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 expanding that unit.

instead, we are expanding units 202 and 203, both of which tenants have expressed enthusiastic support of the project and their support letters are included in your packets. we have gone to great lengths to accommodate the needs of the tenants and the concerns brought up in the d.r. we absolutely know how important the issues are and as the tenant is against changes to the unit, then we are happy to do our very best to accommodate. we went through several brainstorming sessions in consultations with professionals to come up with a different solution. we reworked the entire building plan so that we will no longer expand unit 201. we absolutely respect the tenants' desire to stay in their home as is, even as grease expense this late in planning, we want to build this project responsibly and are happy making the changes. there are numerous, very serious and very false allegations made by the san

francisco tenants' union. in an e-mail to a long list of various city officials, it is stated that we are doing illegal short-term rentals. we are not. it was also stated that we are sending mail is for the purpose of posing ago primary residents. we aren't doing that, either. a lot of allegations have just been made and these are falsehoods based on conjecture. we've very much respect tenant rights, and the applicable laws. and we have not as was alleged, offered money to -- to evict tenants. the d.r. request also alleges that our project is clearly another rent eviction. again, this is complete conjecture not based on facts. we have never heard of rent

evictions before this and weren't even aware of the three month -- our aim is to reduce temporary relocation as much as possible. we have hired a construction management consultant who has done constructions sequence analysis that is included in your packets, and he is also here to answer your questions, by taking appropriate steps, we can limit temporary relocation to two months or less if things go smoothly, and we will be paying for the entire duration of this two month temporary relocation. we will need to replace she-- shear walls so that the building can be fully compliant with code. this is fore the benefit of tenant safety. both d.r. requests reference very early plans that have been scaled back significantly.

the plans reference, and -- for example, we will no longer be building this top piece, and the -- it has also been scaled back significantly. so the arguments that were based in their request were based on a building plan that has been scrapped since the beginning of 2017. we have listened to concerns regarding the building height and mass and have already made extensive changes accordingly offer the last #1.5 years. we have a vision for making this building better and for making this community better. we do not want to do this at someone's expense. the majority of the tenants are in full support of the plan and we addressed the other concerns

as soon as we were aware of them. this building is going to be safer, nicer, it's going to have trees and greenery. it's going to be much more energy and water efficient, and it's going to be a home to four extra people who can call themselves residents of our beautiful san francisco. >> i'm the project architect. i'd like to speak a little bit about the discussion of the context and the height and this building relative to the neighbors. as you can see on the screen, this is our subject property, adjacent buildings on the east side of hampshire street. as you can see, they're much taller and a fourth floor in the context of these taller

buildings fits within that context. if you look at the 19th street side, this is the south side of 19th street. the gabled roof buildings, you can see how much taller they are than the existing three story, and again, a fourth story on the proposed building fits within that height context, and of course that fourth story is set back as recommended by the residential design guidelines both at the front and at the rear. the building across on the southwest corner of hampshire and 19th also is taller due to taller ceiling -- floor to ceiling heights. with respect to the parking issue, there will be one space remaining. you know, i was unaware of the issues related to leases and with regard to the parking, so i'll leave that up to kwlur discussion if tenants are not

agreeable, then make an additional space has to be required. i think there's two tenants that may not support that. we've had a number of meetings, the neighbors saying we haven't been willing to meet with them, it's completely false. we had two neighborhood wide meeting, and then my door's always been open. miss do 23wd ler came to my office. we looked at the shadow study, and it does a had o analysis on the sky lights, there are no direct views to her property from this building, absolutely none. we have a fire wall on the east side of the property, no windows on is that fire wall. we also have a fire well that matches their existing light well on the vertical addition on the fourth floor, so that's exactly as recommended by residential design guidelines. residential design guidelines also state that corner buildings should be taller and have greater visual interest. i think we've done that.

we went through four rounds of comment with rdt, refining both before and after the d.r. as was stated by miss boudreau. so i'm available to answer questions as needed. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. so we'll take public comment in support of the d.r. -- i'm sorry, i mean in support of the project. >> hello. my name is david moss. i have lived here in san francisco for over 15 years. i'm here because i'm concerned about the shortage of housing in the area, and i'm in favor of this project because it will add additional housing for families. i'm also in favor of the project because it will improve the appearance and safety of the neighborhood and for those reasons, i hope this project is approved. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment?

seeing none, d.r. requester, you each have a two-minute rebuttal, miss fevbre. [ inaudible ] >> i was interrupted. basically, i object to the project on the basis that the proposal contradicted the residential design guidelines, specifically light and privacy scale, sloped roofs, and light wells. the project adds a vertical fourth story that extends directly adjacent to the existing light well on 2525 19th street, and most of the light that that light well gets is not direct, it's ambient from the sun light hitting the wall of the light well and reflecting into the windows below. those windows provide all the light for the bedroom that i live in, that's directly below there and that's the picture with the big lit bedroom window. the other two pictures that you

have should show the edge of the window that shows a building. the residential design guidelines talked about sloped roofs, so that those light wells are lit, and light wells that -- that are there. the -- you know, i'd also like to express my sympathy for my neighbors. there's a bunch of great people that live there. you know, since the new owners have bought the property, they've made and withdrawn a couple eviction attempts that were documented in the eviction history that i think you guys have. and they kind of demonstrated ill will towards the tenants. i know how hard it is to find a place in san francisco, and expensive, and i feel for those people that i live next to that are in danger of losing their homes, so that's all i have to

say. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. >> i kind of shuffled my next round, too, but i guess my rebuttal are mark and christine own multiple properties in san francisco. they're clearly in it for the money. they've been to two neighborhood meetings. i only heard about one of them. my notes that i handed to everybody here thanked troy very specifically for allows me into his offices. he allowed me into his offices to see the plans, and he was very accommodating. we never heard back from mark and christine. nobody shared plans, we couldn't get them. the current building is very different to many single-family homes in the neighborhood. i think we're all begging you

not to make it more of an eye sore by approving additional floors and really they're adding two units just so they can line their pockets. i think i have 50 neighbors that are opposed to this project, and i guess i just really appeal to you to consider those views. we're not here to rally against nor natural progression no, sir increase density. i'm not here to argue the city doesn't change. these are our homes and just please consider the kwaul of our lives against the developers. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor, you have a four-minute rebuttal. -- no, two minutes. sorry. >> we -- we really appreciate everyone's feedback. we want this project to be something that we can look back

on and be proud of and know that it had a positive impact on the city and neighborhood we love we're very grateful for the tenants union for the issues that they brought up and given the opportunity to address them. we have worked very hard to incorporate everyone's concerns. we have completely reworked the layout of the top story. we have removed the roof stairwell and fraetly reduced the footprint of the upper level. we've hired professionals to outline a construction schedule to minimize relocation as much as possible. we are committed to working with the community in improving our neighborhood. we appreciate everyone's feedback and contributions to this project. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. so this -- oh, go ahead. >> thank you. just to kind of reiterate, the building really does need some help and as part of the overall financing of this project, in

talking with the owner and obviously, i'm the architect. i'm not their banker, but what their -- my understanding is the project for them really is viewed as a whole, you know, the addition of the top floor creates the value that allows them to get the loan to be able to do the adu unit, so you guys -- or i'm sorry, this commission heard the -- you know, the housing report, and you know, the two adu units is 2% of what the 100 adu's that were built last year and not to mention the expansion of the studio and the one unit into two bedroom units, so i do really think it's important and you know, i'll be involved during the project working with them and their construction manage to find the most expeditious way to minimize

disruption during construction. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll close this portion of the hearing and open it up to commissioner comments and questions, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: as of yesterday at 2:00, i was asking for this to be continued. the reason for that was the package we were given last thursday was incomplete and completely contradictory to what we were supposed to look at. yesterday at 5:00, 5:15 i pulled up my sfgov website to find that supplement cal material had been submitted, concerningst third floor where most of the changes is happening. but attached to that was a large file, harder to download actually that set of drawings which should have been in our package last thursday. to tell you the truth, i have a home field advantage of looking at drawings that just comes with my background, and i was

up till last night about 10:30 or 11:00, trying to figure out what's going on because the staff report still does not match of what is in the drawing package, and that starts most and foremost with the way the units are described. unit six is the -- unit five is the one which gets pushed into the fourth floor, becomes unit five, while unit six fits on the third floor next to unit four. that's one of the biggest confusions because you read it the other way around. so you keep looking and looking and looking, only to realize there is either mislabelling or there is not a particularly large accuracy of how the project is described. that said, getting deeper -- and i -- actually to ghive youa

real honest amendment of howssi felt, standing in a long line in a grocery store, somebody put cuts in front of me. and in this case, i felt the architect who had not submitted his drawings in time had an advantage over anybody else who comes with a complicated project, and this is a complicated project. and i want to come and talk about why this project is complicated. i'm not pointing any fingers, i'm just saying that procedurally, as a commissioner this puts more stress on me to properly work and attend to matters of planning commission in the form that this particular case was handled, and i have to say it, and i'm not making any accusations, but i have to say it to the point. i think there's a very good explanation we had last week. if this project would have used -- been used in last week's joint discussion with

dbi, this project would be a de facto demolition, and the reason i'm saying that in order to introduce the adu's, the entire structure has to be stripped in order to beef up the structure, you have to take the ground floor out, and all you have is a skeleton struck -- structure, and you have to dig below grade in order to provide that proper ceiling height, and that by definition could be considered a did defactodemolition. nobody will be able to live in

a building which i do know will take significantly longer than two months. i'm in the middle of starting on monday seismic substory retrofit, and the shortest time frame, and nobody is affected but the ground floor, there is no construction which will do this under 12 weeks, so -- yeah, 12 weeks or three months on a seismic retrofit that only affects the ground floor. this affects the entire building because we're adding an additional floor. what i'm seeing here is an honest attempt to upgrade a building, but upgrading it to the extent that it will address a completely different clientele that currently lives in there. there is no possibility to have even remotely similar rents or rent controlled for the current tenants that are being currently commanded and if you look at what's intended here, there is no possible way to make those two things fit, and i don't think that anybody who upgrades this building is going to be making charitable contributions to maintain

reasonable and affordable rents in this building. overall, what we're seeing is the units remaining similar in size. i have a question as to whether or not department of public works demands an encroachment on the ground floor being accessed from stairs, which will require a sidewalk modification. that includes the planting which is supposed to be there to create privacy for the below grade units. the application states that there would be a required granting of an exception. that is not guaranteed, and in a way, i question it because along hampshire, most buildings sit inbound from the property lines. this particular building, 701 hampshire, sits on the property line. all other buildings hold back, so asking for an encroachment into the sidewalk at a cornered

location is something that i would question this being as easily just dotted down on this drawing set. there is no guarantees. this building cannot have additional units unless it gets that encroachment. you cannot go down into these units. we have talked about many times that we would like ground floor units, adu's or other to have privacy. sitting on the property line, below grade is not creating the type of liveability that i -- that i support for this building or any other. i have questions about the over jaul effect on existi all effect on existing tenants, i have questions about the owner wanting to improve the building, which is already problematic based on its layout. we've talked about many situations particularly the

tenderloin about motel-type buildings, which this one is. you basically have to go to your unit, closely walking by bedrooms to get to your own unit, now upgrading this building type to continue to do the same except at higher rent raises all kinds of questions. i am concerned that we are hearing this today. i am concerned that the commission did not have time to look at the plans and get into the subtleties. this is not an easy plan to understand, and what we've heard from the d.r. requesters, this project raises huge questions for me, and at this moment, i am not prepared to support it. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so people, there'll be people that will be throwing rocks and mud and saying oh, this is about

parking versus people, houses versus cars, i can hear it now. the two words that, you know, the two things that we're trying to balance here is stablization of increasing communities along with the existing housing supply. there's our rub, so to say. the problem with this project is it proposes to increase the housing supply, and proposes to stablize the existing residents. this reminds me of 505 -- it just smacks of it. it's -- at the expense of the existing tenants, we're going to upgrade the building, and we're going to get rid of them because we're not going to be able to have this works done within three months, and we'll be back. i didn't need to see the existing drawings. we -- adu's are not supposed to

be carved out of existing tenant amenities. if the tenant has five square feet or ten square feet in their unit, that somebody wants to carve out to create part of an additional adu unit, they don't have to do that. that's not how the adu laws are written. if there's a crawl space or attic that nobody's using, that's where the adu goes. if the tenants want to voluntarily give up the garage space for the adu, do it, but you're not supposed to be taking away existing space in the name of creating housing, and at the same time you're supporting displacement, so i absolutely would not support this project in any way, shape or form. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you. so it sounds like commissioner moore, you're look for more like to look at the drawings. if we were going to vote on this, for me, it would be an

absolutely not. besides the issues that have been raised by my fellow commissioners, i think that there is an issue with our process. you know, if we are not checking the report on the rent board to see if these common spaces have been voluntarily sold back by the tenants. it's almost like site control. you know, i think that i understand that this project sponsor needs this space for their financing, but it's not really yours to take without due process. and so i -- i think that if -- you know, going forward, you know, these projects -- it's, you know, checking off whether things have happened before it can move to the next level, i

think this is a basic thing because we're seeing it all over the city. as commissioner richards very aptly said, that's not what the adu law intended. i also want to note that the adu was llaw was passed in 201 when the project sponsor purchased this building, we knew this was going to happen. it needed to be retrofitted. this should have been taken into account in pencilling out the building, along with the rents, in what you know work needed to be done to retrofit it, so that's -- i do think it is an issue of process. >> president hillis: commissioner fong? [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> i want to know what the law -- what the city requires, please. thank you. >> commissioner hillis, kate stacy with the city attorney's office. i regret to tell the commission i really just don't know the rent ordinance. i will have to consult with what the law requires. certainly landlords can enter into agreements separately with their tenants, but i cannot give you any advice now on the rent ordinance and how that applies to tenant who is leave during

the renovation. i will check back. >> thank you. this is the touch piece to me. >> maybe we could have the project sponsor kind of clarify the different components of their project, which i believe are several, related to if there's a mandatory fit on this project, there's the -- baked into that, there's the temporary tenant relocations that are regulated by the board that allow for different tiers of tenant relocation and return period. i don't want to speak on behalf of the rent board related to that process, but related to the mandatory seismic program, that is a component of that. we may want to have them speak in detail about their full project and the scope of that

project. >> do you mind just clarifying what has been offered and if it, in fact, is in writing or not to the tenants? >> you kind of bullet pointed, but, if you can, to the best of our knowledge and to the best of your knowledge. >> so i think there were a couple of questions. the first question was whether or not we're paying up in the relocation expenses. we'll pay for the relocation services. we're committed to doing that. we're hoping that it could be less than that. if it does extend beyond that time, we're happy to extend the

relocation payments also. >> and when you're completed, the construction of the remodel is completed, this is really not a demo. they will be able to move in at the same rent they're paying now? >> absolutely, without question. >> is that in writing with each of the tenants at the moment? >> to our understanding, that is the law, so we haven't put that in writing, but we're happy to put that in writing. that's what we were planning. >> do you know more about this? >> yeah. the tenants would be able to come back at their original rents. seismic work normally doesn't require tenants to move out. you're supposed to do it within 90 days and a temporary relocation and you get a sum of

money. if it goes beyond 90 days there's no additional monies, unless there's something worked out with the tenants. this is the first time i'm hearing that, but we need it in writi writing. it would be great to have someone who's an expert in the field to be able to opine or at least give us an opinion letter based on the details of that particular project. i'm just throwing that out. while i want to support this project, because i think it adds

more in the end. in that time, i would like to see the project sponsor get into contract with each of the individual tenants so everybody understands what your rights are and what you're offering. >> thanks. can i ask a question? is it feiber or fiber? >> feiber. >> so the parking. you asked the question, did we err on the side of parking or housing. i think what is causing this problem is the fourth floor. i think the seismic retrofit of this building, like you said, could happen on the ground floor. i don't think it needs to go up above the second floor. you could spruce up this building, add units on the ground floor, and i think we would have a decent project. but the issue of parking gets in the way of that.

the rent ordinance, give us a quick snapshot in the law. if you have parking in your lease, and you have parking. the legislation doesn't allow an owner to take that parking and build a unit. >> no. it's considered part of your unit. you can give it up voluntarily, but you can be bought out. you can't be forced to do it. in order to fight it, you have to get an attorney. the rent board can't get involved. >> what do you mean in order to fight it? so my landlord came tomorrow and said, i'm taking your parking, a portion of your lease, you do down and file -- >> you would file a wrongful eviction from that space. >> and what happens? >> they could determine that was correct and lower your rent. that's all, but they can't stop the own for doing it. if you have a private attorney,

they can go to court and stop it. >> so the rent board's remedy is to reduce the rent, but you can't take a portion of your unit. is parking a different animal, that you can take some parking. if they came in and wanted to take my kitchen, would the rent board say, will we just reduce your rent? >> no. it's part of your unit. >> that's where i kind of get confused. the rent ordinance -- >> when they voluntarily move their car out, that's where the problem arises. once they vacate, you've given up your rights. so the only thing to do is stay there and get a lawyer and say, you're not taking my garage. >> from a seismic retrofit, you need to take the parking away.

it's 90 days. so you brought up the issues of adus causing evictions, i mean, the intent was they were supposed to be in areas they used. if it's a parking garage, there's a process we have to make sure, first, that the rent board has made whatever determination of that parking. the parking is no longer part of somebody's lease and can be used. i mean, i don't support this project, but i think the problem is not the adus. i think the problem is the fourth floor. that's what's causing all this additional work, as we go up, sprinklers and everything that's causing people to vacate. if people didn't have the parking under their lease or they agreed to it, i think you can put two units in there, retrofit the building, seismically upgrade it. that's what they were intent on doing, but i think they' taken this now and added this

component of it. that throws this into a whole different building code. you've got sprinklers, other exits, people are being evicted. that doesn't work for me. i think commissioner richard said, it's kind of pitting new housing versus displacement, but i don't think the housing is causing it. it's the addition of the fourth floor. >> can i say one thing about adu? >> sure. >> i think you guys should talk to tenant attorneys because these are pretty easy cases for them. the garage issue, it's part of their unit. i totally understand, butitis conflict. >> we need to make sure that garage is not under -- when there's an negotiated agreement between the owner of the building -- i've seen it happen. it happened around the block from me where there were five park spaces in a ground floor. the owner did a nice job converting the back of that into

a unit. they were under a lease. a lot of people don't like them under rent control, so they enter a separate lease for parking and they're able to put in a unit and get rid of the parking. i think that's fine as long as it's not within somebody's lease. i appreciate that classificatioclassificatiorific. i can't support it, as it is. i think that top floor is causing problems. a total renovation of this building wasn't the intent of the adu for the seismic retrofit legislation. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to take what you said further, if i may. can you please explain to us. i do not see how this particular building is getting a retrofit, but the structural improvements is only adding a fourth floor. the building itself, why you

make improvements voluntarily is not under the city's et trow fit program. correct? >> the building itself is under the retrofit program. generally, it refers to the ground floor only. commissioner hillis is correct that the extension of the shared walls up through the building is under the code and it becomes required if they're adding the additional load on the top floor. so the approach was to look at the retrofit. >> but it's fair to say if if you do an upgrade, you would not have to move or interfere with any of the tenants, is that correct? >> i can't speak to the sequencing and construction. [overlapping speakers] >> what is the foundation now? you need sheer walls -- the garage opening, clearly you have a soft story problem. >> correct. that the garage opening --

>> what is the foundation? >> it's a large concrete retaining wall on the east side. >> on the non-garage side. >> on the non-garage side and there's cap walls that are doing something at the moment. >> the seismic retrofit, it would be adding -- >> they would probably be doing some sort of steel frames. >> just a moment frame on the front. >> a moment frame on the front and sheer walls on the short direction of the building. [overlapping speakers] >> or even if the garages were not going to stay. >> either way, that's true. >> i don't think it would involve the upper parts of the building, other than voluntary improvements you would be making. that's just the way it reads. >> what is the height of the ground floor? >> the height of the ground floor is 7'67'6".

>> it would be down steps to 8' 8'6"? >> but tenants would not have to move out, if you did that? >> that's true. well, i don't want to say, but my opinion is they might not. >> commission richards? >> so a couple of other things, soft story retrofits are happening all over the city. drive down the street, and you can see a building being retrofitted. we don't have a massive displacement problem because of it because tenants do stay in the building while it's happening. there's 1 on scott street right near golden gate. take a look. the building is on stilts, but there are still people living in the building. this is exactly like 505 grandview. it's the additional -- i don't want to call it amenity because from the report, the tenants are going to be forced to move into the adus? that was the first plan. okay. so you need to retrofit the

building, absolutely, but you don't need to do it at the expense of the people that live in the building by needing them to move. so i can support a soft-story retrofit, which is what we're trying to do here for safety and some cosmetic improvements, and the tenants need to -- >> >> it's the law. >> it's the law. the tenants have needs with regard to taking a portion of their unit. we need a legislative change, or you can sue us. and i welcome that because i hate sitting up here having to go through this all the time. i make a motion to approve the soft-story retrofit -- [overlapping speakers] >> i think we have a couple of choices, it sounds to me. i need to just chime in, considering the housing accountability at this part of the equation, but you can continue it with more information or you can -- if you

continue it or not, the direction that i hear you giving is that the fourth -- the work on the building that would affect the existing tenants is what you're most concerned about. it sounds like the fourth floor. what i also hear you saying is, of course, you should do the retrofit. but i'm not hearing you should put units on the floor -- [overlapping speakers] >> how many are under leases? two. under a lease that's associated with a lease upstairs, not with someone around the corner. there's two. how many spaces are there? [off microphone] >> can you speak into the mic? >> but if you're talking about an outside person, there's no right to that. [off microphone] >> so there's two that potentially -- so, yeah, i think we continue it. you're not going to get a fourth story on this building because it causes too much displacement.

you may get some adu units to help with the seismic retrofit, but i think you've got to figure out what the existing residents -- especially those that have the units, those parking spaces, whether they're willing to work with you to give them up or not. >> we had one of these over -- i think it was in russia where we started to take parts of the lobby, and we said, no, you can't do that. >> it was on clay street. >> it was on clay street. at what point does the adu stop confiscating units? it's the way things are being done in the renovations. it says you cannot take existing living space or living service space for the unit, but what people are choosing to do is go beyond the basic adus. they're doing more than that. [overlapping speakers] >> i wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

>> it's a wrongful eviction under the rent law. >> the adu that's causing it, it's other people doing things beyond that. >> i guess the housing accountability act. we have to confiscate a portion of somebody's unit to build a unit. i don't agree with that. >> you don't have to, under this case. >> they were going to. >> right. it's because of the fourth quarter unit, the fourth floor. >> commissioner fong? >> let me clarify, for myself. so there's no loss of unit. if at least going to be an adu unit. >> two of the six are currently not bundled. >> are bundled. [overlapping speakers] >> you have to convert four

garages. >> while you're tearing things up to to do seismic retrofit, you can add -- >> and if people are willing to give up parking spaces -- >> i think we're feeling the fourth floor is too much at the moment and obviously displacing temporarily tenants is not worthwhile. i don't know if we want to approve that or offer a continuance for them to redraw everything. take moving the fourth floor as a continuance and if there's going to be displacement, have that in writing with the tenants. >> commissioner melgar? >> i'm not ready to vote on this, other than to say no. i would vote for a continuance because i think there's too many things that are still not settled. >> i second that. >> to the point about the

drawings, i couldn't really understand what i had. so maybe it was just me. back to the issue of the housing accessibility act and the adus, i would like a crisp, clear guidance from the city attorney about this issue. comment spaces or garages are part of a lease, and we say no, are we in violation of the housing accessibility act? >> no. >> and so, you know, this is what we're going to see. so if no is the case, if we can get away with saying no, this is not buildable space, then we need to have that in the process. we need to have a planner look at the records and the rent board and say, yeah, these folks, you know, gave these up. they got some money for it, whatever. and then we proceed because otherwise, you know, it just opens us up to an abuse of folks

who may not quite know their righ rights, you know, getting their common areas, their lobbies, their laundromats, their garages being taken away because the monetary incentive is so powerful to do this. so i do support the adus. i support having housing units rather than garages, but i want to be very careful about the process because it is not right to take the value that is bundled with somebody's tenancy for your own without having to go through the proper process and, you know, monetizing it and making the tenants whole. >> agreed. move to continue. >> second. >> i believe that's a motion. [overlapping speakers] >> we need a date first. >> i would go fairly far out. you're going to need a couple of months. >> i would like to add a little

more subtlety to what we're talk about right now. there are two issues here. one is the whole legal issue about what can you take from tenants with leases on garages, et cetera, and two is a plan that reflects all the things you can do and not the things which could legally potentially get us into problems, as commissioner melgar just summarized. it's a two-step process here. i think we need to make sure that the applicant and the architect fully understand the requests we're making here. on the other hand, for this size building, i think the soft-story retrofit has a very, very tight timeline. i'm surprised that the structural engineer is not here. that's way under process. i spent two and a half years going through the plans on a similar building size.

so these people, if they're already in process are a little bit on the time pressure side, we need to be sensitive to that because we do not want this building not to meet its time line. >> i think we're okay on timing. i think the plans have to be approved, but i think as far as timing on doing the work, they're okay. i'm pretty sure. that's fine. we give them a couple of months. i want to make sure we don't associate adus -- a lot of what's happening with adus, it's good. we're building units, yeah, there may be laundry. like it was said, you can take the laundry away. you have to compensate, but you have to pull laundry out of a building. there's a reduction in service, but you can do it. should we encourage that? no, not necessarily. we should encourage people to work it out. if tenants don't need their parking and are willing to be compensated for the removal of

parking, and we can build two units or one, that's good. >> if i may, there are a couple of things. one, the issue -- the housing accountability act, as i understand it, and i'm no expert, if it's a code compliant project, then you need to allow for the maximum number of units, right? it's a code compliant project. that's the question here. if it's not a code compliant project, this issue is not addressed of parking and all that kind of stuff. that's a whole different issue addressed in the city's code. what's called a housing service that's attached to the unit, such as a laundry room or whatever. i think the problem -- the current problem we have with access to date is the rent board doesn't currently have leases. you can't just go to the rent board and see if that lease says this parking space is attached to that unit. that's not -- they don't have that unless the landlord

voluntarily gives that up. we cannot require them to divulge that information ahead of time. >> right. >> i think what we're trying to do, and we've been talking to staff about this issue because it's come up now several times, is figure out a way to address that up front when a project like this comes to us where there are -- whether it's parking spaces or a laundry room, whether there's housing services to know in advance that the tenant is being -- has been notified. if we can't necessarily require an agreement, we want to know if they've been notified >> and we don't currently have that. if you go into this building and do an adu, you will get the normal notification for construction, but not necessarily your rights as a tenant because services are being removed or something is happening to the unit. i mean, that would be a good, at least, first step in the process. >> i think the other thing is -- we talked about this in terms of being able to have these projects pass the sniff test.

this is the second or third, i don't know, of these, but when you're adding another story, it's going to kick you into a higher level of seismic upgrade when the adus are on the ground floor. we should start recognizing these patterns, i think, that we're not adding housing on the upper floor, we're expanding units, but we're adding housing underneath, which doesn't require the higher level of seismic upgrade, which would result in displacement. >> can i ask one question, please, just within this group, or the commission. if this i would bei-- if this building were 100% vacant and sold 100% vacant, would we have opposition to this floor is this >> no. >> no. >> no. >> i agree. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a

motion and second to continue this matter to june 21st. on that motion, commissioner fong? >> aye. [voting] >> so moved, commissioners, the motion passes. >> all right. the meeting is adjourned? >> if you say sit.

>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their

shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here

to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people

lives better more people get a job here not just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. >> san francisco has to all >> good morning.co has to all i love this day. it's wonderful to be here with all of you. so many people in the room who are my favorite people in the planet. thank you for joining us this morning. every year we try and make this breakfast as special as possible to celebrate our work together. on behalf of the environment, on behalf of our city and on behalf of our plan secretary this