Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  March 16, 2019 1:00am-2:01am PDT

1:00 am
preparation for the original february 28 hearing. this submittal included 10 letters from neighbors who share a common concern and sentiment. all of these neighbors live within one block of the subject property and many of them have lived in their homes for over 20 years. only some of the neighbors are here. many left due to time constraints, due to personal and professional obligations. many more were available to participate in the february 28th hearing which was continued due to a quote, unquote, application error per planner on february 15th. although most of the neighbors are not here today, their views and concerns are stated clearly in their letters. in the respective letters which i' a. ta -- attached to the february 13th submittal. i would request that these letters were given same force
1:01 am
and effect as if they were here today. i would like to turn your attention to the letter submitted on march 13, yesterday, which summarizes where the parties stand on the 14 items of concern that have been identified by both parties. these 14 items are, design of the front building. height and length of the front building. reduced sunlight. roof access stairs. and fourth floor deck. windows placement. privacy concerns. variance and conditional requests. combined total number of bedrooms in both the front and rear buildings. amount of parking. preservation of existing driveway. preservation of rear building garage. fire safety of rear building. structural engineering. adjacent property damages and impacts. thank you for your attention to this matter. i'm available to answer any questions. you may have regarding the
1:02 am
neighborhood's opposition. we're confident that the planning commission appreciates and will make a fair and just decision that will address the neighborhood's concerns. what follows now are public comments from several of these neighbors. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you very much, next speaker, please. [please stand by]
1:03 am
>> i am 100% convinced that my home will get damaged further with the construction of the proposed front building. i think it is important to get a structural engineer to evaluate the current damages to my home, not only what needs to be done to repair and fix them but also what needs to be done to protect my home. on another subject, i'm concerned with losing my bedroom privacy. in the latest drawings from the project sponsor, there are five windows facing southwards
1:04 am
towards my bedroom. one solution that i see is in place of these five windows that face my bedroom, that a light while can be created instead. within the light well there can be windows feasting -- facing east and west in ways that will not affect my bedroom privacy and will provide adequate lighting for the proposed front building. another concern i have is fire safety. my home is physically connected to the existing rear building in the event of a fire in the existing rear building, the fire will likely spread to my home. the project sponsor is asking for the driveway that leads to the existing rear building to be removed. if this driveway is eliminated, fire safety personnel will no longer have ready access to the rear building and will face a greater obstacle in fighting and saving lives. lastly, i would like to talk about parking congestion. i believe that the parking project sponsor is also going to
1:05 am
create 11 bedrooms with a single garage that can only fit watch what cars as a practical matter. street parking is aarti difficult in the neighborhood. if no developers follow this example, our community will be a nightmare for all people who need to park their cars on the street. thank you for giving me some time to share my thoughts. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i live a few houses away from the proposed building and i'm here to oppose the construction permit. but before when i came up here, i was sitting down there and listening to do the planning staff talk about the project. i was very hurt because all the adjectives that she used she said -- she does not work with the organizer, and then they have already removed this and that. this project is requiring two
1:06 am
different things. one is a conditional use authorization, another one is the variances, so the way how the planning staff structure it is they are doing it a bit safer for the neighbor, but at the same time, the neighbor has a lot of input that has not been reflected on the plan. but since the commissioner is the same organization, i don't know whatever i say right here will add -- believe and be considered. i'm very shy, but i still want to say something about it. many of you, i have heard through the s.b. 50 that you are in favor of the direction, which i agree, that is in the future code, but under the current code , it is not in compliance so that is why they're asking all these exceptions, and then just now, the gentleman and the architect firm showed all these photos with exception.
1:07 am
there are only a few photos. when you actually look at that one block, the majority of them is single-family house of three-story only, and i do hope you consider all these types of things. every time when a variance or a conditional use authorization -- has to be for a reason otherwise we will not create all these laws. we hope we'll follow the law. if you have anything different than that, please do listen to the neighborhoods and see how we feel about it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. my name is karen. i lived two doors --
1:08 am
>> into the microphone, please. >> my name is karen, i live at 76,435th avenue, two property south of 754. thirty-fifth avenue is our neighborhood. we bought our house 25 years ago when a public school teacher and a carpenter could afford a home in the richmond. this is our home, our sanctuary. several neighbors who intended to be at this meeting, at the figure 28th meeting and wrote letters, there were ten opposing the project. so bill and nancy, lisa, mark, richard, yvonne and i realize there is a need for housing in san francisco. we are not against change, but we seek change that makes sense for the neighborhood, and although in may we were not invited to a meeting out in front of the property with the architect and owner team, we showed up, we expressed our concern with another of other neighbors about the scope and project with the owners and architects team. our concerns then where size,
1:09 am
mass, height, number of residential dwellings, parking, the variance, and a new age architectural design that will be an eyesore to this century-old neighborhood. this is the night before the plans were submitted to the city , so we thought it interesting that they said what do you think? and they rolled over and put the plans in the next day. northeast issues i mentioned are new to the owners' team and they remain the same concerns that the majority of the neighborhood are concerned with. the owner's team, and a subsequent ten months have not taken any of our concerns and to consider it -- serious consideration. my hope is you limit the proposed front building 21 single-family dwelling. these people are out of town speculators trying to line their pockets by profiting off of our neighborhood. we will be dependent on cars for another generation, with nine or 11 potential bedrooms across three properties at 754, and in
1:10 am
reality, parking for only two cars. you cannot open the door to get out of your car. people park on the sidewalk, that is the reality, in neighborhoods that don't have parking. i'd like you to consider the elderly elderly and special-needs residents like our son who uses a chair. the people who can afford to buy in our street, recent home sales , property sales, range from one point a million dollars to $3 million. they are going to come with cars if this conditional use and variance is approved, it may well help the short-term housing issue, but you are the planning commissioners, you are our stewards, you will take care of the city for the future, and you are signed with the task of providing clarity and direction to other builders. with only one four-story property across the street, and that one probably wasn't done to code. we hope you look to the long-term and not allow this project to go forward in its present design.
1:11 am
he could set a dangerous precedent. i am also thinking that the parking -- thank you, your time is up. >> next speaker, please. [indiscernible] >> please speak into the mic. >> there we go, sorry. it's a lot louder when i'm talking to myself. anyway, you get the idea. hello, good evening, it has been a long day. my name may stand, i'm a resident of san francisco, i am the carpenter. i reside at the home with my wife. first of all, the façade, i am a
1:12 am
builder, i am a contractor, and i am into melting my properties typically with my work and bringing trim and so you don't see where the addition is done. this façade is a design and a trend that will not necessarily stand the test of time. it is comparable to the infamous victorian of the eighties, if you know that design, a cheap developer's dream dumped after the sale of the homeowners. it is comparable to the character of the boxy fifties and sixties stucco cubes that stare blankly at us for decades afterwards. it is brutal. a jumble of linear cubes that doesn't fit the architectural integrity of the surrounding buildings. why not use a façade that fits the hood. whatever happened to trying to fit in to the neighborhood? secondary, this project has nothing to do with addressing affordable housing crisis, but
1:13 am
is instead a ploy that will increase the value of the subject property purely for economic gain. the owner has stated unequivocally that he will not live in the proposed front building, and that his son maybe living in the back building, but we suspect down the road the properties will be condominium and sold and we will be living there looking at that. not everyone is going to be happy. parking, location, location, location are the three words in real estate. i believe it is parking, parking , parking. this is our neighborhood and parking is very difficult. as my wife said, there are spaces for only two in that garage, but it could be made much more practical. is that the 30 seconds when? >> it is. >> good. is this working? it is not going to work, but anyway, what i would like to do
1:14 am
is magically produce parking for four cars in this space, if it is judiciously worked out with the driveway that goes into -- oh, my gosh, it is just not big enough. but the driveway back in the back unit is there. i think that could be worked out a little bit of finessing with the parking situation. >> thank you, sir. any other public comment on this item? come on up, please. >> good evening. my name is bernard. i live not far from that house, about six or seven blocks for many years. i hear a lot of comments here,
1:15 am
and i have written different things, but i'm not sure i'm going to use it. we say that san francisco needs housing, we all agree with that, but nobody wants housing near their place, they want to the open space. this lot is 37 and a half feet wide, 120 feet deep, it is probably the largest lot on that block or in the vicinity, and it can be built with a lot more apartments than two units. there is an existing building in the back that was dilapidated, that was used by homeless, by drug addicts, i was there to kick some out because i knew the former owners. i even paid someone to let them go.
1:16 am
the architecture of the building , which is being contested, you go around richmond. there is all kinds of architecture. any kind. close by my house. they built new buildings. one of them i find it horrible, by the architecture of the owners probably find it nice. i drive by every day so i got used to it. it blends in. this will blend. this property will blend in it. the lot is very big. if it was built on the 25 lot, yes, maybe there would be a reason to object, but it does not. it is 37.5-foot lot. it is big enough square footage -wise to be four units on the
1:17 am
buildings. one is already existing which was like a shack in the back. they are renovating it, spending a lot of money and it, and true, the son is probably going to be considering living in the back, maybe in the front, but in the back, i personally told the son i would live in the back because it is quiet. but that will be up to them. there was no talked today about the shadow. there was talk on the show and on the papers that they read. there is no shadows affecting the property of the person who was objecting it. my time is up. >> it is. >> thank you very much. >> you are welcome. i am for the project. >> thank you. >> san francisco needs this. richmond needs a lot of new
1:18 am
housing. >> any other public comment on this item? >> good evening. >> good evening. >> please speak into the microphone. >> good evening. >> okay. i see. thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay, with that, public comment is now closed. commissioners? >> i just had a question. this is a little unusual because it is an rh two but a large lot i asked you privately but i will put this off. is this the maximum units you can get on this lot with the c.u.?
1:19 am
>> that is correct. this is the maximum number. there could be additional avenues through the use of accessory dwelling unit rh but that is not proposed tonight. >> did you explore adding an a.d.u. to this? we recently passed legislation -- i don't think the board has passed as a new construction, you don't go too far back in the depth of the project. it is not huge. >> so the legislation allows us to add one a.d.u. per lot. we did not add it into the front building because that change that to an art two use which allows lot of fire department hangups. we thought about adding it into the back where we are removing the garage and creating a family room, so that needs to be consideration and we can certainly make that a condition. >> it is a pretty big lot.
1:20 am
the typical lot is 25 by 100. this is nearly double that. we would love to see four units on it. i get that it is meant block with the house already on it, and i think some of the neighbors' concerns to reduce the density. but i think this is just a works here. people may quibble with the design but the design works. it is pretty much a mishmash on the lot of different periods where housing was built. they're not huge units. they don't go far back. the lot next door, the unit goes back pretty far. i suggest you work together to figure out the construction impact and take it up with d.b.i. as a result of the rehab.
1:21 am
but i think otherwise it is a good project and works and i would be supportive. >> i think the idea of gentrification, this strikes the record given the height of adjoining buildings, i think the mass as well, the only question i have, and i would ask you to tell us about that, if you don't mind. what struck me a little bit of question is the building to the west, which is the yellow building and the existing unit, what is your thought about privacy between the rear of the new building, versus the front of the existing building if you are looking for a cart you're at variance, i'm concerned about privacy as well as the light, with the taller building on the west side, four stories, you are definitely having that in a courtyard -- inner courtyard in
1:22 am
shadow, including the privacy. could you speak to that. >> on the existing building that's being remodelled, the bedrooms are actually being relocated to the back for privacy of the rear building. they will have their bedrooms in the back, and they can be closed off to the front building. a standard courtyard is 25 feet wide and we are shy of that by 18 inches. so apart from that, i think the standard privacy provisions of adding drapes and some window coverings, i thank you had another question, i think i forgot. >> yes, i do. my question is a principal question where i'll be asking for some changes. the fire department asked for access to the fourth floor roof, but that can be done by ship ladder. that doesn't have to be a full stare. and since i think there is a possibility you are identifying the roof as a nonoccupied roof,
1:23 am
that could be very easily abused >> happily. >> so i would actually ask that we look at that stair of not really cutting into the room, but that you are filling the room, having the stair going to the third floor, and adding ship latter of the backlit -- balcony and that would be fine. i am in support of the project. i think we are doing a c.u., but i would ask that there is a change from stair for the fire department to become a ship ladder and otherwise the project i think is fine. >> thank you. >> with that said, commissioner moore, i will add that to my motion to approve getting rid of the conventional stairwell and adding the ship ladder. >> second. >> seeing nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to eliminate the stair penthouse and replacing it with a ship
1:24 am
ladder. on that motion -- >> it is not a penthouse, it is only a fire department access stair. >> on that motion. [roll call] >> that motion passes unanimously 5-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> we close the hearing and attend the variances on the standard conditions. >> i will place us on item 14. 122,610th avenue. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening, members of the planning commission. i am from planning department staff. the item before he was a request for conditional use authorization to legalize the establishment of group housing within the existing three story residential building located
1:25 am
within -- located at 122,610th h two zoning district. the proposal would involve legalizing the establishment of group housing in the building, previously utilized for single-family and two story use that will allow for a total of seven bedrooms for group housing there are four bathrooms and the building. the proposal will involve the rear façade modifications that will include converting a home office on the ground floor into a new bedroom, replacing existing rear windows with egress compliant windows, modifying and complying wet bar counter area on the first floor, and new interior wall partitions no expansion of the existing envelope is proposed. today, they have received correspondence from approximately a dozen neighbors in opposition to the proposal pick some of the concerns were in regards to who would be residing in and managing the
1:26 am
building. the number of occupants, some of the neighbors want to limit the occupants to seven occupants 47 bedrooms. the group housing use was affiliated with medical or educational institutions, questions on permit and d.b.i. complete history, rental questions, whether it would be rent-controlled or short-term rental, clarification on the housing type proposed, and general maintenance concerns. parking and -- citing also parking and traffic issues in the area, and whether the owner will be in compliance with some of the complaint issues in the future. it is approval with condition. this concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. thank you.
1:27 am
>> thank you very much. do we have a project sponsor? >> good evening. >> good evening to you. my name is tom, i'm the project sponsor and representative of the architect hired by mr. chang who is the owner of the subject property at 122,610th avenue. miss young was pretty thorough. i would like to take this opportunity to provide some context leading up to our application for conditional use authorization to legalize group housing. i believe the information is pertinent to you, but especially to those who wish to oppose the application. on march 31st, 2010, i noticed a violation was issued in the rebuilding code violations, as well as an authorized unit.
1:28 am
the necessary changes to legalize living space at the ground floor while removing an existing illegal kitchen. they received a certificate of occupancy. however, the kitchen sink was not removed. my understanding is that mr. chang was under the impression that this thing could remain without any consequence. fast-forward to april of last year, a complaint was filed, and after an inspection was conducted, two notices of violations were issued. the first required reinspection and the issues reported were resolved. the second side of the building for a possible unauthorized dwelling unit. the same one that had been legally removed in 2010. this time, we would not be able to make the necessary modifications to maintain the building. faced with having to legalize the ground floor to a second
1:29 am
unit, the group housing designation was proposed in order to avoid significant alterations to the building and possible displacement of the current students that live there so i hope you will approve our application with the following conditions proposed due to the neighborhood concerns that have been recently expressed. one, the proper garbage recycling and compost receptacles be provided and kept out of sight, two that the sidewalk at the street front of the building be maintained, and three, that a community liaison be appointed to address any concerns related to the subject property. thank you. >> thank you. with that, we will take public comment on this item. i have a couple speaker cards.
1:30 am
>> i think we are at good evening. my name is lori, i live directly across the street from 1226 avenue, and the building has had multiple tenants for a number of years. many of them a, and i fully support maintaining the house as a lower-cost housing option. i'm not sure that the project sponsors fully answered them. one of them is the group housing designation. reading the group housing definition and the project documents prepared by the planning department, it sounds very much like a workaround to establish short-term rentals in a building that is subject to rent-controlled based on this construction date, and should provide rent-controlled protections to the tenants. i'm also concerned that the renovations are likely to result in significant disruption at a minimum, or at worst -- worse, displacement of current tenants. this is a case study of some of
1:31 am
the issues that came up earlier. in shortcomings, and existing practices with respect to the interaction of planning purview and protecting tenants. it appears that perhaps, and i could be wrong about this, just on the surface, that the planning department may not be fully appointed with the conditions on the ground, it may not have addressed all of the impacts on current tenants. i would ask the commission to postpone issuance of this in spite of my general support for it until assurances are obtained and there will be no displacement of current tenants, and that rent-controlled provisions are applied. i would also ask that the definition of group housing be clarified so that it provides housing and not hotel rooms and does not become a workaround for short-term rentals. thank you. >> thank you. next public comment, please.
1:32 am
>> hello, commissioners. i also live directly across the street from 122,610th avenue. i've lived there for 46 years. my family and i have been part of that community for a long time, and i knew the prior owner , he was born and raised and died in that same home after 80 years. and then the house was occupied for a while with some of his friends who helped take care of him, and then over the years, it has been occupied by more and more people. i don't have a problem with that because these tenants that are there now have just been good tenants. i have concerns about what this project is about. i understand the need to be frugal and making changes to property, but the current owner, as far as i can tell, has not put a lot of money and thought into the way the property has been upgraded. nevertheless, there are six or
1:33 am
eight or ten tenants there. when we try to find out whether or not they would be displaced, because we are concerned they would not be displaced, we were not able to get that information there was one tenant that was approached and they were very intimidated about to did not want to talk about it. we didn't. we have several concerns. first, that the tenants not be displaced. second, since it has been housing many tenants in roughly eight separate quarters for many years, it should be afforded rent-controlled protection, in the land use operation, it was listed as a market right dwelling unit. there hasn't been one since potter died 15 or more years ago , maybe 20 years ago, and due to its formerly being made into a group home, and with the
1:34 am
expensive definition in section 102 about what a group home is, i'm concerned that this is not a prelude to either changing into short-term rentals or if i read this, it says it could be not necessarily limited to a residential hotel, a boardinghouse, a guesthouse, a rooming house, a lodging house, a residence club, a commune, and a fraternity or sorority, or a monastery -- monastery. many of those allow for changes that are not specified. so i would ask that this be postponed until that definition is pinched down by the owner and the developers as to what they are actually going to do. once they spend all this money and upgrade it, and then i have a couple of other concerns, but they were safety concerns.
1:35 am
i will make my points in the community. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? please come up. is there is -- if there is more public comment, please stand to my left so we don't have to take the time. >> hello. i am the owner of this property. >> if you are the owner of the property, your time to speak was during the project sponsor presentation. >> i want to answer -- >> i understand, but your opportunity -- there maybe questions from the the commissioners. sir, your opportunity to speak was during the initial five minutes. if the commissioners have questions, then they may ask you to come up. >> can i talk? >> not right now. we may have questions for you. thank you. any other public comment on this item? with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner more?
1:36 am
>> i had a similar reaction that came from public comment. this submittal lacks substantive information. i do not understand the intent of this building, who is living here, students, tech workers, it is very undescribed, and i would appreciate to have more background in order to support what seems to be not objected to by the community. the only thing i am doing is reflecting on the supervisor's legislation from last week, and how we all basically held off from allowing support for these buildings. so the ones we changed, it will become a permanent use in an r.h. to neighborhood, but with no information of who is actually running this building, what is the organizational
1:37 am
structure, what is the turnover, who are the other people living here, i believe that i am asking for my continuance because what i have in front of me is not sufficient. >> commissioner hillis? >> let's see if we can get some answers and some of these questions. just on the designation of group housing, the zoning administrator -- you need a see you to convert this to a group housing. can you explain what group housing is? >> the planning code kind of bifurcate his these residential uses. a single individual dwelling unit. group housing is when you have
1:38 am
something that is not a family, and there's lots of different situations where that can be -- i'm sorry, get a little closer. generally speaking, if you have more than five unrelated people living in the same unit, you start getting into the realm of group housing. as you can see from the definition, it is intended to see -- be a land use that the definition does not separate or define what a boardinghouse is, different from a guesthouse. >> that's it. -- >> it is a large umbrella. >> we say we have a code so you have to be a family. we don't have to define family. next door to me, i know that there is a flat that is large and has mostly uss students. i guarantee there's more than seven students there. so what they -- is that something that is enforceable and they would need to -- >> we do get complaints for the
1:39 am
group housing. sometimes it does involve college students. that means -- that is possible. we do have generally a definition of what a families in the code, and that is created by a case out of santa barbara from the early eighties. it is not a very good definition it is challenging from an enforcement perspective, but we do have that definition, and we do use that to determine if a group of people do constitute a family for the purpose of whether or not a unit is being used as a dwelling unit or four group housing. >> physically does it allow for any different type of change to the property and how it is configured inside if it is group housing, or has to follow the same building code that housing has to follow? we have seven bedroom homes. >> the code is actually quite silent. it just would have requirements for either a density limit, it has open space requirements similar to other housing, you
1:40 am
used to have parking requirements, but that is kind of it. we don't really have any internal control or even design guidelines for what good group housing should look like. now the building code in a fire code is different and that is space and occupancy, but even that is depending on the number of people living in the unit and the configuration that can trigger additional building codes and fire code requirements that is generally not in our realm. >> from a rent control standpoint, do you know about the applicability of the rent ordinance to group housing. >> i don't believe we have any confirmation on that. we do know that legally this home is currently a single-family home, so i think that it may not be subject to rent control, currently. >> it wouldn't be if it was a single-family home. so i don't think we can say definitively one way or the other, but conservatively, we would assume it is not subject to rent control.
1:41 am
>> i know it's not. i think we know currently it a single-family home and not subject to rent control. maybe you be able to argue to the rent board that it is not acting like that, so it is not a single-family home. so why would you think it was not subject to rent control? >> i'm not aware of group housing being a trigger for acquiring rent control, but again, that is not our status. again, other codes in the city street -- treat conch get housing to pick the planning code, we capture all types of group housing umbrella and other codes do treat them differently depending on how it is operating i don't want to be -- i don't want to presume that rent control is automatically going to kick in, so that's why we would take the conservative road , but we would have to get confirmation, if possible, from the rent board. >> sasha: okay. can i just ask the architect a question?
1:42 am
>> the building is currently leased for individuals to occupy these rooms. >> the owner rents out individuals and they share kitchens, or one kitchen and bathrooms, two or three bathrooms, i believe. >> and there is a lease for each individual room? >> i cannot answer that. i'm not sure how he structures the leases with the individuals. i just know that this isn't a group of people that -- that signed a single lease. i am aware that some of them have individual lease agreements with the owner, if that answers your question. >> there's more than one lease agreement. >> i would assume so. if you would like to ask him that question, he would be able to answer that. >> okay.
1:43 am
if you can come up. just while he is coming up, did you ever think about -- you can add -- you can convert this. why didn't you go that route? >> we had originally, back in 2010, had removed do you do you -- when the inspector came back for other reasons, and noticed the sink was still there, and that fit -- fit the definition. so -- >> unlawful a you. so let me ask a project sponsor about the leasing -- >> the owner. >> the owner, sorry. >> server, turn off your phone. -- server -- sir, turn off your
1:44 am
phone. >> i know tenth avenue is a very good neighborhood and so i'm really concerned when i tried to rent out to the individual students, right now i prefer to choose ucsf medical students. >> do you have separately says for each room? >> yes, separate lease for each room. i only rent to seven people, so i'm sure we will not be overcrowded. students are very quiet, study hard, very good. they just come back and sleep and then go to ucsf.
1:45 am
>> okay. , thank you. >> i choose those people because location is really good. they can just walk to ucsf. it is very good for me. >> okay. , thank you. the use of it as an airbnb, short-term rental, do you know where that falls? >> obviously, that is not in the planning code, but generally speaking, to do short-term rentals, you have to get a certificate. and to get that certificate, you have to -- it has to be your primary residence. >> it would be the same rule whether it was occupied as a single-family home or -- >> yes. >> okay. >> they're not sure what the quirks would be involved in that just to touch on this, there are seven bedrooms, that is the maximum here. the code also equates to watch what beds to a bedroom. technically, you couldn't have more than 20 beds per room.
1:46 am
and the building code, the housing code, has dimensional requirements for how many people can use a room as a sleeping room over time. there are other limits as to how many people could be in there, but technically under the planning code, you could get to watch what beds per room and still be fine and term of the density for group housing. >> okay. i don't see a downside to converting this to a see you. you're not converting it to asic a family home, it is a study state that the neighbors watch. there is no advantage to curve urging it to nad you. there is a downside and making it a single-family home because the use is not allowed. people could all be evicted and we could converted it to a single-family home. i am generally supportive and would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner johnson? >> i do still -- i want to talk this through. i have some concern about the
1:47 am
rent control issue here. it sounds like they are students that are probably turning over, but i am concerned that i feel like we don't have enough information. i am curious to the staff how -- i'm not sure that we have enough information, and i'm curious how you make the determination. >> i think that is part of the challenge. we don't make that determination , and generally speaking, the rent board does not give you a formal determination upfront either, and so there is a surgeon amount of interpretation that is required, and that takes some interpretation. sometimes you feel more confident than others. with group housing, i don't know if stop is reached out to the rent board separately or not specifically on the group housing issue, but without doing any additional research on that issue, i don't think we would be
1:48 am
confident stating that we assumed that it will be rent-controlled do to group housing. >> i'm pretty certain group housing is is rent-controlled, and i would defer to our city attorney, perhaps he knows, but i'm pretty certain that it is, and it is not our determination, it is not a planning code thing, but if it is, it is pertinent to our decision of making this. it is more desirable to have rent-controlled protections than having a single-family home, but referring back to an earlier conversation that we had during comments, it would be great to have somebody in the planning department who does know the rules about these issues. because they are pertinent. it would be great. commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask mr. teague and mr. seiter brief thoughts on the legislation of
1:49 am
the supervisor and how does two things stand next to each other. can you do that? [laughter] >> it is an interesting question my understanding of the supervisor's legislation is that it is really aimed at addressing single-family homes with very large numbers of students living in those homes, for example. a single-family home with ten bedrooms and 20 students. i don't know in this case if the use of this property for between seven and 14 students is a similar problem that he is experiencing in his district.
1:50 am
we have heard from the neighbors are of informed concerns. it is difficult to judge the level of impact on the neighborhood and it is difficult to look at a solution that may apply in one district to this somewhat different part of the city. i know that is not a complete answer. >> i know it is a challenging question to ask because we do not know all of the upsides or downsides. the issue i have is making the change to to land use. can ever revert back to its original designation? >> yes. it can convert from group housing to a single-family home. >> so there be lots of complaints. it could revert back to becoming -- >> sure. one or up to two units are permitted, so that could be
1:51 am
converted under the current code , and i imagine under the future code. it would bring things back to a single dwelling unit. >> with that that require a conditional use to do that? >> a single-family home or an individual dwelling unit, as a land use, does not require conditional use authorization. this is before you today because the establishment of group housing use triggers a conditional use authorization. >> and i think it is existing so -- it is different than his legislation. there's a lot of students around here. there's ucsf, u.s.f., this is -- this is happening. it seems to be happening and it is fine. it is not smaller r.h. once ago family homes, there are a lot of multiunit buildings around here. i don't think it is a big impact i think group housing is probably better from a rent-controlled standpoint than rh one, but i know it is not rent-controlled.
1:52 am
if you want to continue and get more info on that, i don't mind that either. or maybe can we conditionally approved this based on that staff determines this is a better rent-controlled situation than single-family homes, and get back? no? that's okay. >> commissioner johnson. i believe the city attorney would like to weigh in. >> yes, please. >> kate stacey, from the city attorney's office. we discussed this question internally, and while it is difficult to ascertain whether something is definitively rent control or not, the fact that the site was a single-family home is likely to have meant it was not subject to rent control and group housing is not defined as a rental unit under the rent ordinance. what is an unknown to me, and something that we could follow up on or maybe the rent board
1:53 am
would have to ascertain, is whether these individual bases change that designation, but it doesn't -- as mr. teague pointed out, it doesn't appear to have been subject to rent control in the past. as to the commission's questions about subjecting this site to rent control, there is an exception in the costa hawkins act that may apply here. it is where there are serious health and safety or building code violations on a site, then it is not subject to the costa hawkins restrictions on the rent control. but we still would have our own rent ordinance to apply to the site. again, it is not entirely clear, and i think certainly the
1:54 am
commission could ask staff to follow up, but again, the rent board is not in the habit of cataloguing properties. what they need to do is have this adjudicative process to figure out. it does not appear to us that it is subject to rent control at this point. >> thank you. >> i will follow up on that. i understand the request to have staff who are well-versed in the rent ordinance. we do have several staff who work on this a lot and are pretty well-versed, but because the nature of interpreting the rent ordinance is so different then the planning code, it is set up specifically so there is a body that can make formal determinations, and for the rent ordinance, it is the opposite. it has to be worked out.
1:55 am
so even if it was clearer, we tend to be careful interpreting other codes outside of our purview, but because of the nature of that, we tend to be conservative in our assumptions. >> okay. there is a motion on the floor. i guess we could vote on it. >> very good, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. that will place us on item 15. [reading agenda item]. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening.
1:56 am
the agent before you is a request for conditional use authorization. the office fees on the grace meant on the ground floor of mission street with frontage on the street between third street and new montgomery street. the project would establish a proximally 24,895 square feet of office use at the basement and ground floor while maintaining active commercial use on mission street. there are no proposed exterior, interior alterations encompassed within the change of use. the packet has been published. the department has received four letters from the public that jonas is passing out. one asked the commission to reconsider approving office use in the retail space fronting ministry. the other three of -- are letters of support for the change of use but asking the project sponsor to consider public realm improvements including lighting, public art, in retail activation along minute street. after an analysis of all aspects of the project, the department
1:57 am
recommends approval for the following reasons. the project would insure the historic buildings are well-maintained. the project would ensure that the vacant spaces occupied, and as a result, the area activated. the project ensures that retail use is maintained on mission street, in the project is consistent with the planning code, and with the objectives and policies of the general plan thank you. >> my name is jackie stewart with the project sponsor. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. we appreciate all the hard work that you and the department staff dedicated to the project staff. we have been working on this project since 2017 and working closely with planning staff and meeting about the project. the mission street project consists of two buildings within the conservation district. a four-story building at six '07 mission street and a six-story -- buildings are located
1:58 am
adjacent to the saint regent on mission street and the backside of the building faces ministry from the s.f. coding dock. the rehabilitation revitalization of the buildings allows updating to modern attributes, adding parking, showers, lockers, and the project is targeting goals. we are also providing a full voluntary seismic upgrade, building improvement, the addition of a roof deck and upgraded services throughout. rehabilitation of the buildings is made possible of the tenant to acquire -- require the ground floor. they press before you -- the project would maintain a retail frontage along mission street. the project aims to finalize building upgrades in 2020. now i would like to introduce you to someone to walk you through the design of the project to help you give these beautiful buildings a second
1:59 am
life. our team is around for any questions you may have. thank you. >> screen, please. >> that looks familiar. [laughter] >> sorry. >> hi, my name is craig. i am with the architects. what you have before you hear is the aerial site located in mission in relationship to the moma, the saint regis hotel.
2:00 am
this is a site plan, mission street on the top. we have 667 that is a four-story building, and 656 is a six-story building. along the street, we have the moma loading dock, we have the bus drop-off area, and there is a parking garage entrance, as well as the saint regis resident drop-off and the saint regis garage, there is a lot of parking and traffic congestion on the street. here is the view showing the moma loading dock on the right and the building on the left, and the image to the left is showing the sheet -- saint regis parking entrance.