion was made that they wanted to leave and then there's negotiations it's pretty clear from the read of the exchange that the tenants reason for wanting to leave is they can't afford the rent. you know, global in which their income. that's the whole point colleagues of the laws we passed as well as the state law was to account for this kind of situation where someone loses income, they don't have to leave. i understand what thecouncil is saying around the , around it sounds like rather than informed them of their right to stay, the owners negotiated a reduction in the balance of the rent and that's what the exchange shows. but i think i find it very concerning just say as a final comment rather than question. i find it concerning that exchange had just around the failure to notify tenants of these kind of protections in the middle of a pandemic and then to characterize that as you know, as a voluntary displace that these were going to move anyway. which is essentially the argument. and i don't see that exchange. i see people having financial hardship in a pandemic rather than reducing their rent or allowing them to the 25 percent instead they end up paying 50 percent, being allowed quote unquote to faith 50 percent in police the to move . so i will leave it at that. >> thank you supervisor. i don't see any of my other colleagues who have a few words to share before making a motion and i just want to start off by saying that these are appeals are never pretty and it's not something i enjoyabout this job . i would much rather neighbors be able to come to a compromise or a win-win. but we are obligated to hear from the board of supervisors and make a decision based on the factsas presented. regardless of value . and colleagues, i've reviewed this appeal from when it was first heard at the planning commission on march 4 and its second hearing the planning commission june 3, both of this year. i've reviewed the submitted documents and briefs presented by both the appellant and the project sponsors. and the letters and emails from the communityin support of the appeal and in opposition of the appeal . i've also reviewed parameters of sb 330 see how it applies to this specific project and the standards on the appeal of the conditional use authorization as well as the standard applied when the conditional use is sought for a demolition. at the initial planning commission meeting on march 4 of this year this project was presented as a single family home with one unit from both project sponsor and theplanning department . public comment was taken in many of the speakerslived in the neighborhood . pointed out that this location was a two unit home. this item was continued at that meeting so that planning to comeback with more information on the second unit . just to give a little context i personally drove by 249 texas to review the property and even though this does not completely find what the two unit home is, there are clearly two instances and two mailboxes. one of theground-floor, one of the top floor with stairs leading up to it . i'm not sure why it was presented as a single-family home with the unauthorized dwelling unit committed during the first time it was earth. whether authorized or not, thi property contains two rent-controlled units with a history of tenants living in bothunits . both of these units contributed to san francisco's affordable housing stock . the second planning commission meeting on june 3of this year . this project was revised to include the unauthorized dwelling unit and sp 330 was invoked for this project . specifically its existing units were to be demolished. there subject to the city's rent ordinance and the income of the last occupant is above 80 percent of ami. the project sponsor did provide information showing the current occupants were about 80 percent of ami and reached an agreement with the commission that the condition of approval that the units resulted from the project should be subject to the city's rent ordinance. however, upon reviewing sp 330 there is aprovision of sb 330 that was not applied to this project . equivalent size means that the replacement unit contain at least the same total number of beds as the units being replaced. the original property had two units. one unit on top of two bedrooms, a second unit on the ground floor with three bedrooms classified as an unauthorized dwelling. it has been replaced with two units, the top unit having four bedrooms and the bottom unit as a studio unit. although the topunit as an additional two bedrooms , the bottom unit as a loss of two bedrooms. the bottom line is that this is demolishing to existing units that were rent-controlled and not replacing it ata one-to-one ratio in terms of bedrooms . and san francisco's planning code section 317 loss of residential and other unauthorized units with demolition merger and conversion under definition unauthorized unit is defined one or more rooms in a building that have been used without the benefit of a building permit as a separate and distinct living or sleeping space independent from residential units for the same property. independent shall mean that the space as independent access and that does not require entering a residential unit on the property and there is no open visual connection to a residential unit on the property. again, there are clearly two separate units from street view with two separate interests and two separate mailboxes and we have also heard public testimony from previous tenants of this property that indeed the bottom second unitcontains three bedrooms . in an effort to protect existing housing stock, sb 330 prohibits cities and counties from approving housing development projects that require the demolition of residential dwellings unless a project would at least put every demolished dwelling unit at a one-to-one ratio . furthermore, the housing developments must replace all part protective units subject to rent control. protective units are units that are or were in the past five years either subject to a reported ordinance or law restricting rent to the levels affordable to low or very low incomes . two, occupied bible or very low income households or three, subject to a local rentcontrol ordinance .this project is not replacing allprotective units . with its distinct bedrooms on a one-to-one ratio. sb 330 also requires a preliminary application under government code section 65941.1 separate and distinct from a development application. sb 330 requires proper paperwork and a form of application which this project still does nothave. when this project was heard that planning , a separate and distinct application should have been included for sb 330 and the commissioners packet but it was not and that is a violation of state law . another thing that is concerning is that the previous upstairs tenants will work counsel on november 19 of 2020 five attendance unit because they struggle to pay rent due to covid layoffs and in the middle of the pandemic while san francisco had an eviction moratorium during a health emergency the current upstairs tenant has signed an agreement to vacate. the tenants cannot sign away their rights. for just cause under the rent order. nor should they have to. separately, project sponsors as mentioned at this property would be for their familyand the studio will be for another family room . this move, this removes the two rent-controlled units from the affordable housing because there's nointention to rent out the unit . the planning department has to be more comprehensive when invoking sb 330 . when the additional condition was cast in this project it has alignment says shall comply with all applicable provisions of chapter 37 and california sb 330. when it does not list which applicable provisions of sb 330 for the project. the san francisco general plan has a section to conserve and improve existing stock. specifically with an objective to retain existing housing units and promote safety and maintenance standards without jeopardizing affordability especially rent-controlled units to meet the city's affordable housing . demolishing the existing property the build and building a new building a studio as a second unit intended for owner occupation does not preserving or existing affordable housing units nor is it creating new family housing within the studio. 62 percent of san francisco's residents are renters. and the interests of long-term health and diversity of the housing stock the city should work to preservethis proximate ratio of rental units . the city should pay particular attention to rent-controlled units which contribute to the long-term existence and affordability of the city rental housing stock by continuing the protection and supporting tenants rights. demolishing this property removes two rental units and the replacement units will not be available to rent as they are intended for owner occupation . with the inconsistencies of the submitted application of the project, violation of sb 330 and not having a separate and distinct location, not replacing the equivalent of their bedrooms in the second unit so a one-to-one ratio. and that demolition of two rent-controlled units that will no longer be available because the new units are intendedfor owner occupation . i cannot in good conscience withhold the conditional use authorization for 249 texas street. however, because this is a conditional use authorization bill , we have to review the applicable standards in the appeal of the conditional use authorization in the standards that apply on the conditional use authorization sought for demolition. under planning code 303 the proposed use or feature at the size and intensity contemplated and the proposed location will provide a development and a necessary or desirable come compatible with the neighborhoods . this project does not meet that standard as it is not necessary or desirable to demolish to rent-controlled units to build new units intended forowner occupation . under planning code 317 the standards for authorization on and conditional use to demolish residential units we must consider the additional criteria when demolition of existing units. whether the project converts rental housing to other forms of tenure or occupancy and in this case it converts rental housing to owner occupancy . or whether the project protects relative affordability of existing housing by demolishing this property we lose to affordable housing units will not be replaced because the new units are owner occupied. whether the project increases the number of family size units on site by demolishing this property , we lose to family size units that are being replaced by one large family size unit and in a studio that does not create any new family housing. whether the project increases the number of on-site bedrooms as i mentioned before the new top unit will replace the two bedrooms with four bedrooms and the new bond unit and studio room that is not replaced three bedrooms. and finally, the planning code has a section on removalof ununits . specifically whether it is financially feasible to legalize the unauthorized unit for unit. there was no attempt to legalize the unauthorized unit. with that said, seeing no other comments, colleagues i would like to make a motion to conditionally disapprove the decision of the planning commission and conditional use authorization at 249 texas by tabling item 3 a and improving items 49 and 50. is there a second? seconded by supervisor peskin. madam clerk on the motion. >> clerk: on the motion to tableitem 48 and improve item 49 and 50 . [roll call vote] 's. [roll call vote] there are 11 aye's. >> chair: without objection item or the one is tabled 49 and 50 are approved. madam clerk, would you please go to our next special order items 51 through 54 53 through 54 is a public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the california environmental quality act for the 1525 pine street project approved by the planning commission issued may 6, 2021. item to 52 is commission approval of the fm and the, final mitigated negative declaration for the pine street project. 53 is a motion to conditionally reverse the commission's approval of the fm and the subject to rent findings of the board in support of this determination and item before thispreparation of findings to reverse the approval by the planning commission of the fmnd for the pine street project . >> chair: colleagues, we have before us the hearing on the appeal of a finalmitigated negative declaration of the proposed project at 1825 pine street . after the hearing the board will vote on whether to affirm for conditionally reverse the planning commission's approval of a final mitigated negative declaration at 1525 pine stree . without objection we will proceed as follows.up to 10 minutes for a presentationby the appellant or their representative public comment , two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to 10 minutes for presentationfrom the planning department . up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor. public comment two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal and finally, up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or their representative. colleagues are there any objections to proceeding this way? seeing no objections thepublic hearing willproceed as indicated . it is now open . click's supervisor, any opening remarksyou like to make ? thank you, seeing no one else on the roster we will now have the ability come forward and present their case. you have up to 10 minutes and i believe we have david since anna and teresa calderon. >> can we begin? >> yes you can, thank you so muchmay name is davidson, you're on behalf of patricia and claire rose and many of the neighbors at 1545 pine street . the first issue i want to discuss is thepreservation and restoration of the ground state . from the very beginning of our appeal in february of last year, we have been saying that that state hasnot adequately protected the drumstick and more detailed mitigation measures was the required . the project sponsors in the last year have rallied that lgbt qcommunity to save the appellants were opposed to saving drumstick . that is not true. in my recent message to the board i actually pointed out that is the board made eagled our landmark last week at its board of supervisors hearing that we should consider making drumstick alandmark building . the response from the project sponsor was that the drumstick should be designated as a landmark because really it was just a contributory restaurant in the statement. this is contradictory to what they already said was that there were 30 pages and oral testimonies of the lgbt q community that were supporting the designation and the saving of this building. we believe that mitigation measures are essential to save drumstick. we also believe that there are necessary to save the lives and living conditions of the neighbors at 1545pine street . by reviewing the shadow and light impacts that have been demonstrated to impact the adjacent neighbors.i want to point out there are different studies. one study done by the project sponsors consultant and a study done by residents of 1545pine street . the differences, some of the differences in those studies are considerable. one is the project sponsors consultant only discusses the shadow that falls on the outside of the building. it never discusses the interior conditions of thebuilding and that's what's being lost here . also its shadows study takes an average of the shadow on a 12 story building seeing the height at the top of the building shadow would still be the same as that at the bottom. obviously that's not true and the appellate study shows that. teresa calderon is a resident andowner of one of the units that will be most severely impacted by the proposed development . she did an analysis of the light and shadow impacts to the use the scientific methodology which she used architectural standards that are generally accepted on how to measure light. i'm going to turn it over to her now to describe her findings . >> can you guys hear me? >> my name is teresa. the shadow impact of the proposed project as feed 29pine street is detrimental to the health of residents . the impacts are more significant for the units on the lower floors and for the 11 studio unit who have no other access to natural light. house concerns include sleep disruption and density loss for the neighbors and it's important that the project sponsors conduct an adequate light study so they can implement adequate mitigation studies. however there are problems with the sponsors analysis which has led them to propose an adequate mitigation of adding unregulated artificial lighting in the light well as an afterthought there is no plan for how these lights should be maintained and when they will be turned on and off . one project with the sponsors analysis is a thing they measure the light outside the units windows but in the courtyardrather than measuring light inside the unit . this is problematic because outdoor light can be significantly brighter than th light indoors . by presenting exterior light data in frontof the commission the sponsors are claiming light conditions that are brighter than what the residents will experience . whatyou see here is an image included on page seven of the sponsor study and it looks out into the courtyardsimulating the life during the summer solstice . >> i don't see anything on the screen at this moment . >> is something supposed to be on the screen? you can pause the timeso we get the technical issues . >> can you seethis? not yet . >> sorry. can you see now? >> yes. >> can you see this? >> yes. >> what you see here is an image of the sponsors light study. all of the fixtures included were in the courtyard whichdoes not show the bad lighting conditions inside the unit . the picture there is the one i took for the third floor. sorry. it is the sponsor's responsibility to conduct this study and present it to the planning department but to see how much darker the conditions are inside the uniti've taken a look to measure the light on the thirdfloor . >> . [please stand 5] >>. [please stand by] >> i've highlighted the time periods in red where the locks will be below 500, which is the minimum light required for office work and cleaning. this amount of light is not typical for san francisco dwelling units because the planning code protects everyone's access to natural light and proposed -- and the proposed artificial mitigation is unregulated and cannot be enforced. recent decisions by the planning commission in the approval of an exposure resulted in an approval of increased height for 1425 pine street makes the level unsustainable. >> okay. is that it? >> that's it. >> both the planning department and the project sponsor have said that ceqa only requires such a finding on general human beings, not on individual human beings. this project impacted residents over 20 units -- in over 20 units. i want to know how many units it takes to be considered general human beings. this is a ridiculous standard. i also want to point out that the question in front of the board now is whether substantial evidence exists that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though another conclusion might be reached. the residents used scientific methodology and architectural standards for lux lighting. just because the project sponsor doesn't like the facts and arguments presented doesn't mean it's erroneous. he made arguments in his presentation that although it may be misleading, some of these may be accepted mathematical [indiscernible]. so this should be sent back to the department to do a better analysis to find out what might be mitigated. as the project sponsor points out, there are only six pages of the h.r.a. that talks about the physical characteristics of the building. that in and of itself should qualify this project as a landmark and requiring further review as to how to properly deserve and restore grub stake, saving the life of the grub stake and the lives of the residents of 1545. thank you. >> president walton: thank you so much. i don't see any comments from colleagues or questions, so we are going to go ahead and move to public comment specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. the board will now hear public testimony for the proposed 1525 pine street project. speakers will have up to two minutes to provide testimony in support of the appeal or against the project, and may i ask the appellant to mute his microphone, please. if you wish to enter public comment, call the number streaming across your screen. that's 415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. it 488-489-6769, then then pound twice. to enter the queue, please press star, three and listen carefully for the prompt that you have been unmuted. i will also announce that we have interpreters from the office of the interpreter to assist us. [speaking cantonese language] >> clerk: i'm so sorry to interrupt you, but i hear that the callers on the line may not be able to hear you. operations, do we need to go into recess for a moment while you reestablish the bridge line? >> operator: yes, i don't believe the bridge line is existent, so i believe that's why he can't respond. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. we were in the middle of having the interpreters from the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs introduce themselves and the service they are here to provide. let's begin with miss lai. [speaking cantonese language] [speaking spanish language] >> clerk: miss torres? may be muted. all right. mr. boris? all right. well, we understand that mr. boris is with us, and that there is the opportunity for mr. boris to jump in once he gets his equipment working better. if there's someone he can help out, we will make him available. we are taking public comments in support of testimony against the project. operations, let's hear from our first caller, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thanks for allowing me a chance to speak. my name is garev, and i previously stayed in the [indiscernible] 50 units at the [indiscernible]. i would like the board to reject the project to be disapproved. the environmental impact on those units is huge for those units facing the street. [indiscernible] as well as the b.m.i. units in the light well. only the light change is to add ambient light but it is no match for direct natural sun light, and so i urge this commission to approve plans for no more than a three or four-story building, something that does not have such environmental impact on the light. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have some callers in the queue. if you are interested in providing comment in support of the appeal or against the project, this is your opportunity to speak. operations, let's hear from our next caller. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is ross, and i'm a resident in one of the units that faces the light well. we do not have any other source of light or access to a light well. i would like to point out that the planning commission's environmental impact report was highly [indiscernible] on both occasions and actually fails to follow the impacts on human beings like the caller just mentioned. i don't know how many residents qualifies as general human beings. i would urge this commission to go back and study the environmental impacts of this project, and i would also like to point out that we can save the grub stake and save our homes by building a smaller less tall project. also, the board will hear comments in support of the project, but i believe they're motivated by a project called save the grub stake. a lot of the supporters of this campaign do not understand the full scope of the building that's going to go above the grub stake, and that is what this appeal explains. this will have direct impacts on natural lighting, affect quality of life on the east facing neighbors and affect our quality of life issues. the office is already built. we're already here. can you please pay attention to our conditions and present present -- listen to those facts. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. so we have five callers in the queue to present testimony on this matter. there are 32 listening. if you are one of the 32 listening and would like to provide comment, please make sure you press star, three, otherwise, we'll take this group through to the very end. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. thank you. >> hello. my name is sergei, and i've been a resident of san francisco for five years. i'm calling to oppose the construction at 1525 pine street. as stated, the primary adverse effect is the lack of light for people. it can trigger a host of orders, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. the positive effects are something like the same that exercise and physician movement have on your daily life. there are many different ways to address the legitimate objections to the construction, including a compromise whereby the planned construction does not get blocked outright but the construction plans are appropriately adjusted to mitigate the light so the structure is designed to allow light to pass through it or that the building is smaller. it's my understanding that serious alternatives have already been proposed. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, we have four callers in the queue. let's hear from the next caller, please. welcome, caller. all right. let's move to the next line then. that looks like it's an unattended line. >> hi. my name is samantha. i'm a resident at 1545 pine street. as several of my fellow residents have said, there are severe light issues that need to be studied. i think another issue that needs to be studied is the cumulative traffic impacts of this proposed construction? one thing that i think is really important to note is that the time that a study was originally done about traffic impacts, that study was done precovid, and as we all know, people are not using public transportation nearly as much anymore, public parking are not as available because there are now neighborhood parklets. people use uber and lyft now. basically, outdoor use of space and traffic have changed significantly, and those changes are material enough and not going anywhere any time soon because we know that the pandemic isn't going away any time soon. those impacts on changes like 1525 pine street need to be considered, so a new traffic study should be done to consider how those changes would impact traffic. also, i believe that one of the supervisors on this call talked about how he desires neighbors to be able to come together and resolve their differences. we were hoping that the sponsor would come to us and engage with us to talk about meaningful changes to address our concerns. that never happened. instead, they came up with a wholly inadequate study, never engaged with us meaningfully. we think these issues are important. they're going to affect a significant number of people in our building. members of the san francisco community already living in this neighborhood, and we just ask that those impacts be really evaluated and addressed and further study needs to be done. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. let's hear from our next speaker. operations, let's welcome our next caller. hello, caller. we can hear you. all right. perhaps that's someone who's watching their television and there is a delay. let's hear from the next caller. >> hello. >> clerk: welcome. >> my name is shoshanna dobrey, and i live in district 10. i believe this is generally an older community that has been forgotten and partially cast aside over the years as the castro has become the lgbtq + hub in san francisco. i've been going to the grub stake since 1969 and know all of its wonderful people here. -- acknowledging how these issues would be impacting them at that time and in the future when 1525 would be built. the developers for the 1525 project have proposed many mitigations based on air and light studies as possible even though that should not be an issue based on the paperwork previously mentioned. it seems that the people at the austin have just been stone walling in the hopes that the possibility of middle-income housing in this transportation rich area will never be built. is their preferred option a gentrified island in this neighborhood? going back to the original paperwork that the austin condo owners signed at purchase, i do not understand why there are all these problems. therefore, i am 100% against the appeal of the austin condo owners. thank you so much for hearing me. >> clerk: thank you to the caller for your comments. we are currently hearing testimony for those who are in support of the peal of the final mitigated negative declaration for the pine street project. we are setting the timer for two minutes. there are currently four callers in the queue. if you are listening and want to provide public comment and haven't done so, please press star, three now. operations, let's hear from our next caller. >> i support the austin tenants. light is good. don't [indiscernible] nob hill. >> clerk: thank you, caller. operations, let's welcome our next caller, please. >> sorry. my micro -- >> clerk: welcome. >> hi. i had an issue with my microphone. my name is daniel [indiscernible] and i've lived in the neighborhood for 11 years, in business for three, and i'm in support of the proposed development. i've really just seen the neighborhood thin out in terms of business and residents -- >> clerk: sir, i'm pausing your time. this is testimony on behalf of the appeal, so if you can press star, three to get back in line, a little bit more patience, we will have testimony on behalf of those who support the appeal, but just slightly a little bit later in this hearing. we are only taking testimony in support of the appeal. ops, let's go to the next caller, please. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> yeah, i'm calling to support the project, but i might be out of queue. >> clerk: okay. thanks for letting us know. operations, do we have any other callers in the queue who are in support of the appeal? >> hi. good evening, supervisors. my name is rick. i hope you can hear me. i've lived in the neighborhood about ten years, and i'm calling in support of this appeal and opposing the proposed project. even if there was anything signed, i believe the project has undergone revisions, and the project has grown in bulk and size and no longer the same development that was initially proposed when a lot of the owners and units have moved. and the austin is already built with the proper set back that the planning commission had proposed, at the 65 feet mark with input from commissioner kathrin moore at the time, if i remember correctly. and a lot of the concessions built into the austin, including units, like b.m.r. units, who do not have access to any light on the street, these were built on exceptions, ironically, by the attorney representing the grub stake now, mr. pelosi. so it's ironic that there's units being built in the austin with no light access, and now there's a project being built using the state height and density bonus which is going to have a lot bigger impact, so i would urge the board of supervisors to instruct the commission to do an increased environmental impact study on not just the light but the impact on the health of the residents of the austin that would like to -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. there are 31 listeners. we are currently taking testimony specific to the appeal of the project for the final mitigated declaration for the proposed 1525 pine street project. if you want to make public comment, press star, three, otherwise, we're going to take this next group through to the end. welcome, caller. all right. operations, perhaps we should go to the next caller. >> linda chapman. well, i'm waiting for the video of david chiu and me having a dialogue on the subject of the waivers at this project in which he said they were completely illegal. he said the state wouldn't allow such a thing, so when are we going to see that video? . last i heard, shawn from that building was trying to have the clerk's office arrange to show the video because this is all remote, you know, we felt like we could bring it in and was having trouble with that. i think that's very important. he was, at the time i was talking with him, chair of the housing and community development and going to be city attorney, and he thought i was insane when i said we were going to waive exposure and all those things in units that don't have windows over the street. so i hope that doesn't affect my time. what happened to the video? >> clerk: miss chapman, this is your opportunity to prevent public comment on the pine street project. >> well, that's what i was talking about. the only thing that happened was the planning commissioners and staff were intimidated with threats that they were going to be sued if they did not accept all of these waivers. you cannot have apartments that do not have windows over either the street or backyard, an alley, or something like that, and they already gave waivers for the austin. there is no precedence for any of this anywhere in this city. you know how the light wells came about? the lower polk neighbors. if you read my letter, you'll see that there's absolutely no way that any of this could be implemented. it's completely laughable. it's not necessary to do scientific studies about that, and at this point, the wind that's on pine street that's been caused by -- >> clerk: thank you, mrs. chapman, and my staff all sent me a text that they do not have the video. they've checked the file and the e-mails on this, and there's no video. all right. operations, can we have the next caller, please. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: all right. sounded like a play back. operations, another caller, please? >> yes. this is michael nolty. i'm a member of lower polk neighbors, and i heard several of the zoom calls on this project, and i heard both sides of what's going on with 1525 pine and there were issues about the shadow impacts, the traffic congestion, and the back alley because that would be now the entrance to the grub stake because they don't want to have an entrance for cars for the residents on pine street, so it's now they are -- how they're designing the building that's causing this problem. of course, i personally would like to see the grub stake exist and continue, so really, there's two issues here. it's the housing project that's being proposed with the bonus density versus preserving the grub stake, and i think what's happened is a campaign has been created to tell everybody that we need to have the grub stake remodelled, and you know, i would hope that there's some sort of compromise that could come out of this, but i have to support the appeal at this point. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. all right. operations, let's hear from the next caller. i think there are four callers in the queue. welcome, caller. >> good afternoon, members of the board. i am a 58-year-old 20-year resident of san francisco and an owner of a one-bedroom condo at 1545 pine street. this new taller proposed building would drastically affect our unit with no natural light with any use facing the light well. my understanding is the building codes say no dwelling can be built to offer virtually no light, yet here we are. one planning commissioner indicated he was, quote, grudgingly, close quote, approving this project. one unit is only 314 square feet. this project has been approved by the planning commission to shine intense bright light to our unit to create fake sun light. how will these lights be updated when their technology is updated? none of this was discussed. david chiu clearly stated developers do not have carte blanche to build anything and everything with unlimited waivers. each should be discussed with its own merit. lastly, i find it interesting that the grub stake developers held a save the grub stake rally to rally the lgbtq community against the austin, but just yesterday, the grub stake attorney submitted a last-minute document to your office, and their document stated that the building has zero lgbtq significance. so whatever it takes to get this project through from these owners, you can't have it both ways. we are for the grub stake. it's the height of the building that we are having difficulty with. please send this back for further review. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. apologies for interrupting you, sir. we are setting the timer at two minutes. welcome, caller. >> hello. i am in support of the grub stake restaurant and [indiscernible] will not be -- >> clerk: sir, i'm pausing your time. i believe you're speaking in support of the project. do i have that correct? >> in support of the project. >> clerk: okay. if so, this hearing, currently, we're taking testimony from those in support of the appeal of the final mitigated environmental report of this project. later, we'll be taking testimony from those in support of the project. we would ask for your patience and get back in line and we'll take your testimony a bit later. operations, let's go to the next comment, please. >> operations, there's been discussion about how the residents of the austin have signed a waiver. the building that's described in that waiver does not match what is proposed. if you can't waive away certain rights when it comes to liveability. sections of the planning code requires more access to natural sun light more than what this project would provide. if this project is built, several units would not have access to direct sun light, and the residents would basically be living in darkness for most of the day. those impacts need to be studied and adequately addressed, and the project sponsor really just keeps talking both ways, anything to move the project forward. further, we have not objected to a renovation of the grub stake, but i find it ironic that the developer has framed this as a renovation to the grub stake. the austin residents have never opposed one way or another the grub stake itself. our concerns have always been the building above the grub stake, which the developers have not adequately addressed. there are severe light and traffic impacts that need to be studied, and we would request that the planning commission consider the study and residents in the neighborhood. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. okay. operations, let's welcome our next caller, please. >> operator: madam clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. thank you, mr. atkins. mr. president? [indiscernible] . >> president walton: -- for public comment, and seeing no further public comment, public comment is now closed. we will now have up to ten minutes for representatives of the planning department, and i believe we have lisa gibson, joy navarrete, stephanie cisneros, and alison vanderslice. >> thank you. we have some presentation slides. could those be brought up, please? wonderful. thank you. good afternoon, president walton and members of the board. i'm rachel shott from the planning department. the decision before the board is whether to uphold the department's decision to publish a final m.n.d. or return the project to the department for additional environmental review. next slide? the project site is on the southside of pine street against van ness and polk. at shown on this slide, it's -- as shown on this slide, it's above a one-story restaurant known as grub stake. the project would resist demolishing the restaurant and building an eight story building above. the appellant filed an appeal of the preliminary m.n.d. on february 16, 2021. the planning commission rejected the appeal and upheld the final m.n.d. on may 6, 2021. the planning commission approved the project's application for conditional use authorization and a state density bonus on july 22, 2021. following the approval action, the appellant filed an appeal of the final m.n.d. on august 20, 21, and the department issued an appeal response on september 7, 2021. next slide, please. here's a slide of the department's appeal response, response 1-a. ceqa focuses on a project's shadow impacts on publicly accessible open spaces, not privately accessible spaces on private properties. ed shadow analysis is consistent with the department's methodology for shadow impacts, and no further analysis is required under ceqa. next slide, please. response 1-b, ceqa guidelines section 15065 requires a response when the impact will impact general human beings. there's no such government adopted standard for shadow. in the absence of such a standard, a lead agency has discretion to rely on its own significant criteria and methodologies to determine whether an impact has occurred under section 15065. the appellant does not suggest a standard that should be used to make this determination and has not provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that this project would result in a significant shadow impact on the environment. next slide. response number two, the final m.n.d. adequately analyzed the project's impact on historic resources. the existing building is not an individually eligible historic resource. rather, it's a contributor to a historic district. in this case, the district is the resource. demolishing a contributor would not result in a significant impact on the district because there would be no significant impact, no mitigation measure is necessary. next slide. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, if you would allow me to drill down because you can let me -- but it -- >> president walton: go ahead, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. can you go back to the previous slide, please? you're saying it's not an individual historic resource, and we can argue that it is or it isn't, but when you say the district is the resource, and if you demolish one of 15 contributors, is what you are arguing is that the other 14 are enough that the district remains intact? is that the argument? >> true -- yes. so i'll defer to the preservation specialist who can answer more specific questions, but essentially, what you said in this case. in this case, the hrer found that the demolition of this one resource did not have a significant impact on this particular historic district. >> supervisor peskin: right, but what's the standard? does that mean that when you hit eight, that that's the standard? assuming that it's not individually eligible, but you are saying in the h.r.e., that the department accepts that it is a contributory historic resource to the historic district, and that demolishing it would not adversely impact the resource which is the district itself. how do you come to that conclusion? i mean, is there a standard? how do you get there? >> we look at and we determine whether or not the demolition of one property within the district would be such that it would no longer be able to express the characteristics of the district. one of the other things that we often will use is we'll look at what the range of historic contributors are to the district and the number of district contributors. as you know, often when we're determining whether or not a historic district does exist, we usually have a threshold of 60% should contribute, and so that is one of the thresholds that we can use in first identifying historic districts and also identifying impacts. with discontiguous districts, we're focusing on the range of historic types represented and whether or not those types would still be represented with the loss of one contributor. >> supervisor peskin: so just as the first one, which presumably is for a historic district, you're saying if you had, like, the dogpatch historic district, you could demolish 40% of the contributory buildings before there was an impact to the district? is that what you just said? >> i would say that we primarily rely on whether or not the district is able to convey its historic significance and still has the range of character defining features which define it. >> supervisor peskin: okay. so in this particular case where you have a discontinuous 15-resource historic district, how did you get to that the conclusion that the remaining 14, assuming that this one is demolished, express that and -- i mean, i think the issue here is if this is -- if this compromises the district or if this is individually eligible, then it is, by division, an adverse impact that requires overriding considerations, but in this case because this is a final mitigated negative declaration, an e.i.r.s not required, so you have been able to convince yourselves, now you have to convince us, that one of 15 does not compromise the district because the other 14 express those. so with the loss of the grub stake -- or are you arguing that the grubstake is not lost because it will be rebuilt and will still have that cultural significance as a new edifice? >> well, to answer that, we are saying that certain parts of the grubstake are being salvaged and reinstalled in allowing the district to continue to convey its historic significance. one of the other things that we look at is looking at whether or not the new construction is compatible, so because the character defining features of the grubstake, many of which will be salvaged and reinstalled, that allows the capability to be stated in the significance to the historic district. [please stand by] class i guess also it is tied to this review. that's a part of the project class i read the cu and i read the conditions in exhibit a so i didn't see any conditions but what you're saying is because they are set forth in exhibit b which are the actualphysical plans , they are indeed a condition if you will of conditional use. is that right? am i getting this right? >> that is correct.it might be planning was also on the hearing might be able to go further as to that as needed. >> thank you supervisor peskin for the question and correct, because these have been conditioned in b if they are to make any changes tothose plans , we have the authority to make them go back to the planning commission and it's not unusual for us to need to speak with project sponsors after entitlement and let them know what they propose that the building permit stage is not consistent with what has been approved at the planning commission and that if they intend to go forward with what's propose they would need to go back to planning commission and usually they abandoned the changes proposed. i'd like to also further reinforce that in the recommendations of basis for therecommendations of approval , we included thefeatures . as part of planning recommendation or approval so just some extrateeth there i think . >> tank you president walton. the department can resume it's time. >> thank you supervisor peskin and planning, you may continue. >> there is good, thank you. the continuing on to response number three. a final adequately analyzed the projects transportationimpacts. the transportation analysis is consistent with the department's 2019 transportation impact analysis guidelines and no in-depth that hewas required . the project would not combine with other projects to use great hazardous conditions and interfere with emergency access . substantially delayed public transit or mild travel professionals. these are consistent with recently published documents for two of the relative projects in this vicinity . next slide please. response number four. the omb analyzed projects impacts. speaker focuses on projects impacts on publicly accessible open spaces not privately accessible properties. the analysis is consistent with the department's methodology foranalyzing wind impact and no further analysis is required . next slide please. the department would like to acknowledge at this time that the board of supervisors receive supplemental appeal letters from opponent september 30 and october 14 of this year . however the letters did not raise any new issues or provide any new information or consideration and the departmentconcluded the letters did not merit a supplemental response . some of the issues raised in the appeal especially those related to shadow and wind are outside the scope of the project. the projects conditional use authorization has not been appealed to the board the board is fullybeing asked to consider the adequacy of the document not the merits of the project . in conclusion a final fmnd is the final for the project and the separation of a report is not warranted. the department request the board reject the appeal and uphold the final fmnd. mycolleagues and i are available to answer any questions . a few . >> thank you so much. supervisorpeskin, anyone have any more questions? i don't see anyone on the roster . and seeing no othernames on the roster , at this time we now invite members of thepublic who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal . i'm sorry. my apologies. now we need to call up the project sponsor and they have 10 minutes to speak on behalf of the project and i believe we have alexis pelosi and jim consulates. >> there should also be adam phillips from design . >> clerk: if adam is logged in and he should turn his camera on. >> clerk: we have a quick presentation if i could have the ability to share some slides, that would be great . >> mister philip, do we have slides? >> i have them. >> our team will make you a presenter so share your screen whenyou are ready . >> can everyone see my screen? >> yes we can. >> president walton and supervisors alexis pelosi land-use council project sponsors. i want to thank staff for their presentation and my comments are going to focus on the applicable legal standard that applies and how theappeals the best standards and should be rejected . the key question and assessing the efficiency is whether it can be fairly argued the substantial evidence that the project may have significant impact on the environment . this is that they are argument standard and while it faces although threshold for preparing an eir is not so low as to be nonexistent. it still requires substantial evidence in this case it's defined as facts, reasonable assumption andexpert opinions supported by fax . it's not arguments, speculation, opinion or narrative orevidence which is inaccurate or erroneous . appeals file does not meet the argument standards . its claims arebased on the standard being inadequate and impacting potentially devastating . the light studyprepared is clearly inaccurate or erroneous and basic legal thresholds for the appeal not been met . the appellant's primary issue light and shadow on a private interior courtyard is also not an issue. the threshold foreshadowed is whether the project would create a new shadow that adversely affects the enjoyment of publicly accessibleopen spaces . the shadow analysis found it would not. based on established case law mandatory findings as significant also do not apply here as an adverse change to the environment on human beings does not affect particular individuals such as human beings in general. statements of review and analysis needed to save the lives of the residents of 55 pine street are eye-catching and dramatic but not supported by any evidence let alone substantial evidence in the record . instead there is extensive evidence in the administrative record to support the findings and the mitigated declaration guarding light and shadow . previousdesign and technical experts prepared a light analysis of the interior courtyard . the light analysis prepared the office interior courtyard which was granted an exposure. for those interior units is not only already significantly shaded by the 130thtower but that there is virtually no difference in light between the code compliant and density project . -as noted by the appellant's in response to the study light study was prepared by the appellant who are not technical experts and handheld light meter readings a cardboard model a misunderstanding of basic concepts of life and misinterpreted information divided in the analysis . according to revision among other things this study fails to knowledge that the interior courtyard is over 25 by 25 feet and given the location of the sun not only will there be light directly into the interior courtyard unit increased light reflecting off the new structure into those units. uses techniques such as cardboard boxes which have been found in academic papers to be unreliable in part because they lack reflective colored materials of the actual buildings which greatly influenced light levels and also fails to understand the interior reference enters . what standards are usedtoday interior lighting design and not to establish minimum interior daylighting models . they do not assume additional lighting will be used and handheld light readings taken after the shades and turning down all the lights does not yieldaccurate or representative daylight conditions . the appellant's light analysis is clearly inaccurate or incorrect previous statements don't change that from making substantial evidence . i'd like to brieflyturn it over to adam phillips who can respond to the most recent claims raised by theappellant . >> you have 60 minutes remaining . >> president walton, members of the board, adam phillips from design preparing of thelight analysis study for the project sponsor. i wanted to the question raised about averaging . we did include some averages of light levels throughout the entirecourtyard area that would be enclosed by the project . however as the as shown in the study we also included reference diagrams which are color-coded and did show all the light levels at all levels so the information was provided there and i believe was also referenced by the neighbors and pointing out and frankly used extensively albeit in sort of a piecemeal fashion to try to support some of the arguments and the neighbors analysis study i wanted to clarify that point and say that while the average did exist, those individual numbers on the individuallevels were also there , present and totally available for to be read. >> thank you so much adam. regarding cultural resources as staff noted extensive evidence exists in the administrative record to support the finding of the mmd . a detailed evaluation was prepared that found it was one of 16 contributors for lgbt q plus historic districts with the potential for there to be more. the hr did include discussion of the context of the site including the lgbtq+ historical district and the pages dedicated to that analysis indicate it was in contributory resource to the district and not anindividual resource itself . the eagle bar as evidenced in its article 10 landmark designation is different than the state. it has a focused history and the lgbtq+ community and was associated with people of historic significance. the grub state is a popular restaurant and the 60s 70s and 80s and today the crowd frequented nearby bars along polk street that does not in itself give it historical significance. it is not a landmark the appellant has not put in any evidence to support that claim. the mar keys is important that grubstake is important why which is why we have identified cultural features to be preserved or replicated and included them in a project themselves. such features include the lunch dragon fagade, the grubstake sign, and so much more. it is part of what's included in exhibit b and it is what must be instilled. before turning over to the project sponsor forfinal remarks i want to say the mmd is legally adequate . it analyzed the environment impact and substantial evidence exists in the administrative record to support the city's determination thatan eir is not needed . neighbors who knew about the grubstake when they purchased their unit sign a disclosure saying their views might be affected. we request the board o supervisors to deny the appeal and find the claims without merit . i'd like to turn it over to jimmy . >> good evening president walton and supervisors. i jimmy consul, owner and operator of grubstake capacity mirrors. i want to describe our commitment to thegrubstake and importance of the project to its operation . in 2015 we proposed the project and did so because we knew the city needed housing and the grubstake community needed filling. it's been my intent for the grubstake to remain in the same location with the same successful menu and i'll be off with a newsustainable building and state-of-the-art cooking facilities. as has been the plan and it's why we committed to including all the features of the grubstake into the process . appellant's said they want the project to resign. that is simply not true. appellants are aware of the project as proposed is what makes retained the grubstake financially feasible. changing the project size and decreasing the housing will makeit infeasible . sadly despite our tireless efforts to address their concerns they have tried everything possible to ensure that our meaningful project doesn't move forward. we spent over six years in the community working with neighbors and the lgbtq+ community. we've created a virtual museum and an oral history ofthis vessel place .the project is supported by the community and will ensure that a cultural treasure in san francisco is retained. we are committed to bringing back the grubstake andhave designed theproject around it and are legally obligated to provide . thank you for your time and consideration .>> president: thank you for your presentation. any questions from the project sponsor? idon't see anyone onthe roster . now we will go to public comment in opposition of the appeal . >> clerk: the board will hear testimony specific item 51 through 54 only in support of the project or advancing the appeal of the final mitigated negative declaration. speakers will have up to two minutes to provide their testimony. i will state the telephone number streaming on your screen is 415-655-0001. when you hear the prompt enter the meeting id 2488 489 6769. press pound, poundyou will be muted in the listening to . just make sure you're going to press star 3 when it's your turn. the system will prompt you. listen carefully for you to be on unit. let's hear from our first caller. we have i believe it's three colors in the

Related Keywords

Nob Hill , California , United States , Texas , Piedmont , Valencia , Carabobo , Venezuela , Togo , Spain , London , City Of , United Kingdom , San Francisco , Spanish , American , Edmund Drake , Alexis Pelosi , Teresa Calderon , Mister Starr , Adam Phillips , Jennifer Murphy , Teresa Lando , Aaron Starr , Gavin Murphy , Mister Philip , Sheila Hutchins , David Chiu , Lisa Gibson ,