Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  February 19, 2018 1:00am-2:01am PST

1:00 am
buses out of our city every day. good afternoon. commission president hillis and fellow commissioners. i'm anastasia, a remember of the neighbourhood council and i'm urging the dmoition go back to the way a standard budget work programme hearing was run that they expect in 1996. that means the way it was directed until the current director joined the planning staff. it seems only fair that they consider work programme efforts that would include all the things that the department wants to do that are up for funding consideration and right now everything the commission wants to do, plus everything the public wants to have included. and then take public comments before considering the options that will actually become funded. i'm sure the commissioners and members of the public have worthwhile ideas of work programme efforts they would like to add and i'm hoping the
1:01 am
process can be opened up to ensure fairness and a good outcome for all of us who live and work here. there must be an effort to protect tenant protections with asking sponsors about unit occupancy when filing for a permit. how about adding staff to knock on doors to verify whether or not a unit is actually vai -- vacant and tenant occupied instead of relying on unsubstantiated documentation. there must be an effort at taking a comprehensive look at how projects affect tenants and rental housing and then make whatever policy and legislative changes that are necessary. there must be an effort to ensure that our production of housing meets below market rate goals as well as meeting our market rate housing goals. and there must be an effort to
1:02 am
give new hires permanent rather than temporary status and to train all staff to ensure a well-qualified workforce. commissioners, without any changes to the work programme, the programme will continue to focus on efforts that will only produce high-end housing and without regard to an often causing displacement. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is jerry accurateler. the planning department annual report for 2014-15 included an excellent one-page schedule which provided a five-year summary of the number of cases of permits. the schedule was not in thes
1:03 am
2015-16 annual report. will it be in the 2016-17 annual report? it would be appreciated if that schedule were to reappear. a line item on the five-year summit is a member of enforcement cases. the number of enforcement cases in 2012 and '13 increased 64% to $791. today's budget materials show the number of enforcement cases in 2016-17 doubled to about 1600. the planning department's legislative proposal to allow for enforcement fees to be used other than sign enforcement recognizes the need for additional and general enforcement funds. budgets funding by programme shows that zoning administration and compliance receives about 5.5% of total
1:04 am
departmental funding. the planning department receives a vast majority of funding in fees for service. the notice of enforcement programme does not assess penalties or fees. with the doubling of the number of enforcement cases over the last four years, a morest more rigorous source of funding appears necessary and an enforcement programme that does not assess penalties or fees makes no sense. also it is logical for violators to fund the cost of enforcement. does the planning department have specific and measurable performance goals for the current fiscal budgets and the process of measuring actual performance against those department goals in the budget?
1:05 am
and will a formal analysis be prepared and presented in a future planning commission meeting showing actual versus budgeted performance. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. jennifer fever with the san francisco tenants union. so, in the -- there is a line item in the budget request that says, as always, the department implements tenant protection regulations within the planning code. the department guidelines to protect tenants have not been the case. i'm thinking about 1049 market street which had been illegally converted to 39 residential units. when the owner wanted to convert it back to commercial, the planning department issued permits although there was proof at the rent board that there were now residential tenants living there. this would have been the
1:06 am
largest lsac in the city if activists hadn't organized. i want to reiterate that we still need a process to disclose whether existing tenants will be affected as part of a permit planning -- the permit application process. planners could require existing estopple forms from new building owners or affidavits which disclose tenancies and refuse to accept application unless this information is provided. we also need inspectors to do site visits and check for tenants when things seem suspicious. the office of short term rentals already does this. i don't understand why the rest of the department can't also follow this. i would like to request that the department has a work programme that studies the various types of permits issued and how they're affecting tenants. the staff can go to the rent
1:07 am
board. they can figure out how long they're being temporarily relocated and whether they get to return. we need more training on the rent ordinance. i admit it's really complicated. but our operating budget is $220,000 and we all know it. so, that i can certainly learn this information and use nit their decisions. i know that there are many good planners who care about displacement antenanls themselves. but new planning hires also are at-will and so they can't really express our question department policies without losing their jobs so i believe that new hires deserve some job security and should be fully trained on the rent ordinance. we cannot continue thinking of our housing stock as empty squares on foreplans. we need think about them as people zones. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
1:08 am
>> good afternoon, commissioners. the neighbourhood hill association. we learned that the planning department was working to revise the historic preservation guidelines. liberty hill recently discovered that little progress has been made on the local interpretation revisions to the secretary of the interior standards because no budget had been provided for this work. the current budget provides $100,000 for ceqa review, historic preservation review and $125,000 for a city-wide historic survey. a total of only $225,000. that is not much for a city with so many old buildings in need of so much research to
1:09 am
clarify their importance and designations are historic timeline. meanwhile, projects are in the pipeline that need clarification. especially the potentially contributing class b buildings. without good research, most are at risk of being lost to demolition or alterations that affect evidently erase their original design. here's an example. overhead, please. here is an example of the 1877 black hawk stables turned auto repair shop in 1922 with class b status. without the necessary research, the proposed project, which is this, the proposed project
1:10 am
would completely destroy this historic structure and its contribution to a historic neighbourhood and there is another proposal that goes up two floors. any revisions to the historic preservation guidelines need strengthen preservation and that can't happen without a much larger allocation, especially for the historic surveys. as new guidelines are threatening to intrude on the 13 historic districts, adequate funding for historic guidelines is imperative. and that needs to start being reflected in the budget.
1:11 am
>> next. >> first of all, i would like to thank ms. clark for giving us a moment of levity and also a comment. i don't believe that paris is affordable with all those homes. i'd like to specifically request for two line items to be added to the bucket that is called project. and under the tenants issued, the department has put down a series of statements regarding the values. and here's -- overhead, please. te nanls focused issues. so i would like to bring it to your attention that in the past four or five months and the cases before you, you did side
1:12 am
with the tenants and what was impacting their departments. and those were addition of a floor. it required the owner, the landlord to empty the building. we do need some sort of a work project. to study various permits. how far could somebody claim that retrofiting requires emptying the building? what kind of permit would require the residents to leave the building? the impact of the a.d.u.s. so i really would like the request that you specifically add that to the 2018 budget. you will have the case of 505 grandview before you in a couple of weeks. march 1. if there were such khex and balances in the form of a documented processes and procedures of the department. this case did not have to come to you. secondly, i would like to bring
1:13 am
up another thing that we desperately need. this is a follow-up on what she was bringing to your attention and that is the historic preservation guidelines. in the past year, we've been working with the staff on various issues with the u.d.g.s, the urban design guidelines. in the process, we realised that there are no historic design guidelines, or at least they told us when we said why don't you except historic distribution, there are only 13 districts, 1.5% of the whole city. they told us that there is no such thing as historic design guidelines and we need to have the u.d.g., although the u.d.g. has no bent on historic districts. so, instead of having residential design guidelines as an item for your revision, why don't you create a set of guidelines for a much needed preservation of our historic
1:14 am
districts. we don't need residential design guidelines to be revised. they work fine, just fine. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kathy lipscomb and i'm a member of the nole valley council and a active tenant many years. please find room in your budget for the following important matters state them specifically in this 2018-19 budget to make sure that they get funded. developers are constantly finding new ways to evict te thans in san francisco. it would be a principled decision for the planning department to ask for work programme to do the impact analyses on the various types of permits that could threaten tenant's living spaces. immediately urgent are the retrofit permits and how they
1:15 am
are being misused to evict tenants depending on the scope of the engineering. it is well known that 90% of retrofits should not require tenants to leaves their homes. another red flag are the a.d.u. permits that could be used as a two-edge sword when there is an unscrupulous sfwoention evict old tenants while creating new units for richer tenants. these permits are sometimes designed to disturb the living space of existing tenants as you heard and also to infringe on their existing rights such as laundry and parking space. lastly, we learned that many planning department new employees have a three-year appointment in our civil service exam. meaning they can be fired within that period as a probationary employee. too often at the experiod of -- experiod of -- expire
1:16 am
ration of three years, they are given another three year. this leads to low morale, fear of speaking out and application they may find problematic in terms of negative impact on a neighbourhood or tenants. it would be a very healthy move on your part to push for more permanent civil service planners. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please, ms. hester. >> sue hester. i would like to record these speeches about civil service for the employees. going from paper records to nonpaper records is a big thing. i've gone through a lot of the paper records in my time and people don't go through them anymore because they're passe. but the old records have really
1:17 am
important information for current projects as well. the whole thing about scanning documents into the p.i.m. is crucial. because the p.i.m. is only as good as the information is put in and sometimes the p.i.m. doesn't work at all. doesn't have adequate information. and the staff doesn't know it. i found out a lot of people go, just go on to the p.i.m. and they feel threatened business asking for access to paper records. some people don't understand at the planning domestic, they're putting things on discs and giving them to people that are unreadable. there needs to be some in-house training about giving documents to the public and making them readable. but the most important thing in my mind is having an adequate
1:18 am
housing person in the planning department who doesn't do any cases because they will set up a conflict themselves. there needs to be training about how to read plans to understand when a 311 notice is basically removal of 10 units of tenants. and other people have found them and filed d.r.s on them. it's really a waste of everyone's energy and time. most cases will be sprawled out for months coming to the planning commission for d.r. hearing you get upset. we got this upset. and the planner didn't even figure out that there would be tenants dispersed. i know you are going to be shocked that some people who apply for permits are not honest. and the planning department treats them as, oh, they're honest.
1:19 am
they should be using their eyes to say how -- how is this not affecting existing tenants? until they do that, until they're trained to do that, you will have an abundance of d.r.s that deal with displaced tenants. that is a waste of time. lastly, 75 howard was in the "business times" two days ago. the units there are on the waterfront. $4,000 a square foot. the most expensive housing in the city. and the business times is calling this a good thing. i don't think it is a good thing. >> thank you, ms. hester. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. tree sa flander, senior and disabilities action. i'm actually here to talk about preserving housing rather than building. in terms of i wish there could
1:20 am
be better communication between d.b.i. and planning so that someone is going out and actually inspecting sites to know what is there and what might be lost. at a minimum also to have a basic understanding of what rent control is, how that functions and what impact that has actually on our housing. in terms of the housing loss and housing balance report, when we are building two units and losing one for each two, that is also very concerning when you see that the merging of two-bedroom flats, two two-bedroom flats are allowed as long as an a.d.u. is built and that could be an in-law. [please stand by] [please stand by]
1:21 am
that has meant the merging of two units where in the three-unit building they are now essentially just two units. with a stairway that you go through someone's living room. it is also very discouraging to see units that had been allowed to merge are now doing short-term rentals in the in-law and the entire house. i just wish that all of our departments could work more closely together to ensure that we're not losing almost the same amount that we're building.
1:22 am
thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> tony robles, senior disappoint action. i want to echo what preceding folks have said. for too long, landlords have been finding loopholes and circumventing things and using the system to extricate tenants from their homes. again, like people have said, if departments worked better in -- more cohesively and had a better understanding of some of the issues with rent control, might alleviate some of the problems. again, overall loss of housing is a serious issue and it's a highly critical issue as it pertains to the people that we serve at the senior and disability action, our organization, s.t.a. thank you. >> thank you, mr. robles. any additional public comments? seeing none, we'll close public
1:23 am
comment. >> vice president richards: please don't fire me. there's a lot of requests and it's overwhelming the amount of things that we need to do, so bear with us. we get a lot of the stuff that you are saying. i think the first question i have for mr. cider. we have the process improvement person put into the mix a few months ago and working on the mayor's -- former mayor lee's directive. what do you anticipate in terms of gains that we can make through that type of a position i know it's only a few months, but maybe we can talk in concepts. in testimonies of being able to fund additional things through additional efficiency and shorten backlogs, things like that. >> commissioner richards, thanks
1:24 am
for the question. as you suggested, we have jacob bentlis opening board this year. he's a process improvement specialist. his work is focusing on the mayor's directive to streamline and deliver housing projects faster. i think that has implicit benefits and savings. >> vice president richards: i think we asked for a quarterly report or something on, hey, this is what it used to be and now this is what it is. i think it will be more efficient. i don't know if it's next year or five years or whatever. but i think it's one thing that we could look at in the future for -- we always called it funding through process improvements, so wanted to bring it up and let the public know that we do have that person on staff and we should be expecting
1:25 am
some of those things. one commenter indicated something in the annual report we had specific number of permits and '13/'14 and not going to be in '16/'17. can you comment on that? >> i'm not familiar with that graph. i will follow up. >> vice president richards: another issue that came up is violations in the fact that fines don't fund enforcement. we have a deterrent issue and we have the need for enforcement. so for sign enforcement to general enforcement is a good way to go. what is your thought on the ability on fines to fund enforcement? >> there's a quirk in the planning code that we've tried to correct, which requires all
1:26 am
enforcement fines to only go to sign enforcement, which we don't need it for that. it's a quirky thing in the planning code that has some history i don't fully understand, so we're trying to remove that word. there's no reason why logistically that didn't happen. would have to go through the legislative process. that's one of the two pieces of information that deborah mentioned that we're trying to change this year. >> vice president richards: great. the other one, people got up and historic preservation has become an issue and the potential demolitions through state-mandated things, etc. and i know we're not the hpc, but we do have the survey blush in there and we have survey staff in the budget. how much of the city, round number, percent-wise, is surveyed? >> i wish mr. frye were here to
1:27 am
answer that question. we survey the plan areas, and then there are specific neighbors that have been surveyed. my guess is, 1/3 of the city. and we're in the process of doing a survey for everywhere else. >> vice president richards: the budget had like $150,000 for survey. is that one person? >> we have a full-time person on survey already and that money was for consultants. >> vice president richards: at that level -- and i'm not questioning the amount of work they do, but at that level, the rate of survey, how much more could get done? >> i don't have those numbers with me. i'm sorry. we can get you that. >> vice president richards: we heard todd david get up and talk about soma and adding litigation and timeline and we've had this
1:28 am
conversation. what would it take to have somebody look and say, it would take x number more years in terms of e.i.r. work to add 25,000 more units. is there something we could get to sink our teeth in on that? >> the short answer is there is 1,000 units of a cushion. to get a meaningful number beyond that would mean reopening the e.i.r. and going through a draft again and taking public comment and going through a final again. so my guess is at least a couple of years. >> vice president richards: a couple of years, okay, wow. we've been talking and i guess the suggestion that i will make and we heard from the public about displacement through renovation and a.d.u.s and some bad actors in the community are
1:29 am
using. would love to get your thought on focusing on that. >> i'm impressed with the level of interest with our budget this year. i don't think i've seen this before. [laughter] the short answer is, the community is right. we try to do it on a project-by-project basis and the planner is trying to figure that out. we do site visits and try to look at whether units are truly vacant or not when the claims are made. there's interest, it sounds like, in having a position that is more just focused on that issue generically. >> vice president richards: right. >> and not necessarily working on projects, but delving into those issues. it would either require requesting that the mayor add a position through general fund or reassigning some positions within this current program.
1:30 am
the mayor's directive to us in december -- to all departments -- that we add no new positions. we're proposing one for a.d.u. because we're getting such an influx that that position can pay for itself through new fees. to do it in the confines, within this budget, would mean reassigning staff that's doing something else. or it would mean going to the mayor and asking for additional gem fund. >> vice president richards: i will wait to hear what other commission comments are, but i appreciate that. lastly, we heard -- and i have no idea what this is all about. tree -- three-year probation period? >> yes. there is misunderstanding about that. some of our staff are temporary
1:31 am
exempt positions for up to three years the vast majority -- i think 12 people in the department are that status. and it's not most new staff. when we've done this in the past, those staff have been converted to permanent positions within the three years. so it's not been -- frankly, that big of an issue in the department. >> vice president richards: i really want to say that i appreciate and applaud that you have taken feedback from the commission, the public and we may augment it with a person and i'm delighted that we're looking at doing the preservation element or cultural heritage element. to that point, on page 20, if we can remove the preservation element -- it's a typo, where it will not be deferred. it will be looked at, i believe, in this budget. it calls out the preservation element as deferred project. restorative city assessment,
1:32 am
what is that? >> could you refer me to -- >> vice president richards: page 20. it looks like it was a prior version. looks like we'll put money in for the environmental on that, which i'm happy with. restorative city assessment. can you -- can somebody just -- i'm curious what that is. >> of the original memo? >> vice president richards: january 18 memo. >> third line from the bottom. >> vice president richards: it's the first i've heard of -- >> oh, okay. i might get the technicalities of this wrong. what we're trying to do is, there is software available now that will allow us to do a better job in data-gathering. and this -- this is under the
1:33 am
section -- the recessing? >> vice president richards: restoring and scaling back. >> i may have a different version of that memo. >> vice president richards: paragraph before that. >> i'm sorry. i apologize. i think that's related to work with the port on the waterfront, but i will get it to you. >> vice president richards: one last thing. there were members of the public that talked about records and data. is there a standard data retention? >> yes. as the memo notes, we're in the process of scanning all of our files and we're scanning every piece of paper and every file. it would have been virtually impossible for us to go through every file and weed out the data so we've erred on the side of scanning everything.
1:34 am
>> vice president richards: thank you. >> commissioner melger: thank you. and to ms. landis, thank you. i looked at the budget and the work plan. i think that the buckets are in the general place they should be. you have taken direction from the commission. i'm not someone who believes in micro managing you from up here in terms of what f.t.e. belongs where because i -- i don't think it's appropriate. i've been in your shoes as a manager in the city and i just -- i think you know best how to allocate your resources with staffing. that's your biggest, you know, cost. that said, there are priorities that we have seen and you've -- sitting here, you've seen us struggle with. and tenant protections are a big
1:35 am
one. with all due respect, i don't think it should be one position. my expectation is that every single planner will be trained on the rent board ordinance and will look out for those things. and i think it's related to what we're talking about in terms of, you know, our desire that planners are invested in, that there's capacity-building. that there is professional development. we have a healthy line item for that in the budget. and we need to use it. and so i think it's important for planners to understand the dynamics of the -- social dynamics of the city, that they read the paper, that they read the blogs, that they look at emission, local, and understand the nuances of the political and the physical in building our city. whenever we've run into issues
1:36 am
in using the work of planners to make our decisions, what i can remember in the year and three months i've been here is when nuances have been missed or pieces of information don't get to, you know, the planning memo that us here living in the city and going -- we put 2 and 2 together. that's our role. we're the public face. but i would say that i, you know, feel uncomfortable telling you, put another position here and another position there. but i would ask that you prioritize the training and professional development of all staff to deal with the issues that we have encountered the most, that is, tenant rights, demolition, d.b.i. interaction, all of those things that we're struggling with. with that being said, you are
1:37 am
doing a great job. i like the work plan. and i think that we will continue to talk about a lot of issues that you've already identified. >> thank you. >> president hillis: following up on that discussion of knowledge of rent control rules and protection. we face this at times here where we've had questions and there's somewhat uncertainty and someone from the rent ordinance is complicated and i think often we've asked the folks at the rent board for answers and sometimes can't get straight, clear guidance on this. i agree, whether it's a position or funding for training, i think we just want to make sure you have the capacity or the resources and the benefit of whatever knowledge we can get from the rent board and others to understand these issues. it's been a little bit of a gap
1:38 am
sometimes on some of these or we punt to the rent board and they're not the clearest in giving us guidance. so, you know, i will put that back to you. in this discussion we're having, does this budget give us enough leeway in knowing it's a priority of the commission and kind of a big topic to get that knowledge to staff and people that need it? >> i think -- i think the points are very well taken. i do think we could -- beefing up the training is possible within this budget certainly. we have a pretty robust training program and a full-time trainer in the department and we can shift some resources. as you also probably know, carly grobe is the specialist dealing with all staff and she's getting more up to speed. that does not suggest, however, that we could use some additional help from someone who is like carly who is not doing
1:39 am
projects. the problem with staff doing the projects is they're caught up with other aspects of the projects and it could be helpful. if it's okay with you. if you would like to take an action that directs us to beef up resources on that topic and give me a little bit of flexibility to either reassign some existing staff or seek an additional position, that would be, at this point in the process, the budget is due to the mayor in less than two weeks, that's the way i recommend you go. >> president hillis: okay. that's helpful. on the discussion of a.d.u.s, because i know we've had a couple of case where's a.d.u.s and someone was going to add one that wasn't a good landlord and was taking comments away. ultimately, i think, there's some level of comment and space in parking that would need to be used. but besides those cases that i've seen, i've seen a lot of
1:40 am
good, you know, results of a.d.u.s where just in my neighborhood, i know there are two projects within blocks of me that are keeping the tenants and converting excess space into nice, livable units. i would like your opinion if you have seen widespread abuse of the a.d.u. we've seen an abuse or two of it and want to make sure that we get aught -- at that. >> most of the cases are going quite smoothly. unfortunately, what you see here are the problem childs, right? so that's one of the issues that come up. we're getting 10 to 12 a.d.u. applications a week in the department. and it's -- staff thinks it will probably level out at 500 a year total. so it's a pretty substantial
1:41 am
number. most of the cases are quite legitimate and they're not evicting tenants. the challenging fact is often on the building side and the fire department side and making sure it's livable spaces. >> president hillis: i don't know what building does to inform tenants. it could lead to permanent displacement. i've seen them done where nobody is displaced for any amount of time, which would be the preference. if there's a way to beef up noticing of tenants and their rights when an a.d.u. is added, that may be a way it go about this also. in the past year, we've seen a lot of legislative initiatives, both in the department or a.d.u. or others initiated like the
1:42 am
flat policy, r.e.t., that i think it still is good to have and there's elements like an r.e.t., we would want to bring back 317 changes. do you have the capacity in the budget? are you doing that ad hoc that staff that exists? are you confident we can still address demolition rules? >> so we've formed a housing policy team of four people, watch is the most we've ever had in miss topic and they work with carly on the current planning side. and so that team is working on all of those issues and housing policy issues and new forms of legislation. so i'm pretty confident that we have the right number in terms of staff. >> president hillis: okay. and i think we should revisit. i know we've given up on the iteration, but i think theres with a lot of good to get at building to the maximum density, instead of large, monster homes
1:43 am
in places. so i know we'll have more discussion about this, but i think it would be good to pick that back up. we haven't seen a lot of projects and we're hearing from the development community and others, maybe it's not -- the incentives are not aligned right to make it work, so making sure what we have past works and it's got to be tweaked to tweak it. it's good to know you have the capacity to do those things. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: to follow up with your comment, director williams. i would strongly weigh towards adding additionally one person with a more technical inclination for the a.d.u. seismic retrofitted. and i believe that many a.d.u.s are coming forward in a manner that raises serious questions. i'm thinking about grandview. i'm thinking about 1444 clay. i'm thinking about a project on
1:44 am
leavenworth and a few others and i've seen projects that immediately raise red flags for me that i would strongly support, just like commissioner richards did, adding one more technically inclined person. many things come forward and do not have the scrutiny by which a.d.u.s are possible but they need to be more challenged. so i'm in full support. you are acknowledging the training, ongoing education is part of what we need to do in order to meet the ever-arising level of challenges that includes commission training and legislative and technical issues. i think we would all benefit from that to counter balance what the department is doing in a constructive way. overall, i'm comfortable with where the budget is and i do listen very carefully what the
1:45 am
liberty hill people were saying about their concerns regarding historic preservation guidelines. a.d.u.s and how permits are processed. it rings true to me that while we're doing budget and performance goals that one does reflect on actual performance of the previous year and does that, again, as we're creating the next layer. i think it's hard to speak about how you perform when in certain areas you have not reached what you were trying to do and there are circumstances that is understandable. we all succeed. we all fail. i think it would have a layer of transparency, including appreciation from the public and
1:46 am
ourselves and would encourage move forward to add that particular page in looking into the rearview mirror as well as making it standard practice in the future. >> very good. thank you. >> commissioner moore: thank you for the clear presentation and hope that as you move forward some of the things that all ring true to me and find room for little, subtle tuning on some of the specifics. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: before i make a motion, one thing i thought of. when we have our meeting with the building inspection commission, i applied for an address change. and the address change application, it is, is this rent-controlled? i don't know what they do with
1:47 am
that information. sometimes displacement occurs because of a project that needs an entitlement. i think there is something that we can leverage with each other. to that effect, i move to approve the budget with giving the director the latitude he needs to focus on the issues outlined here around displacement and through ren-evictions. >> second. >> president hillis: would it help you to specify a dollar amount? >> i think it would be the equivalent of one f.t.e. is what you are talking about, so probably a planner 3, which is in that range, $180,000 fully loaded. >> president hillis: i think we're leaving it to your discretion or combination of training or -- i think the issue doesn't just come up with a.d.u.s, but also demo of
1:48 am
single-family homes, and the unit in the back that's illegal, condo conversions. we've seen it come up in a host of areas that we face this. >> fair enough. >> vice president richards: and working with building on what they do. >> very good. >> we have received a motion and a second, with a note about giving latitude to the director regarding the issues discussed by the commission. >> president hillis: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> commissioner melger: aye. >> president hillis: aye. >> motion passes. thank you, commissioners. that brings us to item 12. so there are several items under this calendar and we'll call them collectively.
1:49 am
2015-012994 for 200-214 van ness avenue. there will be a general plan amend and the and planning code and zoning map. downtown project authorization and conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. claudia asbagh. the item before you is a mixed-use building sponsored by the san francisco conservatory of music. 420 student housing beds, 30 dwelling units as well as educational and performance space, broadcasting studio space and ground floor restaurant and retail space. three are invented for
1:50 am
conservatory factory and other 27 replacement units and subject to a development agreement. the project was last heard january 11 as an informational item and general plan amendment initiation. you will hear further information on the development agreement, susan brown, who will provide an overview, and mark cavenero that will speak to the building's design. the items before you today include plan amendment, planning code, development agreement, downtown project authorization, with respect for exceptions, and conditional use authorization. on january 11, the commission adopted 200089 to initiate the general plan amendment. it would revise map 5 of the downtown area plan to increase the height proposed that revises the height limit of a site from
1:51 am
96 to 120 feet. the amendment would allow exception for ground floor requirements, open space and group housing exposure through the 309 process and create a height limit exemption for an additional building envelope for screening and increased roof height for performance and common space. the project has requested exceptions from planning code requirements for rear yard, group housing exposure, ground floor design requirements, ground-level wind currents and offstreet freight loading. we support the exceptions as deviations are minor in nature and would enable site responses. the ground floor design requirements, group housing and open space are addressed in the afore mentioned amendment. the project seeks conditional
1:52 am
use to demolish and replace the 27 existing units. in order for the project to move forward, the commission will need to adopt the general plan amendment, approve the planning code map and text amendment. approve the development agreement to be forwarded to the board of supervisors with the recommendation of adoption. approve the downtown project authorization. and approve the conditional use authorization. i am available for questions. >> good afternoon, president hillis, and members of the commission. thank you for your time and consideration. it will provide all benefits, fees and requirements in the code. in addition to the key provision of this development, which is the one for one replacement of
1:53 am
the 27 existing rent-controlled units that occupy the site. the 27 new replacement units will be modern apartments, six studio and 21 one-bedroom residences with a separate, secure entrance and elevator. existing tenants can return to the units at current rents. and this will be recorded in a notice of restrictions that will be exhibit g in the document the project sponsor has worked closely with the tenants and city to develop the relocation plan and replacement housing. the plan that appears as exhibit c establishes the following terms for temporary and permanent relocation of existing tenants. prior to and a condition to commencement of construction of
1:54 am
the project, the conservatory will provide temporary, comparable housing. the sponsor is now in advance discussions. if all or most of the temporary units can be located at this residential complex, it will minimize disruption and anxiety for the tenants knowing they will be in the same neighborhood. additionally, the project sponsor will pay the tenants' cost to move to temporary housing and the new units once the building is ready for occupancy. san francisco conservatory will pay for utility reconnection fees and work with the san francisco housing authority to ensure that tenants with existing section 8 vouchers will continue to be eligible during temporary replacement and in the replacement units. existing tenants will be offered a lease on substantially the same terms as they were paying
1:55 am
prior to the commencement of construction. the sponsor is working with tenants to resolve concerns, circumstances or barriers that require specialized access to all services. to date, the project sponsor has spoken to every existing tenant to provide information and answer any questions they have. finally, the conservatory has developed a protocol for tenants to receive ample notice for relocation. it includes opportunities for the tenants to tour the project site, review floor plans and provide a ranked preference list. as further community benefit, this serves the general public and enhances the area. there will be free entrance to performances. thank you for your time. and i will be available if you
1:56 am
have any questions. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor? >> can i get the computer presentation put up? good afternoon. i'm suzanne brown. and i'm with equity community builders. i'm here representing the conservatory of music today. we were here in january to talk about the 100-year history of the conservatory music in san francisco. i have with me today our team, david stall, president of the conservatory, our architect, planning consultant, director of public affairs, who has worked with many of the tenants for all the tenants at 200 van ness. land use attorney, our attorney on the tenant relocation plan. and we're pleased to be here in front of you today and can answer any questions you may have. a little bit of history. in 2014, the conservatory
1:57 am
acquired the buildings at 200 and 214 van ness. what we show in the presentation is the new building. with the intent to provide student housing and community resources within three blocks of the current campus at 50 oak street. since then, the college has been a good steward in maintaining the existing rental housing on site and developing plans for safe, modern housing. it ensures replacement of all 27 existing units, fulfilling the desperate need for student housing in the city. we've worked with oewd on the development agreement, including replacement housing. we've worked with the existing tenants for the last three years to get to know who is in the building and what their needs are as far as relocation. we've designed a comprehensive plan during the two-year construction period and permanent relocation to the new building. as anne mentioned, we were fortunate enough to have the
1:58 am
building come on on-line this spring, so they can be relocated across the street for the two-year construction period and the relocation costs will be paid entirely by the college. all the tenants will be under their current lease terms at temporary housing as well as new housing and we hope this plan can be an example for future developments in the city. the current residents have expressed a desire to move forward with the project and move into their new homes as quickly as possible. it's important to get our students into the new student housing for the 2020 academic year, therefore, we ask you to move forward with your approval today on this important and impactful project. now i would like to turn it over for architectural design. >> thank you, suzanne. thank you, president hillis, fellow commissioners and thank you for allowing us to be here today. i will move quickly through this. i know we're not allocated a lot of time and i was here just a
1:59 am
month ago. there is is the setting. you can see the dark blue building is the conservatory music proposed project, on the edge and in the heart of the performing arts area and broader civic center. the building slated for removal and the new building as proposed, the bulk of which is the housing. the two floors of replacement housing. student and faculty housing above that, but more importantly, for ground floor, second floor, and top two floors. here's the section that -- i apologized, it's bleached out on the screen. two basement floors expand the facilitation of the building and teaching spaces that are critical. two public floors on levels one and two. replacement housing on three and four. student housing up the building. at the top, a couple of floors of grand public spaces. this is basement level two, which is important and i show
2:00 am
you only to underscore how critical the space is. how every cubic foot of volume was needed and much of the basement is being used for educational purposes. this is basement level one, which reinforces the same. most of the floor is used for educational purposes and is integrated to the ground and second floor for those purposes. the street level in yellow, you have a cafe. in blue on the level, a performance space on the corner of hayes and van ness. on the right, student commons. there's the lobby down the middle. replacement housing, faculty housing, student housing, everyone comes in the same front door. it's really one very distinguished lobby that will facilitate an integration of the entire building. if we go up the floor, a rental


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on