measures 46 feet by 85 feet or about 3,910 square foot. the proposed project would subdivide the lots and the existing residence would be placed on a lot measuring 1,860 square foot. while the other lot would be about 2,050 square feet. therefore, the project is allowed to construct two dwellings on each of these lots. the project would not be permitted to subdivide the subject lot retain the four existing dwelling units in the existing resident and construct two new dwelling units since this would go over the allotted

dwellings allowed on the current lots. new lots are required to be 25 feet wide and possess a lot area of 2500 square feet, and then perplanning code section 134, projects with new dwelling units must maintain a rear yard equivalent to about 25% of the yard area. the proposal would create two new lot widths and would construct two new buildings without a required -- within the required rear yard. the department recommends approval of the conditional use authorization given the project sponsor's commitment to voluntarily designate -- i will note upon a site visit at those subject residence, we did only observe three dwelling units, although city records do record that there are four on the site, we only actually found three, of which two were occupied by tenants. the project sponsor has noted

that the tenants will remain in place, and they'll provide more detail on that. after analyzing all aspects of the project, department staff recommends approval with conditions. specifically, the project will result in two dwelling units being designates as part of the city's affordable housing units. it will promote family friendly housing, and the project removes a series of existing garages. in general, the project meets the other applicable manning code. the sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation. this concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >>vice president richards: thank you. project sponsor, you have five minutes. gr. >> good evening, commissioners. this project is unique in many ways, and i want to use my time

to highlight a few of the key points. we are dedicated to protecting the existing tenants of 2605 folsom street, and we are dedicated to creating new housing on an under developed site, and this project is located in an ideal urban location adjacent to the thriving culturally rich neighborhood district of calle veinte cuatro. what we are proposing is to demolish the six parking garages shown here in this image which is not being used for parking for quite sometime. we are proposing to build two

new single-family residences in their place. following the rhythm of the building south along folsom, the building proposed matching the front set backs of its neighbors, matching the parapet heights of its neighbors, providing similarly raised entrance stoops, and all of this is done with a slightly more modern style, respecting but not recreating its neighbors. the existing building at 2906 folsom, we are proposing that the ground floor tenants will remain in place with minuimal disturbance in the ground floor unit and once the unit is vacated, we propose that the

unit be designates to serve as workforce housing. this will provide much needed family friendly three bedroom apartment that will become part of the permanent affordable housing stock in the mission. for the second floor -- for the second floor, we've proposed that the existing tenant to remain in place, and once that tenant vacates, it'll transition to another three bedroom unit with 110% ami cap. both of these units will be subject to all the monitoring and enforcement requirements of the mayor's office of housing and community development. it is important we keep the existing units and designating the third bedroom unit, how much as mr. sucre has just mentioned in our discussions with the planning department,

there is no way to approve the other apartment given the city's density program. we found that projects like these are too small for the current programs, thus we had to find an alternative means to create desire out come and to protect the economic diversity of the mission. however this has less desirable implications by remaining in private hands and that the tax burdens of the insurance costs remain extremely high. in closing, this project team has carefully balanced the needs of the city and the neighborhood, while protecting the existing tenants, ensuring permanent and affordable workforce housing, and improving the pedestrian experience by activating 25th street. i encourage you to applaud the project sponsor por futing forth a project that improves the environment, and i'm available for any questions you may have.

thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. open it up for public comment, i have several speaker cards. maria garcia, alicia sandoval, victoria moran, shelley dicalla, edward shall. if your name has been called, feel free to speak. it doesn't matter what order. thank you. >> hi. my name is maria garcia.

[ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> my biggest concern is that they're either going to evict me or they're going to raise the rent, and i don't have that much money to pay. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> i've been living there for over 30 years. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> it's been over a year that my husband passed away. he had a stroke because all the stress that he went through.

i'm only -- i live by myself. i'm the only person that lives there. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> that's my biggest concern, not being able to afford the rent, that they'll do a rent increase or that i will be displaced. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> that's all i wanted to say. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ]

>> i don't know how you will respond, but just put it in god's hands to make sure you do the right thing. >> thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. next speaker, please. >> as i introduced myself earlier, my name is alisa sandoval, and i've been working with community since april. recently, i found out there's three rent control units there, when i found out that the rent control are going to be turned into bmr's, there's folks that have been living there, long-term tentan long-term tenants that are going to be living there for 30 year years. how do you expect them to all

of a sudden abide by the bmi conditions and according to the ami levels. they're talking about 90%, they're talking about 110%, that's unheard of. especially an elderly senior who lives by themselves, a number of tenants are disabled. they only have a certain amount of income. they're elderly, they can't pay rent. they come out here to say it comes to bmr, it's an increase. i am more familiar with the small size program, we're familiar with the bmr, how is -- how it is, and it's unfair for people who've been there for over 30 years. it's -- it's very unheard of. we don't want folks -- like, we don't want elderly folks like similar to what happened with carl jensen, who were forced, they were evicted to their

homes, and something happened to them. something similar happened to to mrs. maria's husband because of the stress. we do not want those things to happen to the elderly. please do not take the rent control. when we're living in san francisco, rent control units is all we have in order to sustain ourselves, maybe sure we hasure -- make sure we have a place to live and stay in san francisco. thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is raul, and i live in apartment 3 for 27 years, and also i'm here on behalf of my wife. she could not be here. we have six windows. and all the rooming for that

apartment, it's by the garages. how does that work? and also, i've been told they're going to add apartment two to three. why need two kitchens, why need two bathrooms? i'm happy the way they live. they can keep it the way they were. and also, the garages, we're using them. he said the garages are empty. i'm using the garage with another three people, so the garage has been used. they're not empty. thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is victoria moran, and i've been living at the house adjacent to the proposed project since i was born. let me give you reason why my neighbors and iopose the demolition of the proposed

garages when i expressed these concerns to the architect, he says we don't need a car and a garage because we live in a place that has accessible transportation through b.a.r.t. and muni. this now means that the garages only belongs to those who can pay more for it, which is unfortunate. you heard from previous tenants, two cht tenants including my mother are handicapped and we need this reliable means of transportation. and as you also heard, a lot of people are greatly affected by it, and the uncertainty and all of these stressors are real things for these tenants, and it's hard, please take this into consideration when you consider these plans. thank you so much. >>vice president richards: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, ladies and gentlemen, my name is najeet. i'm a resident of san francisco. i'm also a new comer here.

i'm in process of learning the culture, the values -- american values. i've been here, i've listened to several different cases, and this is a good lesson for me. especially in this case, in this specific case, i'm wondering, do you know, what is important in american culture? i understand that there's a lot of demand in san francisco for housing, and that's why housing is very expensive, so we need a lot of housing, we need a lot of new developments. in other hands, we have a lot of people that have lived here for a long time. 20 years, 30 years, born and raised here, but they don't have much income, so they

affected by this new housing, they do be forced to go outside the city, so the question that i'm raising here is new housing with what price? with the price of poor people, and that's all. thank you so much for your time. >>vice president richards: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> okay. good evening. my name is eddy steel. i live at 2887 folsom street. i'm a renter. i've been 28 years in san francisco in the mission district, always in a rent controlled apartment. every time i come down to these hearings, i notice none of the people that sit on these boards that decide these things live in rent controlled apartment, and this is a city where 65%

rent. first of all, there's a petition from, like, 75 people that are opposed. this project is a total mess. the destruction of the garages and making new lots and it's more than just that these two town houses, there's one next door, they used every available inch. they block the windows of the existing building, so it's just a total mess, and also -- i don't know why i'm down to 30 seconds -- >>vice president richards: i'm sorry. i didn't reset your time. continue, please. >> this is a -- this idea of converting rent controlled apartments to bmr apartments is a terrible idea. the rent that they're agreeing to accept -- i know they're saying that the people that live there now are going to be able to stay, but there's no -- there's no -- there's no binding document in the packet that i saw where he's made any kind of signature with the tenants that they can stay

forever under the rent controlled rents, so the rents they're asking, 90% bmr, 94% amr is 3 # 187. what's to keep a new owner or someone else to just be like now, we're in a bmr program, we're going to charge these rents, and now we're fighting it out at the rent board or with an eviction lawyer to preserve the tenancies of people who live in these apartmented forever, and the purpose of the program is to bring -- put new, affordable construction. this is just redefining what affordable housing is. the small sites program, that's supposed to end up in the hands

of a nonprofit or the land trust. here, the property owner continues to own the property and gets to raise the rents, so the whole thing makes no sense. this is the third time it's been here. twice, it was continued because the planning staff was disapproving of the plan. now, because of some piece of paper that he signed that the mayor's office of housing knows nothing about, then, all of a sudden it's okay? it doesn't make any sense at all, and i think you should stop this program because if you approve this, any person that lives in san francisco in a rent controlled apartment whose rent is below the bmr rent is going to be in danger of some property owner coming in and saying look, i'm giving you a gift, and i'm raising your rent. >>vice president richards: thank you. your time is up. >> so please, end the stressor of the neighborhood and just end the project. thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. >> good afternoon. eric decuella with cal --

calle cuatro. i don't quite understand how they're going to be workforce housing, what program they're working with with the city to create this housing. i know there's for a family of four in the mission, they make an annual salary about 43,000 at 110 ami, it does not make any sense either, so there's a lot of stuff that is not right with this project. they're getting rid of garages, but yet, they are creating garages for these town houses, so please reject this project. thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. is there any other speakers on this project, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm shelley bradford bell, and i have been working with the project sponsor and with staff for the last couple years to

make sure that this was a project that made sense. this does not displace the current residents and i think what was missed is that if we -- >>vice president richards: i'm sorry, miss bell. are you hired by the project sponsor? >> oh, i -- yes. >>vice president richards: then you're part of the project sponsor's team and you need to speak during his time. >> i wasn't aware. >>vice president richards: no problem. any additional comment? at this point, seeing none, additional comment is closed. >>vice president richards: i guess i made a comment in the fifth church of christ deir and their exchange into bmr units, and i also have a lot of questions because somebody who's paying 800 and some dollars now is in a unit that is in a bmr unit and a higher

ami than they're currently paying. it doesn't make sense. what happens to the individual? is there a lifetime lease? the other question i have here is there are four units -- i guess on the 3r report, and they've only discovered three, so i'll be honest with you, we had this issue on lyon street, and we went back and asked them to put the other two units there. there's a ghost unit somewhere that's missing in my calculations that we need to put back. we're actually losing more units than i believe mr. sucre has presented. commissioner melgar? >>commissioner melgar: so i have all kinds of questions about this. i'm also really concerned that the mayor's office of housing is not here or has a pine about

this, and i did call maria benjamin and she didn't call me back. i ran into some random people on the street and they hadn't heard about this. so i'm raising these questions because i don't know if you guys remember, before the subdivision code that we currently have that capped the number of units in the building that could convert to condominiums, we used to allow the right of first refusal of tenants in apartments that they were converting to condominiums in bmres, and it was a hot mes. we didn't know how to do it. now, bmrs are in the entitlement, and there's a secondlene, and there's a process by which the mayor's office marks them, there's a whole bunch of things. so how is it going to happen

here? right, and i just -- like i say, and the devil's in the details and how is the right of first refusal or if it's rental, who is going to administer them and are folks going to be able to pay the same level of rent as they are paying under rent control? whose jurisdiction? there's just so many questions about the details of this because i think now under the housing accountablity act, we're going to see a lot more of these if we allow this to happen because we have lots of under billed rent control buildings all over the city, so i want to be really, really careful about what we're doing here and how we're doing it because otherwise, we're going to open up the flood gates for units escaping rent control and into a regime that i'm not really quite sure what it is. >> so based on our conversations with the mayor's

office of housing, we did get insurance from them that they would be willing to accept the units, we discussed that with the acting director, kate hartly, about applying an nsr onto the sites, specifying that they would be entering into the affordable units. regarding the existing tenants, they would be income certified to make sure that they're eligible to stay within the units. there was no discussion in making sure -- i'm sorry, there was discussion to make sure that the tenants stayed in place and make sure that they're still qualifying for the units, and i'm sure that the architect -- >>commissioner melgar: i mean, can we -- so what happens if they don't income certified, and what happens if there's a discrepancy between what they're paying under rent control and what the ami allowable is? >> i'll defer to the architect. >> i'd prefer the mayor's of

housing. [ inaudible ] >>vice president richards: commissioner johnson? >>commissioner johnson: thank you. thank you again. no disrespect to the architect, but that's not the answer we were looking for today. i will say that i'm not supportive of this project today just for a couple of different reasons. one, we have discussed the fear before that includetionary units are not rent control. you can't replace one with the other. they're not the same thing, and i'm not going to get into the ami. it's the structure of the program and not the income levels because you can change that, you can make that higher, you can make that lower. that's something -- you can change that. my second reason is i think

there are a number of commissioners that are concerned about the rent controls, inclusionary, but i am strongly supporting of maximizing our current zoning, and this project allows for the project to be single-family homes, and this is rh 2, so for this alone, i am not supportive, and i think there will be other questions about it because the commissioners have their shared concerns, rent affordablity and some of those issues. i've been very standing, being a stick in the mud about maximizing the zoning of our city so that, you know, we can build more housing within the zoning that we have. we have capacity, and this does not do that. so i won't be supportive today.

>>vice president richards: commissioner moore. >>commissioner moore: i think this reminds me of item 17, good intentions, but too many questions, and there are too many unknowns, including perhaps mr. sanchez could clarify, about the three versus the four units that's supposed to be there. dbi can't prove it, who can prove it. it's a who says it is and who proves it isn't. >> so it's my understanding the 3 r report does say three units and that's part of the notice. it's going from four units to two units for the building, although upon site visit, only three units were found to exist today, but this is going from four under city records from four units to two. >>vice president richards: so looking to entertain a motion -- i mean, maybe the project architect has more about the legal status of the building under the 3r report,

and we can address that. >>commissioner moore: the second point i'd like to make, and i agree with my other fellow commissioners, if the mayor's housing would step into the fray, somebody would be here and giving us a clear direction or would have something in writing in this particular package to substantiate the conversation. i do believe that's typically done that way, and for those reasons, at this moment, i cannot really entertain participate in any activity on this project. >>vice president richards: and maybe if you could also address the garages and whether or not they are in use. i had understood the garages to be vacant. >> regarding the three units versus the four units, we went through the site. we can't find any history of a fourth kitchen being located in that site. it does look like it was a single-family house at one point that was chopped up into several units. there was some confusion with the rear yard. it was open to one property on

one house, as well as all the garages are one connected structure, so -- then, there's only three gas meters at the 2906 folsom site, so there's only utility hookups for three units. we think that perhaps when they were recording it that they thought that one horse was part of the same site which was the small horse on the back of the property that shares the same yard. that's the only possibility. in the drawings, we put together a sketch where a kitchen would have been 20 to 30 years ago, but that tenant has been in there so long as a one unit, not a two unit, but we're just making assumptions dense dns a kwi question. why not go fore the subdivision, build the two structures, rehabilitate them, and add the additional unit. >> so unfortunately because it's rh 2, we're up to the maximum zoning, so we tried to keep it as three units, keep

those there, untouchable, which is above the zoning, so if we get rid of the one unoccupied unit right now, we run into an issue -- >>vice president richards: but not get rid of any units. the lot cannot be subdivided without reducing any of the units. the existing building is over the density, and so that other lot cannot be sub twieded out from underneath it because of that density issue. >>vice president richards: how long has your client owned the building? is. >> six years, i think, four years? >>vice president richards: so the building was purchased with the knowledge it was a rent controlled building. it did have multiple tenants paying substantially less than the rent. we all make investment decisions. some work out, some don't. i'm not sure -- i'm not sure what your name is. i apologize. this may need more time. >> can i respond to some of these other questions?

>>vice president richards: sure. >> in terms of the mayor's office of housing. what may be helpful is if we ask for a continuance and come back with all of the signed document that may be required to put this at ease, but the intention is to have the current tenants as lifetime tenants at the current rates that they're paying in these units. the current genesis was to figure out how to get around the restrictions that are in place to ensure that these become protected for the long-term. that's why we tried selling them to nonprofit groups in the area, looking at the small sites area. this current designation of designating it through an msr, designating it at bmr once the current tenants vacate. the intention is to completely leave those units alone, so if there is documentation or an agreement that we can do with moh to sort of put those concerns or maybe extend the

terms of the leases for all the tenants which are currently in place we'd be more than happy to do that. regarding the garage situation, it's our understanding there's no vehicles parking in any of those garages. they're being used as storage for those particular tenants. have they changed recently? >> clerk: excuse me, folks if we can refrain from calling out in the gallery. >>vice president richards: sir, sir, sir. [ inaudible ] >> if we have the property owner state about the use of the garage. >> so the garage in question, they -- we signed a paper in 2015, i lowered their rent. they were paying 240 for the

garage, and i have the letter here. i lowered their rent. now, they're paying $578. i agreed to the lower rent, and they started paying me lower rent starting april 1st, 2016, so -- and then, they asked if they could use the garage, and i said until the process is completed, they can use the garage. that's why they're coming back now, but they've been paying the $578 since april 1st, 2016. >> houj of the garages are in use? >> right now, mr. diaz, the one -- apartment number 3, he's using the garage, but it's full of -- it's packed. you cannot go in. he's not using it as parking, he's using it as storage. >> and are any of the other spaces being used. >> and the other space that the

lady's talking about, we had an agreement signed on -- >> it's not even part of this building. >> yeah, that's adjacent. [ inaudible ] >>vice president richards: okay. thank you. >> mr. diaz, he pays $100 but it's full of -- it is he aa storage. >>vice president richards: okay. thank you. >> it's not used as parking. >>vice president richards: commissioner melgar. >>commissioner melgar: thank you. so -- well, anyone who hangs out in that neighborhood knows that there's actually quite a life of those garages. people use them e th, they're . they hangout on saturdays, and the whole neighborhood comes to hangout, so you know whether it's parking or storage, it's still a decrease in services, you know, for the tenants. that i leave to miss sandoval

to work out with the tenants. i think that my expectation before i would even consider voting on this would be to have, you know, information. so yes, something in writing from the mayor's office of housing outlining the details so to me, if you're guaranteeing that the tenants can stay in place at the same rate that they're paying today for as long as they want to live in those apartments, like that is a crucial, you know, piece of information that i want to see. and you know, further, if we're going to have those bmrs, i want to know exactly how it's going to happen because i do think it's going to set a precedent, and we do need them before i could vote for it. i'm not saying i would support it, i'm saying i would need the basic information before i would entertain even making a decision. i agree with commissioner johnson that you know, i think

that higher density, you know, is what we've been supporting, and you know, not two story single-fami single-family house with a garage in a place that is very transient rich and needs more housing and all of that, so thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. commissioner johnson? >>commissioner johnson: thank you. so i've made my comments about not supporting the project in recognition that likely there would be something -- if there is not already, some agreement to keep the current tenants there, but i think in terms of approving these projects, future, again, it's not the i am same as rent control. inclusionary goes to a lottery to get into those units. there is some unfairness in that that we have talked about as a commission before. it's not the same. with new construction, we have what we have in terms of that,

and that's fantastic, but when we have an opportunity, we don't want to be replacing rent control with inclusionary, and i think even if there were a deal today that were presented in the presentation to say the people who are living there will have their same rent forever, it's like the same thick, it's not the same thing, because whether they leave tomorrow or they leave in 50 years, that housing is no longer the same style of housing. i'm just -- 'cause i think a lot of people will misunderstand, once you have an inclusionary unit, there's a lot of different things. lottery, rent control. i just want to reiterate for people, i'm not going to be in favor of continuing the project, but i don't think it's future approved as housing. >>vice president richards: is that a motion? >>commissioner johnson: yes, motion to disapprove,

continuing to december 14 -- a motion of intent to disapprove, and then, we have to take a future hearing date, december 14th. >>vice president richards: second. so one thing i just want to say to the project sponsor, i appreciate your honesty. in my neighborhood, i walk down the street, and all of a sudden the tenants are gone and you don't know what happened to them, whether they got pushed out or stressed out or whatever. i really appreciate your honesty and integrity for going through this process. thank you. commissioner fong? >>commissioner fong: i probably -- i won't be supporting the intent to deny. i will be supporting a continuance. i feel like my only advice is in real estate development, you get control of the property, and it feels like you don't have control of the property. after you get control of the property, and i would move that after that time, you take that vote, that once you get control of the property, you come back

and try again. >> clerk: commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to -- there's a motion of intent to disapprove and continue this matter to december 14th. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motions passes, 4-2. with commissioners fong and koppel voting against. >>vice president richards: for members of the public, we don't have a motion to disapprove in our packet. what we're going to do, we have to take the vote on december 14th, so four of us had voted to disapprove. i imagine on december 14th, that's what the end result is going to be is disapproval. we can't take the final vote today. that's the process, okay? so we intend to disapprove it. thank you. >> on the variance, i'll close

the public hearing. i do have concerns about the project. i would note they are maximizing the density. they are subdividing into two lots, and the two single-families are on one lot, but it is a total of four units, which is the same number of units that are legally in the structure today, so they're legally, at least under the records of the city, i understand they may be disputed by the property owner -- >> we can discuss that after the hearing, but in terms of what the record shows, there's four units on the property, which if that is correct, they could have four units on the property. >>vice president richards: so question, mr. sanchez, if we disapprove the project, but you approve the variance, what happens? >> nothing, because there's no -- the subdivision couldn't happen because it would exceed the density limitations of the code if there are three units that are retained there. >> if this project's disapproved, we're under

enforcement. >> yes, and i think it would be advisable for the project sponsor to work through the three hour report history with the department of inspection to see if their theory of the building on horace was miscounted. then, at least they would be compliant with the number of units. there wouldn't be an issue there. if they want to add units, they can still look at the adu program and look at converting the garage if the quality of the garage structure would allow for that. >>vice president richards: thank you very much for clarifying that. he'll answer it after this one. >> okay, commissioners, that will place -- item 21 has been continued to december 21st, so

that will place on your calendars, item 22, 2016-005617 drp, the structure at 1439-1441 south vanness avenue. this is a discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners. michael kirchner. building staff. located at 1439 to 1441 south vanness avenue. the site it is in the rm 1 zoning district and is currently developed for this three story residential structure containing two legal dwelling units and a full flat configuration on floors two and three, as well as a garage and one unauthorized one bedroom dwelling unit on the ground floor. the permit application was to -- until the vertical

addition to add a fourth floor, a rear addition to expand all floor levels, changes and the legalization of the unauthorized dwelling unit at the ground floor. the project maintains the full flat configuration of the existing dwelling units at the second and third floor. the request for discretionary review was filed on behalf of a tenant of the ground floor unauthorized dwelling unit based on the proposal to expand the unit of reduce it from a one bedroom configuration to a studio configuration. the department reviewed the request and found that the proposal would substantially gee grade the quality of the unit and recommends that the commission take discretionary review and require that the unit be maintained as a one bedroom unit in compliance with prop m findings. the project sponsor had worked with the dr requestor and has proposed a configuration which

meets what the department has recommended in terms of conditions of approval and maintains a one bedroom, however staff was not able to get confirmation from the dr requestor. therefore, we are here still recommending that you take discretionary review and adopt the finding of the recommended conditions of approval to maintain the unit as a one bedroom and we can move forward with the revised floor plan. this concludes my presentation and i'm here for any questions. >>vice president richards: if you mr. christiansen. the requestor, you have five minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm jessica alexander. i'm the attorney fore t the tenants that live in that unit. i just wanted to make a comment that the accommodation that we requested is pretty modest, and

it fits completely with both the city's general plan and your priorities as the commission and currently a family of four lives there. the parents are immigrants from central america and they have two young children, and and there's a history at this property of the current owner trying to force those tenants out and so i don't think that it's an accident that the plan was to convert their one bedroom into a studio and make it impossible for them to live there. so one thing i wanted to bring up was that when and if the permit is approved, the tenants will be displaced temporarily and i wanted -- i'm not sure how it's possible, but to minimize the dislocation of those tenants during that process because the -- the rent ordinance requires payment of relocation money for three

months, and they don't get additional money if they're out of the apartment beyond those three months. okay. that's all i had to say. thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. project sponsor, you have -- i'm sorry, public comment in support -- does your -- [ inaudible ] >> if the people you're representing want to speak, this is your opportunity. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> good evening. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> respectfully, i had'd like to consider my family when making a decision. [ speaking spanish ]

[ through the interpreter ] the ho >> the home that i live there th has been my home. my kids live there. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> for this reason, they are displacing me temporarily. i ask you if you can please find out for how long he's going to be displacing me for. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> my daughter is in the immersion program. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> when i leave -- when i leave my home, i'm not going to be able to afford any other place, and the place is going to be

very far from where my child goes to school to. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> thank you. >>vice president richards: any additional speakers through the requestor? [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> good evening. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> my daughter started kindergarten, and it's a program through immersion. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> i would like my other son to go to that school. this is how i'm going to be able to translate my culture to them. [ speaking spanish ]

[ through the interpreter ] >> i've lived there for ten years in my home. i like living in my neighborhood. [ speaking spanish ] [ through the interpreter ] >> it would be very hard to start a new life in another neighborhood because of my children. thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. any speakers in support of the dr requestor and against the project? seeing none, project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is john long. i'm the project architect, and i just wanted to say that our clients are completely in support of the -- you taking dr

and sepg the projeaccepting th one bedroom down in this illegal unit. currently there is a notice on this unit. it does not meet the current building code. there's not existing ventilation, it's very apparent that the unit itself has no building permits for it. so the -- we have to actually restructure the -- the unit here, and as i said, we were open and actually our clients have sent an e-mail assuring them that there would be a one bedroom changing it from a studio, and unfortunately, they weren't able to come to any agreement, so as i said, we're in support of taking dr and actually accepting the plan as proposed. thank you. >>vice president richards:

thank you. any additional comments from the project sponsor's team? seeing none, public comment in support of the project sponsor. seeing none, dr requestor, you have two minutes to rebut. >> [ inaudible ]. >> yes, initially there was an e-mail that said fine, we agree, and then, they didn't agree anymore. i mean, the planning department knows this. the planning department became very frustrated because they kept going back and forth about whether they would agree to this. so it sounds like everybody is in agreement, and that's what's important, so i guess there's nothing more to say. thank you. >>vice president richards: project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> i'll keep this short, also. i understand my clients actually sent out that e-mail and there was not a response, so unfortunately, it got drug

out into this hearing, but i'm glad that everyone is in agreement. thank you. >>vice president richards: thank you. this portion of the hearing is closed. i guess i'll start off. it's nice that everybody's in agreement. i feel very bad that there's a substandard living condition in this building. it needs to be rectified somehow or something getting into that has to be legalized. i forget where we kind of get into that. it's a catch 22. my real concern is looking at the extent of the remodel, we're looking at what's now te termed as a renoviction. this family will be relocated for three months, and clearly beyond three months, they're not going to be able to make it. this is not remodel of a kitchen or whatever, we're doing demo calcs, it's so

existent. in essence, we're throwing this family out onto the street offer three months and a day, so i just want you to be aware, that's what's going through my head right now. i don't know how long you owned the property but you bought it with people in it knowing that. i'm sure that you did. you had to see that they were there. you had disclosures, and you had the intent to probably fix it up which makes a lot of sense, but how do we decide what we're doing here with people's lives if we do this, and that's the big question. commissioner moore? >>commissioner moore: the project does look like a de facto demolition, except this project seems to be skirting the issue. i hope that the issue relocating the tenants are -- we hope it will all work out

aside from the stress that you're putting a family with small children. i have an issue, just a very physical issue, and i'd like the commission to look at the proposed fourth floor. i do not believe that there is a necessity to have a deck on the west side of the building of the fourth floor which goes from building edge to building edge. basically do whole front facing decks, and the aa minimum, i would expect that on the north and on the south side, that deck would hold back 4 feet. it's a very large deck, and i think it would be more in line with what we typically do when we talk about privacy. this building sets way further out at the curb than the others, so anybody standing on the property line where the deck is, looking into the front of the adjoining building, i think they would definitely potentially privacy problems, so i ask the commission consider what we typically do,

hold the building back 4 feet from either side, and then, i could support the project. >>vice president richards: so i guess i'll step in again. i'm not prepared to talk about the various pieces of the building without having the overall question being asked, which is can you legalize the unit and still do a remodel of your house that makes it livable for you where this family doesn't get cast out somewhere after three months, probably never to come back? i mean, is that possible given the configuration of the illegal unit? that's what, for me, is the big question. i mean, please, because that -- i mean, i don't -- i don't know the interior of the building whether it's habitable or not. it seems like an extensive remodel. >> regardless of the -- regardless of the other part of the building, this is -- as you understand, there's no proper head heights, so the whole slab has to be removed.

that whole -- regardless of the size of the unit, we're actually increasing the size of the unit from it's a 400 square foot unit, so we're almost making it -- we're making it larger to about 800 square feet. >>vice president richards: i absolutely appreciate that, but if they can't move back in, what's the point? >> well, we're forced -- we're in a catch 22 also. how are we supposed to let an illegal unsafe condition continue to exist with, you know -- we're -- we're tasked to enforce the building code -- i mean, the city is, we as architects have to create legal conforming space. >>vice president richards: i understand. if you had dumb here, and said we have relocation payment for as long as it's going to take for the construction, i would say bingo. >> i know the rent control restrictions, and i actually don't know anything about that, and i know that you are not a

commission about that. i -- we could ask our clients about that -- of that, the extension. certainly, it is not -- this is a longer process than three months, clearly. >>vice president richards: absolutely. >> and we're in agreement on that, but i don't know the rent control laws and the relocation. >>vice president richards: unfortunately, we're seeing these every week. we just have one on 505 grandview, where we cutoff a significant portion of it, and i want the project sponsors to be able to enjoy the place that they bought, but i also want to make sure that we're not turning a family out into the street because we know this construction is going to be longer. >> yeah, i agree with you on that. i understand. >>vice president richards: how do we deal with this? we have the project sponsor's lawyer talk with the tenant. >> would it be possible for one of the property owners to come and try something? >>vice president richards:

sure. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is elsin chiu. my family owns the property. we've been in talks with the tenant. last time we had an agreeme bu agreement for 60,000, and now they're suing me for 2 million, so i don't think they will be leaving this property empty handed. they are also constantly filing reports that the property is in disrepair. i just got a letter from the health department saying that the paint is peeling, that we need to paint the whole building. they have a lawyer, they -- we're working with them, but they are not going empty ha handed, and they're not going to have three months of rent. as it stands now, we're being

sued for $2 million. my brother bought it two years ago, and my brother pays $6,000 a month rent, and he can't live there. he's living with my mom now, and we're hoping we have some sort of resolution. if we can't get approval, i don't know what we can do. >>vice president richards: so let me ask you a question. >> of course. >>vice president richards: it says three level building. >> yes, sir. >>vice president richards: and we have the family living in the basement, basically. >> correct. >>vice president richards: and the other three levels. >> two levels. >>vice president richards: the other two levels are in disrepair? >> that's correct. we want to repair everything at once. commissioner fong? >>commissioner fong: well, obviously, we don't want to create any displacement or encourage any displacement of, in my mind, illegal unit, and this is an illegal unit.