>>. >> the pronl has been modified to address concerns from the residential design advisory team. specifically, the proposed vertical addition has been set back 3 feet from the street wall and from the northern sidewall to mass the building with the topography of the site. the residential design team found the design to be

consistent with the residential design guidelines. a request for review was received from ryan patterson who represents david d' onofrio. the primary concerns relate to the nonconforming status of the project and the impact of the property views from the private residences. views from private residences are not protected in san francisco, and a three story structure is a standard height in the city. the deputy receivcorrespondence support cited the sentence stiff outreach the project sponsor

has -- however, due to the topography of the site, the massing would be -- that is adjacent to neighboring rear yards would be approximately two stories in height, which is typical in an urban environment. in summary, the department recommends that the commission does not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> president hillis: thank you. all right. d.r. requester. >> good evening. may i have the computer, please. my name is david d' onofrio. i am in the adjacent property at 19 gladys, so i'd like to point

out this project is opposed by the adjacent neighbors. want to give you a little more context on what the site looks like. on this particular image, this time the aerial -- this is the aerial view. you'll notice that 11 and 5 gladys were originally single units, splitting two standard lots in 1953. now there's a request to intensefy this particular nonconformity. justification provided for increasing this, intensefying this nonconformity is based on the fact that the building shouldn't be there to begin it. this is a bit of a circular logic. so what's the impact to this particular variance on this property. this is me sitting in my front yard looking towards downtown. if this third story was adding to an existing nonconforming

front yard. i'm looking at a $400,000 lost in property value. there's a deck about 3 feet from me that can look right into my bedroom. a lot of this is regarding the front yard, which is questionable in san francisco, of course. so you'll notice the blue box here is my home at 190 gladys street. you'll notice my home is set to the back. the open space is owned by the city and unaccessible to me. i have a large front yard representing 100% of my open space. in addition, i have a down stairs tenant, and the front yard is her 100% open space.

this project takes advantage of green space provided by my front yard, while providing no green space of their own. buskovic.

i wanted to thank the commissioners for additional time to talk to the architect. it's quite easy to solve this problem. we did a lot of study, when you're doing a building that's 75% variance, you need to study. the idea is to lift it up, shore the building, and rebuild this floor at the right height, so this would be a new floor. instead of using the existing floor that's 3 feet higher, lift

the building up and build a new floor. by doing that, you can reduce the overall height of this building from 32 feet to 28 feet. we're concerned about the decks. we asked the decks be removed. we ask the commission take d.r. and z.a., consider the impact of the variance or change the project to a 28 foot tall building. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. ryan patterson. as you know, commissioners, you only get a variance to the extent it's necessary. you have in front of you tonight a proposed alternative solution that gives the project sponsor everything he wants, all the square footage he wants and maintains the neighbor's property values, which is a consideration in the variance context. i hope you'll consider that. thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. >> i'll answer any questions. >> president hillis: we'll take

public testimony in support of the d.r. >> i'm new to this. may i have the overhead. good evening, commissioners. thank you for listening to me. my name is dan greman. i'm a retired high school teacher, and i've lived in san francisco for 25 years. for 20 years, i've lived at this property here, which is 48 santa marina, right next to the applicant's property, 11 gladys street. their proposal has a deck right there. that red mark. right there is my bedroom window, 39 inches away. this deck would peer into my bedroom window from a range of

39 inches. it would peer into this bedroom window from a range of 10 feet. yes, it's a city, i understand there's height, and i understand there's people. but with a building that tall, it'll contravene those fences. in addition i believe they're planning another smaller deck in this corner which would look right into this bedroom, that bedroom, and again, into the yards. on a personal note, i've pulled three permits and completed them on this property and this property, so i know a little something about construction in this neighborhood. and one of the things i didn't want to do is anger my neighbors, so yeah, i wanted to go up and out. a wraparound porch sounds great, but i realized i pront couldn't do it, and i probably shouldn't do it. i want to keep in the master plan of the neighborhood. every house here has a 45 foot

set back. this ones reversed, but they all have it. every single one. this is a split lot with no yard, and we're going to -- we're going to have a project that really eliminates a lot of privacy unnecessarily. that's sort of my main issue here is the privacy. i think it'll be damaging on the neighborhood. i think it'll affect resale values. i don't think there's any winners. here. that's essentially what i want to say. i think this is a major imposition on privacy. that's my main issue, and i don't want to look into their bedroom window, either. yeah, i guess we have curtains for that, but that's really strange. normally, when you live in the city, there's two walls, there's insulation, hopefully, drywall,

and cladding. you're not going to hear voices at night having cocktails 39 irc inches from your bedroom. the only request i made to the architect on the plan and the applicant is could you put up a screen of some sort. i got a call last night, no i'm not going to do that. i think if we had time, we could make this happen, but i couldn't -- >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> hello. i'm sorry. i have a really bad cold, so i made some notes so you could see, also. my name is amy kyle, and i live next to dan, so there's a project with dan and me. i guess what struck me the most about this is is it doesn't seem like this project really meets

the test for variance. what's the emergency here? i don't see the exceptional circumstances. house has been there for 50 years. this guy's lived there for 20 years. what happened? it's not like there was a land slide or something, and they needed to fix something. i also wanted to say there's been a lot, a huge amount of building and variances and projects, etc., all around my house. you know, everybody's done something to improve their property, and i support that. i've never been down here before to talk to you all, but i think in this case, they've egregiously failed to consider -- sorry -- the impact on the neighbors behind the house. all the pictures are from the street, and all the discussion is the levels on the street side. but you know, dan showed you the picture. there are people that live on the other side of that. so i think those are those points. i think the proposal is fundamentally not consistent with the zoning because it

provides for the houses to lineup in a row along the front, you know, along the street. this is very common in bernal heights, and then, people have their yards behind, which they historically have orchards behind. it's a feature to the neighborhood. this guy's house, at the end of where that open space will be the set back. they built two houses on a 50 by 100 lot, so the whole thing is built already. i don't see exceptional circumstances here. the way it is now is inconsistent with the zoning. you make it even taller, it just makes it worse. i can't understand how this can be basically legal. i mean, i'm not a planner or anything, but i can read, and this is my little picture of the same thing you see. not as good as anyone else's,

but you can see where the set backs are. this is where the house is now, and it's right in this area that would be set backs from all these other houses. this is dan's house, my house, steve's house, etc. and this continues all the way up the hill. so it's a part of the zoning, it's a part of the design. and there should be a good reason it's consistent with the law to make this something different, you know, make something bigger there. so i'm just going to show you my lame probably little picture of the difference of what this'll look like from where i work. this is the -- the upper picture is how it is now, and the lower picture is kind of what it's going to look like when they put that there. thank you for hearing us. >> president hillis: thank you. >> greetings to the council

members. i'm here representing a tenant of 19 gladys street who couldn't be here today. she wrote a letter that i'd like to read. i'm opposed to the project for many reasons. the space that i live in has very little natural light. the only window that gives light to the entire apartment which i rely on for quality of life as well as to keep plants alive will be blocked. providely will be minute mine miezed. project is out of compliance, making it larger and will result in significant loss of privacy for any yard as well as negatively impacting the value of this and surrounding neighborhood homes. finally, the current project as proposed does not fully utilize the available lot space. there's no reasonable justification for an additional story which will make this building significantly out of character with the rest of the small homes found on gladys street and in bernal heights, and i thank you for your time.

>> president hillis: thank you. additional public comment? >> go ahead, ma'am. >> sorry for the delay. >> okay. my name is geraldine bosco. i was born and raised in san francisco. i'm 74 years old, and i'm that lady standing there, looking. and i'm not against him building for his children or building a bigger home, but this is my home, and it's going to degrade my value probably about 250,000. this is where all my money is. like, if i get ill, i need to sell my house to support me in

supportive living or so forth, so i'm very concerned about the way the building is constructed like that. i'm all for him building, but i think he should compromise with us, and that's my main plight. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. any additional public comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor? >> hello, commissioners. my name is rob oliver. i have been living at 11 gladys street and participating in the neighborhood since 1999. this is the only home that i've owned. i have two steve, -- children, who are city natives and attend preschool. i have no yard, and only a small

patio in the front so it's too small for a family with two growing children. the economic reality is that we cannot afford to move into a larger home. so i believe that we have worked out a plan that keeps the current layout with a modest addition that is safe with healthy light, allowing my kids actual space for themselves as they grow. over the past 19 years, i have witnessed a significant increase of young families like my own now living in bernal heights, and we have supported the growth and now abundant family friendly businesses, libraries, parks and playgrounds in the area. i respectfully request that you approve the project as proposed so that i and my family can continue living in and participating in our great neighborhood and in san francisco. >> good afternoon -- good evening, commissioners. almost good morning. thanks for your time. i know it's been a long day.

jodi knight from reuben, junius and rose. i want to give you an overview of the project because i think that sort of speaks for itself to a large extent. big picture -- if i could have the overhead, please. big picture, this is a 669 square foot addition to a tiny house to make it a viable single-family home for rob and his kids. you see a lot of pretty big houses here at the commission. this is not one. showing you the existing site plan, you can see that the building is small but is almost full lot coverage of the 25 by 50 foot lot. it's a nonconforming lot. the variance is necessary because essentially any project that's built would be in the required set backs because of the nonconforming nature of the lot. the important thing you can't tell from the flat site plan is

there's a significant slope of the property both from the rear to the front and also to the north on gladys street, so -- which realtiy minimizes the impacts on the surrounding properties from any addition. further orienting you, the d.r. requester's house is setup above the project sponsor's house significantly. you've heard about view impacts. obviously, as has been said, those are not protected. so you can see -- also see that perspective in the existing and proposed elevations. you can see that even with the -- the project, the house is set significantly below the level of the d.r. requester's home and is compatible with the

street front. you can also see on the proposed elevation that the upper level has been pulled back to make it consistent with the grade and with the existing homes. showing you quickly the existing property has a lower level garage. there's only one living level at this point, which is very small. there's one tiny bedroom, as rob said, only one child has a bedroom, and it's very small. there's a shared bathroom, but it's pretty minimal. the new first floor would have a modest living level, including living room, dining room, and kitchen, and a modest playroom for the kids. and the second floor would have a modest master bedroom, but it's small. no bath or anything like that.

just one shared bathroom, and then, some relatively modest decks that will provide the open space for the property. there have been modifications to property. the addition's been pulled in. there was a peak roof that was provided in order to minimize impacts to surrounding properties. it's pretty much been shrunk as much as it can at this point, and we're happy to answer any questions in response to d.r. requester and on rebuttal. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any public comment in support of the project? >> hi, commissioners. my name's ian thompson. i believe that you're in receipt

of a letter from my mother, barbara thompson. i'm not one of the people in the surrounding properties, but we do live up the street, and so i guess i'm really here to comment on my experience with the aesthetics of the neighborhood and my experience as a resident of 40 gladys for my entire life. was born and raised on 40 -- in 40 gladys and fortunate enough to have the same home for my whole life, but i'll keep my comments brief. i -- and for the record, i don't live at home with my mother, currently, she's on the east coast, but regardless, she has actually instructed me or requested that i come in her stead so that we can support in presence. what i will say is that san francisco has changed dramatically and drastically over my lifetime for better, for worse. i used to think for better, but you know -- and i, in my lifetime, have not had the

benefit of having million-dollar views. my, i guess, converted attic bedroom which was a result of my converted adolescence, because it was just me and my mother, and i could no longer sleep in one of those, what's it called, pull out, murphy beds? but the opportunity to grow up in san francisco has drastically changed my life, and the rich culture that the city provides is something that should not be taken away from what i did not hear most of the people in -- that were against this are for kids. i understand that there are other components of the plan, but you know, you need your outdoor space as a child, and you certainly need your own space as a boy and a girl.

so what i would say -- oh, i see there's a timer here. so what i would say in closing, i suppose, is that i think that of the things that have changed in the city, i think what we really all want is for children to have the opportunity to be exposed to diversity and the benefits that san francisco has to provide, and that diversity has stayed with me as i've lived around the world, stayed with me as i went off to boarding school and off to college on the east coast, as well, and i think these children are really deserving of the benefits that come from being a native born and raised san franciscan. not many can say that, so i would say thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is patrick crow. i'm at 8 gladys and live directly across the street from rob. i moved in in 2000, and one of the first neighbors i met was rob who had organized the friends of the urban forest, and the trees that you saw in the

plan view, most of those were planned because of rob. rob is a good neighbor, and he has two lovely children. i know the kids as they were born, and i'm here tonight to support the project because i think it's important to try to help this family stay in san francisco. there is simply not enough room, and they can't afford to move, and the only alternate tiff is to move someplace else. i think it's -- alternative is to move someplace else. i think it's important to accommodate residence dens of san francisco, and i also -- residents of san francisco, and i also have friends here that would be affected by this, and i wish it wouldn't happen, but thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comments? seeing none, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> all right. thank you, commissioners. ryan patterson again. if i could have the overhead,

please. i want to be very clear about one thing, and that is none of these neighbors have any problem with the project going forward and with adding square footage for rob and his family. no problem with that whatsoever. the problem is the way that they have proposed this inflicts the maximum amount of harm on the surrounding neighbors. the variance will cost them literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in property value, and there's a certified appraiser here, you have an appraisal in your packets that attest to that. and also in front of you is a very simple solution that would give the project sponsor the same amount of square footage, the same layout even that he's proposed, and would have none of these impacts on the neighbors. this impact on the -- this alternative on the overhead here as struck right lane engineer

has testified, you simply lift the building slightly. we're talking -- as structural engineer as testified, you simply lift the building slightly. instead of taking the set starting point, and you have to go higher, you simply jack it up slightly, and that preorients the project. you have a flat roof, and all the neighbors can see over the top of it. this probably, from what i understand, actually reduces the cost of doing the project rather than trying to work around with already there and a set elevation. if there is added costs such as to do hydraulic jacking, my client is offering to pay $15,000 to contribute to offset that cost. and i think that's very reasonable to offer. there's no reason to do it in the maximum harmful way to the neighbors. let's have a solution that works fo

for everyone. thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right. thank you from -- project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> good evening, commissioners. my name's mason kirby. i'm the project architect. what's interesting to me about this project is the nature of the urban condition that we're really trying to solve here. the primary consideration that we dealt with in developing the design for the project involved dealing with a massive retaining wall on two sides of the property that hold the existing grade up. and what i would show you, if i may, this is a cross section of the existing building with the level -- new level added on top. so if there be a proposal to modify the base beginning level of the building, we would also have to regrade our neighbor's properties. if we were to lower the building by the lopping the top of the

retaining wall off, we would be in a situation to modify the existing single kitchen-bathroom level as an undue, unnecessary expense in that respect. i think the reality of the situation is there are two viewpoints that we're trying address with the offer of $15,000 to jack the house up or completely redesign the strategy of our proposal. one is located inside the existing greenhouse, and the other happens to be in the front yard. and i want to point out to you that in the sections that were proposed is somebody sitting in a chair in their front yard, and think that is not -- i think that is not rising to the level of this.

i'll reserve the remainor dder y comments. >> president hillis: thank you very much. so we'll open it up to commissioner comments and questions. mr. teague, do you want to talk about the variance at all or your thoughts? because i think we get caught up in these sometimes where there's a variance and a d.r. i'm not seeing any extraordinary circumstances. no doubt there's an impact on the neighbor, there's an additional story in this building. there's going to be impact whether you have that, but our opinion is there's extraordinary circumstance, but i'm not sure there's anything that would compel me to take d.r. and modify this project. >> sure. cory teague, zoning

administrator. the last time we had a project like this, you did the same thing, asked me to go first. i was wondering if you were going to do that again. >> commissioner richards: if he didn't, i was. >> no, this was interesting. the variance and the d.r. are asking us to look at it, two different bodies, looking for exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in two different ways. here there's an argument being made that there's not exceptional and extraordinary circumstances because the lot was split, it was developed a long time ago this way. it already exists, and because it was developed that way so long ago before many of the code requirements we have in place now exist, and considering the topography, i think there are some exceptional and extraordinary circumstances related to the property, and that that could create some practical difficulties in relations to hardship with regard to reasonable increases in the home. having said that, where i would

kick it back to you guys to discuss it a little bit more is whether or not if there's materially injurious to the adjacent properties. that's something you all are looking at specifically in your roll, so i think there's -- role, so i think there's some interesting arguments on your side, and i would be interested to hear your comments. >> president hillis: you heard mine. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: the only interesting or impactful opinion i had was the deck and the gentleman's bedroom window was roughly 39 inches apart. the front deck. the back deck, less so, because it's overlooking the space in the front yard. that's my one comment. >> president hillis: that's the deck to the gentleman's house, not the d.r. requester richard richards yes, what we'll call

the back of the house -- the front of the house. >> president hillis: back of the house. >> back of mine, front of his. >> commissioner richards: commissioner melgar? >> president hillis: commissioner melgar ? >> vice president melgar: thank you, commissioner richards. that was my question. i think week after week, we see these massive increases to square footage all over the city. that's not what this is. this is 600 square feet. it's not a family room and five studies, so i am comfortable with this in terms of, you know, keeping a family in the city. i do take that issue of privacy and sound seriously, and i was wondering if you could speak to

the specific issue that the neighbor raised about putting some kind of screen or, you know, any physical barrier that would ease the privacy issue. >> yes, thank you. we'd be happy to add privacy screening to both decks to address privacy concerns. >> vice president melgar: okay. so with that, then, i would maca motion that we not take d.r. and a -- that i would make a motion that we not take d.r. and accept the project as proposed, and come up with some privacy screening that's acceptable. >> commissioner richards: second. >>clerk: there is a motion and a second to not take d.r. -- not take d.r. -- >> commissioner richards: take d.r. >> president hillis: it would

not take d.r. on the project proposed and work on the privacy screening. >>clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >>clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 4-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> i will close the public hearing for the variance and generally supportive of the massing. i'm also concerned a little bit about the deck. i think the screening could help with the visual privacy. i'm a little concerned about the noise, as well, so i'm going to -- i am going to take it under advisement and want to explore more options with that deck. thank you. >>clerk: commissioners, that places you on item 19, record number 2018-007690 d.r.p. at 269

villar street, discretionary review. -- avila street, discretionary review. >> the d.r. requester is the adjacent neighbor to the north, the d.r. requester of 275 avila is concerned with two issues -- [inaudible] >> -- contrary to planning code section 181, and number two, impact related to the density of the tenant occupied building will detract from the cleanliness, safety of the neighborhood. public comment to date, the department has received -- actually, we did receive two letters subsequent to the publishing of this package in opposition. no letters of support.

in light of the d.r. requester's concerns, the department has reviewed the project with regard to the residential design guidelines, finding that the a.d.u. was built within the existing envelope. and that number two, no causality with regard to the cleanliness, safety or density of the neighborhood has been made. the project sponsor has indicated willingness to revise the project to contribute to a further attractive and safe recommend. with this, the department recommends that the commission not take d.r. and accept the project as proposed. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. >> that is my presentation,

thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. and you're sticking to it? >> i am. >> president hillis: all right. welcome. we're the final ones here. d.r. requester, you have five minutes. >> thank you. hi. my name is kelly woodruff. i am representing the d.r. requester who could not be here. he's out of the country. i brought my computer to show you something, but i've never been here before. i don't know how to show you something. >> president hillis: i don't, either, but you can put your screen under the overhead there. >> put the actual screen on there? >> president hillis: yeah. >> thank you, commissioners.

this is our street. this is avila street in the marina district. as you can see, this is heading north. every single house on this block is a single-family house. >> president hillis: how did you take it? >> my husband took it with a drone. >> that is cool. >> president hillis: there's a stray dog running across the street. >> this is our block. this is the second block which is also all single-family homes. our street is very unique and precious in the marina. it is zoned r.h. 1, the only building in the entire street which is nonconforming is the building at 269. they converted that building ages ago from a single-family home, like all of the other homes that have been there for 100 years, into a two unit building. it was previously complete owner occupied by a family. it had been passed down generations. that family sold it and a developer purchased it and now wants to convert a nonconforming two unit building into a three

unit apartment building, completely occupied by tenants. okay. so this right here, this is winston. he's the d.r. requester. [inaudible] >> i, by the way, live directly across the street. i'm also a neighbor. this right here is 269. as you can see, it's already a two unit building. this is one whole unit, and this is one whole unit. they have an existing parking space, one parking space already for these two units, so although in these two units, it used to be completely family owned and occupied. with the one car parking threw four adult tenants living upstairs, and four living in the -- three living in the lower. parking is miserable in the

marina. every single day, people block our driveways. every single day, people block or driveways, and we can't get in and out of our homes. the -- the emphasis that we want to make suhere is the developers not applying for a secondary unit. all the california legislation that allows this san francisco ordinance and the san francisco ordinance itself refers to a.d.u.'s as a secondary unit. this is not a secondary unit, it is a tertiary unit, a third unit. it does not comply with the zoning homes on this block.

the purpose of the a.d.u. ordinance is to create additional affordable housing. that is not the case here. the developer brought this property -- this property right here -- can i have the overhead again, please. this property for approximately 2.5 million. in the response to the d.r. request he noted it is already worth 2.7 million, and by adding an additional unit into this apartment building, he will increase its value to $3 million. let there be no mistake, that is the purpose. he is not creating affordable housing, he will be charging $3,500 for a studio apartment in the garage looking out at the back yard. we don't know whether or not

this -- [please stand by] . >> president hillis: you'll have a two minute rebuttal to finish those thoughts and add more. is there public comment in support of the d.r.? >> good evening. my name is amy rosewell godly. i live next door to the unit, and to build on what kelly was saying, there were a couple other things that i thought would be worth mentioning. we have over 75 signatures of people living on this street that are opposing this work. there is a proposal right now to build a 44 unit apartment building on chestnut street. there are two large apartment buildings that are in the process of gutting their garages and putting in apartment units, and we support that. we don't want to get -- we want to have housing for people, but in our specific neighborhood,

there is nothing that you heard kelly say in the ordinances, this is not a single-family, it's already a two unit. so i just wanted to talk about that piece, and i also wanted to talk about the safety of the unit. we actually had to call in the work on that unit that was actually not being done with permits. we have remodelled twice in san francisco. we have always pulled permit. we did everything by the book. my dad was a commercial contractor. we had water leaking from this shared property into our property. we found out they were doing everything without a permit. the work is probably not being done to code is my concern, and my biggest concern is someone who lives next door as well as my neighbors, i don't trust the work on that property has been done well, and the way that they've gone about doing that work seems to be very shoddy and we've had to make complaints to get it up to at least some kind of regulation or some kind of review. so i'm coming from the perspective of supporting what

kelly was saying, supports what winston's filed, supporting what you heard, but i'm also just genuinely concerned about safety, given how the work on that property has not been properly done. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. additional public comment? >> my name is dave towers. i've lived about two doors down from the subject property for about 35 years and know the neighborhood relatively well and would like to see the neighborhood remain the way it is. i do believe in change, but this is a negative change, and that's why we're here. i do have a handout of about 80 signatures on two blocks of people who would like to see this denied. we are homeowners and residents of avila street and we here by

ask that you deny the permit to add a third unit to a two unit building on an r.h. 1 zone for the following units -- [inaudible] >> -- c-4, which prohibits the inten intense intense intensefication of use of such a structure. residential dwelling unit with an r.h. 1 residential district into a three unit rental apartment, this is contrary to planning code section 182-a. a third unit would open the door to speculators to being require these r.h. 1 single-family residential dwellings on our street for marketing into three unit apartments, thus endangering the ability of the

present occupants to be able to live within them. [inaudibl

[inaudibl [inaudible] >> i'm support of this project not going through. i am fully in support of people remodelling homes. i've lived on avila 50 years, and watched a number of the homes being remodelled. but i'm not in support of this. i've watched our neighborhood become more and more crowded. the parking situation is horrendous. i often times have to park five or six blocks away. i'm concerned about my property value that speculators will come in and start turning all these single-family homes into multiunits. and i also think that it just degrades the neighborhood. it's a family neighborhood, and now this is basically going to become an apartment building, and with many tenants and lots more cars and no parking.

and i can't speak to all the other issues with regards to the ordinances, but you know, kelly's done a good job talking about that. but i just am really opposed to this project and that's why i chose to be here this evening. and i also, you know, talked to lots of friends, and there are a lot of the people who supported and signed this petition, over 80 people against the project, so thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. additional public comment? no, but you'll have a two minute rebuttal. project sponsors, i'm assuming that's you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'd like to address the d.r. requesters points that were brought up in the request. we are concerned with the appearance cleanliness,

attractiveness and security of the neighborhood and have offered to speak with the d.r. requester to include other items in the proposal, including lighting. we can address security. we'd be interested in looking at painting, anything that we can do to enhance the beauty of the neighborhood, we'd be happy to do. we are already including landscaping. to speak to some of the issues that were brought up here that i wasn't aware of, parking, there is one space that will be retained, vehicle space. we are also adding one bicycle parking space. some other items that were brought up, the quality of the unit, there was mentioned that there's only one window facing the rear yard. there were actually a few windows. i believe you all have the plans, but i'd just like to go

ahead and show. the -- this is a sliding door that is proposed, and that is to the living area as well as two windows on either side. there is a bedroom window that is located within this recessed court, and that is -- whoops, excuse me. that's to the bedroom of the unit? so we are providing ample light and ventilation to the unit? to address other concerns that were brought up, the -- there was an n.o.v., there was illegal construction occurring on the property? that n.o.v. has been satisfied and cleared at this point. i helped to do that, and we are moving forward, obviously, with

permitted work, assuming that this is approved. that concludes my presentation. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. is there any public testimony in support of the project? okay. now you've got a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners. the project sponsor over focuses on the fact that mr. ashme was concerned about the beautification. that's not the point. this home is already nonconforming and they want to turn it into an apartment building. yes, they said that they had retained one space, but so far, they are keeping that parking space. that parking space is not available to any of the tenants that are currently in that apartment, so we know have seven people already living in that building with no parking, so

they are all parking on the street. i don't know if their plans are to let the studio apartment tenants have a parking space or not or whether or not they plan to rent that parking space to yet a fourth party. i don't know. the ample light and ventilation was not a concern for any of us. we personally don't care. this is not affordable housing. renting a tiny apartment that has a little bit of light out the back and some light under the stairwell for $3,500 a month is not affordable housing, does not comply with the planning code section 181 a, and a dwelling that exceeds the permitted density of dwelling other united set forth in the zoning code table is classified as a nonconforming use under section 180, and a nonconforming use shall not be alternated

unless it's to eliminate the nonconforming use. none of those are satisfied in this case, and we ask, we strongly request on behalf of 80 neighbors on avila street that this project not be approved. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> okay. to address the affordability of the unit, the unit is a one bedroom unit. it's 600 square feet. that does increase the diversity of unit mix in this neighborhood, allowing folks who aren't in a position to rent or own 4,000 square feet to live in the neighborhood? also, the unit will be subject to rent control as it does require some waivers? and though that's not affordable housing, that would allow for a family to live there and grow over time and without significant rent increases? as for parking, the -- it is

true that the parking space that's there is not being used right now, and so adding the unit would actually have no impact on the existing parking? there is no plan for where that parking space would be allocated but theoretically, it could go to the unit that's being proposed. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i have a question for mr. winslow. give us some background on section 180 and how a.d.u.'s fit into that. >> sure. planning code section which resides in planning code section 207 c 4 c allows property owners to add one a.d.u. for existing -- an existing building that has four or less existing legal units.

the fact that this building now has two units does not make it illegal, it makes it an a-legal nonconforming building. therefore, how that fits into 181 and sections of the code that they cite, it's moot. basically, section 204 -- sorry, 207 states that as an a.d.u., you can add that to a building that has four or less units. there's waivers that are required to grant the density -- let's see. hold on. the same subsection 4-g authorizes the zoning administrator to waive the density controls through section 307.i, so that's kind of

generally the way we fit things into -- >> president hillis: so you can have a five unit building in rh-2 and still be able to add. >> you're using what exists at that time as the foundation, not what is the under lying -- what is exactly the zoning. >> commissioner richards: right. so as such, the housing accountability act, which is state law, we really don't have any choice but to not take d.r. and approve the project. >> president hillis: you know, to address some of your concerns, you're not going to see three unit buildings pop up on avila street if they're single-family homes. the reason this is allowed is it's unlivable space that they're converting to garage space. if the houses are typically single-family, you can add a unit. you won't see other three unit

buildings, but this is what the a.d.u. legislation was designed to do. i live next to a five unit building in r.h. 3, and they're adding three units. and this is a small unit that i think makes sense. >> commissioner fong: second the motion. >>clerk: commissioners, there is a motion and a second to not take d.r. and approve the project. [roll call] >>clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. >> president hillis: all right. the meeting's adjourned.