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 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 ig