to break through such as concrete -- >> i don't understand why you're taking that much on the a.d.u. you would be able to get that space back into the a.d.u. >> we can look at that further. i thought we were up 4 feet, but we're immediately into that unit. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask mr mr. dredler, who was a commissioner, to explain to us if he in his practice as a commissioner has ever used the provision he was quoting us. would you mind speaking to us about that. we are in a very awkward situation as the definition of demolition between d.b.i. and the planning department is definitely not on the same page, not to say they're at odds. could you explain in your time of how you used that provision, if at all. >> i was on a different commission. >> oh, i thought you were on the planning commission.

>> no, i wasn't. but i am very familiar with that section of the building code and that's been an enormous frustration. as a retired c.p.a., i'm used to opining, but opining on financial matters. i get really annoyed when we have people who are not lawyers opining on the intent of section 103(a). i think because this matter comes before the commission with regularitity, it's important to nail this down with a legal opinion and not have this back and forth, left and right movement where people are trying to justify actions that are improper. >> thank you for explaining that. the question i think is a real question. i would like to have an answer to it. we may not have that answer today. i would agree with commissioner hillis to the extent the building proposed in its size is too large.

that's the only comment of where i have common ground with your comments. i personally do not believe we should be redesigning or resizing the building. but the building as a replacement building is too large. that does not mean the replacement building has to be identical in place, but it has to meet the intent of the general plan objectives relative to a certain neighbor fit. and i do believe the ask by the commission to add an a.d.u. is also correct. but where we are not in sync is where that building has an opportunity to operate. where we are negotiating of number of square feet simply by the expression of massing seems to be too large to meet the objective and fit with the remaining buildings on hopkins

street. >> i'll speak next. >> clerk: commissioner fung. >> just as a point clarification. what they're proposing is to not have that short stair and to raise that level of that entry higher, which then prevents it probably from being able to connect between the two levels. the question for me -- and i didn't sit through some of the extensive hearings that occurred on the previous is that what was approved was approximately 3,000 square feet that went through the entire process. that was an addition, an alteration on top of this

existing structure. so the question is whether this proposal of approximately 4,000 square feet. 3,000 let's say roughly for the main unit and a thousand-something for the a.d.u., whether there is a correlation then between what staff has seen as the desires of this commission to add a.d.u.s onto residential projects. therefore, is that 1,000 square feet a.d.u. in addition to what had been roughly approved previously and whether then the size would be allowed by this commission. there's no doubt that -- there's no guarantee that an a.d.u. here

would ever be rented. it's also a question of whether an a.d.u. here would be affordable on any market-rate basis. staff has gone to great lengths to do what they can in resolving what was a difficult situation. and at this point i'm prepared to accept their recommendation. >> so lo and behold, finally it makes sense why the section of the building code that we always keep citing doesn't apply. i've done a search and been asking this question over and over. i find this information sheet dated june 22, 2015, which is right after all the demolition things and our joint d.b.i. planning commission, it talks about the demolition of a building you need to require the entire demolition of the

foundation. that's where it's at. nobody's ever told me that in all these years, but it's buried somewhere and that's what everybody keeps citing. i think we really need to take a hard look at that. it was a source of frustration for me and a lot of my fellow citizens for an awful long time. the other thing is i think we need to be consistent as a commission. we got rid of a part of a building that was built exceeding the plans that were submitted. this would be another candidate. it's an illegal demolition under the planning code, and i would offer this commission that we should just restore the building massing to what it originally was and ask for a building to be

of the size to how's a family. i would throw that out to the commission and see what the other commissioners think. i would pick column number 2 here, existing prior to construction as the reference square footage, just like we did with all the other ones. >> so i would agree with that. i mean, i think it both kind of meets the spirit of what i think is the code in the d.b.i. code, but it also kind of works from a planning standpoint on this site. so again, i don't want to take that out of the a.d.u. i think we can live with some. i get the fact that they were trying to elevate that entryway. but i think they're taking too much of the a.d.u. they would elevate that and add square footage into the a.d.u. you could take 5 feet in the back of this building and it would fit better on that lot and

make for the same-sized a.d.u. but i agree with commissioner richards. i think it should go back to the 3280. i think that fits with at least 1,000 square foot a.d.u. on the parcel and leave it up to planning to work with the project sponsor to reduce some square footage. but i would also want to eliminate the roof deck and expand the size or use access from the back of the house into the ground floor. open space so we don't have a roof deck on the top because it gives the perception of more mass on this site. >> so a motion? >> yeah, i would make this as a motion. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioners, would you please clarify the existing

prior to construction, the 3280 square feet, we're asking for that square footage now to include an a.d.u.? >> of at least 1,000 square feet, the a.d.u. must be that size and contain two bedrooms. >> so the a.d.u. is not on top of the square footage, it is inclusive of it? >> yes. >> i agree and would agree with that. >> just that this project will not be able to do corporate housing. >> i accept. >> sure. >> can we do that? >> i don't know if we have a definition. >> this is a question for staff, whether they understand what has been discussed in this motion. is there any questions on your

part? >> so your motion is to approve a revised project at 3280 square foot which is the existing prior to construction situation, but included instead of a single-family two units with the unit being at least 1,000 square feet, no roof deck, and no corporate -- >> sorry, strike the corporate housing provision. >> just given the fact that we're not entirely clear -- >> through the chair, please. >> okay. just because we're not entirely sure what a corporate housing is. it's only got two units. why would you say on this one -- >> you were the motion maker -- >> no, i would like to make it clear on this. i'm not going to muddy it up

with something else on this point. >> speaking about clarification, you talked about reducing the depth by 5 feet as part of your motion. >> i was just suggesting ways i thought this building was too big on the site. it's not just the fact that we're bringing it back to 3200, which is in the spirit of d.b.i.'s regulations, but it sits too big on this site. that's one way you could bring it back to -- i think that would almost eliminate 750 square feet if you took off 5 feet from the back, you could get the same-sized a.d.u. and four bedrooms on the top. i think there are other ways to do it. >> it's not part of the motion. [vote]. >> does that answer your question? >> we're clear on the question. >> commissioner, would you please comment on the parking space.

is that -- do you care about that with the other? >> no. >> so inclusive of the 3280 square feet, we would include a parking space? >> correct. >> director ran. >> i want to clarify. without the roof deck i want to make sure we're okay on open space. so as i understand it, if they pull the building back there would be enough space in the rear yard? >> presumably. so rh-1 requires 300 square feet per unit. so the rear yard will have enough space to suffice for the a.d.u. the current proposal with the roof deck and the front deck would be enough for that upper main unit. so the sponsor to clarify -- >> so to eliminate the roof deck they would have to increase the -- >> so if they both share access with the rear yard that jumps by

43%. we would need 1800 square feet of open space. if it either can suffice through a reduction of the top floor they could have a top roof deck or meet open space in a yard. >> i ask that we have an informational memo of what finally comes out from a design point of view so we in the public knows. >> did somebody second your motion? >> me. >> yes, all right. >> if there's nothing further, there's been a motion that's been seconded to approve this project as modified limiting the gross square footage to 3,280

square feet, eliminating the roof deck, and requiring that the a.d.u. provide a minimum of square feet with two bedrooms. [vot [vot [vote]. >> that motion passes 6-0. we will be taking 10 out of order at this time number 2019-014759pca, allowing long-term parking of and overnight camping in vehicles and ancillary uses. this is a planning development. >> today i will be presenting an ordinance proposing to amend the planning code to allow the long-term parking and overnight camping of vehicles and as well as ancillary uses at 2340

san jose avenue. i would like to provide colleagues from the department of homelessness and supportive housing with time to present to you. >> welcome, supervisor. it's hot in here. i'll try and be fast. i appreciate the opportunity -- >> do you have air conditioning on your side of the building? >> i've got a big window that i just open. thank you for taking the time to hear this issue out today. i'm just going to give you a little bit of background. about a year and a half ago, maybe almost two years ago, my daughter and i were out on christmas day. santa had brought her a bike. we were going to teach her how to ride a bike. we pulled over to get into the

park and i was absolutely taken aback by how many r.v.s and campers were there. they had come overnight. so called the department of homelessness, called the team, started asking questions. they used to have signs over there about the no overnight camping. we talked about getting those back up and they did do that, but all it really did was push the campers down to dewolk street. we had a conversation with f.m.t.a. the s.f.m.t.a. commission said we're not doing that. we challenge you to come up with a fair and effective policy how to deal with this issue. i worked with my colleague supervisor brown who shared with me that she actually lived in an r.v. for a significant amount of time when she was growing up and

she said they didn't think of themselves as homelessness even though they were. it was a different level of classification of being in that condition. we came up with a policy. you all helped to approve that policy. some people call it safe parking, but in a different way. the second piece of that was trying to come up with a location. in the meantime i think you saw the homeless county went up first time in a couple years. 70% of that increase is people living in vehicles. so it wasn't something we experienced on christmas day two years ago, it was something that was happening all over the city. if you drive down or anywhere in the bay area, you will see these

r.v.s and vehicles all over the place. so this is a growing phenomenon of our housing crisis. so we then were able to move the conversation forward to where we are today which is a site that will be used in the next year for affordable housing. we're building 130 units of affordable housing on this location that is scheduled, on track. worked with the mayor. we just got an additional $25 million in the budget. so that project is happening. we thought given its location and proximity to public transportation, somewhat a little bit removed from the immediate neighbors. it's not right on top of people's homes, it's very visible and defensible, we put forward this plan. we worked with the department of homeless and supportive housing.

it's currently used as parking for muni operators. we have found a location for those operators. but regardless of this was going to be a vehicle triage lot or not, that they were going to be displac displaced. so we feel happy that we were able to move and accelerate that conversation because they will have parking. and the reason parking is important for them is because many of them are commuting from the bay area and they're coming in in the evening where there's not scatss to public transportation. this site that we're proposing, you'll see, can hold up to about 33 vehicles. some of the space would be for storing vehicles. one of the challenges of getting people out of their vehicles is this is their only asset and they feel very reluctant to let that asset go. so if we have a space where they can store it and transition them

into more permanent housing options, this provides that gateway. we will have two 24-hour ambassadors and securities. it will have screening and washroom facilities. it will have an office space for on-site services. so that's kind of the broad strokes. i'll let the team talk to you about that. we have had two large community meetings, one about a month ago and one on tuesday. we've taken a significant amount of feedback and made some adjustments to the plan, but we feel confident that given this crisis and the growing number of people living in their vehicles, not just in r.v.s, but vans and cars now, we felt it was the appropriate time now more than ever we needed that. since we are the first district and neighborhood in the city, we are going to prioritize those living in vehicles in our

neighborhood first and we will work with the adjacent supervisors in their neighborhoods to have access. folks can stay up to 90 days and at the discretion of the director that time can be extended. so we urge your support today. we appreciate you all putting this on the agenda. if and when this is approved, it will go to the board supervisor next month and it will be about a year, about october next year we're looking to break ground on the affordable housing. so we have will had this for a year. it will allow us an opportunity to dive in deep and see what works. one last note as part of our community meetings we had a whole host of neighborhood leaders and residents. they were 100% bought into the program. you're probably going to hear from some of them if they've shown up. we wanted to be as thoughtful as

we can be in this process. one last note is one of the biggest reservations from some of the folks in the neighborhood is if we do start to move people from the streets, more cars will follow them. we're working on the overnight parking once we've been able to offer an alternative. any questions, i'm here for that, but thank you for the opportunity to present on this. >> thank you, supervisor. >> thank you. i have a presentation and i have some copies to hand out. >> i have a question for the supervisor. >> before the presentation? >> i wanted to ask the supervise. >> thank you for taking the lead in this really overdo of answering of questions that many

of us are asking. how did you figure out how many cars are actually on the streets of san francisco? >> the department of homelessness and supportive housing, they can talk a little bit about that, they went out block by block city-wide that they did on individuals who are housed. so around i think the beginning of the year they came up with about 432 cars. they believe that number has increased a little bit since then. they did a point in time count. >> i assume that other supervisors are working on backup strategies with you on how to potential -- >> yes, let me say thank you for that question. since we've talked about this and proposed this, other supervisors have come forward and said -- we have a smaller number of people living in their vehicles. it's much more visible in other parts of san francisco. so those supervisors have now

said they're in the process of looking for locations where they can do this. the reason that this site was ideal is it's currently a parking lot. so you want to minimize the number of capital allocations we make. the board of supervisors added another $200,000 in the add-back process. so we can do this program on a pilot basis over the next two years. there will be more supervisors and neighborhoods we will be proposing after this. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm the manager of policy and legislative affairs for the department of homelessness and supportive housing, and i will keep this brief as i know it is rather warm in here. first of all, i want to thank

the supervisor and his staff for all of their leadership and work on this issue. we are excited and grateful for this project. so the vehicle triage center, san francisco and the bay area are in the midst of a housing affordable crisis. there was a 2018 study that demonstrated that communities experience sharp increases in homelessness when median rent accounts for 32% or more of median income. san francisco is well above this threshold at 39%. that contributes to the rise in some of the increases we've seen. two-thirds of this increase is related to people living or sleeping in vehicles overnight. the one-night count that was

conducted in january counted 578 inhabited vehicles. that was january of 2018. we also do quarterly counts which are more informal for the city, and we estimate that number to be over 600. so it is certainly growing. so the proposed vehicle triage site will be managed by a supervisor who will provide 24/7 security as well as site management. we will be engaging with those who are already engaged. we're confident we can create a safe space to store vehicles as an incentive to engage the homelessness response system. we will be allowing a small amount of adults to remain on site. families with children will be

encouraged to utilize temporary shelters. we will provide support to get their vehicles operable. we will abide by a good neighborhood policy and this will hopefully be constructed in collaboration with our community housing project. we will provide the community with a phone number they can call with concerns. a little bit about design and timeline of the site. we will begin construction upon approval in october. we would like to open the site in november 2019 and the site will run for about one year. as we have a limited duration for this project site, we'll be doing minimal site improvements. no utility infrastructure will be working in the existing grade. we will not be touching the rail tracks or stoppers. we will be using all temporary

facilities. the site 2340 san jose is located in between geneva avenue and san jose avenue and the entrance will be at niagara avenue down at the bottom right-hand corner of the slide. the proposed site will have 33 parking spots. three will be dedicated to staff and 34 are clients or guests of the site. we will have a mix of standard, a.d.a. and van and r.v. parking. you can see all of the various site sites allotted in that slide there. we will be keeping the existing gate. we will be adding a new vehicle and secured pedestrian gates and we will be adding fences for more privacy. we will be putting an office trailer on this site so the provider can have their 24/7 staff and security.

again, as the supervisor mentioned, we will have onsite sanitation and toilet stations. we will have shower facilities and a shade canopy as well. we will have barricades to block off those trade stoppers for better access and safety. and as you can see from this site, there is already an existing pedestrian path, but we will be extending that level pedestrian path for better access. that will lead to that entrance and exit. lastly, we're excited to be bringing in solar power. as of right now we have plans to have two solar-powered lights and we can expand lighting as needed or necessary. so that is that and happy to answer any questions.

thank you so much. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the department supports the ordinance. it connects the vehicularly homeless to hofing and social services. but the government does believe that a different permitting mechanism is needed to continue this effort into the future. because of the site-specificity of the temporary authorization, this could only be used at one site to driveways the homelessness issue. so we recommend that this ordinance be recommended to be reported at the point of order of supervisors in 2020 to eliminate the site specificity of this t.u.a. and utilize another program. one last note. i did receive about a dozen e-mails regarding this ordinance, and only three were in opposition and i can present those to you right now.

this concludes the presentation. we're here for questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. i do have one speaker card from matthew holts, but anyone else? >> cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. we're in support of the proposal. we talk about trying to be an innovative city, this is the definition of that. this is a proposal that has an end date. we will be building affordable housing there. we have a range where we can try something new. it's been tried and successful in other cities. so we want to thank the supervisor and everybody else involved for trying to be innovative and creative in a solution. thank you. >> thank you. >> matthew holts.

i'm in favor of the overnight vehicle proposal. i believe it will increase safety in the area. the presence of more people is better than the gloomy generally deserted lot that currently exists. bold and innovative ideas by san franciscans help address costly housing issues in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is linda lightheiser. i'm a 20-year resident of district 11. i live very close to the proposed site and i'm well aware of all the issues that have been addressed under this proposal adds a trial basis. i'm very much in favor of this project. i think it's an interesting

project that addresses a lot of issues that for years now many of our citizens and city officials have been throwing up their hands about how do we do something about homelessness. this is in my back yard and i do appreciate the opportunity to try something new. we have some interesting comments that came up at the two public meetings. i attended both of them, along with my husband. i feel that the issue of public safety was the one that drew the most concern from our citizens. i think that this proposal has done everything possible, both working with the san francisco police department and other city agencies to address those concerns for those citizens. i'm hopeful that you will approve this project. thank you. >> thank you. i have more speaker cards.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the president of the district 11 club but also a resident who lives very close to this project. i do use the babalo transit center quite often including the park as well. i think this project has been very thoughtful and well-planned by the staff and everyone involved. it was done in broad coalition. i appreciate the supervisor's work. i appreciate the work of the coalition of homelessness on this as well. i know c.o.h. has been working on this since 2012. this is long-needed to happen in san francisco. i wish san francisco was the first in the country to do this, but i'm very happy that district 11 can be a first in san francisco to do this. i would encourage you to not only encourage this project but also encourage more projects in more neighborhoods. this project would make this area more safer than it is. it is a darkly lit parking lot

at night. this will be well lit, well maintained and have staff and services. this is an opportunity to connect people with services. please approve this project. thank you very much. >> if anybody else wants to speak on this item, please stand up and line up so we don't lose time. >> good afternoon. my name is joe martinez. we have 200 families in -- at 4750 mission street. it's a large child care center 15 minutes away from this project. most parents prefer this parking instead of the homeless parking in front of their homes. we also want to work with the

head of this project for children who are living in the r.v.s. we want to help those families provide child care for them. so we are in support of this project. we feel that everyone who has been involved in and put a lot of time in, and i think it's a good project to speak in favor of. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? >> commissioners, my name is david hooper. i live in mission terrace. we have not taken this matter up we have a summer recess. i personally support the effort for 40 years we've been kicking this can down the road in one way or another. lately -- this doesn't come just because it comes about homelessness. many other neighbors in the district are frankly concerned

about vehicles lived on other streets. there are people who live in vehicles because they haven't got an alternative and this would provide an alternative. there are four presentations. i missed tuesdays. there are people who are either skeptical, resigned, or who have resignations about this. i would like to see those reservations respected. i would like to see the department actively seek out a c.a.c. that included people who are skeptical, not wrapped up in this and fully supportive of it. i think this is an opportunity for these departments to draw people in, to adapt their program and their presentations, and to start to solve this on a wide basis. this is an opportunity.

please. >> thank you, sir. any other public comment? >> good afternoon. i live two blocks away from the project. that project is very -- just right next to the bus station. i take bart to work every day. especially i have to work the night shift, so i don't feel -- i'm concerned about the safety at night. there's some of my co-workers, their children are going to the high school and they need to take public transportation. they all worry about when it's open, will that be safe for our kids. that's the most concern -- as a

parent, safety is a very big concern for us. so we oppose this project. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item. okay. public comment is now closed. commissioner moore. >> i'm in strong support of the project. i think it is an innovative idea. i like the thoughtfulness with which it was designed. and i commend the supervisors and community members who are actively supporting it. it is not just an administrative act, but it is embracing forward-looking policy and being pro-active about it. i have to believe that an empty site that will almost sit another year to come is far more of an element of a public safety than a lot that is clearly managed and clearly serving a purpose that i think we all

support. i move for approval with modifications. >> second. >> commissioner koppel. >> she took the words out of my mouth. great work on this staff and commissioners. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve modifications. [vote snrkeds]. >> that passes 6-0. >> we go back to 2018-000547cua and 2018-000547var. please note in april of hearing public comment you continued this by a vote of 6-0, whereas

again on july 11 and august 2 you continued the matter without hearing to today's date. just for the record i think commissioner fung has previously stated he has reviewed the previous hearing and materials. commissioners, this is our second hearing on this matter so we will limit public comment to one minute. you've granted organized oppositions five minutes. we should provide the same amount of time to the sponsor. >> okay. let's do it. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jeff horne, planning department staff. the item before you was continued from april 25 hearing. a reminder of this project which is located on 42 ord court. the site is currently developed with a 1430 square foot, two-storey single-family home with a 320 square foot occupied

dwelling unit at the ground floor. the project proposed to lift the existing structure 2 feet. two floors will be added to the top of the rear portion of the structure and a four-storey additional addition will be constructed. the existing structure is 4,475 square feet. unit one, the new accessory unit will be 932 square feet. and there will be a one-vehicle garage proposed at the ground floor. the project is seeking conditional use authorization on a parcel that will exceed gross square floor area of 3,000 square feet while adding a new legal unit.

the property has a 15-foot front setback, and therefore the lifting of the building by 2 feet requires a variance for an encroachment into the front setback. on april 25, 2019, this project was heard and continued by the commission to give staff additional time to research the status of the dwelling unit. since the april 25, 2019, hearing, the sponsor has modified the project to decrease the size of the proposed garage from 745 to 533 square feet and to increase the lower unit from 800 to 932 square feet and added a second bedroom to its proposal. planning staff proposed a site visit on june 20, 2019, and viewed the unoccupied dwelling unit. photos of the unit are included in exhibit a of the case report.

on august 15, 2019, department of building inspections housing inspector performed a site visit and confirmed the unpermitted dwelling unit exists on the site and on august 21, d.b.i. issued a notice of violation of an unoccupied dwelling unit. i will provide a copy of that to the commission. the previous -- the part of the continuance was to do research on the tenancy. at the april hearing we viewed a 30-day eviction notice that the tenant had received from the -- sorry, it was a notice to vacate from the previous owner which was undated. in preparation for the sale of the home. the realtor for the project provided planning a copy of an agreement signed between the

then-owner and the resident. the agreement was signed on april 28, 2015, and had a move-out date of december 31, 2015. there is some overlap in the ownership versus the vacate date, but i will leave it to the sponsors and neighbors to discuss what and who was in the buildings at these times. i also want to provide a full history of the unpermitted dwelling unit in regards to planning review. on november 3, 2017, they submitted an application to model and expand an existing residence and provide a two-unit family home. in the review we determined that the product needed a c.u. on july 27, 2018, the sponsor submitted a c.u. application to remodel and expand a single-family home and to

provide two residential units. in planning's first notice, the product description was for the expansion of a single-family home with the expansion of a new unit which was applied for. this is when the department received confirmation of the proje project. prior to the april 25 planning commission hearing, the department received opposition to the project from four residents of the neighborhood with concerns centred on the proposal's consistency with the corona heights large residency s.u.d. and a letter was submitted to planning. the letter proposes the necessity of the project. since the release of the case report, the neighbors submitted petitions and oppositions to the

project with a hundred signatures. the group has five specific requests of the project with the concern of storeys, the depth of the building and overall square footage. letters of opposition were received from neighbors. a letter of opposition was also received -- with support materials was also submitted by a neighbor from across the street. last week we conducted a mediation between the sponsor and representatives from the neighborhood groups. a complete agreement could not be made but there was potential compromises going on between the two parties. at this time staff would reiterate our support of the project and find the project to be in compliance with the general planned policies and planning code and the intention of the planning district. this concludes staff's presentation. >> thank you very much.

we will now take public comment on this item. >> we should hear from the project sponsor. >> oh, i'm sorry. are you the project sponsor? yeah, come on up. so you will get five minutes. >> john duffy, project architect. thank you, commissioners, for hearing the project today. i'd like to apologize to the planning commission. the san francisco planning staff and the owners for the unintended omission of the documentation of the lower unit on the drawings. it goes back four years ago and it clearly fell through the cracks. i hope the commission can accept this apology, and we look forward to -- >> can you speak into the mic.

>> the proposed design scheme which we will present here today. so the proposed design scheme -- the site and existing conditions are challenging in terms of the narrow street and the through-lot configuration. we believe the proposed design is appropriate and fitting for the street, the neighborhood, and the city and growing family. we have the support of the planning department including the r.d.a.t. the design is current with all planning requirements. a lower variance is being requested. it requires the lifting of the existing cottage by 24 inches to facilitate a garage. this will provide increased height in the lower unit which in turn facilitates excavation. the spaces are laid out with rooms for play and entertainment and access to a very substantial rear yard.

the spaces and square footage reflect the need of a growing family. we have the support of nearby neighbors, some of whom are here today and some of whom are directly affected by the project. they have written letters of support as well. the project is appropriately scaled in terms of building mass and setbacks with regard to the streetscape. the exterior treatment is appropriate in terms of material selection and funny stration. the project restains and integrates much of the existing cottage exterior volume leaving the streetscape relatively unchanged. the project retains a substantial rear yard at 53-feet depth, in other words, 45% of lot depth. the family uses this year yard daily and it is an important

design feature directly off of the kitchen. the rear horizontal and vertical editions are barely visible from the street. the project provides two legal and code-compliant residential units, thus increasing the city's housing stock by one additional unit. the lower unit now being substantially larger at two-bedroom 900 square feet at the original non-compliant a.d.u. this current lower unit in the proposal was in large per planning commission request. the proposal has a small one-car garage which was reduced at the request of the planning commission staff in order to enlarge the living unit. it is worth noting that the garage provides not just vehicle working, but it also provides general storage, parking for bicycles and strollers, plus trash and recycling for the

owners and the tenants. in conclusion, the owners are passionate about living on ord court and in their neighborhood. they have lived there now for another four years and have made many friends, some of whom are here today to show their support for the project. no eviction took place in the lower units, and when the owners took possession of the building it was completely empty. thank you for the presentation -- thank you for your time. the presentation is concluded. >> commissioners, as i stated, organized opposition was granted five minutes as well with a minimum of three speakers.

just put it down right there and you can start your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 30 ord street. the corona heights harnlg residential use district was established in order to prevent overdevelopment that is unnecessary for our community. it was written so that housing could be created all the while preserving the charm of our neighborhood. the legislation enjoys popular support. the planning department provided input. three supervisors sponsored and subsequently renewed it and our former mayor signed it into law.

zoning restrictions had already been in place when the current owners purchased their property. [ please stand by ]

they knew this structure had two units for a long period of time. that second unit was being used buyer the family nanny. in looking as a result of that immediately revised the presentation, and at your last meeting i presented the facts to you and you kindly decided to investigate and delay.

the key dates to really focus on is when the property was purchased and then right after that a permit was requested for construction, and the renter was forced out from a previous agreement. today you have two units and two units so no units are being added. that second unit is going from low cost to high cost unit. no rent control, and we have added a parking garage that didn't exist before. the big question is when the developer takes possession of the unit he didn't know there was a second unit. then in the second unit he didn't know his nanny was living in it. it is a moment we are shocked there is a second unit. mynam neis living in the unit. in conclusion, the ver did you d turn this down. you should set a precedent that

this kind of activity should not proceed. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, i am barbara jell leat 33 ordinary court. this converse of one of the original ord towers is too massive for our short narrow street. it is the kind of construction that this district was to prevent. it would rise high over the open space on one side and one story garage on the other side. it is an unappealing monster home that combines a tiny portion of the original façade with a gigantic four story box. look at the design carefully. the tall buildings shown are on

state street, barely visible from our street while this tall addition is on ord court. we tried to reach out for a compromise that works for the family and our neighborhood. last week supervisor mandelman facilitated amied a mediation. we proposed a removal of fourth unit. >> your time is up. >> we were not able to get the owners on board. >> ma'am, your time is up. >> so that will be the end of the organized opposition, correct? all right. i am going to go to continue with regular public comment. i will announce names off cards here. if i don't announce your name, you are more than welcome to line up on the screen side of

room. rick cornelius, charles attics, david salem. kelly mcgrath. >> thank you. i am rick cornelius at 41ord court directly across the street from the mcgrath's. i have known them for four years. they are a lovely family with two lovely children. some of the things you have heard i am sorry are not correct. erica and i went through the house. she had nothing there. she signed an nda agreement. she was compensated heavily. there is also two things to know as far as the height of the building. it is the building right next door to my right, if i am looking out my front door is higher than the proposed building. my neighbor right next door is higher than the proposed

building. the neighbor behind, barbara, built a huge home. it took five years and there was no complaints on each side of another speaker, they have two buildings that are higher than what the mcgrath's wanted and one of the people have 3500 square feet in their home. >> your time is up. next speaker, please. come on up. >> afternoon, commissioners. i am kelly. together with my husband we own the property at 42ord court. >> if you are the project sponsor you are under the project presentation. >> i was misinformed. >> this is the second hearing. your time to speak was during the presentation. next