the morning when the parties are going on, and you've got flames. so i encourage you, please, let's get this building back to the size it was. >> thank you. >> i have a whole bunch of photographs. >> thank you very much. if you want to submit those photos, it may be helpful. >> i don't have them labeled. >> that's still all right. i don't think we have time for labeling -- >> you can certainly submit them. >> any additional public comment on the item. >> >> i had a question for mr. santos, representing the architecture or knowing of him. i have a question regarding the reference to the existing building, the existing building had an application for something in 2015, and the plan of the existing building on sheet a0.1 shows a roof deck on top of the building that was an act of

permanent at that time. when you look at google, and the google over that particular area is younger than 2015, there's no roof deck on there. the application that it's in front of us still leave it open that there would also be a roof deck installed at the same time. >> a roof deck on the back? >> no. i find it unusual that a drawing is being shown that's really not quite applicable to what's in front of us. it's a reference drawing, but the roof is showing what it's not there. that's an open-ended structure, i'm sure. >> thank you, mr. santos for confirming that. there's a lack of transparency. obviously it seems there was a demo. we do want units. i'm not quite sure what it is like for adjoining owners since many of us live right behind it. all of a sudden, two additional units are popping up in the rear

yard in this former carriage house or whatever. i'm just waiting as a question. the units seem to work, but it begs other questions. >> commissioner richards? >> so, ms. courtney, if you could just walk us through the photos you have, just put them on the overhead and point and tell us so that we understand what your concern is, please. if you could, speak into the microphone. >> okay. this is all new. this photograph has the original roof, which is full of holes. it's kind of difficult to see that there are no pipes, no anything, except a lot of holes in the roof. 18 years ago, a lot of the

building was covered in ivy. >> do you have stuff from the original sale, the sale papers, you said, it was marked as an x-unit property. do you have any of the mls info? >> no. i remember at the time, i knew the building was for sale. i was curious. i looked at the listing. >> what year was it? >> probably four or five years ago. >> do you have additional photos you can show us? >> you can zoom out with the buttons on top. so this area is where this new edition i just showed you is now located. you can see there's nothing

there. >> that was that plywood covered chimney looking thing? you showed it before? when you said -- that's the, quote, new addition, the original footprint of the building. >> right. >> this is google maps from 2010. they had just taken the ivy off it. >> point to that. >> you can see there's a little shed right there, and, you know, no big two-story edition. i don't think the shed came as far as the fence. >> so is the big, gray square the building? >> yes, that's the building under discussion. it was a lot lower than it is now. they tore off the roof. they reroofed it starting at

7:30 on a thanksgiving morning. they're specklators. they don't care about the neighbors' lives. >> so is it your claim that the building there in the photo is a story shorter, 10 feet, what is the difference? what is the difference between what you say was there and what is there now? >> that is probably twice as long, and it's now two stories high. >> was it one story before, though? >> it was kind of the height of a fence. i don't know if it was a shed. >> i was asking about the original building itself. >> the original building is just that. it's not the section i just showed you. the roof was also a lot lower and had a completely different

pitch to it. >> was it two floors, the building? >> i don't think so. yesterday i was -- the planner emailed me the drawings for the project, which is the first i had seen of it. i was rather surprised to see what they had done inside. he showed two supposed units that might have existed maybe 30 years ago, but considering that the building didn't have electricity or plumbing -- >> maybe we can -- do you have information you can share on kind of what the original building was? its height? i know we're looking at pictures, and i appreciate it, but if there's any data on what the original building was and

the size of it -- >> the 3r report is dated 2013, and it classifies the rear building as a two-family dwelling. and in commissions packet, the environmental document after the plan set in the cadex, there's evacuation that goes through the history of the rebuilding. planning did a search of building permit plans for the rear building. there were none available. so we kind of had to go a bit based on what the project sponsor has told us. we looked at aerial photography. the city has quite a good bit of air photos that go back to 2003. it does look like the building footprint has not changed.

it's difficult to tell what the roof has been increased much. i did look at the two stories. it's possible that the roof may have been raised a little bit. it's hard to tell. i'm looking at the listing from 2014. it says the listing in the back was a single family dwelling. >> where is this? >> it's on the mls from 2014. the number of units on this property for sale was four. >> it may have been at that time. they have combined the units. i'm not sure. we're only going based on what the project plans of the sponsor are. >> your sense of the size, the footprint and the volume of the building is remaining the same as what it was? >> it looks like it stayed the same. >> with some slight modification of the height? >> it's difficult to tell if the building has been raised. the building is two stories. whether or not the two units are

combined to one -- >> the building, as it existed before the demo? >> we have what the project sponsor has provided us. >> commissioner richards? >> i'm going to do more searches. >> i'm the zoning administrator. a couple of points. one other piece of historical documentation we have is the sand maps that show it listed many, many years ago. regarding the listing, i think we've even seen here that the commission, it's not uncommon for multi-dwelling units being listed as a single family home when it's actually two units. the listings are helpful for context when we're looking for information. they're obviously not definitive. >> so the report says five

units. >> there should be a 3r report for each building. that could be a little confusing. you get a pr on that is this >> i think there's two units. he already said that. >> okay. the two-family dwelling in the rear. >> and that's the 3r report? >> uh-huh. >> do you know this building was obviously built before 1979. so it was subject to rent control prior to the demo? >> presumably, yes. >> would it be now? >> that's the purview of the rent board. >> my sense is -- is the city attorney -- hello, ms. stacy. do you have any sense of that?

sorry. i didn't see you there. >> commissioner, are you asking do i have any sense of what the new -- >> i mean, it's on a lot with a building that was pre1979. it was before rent control. is this considered all part of one property or different units? >> i'm sorry. i hesitate to give you a read off the cuff. i want to go back and research and talk to the attorney in our office. i don't know how to calculate that on the fly. >> i'm generally in support of the project. i've got a building -- i mean, these exist around the building. there's one two doors down from me that has a building that's vacant. it was probably two units or three units. i would like to see it converted back into resident, use. we're confident that the volume and the footprint is the same. i would be supportive of this. i would like to see, are we able

to do a cost hawkins agreement on this since we're kind of allowing for something beyond the existing zoning. it's a variance. it's not something that would typically be allowed in the rear yard except it existed before. so if it's being built back to its prior condition, it would be great to have the same prior kind of standing as an existing rent control, or those units be rent control. is that doable? if the project sponsor was amenable? >> commissioner hillis, i would want to hear from staff as to whether or not this project would be cost to hawkins. there seem to be two questions here to resolve. one is if it was subject to rent control before, would it continue to be subject to rent control. i know that's a pretty careful

calculation as to what is new construction in demolition, versus alteration. and the cost of hawkins agreement would really depend on a calculation of the benefits that the city has afforded the project. >> right. okay. >> i mean, to be clear, it was under rent control before this, probably not subject to rent control given that it's new construction. although there's the nuance of existing law and whether we can enter into a cost of hawkins. mr. santos, did you want to add to that or comment on that? >> thank you, yes, commissioner. absolutely, we wouldn't have any issues at all, placing that issue of rent control. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> so i guess we need to give you time to figure that out. the entitlement we're giving them is to allow them to rebuilding something.

if they're willing to put the units under rent control, i'm fine with it. do you need time to investigate it? >> i would recommend the commission approve it with an indication that if rent control can be continued to be imposed on the units, that the staff and the city attorney's office would look at that. >> maybe i will make a motion to continue and wait for you to come back and tell us, a week or two. >> second. >> we need at least two. our agendas are out. >> okay. >> if there's any more data we can get on the change in height or volume of the structure, that would be helpful. >> commissioners, a continuance would put us on may 3rdrd. >> i'm gone. >> you have other items on that.

the legal demo hearing on the 19th, we have to additional ones. 557 alvarado, right? 655 alvarado went to may 24th. >> let's go 17th. >> may 17th? okay. >> is that all right? >> very good. commissioners, there's a motion. it's been seconded to continue this matter to may 17th. [voting] >> so moved. commissioners, the motion passes unanimously 7-0. the administrator, what say you? >> continue the variance hearing to may 17th. >> very good.

>> commissioners, that will place us on item -- execute me. item 14 has been continued. item 15. [ agenda item read ] >> 100 church street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. veronica flores, planning department staff. the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow a change of use to a former retail gym at 100 church street at the corner of church and debose avenue. the use that's greater than 3,000 square feet in size and before 6:00 a.m.

185 locations worldwide for the yoga business. most recently occupied by the formula retail pharmacy cvs. the proposal includes minor alterations in fulfilling the existing diagnosal interest at church street and debose avenue. between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., they welcome heated yoga. they employee two please and 12 instructors, all who live in the immediate surrounding area and walk or take transit to work. the subject site is well-served by customers who do not object the traffic flow.

there was a survey earlier this year, based on the survey, the confirmation is 300 percent of the frontage and approximately 18% of the total frontage. to date, the department has received three communications in support of the project, including the castro merchants, the neighborhood association, and the debose triangle. six community meetings, plus additional outreach to the neighbors and other neighborhood organizations. and since the commission packet was published, the department also received two additional letters of support. and i have copies available upon request. the department finds the project is unbalanced. the project will activate a

currently vacant store front and bring in traffic to the area. although it involves alterations on the resource, character-defining features are maintained, a and the alterations compliment the neighborhood. it meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. i'm available for any questions. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you very much. project sponsor, welcome. you have five minutes. >> hi. sorry. i've never used one of these before. hi. good afternoon. my name is stephanie reubenstein. i'm with core power yoga. i know we've been in front of you before, but this is the first time i'm meeting you all, so hello. i hope you're well. as you may know, core power is based in denver. we've been teaching yoga for the

last 15 years. and we deliver a workout that is both mindful and physical all in the space of one hour. with each student, they take yoga as a personal experience, but many students do find a community within core power and the connection with both our teachers and their fellow students. when we were looking for our studio in san francisco, there were several reasons we were drawn to this space and the castro dubose triangle neighborhood. we love the neighborhood. there's so many shop and restaurants. it's so vibrant. it lends itself to fitness. a lot of our students are living in that neighborhood and have been requesting a studio there for some time. so we were very excited to find this location to be a great fit in the neighborhood. and as the planner mentioned,

the space when we found it had been vacant for several years. it's located at a challenging intersection for many types of businesses. it's the entrance to the muni tunnel. we saw this as an opportunity to bring this corner to life. i knew that core power would be successful here. we plan to operate a business out of that space for at least the next 10 years. for the last year, you know, we've been working close by with our landlord on both the exterior design of the space as well as working with the local neighborhood groups and preparing to present this to you today and the community in general. while we were doing this, we learned things about what was important to the community, what was important to our landlord.

we learned about the iconic mural done by presido ayes and have been in touch with them to offer our support for maintaining the mural for generations to come. we also learned that the exterior signage was important and to keep in character with the building. so to that end, we created signage that would be unique to this particular space. we did lettering in black. we also shrunk the size of the core power signage so that this will be unique to the neighborhood. we're looking forward to joining the castro merchants association and are looking forward to also potentially hosting some free yoga classes in dubose triangle park as a way to meet the neighbors and become more involved in the community. i'm here to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. we're going to open it up to

public comment first. seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner? >> to put this project a little more in context, i think about the church and market safeway and the fact that on a couple of different edges of that property, let's just say we could clean it up a little bit more. so this site has been vacant for a number of years. the previous applicant was not successful whatsoever. [laughter] >> in moving in. there was nothing but heavy opposition due to the usage, but i think this one fits in very well with the neighborhood. i especially like the compliment this is going to give, seeing there's a crossfit gym halfway down the block. you've got your mix of heavyweight lifting and then calm and relaxed yoga. i'm glad to see the merchants

and the dta are on board and move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner? >> i was going to make a motion to approve. >> okay. >> very good, commissioners. there's a motion that's been seconded. to approve this matter with conditions on that motion, commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner johnson? >> aye. [voting] >> the motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. this will place us on the discretionary review calendar. [ agenda item read ] >> for 071 hamshire street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. representing staff, our

department, thank you. discretionary review at 7 701hampshire street. this is to convert garage space to two dwelling units, exterior modifications, a one-story vertical edition to a three-story, six-unit building. since the 311 neighborhood notification time period, the project sponsor has submitted revisions which are also included in your packets and also was submitted via email to the commissioners as well as the members of the public as well as discretionary review filers to include a missing page. since that time, the revised plan includes that the vertical edition was proposed to add living space -- sorry.

the existing 311 project included a vertical edition that was proposed to add living units on four and five and provide roof decks to these units. since the neighborhood notification that was sent out for notice, the plans have been modified so that unit four will no longer be expanded. [please stand by]

. >> issue number one related to displacement, resident of the third floor units will be displaced with the tenant expansions. issue number two related to temporary evictions at the vertical addition will require extensive seismic work which will require all tenants to be relocated for a longer duration, and issue number three related to unaffordability, new top floor units and amenities will make

units affordable and incongr incongruous with the neighborhood. the residential advisory team recommended modifications to the project in response to concerned raised to d.r. by the discretionary review filing which i outlined to setting back the roof deck railing and related to the proposed planters on hampshire street. with incorporation of the requested changes, the department found that the project met the standards of the residential design guidelines and that the project does not meet historic circumstances on that topic. to date, the department has been contacted by five residents and neighborhood residents and 17 residents of san francisco in opposition to the project and in support of the d.r.'s, with concerns focused on potential displacement of residents and reduction in the affordability of the units, neighborhood

capabilit compatibility, and the loss of parking and shadow on neighboring properties. the project sponsor provided letters of support from five tenants and neighbors note the project will physically and aesthetically improve the condition of the building. the department recommends the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed. the project is consistent with the guidelines and will add housing to the city stock. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer questions, and we have members of the public to outline in more detail. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. all right so we have two d.r. requesters. are you presenting together or have you got separate presentations? all right. you can go first here. we have five minutes for each of you, then we'll take public

testimony. >> jennifer fever with the tenants' union. so in 2014 the owners purchased this building for 1,425,000. most of the households are gone and very fresh tenants have moved in who are on the support side letters. three months later, the own-- [ inaudible ] >> -- the eviction notice was eventually rescinded after tenant advocates got involved and the tenant remained. the reason i filed this d.r. is that once again, the planning department is disregarding the rent ordinance and how permits affect existing tenants. planning's adu guidelines state

adu's can be used in only unused spaces. we have established procedures if an owner wants to sever spaces, which the project sponsors are ignoring. overhead, please. i'm giving you copies of this. this is the annual buyout report from the rent board. you'll see that one of the columns includes garages and common space and a room for a figure for buyouts for those. landlords can try to regain common tenant spaces designs but it is up to the tenant's discretion whether to agree or not. this discussion never took place and there's no agreement with the tenants. and to show you that i am not making this up, here's a letter from the rent board to a different landlord that states that they are violating section

37.9(a) by trying to take away a garage from a tenant that has always been part of this lease. we know that the owner has access to attorneys who understand tenant law because they recently issued a three day notice to linda and yuka who are here. so i don't know why they're not following rent board procedures. and yuka's three day notice is really suspicious. they were in japan at the time, so it's a pretty common trick for landlords to serve these notices so that the tenant can't respond, and then they get a default judgment against them. we know that the owner has -- i'm not here to debate whether i like adu's or garages better, but if a construction permit is issued the commission is forcing tenants to hire attorneys. they can't create an injunction to stop something from happening like the courts can.

organizations like ours have fought long and hard to give tenants security in their rights. some of these issues may seem trivial to others, like garages, but if we let this right go, what's next? chopping up people's apartments to give second bedrooms to adu's? who good are the adu guidelines if they are ignored? why is the planning department giving permission to the designs that won't hold up in a court if a tenant hires a lawyer to argue that there is no just cause to take them away? the current process is a waste of everyone's time, including the owner and the architect. i thought that there was a plan to hire someone to learn the rent ordinance and that there would be more sensitivity to existing tenants in their leases, so i'm just wondering what the timeline is for these changes to be made. i ask the commission to take discretionary review and deny the entire project, and i'd like to cede the rest of my time to the second d.r. person. >> president hillis: i don't

think we can do that, so if you have additional things to say. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: okay. all right. okay. so second d.r. requester. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: sure. if you just leave them right there, we'll get them. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: great. thank you very much. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: all right. go ahead. go ahead. we'll set the timer. you've got five minutes. >> okay. thank you. my name is nina dobna. i live next door at 2525, and i'm really nervous which is why i'm reading it. please for give me. i don't have any experience reading architectural plans, so i'm not here to rg aany of the zoning merits. i agree with the tenants, i'm working with them, but my concerns are around my house, light and privacy, and the building scale. the owners will try and argue

that they've made changes to their plans and worked with the owners and tenants, and that is just not the case. they have not consulted with us since the initial meeting two years ago, nor have they shared their plans. i believe they did make some changes to a few planters and railings, but that's trying to bruf the bluff their way out of the plans without having the arguments heard. i've lived in my house for nearly 20 years. it's eligible for the california role of historic resources, which i love. what i'm most concerned about is my privacy and the plans to block my natural light to my sky light but also the five windows that currently light the down stairs of my house and the separate unit that's right underneath mine. i would like to argue that of the six residential design guidelines, it fails inform address one, three, four, and

six. and i know that a team has looked at the plans, but i don't believe they're airrelevant with a of how many windows are in my house and in the unit underneath. it does not ensure the building scale is compatible with surroundings. it does not maintain light to adjacent properties. it does not provide architectural features to enhance the neighborhood, it does not ensure that character defining features of historical area are maintained. my first complaint is the light and privacy. so rdg, the guideline on page 50. the proposed development does not respect the existing pattern of side spacing, buildings on all of the surrounding streets use a gabled upper floor with sky lights in order to create privacy for rooms on the upper levels and be compatible with neighbors, and the proposed development does not respect this strategy. many of the rooms in my house are lithonly by direct access of the sky lights or the windows in the light well. having those in shade will

hugely impact the quality of my life and any family. i'm especially worried about my daughter he's room. the fourth floor views will have views directly into her room. the new floor looks directly into her room, the bathroom. the set back and light provides the light to my down stairs livable space, and it doesn't take into this account. it throws all of those windows into shade. the only light in the down stairs bedroom and bathroom is provided by the light well. there's windows there, four windows. and without this, there'll be complete darkness in those rooms and severely reduce light in my kitchen. that's images six to nine. there's massive disruption to the yard. that's images ten. there's going to be a four story building next to it.

and then, the down stairs unit, the only light to the basement unit in the bathroom, kitchen and living space is provided by the light well, you can see those in images 11 to 14, so the current plans do not have a sloped roof and nor do they provide a shared light well, in fact they take away all the light from my existing light well. i think from 2:00 p.m. all year-round every single day at best of times. i spoke with the sunshine ordinance of san francisco, and they offered to review any plans submitted at this meeting. any other arguments are around scale and form, and there are just no four story neighborhoods in the building -- in the neighborhood. the residents are arguing this is almost like a three story building, the building's not

next door and they're not indicative of homes in the area. the vast majority of two story homes, and you can see that in my photos 15 to 18. in summary, the plan's out of scale with adjacent homes, and i think we mentioned earlier, 701 is only one house away from 2600 19th street. the south mission historic resource states that any construction adjacent to these historic resources needs to ensure those character defining features are maintained, and that includes height parity. i appeal to you to consider the objections and views of these long-term homeowners and tenants, not the developers who do not live here. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. so we'll next take public comment in support of the d.r. >> clerk: and if we could find out who requested the translation services. could we have that person speak

first. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: and others who would like to comment, please just lineup on the screen side of the room. >> clerk: and if anyone who needs translation services, if you could please go next. >> president hillis: welcome. [ speaking native language ] >> my name is linda cornejo. [ speaking native language ] >> i live at 701 hampshire street. i've been there since february 1st, 1986. [ speaking native language ]

>> i'm here in front of all of you to say i am opposed of the construction at 701 hampshire street. [ speaking native language ] >> the construction proposed at 701 hampshire street is going to negatively affect my living. [ speaking native language ] >> so this construction's going to take away the parking area, it's going to take beiaccess t the garden. it's also going to take away the washing machine area and affect my neighbors, as well.

[ speaking native language ] >> it's going to create just an environment that it's not going to allow me to really enjoy my -- my piece in that area. [ speaking native language ] >> i never had any issues in this building until the owner, mark calwell bought the building in 2016. [ speaking native language ] >> so he -- mark cal well hwel

offered me money to leave my unit. he's also sent me three times a three-day notice. [ speaking native language ] >> he says pay the rent or leave the building. [ speaking native language ] >> and these notices why faler false, and when he notified me, these were false notifications. [ speaking native language ] >> the construction -- the proposed construction is going to cause an opportunity for an eviction to my unit.

[ speaking native language ] >> the owner says i would have to leave my home for two months. [ speaking native language ] >> and he says maybe he'll complete the project within the two months. [ speaking native language ] >> so those two months can be extended and take more time, and this is going to cause for me permanent -- something permanent. [ speaking native language ] >> we've seen this happen to other renters, and this is a common practice with some of

these owners. [ speaking native language ] >> and i'm forced to leave, i won't have a place to stay during that construction. [ speaking native language ] >> so i don't have anywhere friends, family, that can put me up during these two months. i've been retired since 2013. i retired. [ speaking native language ] >> and i couldn't pay these funds to live somewhere else during this construction. >> clerk: thank you, your time is up. [ speaking native language ] >> and i wouldn't be able to pay the cost to move out.

>> president hillis: thank you very much. >> clerk: is there anyone else in need of translation services? if not, thank you, translator. >> president hillis: all right. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is noe. i lived over at 701 hampshire street, and i am here to show my opposition to the preservation plan, 701 hampshire street. please stop him and his plan because i'm using myspace, obviously, the parking space, and that's my main concern, honestly. but also, i am considering

about this whole living circumstances in san francisco. i'm highly stressed about people's insight about how we run this whole city, and the expectation to give a very difficult time to existing tenants, and especially financial difficulties. also, i feel like landowners, they are -- tends to set themselves into that direction, which is -- you he nknow, like

so for example, in this case, mark bought this property three years ago for $1,625,000, which is on a public record, and he had a -- a couple funding resources, which loaned to him about 1,140-something dollars. also, other resources gave him like $320,000, so he -- he paid down payment about, like, $200,000. but our rent -- our apartment building was fully occupied by the time, which is, like, a rent controlled building, and he only expected his income out

of the tenants was like 74,000 -- $7400, but his mortgage was, like, way over, exceeding the 74. so i don't think that's really fair, now that he's asking us more money. >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you so much. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is sophia. i'm reading this statement on behalf of yuka. my husband and i have been residents of 701 hampshire street for 12 years, and last week, one of our landlord mentioned we will be relocated in 60 days because the walls will be sheer replaced. we've been living in this

apartment for a very long time, and it will take us a long time to move our property. there's a parking crisis in our area, so it will take time to find parking and at night, i do not feel comfortable talking around the neighborhoo-- walki the neighborhood. i'm not opposed to a seismic retrofit, but i'm concerned this is just the landlord's attempt at pushing us out. calwell told us, i will ellis act in, you or move you out. he was first interested in moving into unit 101, janice

3w bixlek's unit. calwell works for a realtor, but under his own name, he owns five to six homes in three to five different cities around the bay area. with redfin he also manages ten to 15 homes in my commission. one of those home was flagged by the office of short-term rental in san francisco because he was trying to offer a short-term rental without a permit. i also learned that units in oakland owned by kristina tran and mark calwell are in lawsuits, including two seniors, one of them ill who were pushed out from their home with only $5,000. their housing was also kbrrl maintained. the staircase was improperly built and dangerous.

this is a clear and disturbing pattern. at a time when we have ari sis level of housing in the city. i believe we need to hold him accountable for the rights of tenants. >> president hillis: thank you. >> mou yhow you doing. my name is trevor summers, and i'm a resident of the building adjacent. i filed a d.r. to assist the property owner, and i'd like just to come in to object on the basis -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, you're the d.r. filer. >> that's correct. >> clerk: so your opportunity to speak was during that first five minutes. you can have two minutes of rebuttal, if you'd like.

[ inaudible ] >> clerk: he's listed as the d.r. requester, so you has that five minutes to speak. he can speak under the two-minute rebuttal. >> president hillis: you'll have two minutes to speak at rebuttal. next speaker, please. [ inaudible ] >> hi. good afternoon. my name is paul betras. i'm a resident at 2525 19th street. it's a small unit down stairs. so the building going up next door with the added fourth floor is going to severely impede -- it's going to cause a large amount of shade placed over the house, and this is going to affect my unit as well, because most of the light that comes into my unit is from two windows, in the bathroom

and one in the kitchen that are in the light well. if the fourth floor is added to the top, that's going to severely limit the amount of sun light that can enter the unit, and it's going to make the unit extremely dark. as far as the back yard, the increase in the height will also decrease the amount of privacy that i have in the back yard that's going to have a great affect. and also, just the whole notion of having to displace tenants during this time is -- i think it's going to be a very difficult time for them. it's going to put a lot of stress on them as well, and i just wanted to make mention of that, as well. i don't have much else to say. just wanted to make it quick and short. thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi.

my name's eddie steele. i live at 2525 full so many street. i've been in front of you before. i take interest in these cases because -- in solidarity with tenants. i'm on the neighborhood notification list, so i get the notices, and i got the 311 notice, and i did a lot of outreach after that, and it -- that outreach ended up getting an article into the sf examiner about this project, which i thought was a great article, very informative. i'm seeing a lot of situations, and this case brought to me the first time i heard this term, rent eviction. and i see a lot of these where property owner buys a property and decides to build a new building in the back, above, next to, and then take the existing units and merge them into the new construction. and what ends up happening is that the people get evicted. a studio apartment, a one bedroom apartment becomes a two bedroom apartment, three bedroom apartment.

the law says you're allowed to be out 60 days and get $15,000, but everybody knows if you build a studio apartment or two bedroom apartment behind it, that apartment is not for you. the city's screwed up. i found out about this project, i called the planner. i asked the planner, do people live in these units askd by the project, and you know her answ answer? i don't know. so then, what happens? the permits get issued unless people pay $600 to get a discretionary review. that's not right. these kind of projects should not be coming in front of this commission. these kind of projects should not be being considered by the city of san francisco. it's a perfectly habitable units that doesn't need to be remodelled, leave it alone. you need to stop this.

in that article, commissioner richards was quoted as saying, we need to get our arms around this. well, here is an opportunity to get your arms around this. deny this project. the other thing you can do as a commission is direct the director to direct his staff not to consider these kinds of projects. if -- the first check box should be, do people live in these units? if the response is yes, then the response should be sorry, this shouldn't be happening to this building. one more thing i want to say is on the supporting information, the planner only put in that packet letters of support for the project. now, today, there was a note that said there was 15 letters of opposition, including mine. that was not in the packet. the planner should not be cherry picking what -- which correspondence from the public you see, so that's not rielght

and that shouldn't happen. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. steele. any further public comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor? you have a combined ten minutes. >> my name is kristina tran, and i am the coowner with mark calwell. we've owned the building since january 2015. it has always been our dream to own property in san francisco. we started this project because we saw a building that seriously needed work. we both love the mission, and want to work on something that will improve the neighborhood. this building sticks out like a sore thumb. it doesn't belong in the neighborhood and doesn't relate

to anything else, probably because this isn't a building style that people are looking to emulate. we've had several people tell us that they are relieved to see that we are breathing new life into the building. we'll also be upgrading the seismic structure of the entire building. seismic retrofitting is city mandated for the safety of its residents and we'll be taking it a step further to ensure that the entire building is upgraded to current seismic code. we are also adding fire springlers for the safety of tenants and neighbors. some of the biggest things we face in the bay area are earthquakes and california fires. we are also adding housing. in addition to the two new one bedroom adu apartments, we are expanding a studio apartment into a two bedroom apartment and a one bedroom apartment into a two bedroom apartment. this project allows a total of

four additional san francisco residents. currently, the building has only one bedroom and studio apartments. the project is adding two two-bedroom apartments which are much more conducive to families, and these are not going to be luxury units. the size of the bedrooms, they're a modest ten by 10 feet. the preapplication meeting which shows expansion of unit 201 was august 2016. we were originally under the impression that the option to move into the one of the newer, nicer one bedroom units might possibly be a welcome change, something that we personally would perceive as a preference, and we received no feedback to the contrary. not for nearly two years, not until this d.r. request. in response to the d.r. request, we modified the plans so that we will no longer be