variance ellis act. >> i'm teresa i live and work find in north beach since 1982 in march of this year i was ellis acted from my home of 33 years in 2014 within four blocks 59 people were ellis acted do you think that changes a community a neighborhood united states of america in 2007 there was the largest ellis act at grant avenue that is built over the 06 earthquake for the sole purpose of rehousing merchants and workers in the hood in fact, that building 1615 grant represents all that is beautiful about north beach the ethnic diversity and middle-income and washer living dorothy together in the building

multiple generation under one roof kevin a tight-knit community we're a louis so many people and losing our escape of fish and garlic we're losing our cultural landscape the character of our neighborhood please does not speed up this process not allow the configuration the reconfiguration to limit the housing possibility for the many and m please recognition no doubt an environmental impact as the reality that today's tenants would need to have the charge yotsz pickup in front the building a narrow street and the google shuttles will be impacting. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> >> you'll have a two minute rebuttal. >> i'll call speakers in

support of dr requester (calling names). >> i have something i'd like to hand out if i could. >> thank you very much. >> i'm sam the president of the telegraph hill it is nice to see you again we're here to you work you to take this dr we appreciate the design modifications that have been made in response probation officer our april letter particularly the removal of penthouse of a rooftop but more for the roof deck size was not done and since this letter we'll find it great concern so much of what is happening in north beach

with the projects beginning with large ellis acted evictions and running an ending in the kind of loss of affordable housing on telegraph hill with this project represents has been a major, major issue for us 16 low and affordable units by the high-priced unaffordable believes is clear this project does not to to the prior policies in the general plan 0 impanels the supply of affordable housing we don't believe you can make the findings of a general plan consistent if you decide to precede on this we'd you to make additional modifications two in particular first please eliminate the private roof deck on granted avenue buildings the space is required for the fairs will reduce further the small available living space in

those undersized units it will diminish the earth of a historical significance buildings and elections the nuisance and noise and activity the roof you'll not be able to make the findings of the neighborhood non-detriment this is not needed the decks are not needed to enjoy substantial prirts you can't make that vengd that's because none of the buildings one three hundred feet have roof decks as a matter of fact, if you look at what i handed to you you'll see a google earth image that shows you the rooftops of all the buildings within three hundred feet secondly, we would like to go propose and hope to urge you to eliminate or significantly reduce the deck of the medicaid

building half the size of roof for many of the reasons as my first recommendation please do not approve it. >> thank you, mr. hayes. >> i'm susan and i was ellis acted in 2001 and heard the commission would like to talk to people that have been ellis acted a long time or how it operationally is effected not that mailing many to stay in the city i want you know to know it is effecting three and four with my inflated rent i would like you to know that after i was ellis acted within a couple of years i experienced an owner move-in eviction and i lost my business this is the san francisco reality i would like the commissioners to really

listen to us we don't need roof deck you know we need your help in preserving affordable housing all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners my name is leann a concerned citizen and a member of free sf i'm here to talk about ellis act and luxury projects are hurting the community here in san francisco i'm personally effected by this jurisdiction crisis bus a group the investigators that bought the building where i and others accident and using ellis act to informs us out it demonstrates a reckless disregard for human life the people in my building and you are facing statistics

we're - i'm an artist and the people in any building are friends and neighbors that contribute to the cultural fabric of that city and the eviction process has deeply impacted our lives and putting on hold to get and teaching credential i can't commitment to an educational program many of the people in any building will certainly have to leave the bay area we've, pritsdz priced outsz out it is my hope to work with underprivileged youth but eviction is threatening there is something we in the room can do we can say no to more luxury and the permits are deliberating will have a deeper impact on the neighborhood than the typical changes to the structures that are proposed with ever building converted to a luxury unit more

neighbors and businesses are pushed out of san francisco because of the eviction and rising rents this effect is the global houshth and it constitutes a there are no threat to the side affordable housing as rent-controlled units are flipped i'm asking how to consider carefully the need of people part of this community that had been effected by these permits and for the sustainable housing by saying no to more upgrades and stopping that project landlords like my may see the following i didn't have using evacuees to converting to luxurious units out of the reach of many folks inform 70 that are struggling to stay in the city. >> thank you. >> again, i'm here speaking on

behalf of the anti displacement coalition and a letter from the coalition and our chair fred we are here to support the dr and urge the commission to reject this project we are very concerned deeply concerned about the persistent this approval of that project will have on the market in san francisco this is as a previous speaker noted the largest ellis eviction in the neighborhood and in this - the consequence of this work is clearly all the work the parking garages have described themselves as an upgrade they stated in neither papers in may 25th their tension when they evicted the tenants to renovate, upgrade the building that was their intent the first

sentence never mind 2, 3, 4 approval they're seeking is a part and parcel of the eviction action they took so many years ago and so we urging you to we don't see how to find the highest ellis not to have angle impact on the housing stock what will happen to the the ellis evacuees we want to notice something different it is we have seen what is happening because tics in san francisco the evictions listing evictions were incentivised an economic pathway through the tic this owner is doing something different they're using the listing e ellis act they're intended to

permanently move the market unit for 10 years and coming back and trying to upgrade well, how are redoing that under the ellis act after 5 years they don't have to rent back 0 at the original rents and those residence will be impossible for the tenants to return to what is going to happen if you approve 24 project it creates a new innovation for evictions that be evict the tenant after 5 years and jacuzzi up the rents and you'll release a profit that's what about happen in you on the ellis evictions that's why our coalition is concerned i want to introduce and take the other speakers if at the allow me, i'm introduce the next speaker

>> good evening planning commission.i am speaking on

behalf of of the community association. the chinatown association is the largest association with 1500 members. the majority of whom are elderly and low income people lying on ssi is the main source of income.today we are

expressing our opposition against this development project for the 15, 16 grand ave. building. because our community does not need another luxury apartment building the most community members can possibly afford. especially considering the fact this building index attendance many years ago causing a loss of 16 rent controlled units. most of the tenants had no choice but to leave san francisco. the resulting in yet another huge loss in our community. i myself and my family are act victims and i completely sympathize with what it feels like to be forced out of our home.

>>[foreign language] >> as the planning commission, approves this project then even more developers will be encouraged to target rent-controlled buildings and a bit more community members. leading to greater loss of rent controlled units and increased gentrification. i ask and urge the planning commission rejected project. thank you. >> thank you ms. lee. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. i'm marla knight cochair of the north beach attendance committee. we formed in 2013 and 22 of us from one block of lombard were being else

activated. we hold monthly clinic meetings that tell neighborhood center and these clinics are to support and inform people who are being either good or under the threat of the ellis act evictions. unfortunately, no clinic was available when 20+ people ages 23-92 were addicted in 2007-8. when the grand avenue development property we've seen what the beach change as a result of ellis act evictions from a multigenerational economic diverse can nominate to a neighborhood filled with short-term rentals, wealthy young single people and corporate filled properties. we've seen longtime businesses forced out due to high commercial rent increases. currently we have 19 listings in north beach averaging $5000 a month for a two bedroom apartment where a family could live if they could afford it. 90% of san francisco cannot

afford these apartments. there's actually a large flat across the street from me. it is large flat i grant you that, four bedrooms, and it's listed as a staggering $39,600 a month. that's in this week's listing. the reconfiguring of the grand avenue property into smaller units ensures no family would be able to get there even if they had the money. for the rent and the building is being remodeled, the building was a sound they'll get it was like they had any infractions at all. these continuing evictions amounts the democratic --demographic cleansing of longtime residents in north beach the elderly and other honorable north beach residence. for windfall profits are eviscerating what speech and san francisco. these ellis act and no-fault evictions are not only tragic or those who lose

their homes and that no of finding a new one in the community but also completely change the character of the neighborhood. the joyous north beach with its diversity on all levels from a fifth-generation san franciscans in the 50+ year north beach residence and i'm heartbroken on what's happening in north beach and bit rates across our city. let's not reward these eaters by creating ways for them to build and market this grand avenue property for luxury apartments that 90% of san franciscans cannot afford. thank you very much >> thank you ms. knight. next speaker, please. one more card, donna chan as well. >> hello. my name is tricia clement. i am here to speak about the effects of the ellis act since i am now fighting my second one. i thought the first one. i live in the mission and have been in my rent-controlled units are over 30 years. we tthe appeal and about six weeks

before christmas we were handed another ellis act. what is going on in north beach is what's happening in the mission. it's driving me crazy that this law coming out of sacramento that supposed to be for the mom-and-pop landlords who want to get out of the business and retire and sell their buildings is being abused and it's being used illegally and there's nobody doing anything about it. you have a power to actually make the statement here and do something about it. stand up for the people that live in this city. you are the planning commission to your supposed to be planning for the people that live here. not the people that want to live here. so, please, search your heart and search your soul and your conscience and do the right thing and reject this

crazy rooftop garden in north beach. and all others who want an ellis act people for the same reasons i'm a just to profit and profit and not care what happens to the people. amy phillips, just turned 100 years old in april. she was ellis acted and we fought and fought and fought for her. finally, she won because she stood in her place. i know other seniors in their 80s and 90s fighting ellis act. the homeless condition, i see these articles , why is the homeless problem getting greater? well it's obvious. a lot of those people used up roofs over their head and they paid the rent, but somebody decided you can go. we want more money. so, do the right thing. and that's all i

can say right now. >> thank you very much good. >> tony robles of senior disability action and also the san francisco insight displacement coalition. i'm going to be reading a letter on behalf of george jewett, who is an architectural and design consultant who is based in north beach. i've copies for the commissioners that would be right here. to the san francisco planning department. san francisco has a great heritage of distinctive architecture. the history of north beach is etched in the buildings that survived the quake and fire and those that were built in the years immediately following. 1615-1633 grand ave. and 12-26 mcdowell place epitomizes the historic nature of this

neighborhood. i am pleased that much of the closed work will improve the buildings and ensure their presence long into the future. that being said, the proposed roof and houses would be very inconsistent. it would be very inconsistent mass things on this otherwise classic building. further, allowing these unsightly warts at the top of structures creates a precedent that would be damaging to the delicate historic fabric we in the community enjoy and visitors come to experience. with property values rising rapidly, there is a great temptation to push the boundaries for the greatest again regardless of the cost to the neighborhood. approval of this type of addition would be a bad precedent, but allowing this type of thing to exceed the 40 foot height limit will open a floodgate and builders and

developers will see opportunities to add height to old buildings throughout this historic area and the only benefit would be to their bank accounts. please, require this project and others to embrace laws that were established to protect these landmarks. i served for eight years on the architectural and design review board in hillsboro. before moving to the city in 2010. in that capacity, it took design guidelines and zoning laws, community input seriously and demanded that projects were consistent with policy and community desires but i appreciate the opportunity to have my views heard. and sincerely hope that carefully considered test regards george jewett 468 gilbert and speaking for myself, don't we ward this else act v with these modifications. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is jacqui naylor

and i was ellis act evicted and forced to leave my home of 26 years in hayes valley on march 1 of this year. along with my husband and our neighborhood beverly often director of the plastic bottles consortium for san francisco. and her husband works for the public library. we fought for 2.5 years with the help of the tenderloin housing clinic tuesday and our home. the limits that we were the tenants but he needed to make more money from units. the process of fighting for was exhausting. and adversely affected every aspect of our lives. including our income. my husband and i are touring jazz musicians and we often felt we could not leave town for fear of not having a home when we return. effective health and

our relationship with our neighbors and our community. though we were living just a block away from the sf jazz center auditorium where we performed many times per sf citizens, we were being thrown out of our home and likely the city we love. is this what we want for san francisco? to evict the very people 12 to build our communities and neighborhoods? my neighborhood beverly ellison conquered a long distance each day commuting to make our city safer. my husband and i are among the lucky few good we qualified and one of the lottery for the below market rate units. there were 92 applicants. i still cannot wrap my head around how our previous landlord and many other owners in our city are able to purchase buildings at a discount due to the rent control tenant made few if any repairs, even at the rent-controlled tenants then get permits to improve those units in order to rent or sell those units at a huge profit. meanwhile, the evicted tenants struggle for new place to live among any place to live in our inflated city. leaving their affordable housing only to wait

in line in lotteries for affordable housing. we must not let owners speculators and developers profit at the expense of our community and citizens. thank you for this opportunity to speak. >> thank you very much. >> good evening commissioners did my name is donna change it on the housing counselor the chinatown community development center. i'm here to speak on behalf of the tenant 1513 grant who i worked with when received the ellis act evictions notice and 2007. many of these tenants were low income seniors and families with children and have lived in the building for many years. when he received a eviction notices they were highly concerned and extremely distressed because they could not find housing in the city that they could afford. also, they were disconnected to all the services and resources provided in the community. all of them want to stay in their building and tried many times

urging the order to restore the eviction. they were satisfied and had no complaints about the building condition. however, the owner refused to withdraw the eviction and force all the tenants to leave their home. the eviction has had a huge impact on the tenants. none of them were able to find an affordable rental unit in north beach. many of them either moved out of the city or they are renting a place that is double or triple the rent they used to pay for their home at 1615 g. the quality of life decreased because now with a high rent some of them have had to work three jobs were they have to cut back on how much they can spend on food, medication, and utilities. for example, a former tenant from 1615 g mr.-attic of the home phone because of the high rent at the new place. i have to

look for him on the street in order to connect him with him. therefore, i strongly urge all the commissioners to grant the discretionary review for 1615 grant because all the proposed upgrades for the building is unnecessary. it would only make a place an affordable for tenants like mr. you who wants to move back to the building. thank you. >> thank you very much ms. chan. this tester. >> ms. hester >> sue hester, could you actually want up with a hearing this day good hearings this day. they really concentrate attention on how the city is being hollowed out. both in neighborhoods and in tenants. that's what your job is to my to address. you've heard from people saying, i don't even want to get into how desperate people are better ellis act either did. but the manipulation iv building and

upgrading and making it with the new tenants is something you have to deal with. i have two concerns. one, i would like to follow-up again with the same, about you shouldn't allow this at all. you shouldn't allow these rooftop decks. you should not allow this phony ellis act process, but even if you're doing that, even if you're considering approving it, you need to do more than the staff report ask you to do. you should ask clearly, is there anyone associated with the developer anyone, any family member that is in the affected by short-term rentals. do they have involvement in this? because, one of the things you need to do is say, no short-term rentals period in this building. it's beyond the

point where you should've been doing this, but you cannot have the hypocrisy of saying we are producing housing, we are upgrading housing, we are counting on housing when the building units in the building could be rented out as short-term rentals. this is improving the building to a level that they're attractive as short-term rentals. this neighborhood has had the most impact of any single neighborhood in the city by short-term rentals. and if you don't recognize that and say, no more and nothing here, what are you doing? you are supposed to be looking out after the interests of the people of the city. the developers say look out after our interests, but what about the residence. so, i don't think you should do the of

grades and specifically, the rooftop decks which are ridiculous in the city of san francisco, and apart from that, no short term rentals. if you even consider approving this project. thank you. >> thank you ms. hester. other any additional speakers in support of the dr requester? seeing none,, project sponsor, you have 5 min. >> my name is don lea and i am nine years old. 69 years ago

together with my mother and brother we put together all our savings to acquire this property. we have lived there at the start and have managed it ever since. the building was last rented eight years ago to families and unrelated tenant. we decided to exit the rental business for two reasons. the building badly needed to be brought up to today's building codes and safety standards good [inaudible] were too low for extensive renovation and repair. we have a good team of architects and consultants who have put us in a position to qualify for a construction loan. we know there is a housing crisis in san francisco

. my wife and other family members have worked as teachers for the city. isn't the ideals will create affordable housing for teachers so they can afford to live in the city? i look forward to your approval. and to working together to make this building safe and sound for generations to come. >> hi rick glad to do first of all come i like to think people at cdc malcolm young and whitney jones for their negotiation with us about a purchase of the building by cdc and unfortunately, the numbers were too far apart for that purchase to be possible. there was talked out eight years ago, two. the owners of the building did not want to have tenants to leave. they had to ask family

members. you think they had the money to renovate this they would want to ask half a dozen family members who've been there many years to leave? they didn't. it was unsafe. steep stairs, dry rot electrical problems, notices of violation. they could not afford to redo it. they couldn't get the construction loan with the rents. they could've continued to rent the place import condition i'm a but look around at the fires that have happened in the mission were greedy landlords have been doing that. we do not want that here. i took a tour of the site. i saw many three bedrooms which are only 625 ft.2 give immigrants, worker homes when it was built. i was reminded when i went into my grandmother barely survived the 1911 shirtwaist factory fire in manhattan as a young immigrant to manhattan and that's when i decided i was going to take this case and get these help get these units back on the market. a greedy women would've long ago sold this to a speculator would turn these into market rate units, pic, or

other such units and that has not happened. chance held that eight years. they could've held it 10 years could they held back eight years, which means they must invite tenants back who were evicted. and, now that they finally have the equity to put in to get a loan, they are willing to do that. the only impediment is the permit before you, which is for internal configuration am a mostly. a small part of it is for a roof deck. there's no open space today. the first speaker wrongly said that my client could've waited 10 years and we did 10 years. they didn't. the building was built again small units, small rooms, immigrant workers, could she construction made it expensive to build. it's not going to be luxury. small rooms. very little like. no parking. the common area.

etc. in fact, when negotiations were going on eight years ago with cc bc noted they would not buy the building unless they could put in open space in the roof into the kind of configurations inside that might plans for doing. but let's both cdc see where do i get my client want to turn it over to the next generation. well, see cdc would come back here for the same alterations. would you deny it today to my clients would be legal to give it to see cdc or other nonprofit when they can back to you later if they were to buy it? i just don't think so. we believe the dr would be filed anyway because some people aren't happy about the physical book will be. it would-i will talk a little bit more about some suggestions for units when i time later. i hope you'll give me the time. thank you. >> thank you. dr requester,

you of a two-minute rebuttal. any speakers in support. i'm sorry. any speakers in support of the project sponsor? that are not part of the project team . they're not a part of the project team. >> good evening commissioners are my name is anthony lee, reading a letter written by my cousin sarah. sarah is one of the family members that were living in the building at the time. she is 76 years old. and a longtime resident of san francisco. my name is sara. the reason i'm here today is to support the renovation. i am not one of the owners and i've never been good i'm one of the family members who reside at the project party eight years ago during the time i lived there i had these poems with my unit. plumbing. the major items were drainage, speed and availability of hot water and water quality. these are typical problems with all

100-year-old building. next heating and insulation. the holding bills were there expensive because of the old heating system. they're much more energy-efficient options of able today could one that significantly reduce my cost of utilities and also the building is poorly insulated. in the wintertime it was uncomfortable in using the bathrooms due to the design and bathroom installation. the final topic is stairs. the current stairs in the center of the building are too steep and dangerous for me to use to exit in case of an emergency. safe passageway to exit the building is important because with an earthquake or fire. i know that ownership has the means to bring it to condition early. they would have done it. i hope the building finally gets updated rather than in the neighborhood would be say. with your support, this building can again provide a home to 16 families. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hi. my name is jonathan lee. the reason here to speak in support of the renovation plan is of ever been an owner of the building and i do not own part of it now. speaking as a member of the public since i reside at party eight years ago from september 1999 until the summer 2007. during that time, i was responsible for looking after grandma lee now deceased was a reside in one of the apartments. during the time i lived there, i became aware of several of the limitations in this 100-year-old building. electrical. i frequently work from home. i was at a concern about the power demands mike women would require from the outdated wiring especially the lack of grounding of a power outage it often time, but his muscle power items a computer, digital find them in my stereo, abuse my power would go out and have to reset it. heating.

department had a central heating unit and the bills were higher than they needed to be due to the outdated furnace system along with a single pane window system which provided insufficient insulation. lastly, stairwells. my grandmother and i lived a top-level units of those concerned about her ability to safely use the back stairwell especially when taking out garbage. the stairs were steep. difficult to navigate and quite unstable. i think it would be dangerous for further use in case of an emergence. i often got about four. i reviewed the proposed by then please always limitations can finally be addressed. i hope you approve this building since there's a crisis into few housing units especially ones that can be affordable by design. meaning that because of the size and the fact there's no parking these units away some of the less expensive units in the neighborhood which is been true in the past and they will remain a we. thank you. >> thank you. any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor?

>> hi get my name is andrew lee. the reason why i'm here today is to speak in support of the renovation plan. i have no ownership interest in the building but i am one of the founding members resided at property eight years ago. i also looked at my grandmother child now deceased, who also resided in one of these apartments. during the time i lived there, i observed certain things. the old roof started to fail causing leakage into the upstairs units. the building owners and a lot of funds to maintain the roof and prevent further water damage. the brand-new i was told of anyone was more than they could offer. my grandmother was over 80 years at the time lived in a top-level units and for her safety we relocated her into a downstairs units. i do not want to tip the navigate the steep stairs in order to take her garbage down to the ground level. there were frequent repairs to appliances windows and electrical systems. the

only open space was the 12 foot wide interior courtyard with a rare stairs that occupied that part of it in the trash areas outside the rest of it. the configuration of the units prevented the optimal amount of light to reach each of the apartments. if the bathrooms do not look into the courtyard there would've been natural light. i hear that it's been changed in the new plans. with your support i believe that future residents of the building will enjoy living in this north beach apartment updated to today's welding codes and safety standards. thank you. >> thank you. any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? seeing none,, dr request to have 2 min. to rebut. >> thank you commissioners. so, there are two arguments that the project sponsor is making an both are disingenuous. the first one

that they argue they couldn't get-they do not have the money. they left the building empty for eight years. they left-they first the relatives moved out and they consider renting those units at the market rate at the time, they didn't and la subject us act or not she. they involve giving payments to each of the tenants. they involve restrictions on the building. and they chose that. they chose to leave a building empty for eight years. on top of that, they are saying i can now they are saying they want your help in solving the affordability affordable housing prices and this problem of the been a shortage of units. they caused the shortage of units. the evicted people to make their plans go through. more important, the disingenuous about the condition of the building. mr. you, one of the tenants the only tenant who

spoke on their side of folks related to the owners according to mr. you, it was a nice place to get a one bed apartment very comfortable for us and our families the conditions of the unit were good and we had no posters promise with the building and you don't have to take his word for it. the ddi records at the time shows there were no known code violations of the building by regular inspections between 2000-26. if there had been problems in the building the required everyone to be evicted the building would've been red tagged. there are solutions to-you don't do in else it action just to fix the stairs. you'll two analysis action to upgrade the electrical. people do alice addictions to make more money. they don't reward them for doing this. thank you very much >> thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> quickly a correction. you can never be tic units after ellis act san francisco lauper bids that. by the way, they do have to invite back displaced

tenants and in fact we been talking to malcolm young at sea cdc who went out when we suggested it to look for those tenants would of course have to come back because the 10 years has not passed. let me talk a little bit about bmr units because my client suggesting it would be willing to do to. but not at $600 a month which is what was suggested. my cc these. it just not possible. it's possible at 100% ami and i want to talk to you about that for a minute. 100% ami would either between 2000-2200 depending on when the units are ready. over 30 years of the lender would look at it all one-bedroom at 1% ami to the loss of $486,000 in income, twice that of course would be

972. how was that calculated spiel market rent today is about 3300, less $2000, 2000 been 100% ami would be today. that would be feasible. otherwise, it's just cannot happen. you may ask me later how is it that my client can arrange some binding arrangement to have units when this is not new construction and you also may ask me how is it possible that they can be both given to former renters and to teachers. one more thing. recently heard-overhead, please, we recently found that the check that came in, someone who works for sea cdc came in on 28 january. the period ended on the 20th so i reserve my right later to challenge whether there should be a dr accepted at all on this matter.

thank you very much. >> thank you. this portion of the hearing is close. i have not started off in the prior 18 items were 15 times whenever it is,. i do understand this does set a bad precedent and for me it would cross as is you across the personal moral bright line to basically and i think the word is, allow the eviction in the city. i think there some things are just not quite adding up in terms of the need to upgrade the building when get it appears there are no building inspection violations or history of them. the

building sat vacant for eight years. didn't generate any income at all which is public quite a bit of money even at lower rents and over the time of that eight year begin building the building owner deteriorates even worse to great more of a downward spiral when you need to actually fix the building up more. it was good for people to get up here to say they were ellis act evicted. it actually puts a face on it. for a lot of us, i don't know any friends who been ellis act either did. for a lot of us it's theoretical and then when you actually see people say there were ellis act evicted its becomes personal. i'm sorry for ms. lee for lapeer appreciate all the folks that spoke. it is hard for me to follow the logic train around framing there's a crisis when by the crisis was created by the people sitting in this room. i do think that when i see what happens i really see the face of ruin lives could i see the face of eviction. i see a city economically culturally and the social fabric of the city being ripped apart. the

diversity, multi-generation, i just really have a hard time hearing and have a hard time not voting to take dr and figure out what to do this project will be need to do. commissioner antonini >> thank you. yes, as one who owns a family property, outside of san francisco, i can understand the situation. as a property owner, it doesn't mean you are going to throw every cent you have into the property to keep it going even if you could. you stop living expenses of your own. fortunately, it's not in an area that is rent controlled so as we have to make improvements, we can raise rents. judiciously and fairly. and we can also pass on the expenses to the tenants who are there. again, fairly and

judiciously. with things that aren't allowed in san francisco. so i can certainly understand the dilemma the older owners may have faced eight years ago when they had some people claim their notices of violation, the project sponsor says the opponent say they aren't any. i don't really know. somebody is not telling the truth. but it sounds to me from the description and looking at that pictures, there were a lot of things that were not really very good in a lot of those that were built 100 years ago. they have a lot of structural problems could electrical, plumbing, stairs. many many things that needed to be upgraded to make the unit say. you may be technically able to get along with people living there. as people lived in mission district in unsafe buildings that are getting burned up all the time because they're not upgraded because there's an economically infeasible often to do it. were

there landlords won't spend the money on. whatever reason it is, it doesn't mean just because they have not been red tagged that they are sick. so, there is room for to believe there was problems. i can understand that they do not have enough cash to do it at her personal funds. the rents were not carried. they could not raise the rents and they could not get a loan which makes a lot of sense now the younger generation has put together a plan to try to make this doable. the other thing that strikes me about this is a lot of it was occupied by family members could somewhere they can. and there were a few tenants were living there that were unrelated. so, it's basically a family property has some nonrelated renters in it. i kind of believe you ought to be able to work with your own property and approve it if you can possibly do it. so, i would like to mr. gladstone, you told me something i want to talk to you for a second, please about this possibility. i understand that there's a few things that you offered to do. i understand you were willing to set aside some units for teachers

specifically could somewhere like 50% of the bmr rate or maybe more than that number more units. let me know what your plan is >> the ideas with entering intuitive element agreement with the city that two units and, you know, it could be pushed i suppose higher if the client could do the numbers. it would be rented at 100% bmr ami that is for bmr which is $2000 a month instead of the market rates of 32, 33, 34 depending on the site. they would be one-bedroom units and of course subject to the old tenants coming back which they allowed to come back because the clients haven't waited 10 years having first rights, the client would like to offer for instance, to those in the public sector who can afford

what should be in the city but perhaps the teachers would be the most prominent could they would do that by privately agreement with such a group of course subject to the old tenants wanting to come back. that's basically how it would work. development agreements can be done because the cities giving a concession here. if a property owner gets concession from the city in this case the variance, and your permit, in return for that, the law allows the property owner to voluntarily enter into an agreement to lower rents for 30 years and that is what would be done in the development agreement. >> the other thing you mentioned is still-i've heard this complaint about the dax, which probably we could do without. certainly, the private decks. >> yes, i mean if the commission-we did take off the

penthouse stairs and the private decks. but if there were no private decks at all, that would be fine. there would still be recuperating a public deck on the met outside of the people would have it. that would be appropriate. everyone who is there whether they are low-income tenants or not, could benefit by some open space. there's none on the lot today. >> again, it would have some that would have be provided e you have a requirement to provide this amount of open space. >> i'm not sure requirement applies today because these units are grandfathered in. we might as the zoning administrator. they were built when it was open space requirement. were not adding unit so i'm not totally clear on whether there's a requirement but we do it whether there's a requirement or not. >> we can find a. thank you mr. gladstone. >> thank you. >> zoning administrator a couple questions. first of all, but the open space requirement. if it can be satisfied without the provision of any dax would seem to be arguing point for

some of the opponents that's okay with me. and also the stairs the variances of the new stairs which are second means of egress have to go into the backyard. so that's why they need the variance. maybe comment on those? >> that's good. the building is currently deficient with regards to usable open space. it's illegal and nonconforming regards to that. they can't continue maintaining that nonconformity. there's no obligation on their part to provide usable open space. even though would bring it closer to conformance with the code and yes, the rear yard variances required good dark portions of the roof deck looking within the required your beer yard but also the space between the two buildings and where they are reconfiguring this stairs and extending the building envelope does trigger the variance for the rear yard. >> so a common deck on the

band building would be in closer conformity in open space? >> yes. >> that makes a lot of sense. so those are my main feelings. i think this is a decrepit old building that nobody is living it now and what's happened in the past has happened. what we have to do is decide how we can get this fixed up to be rentable two people in the future preferably some below-market rates and make it livable housing that can be used again. i love this family to create a livable place. so, that's my position on this. >> commissioner wu >> thanks. so, number one, mr. gladstone, i think is insinuating my employer is allison so we can either go get i think that citing ellis act is a goal in and of itself. nothing to do with real estate desires. so, i will leave that to decide. being a landlord also is kind of like running a

small business, aye. you can be a limo. you can rent out units as they are, as they come onto the market them at the market rate at the time that you can spend the money to upgrade your building. i think it's very true you don't need to ellis the sixth or fix an electrical problem. holding the building off the market for eight years i think is in direct violation of the policy. number two and number three, the priority policy for the city. so, for me, i mean, a baseline of no private decks, i don't know there's a need for a common deck. if you are going to come into conformance with all the most recent standards i think one question but to be sort of less out of compliance not sure that really gets you anywhere. i did want to ask the staff, if we did something like take drm disapprove the project with that means? >> that would be of course

ultimately appealable to the board of appeals. that action on the building permit application. it would not preclude them from doing other work on the building that may be necessary to allow it to be restored to residential use. >> so that work would happen either through a different permit or may not need permits if it's small amount work? >> absolutely. these issues were raised about building violation and i don't mr. gladstone has evidence of any violations. i did look at the history. yet throughout the 2000's work apartment building subject to inspections by department building inspection, housing inspections services. most of the time they did not find it think it a couple times a divine minor problems that were quickly corrected. the other thing violations on the property ashley seemed to be sins of the ellis act of the building there was an plaintiff from 2014 about standing water on the roof. i'm assuming that's gone out. and then also

the paint and the many many complaints about the deteriorating façade of the building. if i make a just to add on one of things we do see that the board of appeals about people trying to upgrade the building on how to do so without impacting tenants and i would have a question i did have for the project sponsor was given that of the 16 units, the number of units, i think that five were occupied by family and the omega were occupied by other folks. if the family members were to have left couldn't the rotated people to the units and upgraded the other units? at something which is if what that's an opportunity. i wondered why that wasn't done in this case. federal the project sponsor has a response for that? >> thank you. that's helpful. >> thank you. commissioner trent johnson johnson. >> thank you. so, interesting, interesting case here. i will

say a couple of things. i think just in general in terms of-i'm not going to propose we use the dr decision and base it solely on the fact the building was ellis acted. what i will say is that sort of piggybacking on the zoning administrator's comments, it was certainly the wrong tool for what the family was trying to achieve if we are to take them at their word in their application response and what they said today. there are tools to be able to do capital improvements to buildings with tenants in the building or if it substantial improvements there are other tools that you can use better step below the ellis act that you can use if you need have tenants not in the units when you're doing the work. so, certainly, the ellis act was the wrong tool for the

goal that the owners family and owners were trying to achieve. when i look at this, the one thing that i will say is i do believe some of the renters are super low and i think there's something to the argument that in terms of when they do the improvements, the finance new stuff costs money. right. i'm not sure that even in the future when they do these capital improvements that you're going to be able to have units that are foreign $50 a month. i don't think were the quite get there. but certainly, i think that what is being proposed here is clearly excessive and not in the public and good i will tell you why. i look at the project itself sort of take a step back from the circumstances surrounding how we got here today, it sounds like there is more movement towards not having the private debt potentially not having the roof decks. the cardigan scaled back to some extent with a couple of continuances and if

you don't have sort of that those expansions to create more open space, then the reconfiguration of the building doesn't really get you anything in terms of making it more compliant with having additional open space. so, although the project may currently the building may currently be set up where it's maybe not necessarily ideal if you're going into a blank space in building a building. that's not necessarily what you would get it what's proposed here isn't even though it's going to be shining and new with newer material, and usability and livability, really isn't that much of an improvement in my mind over what is there right now. other than the fact that it's new work among newer materials and that sort of thing. so, for that reason i am not really inclined to see this as necessary and huge improvement and when you add

back on the circumstances that got us to hear i mean, there's other tools for the family to reach their goals of getting this building on the market and having it available for future residential use. so i don't know that i feel particularly good about this project and what's been presented to us today. >> thank you. commissioner mar >> i want to ask ms. burress a quick reality check on mr. gladstone said regarding bmr. this comes obviously out of the room. none of us have heard it before and is there any reality to this? i assume you're always very critical we talked we specialize condition. could you just a moment give out a little bit of background? >> deputy city attorney milo born. i spoke to staff about this earlier. it's my understanding there's no application freighted moments agreement. that is been filed for this project. without that

process moving forward, if the project sponsor were interested in pursuing that than the commission would need to continue this item today so that we could have an application made for a development agreement that those are all easily as you know, negotiated agreements between the project sponsor and the city to take time to develop. so we would need to negotiate that with the project sponsor and make sure there was adequate consideration on both sides for something of that nature. until we got to that point, then you wouldn't want to make these approvals for the project. >> i really appreciate that short synopsis. i kind of was expecting that you would say that because we have many times been put into our proper place to liking an idea but between liking or thinking it is an ingredient of discussion there is a bridge to reality which we are far away from. it has been apparently spun in a moment. we could decide to continue the project because it's really a serious consideration and then discuss it with everything else

which comes with an agreement of that sort at its time. i am very very increasingly disturbed hearing people who have been displaced in ellis acted. become so most like an emotional burden. i see it in the neighborhood where i live. in the last seven years. buildings all around me, 360° around and i live at the upper edge of chinatown to all those buildings are empty. and all the people i at least do by seeing them i do not know their names, but i knew they were of all creeds and colors and of all ages. they are all gone. mostly when i step out of my house these days i don't see anybody anymore. when i look up at those buildings i see either empty rooms or curtains which are never opened anymore. it's starts to create a very difficult burden for me. so, if

there's a reality to considering any of what mr. gladstone hinted on, i'm prepared to continue this project and have other people look at it to create terms by which this building could move into a bona fide future, not the one that's proposed here today and we will look at it again. so i moved to continue this project. >> okay. >> the zoning administrator and ms. burns expertise to give a day. it's not about design anymore. it's about all different negotiation and >> i would second that >> baby i suggest an definite continuance given the complexities wrong run the development process. >> it would be what the zone administrator suggested. >> very good commissioners. i just wanted the questions i have for commissioner moore i said city attorney would be if

we get an agreement is in place for whatever the number of units or whatever the income level. i'd like to understand the analysis of what are we getting for it but that period of time. i need have some basis upon which i would approve this pocket. >> that can certainly be part of the package that would ultimately be brought back before you. that analysis. we don't have that at this time >> sure. >> it would be to discussions whether it's to bmr units or four >> i guess question for the dr requesters. would you came up to the microphone, please? please, come on up. the question i have is by the sponsor comes and offers something in return for us granting him the amounts to move forward. what you think of that? what is the threshold requiring to get that >> i don't we have-i think we need to discuss this among the larger community. because this

is a major effect and i don't think what they're talking about is enough. i do think that this suggestion made about not allowing short-term rentals at all is a good one. given that short-term rentals should not be happening at all at this neighborhood. his 10,000 of them now in this and get this of things we want to talk about i think >> so you it's for continuance while this is all hashed out? >> yes, i think it has to be. >> we need time. >> i thought is that this should be disapproved and we go back to the drawing board about what we wanted to get if they want to do a variance they should go back to the drawing board >> thank you. i guess mr. gladstone one question that keeps bugging me. you get a vacant building with 16 units probably can get in this neighborhood eight-$10 a square foot. ren/rent somebody coming in. when i just we have the existing building with the existing units because they're actually more affordable by design and bigger units?

>> i looked at the architect here into that question because he did the reconfiguration did he knows why they're a good idea better than me. i just want to emphasize them i do think cd easy to were very genuine and i insinuate nothing could i think i think them for the hard work with us. thanks. go ahead >> paul d'amato, architect. i think the more expensive to rehab the building as is because it's so convoluted. the stairs are interconnected and what it is that the reader porches have been filled in over the hundred years the buildings existence so it's all kind of con pulled together. most of our work is in affordable housing we do we have some apartment buildings. that's really the bulk of our work. it's just sometimes it's greater to do a clean addition, new, then try to kind of piecemeal improvements to

plumbing electrical structural, the stare rise configuration we try to simplify. right now, the stairs you see the existing drawings, the sister each other. the zigzag together. you can't just do one and then do the other one. we come up with a new plan with the two stairs are separated and they're kind of contiguous among themselves. so much better design. >> if we were supporting definite continuance is, i don't know about my fellow commissioners whether members of the community but like to go in the building and see what it's like. i'd like to take a look at the existing condition. okay. commissioner antonini >> yes. the other thing that was in the report baby architect can confirm this. it appears what was happening with these units is there were three rooms the role being used as bedrooms. perhaps there was a kitchen. there was no common space. i mean, like most units have a hallway or common space like a living room or common

space that is in the bedroom could i understand they were often the number bedroom counts included all common space. that's partly what you're redesigning >>? >> that i would get visas and configuration the kitchens are separate from the other three habitable rooms. so for example, we are combining what are the habitable rooms with a kitchen to make a living room great room. i mean a tiny room. it just modernizing the units but the unit sizes are pretty much the same same the same size. >> well, thank you unsupported. i think there is we can come up with a project that can provide some housing perhaps provide some affordable units if everything works out and restore the building structurally not very good shape. >> commissioner wu >> i guess i am wondering how

much time the city should spend on doing something like ada. i think that's negotiate with ammo oewd. is that right? if an application were to go when? >> deputy city attorney. because what they're proposing are potentially bmr units we sell they would want to involve the mayor's office of housing and negotiation. >> i just wonder how much little in asking them to take this on get their limited time with everything going on in the city right now. i am open to hearing if there's some expiration of it but am open to hearing them come back to the planning department say look this is not something we want to be spending our time on. i think that all of the programs i mean all the units in their rental program are at either 55 or 60% of ami. so i would not be supportive of creating a kind of special for this building. so, i guess all that is a am open to [inaudible] could >> commissioner moore

>> i appreciate what commissioner wu just said. i think you only reason why i possibly would do that to the continuance that we tonight do not have any ability to really in an informed way speak about it. we could have a shorter timeframe which is basically testing the waters to see that something workable comes out of it but it really needs meets resistance everywhere then i think that has to be another path. are you prepared to [inaudible] >> commissioner hillis >> i'm supportive also. i think it's i share many of the concerns of my fellow commissioners. but i would be inclined to disapprove this as a was proposed to us today but i think that the ability to continue give the city and the

dr requester an opportunity to explore these other options. it may not be feasible. it may come back to us but were kind of on record of not liking and leaning towards disapproval of the current price. oddly that spurs some action on the behalf of the project sponsor >> right get i think one more party would come up with emi level be consistent with a bmi levels we have already. that they actually manages >> i could not [inaudible] >> i think the bmr units would need to be at the same a my levels the portfolio we had already it is commissioner wu said. 50%, not 100. commissioners, there's a motion and seconded to continue this pattern definitely. one omission or >>[roll call vote]. some of commissioners that motion passes unanimously 670.

thank you zoning administrator. commissioners that a place is on item 28-beeper case number 2015-002632. >>[reading code] >> good evening commissioners. just. department staff. the item before you is a request for discretionary review of the proposed project 1152 potrero avenue. the proposals of vertical and horizontal addition to add to dwelling is an existing single family dwelling. during the public notification period request for discretionary view was filed in the discretionary review project sponsor provide project to address the concerns in the dr application it provides project triggered a second

would notice as well as a front setback variance. residential design team reviewed the rise project and is an abbreviated discretionary view department did not request further changes to the project. since may 26 when received the commission packet there's been four letters of support and three letters in opposition. which i provided copies for the commission tonight. as a project provides your setbacks along northern property line a three-story massing at the front with a setback of the fourth floor maintains the raised entry provides matching to the [inaudible] to be consistent. with the character and skill the neighborhood and the barman recommends the commission to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i'm available should there be any questions. >> thank you mr. spears. dr requester. you have 5 min. >> good evening commissioners.

there've been multiple levels of misrepresentation on the part of project sponsor. these include, adding nonconforming square footage to inflate the scale and depth of the existing home. misrepresenting the depth of the garage limiting a back wall. omitting this would raise comments from the pre-application notes. they claim they're only two historical resources on our block. they also claim they've done considerable outreach and that i do not respond to an offer made early on. the proposal on the original 311 notice included a 40 foot tall four-story pitch building with a 20 foot three-story overlap of the lopez family home. the revisions on the current proposal are negligible. the only relief offered is a modest 3 foot side setback with the lopez home is overlap. the pitch roof was eliminated. however, for 311 notice is the height of the building remains

the same at 40 feet. the overhead, please. the bulk of the building was reduced by only 15 ft.2. third and fourth floor were simply good for. the revisions do nothing to mitigate the negative impact on our homes, the character of our block were the established stepped out of the may block area. the proposal has eight is proportionate amount of square footage dedicated to hall's stairs and that. every bedroom has its own bath. youtube doesn't even have a common area bathroom. it is clear project sponsor is no building family houses. the design is for units or single bedroom rentals. they will not be affordable to members of our community and contribute to gentrification. we ask that you consider the structures on our block are not a random mix of buildings of this 16 structures on the

potrero side of the block, six are deemed historic resources and additional to a potentially historic. block 40 11 includes a string of modest two-story single-family homes on hampshire street. these homes are relevant to any proposal involving potrero side of the block. the extensive auto alterations proposed will eliminate any trace of the 1907 edwardian home. please, preserve this home on the merits of the second of the priority policies in general plan. if the development is allowed we ask that the fourth floor be removed . the depth be reduced by 10 feet with no debt so privacy concerns are mitigated. that the north elevation windows that overlook the entire open space of the lopez family home be removed and the edwardian façade the meeting. project the project sponsor [inaudible] i committed evidence to support

my objections. my motives are simple get i care. i took out my home. my neighbors, my community and the turn-of-the-century architecture of the mission in san francisco they miss work. i respectfully ask that you consider the evidence we presented and preserve the single-family home. it is well we load the 1.63 billion threshold for affordability and this alteration will eliminate the home. it's a very the variances approved read of him and as allowed we asked the revisions request be applied get thank you very much. >> hello. my name is diana gomez. as a community we are extremely frustrated by what appears to be very lopsided support of the planning department to allow developers to destroy the integrity and beauty of our historically significant neighborhood. these developers are being given carte blanche to build higher density structures with no

regard to how the structures will negatively impact the surrounding home. a particular block is made up of know many families part of this community in some cases for multiple decades. as homeowners and residents it is a priority to protect our existing homes and retain the charm of her street. project sponsor 1152 potrero simply a business venture. their goal is to make the highest return on their investment. they're not involved in the community. they do not plan on residing in the building by their actions they should no regard for how the project will impact the family that you reside here. we are not unreasonable as project sponsor would have you believe. we simply ask that you compel them to do the right thing by scaling down the bulk and height of the buildings so does not negatively impact the surrounding homes while also retaining the charm of the victorian façade so it fits in with a historic neighborhood. we strongly believe this could be a compost so it is a win-win

for everyone. thank you. >> either members of the public in support of the dr? >> hello. i have a couple of things a couple pictures i want to share with you guys. i do know because when i take a look at these. i made a couple couple copies for you guys. sorry about don't have enough for you guys. i only made a couple sets but it is several pictures. also, want to see by can use the projector to show you guys some of these pictures so the public can also see some of this? again, thank you get them under you guys i've been here since 12 pm just like i have. but i want to start off with this picture. this paper. i don't know if you guys could see that but if i read it to you it says, giving this is a direct quotation, two. sorry this is a direct quote that you guys know. given the current

dilapidated physical condition of the neighboring structure and the most recent zoning changes as a matter of time before the neighboring structure is demolished in order to build a new apartment building. now, i know this quote might've just been said without even though his a patient on actually getting to know the person that live there but again, i'm the property owner at 1146. we have lived there for about 24 years. my brother by younger brother has been there for most of his life. he moved in there when he was six years old. i have the change in the neighborhood i have seen the people coming in and out of the neighborhood and i'm honestly not too happy with , you know, the i guess i don't know the climate of the people that are surrounded my home. but, with-this is the very first picture and i'm sorry i get nervous but back in 2008 there was a construction at 1140

good i also thought that. i wish i would've thought a little bit more because then i wouldn't have to be dealing with some of the struggles that i've had to deal with not being that the main source of income that was coming to our home is gone. so, you can see some of these pictures. this is my window. so you can see it's a 3-5 inches away from eyewear. the building. 11 four. i'm just showing you guys 1140. it's not as big as 1150 but just seeing when they decide to put some of these. you can see that the deck. that's right outside of my brothers window. so, you see my window, my brothers window. even worse now, you'll see my

sisters window. now, this my sister being 10 years old, she's had to since she was 10, she is now 19 going to college and she's had to deal with men partying right outside of her house. i mean right outside of the window for the past 10 years. that's what she's had to deal with. now, here's another picture of the affect of that house. how that has just demolished, messed up, the foundation of my house. >> thank you, severe unfortunately your time is up. but the commissioners may have some questions for you later. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm here to speak on behalf of my brother. who is also the owner of 1146 potrero avenue. we been living there like you said my whole life. we've seen the negative impacts that we've had to deal with from the structure being built of 1140 and with this building

being much bigger, the effects will be even more negative and worse on our structure of our home. we just want to extremely put our opposition on this structure being built on the other side of our house. so that we can have more light and have a better living situation in the house and the league owned for over 25 years. >> i am--the owner of the 1146. i am [inaudible] to this building because you know, i'm a single mother and since i support my children, i tried the best i can to pay my bills and everything. i can't compete with those kind of people. they tried to build a huge building.

i just have a [inaudible] in the affordable family like us, single-family, and i really need to keep like my neighbor said, keeping the family houses because i know since my neighbors my children grown up over there and i really need all those things because 1140 after that are building every three months different people, to my neighborhood. every three months, people, and make noise. it's smoking, worse things. even i don't feel safe like before when my children were growing up. that same thing will happen if you let this building this thing because the main planning is making a room for rent. so, we don't know

people, families, to communicate and you know, our culture is more like be a friend . we know our neighbors. we come in from other countries like our culture is like that. talking and i feel so weird. after the building that next building because nobody talk to me. nobody-they're looking weird and my kids even because i don't know. that's why i'm very complaint and also another effect on my house i cannot afford to fix my house like the billionaire there are. i am very poor family. i just i'm doing housecleaning. i'm not making more than 700 a week. so, that's why i really asking

you guys if you can help me. now, my children are grown up that's why they're talking about me. i know my other neighbors are getting he evicted. the other building because private emotional problem and [inaudible] not complaining about but please, help me. help me to keeping my house because i look at everything but my husband and many things that i can tell but please, i ask for help. help if you can. i'm very appreciative. thank you for your time. have a great night. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm bryant humberto lopez seconds on. i didn't reside in at 1146 for 24 years now. we are fighting against 1152. 1152, which is

south of us. so, 1140 which is north of us has cause now only too much shade upon our house but also because of the shade gathers moisture and others mold on the wall. now because of the 1140 this mold on north side of our house. so much shade that is caused by that house and not only is 11 6620 be bigger than 1140 and is going to cause more shade and were going to be boxed in basically. so, mold, you know, causes corrosion. after corrosion than what? so, this is one photo here. this is the bathroom. on the back which is right next to 1140. because of that the demolition with a

construction that was going on in 2008 basically that is about an inch and a quarter that our floor is actually gone down. and this-this is the shade am talking about. this is actually 1152, the north wall. that's already causing more. what they want to do is link up a few feet , not a few like 10 feet or 20 feet and believe it or not it's really going to impact our household a lot more than they think. so, thank you for your time. have a good night. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. 1125

hampshire should i'm one of your neighbors. first i like to as the commission to consider a couple for irregularities. i was apprised by the 311 notification goes never invited to the preplanning meeting my right to the meeting with the advocate for the three one meeting i discovered three of my neighbors had received-not my neighbors had received notification either some of those addresses 10 with my address is not on the list. the other thing is as noted, in their plans for the existing site they mischaracterized the rear wall. to the marking the end of the structure they might be end of the large unwanted awning that covers large part the backyard. just a tween the lack of neighborhood notebook

notification and that is honest characterization of the site alone i like the commission accepted the yard and send back to start over and take have another opportunity to really listen to the neighbors concerns and choose their design in response to a. the neighbor to the north the lives i dennis offer most impact from the project to say that their concerns are warranted because they're sooner house we motion her place by apartment building [inaudible] have bad feelings about developers but this is really like recklessly seven sensitive and disgraceful. i don't have the technical background to understand the demolition calculations are looking at with her is now in what they want after i don't understand how this is an aye will demolition. if, with a variance of 1.1 or 1.2 million well below the 1.3 million affordability threshold if the commission in any of their review of the demolition calculations the anything interesting i urge you to ask staff to explain and understand those calculations. for the folks on hampshire street, they want to put to we have eczema

building which will have a negative effect on our privacy and the loss-a lot of noise could project sponsors has offered to do some men skipping in the back to mitigate the loss of visual privacy did i don't know if this commission can require that as a condition. i also don't think there's any way to do that the future tenants can be compelled to keep that landscaping up your sort still a risk. most of the neighbors on hampshire street are posed as you can see from the petition that circulated in the document. finally, it's the height. i mean, it's another huge four-story box that is no place on the street. they're filling it with three multilevel luxury apartments. why not put three or four more modest two-bedroom family apartments in a three-story structure? there's some thought later this evening about what size constitutes family unit. by the architect on the spindle project i live at 974 square-foot project with

a wife and child and is comfortable. i think this commission wants to promote affordable housing was going to be 1200-800 square-foot two-bedroom units one and two bathrooms. it's not a bbs 2500 square-foot mansion condos with three bathrooms and bowing out. thank you for consideration. >> thank you. next speaker. >> sue hester. i was here about seven years ago when i was ed gomez family attorney. when 1140 potrero came through the commission. i'm sorry kathryn is not here because she was the one that kept asking him to go back and redo the plan. this is the other property on the other side of the lopez family house which is the house that sits always back at the rear property line.

there have been so many problems with how this has been handled good i really have a hard time relating it. the 311 notice has deceptive plans to put it mildly. bedding department should've caught them before they issued it. because they said they were building at the end of a structure that it's a one-sided thing that has all washer and dryer in the backyard. it's not a structural wall. but the whole thing started from that. the planning department look at the mass as being a mass that did not exist. illegal construction in the rear yard is a wall. it's not an extension of the building. secondly, the cree application meeting was a farce. it didn't really involve the people that were right next to the project. they used the old

homeowners. as one of their people. mr. gomez had really struggles to get treated with a little bit of informed respect by the planning department and the developer. that got even goes beyond saying. mr. gomez really struggled with 1140 and the planning commission struggled with 1140. the solution was mod today, that's proposed by the staff is you can fill in the building ali back to the front of the lopez family house, which is 1146. that's not a solution. you are consigning to hellish living in the lopez family. it's not right. you've heard today

neighbors from very different neighborhoods having a real struggle with what's happening in tir neighborhood. this in this instance, it's spanish-speaking families who live there a long time. a really long time. that are being displaced by an owner wants to max out the site and basically throw the lopez family to the wolves. you should not do that. the planning department shouldn't do that get the planning department staff should not do that. but the planning commission you guys should say is not ready to be approved. think. >> things get any additional speakers in support of the dr? seeing none,, project sponsor you have 5 min. >> thank you commissioner john kaplan. with on behalf of the project sponsor. [inaudible]. i

just want setback for a minute and acknowledge tonight the commission has heard a number of similar type cases. extension of existing residential buildings of the guys in that the commission is looking at these often and having some struggles with them really want to urge the commission to take a fresh look at this project. i think it is distinct from some of the others you look at tonight. i want to make that clear. this is actually a great opportunity to increase the density on the site while doing it in a sensitive way. we've got an existing building right now that is 3000 ft.2 single-family home not rent-controlled but very efficiently laid out and it simply not preferable in some in terms of what would be at this site. with the project proposes is increasing the size of the home but creating three total dwelling units within average or unit size ranging from 1100-1400 ft.2. these are luxury units. these are not

enormous homes. this is take a 3000 square-foot single-family home and creating three but smaller units and almost certainly renting or selling for less. the new structure incorporates a basically everything that the residential design guidelines ask for. if i can get the projector, please? is because i plan up. the depth of the third and fourth floor but held back at the first of building wall of the adjacent building to the south. the fourth floor is setback 11 feet from the front building. line and 15 feet from the front property line. there is a light well matching the south building from the second floor above. there is also another light well on the north property line facing the front parking area of the neighborhood north of neighbor building. and with perspective the reader go to the north residential outlines have

specific rules for this exact situation. they call for a side step back for the new construction along the side of that building and that's exactly what this project does. there's a 3 foot side setback provide at the second floor and above and the north building is actually already a foot or two of the property line. so you've got 4-5 feet of separation between the buildings where they do cross each other. to improve privacy the third-floor deck at the reader is said that a full 8 feet from the property line. than most importantly, there is a roof deck but it is externally small. 9 ft.2. as a roof deck proposed a small but it's right at the center of the roof very much away and taken care of privacy. in either direction. rod has been in touch with the dr request was brought this process. this been quite a bit of back-and-forth interaction working with staff. clearly, height has always been the issue here. the originally was a pitched roof proposed. rod has removed that and regards with flat roof design.

looking at it even more closely, we can actually probably take another 2 feet off the top which gets us 9 foot floors for the top three floors floor to ceiling. again modest size. not your huge luxury what you expected a luxury unit. and we can also in looking at it get rid of the penthouse at the top seed got a hatchet and a complete flat roof of the top which will further be to that issue. so, the result is a project that really does fit into the character of this mixed neighborhood. first with her stick to the height if i could get the projector again. so, looking south on the block here's the existing build. next three buildings to the south three floors three stories. and for stories with no setback of

the street. of course the project is proposed is three stories of the street with 50 foot setback. looking to the north, we've got a commendation of obviously one, two, three story building setback. at the upper levels. looking more across the street now again more three-story buildings. again, two-three-story building. it's really a mixed block. just a reminder, portrayer oh is 100 feet wide. so it's another one of these is the tapestry there really can accommodate more i get back to save this extremely tall building but it is one of the sizes of the street that can accommodate greater height. perspective the depth of the building, the red line is where the rear of the building is going to be. the project is going to be. as you can see, very mixed and by no means is this going to be the deepest building can in fact limits can be one of the less the buildings on the block. the building extends 8 feet less than the required rear yard seven not even pushing out. thank you commissioners could >> thank you. this portion of the public hearing is close. >> we may solicit public comment in support >> i'm sorry. any speakers in

support of the project sponsor? seeing none, dr requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> from the handout clearly you can see these are not distorted photographs but one project sponsor lawyer should. these are from google maps. the midblock of this block was conceived of six single-family homes. they're all one story over in 2005, was identical project was put forward that it was defeated unanimously here and we prevailed at the appeals board with only one dissenting vote. it was reintroduced in 2007 is a three-story building.

this commission came back close from rejecting the project but just took an extra floor off the back. now, the other thing is the barriers that these guys are requesting the majority of the houses on this block have a 15 foot front setback or more. and in their application i was insulted and i'm not even the lopez family. i mean, they pretty much they don't understand the struggles that it takes to buy a house and keeping house in san francisco. they pretty much made their home of foregone conclusion is going to be demolished. it's ludicrous. they don't care about our neighborhood. the type of housing the building doesn't fit in. more importantly, the height. the height and the historic nature of this block. half of the structures, the total structures, the 16 lots on this block are deemed six historic to potentially historic. that's 50% it is not unusual for the

mission district but we need our historical resources protected. please, assist me in that and this is been protecting nobel prize family home there was greatly damaged by 1140 and unfortunately, they had some very very severe personal issues and were able to continue the fight. i didn't know about them until recently and so they were damaged beyond where they should've been. this is going to really really put their house in the shade 24 hours a day. it's not right. it's not necessary. please, take these things into consideration. thank you. >> thank you. isaac sponsor you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you commissioners. again i want to emphasize the bare-bones of this project. we got a 3000 ft.2 single family home right now. a home that if it were to go on the rental or for so market really is not to be an affordable home. we know that this project is going to create three new dwelling units 1100-1400 ft.2 did modest size. if three unit building again it's not luxury. but certainly i do recognize you know the

challenges that staff the commission and we all are working through to achieve our goals of one, increased urban housing can increase the density and transit which neighborhoods while the same time being sensitive to the existing neighborhood and the existing neighbors. rod and his group have been more than willing to work through design changes to up improve that. they have been-this is what we've ended up and i just want to emphasize with the commission that we got a good project here. we are willing to work with you and it achieves a lot of city goals in the neighborhood there really does have a mixed character. so, thank you and we are here for any questions. >> thank that concludes this portion of the hearing. >>[gavel] commissioner antonini >> yes. in understand this project a neighboring house you

have to realize that that 1146 is nonconforming in that it set back 48'11" from the street. so, that is part of the problem. it's the fact that this is a nonconforming. if conforming it would be in front of the lot. with staff has told us in which our rules dictate, if you have a kind of situation you have to be respectful. so, when you look at the plans for 1152 the higher part of it before story stops just at the very beginning of the 1146 and there's a 3 foot one-story area that adjoins that and then it steps down quickly to two floors and most of it is a rear yard. so, that's about the only way this can even be built in there because it would be code for them to build a new structure all the way in the back as the 1146 good it would be even more impact because it would be adjacent to agree to their south. so, at least it's offset. so that part is good.

the sizes of these units, 1100 feet-1400 ft.2 a reasonably sized townhouse units. each have one is a three bedroom and the other one has two bedrooms. so, i think the kind of units that would appeal to perhaps a family were at least have enough bedrooms to make that possible. so, it's a good trade-off considering that the other house is just a larger single-family home that's kind of not too well laid out. as far as the façade the my content to sympathize with the neighbors. they did a good job actually on the design of the façade. it looks a little bit more like a belongs where these all glass things but we might be able to work a little bit more torque to try to bring more of the victorian or edwardian omens into it to make it look a little bit more like the structures along the

street. that would help a lot. the other thing they've got is that that are really big backyard. is 33 feet, 4 inches, and the landscaping is important and that certainly would be a condition that i would want to impose if we can approve this project because i think they've got try to put some sort of a buffer at the very end of it. the places on hampshire. i think it tends to respect the adjacent property as much as they possibly can. i think the height is fine. project sponsor was 40. i think he said it's not going to knock it down to 36. is that correct? the height? >> [inaudible] >> so the penthouses justin popovic. the highest part with envy 38 if i'm not mistaken it from doing the math right. it's in a 55 foot zone. at the highest part. much of it, the other part are not four-story quite a bit lower. so, those are set back 15 feet from the front and i forget the setback

from the back but it's very significant, too. the things well laid out. i'm in favor of the project. >> commissioner hillis >> mr. kaplan said we've seen a lot of these today. i'm not opposed to a project on here in one of skipping i like the fact that you've got three units in relatively modest size units. but i think it just needs to respond better to what's there in the context. we do have a house that setback. he kind of mines the of the langley project if you are here during that. i think architecturally, it worked in that i don't even know if that's feasible or cause more problems like adding a unit in the back and get a variance for that. as opposed to the front but i think this kind of takes are typical residential design guidelines and with the building there.

without eight rate kind of concern for what is there. i don't think were going to get and i agree with commissioner antonini's comments on the façade is not really contextual. it's not really modern. so, i'm having issues with it. i don't know if are going to at this hour kind of resolve those. i know we been in a position to continue items today but i don't, to me, i don't see this working necessarily. i think there's got to be some better communication with the neighbors and respond better to what you have which is somewhat of a atypical situation. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> what is difficult and always difficult you originally have structures that coexist from front to back to when you press them together cheek to jowl and worse because they overlap is really significant. that's when it really doesn't start to work. you are moving

from modest family housing to something which is just too imposing to fit the circumstance. i think this is exasperated because of the offset in the extreme part of the law. there is no common lines of where you can respect each other. you have to really stay away from each other or treat the new building with what's defined as a pump out. that has a significant larger set back from the overlap because this project shows. i think that is where [inaudible] summarize the problem. the project is not properly sculpted to code assist with others and that is the basic requirement. when not saying you can't do a new building but you have to make [inaudible] and i do not believe it here. there are issues of privacy but they come into play when you really look at it with the windows are and what's across the building. this really almost

if i were you come correctly commissioner hillis this calls for continuance and further spindle to make a more respectful building. is that what i heard you- >> is that emotion >> that's a motion and we need to continue this. it's hard for us but i think given what we see it cannot be resolved tonight particularly this not anything against the unit but they have to work better with the condition [inaudible] >> a speaker for commissioner chung could i will second the continuance. >> i would have to refer to commissioner sec.. >> well, it depends. he wanted sooner or later because obviously we've got a list today. the latest is october. >> i want to put it for part

about tober. were jamming [inaudible] are recessed. we have several hearings to go to continue more items. >> october 6? >> yes. >> okay >> my, typing commissioner moore's comments as well, as i look at the structure next-door it really creates a real canyon effect and eight to respond better. i know there's a high limit is allowed but the addition of the fourth floor really is like seems over the top. given the context it's in. so i agree it needs be better sculpted you like the size of a units. i think the building there is appropriate. with some sharpening a pencil's i think the word was used, that would be something that would help. i agreed that the penthouse and some of the other authors you made. was i think starting points. the new project.

commissioner antonini >> i hate to see another continuance because we approved one and continued about three maybe four today. i'm not quite sure what commissioner moore and others are interested could are you interested in setting that the area that adjoins 1146 by further than 3 feet on that one story area or are you interested in cutting back part of the fourth floor? >> i think this would be resolved but some would be carefully looking at all the fourth of floor evaluations between the two buildings. what are the vital rooms and windows next to each other. this is not just kind of a planning decision. or floor by floor this is guiding the building has to be contacted meaningfully from the inside and then put the mass of the building we're in needs to be without creating too much overlap with the other

building. if it does, it's more a pump out in the traditional way of older buildings than the newer building too much encroaching on the livability of the existing building. >> i'm just trying to get something for the project sponsor to take home and try to work on. i'm not quite sure whether it's cutting back part of the fourth floor to the part that actually adjoins 1146. i can see a case made for that part of it to be cut back perhaps there could be this three-foot separation where it's one floor could be a little tricky. those are the two things i think would mass thing that i could see being done that would actually lessen the impact on the nonconformity structure 1146 visually not a lot of other things that i think will make too much more of a difference on it. so,

those something in that's probably was being advised. >> one question i have for commissioner spears actually two questions. one, we heard the word historic mansion here when we have maps that show up store properties in this block. when i look on the categorical exemption i don't see anything where this is been examined. is there a survey done? is this part of a- >> it was part of a yesterday. it's not in a stork disappeared but the building itself is also reviewed and deemed not historic it so. it's not in a historic district were historic- sorry, historic building or historical. >> the other question i have mr. spears is, we are coming up to understand demo calculations and how they pertain to whether this building is actually a demolition because of the replacement structures. it's way beyond what we've actually got here. do you have demo calculations on this? >> yes. it's in the plan as well. >> okay, great. i didn't call the question >> on a motion to continue this matter to october 6 mr. antonini haight hillis speak aye

transactions beyond wu aye that motion passes 55-1. commissioner antonini voting against. >> on the variance we continue to the date specified. thank you >> sorry about that. thank you. the measures that are places on her 4 pm calendar. >>[laughing] item 21 was continued. we are now on item 22. per case number 2014-001503 >>[reading code]. >> so, before we start, i want to let the members of the public when decided we should

take the agenda in order i didn't realize would've a time certain item on it. my apologies for you for having to sat here this entire day. next time i'll be a little bit more cautious when i give that nod. so thank you very much for staying. >> good afternoon commissioners. good evening. department staff. here before you purport of supervisor action on tuesday, june 28 two days ago. you have before you copies of the case reports supporting exhibits. also, since the case report the department has received one letter in support of this item which i just provided to you. the question before you today is narrowly focused on whether the proposed 100% affordable housing bonus program which is exhibit a and the proposed