expect sensible development in these two lots. one look provided by -- should tell you that this is too cluttered. too many houses. too many compromises. if you would consider taking a look, you will see that the street is about as wide as 20 what double belts. which means, it will be a

problem for everybody within a quarter of a mile. i would like to think of our new neighbors. people who won't have a voice in this hearing, but people who will live in these houses for the next 100 years. our house was built more than 100 years ago. just after the earthquake. what would this development look like 100 years from now, please

take time to ask me some questions. [indiscernible] they talked about a homeowner's association which would be inclusive -- nobody talk about the reason. please ask the staff to take a longer look. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item?

>> you are out of order. >> we are familiar with this space. seeing none, we will close public comment and open it up to commissioners. >> go ahead. >> to be very honest, i found this project extremely difficult and confusing to read the drawings and the situation as explained in a manner where you keep turning the pages and turning the pages. i don't get -- i don't quite get there. what is the biggest question for me is to see a clear organizational diagram in which houses are addressed and which houses are together are organized with each other. the access pattern and the way you go to each unit is completely unclear. the public did raise a question of accessibility.

accessibility and a project to arrive at that also excessive ability to route emergency response. that is part of the confusing nature of the drawings. what is of concern to me and not necessarily in order of performance, ten units asking for five cars a very high cost. it is a neighborhood that is reasonably accessible and would not require this type of provision. is a very high price points that is being put at the base of all of this. i think the project return is partially driving. it is a complicated project. is of concern to me addressing the rezoning administrative team out of ten units, eight units asked for a variance on exposure

for me it is too high for a well-designed balanced project, which does indeed create problems at all of its edges. you walk the parameters of the project. most interesting for me is why i liked the idea of an expiration. something i spoke about earlier in one of our other projects. this project is too complicated to make a clerestory that that has been really attempted to. on the critical side, i would say that somebody tried to cram as many individual units on the site for the purpose of a high price of return than really thinking about the work we need that is the same storyline that i brought up earlier. but the situation is far less

resolved than the previous project. excavation and building retaining walls and building different levels of the stairs, and if you know where you are going, makes this a project something i would like to push back on and see that the architect spends a little bit more time on sorting out many of the questions of the public raised, the questions that are coming up on some of the things i am touching on. for example, if you address a project of york street, it is a very simple expectation. i have been going through this set of drawings and looking for an elevation on york street and there is none. it makes it a little paying to see that the commissioner already asked for more explanation and some of the

questions we are raising here and continue this project in order to have some clear answers >> thank you. >> his integral fasting kick i feel like when we are going to the planning commission without taking a break in is like passing. [laughter] pearsall capex there is no -- it's not by accident this project has been around for as long as it has. probably in the eighties it was not ready for prime time. i feel like there's some life safety challenges and risks with this lot. there are some geotechnical challenges. and with commissioner moore, why does while i try not to judge a project by its drawings or renderings, given this is one of the more complex projects, the level of the drawings don't convey the level of study. so i'm concerned about this.

i think maybe it is something much more simple that can be done. putting this much concrete housing mass construction on this very tricky site is maybe something too complicated. so i'm not opposed to seeing something there but on a much more simple scale. >> agreed. >> can i ask, i agree with all the comments and i think this is definitely one where we have seen 3d renderings and the perspective of this from the hill and from different things. i think we need to see this in a little bit more sophistication in the drawings. to get to ten units here, there are two lots. how do we get to ten units? >> there are three lots. their two interior lots that will be merged and a lot of

fronts york street will remain a separate lot. under the planning code, the density for an r.h. 20 what zone property is one dwelling unit for -- for 1500 square feet. since these three parcels total 17,000295 square feet or so, the maximum density -- 70,295 square feet or so, the density would be 11 units. >> in the open space, each unit has to provide a certain amount of open space. >> that is correct. >> for the two lots that front york street, each unit has its own private roof deck. for the eight interior parcels, all eight units, each of them have a front deck that exceeds the 133 square feet requirements per unit. >> okay. so it's with decks that generally, some of the concerns that neighbors raised about not a ton of green space, i think we

need to look at -- i don't mind the density. i think it can -- we can work on this. i just think that i like they are generally small units. they go from 1,000 square feet to 1500 square feet which is good. i think the parking resents problems and perhaps could be eliminated or reduced to two spaces in that front unit. and then the rest be accessed without parking. i just think it needed to step up its game on what we are seeing and how the neighbors will be impacted and give us better perspectives and elevations and 3d drawing so we can understand this better to figure out if we need to make any tweaks. generally, i think trying to maximize the number of units here and the small units are good. >> i do appreciate the suggestion to look at the increased entity by the number

of units you can put on the lots generally, i think the size of -- they will take on a continuance and ask for additional work in this project to come back with a more responsive approach to the questions we are raising here. >> yeah,. >> do i have a second class. >> second. >> looking at how you can get -- specifics like how you could get at the open space requirements without roof decks or other decks that may not be appropriate, or looking at reducing the amount of parking to access the interior spaces. i think that turntable could cause problems. >> it would also mean normalizing the circulation space to make it clear [indiscernible] >> this is too random and too helter-skelter. >> is there a date?

>> how long of a continuance are you suggesting. >> two or three months. >> i would say the lowest would be late january. >> january 24th coiffed. >> is that fine? >> okay. there is a motion and a second. >> okay. >> is there a second? >> yes. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to january 24th 2019 with direction from the commission. on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved. it passes unanimously. >> do you want to keep going here? >> let's close the public hearing and continued the variance to january 24th. >> two more. >> all right. let's keep going. >> that will place us under your

discretionary review calendar for items 22 a and b. case numbers 2016-00555 d.r.p.,- 02 and b. par at 1794 filbert street and 29 '02 octavius street. this is a discretionary review in the zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. >> mr winslow, are you presenting? okay. are we ready? for those of you from the last item, if you could have your conversations out. we have more items to take care of. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am the staff architect. the agent before he was a public

initiated request for a discretionary review for building permit application 2016 0927. 8915 to construct a vertical addition to an existing two-story can -- building built in 1908. the building covers most of the existing 1800 square foot corner lot and includes a commercial space. in addition, the project proposes interior improvements i would add two cars stacked on the ground floor with garage entrance on filbert street and a new interior elevator, remodelling of the ground floor commercial space and reconfiguration of the three unit layout but while maintaining the same number of units. the proposed one-story vertical addition would align with the existing two lower floors that encroached fully into the required rear yard. the zoning administrator will consider the rear yard variance sought for a portion of the 15 feet of the north portion of the third floor. i'm sorry. the new third floor.

the building is a category c. historic resource. and not a demolition per section 317 of the planning code. there are two d.r. the issues at the d.r. requester , number 1, richard of 1755 filbert street and the property diagonally across the street to the south is concerned with referent main issues. first is massing. privacy and unnecessary addition of parking, and that the commercial space should be eliminated. the d.r. requester number 2 from the tenant's union is concerned with the issues of rent control on the potential displacement as a result of the construction. the public comment with the department has received today -- we have received two letters in opposition and 14 letters in support. the recommendation in light of the d.r. requester's concerns, the department has reviewed the project and found that the

proposed third floor addition is modest at 37 and a half feet tall. still below the 40-foot height limit. the proposed roof deck is set back 5 feet from all sides to preserve the privacy, and heir to adjacent properties. that is all i have. [laughter] sorry. and the department staff has not been contacted by any current or former tenants in the subject building regarding any displacement issues. according to the san francisco rent stabilization and arbitration board, they have not been any evictions of the subject property for the last ten years. the staff isa project meets the department of standards and guidelines and recommends that condition -- the commission not take the project as proposed. that concludes my presentation and i am available for comments. >> thank you. we will first take the first d.r. requester who will have five minutes followed by the second d.r. requester. will take public comment in support of the d.r. and hear from the project sponsor who

will have ten minutes. >> thank you. my name is richard. i am a long term residents near the proposed project. i filed a discretionary review application for the following reasons. the proposed project would eliminate an affordable first floor rental unit and replace it with indoor parking and a sprawling three-bedroom, two bath luxury apartment in the third floor addition, capped by a large roof deck,, accessed by an oversized penthouse. the current market rents, the three-bedroom units like that would rent for about $7,000 a month or more. in the meantime, the city is spending millions of dollars to build affordable housing to address the current shortage that is plaguing the city. granting a variance and permitting a project that would eliminate an affordable rental unit would work across purposes with the needs and efforts of

the city. the property owner claims that the existing first floor residence is not tenantable. that is contrary to the facts. there has been a first-floor residential unit in that building for many years, perhaps for a 110 years at the building has been there. there isn't -- it there was an occupied first-floor residential unit right across the street on the opposite corner of filbert street. construction of the third floor addition would also require expensive work on the second floor, causing displacement of the tenants of those two units. in order to construct the proposed project, the owners are asking for a zoning variance that would allow him to construct a larger addition than zoning allows. the owner cannot show any exceptional and extraordinary circumstances meriting the grounds of the requested variance. the arguments presented by the owner for the variance do little more than state that there are other three -- free flow

buildings in the neighborhood to those buildings were constructed long ago before the current zoning requirements were adopted granting the variance would deny me and other property owners and local residents the benefits of the current zoning plan that prevents overbuilding on a lot and would set a precedent entitling every other property owner to see the variance to increase the size of their buildings, resulting in more tenant displacements, and the loss of more affordable housing. the zoning commission are considered a similar variance application by the owner's family through the neighboring property in an attempt to legalize a third-floor addition that they built without a permit and without a variance. that variance application was denied by the zoning commissioner and on appeal because like here, they could not show any exceptional and extraordinary circumstances meriting the grant of the variance. the proposed addition to the property that is now being considered is not consistent

with the character of the block, and the planning commission's residential building guidelines. the property is located at the apex of this portion of filbert street and this constructed third-floor addition and oversight -- iver his -- oversized penthouse will dominate the street, tower over the other buildings to the east and west and will stick out like a sore thumb. the d.r. application and an series of correspondence with the owner's architect, we requested some modifications to the project that would provide some amelioration of the impact of the excessive size of the proposed project and we -- on the undesirable exterior ecstatic elements. these requested changes include elimination at the enormous penthouse, limiting the size of the roof deck, confirming the proposed rectangular bay windows to conform with those currently on the building and on the other

buildings along the north side of filbert street and eliminating the nonconforming commercial space that has been vacant for years. we also have asked that the hideous proposed single cyclops window that is proposed for the east façade, which traces -- which faces our property can't be replaced with two windows that can form a design but not necessarily in size to the proposed south and west façade windows. all of our requested changes are consistent with the planning commission's residential building guidelines. one of the object to the -- when objections mentioned is to propose -- is the proposed rent roof penthouse. they do not want to build a roof deck. there is no justification for the enormous penthouse. other objections as to the east façade window have encroached on the neighboring property. by setting back the east wall of the building by just the depth

of that window which may not be very deep, you can avoid any encroachment. besides which, there needs to be a variance before he even gets to the property line. >> your time is up. >> all right. >> i am with the tenant's union. once again, we have a project that will take existing rental units and completely altered their floorplans and forest tenants out. there have been improved -- about notifying tenants about a dus, there is still more directives to visit tenants or think about how they will be affected by the plans before they are permitted. this plan, as he disguised as described will take a small and humble one bedroom and turn it into a massive three-bedroom on the third floor. the sponsor admits that it will rent for far more than the

current units. this violates the general plan to preserve and expand affordable housing. leg 505 grandview, there is an addition of a private elevator to the new penthouse. although the elevator requires altering two existing apartments on the second floor, the households do not have access to its. the penthouse is more like a gated community in the sky with plans that benefit the view at the expense of the many. the elimination of the ground floor unit is a demolition. it does is not exist in the future. the sponsor claims that the unit is unsound but did not choose the official route procedure to remove a dwelling unit or demolish it. that would require a staff visit , a soundness report and a mandatory hearing. may be i missed it, but i did not see any sound missed report online. i guess we are just supposed to take his word that it can't be saved. at this is clearly a loophole in the demolition procedure of the

planning department. in correspondence, the project sponsor has asked what right to the tenants union has to get involved in a project across the town. she did not seem to know that the reason for existing is to advocate for all tenants, whom ever specifically lives there. we will always objective plans that radically alter life for tenants on the whim of an architecture firm where they and the planning department have not concerns themselves at all with what happens to the humans in the building. if they go down this route to catholic signals to speculators at all you have to do is buy a building, drop plans that will remove the walls from the apartments and you can circumvent the hassle and cost of any eviction. owners have incentive to avoid eviction spirit because it leaves stains on their titles and their properties become less valuable. i would really appreciate all of your input on this project. this should not be a fight between the tenant organizations and an architect who has very different concerns.

so we do have a general plan in place that emphasize the preservation of the rental units and affordability. i really feel like this plan conflicts with those goals. thank you. >> thank you. if there were any public comment in support of the d.r.? >> if you line up on the screen outside of room -- of the room. this is in support of the d.r. >> good evening. this is déjà vu all over again. we were only, it feels like years and decades ago but it is only a year ago when we were here for 505 grandview. it was the same situation. the landlord was planning on putting up another vertical addition as well as alterations

that would have resulted in displacement of the tenants. this is exactly the same situation and that is why i ask of you to please deny this. because it is a displacement and it will result in displacement of the tenants. i am honest with you. i don't know the tenants. i don't know if the tenants that live there are related to the owners, they are friends, families or they are general garden-variety tenants. on the basis of principal, it shouldn't -- this project should not be approved. also, we did hear from mr starr today about the policy that was passed in the city of san francisco and that was getting rid of minimum parking requirements. it was touted as being congruent with the transit first policy. i find it rather serendipitous that this popped up the same day

that we are discussing getting rid of an apartment of 650 square feet in order to put a garage there. [please stand by]

>> it's not possible, so please keep that in mind, it's going to bring displacement, it's going to result in tenants having to move out because you cannot live in a construction zone. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i don't live in the building at 2902 octavia or even in the neighborhood. however, i'm a tenant and ten advocate and i cannot sit idly

by while this project sponsor proposes the elimination of one of the three apartments in the building and to replace it with a garage that has a car stacking device. and ripping through two other apartments to alter them in order to accommodate an elevator that allows access to a penthouse that's proposed as a huge third-story addition. the tenants who live in this building now won't be returning if this project is approved. let's face it. this project does an end-run around evicting the tenant. he profession approval means the project sponsor would succeed in vacating the building, and the two units would be sold or rented at market rate or

higher, especially since garage parking would be included in the price. there's a word -- overhead, please -- that probably isn't in the dictionary yet, however its meaning is easily construed. renoviction. commissioners, please take d.r. and approve this project. please approve this city's affordable housing tenant and please oppose the displacement of tenants from the building. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hello. my name is alex wagstaff. i've been a resident of this neighborhood for over 35 years, and i'm speaking here today mainly to show support for those who have gone before me, agreeing with what they've already told you. having lived in the neighborhood for that long, i've seen a lot of change, good and bad. and i think when we get app opportunity to speak up, we should speak up, even if it's just to say that many of the changes that have taken place have been negative, and i feel that this falls into that category. after the modifications are made, we're going to end up with a larger, modified building that's totally out of character for that corner, for our neighborhood, and we will also end up with more less affordable housing.

i've seen this throughout our neighborhood. you can walk down filbert street, above on the parallel streets, and you see multiple units being converted into private residences. the life of me, i don't know how this is allowed to happen. we're told that we need increased housing stock, we need to make more affordable housing stock, and i think this is an example of a further degradation of our neighborhood. it's unfortunate, and i'm just here today to say i'm totally opposed to it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, instead of good afternoon. my name is joseph barton. i've been a resident of 1755 silver street for over 45 years, so i'm familiar with the neighborhood. and it escapes me as to why,

with a competent architect, the remodelling can't be designed to fit within the zoning regulations without asking for a variance and to ensure that the three units there could -- two units could be remodelled, that we don't replace number one, a tenant with a garage. number two, why can't they construct or renovate -- in the 28 years that i've been there, that building has never been touched. so we're here, it's going to require some additional work. i for the live of me can't see why they can't design it so you're sure of having three affordable housing units instead of one luxury unit. and given what seems to be the plans, i don't really believe that those -- the tenants that are in there now will ever be back. they're going to be replaced.

the almost whole building's going to be taken down, and if the requirement is that there has to be extraordinary circumstances -- >> president hillis: i think we short changed you on time. >> pardon me? >> president hillis: go ahead. you have another minute. >> i don't understand why you can't have it designed without requiring a variance and protecting the rights of the at the pointant -- tenants that are in there and will occupy the building when it's more of a affordable nature. i think the request of variance should be denied. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is sherry schoenberg. i'm at resident at 1455 filbert. i just want to reiterate what other folks from the neighborhood have said. this is a building that would

now become out of character with the neighborhood. it would diminish housing stock in the neighborhood, which is sorely needed across our city, and i don't think the variance is in the best interest of in community, and there is no solid reason why it should be granted. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment in support of the d.r.? seeing none, project sponsor, welcome. you have ten minutes. >> hello, commissioners. i'm erica severins, the architect for the building at the corner of market and octavia. the building was constructed between 1907 and 1908. and has not been renovated

since it was constructed over 110 years ago. the owner's mother lived on this block and passed away in 2016. their father was a contractor who passed away in 2015. 2.5 years ago we had a preapplication meeting with the immediate neighbors on april 7, 2016. prior to this, the tenant had moved out of the commercial space and the owners wanted to fix up the building but discovered it had very little foundation. there is little to no insulation, and the windows are single paned. on the first floor there's a commercial space and one bedroom unit. the design moved the one-bedroom unit to the new third floor where it becomes a three-bedroom unit. a garage replaces the one-bedroom unit on the first floor, and the commercial space remains at the corner. the second floor will continue to have two units with two

bedrooms each. one unit is 4% bigger, and the other is 10% smaller. the perimeter of the deck was been pulled in 5 feet on all sites with solid parapets and planters for noise and privacy concerns. this site is two blocks from lombard and three blocks from vanness. noise is common and other penthouses and decks are nearby. in fact 1455 filbert street has 14 penthouses and roof decks. once all the bedrooms are located on the sidewalk facades to meet egress requirements there is very little remaining space for the one stair at the interior lot line. the penthouse footprint is determined by the stair. the two corner buildings across filbert street have penthouses.

>> president hillis: overhead, please. there you go. >> our penthouse will be 2.5 feet shorter than the two across the street. the building is under the height limit, it is 37'8" tall, when a 40-foot height is allowed. the commercial space has been at this location for 110 years. it has had many small, local businesses, and the owners have never had trouble renting it. the owners wanted to have the square bays, and they made it easier to furnish the rooms inside. the existing wraparound corner bay is so small it only fits a couple of chairs. in order for the new floor to have the same perimeter walls to have the same as existing building, we are asking for a variance to build within

15 feet of the required rear yard, not only that, but the five adjacent buildings along octavia street are also within the rear yard. in fact, the majority of lots on this block have structures in their rear yard. the majority of the buildings on these block or three or four stories tall. buildings in the rear yard is common in this neighborhood. over half of the lots between greenwich, goff, there are buildings in the rear yard. 18 of 20 corner properties or

90% are built within the required rear yard. 15 of the 20 corner properties or 75% or three or four stories tall. not granting the variance would deny the owners of substantial property right that have been granted to other corner properties in the neighborhood. the lot for this project is exceptionally small. it is only 30 feet by 60 feet. at 1800 square feet, it is 60% of the size of a normal san francisco residential lot. if the variance is not granted, the filbert facade will be 40 foot long at the third floor, while the two floors below will be 60 foot long. this will create an unfinished facade on filbert street and

result in the loss of two bedrooms. there is one tenant remaining on the building and she is on good terms with the owner. no tenants have been evicted and no buyouts have occurred. the rent board sent the planning department confirmation that there have not been any evictions in this building the past ten years. there have also been none in the adjacent building on octavia street. the building will remain under rent control. the project is saving rent controlled apartments and adding bedrooms. no units will be for sale. we received two discretionary use applications. one has 76 complaints, and the second is from the san francisco tenant's union and has 17 complaints. i'm not sure how the union heard about the project. the one remaining tenant did not contact them and they were

not on the mailing list. the two applications together complained 93 complaints. i exchanged correspondence with the first d.r. applicant during the spring of 2018. i wrote an 11-page response to his application, along with three additional letters. in ill prosecute, we offered -- in april, we offered changes to the design by reducing the bulk of the penthouse, and also offered to make the deck smaller by increasing the set back on the east side from 5 feet to 12'6". we made an agreement to meet with miss fever of the san francisco tenant's union on the afternoon of april 6, 2018 with

a cancellation the night before. she insisted no meeting would take place unless the owners signed an affidavit asserting tenants rights that she spelled out. in the last month, we have received another letter from the first year applicant and two letters from tenants in the same commem building. i spoke with -- condominium building. i spoke with him, and he wrote the planner an e-mail on november 22, 2017 stating his opposition to the projects because of the impacts on his view and the property value. this e-mail is included in the staff report. i spoke with him on december 5 at 11:00 a.m. he told me that people in his building were concerned that this project would set a precedent, and other people across the street would also

ruin the view. the d.r. applicant's latest letter, he wants the d.r. to be denied, the commercial space to be eliminated, the square bays to be replaced with angled bays. he just likdislikes everything this project and last spring suggested the building remains two stories. his last letter stated the largest number of requested modifications pertain to the proposed new third story. if the owner does not want to make these modifications, he can eliminate the third story issues by confirming the project to two stories. the d.r. applicant finishing by claiming he would meet if there was a discussion of changes to the proposed design.

changes to the design were offered on april 14, but on april 23, he declared those changes were not meaningful enough for a meeting. there are 14 letters of support from the property owners and tenants in the staff report. i brought seven more letters today. that makes 21 letters of support for the project. we worked with the immediate neighbors after our preapplication meeting to make the facades more traditional. we went through five rounds of design revisions with the planning department's design team. thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. is there public comment in support of the project? you can come up in any order.

>> good evening, commissioners. my name is frank la joy, and i live in the area. i'm representing mike keriani, one of the adjacent neighbors. he could not be here, but he wanted me to read this statement for me. i am the owner of two properties on filbert street that share the same intersection as the altranty project. one of my buildings is located directly across the street to the south, and the other, in which i live, is kitty-corner at 2871 filbert. this project has the most impact on my properties, and the altranti family has been diligent in showing me the plans, setting expectations, and ensure that i understand exactly what the project entails. like the altranti family, i was

born and raised in this neighborhood and have lived here most of my life. the altranti family are now in their fourth generation living and working in this neighborhood. we all grew up together, and are very proud of and take care of our neighborhood in which we intend to stay. i trust the altranti family have the best of intentions and will do a great job. i fully approve of the altranti project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is reid mayer. i'm a native san francisco. i grew up in the mission, and my first apartment was on 1716 filbert street. i'm here on behalf the mayer family project.

>> president hillis: you own the building? >> we're across the street, 1716 fill ber, across the street from 1755. -- filbert, across the street from 1755. i believe this is an argument about views, and 1755 is worried about getting their views obstructed. as someone that was just married, this is an incredibly important project to have in the neighborhood. i love that neighborhood. three bedrooms, that's really hard to fine. we talked tremendously about the missing middle and the need for family housing. it's important that we have that in the city, and we're eliminating a one-bedroom unit and replacing it with parking, but families need places to live, too, and i'm going to need that in the future, and i care deeply about having a place to live in a neighborhood that i love. and the project that is proposed is something that will help provide that and it's needed in the city. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good evening, commissioners. my name's drew mayer. i'm here with my brother, again, representing the mayer family living trust, the owners of that building. i, myself also grew up in san francisco, right up the hill, greenwich between fill and larkin. 1760 filbert, right down the street. i think i fully support this project, again, like my brother said. for a young person like myself that is trying to start my life and my career in the city, finding an affordable place to live, whether it's, you know, three bedrooms or two bedrooms is important and very hard to do. we need the bedrooms, we need space for people to live in this city, and i think any sort of investment in our existing infrastructure in ways that can preserve an existing building by modernizing it is both

environmentally friendly and good for san francisco and i support this project, as well. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment in support of the project? seeing none, each of the d.r. project requesters have a two-minute rebuttal. >> my rebuttal is based on the requirements that the proponent needs to demonstrate to be entitled to a variance. i have not heard anything that shows that they have met the test for showing a compelling section and extraordinary need for a variance for the size of their -- their building.

it's a two story building. they knew what they were getting when they acquired it. they're basically saying gee, we bought the two-story building, the guy across the street was able to buy an existing three-story building that was built around the same time as ours. i'm sorry that whoever built their building, you know, from then, didn't build it three stories, but it would have cost them more for a three-story building. they got what they paid for, and now they want the zoning limitation to be ignored so -- for the sole purpose of building a luxury third-floor three-bedroom unit. if you give them that variance, then the guy across the street, the other side of octavia on the corner is going to say, i'm going to do the same thing. you're setting a precedent without requiring them to show

a pressing need. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. miss fever? okay. she's going to pass. the project sponsor, you have a four-minute rebuttal, if you'd like. just speak into that microphone. >> i'm sorry. this is a map showing all the locations of the letters of support that we've received so far. i'd also just like to say that in our variance application, we do address the five questions that we need to answer, and we always specified the lot size, the 30-by-60-foot lot size, and also trying to comply with the residential design guidelines which say that they want fully finestraited facades, so both

frontages appear like facades. so i've written mr. phinney on those two issues, and he never responds. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. so that concludes that portion of the hearing and we'll open it up to commissioner comments and question. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. project sponsor, i have a question. you through up a packet, and even know it's not totally clear to me. there's a tenant in the building right now. >> there's one tenant in the building that's on good terms to the owner. >> commissioner johnson: is there any relation to the project sponsor? >> no, just a renter. >> commissioner johnson: and what is the plan? >> i think there's a good chance she'll move into the building. she may -- they may have another rental unit for her to move into, may not. they were going to work it out as we got closer to the construction date. like i say, it's been going on for 2.5 years, so they just -- we just don't have a plan

because we don't know when it's actually going to go into construction. >> commissioner johnson: and then, the question of -- so this unit could go back -- or be under rent control -- >> yeah. everything's going to be under rent control. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: so i, like you, commissioner johnson, that's my main issue is what's going to happen to the tenant. i cannot support this project until i see something in writing for what will happen to that tenant and how he or she will come back and at what rent levels and what unit specifically. because otherwise, we're approving a rent eviction and i don't want to do that. it's the second time we see a project like this on the d.r. where a project sponsor

presents a project that will result in the eviction of tenant eviction. if you assure me they have a good relation, i need to see it. i need to see the plans, you know, so i cannot support the project as is. >> okay. the owner -- >> president hillis: oh, hold. do you want to respond at this point? >> vice president melgar: no, because you've already said you don't have it. >> no. i don't have a plan. i didn't know that would be required here. the owners have always followed the rent ordinance, like, the rent board sent the planning department the form saying there have been no evictions in the past ten years. >> president hillis: but -- >> no, but what i'm saying -- >> president hillis: no, let us finish here. you can have a seat, too. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have equal concerns that this is a follow-up story to similar

projects, etc. what concerns me is that instead of considering an intense fellowship indication and use, we're really basically seeing a densefication parking, so there's kind of a story that connects to building higher end units with more supportivedens there's kind of a story that connects to building higher end units with more supportive parking, and among others, we have a megaunit of over 2,000 square feet, and an elevator which does not present any other objective but to access the large roof deck, which is

just not exactly adding to the enhancement of the people -- the other tenants in the building. what concerns me is that there is no justification to a variance based on the fact that somebody else across the street has a bigger building. if you buy a small lot, you get what a small lot allows you to do and that is proportional to the size of the lot but not what is across the street. that comes with the age of buying something that is smaller. i do not believe that in general, the enhancements to the building from what it is to what it's going to be are anything what i really feel is contributing to the larger enhancement of the neighborhood, to the contrary, but it's more the uncertainty about how we deal with tenants who have lived there. sometimes tenants get tired

when the threat of something like this is over their head for two years. it's uncertainty, and you can't put up with it anymore, and you leave. while it's not an he vacation, it's still the threat of change over which you don't have any control. so in principle, i think i'm going over my length of speaking here, i cannot support this project. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. thank you, commissioners melgar and moore for those comments. this is just a respectful request of staff of the packet, in reading. i know we contacted the rent board and we didn't hear from tenants, but we know that tenants don't, for a variety of reasons necessarily have the opportunity or feel like they can speak up and it should have been in the staff report a clear understanding of the fact that somebody was living there, and i don't -- it wasn't. and i know we're -- i don't

necessarily know what the mechanisms are, but it was really fortuna real really unfortunate not to have that information and have to get it from d.r. requester. and i would just add that i, too, am not in support of this project. >> president hillis: yeah, i mean, that's our concern is kind of what's happening. i don't think the massing in and of itself is an issue. i think i have some issues about there's one dominant unit. is this going to be a three-unit building or is it going to be kind of a -- the garage i would imagine is possible the top unit. the elevator is more geared for the top unit. is this one unit with two kind of in-law units. is there a way to configure this to make it three seeming more equal units. i don't mind the mass of this project. i think it's fine and appropriate in the area where

the buildings are of this mass. we need to know that this is not being done to evict a tenant, and i agree with commissioner johnson we should kind of ask. i know we get the answer that there's no he vacation here, and that's great, but if this is leading to an eviction, we've been charged with kind of helping protect those units and not have a renovation proceed to an eviction. but if a building is vacant, let's figure out a way to improve it, perhaps make the units a little more equal. there's probably gidifferent ws to skin that. i don't know how viable that commercial space is now. is the space actually in use right now as a commercial space? >> no, because there's holes in the floor where they did the exploration on the foundation so it's not habitable. >> president hillis: ok