A freshman at mission high school, is a trumpet player. Since 2018, shes been a part of the cmc Mission District youth music program. Its a Tuition Free Program that provides her and middle and High School Students with a education in latin music including weekly private lessons, saturday anden sum bell class and performing in the community. The highlight of her first year the highlight of her first year was participating in the animal carnival parade where cmc was part of an Award Winning contingent with seniors from ruth table and beth knee center and from trash mash up the and Marshal High School marching band. Cmc is a San Francisco institution serving as a resource for free and affordable Music Education and appreciate ace in the heart of the district Mission District. Approving the campus expansion project will help cmc serve future generations of san franciscans for many more years to come. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. Hi, my name is see could i a i believe in that magic and im glad i did. Thank you so much for your comments. Next speaker, please. Thats it. Any other Public Comment on this item . With that Public Comment is closed. Ms. Steinberg, i would like to ask about the first Public Comments about the eviction that took place, if you could, take us through and theres some legal issues for us and so if you could explain to us what happened . Yes, of course. And also i think if its appropriate id like to write a number of our project committees who work on this assessment who was part of the purchase of the owner and paul can share in steps we took to ensure that we were in community and that discussion. Please. We heard that the property was coming up for sale and i think 2011 and the owner was planning to buy it. We knew her peripherally and began a conversation we realized she was going to ellis act the building. That wasnt what we had in mind. She put it on the market and she didnt make it easy to purchase. We competed against other buyers and the other buyers would not be operating it as the affordable renting house in the past. It was us buying it for our expansion in the community or going probably to a Single Family that would pay a lot of money and convert into a home opioid building there. We were dis pushed about the ellis act eviction and the next building over as you might sometimes the San FranciscoTenants Union so we also knew ted. Ted and some of you may know and we went and talked to ted and said, here is the situation. What is our respons responsibil . In the end he blessed the purchase. He said, im not going to come out and support your purchase but im not going to oppose it because you didnt have anything to do with the emissions and we encourage you to buy the building. What year was the purchase . It was 2012. So its been eight years. Since years since we bought it. We closed in the fall of 2012 . Thank you. Ok. Commissioners. Motion to approve. Second. Is there a second. Commissioner, thank you. Commissioners, theres a motion that has been second to approve this matter with conditions, commissioner diamond. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Koppel. Aye. And president melgar. Aye. So moved. That motion passes 40. Commissioners, that will place us back on item we have additional business to attend to. Thank you. That will brings us back to item 119. We will probably need commissioner richards if he is here. Otherwise we wont have a quorum. Im not leaving. We need commissioner richards. For 461 29th street, please note on august 29th, 2019 after hearing in closing public this was continued to november 7th, 2019 with direction from the commission about a 60. Commissioner johnson, you were absent. On november 7th, without hearing it was continued to todays date. Commissioner johnson, you were absent and commissioner diamond you were not yet seated as a commissioner. In order to participate, you would have had to reviewed the previous hearing and materials and if you can acknowledge as much today you can participate. I have reviewed the material. I have not given i was appointed this week, i have not. We will need to recuse you from this matter but it would be better if commissioner richards were here. So we would need we have quorum to be and to hear the items so i just texted commissioner richards i dont know where he is. Should we go onto the next item. Well be forced to take the next item. Im so zar, we have to take the next item and come back to this. Very good, commissioners, were on item 20 for 2019004849cua2406 bush street conditional use authorization. Good evening. Im going to be very brief given the lateness of the hour and you have many more items on the agenda to cover tonight. The project before you is a conditional use authorization to legalize the merger of two dwelling units into one dwelling unit within the rh3 Zoning District. The authorized use of the building is twofamily per the report of residential building record. The previous configuration of the building consisted of two equally sized slats, the two units have been merged without permit into one 2200 square foot Single Family home. No exterior modifications are proposed. This is a long standing Code Enforcement case that was originally filed with both the department of Building Inspections and planning. A case history is included as exhibit e in your packet. The violation also included window replacement and construction of two decks at the back of the building which will be under separate permits at the outcome of todays hearing. If approved, the that resulted in the merger of two dwelling units and interior partition walls and an interior front entry door which separated the former unit were removed. The kitchen in the second unit on the top floor, was also removed and converted into a master bedroom. The cost estimate to restore the second unit is included in your packets as exhibit f. Per the applicant, the estimate to restore the second unit is estimated between 10 to 15,000. As reported by the rent board, an owner move in eviction occurred before the dwelling units were merged. The building is currently owner occupied. The Department Recommendation is that you disapprove the dwelling unit merger as noted in the executive summary, the project would sanction work without city permit removing two naturally affordable flats and the housing stock. And would legalize a Single Family home in a threefamily Zoning District. This concludes my presentation. Is there a project sponsor . Come on up. Commissioner, thank you for your time. I regular ill be brief because its late in the hour. I purchased in july of 2001. And i have lived there up until about nine months ago and raised my two daughters in San Francisco. When i purchased the home, there was a tenant there, kathleen and john oshea and we were very transparent with them and they were very cooperative with us. We moved them to the vacant unit upstairs and we moved in our selves downstairs and began renovations to the home with permits. This is when you could go in and pull an over the counter permit for such work. All the permits i pulled from 2002 to 2005 were over the counter permits. My error at the time was and final but it still remains a non compliant building and i sold the building to someone who is use particular as a Single Family home and living in it and they are fully aware of the issues. But im cooperating with them as the private sponsor and the applicant for this work. Theres no work necessary to do what were asking and make a Single Family home and if you were familiar with the area there are three italian victoria yans in a row one is 2406 bush street and the other two are singlefamily homes occupied by longtime homeowners as Single Family. One of them at 2426 commissioned a study that i submit as part of my application from bloom feld historic architect that has the actual history from 1882 and these were built to the building is 137yearsold and 80 of its life its been a Single Family home and in 1976, it was converted or legalized to two families. When i took ownership of it, the second floor was barely habitable and im a general contractor and i spent years on it restoring it back to a beautiful victoria as it was intended and covered up with stucco and what was the second unit was a took cop and undercounter size refrigerator. I dont know if anyone was living up there in rough shape. To restore it back is only 10 to 15,000 because it would be putting in a divider and two very narrow doors and this is not in the spirit of San Francisco housing and it may not be necessary i think its desirable and compatible although there are other buildings around that for sure the three buildings were built as Single Family and are all being occupied as Single Family. Thank you for your consideration and your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . With that Public Comment is now closed. Commissioner richards. A couple of questions. So when the units were merged was it legal then . I would actually allow staff to answer that question. Well ask you to come up again. Mrs. Oakland. No, the merger was not done with permits. It needed a permit . Correct. Today it would require that. The penalty due in the packet is 319,750 from april 21, 2012 to october 2015. Plus additional penalty until corrective action taken. Were up to half a Million Dollars . That was reduced and the total fees paid to date have been about 24,000. Do you know why it was reduced . I dont have the exact information why. I am here representing code compliance cases but im not part of the deem. We have a comment when someone was talking about fees penalties and they were cheaper of talking tickets and this is a cow, all this happens and when they got done they were reduced 90 some percent and its eyeopening. I can understand the project sponsors desire to live in a Single Family house. I thought you were doing the right thing. You didnt get a permit and were in 2019 and i think things are different than they were when you did this and theres an affordable crisis and you took a naturally somewhat naturally affordable unit off the market so i wouldnt be inclined to support this. I wouldnt support it city. Im the time that ive done to the commission we have not approved any unit merger let alone legalized illegal once so i am not not, inclined to take its not consistent with a policy that this commission has followed since ive been here but can you please clarify for me what the staff is recommending, again, im sorry, its late and im tired. Say it again. There were only minor changes made. The plans, if you look at your online park et are more clear than those represented in the printed packet and unfortunately there was a printing error. On the ground floor there was an interior entry door that was removed. That can be easily put back in place. On the top floor it was not in good shape and the total estimate to do the work to restore the unit would be between 10 to 15,000 per their estimate. That is what we would be approving. We would ask the applicant to have a permit to that effect. Yes. Did you want to Say Something . The motion in your packet is for disapproval . Yes. I got that. Ok. Commissioner diamond. So it was built as a Single Family house and then legally converted to a twounit residence and illegally converted back to a singlefamily house . Thats correct. Per the throw hour report there are permits dating from the 1970s that show two units. Its very common for singlefamily homes to have been converted. Yet there is a penalty or not a penalty . A penalty has been paid and i believe they are uptodate on their penalties but if they could not respond in timely manner to tonights decision, they would insure what was the amount of the penalty . The penalties for Code Enforcement are standard 250 per day. Its in rh3. Correct. Thro three family zone. Anybody want to make a motion . Move to disapprove. Second. Thank you, commissioners. If theres nothing further, theres a motion and seconds to disapprove the requested authorization on that motion. Diamond. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Richards. Aye. Koppel. Aye. President melgar. Aye. So moved. That motion passes 50. Now, we will go back to item 19 for case 202008 461 29th street. I will repeat that on august 29th, 2019 after hearing closing Public Comment you continued this matter to november 7th with direction by the commission of a vote to 60. Commissioner johnson you were absent and commissioner diamond you were not seated yet on november 7th. You continued the matter to todays date by a vote of 51. You need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. I have. Thank you. And i have not because i was just seated this week. Very good. So, we would need to recuse commissioner diamond. Move to recuse commissioner diamond. Second. On that motion to recuse commissioner diamond. Commissioner diamond. Aye. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner richards. Aye. Commissioner koppel. Aye. Press melgar. Aye. So moved that motion passes 50. So commissioner diamond, you will need to actually leave the chambers. [laughter] whose phone is ringing and dinging, can you turn it off, please . This is the revised motion. Good evening, commissioners, brigitte hix Planning Department staff, project before you is a conditional use authorization for the demolition of the an existing 1,284 Single Family home and a residential building with two dwelling units and one accessory dwelling unit in the rh2 Zoning District. And this requires a conditional use to demolish the existing residential unit. It was heard on the 29th at the hearing, neighbors and commissioners voiced concerns about the emassing, unit size and design were out of context for the neighborhood. The Commission Voted to continue the item to the seventh. The revisions were not complete by that date which is why we were continued to todays date. Sponsors held a meeting to receive comments from the neighbors and 50 neighbors attended that meeting. Since the last hearing the following changes have been made. A third unit has been added to the proposal as an a. D. U. And the garage faces an increase with one vehicle parking space and one bicycle parking space for each of the three units. The facade has been redesigned to more closely align with vertical patterns found throughout the neighborhood. The facade materials have been changed to stucco, painted wood and the stone base. The height of the building has been decreased by six inches and the fourth floor has been reduced to be setback 15 feet from the front facade and extend no further than the massing to the neighbor to the west at 467 29th in the year. The roof deck has been eliminated and the light wells increases to match the neighboring light. The department has received a letter questioning the integrity of the Historic Resource determination. Based on the Public Feedback regarding analysis to the subject property alterations, staff has reviewed and added further analysis to the categorical exemption and Historic Resource evaluation response which follows based on addition alanal sis of the Buildings Development and alteration history it does not appear the alterations completed circa 1930s and are significant in their own right. These alterations do not appear to be completed by a master architect and do not possess high artistic value and the building would be considered an individually eligibility Historic Resource. The existing structure is still determined to be not a Historic Resource and a new categorical exemption was issued on novembe. Staff recommend approve of this condition use. As noted. The project is involved the demolition of a residential structure the replacement building will provide three familysize units and structure has been determined to not be a Historic Resource under ceqa and it meets all applicable requirements and is consistent with the intent of the zoning and this concludes staffs presentation and im available for questions. Thank you. Is this the second hearing up three minutes and any Public Comment will have one. Ok, thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Very briefly, top tunney and the project sponsor asked me to help with the project following the last hearing. The last substantive hearing knowing significant changes needed to be made. And weve achieved that we believe. There was some difficulty in that there were conflicting interests and some people wanted three units and some people wanted two, some didnt like the fourth floor and some were ok with it. In the end, we just followed staff direction. As much as we could zoo and i think completely. Theres three units. The fourth floor has been reduced by a third. And flor area and as stated removed the roof deck, expanded the light wells and i would turn to our architect who can go through the details but were available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Are we ready . We are. All right. My name is early wise. Brigitte did a great job there. There was a couple of things that i wanted to bring up she missed. Were not going to stuck o no one wa