designated of 150% of a.m.i. to be closer to 80 to 100%. additional unit to be attractive to teachers and government employees and others who often cannot qualify for a.m.i. and who, too, need affordable housing. we are not able to come to an agreement with u.s.m., we have made an effort for the right balance of community benefits and significant affordability and where we can still construct. we ask for your support and i would now like to introduce steve. >> steve perry with perry architects. make a brief presentation about the changes we made. if i can please have -- thank you. i would like to start with each floor and what we have before and what we are proposing with the new design. this is our basement with the old design, and with our new design we have pulled our bike parking down to the lower level.

allowing us to put the p.d.r. space up to 10,000 square feet. and as you can see here, we have the retail, and our old bike parking space on our ground floor, adjacent to our entries, and brought the bike parking down to the lower level and contiguous space for the p.d.r. the next change we have made was making a recess at the second floor, and having the projection at the parapet. you can see it at the corner profile, cut off a little bit, but you can see the projection at the top. and the second floor recess. and reminder, our material selection, working with the richness of the brick and also create a contrast and distinguishing the old versus the new construction. our 19th street elevation here,

and our street scape where we are looking forward to working with a local artist. and also working with mission high school. we have worked in these programs with high schools and i think it's a great experience for the kids, so, happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. so, we will open this item up to public comment. one speaker card. mary pat. others are certainly welcome to speak. >> i wanted to address the p.d.r. piece, we were not able to see the m.o.u. engaged with fitzgerald, but susan maas did review it and she confirmed that they are offering the space to

below, at a below market rate, and below what is currently market rate for p.d.r. current rate is 2.50 cents a square foot and confirmed with her that it was a lower price than what was being offered en the new building, and what the project sponsor has offered the community is $three a square foot. so, they have not even offered us 2.50 square foot current market rate and offered us an agreement that is nonbinding, should they sell the property. and so to us we are, myself as a furniture maker, and owner of a p.d.r. business, i'm not entirely sold on the idea, nor is u.s. sam, that fitzgerald will indeed return, and all we are asking is an agreement that says that if fitzgerald doesn't return, doesn't use their

options, or goes out of business during the terments of this lease, this is that we will have the opportunity to have a community serving business in this space. we want the jobs, we want fitzgerald to stay, but if they don't, we want the same opportunity for the community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. if there is any. l and if anybody else would like to speak, line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter popadopolous with the economic development agency. i want to highlight a couple of the overriding concerns, number one, there are some things here that we are still not sure about what they say. my understanding from the team working on this, an incredibly opaque process, unlike quite a number of the other processes, like 2100 and others that, where we reached community agreements,

actually without too much fuss. but there was a lot of clear information sharing and that simply has not been going on here. that there's been extended periods with no information exchanged back and forth, or nothing substantive. so, we don't have clarity on this, whether or not this is a binding agreement, so that if you were to entitle it today, you could not turn around it and sell it and simply negate this agreement, which obviously would not be acceptable to community folks. also the p.d.r., this is a huge, very important thing, and fitzgeralds does run an excellent community business and offer great jobs in the community. so, we are happy to hear they are going to try to relocate and continue to operate in some fashion. there is concern, are they going to move twice in two years, a whole manufacturing operation so we do feel like again on the last 2100 mission, we have to look at, and an offer meaningful

to the community and being above market rate does not offer much. all the other similar agreements signed for p.d.r. are at $2 a square foot. so, this one is considerably higher. as far as the additional affordable housing unit, 1:50 a.m.i., the highest signed into any community agreement as far as i know, period. we would like something more affordable to our working class families who very much surround this area of the project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. kelly hill with united to save the mission. in addition to this important volunteer work i do for the community, i'm a p.d.r. business owner. one of the key points we have been negotiating late in the game is for the long-term use of the 10,000 square foot p.d.r. space. although the project sponsor has

offered the space to fitzgerald furniture at reduced rate and relocation assistance, we feel there are numerous reasons it could potentially never happen. i know firsthand what a daunting task moving an entire furniture facility is, let alone twice in the span of a couple years. a strong possibilities that fitzgerald would get settled in a new location and does not want that again. and economic down turn anticipate is on the horizon, it could impede the profitability and they could shut down or even retire. what is concerning to us is that fitzgerald is under no obligation, no obligation to return or stay the whole 20 years. we are concerned that they would assign, sublet, go out of business and not occupy the space. we want to make sure in such an event, a community serving p.d.r. will replace them. as part of the late in the game negotiations agreement, we ask it be offered to another p.d.r. business for the same 20-year

term to fitzgerald if they vacate. only offered at 3.75, then $3. this is not affordable to the majority of p.d.r. businesses and does not grant benefit for the community. we pay less than $2 a square foot just off the valencia corridor. no agreement the terms remain in place if sold. identifies the sale of the property. this is not a good agreement. it has easy access to terminate the agreement and marginal benefit for the neighborhood. we need to protect local production and manufacturing and a little more time to get a solution on this project. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i feel like i should be on a first name basis with all you

guys. mary pat, part of fitzgerald furniture and we have come to an m.o.u. with oni and her group, the sponsors, we are excited about it. i'm excited about the major purge and another major purge to get in, we need to do it. we are all in support of it and we want it to get going and every intention of coming back within the two years. we have been in the neighborhood for, oh, god, 50 years? if not more, 30 something odd years in this location, and felt building before that. for us to leave it completely is kind of like a little too drastic. we are planning on coming back in the two years, and looking forward to it. i think that's it. unless you have anything else. >> president hillis: we may have questions. thank you very much. >> president hillis: additional public comment on this item? seeing none, close public comment and open it up to commissioner comments and

questions. ok. go ahead. >> sorry about that, taking a work call. kevin, with the san francisco latino democratic club. i'm here speaking on behalf of u.s.m. right now. currently we've gone through the whole process, we had a huge march where we came together for the baby beast and we brought demands and we sent it back. the commission sent it back. and that was with the understanding and the hope that this project would come out more equitable and better for the community. yet we are still here at the 11th hour and mobilize because the developer has not been working with us. they have been giving us little snippets and it's not working. we need more affordability, not 150% a.m.i. with the extra additional unit. we need -- for us, like especially that they are offering us the market rate space, the ground floor space at 10,000 square feet at $3 a square foot.

that's the market. makes no sense. they are already offering it to us. we need more affordable for the community serving business and make sure the agreement stays longer than the fitzgerald. right now it's just, we might as well have not worked with them pt because we have the same deal coming back and forth. so, i would hope the commission can push it to continuance to find common ground, i think we are very, very close, but then, having to push and go farther and farther. thank you for your time. >> additional public comments? close public comment. >> commissioner moore: it is always getting very tight around the 11th hour but i received so many back and forth emails i'm kind of lost in the discussion. i have asked mr. loper to please explain to us what the agreement is where it stands and to fully understand what other people are saying is not there. >> i will try to keep this

short. there are a few commitments from both sides in the agreement. let's talk about the ground floor first. the project sponsor has committed to 10,000 square feet of ground floor. project sponsor has committed to the m.o.u. with the fitzgerald. the third piece of the ground floor, the project sponsor has committed to selecting from a list provided by u.s.m. community serving business or businesses because 10,000 square feet is large, to, in the event that the fitzgerald does not see out its entire lease, they would come in at what we consider to be below market rate rent of $3 a square foot. the issue that we have heard from u.s.m. is about the dollars per square foot for that, what i call the reverter tenants, if any of them end up there if the fitzgerald leaves. the second issue that we were discussing that we reached an

agreement on yesterday was the mural, u.s.m. is going to provide a list of muralists, and the project sponsor is going to pay for a mural to be put up there, a mural that's going to be done by a mission-based artist. and the last thing that we have been discussing is the a.m.i. level for the additional affordable unit. we are offering 150 a.m.i., and we think it targets a need for people like school teachers, first responders, and government employees. and those are the three major terms that we are still working with, with u.s.m. i just want to clarify one thing, and that's that this agreement is going to be binding on anybody who would develop this site. if the project is built, or

somebody is pursuing a building permit for the entitlement afterwards, this is binding on the project. sorry if there was any misunderstanding but the idea is not that they could sell it to somebody else and the agreement would not be binding. if somebody wants to construct this project, the project that you saw, they will be bound by the terms of the m.i.u. >> commissioner moore: one sentence i would like you to clarify, your interpretation of what is below market rate p.d.r. space. you want in my opinion, or in our opinion. there is obviously signs of below market rate as we all know it, anchored in many projects that this commission has reviewed and i can only hear the number and confirm it has been used, but you are having a different opinion on that, and questioning why you said that. >> i would say that it is our opinion, not my opinion. i'm a lawyer, not an economist,

or somebody who is involved in leasing, so, i -- i personally can't say that i understand exactly how $3 a square foot is. but my team can, and also i would like to point out $3 a square foot, despite what you heard, has popped up on some of the agreements that folks have reached with some of the mission activists. so, we can huddle and find somebody who can talk about how the $3 a square foot works. >> vice president melgar: stay, stay, stay, sorry. so, my questions were about what happens, you know, in later years. so, i think you have the things that's most important to u.s.m. is the p.d.r.

if fitzgerald, which you know, business that's been in the neighborhood 50 years, i trust you have done the numbers with the relocation and you know what you are doing, so i'm not questioning that. but suppose fitzgerald leaves or goes out of business and then you, you know, rerent the space, the p.d.r. space, and it's $3 a square foot and other people in the neighborhood are offering it for $2 a square foot, what's going to happen? >> well, it depends. this would be a newly constructed p.d.r. space, which is something that is one of the most important aspects of eastern neighborhoods, is generating new p.d.r. space, and this is not just a one for one replacement, this is constructing 10,000 square feet of new p.d.r. space. it's a really good question. the terms of the m.o.u. say the project sponsor has to select from a list of potential future

occupants that is provided by u.s.m., so that means it would be community businesses that would be serving the community. and we have also talked about the ability to have multiple spaces so that one tenant does not need to come in and occupy an entire 10,000 square foot of p.d.r. >> i'm trying to follow what happens logically. suppose you exhaust the list because nobody can afford $3 a square foot or nobody wants to afford it, because they can go a couple blocks and get it for $2 a square foot. what's your recourse in the agreement? >> i think the agreement says that after that time the project sponsor would be free to choose a mission, a mission-based business or businesses of its own. i believe we still have language in there that it would be a

mission-based or community-serving business. so even in the event that we are unable to reach an agreement with any of the number of potential community serving businesses that u.s.m. would provide, the agreement would still bind the project sponsor to find a mission-serving business or businesses. >> okay. so, suppose that you know, fits geralds goes out of business in ten years -- the agreement is 20 years? >> two five-year options. >> what is the formula for that $3 a square foot today going forward for the 20 years? >> i believe it would be tied to inflation. >> so, if in ten years, say, the going rate for p.d.r. is like $4

a square foot, or $fi5, still $ plus inflation? >> tied to inflation, yes. >> president hillis: so just a couple comments or a question. on the p.d.r., we zoning this -- i mean, originally the project sponsor wanted retail, a restaurant and some p.d.r. is the approval for p.d.r. on the ground floor, could they come in later, would they need commission approval to do a restaurant use or retail use? >> they would have to do a change of use. it would not need new commission approval but go through the normal process to do a change of use for the ground floor. so, with this approval, we would be approving it as p.d.r. use on that ground floor. so, they want a restaurant, they would have to come in, do building permit, neighborhood notice to formally change the

use. >> ok. i mean, i -- i think this project has come a long way. i know there is probably still things to be worked out, not necessarily in our jurisdiction how much the p.d.r. would rent for but i like it's p.d.r. on the ground floor. i think that's come a long way. those, i mean, we have often had debates about gentrification in the mission and how to try to, you know, stall some of that, or relieve some of the pressures of gentrification and not having restaurant or retail space on the ground floor is great and having p.d.r., great that it could be subsidized at some level, it's a win to have it on the ground floor space and additional affordable unit on the upper floors. i encourage folks to continue to work it out, i'm ready to move forward. i think it's a good project and improved, i appreciate the

community's input as we move forward in getting a better project here. i'm supportive. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: one thing i would love to see and did not from the project sponsor or the community, we had a report on the downtown area plan and saw that the office rents were 73.76 a square foot. nobody is showing me what affordable p.d.r. space is, i'm trying to search online. where is the data that says $3 is below market rate? >> so, what i could say, from, and some of the buildings are commercial buildings in the mission, we own the building on shotwell street, it's a renovated space, not new space, and given where the market is, the rents are between 60 to $70 for p.d.r. use. >> per year. >> per year. >> five bucks a month, 5.50.

>> can somebody from the community do a response? this is my sticking point here. because you know, i was under the impression p.d.r. rates were five bucks a square foot. >> i want to clarify a few things. mr. loper stated that we have reached agreements at $3 a square foot for p.d.r. and that is incorrect. those are for commercial retail spaces. and i can -- i am a member of s.f. maid, the new building is 2.50 a square foot for space. >> what address. 100 hooper street? >> yes. and that -- and that is a brand-new building. and i confirmed with susan ma in my conversation that $2.50 a square foot is the average current pricing for p.d.r. and $3 a square foot would be very

high and is not common. and that fitzgerald is getting less than market rate. so, they are getting under $2.50 a square foot to come back. and the project sponsor is moving them twice, and all the community is asking is them to reach an agreement at the same price that they are giving fitzgerald. we are not asking for moving costs for our business, and then i also want to clarify that they are only offering us 15 days, if fitzgerald leaves, they are giving us 15 days to come up with a list of p.d.r. possible candidates and if we don't come up with a list in 15 days, they'll choose their own. >> i guess staff, the comment on the p.d.r. space. i -- you know, i could text

somebody in hundred hooper and what are you paying for the p.d.r. >> susan ma could tell you very well, that's her area of expertise. >> i don't know off the top of my head. i've heard anywhere from 2, 6, 7. one is a non-profit, economics are different and it's actually subsidized by the office space in that development. one-third, two-thirds arrangement. i don't know the numbers. for new space, i think $3 is relatively low but don't know the numbers off the top of my head. >> commissioner, do you have any idea? >> commissioner fong: i will not try to guess what the average is, and probably like the rest of real estate in san francisco, whether it's commercial or residential, very much depends where it is, block, second floor versus ground floor, fifth versus ground floor, very

different. i'm not sure, maybe you can help me. but 100 hooper is not a good example, i think it was concocted to make sure there was p.d.s. space, so somewhat subsidized in the effort in the entire project. i don't think it's a true comp example. i'm support of this, and i think it has gone through the hoops so many different times and i think there's been effort to keep the tenant in place. 20 years is quite a commitment, i think. and who knows where things will be in 20 years. so, i'm supportive of the project. >> president hillis: is that a motion? >> that is a motion, yeah. >> president hillis: second? >> very good, commissioners. a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. [roll call vote taken]

>> i believe we have not finished the conversation on the rental rate here. i want to hear the community, i want to promote the fact and support the fact that we want mission bay p.d.r. in there, i would like to have a little bit more background on the number, i support the project, i think the project has done all the things we wanted it to do, except that one question is not answered for me that i can just say yes, because i do not know, i don't have the science and the experience on that number. and i think that's a fair reason for me to ask for clarification. >> right now we are just taking a vote. >> i'm saying no. [roll call vote continuing]>> motion passes 5-1, commissioner moore voting against. commissioners, place us under your discretionary review, item

20, 1722 27th avenue. >> good evening, commissioners. staff. item is a public request for discretionary review of building permit application, and to add a ground floor unit of an existence home. a new roof model and deck over the second floor. proposal has been revised to further set back the third floor from the front and rear, set back of a roof deck from the front wall, eliminate the trim emulating a pitched roof, and retain the northern light well. the plans in your packets are specifically outlined to

distinguish between the 311 notification plan. the reason for the publicly filed discretionary review, filed, on behalf of the mid sunset neighborhood association, are as follows. neighborhood compatibility. out of scale with low rise city neighborhood. adds a second unit and multiple bed rooms and bathrooms, a typical of a single-family home with only one parking space. and residence out of scale with neighborhood, block light to neighbor's property, kitchen, office and dining room and construction. construction noise and disruption will affect immediate neighbor who works late and needs monday and tuesdays off for rest. and overview. department supports the revised design as proposed that aligns the front wall of the third floor of the recessed stairs, reduces the depth of the third

floor to the existing rear wall line, matches the neighbor's light well and meets the trim. in addition, the number of bedrooms has been reduced from original proposal to six bedrooms. staff would also like to read into the record and or recommend a change to be required for this approval of this permit related to the first floor and to adequately separate the accessory dwelling unit from the upper units. a stairwell adjacent to the entry to the accessory dwelling units. we recommend that be removed. public comment as currently submitted, adjacent neighbor and four neighborhood rints expressed opposition. focus on the concern to be used in a manner other than a single-family home, such as a boarding house or short-term rentals, incompatibility and

scale, and surrounding light and insufficient parking. one letter from the west side is the best side neighborhood group in support of the project. the department recommends the commission not take d.r. or possibly take d.r. with the inclusion of the recommended design move, with removal of the stairs, but otherwise approve the project because the project as revised is certainly consistent with the residential design guidelines, and housing to the city stock, and that concludes our presentation. i'm here along with i see my staff as well is here to answer any questions. the project sponsor is here as well to answer questions. and d.r. filer. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, are you the d.r. requester or the sponsor? requester, we'll hear from you first. five minutes and then the

sponsor. go ahead. >> hello, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. my name is cc safronis, speaking on behalf of the mid sunset neighborhood association and i am also sunset resident on this particular block. i do have one quick question. i was under the impression that the initial plans were for nine beds and then it was reduced to eight bedrooms. >> the number of bedrooms has now been reduced to six, as proposed, as shown in the packet that is -- >> i believe six in the main house. >> and two units at the bottom. >> total of eight, but two units. >> got it, ok. so, essentially i am a sunset resident, a homeowner and i fully support home improvement,

curb side beautification and other positive changes. however, i think it's both considerate and imperative when doing so you take into consideration your neighbors because we do live in the city, we don't live outside of a city, don't live in the countryside. we share walls, we share light, we share sidewalks, so i think it's necessary to consider everyone else when improving your own home. this remodel i have to say, when i look at it, it screams of a rental property. i know the current homeowner has stated it's for his family, and that might be. however, i'm looking to future proof this residence. you mentioned before that you need a new tenant who is going to pay the price, so thinking the similar here. when the tenant is looking t sell the home, the next person

looking to buy the home, they see eight bedrooms, most en suite, it's a perfect storm for renting those bedrooms individually for doing so through airbnb. it's not the traditional home which would not lend itself to that. so, that is my primary concern that it's screaming of a rental unit and i feel these plans are perhaps a back end opening to build this sort of structure while circumventing the zoning laws. this also is out of sync with the neighborhood, with the block. the entire east side block of 1700 between moraga and noriega are the existing two-story single-family dwellings. so, this would certainly stick out. against what we currently have. as, speaking as a requester, i'm

representing a lot of our sunset neighborhood views and so the light would be a big factor. we live in the sunset and come to appreciate the climate, which means a lot of fog, which means that we don't have a lot of direct sunlight and so light is a big factor and if you increase single-family unit from two stories to three stories, that's going to greatly affect all the, the homes immediately around it. and basically we have people that have been living on this block for decades, 40 plus years. we have people that just moved in this summer. the common thread is they chose the sunset neighborhood and this particular block because it is a family, low density, low level home where there's -- it's not right for apartment building, it's not right for big structure, it's a really nice

modest quiet neighborhood. and people are hoping to maintain and respect each other that way. and i guess just in conclusion, i hope, i would like to ask the board to future proof our neighborhood to ensure the original character does not get compromised while trying to find ground for everybody. i would like this homeowner to be able to remodel. i just ask that it is done reasonably, so everybody concerned feels good about what's happening today and in the future. and then i just ask, please, you grant us the same consideration as you would grant other neighborhoods. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. first take public comment in support of the d.r. request. come on up. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. >> president hillis: pull the

mic closer to you. >> thank you for this opportunity. my name is constance, i live across the street from the house being remodeled and mostly concerned about the number of bedrooms proposed for the project. for -- a number of reasons. first is the density. a minimum of eight additional persons is contemplated by this project, which includes the in-law apartment with two bedrooms, and that could easily accommodate i'm assuming 3 or 4 people in that two bedroom unit, so perhaps ten people in that building, which currently has t two bedrooms and is, along with the other houses on the block and across the street, single-family residences. this scale is out of keeping with the block in the neighborhood. parking is going to be impacted.

most families nowadays have more than one car. people in the block park in their driveways, they don't have enough room in their garage, and street parking is already somewhat difficult. so, adding ten people or more in one structure is going to increase that problem tremendously, especially because the plans already state that the garage accomodates one car. current trend among some landlords right now is to place a lock on bedroom doors and to rent out each bedroom to separate tenants. and i can imagine that this could happen in this case, with six bedrooms upstairs, each with their own bathroom. that seems to me what is intended here, and even if the current owner is not intending to do this right now, he could do that in the future, it could be marketed as such for the

future with future buyers with this in mind. and again, this would change the character of the neighborhood by allowing a structure which to me is a boarding house on this block. and finally, approval of a project of this size sets a dangerous precedent for the block and for the neighborhood. if a building of this scale is allowed, then what is to prevent other single-family homes from being converted to boarding houses with eight or more bedrooms. thank you for your attention, and consideration. i hope that you will take into account the concerns of the people who live on the block and across the street from the structure. if the proposed project is approved, will have to live with the consequences. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. additional public comment in support of the d.r.? >> good afternoon, dennis shea, also live on the block and i have pretty much the same

concerns as everyone that spoke previous to me. a couple things i would like to mention, though, is i was a little concerned that when the proposal was proposed, that the estimated cost was like $150,000. a bathroom, which were going to be 8, or 9, is at least $10,000 a bathroom. where is the figure of that coming from? my other concern is that the top floor is, has a master bedroom, which has a master bathroom and also has one common bathroom for the other two units. or bedrooms. the second floor, which we call the first floor, has three rooms, three bedrooms and each of those bedrooms has a master bathroom. i consider a master bathroom as a commode, shower, tub, or

combination of all three. these are like had been stated before, a good possible for becoming airbnb or rental rooms. another thing that concerns me is the water. as we all know, the most wasted water is a toilet that's leaking. and a lot of times it can't be found out until later on. well, in this place, we have eight toilets that can have possible leak. and that's just one of my concerns. so, aside from that, that's all i have to say except what my other people have said. thank you. >> thank you. additional public comments? >> president hillis: if anybody else would like to speak, on the screen side of the room. this is in support of the d.r. >> yes. hi, stan attis, i also live

across the street, 1735 27th avenue. what i would like to ask, i know there's a packet full of what this remodel is supposed to look like, but i'm trying to look at this with common sense. and i look at a home that's trying to, a remodel that's trying to be built with eight bedrooms and 7.5 bathrooms, most of en suite, small living and eating space, utility room in the garage. it does not sound like any sunset home, does not sound like any home i know of, any traditional home. the owner was kind enough to invite us over and walk through the, his home and his plans, which certainly appreciate as neighbors and knowing what he's trying to do. when we asked him about the significantly disproportionate amount of living and eating space compared to the bedrooms,

he acknowledged communal living space was not a priority for the property, that bedrooms and bathrooms were. i'm not one to tell somehow how they should live or not live in their home, but common sense. eight bedrooms, 7.5 baths. does not strike me as a traditional home, it strikes me as our neighbors have said, a home that is, has the potential to be rented out. and if not now, ten years from now, 12 years from now. what do you do with a home that size in a city like this. also many children on the block, school-aged children. at last count, about 15. so, to add ten more people at least in this house who may or may not have a vested interest in our block, if they are transent, short-term rentals, concern is safety, concern is traffic. also recently looked into the property and the owner, and

found out that the owner also owns 244 chester avenue in san francisco, just a couple miles away. i don't, with the help of google maps and the magic that that brings, i see that when the property was purchased, and i emailed this, there was a back yard that had not been improved, and six months later there is a separate structure that looks like an in-law unit, sunken into the ground, completely separate entrance into that unit. i looked at the permits for the city, i don't see a single permit or building permit, and again, i look at if this is what has been done with a prior property by this owner, potentially having improved upon it without permit and adding an in-law unit, what's to say it's not going to happen here once it's been completed. so, again, it's about just trying to make sure the integrity of our neighborhood,

the safety of our children is intact, and thanks for your time. >> president hillis: thank you very much. so, no other public comment in support of the d.r., we'll move to the project sponsor. >> hi, my name is bui kwan. thank you commissioners for giving us the opportunity to speak in front of you. i'm the project architect. this is a single-family home and my client has a large family, and this project, the third floor and second floor addition. i understand -- also adding

eight unit, that's for sure, talking about the eight bedroom. two of the bedroom belong to the a.d.u., so, adding additional unit to the city, so for the housing, for future tenants. and i understand there are a lot of concerns on the neighbor, but -- a lot of concern from the neighbor. but we do, we make -- after we heard their concerns, we had, we had the set back for the rear, also from the front. so, those are significant changes. and neighbor making a lot of assumption about the future tenant and bnb, but those are

just assumptions. and noriega, also a large building, noriega, the commercial corridor, like half block. so, there's a lot of larger apartments there, and three story or make four stories. so, so that's for me today, and if you have any question, i'm here to answer question. and also my client want to speak. >> can i speak? good afternoon, commissioners, raymond, owner of the subject property. i want to ask you to approve my future home because it meets all planning codes. it's legal, safe and rent controlled housing to the housing stock and it will house

my large multi-generational family of seven adults and three children, and a.d.u., rental income to support us in this extremely high cost of living city. i want to put emphasis on this growing family, my wife is out numbered by our three boys, the oldest is five years old. so, she hopes to have a girl in the future. i understand this will be a large house because we have a large family. seven adults. my in-law, my parents, my unmarried sister, me and my wife, and my three boys and hopefully a future girl. so, it will be a large house. but there is precedence. facing west, in one block, three houses with vertical additions. this does not include houses on the block north of us, south of us, nor east of us. so, there is precedence for large houses.

and my neighbor on the south, mr. lewis, his house has a horizontal addition that touches the side lot line shared with me. i am merely mirroring his house in the rear, not longer, not taller, the same. on the third floor in consideration of the shadows to the neighbors, we are ready, have a setback, so flush with the neighbor on the north. in regard to the light issue, we are sharing a very large 17 foot by nine foot light well with a neighbor on the south, mr. marquee lewis, so extremely large opening for light to enter. the north we have no issue.

so in regards to noise level, i understand mr. lewis had concerns about construction noise. but it's inevitable, work hours and i'm sorry mr. lewis, but there is construction all over the city now anyways. so, that's all i have. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any public comment in support of the project? >> hello, commissioners, scott feeney. i'm here to read a letter from friends from west side is the best side, me reading the letter. dear planning commissioners. absolutely no reason to take discretionary review or to deny this project. this proposal is compliant with both existing zoning of rh-1 and

40x limit, and dwelling legislation. this should be a no brainer. not only add a much needed home, thanks to the a.d.u. on the first floor, but have the home they need for themselves thanks to the vertical addition. and also concerned, on behalf of the mid sunset neighborhood association, a shell community organization that only exists to initiate such appeals and has not had a meeting in years. what this means is that instead of paying the $597 fee to delay this project with the d.r. request, in this case it is free. indeed, this fee does not apply when a neighborhood organization files a d.r. by continuing the item or even considering taking the d.r., you would keep encouraging disnationalnary review requests like this for delay or extortion

tactics. the sponsor already scaled down the proposal following the 311 notice, which is unacceptable. what transpires in the letters, and the opposition in general, a clear refusal in any change in their neighborhood and any new neighbors who do not live like them. immigrants welcome on the front yard signs and tell the immigrants add one unit, a few bedrooms and the story. good sized two bedroom a.d.u. and three in the main house for multi-generational household. very common in the sunset district and compatible with the neighborhood character, as well as a good way to grow the housing stock without radical changes. all of this while staying significantly under current zoning capacity. this will be 29 feet high for 40 allowed. our organization follows the

planning commission's meetings and we believe the emphasis on respecting local zoning codes when adding houses and sba27 discussion, and family sized homes, now needs to translate into action. this project does address both, which means you need to approve it without any more delay. some of you said you opposed sba27 because of existing zoning and a.d.u. was enough to increase the housing stock. now is the time to prove it. on behalf of the 200 members, we ask you do not take the d.r. and approve this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional comment in support of the project? seeing none, d.v. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal if you would like. and then project sponsor, also two minutes. >> i would like to reiterate that i am in support of home improvement. i was just asking it's reasonable for all parties

involved. [please stand by]

>> i think stan pointed out my house on chester. i left there before i bought this house. it was too small for my growing family. in the backyard there is a shed 10 feet by 10 feet. i built that with my inlaw. it has no lot, no utilities. it has my mattress and some bikes. if i build anything, it will be with permits. thank you. >> thank you. we will close this portion of the hearing. can you just respond? i imagine it is permitted because we are here. >> i am looking at the plans. it shows the existing conditions

shows storage and bathroom on that floor, regardless. a single family home since last year there are a lot of legislative changes. a single family home with 180u, that can be added to any portion of home or taken from habitable space for a single family home. >> that was changed. thank you. commissioner richards. >> question for staff, whichever one. what is the definition of group housing? we saw o on monticello a buildig of this and the bedrooms became a dorm matory. what is the deaf iwhat is the dp housing? how do you unwind it? it is extraordinarily large. >> technically in this building

district group housing would require a cu or is not permitted. i will have to talk to my staff. >> i believe it would be a cu. the group housing relating more to the use, not the physical form. i believe we have if it is over six people who are not living in the family condition where they share control over the property, tenancy and common spaces. >> if the project sponsor's children grow up and move out and it is he and his wife and the sister moves on and they have five or six you bedrooms they rent is it a group house you go situation? >> it would depend how it is used. we do have -- if it is like a roommate situation whereby they

all share the property, then it would not be considered group housing. however, if each individual had a separate lease and none of them had any control over the use of the property, the lock on the doors, and, you know, nobody living there, because you are allowed to rent a room in your house. it is your home. you can have housemates, specially. when you have like the off site owner who is leasing out so nobody living there. they don't live communal leann nobody has control or say over it. >> another question. 51 feet to 37 feet yard. that is 30%. no variance needed? >> no, it is 25% of lots. >> okay.

okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to lay a couple layers back in order to place us what we are to judge on. let me start with saying that the submittal on its on is faulk shouter of what we expect -- falling short for a project that is a demolition. it did not show the project in context, it doesn't have any 3-d and any material descriptions which we normally expect for projects of this magnitude. the second thing i would like to talk about is it is very difficult to understand this project as a family oriented project. it is almost impossible to do so when the living space including access to the real yard which has to go through the bedroom is making it difficult to understand how we interpret

family space and what normally is a standard discussion and interpretation, not talking about the fact that a family has more bedrooms. this is set up like a hotel. luxurious bedrooms, bathroom with a bathtub and shower are far larger than what we normally do. let me jump forward quickly as i show up a couple observations. the adg does not really work. there is a stair connection which has to be severed. number two, the living room itself is without ventilation. it would require mechanical ventilation. no indication that is being entertained. that does not really work. >> yo you need to look at a door and window? that is the same question. the edu living area has a window

and door into the light well. >> i don't see that. the living room borders the hallway and the living room borders the outside wall that is it. >> towards the street. from the living room on the ground floor? >> i thought the same thing. it looked like a nested living room. there is a window and door. >> i think from general ventilation i think you need more to have a fully functioning room. for quality of the unit, i think, it is something i would question. if we are talking about adu our responsible to deliver adu with a degree of livable is as important as not asking that question. i have great difficulties with taking t