the front of the building, and rereplaced with a sloping roof that relates to the sloping topo graphy and the adjacent neighbor's house. we moved the front back 15 feet. we also addressed potential privacy impacts to the roof deck by reducing it in size by 38% to 482 square feet, and the roof deck was supported by the commission because they agreed that by adding the adu, the back yard was going to become common space, and they felt that a single-family house would, should be allowed to have a small private area. and lastly, we added the adu perthe specific request of the commission, so this is new legislation that allows expansion of single-family houses to accommodate adu's, and they were very excited about that. so as you know, we had three appellants, two which were the former d.r. requesters. miss efkehtari, she's appealing

the permit issuance regarding the shoring plans, once the different type of foundation design is requesting to have additional documents reviewed by a licensed surveyor. we have several experts on the project, but to this day, she -- regardless of eight e-mails and responses to her, she has not responded to any of our requests to be able to come on her property to document, perher request, absolutely zero response. the land surveyor has been retained for the project to do a site sentiment survey. this was requested, no request. a civil sections 832 notification, notifying her of excavation was sent over 60 days ago, and the shoring plans were sent to her, which she acknowledged, but with no response. so we're at little bit at a loss. she has not shared her engineer's contact information,

so there's no way for us to even have a reasonable dialogue to resolve the issues that are of concern to her. so i think there's a lot of possible resolution there, but without any communication ability or response, it's impossible for us to forge an agreement. david tong, who is with the second d.r. requester and also the appellant, again, he lives at 30 gold mine drive. his house, as you can see, it's actually not adjacent to our property. we believe that, you know, he is asking for the elimination of the roof deck, the third floor, and the adu in the basement. and again we lowered our building 3 feet and demolished it in order to meet his requirements. he insisted on lowering the building 6 feet. from the start of the project he has been opposed to the project, and we believe that it's actually mainly due to his view, because he believes that

you know he's shown us pictures from his windows. he says that i don't want to see people on this deck, so he actual -- we actually offered to put a privacy screen up. he said no, no, don't put a privacy screen up. we moved the roof deck to the front of the building, so it's now currently 115 feet away from his home. contrary to what miss schuttish says, there is no massing attribute today this de attributed to this deck. we're using a movable roof hatch, so there is no mass increase on this deck. so it's unfortunate, but as we all know, views are not protected in the city of san francisco. lastly, the d.r. applicant, georgia schuttish, she lives on duncan street, which is over four blocks away from this project, so we're not really sure why she's protesting this

project. she objects as you know to the demolition of the house, that its appraised value, and yet it met the requirements for the zoning administrator to approve the demolition. and even the current value of the house, which is perzillow, is currently listed at 2.18 million. it far exceeds the tula praised value of the current new appraisal. so we're not sure why she is concerned about the demolition of this property. it was never considered affordable, and we actually were not approaching this project from a demolition for the conditions of the building. regardless of that, this project went through a thorough d.r. process and public hearing, so even if there was a need for a conditional use, it has fully been vetted. so in -- in -- miss schuttish asserts that the zoning of an

rh 1 property is illegal, but we know that the ordinance passed, and the planning commission voted to allow this to be added. this is a project westbound two housing units would be added. we've shown good i get if a, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering soils report, conducted well engineered shoring and foundation plans. we've included in your board package a summary of over two years of outreach that we've had with the neighbors. it's unfortunate that even after all those numerous meetings, numerous changes and hearings, they remain opposed to this project. none of the appellants have proved any new information that prove this had the permits were issued erroneously or incorrect. we respectfully request that you deny the appeals and issue the permit so that work can begin -- or issue the permit so that work can begin. so i'm going to conclude my

presentation with a slide show that i think you might find illuminating. this documents the numerous changed we've made to the project over the two years. it's kind of an interesting slide show. so i think this demonstrates a level that we have gone to address the concerns of our neighbors. our shoring engineer and i are available for questions if you have any, so thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> do you have a question? i have a question. >> well, yeah, i'll let you ask yours. >> i'm the project sponsor. >> okay. if you want to speak, go ahead. >> thank you for your time. i just want to point out a few inaccuracies that were made. we commissioned a swells report in 2015. then subsequent to that, we commissioned a geotechnical report in 2017. we have hired shoring engineering who's come up with good, solid shoring plan that was submitted to the dbi for

review and approval. and the geotechnical engineer has looked over the shoring plans and has given his independent evaluation of the shoring plan, the soundness report, which was also been submitted to dbi. i'll also just point out that we've been very patiently and with good faith working with the neighbors for the last 29 months and there really has been no progress. i personally have sent eight separate e-mails and letters, including through the attorneys and from my personal e-mail to miss efkthari, who's already

conducted a settlement survey and marked both adjacent property on that they can monitor the settlement if there's any during the excavation of foundation work. we've hired arcon construction which was been in san francisco since 1999, has done multiple projects, including three stories and has a good record. i -- in a separate letter that went out by mail as well as messenger service, essentially a section 32 notice was sent to the neighbors. another letter we sent out, saying we would like to meet with her engineer to discuss and address any concerns. we sent out six other e-mails, and we offered to -- i've hired access consultants, which is a -- documenting existing conditions. by contrast, to miss eftekhari,

the next-door neighbor, very willing to -- very responsive. had me -- has -- is working with me to have access coming onto this property, documenting existing conditions, which i offered to miss eftekhari, which she has not responded to one single e-mail. all she's done is try to delay this since the beginning. this has cost me a lot of time and money, and we've been through the due process, worked with the dbi, and we'd really respectfully if you could allow the project to go on as permitted. and my shoring engineer is here if you have any questions. >> i've got a question for the architect. did i read the floor plan incorrectly for the lowest two

bedrooms. >> yes. >> did they have outside awareness there? >> yes, they have an outside staircase that's being ex-have a -- excavated. >> no, i mean a light requirement? >> yes, they do. they open onto the five -- there's a set back onto the side, and they open out onto that staircase, yes. >> clerk: no more questions? okay. let's hear from the zoning administrator. >> commissioners, cory teague. there is a lot of moving parts to these appeals, so i think it is important to break it down at first.

there's obviously two different permits. there's the demolition permit and there's the construction permit, and there's two different types of issues being raised. one are more factual questions about implementation of the planning code, and the other more about the subjective review of the proposal and how it complies or does not comply with the residential design guidelines and other city policies. so on the latter there, you know, the planning commission as was discussed, had their review. you have all of their materials in your packets. i'm not going to elaborate on those issues and regarding the specific design elements of the project and whether or not it meets the residential design guidelines. it's clear that the department and the planning commission feel that the project as it was ultimately approved does -- or is consistent with the residential design guidelines. but beginning with the demolition permit. so planning code section 317 regulates the removal of dwelling units through dem owe

litigation, de facto demolition, conversion or merger. generally any removal of a dwelling requires a conditional use authorization for the removal and the associated new construction. however, there are some exceptions. the relevant exception for this case is what is often called pricing out. one of the primary goals of section 317 is to preserve some level of affordability that is provided by existing housing stock. however, if an existing single-family home located in the rh 1 or rh 1(d) zoning district is already unaffordable to begin with, the code permits its removal without increased scrutiny. the value determined to be d-- i'll point out that the planning code allows the planning commission to adjust this value by up to 10%. however, the commission has not to date made any such adjustment to the unaffordable value. the code provides no specific guidelines, also, as to how

often it should be recalculated. the zoning administrator uses his or her discretion to determine the appropriate timing of such updates. when the planning department conducted the neighborhood notification for this project in april 2017, the price out value was $1.64 million, and i just want to clarify one thing because this gets misconstrued in the press and just generally by members of the public and understandably so. some people take this to mean that it's the department's position that anything less than that value is considered affordable, and that's absolutely not the intent. it's that anything above that amount is demonstrably unaffordable. preserve that housing doesn't achieve the stated goal of 317, which is to preserve affordable housing stock. the permiltd holder provided an

appraisal in this case in january of 2017 determining this home to be 1.64 million, and noting that this home was at the low to midrange and to easily be sold at a higher price. the associated new construction permit, which i'll discussion net was subject to a discretionary review hearing. although the demolition permit was not technically subject to the discretionary review, it is important to note that the planning commission did not take any issue with the demolition itself as part of their review, and they approved the associated new construction permit with a 5-2 vote in september of 2017. given the timeline of the discretionary review, the planning department did not approve the discretionary

permit until december of 2017. the planning department continued its hold until the permit was reviewed by dbi, and both permits were issued in january of this year. the subject demolition permit was issued after, the planning department had already approved the permit and it was not subsequently referred back to the planning department due to any specific revisions to the project. it's the department's position that the subject demolition permit was correctly reviewed and approved. the appellant may not agree with the methodology and the out come, but they followed all planning department code requirements in approving the subject demolition permit. as such we respectfully request that the board deny the appeal of the demolition permit. regarding new construction, it has been mentioned the subject property is located in the rh 1 zoning district. there is an existing single-family home on the property. the demolition permit would

remove that home and the permit before you tonight would authorize the construction of a new single-family home. i think as has been mentioned, this has been going on for some time. the subject project began with a building permit originally filed in december of 2015 for a horizontal and vertical addition to the single-family home. the new construction permit subject to this appeal was subjected to review by the department and determined to be consistent with the planning code and the residential design guidelines. the permit was ultimately subjected to a discretionary review with the first hearing occurring on june 8, 2017 and the second hearing occurring on september 7, 2017. the first hearing ended with direction to the permit holder to explore with the department the ability to add an accessory dwelling unit at adu at some

point in the future. the permit holder also made several revisions to the project before the hearing as outlined in their brief and in the department's d.r. action findings in the d.r. memo. the commission ultimately voted 5-2 to take discretionary review and approve the project. the commission did not however revise the building scale or mass any further than what was amended before this second hearing. the commission only added one specific condition, which read: the appellant shall file a building permit application for an accessory dwelling unit before planning approves this building permit. within six months of certificate of final completion of the permit, the applicant must complete construction of the adu. if construction is not complete for the adu within this time period, the planning department will refer the project to the department's enforcement division and schedule the project before the planning commission as a staff initiated discretionary review. so just something to be clear, because i think the language has been a little loose here. the permit in front of you does

not include an adu because it can't legally. the existing zoning is rh 1. you're only allowed to do one unit. what this condition basically says is that once that single-family home is built and then exists, then the property owner must follow through and add an adu to a house that will be existing at that time. again, an adu can only go into an existing building, and this permit could not move forward with two units in it. that is why the -- kind of the two lower floors are designed the way they are to, you know, essentially have the look and feel of a separate unit but not actually have a separate full kitchen. so this permit was subsequently approved by the planning department on octoct-13 of 2017. it was issued by dbi on march 5 of this year, and it's the

department's position that the permit was correctly approved by the planning commission with subject conditions, and as such we'd request that the board deny the appeal. i'm available for any questions. >> i have questions. i know the adu legislation is still reasonably new, but can you think of other instances where this sort of sequence has happened with the new construction and then a subsequent addition? >> i'm not aware of any other case before the planning commission where they've conditioned the addition of an adu after a new construction project. it's -- also, there's been another one since then, i don't think it's very likely. i think i would have been aware of it. >> thank you. >> okay. >> what is the enforceability of that adu situation? do you -- it's -- as you said,

it's one of the conditions of -- of the -- of the construction permit, but where are the teeth, and do you -- would you withhold a certificate of occupancy until that -- that adu permit was -- was issued or what -- where -- where do you -- this is new territory, as said. how do you put the teeth in that accountability so that that will get done? >> the planning commission, in their condition of approval essentially the certificate of final completeness needs to be issued before the -- before an adu can actually be added and before the clock tief starts tic kid ng on adding the adu, so that has to happen. they did not add any additional enforcement mechanisms as part of this condition. the condition basically says that if it's -- if they do not meet the deadline, then that would be referred to our code

enforcement division, and then, also, if there is an adu permit, you know that just has not been completed at that point, it would have to come back to the planning commission for a mandatory discretionary review to have that discussed at the planning commission. so essentially, if a condition of approval for a project is not being met, then, that -- if that gets kicked over to the code enforcement division, then we would go through our standard enforcement procedures, which are determining if there's a violation, due process. once there's a violation, we have fees up to $250 a day. if that violation persists, we can refer that to the city attorney's office, and they can take additional action. >> what kind of condition -- if we were moving forward with the denying the appeal and moving forward with allowing the permitter or upholding the appeal and then making a condition, that's probably where it would go. what kind of condition could we

place on this at your suggestion to give it more teeth so that it has no chance of any kind of being a market rate -- a market rate unit and that it absolutely can only be an adu? >> well, it would definitely have to only be an adu because the condition is that it be an adu, and also only an adu can be added because it's an rh 1 district, so only one unit can go on this standard property as is. in terms of any added condition of enforcement, the planning code limits what we can do in terms of penalties. and so i'm not sure -- you know, the city attorney can maybe weigh in. i don't know that we would be on good footing to be able to increase that on this permit. i think we're limited pretty

much in what the law allows in terms of penalties. in terms of enforceability, i'm not sure that much could be done because in this case, this permit needs to be completed and essentially occupied before the next component of the condition kicks in. so there's no way to prevent -- and that would be required before you could add the adu, so there's no way to withhold a certificate of occupancy or certificate of final completeness contingent on the adu because that legally has to be completed before the adu could be added. >> okay. just one extending question. >> sure. >> if this item -- i haven't asked project sponsor whether he plans to live there or not, but if the project sponsor were not expected to live there and was strictly doing it on speculation as an investment and for the purposes of selling the project when it was done, and the -- the project was put up for sale upon completion,

what is the extension to the next owner, again, to ensure that this extra space is -- is completed as an adu? >> this condition runs with the permit, which runs with the land regardless of the owners. all future owners would be encumbered the same way. >> okay. great thanks. >> any other -- >> i have a couple of -- >> sure. >> okay. anybody else? one, is there likely to be the biggest adu i will ever see? >> we actually have some -- most of them or not. most of them are smaller for obvious reasons. the spaces are limiting or they're doing more than one. we have had, you know, at least a handful that are fairly sizeable, but this is definitely on the upper end in terms of size, but there is no size limitation in the code for

adu's. >> so human me a little bit. perhaps it's an intellectual discussion. how is this not spot building? >> well, t -- zoning. >> well, the zoning's not being changed. the code allows a single-family home to be constructed here, and after that singum family home, you know, whether or not this permit moved through this process as it did, if it was just some other single-family home being constructed on the property, as soon as that was done being constructed, that property owner would have the right to add an adu to that building. so the planning commission did not grant any authorization or additional development potential to this site that didn't already exist. >> i think you met that wasn't already entitled to exist. >> well, the right for them to do it already exists. they just simply required them

to do it. >> you know, there was -- 20 odd years ago that there was a movement to legalize all the illegal units in the sunset and the richmond. and what killed that was that there was no environmental analysis done for such a zoning change. in essence, it wasn't much different probably in a -- in effect versus the adu process other than the fact that it probably didn't have a rent control element to it, you know? was there environmental analysis done with this legislation? >> yes. the -- all legislation that's going to basically authorize potentially certain amounts of new development are required to go through a ceqa analysis specifically for that piece of

legislation, and we've had multiple pieces of legislation in adu's. it's been a project that's evolved over time. i think there's four, five, maybe six pieces of legislation that have gone forward and received the adequate ceqa clearance. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. inspector duffy. >> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. i don't want to go over the details on the permits. i think you've heard enough on that. so far, normally, i read those, but just some of the concerns on the appellant, on the -- on the lady on the first appellant was the -- it was some of the items that were brought up were all reasonable. i thought the flashing detail notification service were all good. and then, i heard the permit holder respond that they were

going to take care of it, which was good news from a dbi point of view, so i'm happy enough with that. i didn't hear any other public building code issues brought up, and as i said, the permits appear to be -- have been issued correctly by dbi, and i am available for any questions, however, if you have any. >> you have 27 minutes left. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening. i'm di i'm dylan casey. >> clerk: i'm sorry. can you lift up the microphone. what's your name? >> dylan casey, and i'm here to testify in favor of this proposal. it's a modest proposal that would actually increase the amount of units on the site. and specifically, i wanted to speak to the adu issue.

the -- the planning administrator here came up with a sort of solution that works with both state and the city's adu laws, and we -- i think that solution is fine, and we support it. and further, i think -- i think the city should consider allowing adu's in proposed developments, as well. the state law mentions both proposed and existing developments, so for future cases, i think the city should update its code to reflect the state laws. and on the demolition permit issue, i think most of the points have been covered, but i think the purpose of that statute is to prevent the loss of dwelling units and here, we're actually increasing dwelling units, so it would be a shame to hold up this project even more when it would go

against the purpose of that regulation. thank you. >> i have a question, sir. so i'm sorry, your position is? who do you work for, again? >> carlitz, california legal renters advocacy and education fund. >> given our current law and the condition stating for future usage, how do you get around that for enforcement? >> excuse me. >> so right now, you can't add it to a new building, so they're going to condition it on after the bblg is already built, but how do we -- building is already built, but how do we enforce that if they don't build the adu? >> i think the zoning administrator has already covered that issue. my only point was moving forward as the city implements the state legislation, there's no reason not to allow for

adu's in proposed projects, as well. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hi. laura clark, yimby action. we've been following the evolve adu legislation very carefully, and we're really excited about this implementation. the planning department worked out a system to ensure that the accessory dwelling unit would come on-line. i think you heard the planning department discuss that there are consequences of up to fees $250 a day. the planning commission and department are very dedicated to making sure that these dwelling units come on-line. this is exactly the kind of gentle in-fill accessory dwelling units that we need to be seeing across the city in our low density districts. i used to live in noe valley, and i would stand on my illegal

porch and drink coffee. it was an

>> clerk: okay. we will now move onto rebuttal. hana escobedo-hoyo, you will have six minutes. >> thank you. commissioners, i wanted to let you know why i have not responded to the e-mails. unfortunately, the situation has lost any trust as well as dealing with business in good faith. as an example, i hired an architect to work with the investor's architect, and after a number of e-mails, hours of meeting, they came up with an agreement, and after that, when they shared everything with the investor, he chose to disagree with that agreement. that interaction with that architect ended up costing me couple thousand dollars. then we met for the building height. we gave them -- okay, it's

supposed to be step down, but we are willing to accept a height of same of the property up the hill, and they took that, and they added a deck on top of it. so unfortunately, we're not lawyers, and we meet with them in a closed room between them and us, and they take our words and turn it to something else. and that's why i've come to you for that kind of protection to be specific of what they are asked to do and not change our words. another one, i gave them, they came to me and asked how can we come back and not go back in the back yard because i'm going to be losing four to five hours of light as well as not potentially being able to use

solar power because my house is going to be dark. i said okay i'm willing to give up my light well in exchange with you guys not going forward oforward -- farther out. they took that, and if you see some of the handouts that i respected, that they don't respect my light well. why would i not use mine? and at that time that i made that agreement with them, the third floor was going out 7 feet, and the second floor was going out 10 feet. after i have given that letter, the third floor went out 12 feet, and the second floor went out 12 feet. so for that reason, i have -- and i don't have on-line investor, someone to expedite a lawyer, you know, a bunch of architects. i don't have that kind of

funding, so that's why i come to you as much as i do to waste my time to give that kind of protection of making sure this time, they will pay for the engineer. that's the reason i haven't shared with any of the information because i didn't want to reach out to the engineer and build up quite a bit of a bill for me and also for the other items that i've requested, these are very valid, and very doable basically requests. it's just i need protection from a group like this in the room, right, and me and him in some room coming up with some agreement and later on, he turns it around and change the whole agreement. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. okay now three minutes for david tong's at the same. do you want two separate clocks? >> no, i'll do it together.

>> clerk: okay. six minutes for david tong and yourself. >> i'm going to mix them up. i'm going to start with something that i think was not accurately stated. the house was originally going to be a remodel, and dr. tong suggested that they lower it down and build -- excavate some to lower it down. what happened -- he never said to demolish it, as was stated here. so what happened was when they got that idea, they decided to demolish the house and build below. the -- it's hard. the cad x and the soil study, the geotech study are for a remodel, two stories over garage. that was the original project, okay? the state law does not cover proposed adu's. that's incorrect. there is one that's pending in

the legislature but it has not been passed yet. the state law and the city law are on the same page. they do not -- they deal with existing housing. housing values are going up, and that's why you need to preserve housing, because existing housing is the most afford i can't belie affordable housing. maybe it's not cheap, maybe it's not affordable, but it's relatively affordable. and the house that's there, maybe it's valued at 2.1, which is not an official like they got in january of 2017. they got it raised $45,000 in nine days. allows this house to be demolished. this house, if you look at the picture, i think it's a tunnel entrance house, and the front door was in-filled. i was puzzled by the layout because the entrance to the

upstairs is in the middle of the house. that's a typical tunnel entrance house. you have a door into the garage where they already have a room down and some other space down off the garage. you could easily do an adu there. you have your upstairs unit, they could expand it simply, and they could keep the existing space for an adu using that door from the -- right by the entrance where the former tunnel entrance was and go in through the garage. you look on the plans, it's already there. as regard to the -- the numerical criteria, it's -- it's squishy. it doesn't -- it's not the planning commission that raises it, it's the zoning administrator, and he raises it periodically, and as i said, it has -- but the time they decided to do the demoaddition in octob -- demolition in october of 2016, the staff person thought it could go up. then they waited until january , they got their appraisal.

they got their supplemental appraisal within a week and a half later. it's existing. it's existing. that's the adu law. i mean, the commission was really bollocksed up as david wrote on in his brief. they wanted to reduce the mass, they wanted to do this, they wanted to do that e. they wanted the roof deck off, and there was all these different things, but commissioner johnson, former commissioner johnson got this idea for an adu because it was so big. now, they could put an adu in the building that's there now and do a simple expansion within the existing space. the whole point of the adu law is to keep it affordable. affordable by design. a 1400 square foot unit is not affordable by design, and i think you were right to talk about the enforcement. that's a very hard thing to do. it just -- it takes years sometimes to get an enforcement action done. it's got the 45% rear yard.

it doesn't need the roof deck. that can reduce the mass. there is a stepping pattern. there are no roof decks on that block. there are no roof decks on that block. i -- i think that -- that it was -- as i talked about the zillow appraisal, it's not an official appraisal. there's been no change in the law, it's existing. state and local level. i can't say that enough. and president hill did raise the issue of spot zoning. if you watch the hearing, i really felt badly for the commission in a way, because they knew they had to do something. they wanted to do it the right way, they just didn't know what that is. i think maybe now you're in that situation too, and i think you should either delay it until dr. tong can come on the 23rd of may and have him speak for himself or you need to

adjust it somehow, whether you deny the -- the -- my appeal, and you accept his, dr. tong's, or you accept hana's, or you do both. because i think the whole point of appealing the demolition was to preserve relatively affordable housing. that's my interest. i live in noe valley. i've lived there for 30 years. i'm very lucky to live there. i know that. i've seen the changes, i've seen the changes everywhere, and i think that if you keep existing housing, you're going to have more affordable housing. if you allow these big things, as this was going to be a so-called monster home, which it may turn out to be if you can't enforce it. you're not going to have affordable housing, and you're certainly not going to comply with the adu law, and it's a very, very big excavation, bigger than originally thought to be. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> okay. well, i just wanted to address some of the responses from m. s we did meet with her architect, and he gave us a list of items that he thought would appease here, and then he couldn't get her to agree to it. she actually, in the very beginning, when we met her, she did admit to us that she's the type of person that will always continue to push and push and push and never really agree to anything until she gets exactly what she wants, and unfortunately this was a moving target. we approached this with absolutely open, how do we solve this issue. and again, the issues that she's raising right now, sharing flashing, sharing the engineering drawings, i mean, my client does not want to pay for her engineer to review our shoring drawings, etcetera.

we believe that's perthe state law that it's her requirement to hire her own engineer to do a review of this. but we are open to having her review these with a qualified engineer. but if she refuses to acknowledge us or even respond, it's impossible to get anywhere. but certainly, the concept of sharing flashing, there is some construction when you do something adjacent to a neighbor neighbor's property, you hope that there's cooperation, but unfortunately without any dialogue, it's impossible to get anywhere with this. in regards actually to the question about the adu, this is allowed. it is not a spot zoning as was mentioned, and actually the state does pass sb 229 which allows new adu's and new construction, so miss schi -- i'm sorry.

i know i'll say your name wrong. also, i did want to say that specifically in the rh 1 zoning, there is a specific ordinance number that does allow adu's in areas of house that have been occupied. in other zones, you're not allowed to put an adu in an unoccupied area. so this was -- you know, the question would be, should very build a building and let it sit for three years perthe code for rh 1 i, and that doesn't make y sense at all. there is an exception that allows an adu to be put in an area of a house that was considered habitable. lastly, we have already applied for the adu permit, so that's actually pending. and as you know, if there is something that does not follow the code, there is a notice of violation that can be filed against the project. certainly, an adu goes along with the title, so that is

protected. it's a rent controlled unit, so the attempt to dismount or get rid of an adu actually will be complicated. so did you have anything else to say, ravi? >> i want to point out that i've already hired the general contractor, and my contract with the general contractor is based on the existing plans that was submitted to dbi and the planning commission which were approved by mr. lum already shared with you that shows adu. so i have a legal obligation with my contractor to have him build it out. i'm paying him money for that, so there's no way i'm not building this adu. and the only reason we are adding the basement at a cost of almost half a million dollars just to do all the excavation is because the planning commission said without going up and out, because the neighbors didn't want us to, they said adding it in the basement is where you should do it with the set backs

so there's plenty of light. i'm happy to not do it in the basement and do it above zone and push it out perthe zoning at 25% lot line, but that was what was not acceptable to the neighbors, so we didn't do it. we've tried several approaches. i just think it's time to move on and start construction without further delays. >> and lastly, i did want -- there was a question about why it was so large. there was a question, especially christine johnson, the planning commissioner, did request it to be larger. she feels that we have a housing crisis, that the more space we can get for these adu's, the better. so it could be shrunk to a 600 foot adu, which would be a studio, but by building it in a basement, it's a family style adu, which we sory lack in. >> and i'd also point out the geotechnical report was commissioned with the new plan

in 2017 that have already been submitted to dbi. >> thank you. >> can i ask the project sponsor a question, please. project sponsor. >> e on, who's the project sponsor? >> you're the architect -- unless you want to pay his bill. a 2400 square -- how large is the adu, will you confirm that? >> 1400, and out of 900 -- roughly 80% is in the basement, the existing footprint. >> i think the period of time of the adu's -- well, there's two points for adu's. one, it's additional housing, and it's rent controlled, and go to a third, which it's affordable. how are you going to price a 1400 square foot adu to be affordable? >> well, it's -- it's not for me to price it, it's for -- i'm going to have to sell it as a

single-family home with an adu, and it's up to the new owner to whether -- if they have a large enough family, if they want to live in it or they want to rent it out, i cannot enforce it, but it is going to be two separate legal units, and whatever city law requires, the new owners will have to abide by that. that will be part of the disclosed selling -- selling disclosure package. >> yeah. so what i just said was really bothersome to me and makes me scratch my head. you know, we just had a -- the previous hearing well, it was about an adu, and there's going to be two 500 square foot adu's, and the project sponsor there is going to rent them out at affordable units, and they're going to be rent controlled, and they add to the affordable housing stock of the city, which is the intent, i think, really, of the adu's.

and what you just said is well, you know, i'm going to sell these -- you can correct me if i'm wrong. i'm going to build this building, i'm going to sell it, and i don't know. maybe the family is going to occupy both units, and -- and that -- that, for me, flies in the face of the whole adu premise, which is to create housing for another party so that there will be -- you know, it'll be handled that way, and that the intent also -- i think, and i'll ask the zoning administrator the same thing, if you can make a note on that, sir. that they -- that it should be affordable, and because that's rent controlled, would indicate that you're protecting affordability. >> can i just address that? >> sure. >> my intent is the law does not allow me to sell it as two

separate units. i have to tesell it as a house with a separate unit. i'm happy to make it two, if the law -- i'm happy to make it two cdu's, condos, whatever the law will allow me to do. my legal term and contractor just wouldn't allow it. >> well, i also wanted to comment the adu is also a state law, but it is what one called the planning commission, affordable by design. it's a 1400 square foot unit, so it can't be sold -- what ravi is saying here, it can't be sold as a separate thing. the intent is -- is it would have to be rented out. there is no requirement in the adu laws, you're correct in that. there is no vacancy control, so the rent would be set at a 1400 square foot two bedroom unit. one of the things that christine johnson mentioned, is this desire space? it is in the basement, so this is designed to be more like a

basement apartment versus a luxury unit, which is -- you know, this is affordable. >> i think it is the implication that a family could move in and occupy both units when the intent of this entire conversation has been that you're putting in 1400 square feet as an adu which would imply that it is a separate rentable unit. that's my conflict, but i just wanted to offer my own -- for the record, those are my concerns. >> on that note, though, my family, i have two daughters who are coming back from college, and my -- my mother, who's elderly, obviously, and sick. if i was to live there, just my two daughters and my mother and me and my wife -- >> you have your answer to the question. >> yes, i do. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we'll hear from cory teague. >> good evening, again.

president fung, commissioners. cory teague for planning department staff. i do actually want to, at this point, touch on some of the more subjective components. there are some comments about whether or not there is an appropriate scale and massing and height for this street. i mean, this -- this side of the block on 28th street has a very clear two story presence. the proposal is a three story building at the street, at 28th street. one of the probably more well known standards in the residential design guidelines is when you have a very set two story or three story pattern on a -- on a block, that you know, if you're running up a floor, you should set it back, and generally, if you're running a tremendous strong pattern, you should set it back 13 feet. in this case, the proposed floor plan is set back 15 feet, and meets the residential design guidelines there.

the residential design guidelines also provide forms towards roof guidelines and stepping and trying to visually continue the topo graphy on which the property exists. in this situation, the front roof portion, which is, again, more than 15 feet