compressor equipment at the back. when you come to the bottom of the stairs turn ride, there is an exit to the right to the outside of the building. the compressors that exist in the back would be an ideal location for the laundry. i don't think that works. that is outside of exit passageway. outside of the grocery store they have the storage facility. it is full. it is part of that tenant repbetal space. i don't be think we could take that. looking from the other direction. compressors. water heater there. later we might consider going to electric heat pump units. the code issues related to the building requirements are done through the building plan check

review process. i am sure we could address those issues as we come to it if we need more coverage. we could go back and cover as opposed to removing. i thought the additional mask would be helpful to the neighbors. they are cavalier about taking the glazing to think they are not invading other people's privacy in a matter of -- i am not sure. thank you. >> commissioners the item is now before you. >> commissioner moore, did you want to speak to this item? >> i have a couple questions. it is great the landlord is concerned about his tents. there is a laundry across the

street. why wouldn't the landlord over the tenants to put the washer and driers in the unit in the closet? given that you want to do that? the stacked washer and drier is about $1,300 these days. why spent $10,500. the washer and drier in this penthouse structure on top of the roof? this is a simple question. those tenants that don't want the washer and drier go to the laundry three or four blocks away. it is a little question.

it is an offer to put one washer and drier not conveniently accessed. you don't know when your laundry is taken out. why don't you ask the people if they want washer and drier in the unit. in addition to that i think it should be unoccupied roof. [indiscernable] the architect is an unoccupied roof would know it is not just set up for the permitting. those are my comments. >> i will pick up on that. the architect wants to speak. i had a similar question. interesting solution to the washer and drier issue.

why not do in unit washer and drier? why go through the exercise of adding something to the roof versus other solutions? >> the closets are a little too small for washers and driers. there would have to accommodate a wider opening. the units are limited in size. storage needs are required. i think the roof penthouse which is mechanical, they are looking at solar panels. the convenience for just accommodating the penthouse for everyone on the roof as opposed to modifying each unit and providing water and drainage to each location. additionally, the unoccupied

roof we can state that. they don't have a need to be unoccupied. they might have a need in the future. why put those limitations? i can put limitation under this permit this roof is unoccupied for the sake of this permit. we don't have a problem including that in our proposal. >> i agree with that. part of the reason for the penthouse are solar panels there so they can service more easily. >> that would be probably two batteries back up that could become dated in the space. we will have to see how we accommodate the locations for those. we are looking like something like that. >> okay. i see commissioner diamond in the queue.

sorry commissioner koppel and imperial. >> all of us appreciate you saying the unoccupiable nature of the roof. even more so will be going with staff recommendation. >> i do appreciate this. i look at this in more as looking into the tenants' needs as well. it is in my opinion more practical to have it in the home. i do not see the reason for the tenant to go up and down the floors and for the penthouse. perhaps it can be an occupied space in the future that we do

not know about. dr is about the washer and drierment house. as i look into the blueprint. i see one washer and drier in the penthouse. i agree with commissioner moore it would cost more than perhaps working with the tenants around the hallway. it sounds -- like you want to do it because of the noise of the washer and drier? >> that is one issue. first of all, the code requirement. it doesn't allow under the fire and building code allow utility to exist inside exit passage wall. that is the entire hallway. 39 inches wide. it would exceed the clearance required.

utilities such as laundry and garbage rooms, other utility rooms and such can not exist in that hallway as part of the passage way. the other item. they are looking at the penthouse for future mechanical needs as well. this is a mechanical penthouse as well as laundry room. we are not saying this is strictly laundry. we are using it for mechanical penthouse. we did entertain adding another story. we are not there right now. they would like to accommodate needs of tenants. putting the laundry in the hallway will not work under the code. >> even in the units? >> the closets are too small. we would have to reframe, provide drainage, electricity, water at each location.

that means tearing up walls and floors to accommodate that. when you add all of that up the eight units it is a today tally different animal. on the north side closets are smaller. we cannot accommodate those needs. we are struggling to have something. the fact there was a penthouse there years ago to accommodate laundry facility on the roof. i couldn't find the evidence. from the neighbors in the neighborhood they did say that there was a penthouse on the roof. just not using the pents house on the roof. even if we put a deck there. there is basically precluding anyone from doing anything there. under the planning code it is

not protected. i understand that it is about use to some degree. that's not the issue. we are trying to provide a service for the tenants by providing this penthouse answervig to accommodate solar panels in the future so we can have this facility. that is where we are. >> we received a e-mail from the tenants concerned about the noise. have you talked to them about noise mitigation during construction? >> i read that e-mail. there is existing water and drainage on the roof right now. we have a ceiling and roof system for additional isolation between the units and mechanical

room itself. when we add a floor on top of that and build the penthouse that is the acaccuse city cal policies. we address vibration issues if there are vibration issues. all of the concerns came through the e-mail. we don't want to disrupt the tenants. we want it to be built quickly to accommodate the neighbors with a facility they could use. >> thank you. that clarified a lot. >> thank you. >> we heard from the requester concerned that the d.b.i. may not allow the laundry facility in there. not in your department. i am curious if you find that to be true. two. maybe we don't think it is a

problem. what happens to the laundry room in that case. >> i stay in the lines but i know how to be dangerous. the answer is i don't know. can you put a laundry room in a room -- well, i think you can. it is a room, not part of egress system. the stair now comes through opening to the roof. >> in closing the laundry facility at the top of that stair. that is my building code knowledge. it there is a problem they will notify the project architect there are problems. you have got to do this and the other thing. if that is still an offensive

thing that somehow the d.r. requester believes the building permit is issued erroneously they have process through the board of appels to address. >> with that. >> moved. >> commissioner diamond in the queue. >> question for the architect or project sponsor. building department can't find a way to permit this. do you have plan b? there is room for this given the closure of the laundry facility. >> we look for plan b. looked in the commercial spaces. the tenants in the commercial space would not like to lose space on the storage.

>> the project there be a lot of work. i know they are too small to accommodate the laundry facility. the cost might be a wash in terms of the work inside each room, whether the project sponsor would entertain that to begin with. he has tenants with the lease agreement as to whether they want laundry or not is a question they would have. we don't know if that is going to work. plan b i don't be see it existing. i think the penthouse is going to accommodate mechanical needs as well. this is overlooked. this is an important fact especially solar panels are going to switch out the gas service and other services that

consume a lot of energy and power right now and a lot of money. over time this will serve them well to pain tain the penthouse. >> i do belief that it is a quandary. for me i appreciate you are trying to provide this amenity. i don't like the solution very much. i think it is inconvenient for the tenants to walk up to the top floor. i wish there was another place to put the laundry that made more sense. worry about vibration on the roof or in the room unless it is the ground floor. it will create problems for the tenants. maybe it is easier on the roof. i don't know. that being said. people who brought the right to review.

i don't believe this is extraordinary or exceptional. i don't think we should take dr. i encourage you to find a better solution especially with the building defendant that it is complicated to put the laundry there. >> if we put it on the ground level then the transition to ground level from the third left is greater than second and third to the roof. i think about accommodating future mechanical needs as well. >> you have a bigger plan. we only see one tiny piece. it is an odd one.

the complete man would have made more sense. if it wasn't an occupiable roof until you come back to apply for roof deck and i would not support taking dr. >> thank you. >> i will make a motion. >> the labeling. [indiscernable] >> we can work with staff. >> unoccupied roof at this point is stating the obvious. >> the intent of the permit. if you wish to have that memorialized in the permit it doesn't permit a future permit

from coming in. >> i make the motion to not take dr and trust that you will label the plans unoccupiable roof until such time as they apply. >> second. >> on that motion to not take discretionary review and approve project. commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> diamond. >> aye. >> fung. >> aye. >> imperial. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> commission president tanner. >> aye. >> 7-0. that is your final item 11.

2021-005907. drp-03. 750-779. 79-81 homestead street discretionary review. commissioner tanner. the time limits on this item as well. there are three d.r. requesters. anything else you may want to add. >> we will do one minute rebuttals if there are three. i want to make sure the folks in the chamber and online responding to public comment. if you are part of the d.r. requesting group.

speak during the initial presentation or rebuttle. i want to make sure folks are aware of the procedures. >> thank you very much. good afternoon. david winslow staff architect. item before you is a public initiated request of building permit 2021-0512-0274 to raise an existing two story two family residence and garage at street level to reconfigure front and rear stairs and decks. existing building is category c low historic resource built in 1909. there are three requesters. first joshua, catherine. 65 homestead. immediate neighbors north to the project. they are concerned it is inconsistent with residential design guidelines.

related to scale, light, privacy and the maximum envelope development. they would eliminate two on-street parking spaces. proposed alternatives. replace hip roof with gable roof and provide garden apartmentment. second d.r. requester 70 homestead street neighbors and across the street to the west of the project. the project is inconsistent with the guidelines related to scale, intrusion, light and privacy. would eliminate the parking spaces. similar to d.r. requester one and three. replace hip roof with gable in the front.

remove garage and provide apartment and reject the one car garage. roger norton to the east is concerned the project is inconsistent related to light and privacy in the backyard and scale and intrusion. alternatives to replace hip roof with gable in front. remove garage and provide garden level. to date no letters in opposition and two letter this is support. planning department's review of the proposal conforms to the guidelines in planning code. as it exists this is the shortest building on the block with subgrade flat resulting from previous regradings of the street. presents itself as tall one story building faces to tall two

story building. this does not encroach to the mid block open space but fits within that footprint. several changes have been incorporated into the revised drawings of the project 5/5/22. removing hip roof and reducing raised height by 2-foot 6". second and third floors three feet from the north they were property line and 12 feet from the southern property line. depth of the decks reduced to extends 5' 6". the proposed garage compliant be with planning code and criteria in bulletin 2 and standards by the san francisco public works. the year yard of the building is not circumstance related to the

guideline. privacy intrusion to the rear yard as directly to buildings. it is common place in the city with height and density of buildings. staff recommends not taking discretionary review and approving as modified to reduce deck and stairs of the removal. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> commissioner president i want to confirm the time for each presenter. five minutes? >> five minutes. one minute rebuttal. >> first d.r. requester. you will have five minutes.

>> good afternoon. i am one of the three. >> i will pause your time. sfgovtv. thank you. >> i am adjacent to the property in question to the north of the property. at the time of the review these issues were of similar concern and we have been in discussion with the owner and have clarified our concerns further that is why you have the additional packet in front of you. we have made efforts and head way with compromise. we have a few specific issues which are here today. my objection to the proposed

build. one. privacy concerns to the adjacent neighbors. into the structuring themselves not backyards. two. masking out of proportion in the rear. de facto merging two units to a single family home. four. potential for pop-up solar. five. parking concerns. i would like to show a few images regarding privacy. >> she has included the opinion that raising her existing building up will include privacy for surrounding neighbors. this is untrue. in both units of her home she has lot line window this is place. with the guidelines it suggests

windows are avoided. they look at rear decks to neighboring homes if it is 12.5 feet or more those would look to the bedroom of my property at 65 homestead and 85 homestead neighbors to the south. effort to estimate the sidelines we flew a drone where with windows will be. it is in the materials received. there are two site lines pointing from her deck and from her kitchen to my bedroom which is located at the dip of the red arrows. you can see over the aerial photograph the site lines drawing as well. elevation this is the plan looking from both windows up and downward to the bedroom windows

-- doors that exist at that point. this is a rendering based on the drone photos from the two sites where we would intend to see or likely have those showing those. window on the east and west alallowing light to the space as true for every home in the city. removal of lot line windows will not impact the lighting. we ask that the lot line north and south facing windows be removed and replaced to prevent views into the bedrooms. the concern is the size of the building from the rear. the front of the building is

contiguous with the streetscape. the we were is the problem. over 12 feet will cause it to be large and imposing on neighbors due to the downhill aspect elevation of the space. we ask the rear pop-up portion of the home be left as it is. main part raised up. this demonstrates a popout in multiple views. as you can see raising only the main body would minimize the complaints from the rear and floor plan decreased 100 square feet and fit more with surrounding homes following residential design guidelines. third concern merging of the units. we ask permit be required. they intend to utilize as single family home. we believe these requests to be

on appropriate to mitigator concerns of the community and allow her to address concerns about improving safety of the property. thank you. >> thank you. d.r. requester number two. >> i am going to focus on the conditional use permit, impose deed restriction against pop-up solar and angle driveway. we had a predr mediation at supervisor's officer and two mediations with mr. winslow.

produced zero project changes. the owner cut off negotiations in the e-mail on may 18th. in your packet is transcript of the owner explaining that she intends to occupy the whole building. this occupancy follows an ellis act eviction. she told this to 15 maybe this is preappliqueing. 317 requires additional use when two rent controlled units are merged to a single occupancy. the new interior staircases front or separated by one food conconveniently connect the garage, first level above the garage and the top level. the merger of this property has already begin. the owner decommissioned one of

the two electrical meters and she merged without the permits to start. discretionary review is not the same as loss of rents controlled due to ellis act eviction that would result in the conditional use permit was used. 812-816 green street mergeder was reviewed for impact of the ellis act conviction by staff. neither merger nor eviction were mentioned in the staff report. it has not caught up with the e-mail we copied to mr. winslow. there are many letters reading what the report was two weeks ago not current status. we listed prior renters. neighbors. don is missed. susan is on the phone from

southern california. don is hr professionally. when he moved away the owner in the ellis act evicted susan in southern california. on the phone until 5:00 p.m. if there is any possibility to talk before she has to leave. it gives you a feel of the loss of tenant buffer hurts the neighborhood. the 75-year-old high school principal has borne the brunts of don not there any longer. she spent 12,000 on a two day permitted sewer repair for lateral connection. it went downhill. she spend the day yelling hat the sewer workers and demappedding they carry away the dirt and don't bring back the next morning. there was nobody living in the morning. it was easier to give in than

resist. the building department indicated they have a file on the owner. the units are lost by the ellis act. invection should not be rewarded by endorsing the proposal to add the garage and elevated the view of the three bedroom home. second, the flat room is only an improvement over the hip roof if solar panels are not replaced by tilt up solar panels. we had a 3-d model built of the property because we couldn't get the architect to let us manipulate the 3-d model used in the mediations to view from the

perspective we cared about. this shows how the proposed flat roof would look with built up solar. if tilt up solar is allowed it will be out of character with surrounding homes. we heard that curb space is the hottest property in san francisco. we proposed slanted driveway so we don't use two car occupants. >> that concludes your time. you will have one minute rebuttal later. >> d.r. requester number three. five minutes. >> good afternoon.

roger norton. could with my brandon here. we expressed our comments are represented by the discretionary review applicants. i yield my time to them to continue. >> is this consistent with procedural rules? >> repeat the question. >> the d.r. requester wants to give time to another requester. i don't be know if that is consistent. >> this item has a number of d.r. requesters. they each have a number of individuals associated with the d.r. requester. i believe it is permissible for

the third one to allow somebody else with that group. >> it is back to the other two requesters. if they didn't have anything to add it is time for the project sponsor to provide their comment. >> if you want to speak, you can't yield back. anything to add? thank you. >> we will move to the project sponsor presentation. you will have 10 minutes.

>> good afternoon. mark thomas, architect 7981 homestead representing helene. it is one of the mallest streets on homestead street. slide two shows how it sits between d.r. requester's large buildings. they are both remodeled and added on to. slide three shows her building is not raised up to the new grade of the street. 7.5 feet below the sidewalk. with that said this project consists of a couple of things. first raising the building. slide 4 shows raising the building to get back up to grade inserting the garage below the grade. slide 5 shows the street view of the proposed remodel in context.

6 rearview of the proposed remodel. slide 7 shows compromises we made with the neighbors including rebuilding. -- sfgovtv. >> it was showing then it went away. >> i can slow down. >> tell me where you lost me, please. >> the cords got disconnected when the computer was moved.

i will slowdown and go back to slide 7. it shows the compromises we made with the neighbors that include for building smaller decks and stairs that set further away from adjacent properties. second item remodeling and updating interiors. slide 8 is the plan configuration of each unit and the lower floor that houses garage and common areas. they are shown in the shaded areas. it is worth noting all work is in the building envelope far from maxing out the buildable area of the lot. no horizontal additions. i would like to discuss the neighbor's five asks we received

two days ago. c.u.a. for the dwelling unit merger. that is not here. we are not asking for a merger. there are two units now. there will be two units if you approval. helene has no intent now or in the future to combine units. second, privacy. d.r. requesters are asking us to eliminate all north south windows on the building. slide 9 shows existing position of helene's south kitchen window. >> the new position -- slide 11

shows existing position of north kitchen windows. slide 12 new position of the same windows. nothing exceptional or extra ordinary. nothing changes here. slide 13 shows floor plan view of how helene's north windows that we just looked at in elevation relate to 65 homestead top floor bedroom. there is no direct privacy issue. it shows that when you stand inside of the kitchen looking out the windows facing north which have high window sills you can't look into the adjacent bedroom next door at 65. 14 is examples of other buildings on the street with north south facing windows that look into other properties. it is normal and regular in this neighborhood and in the city. not exceptional or

extraordinary. third ask. neighbors want to eliminate the popout at top floor unit. slide 15 shows this lops off the kitch open the top floor and takes away 121 square feet of floor area. 14.5% of the floor area of the unit. this is a view from 85 homestead. 16 is a small loss of extreme lateral view of the blue shaded area. 17 shows 85 view before helene's building is raised. slide 18 shows same view after the building is raised. side 19 shows look at the expansive view from 85 a little further east. if you turn your head it is

completely unaffected by helene's project. fourth ask to prohibit tilt up solar panels. we do not propose solar panels. nothing on the plans, drawings or specifications. last ask is parking. the d.r. requesters want to angle the driveway four feet. angling the driveway eliminates one car space on the street. slide 20 is keeping the driveway how it affects removal of one car. this is different view angling the driveway four feet eliminating a car and makes it nearly impossible to maneuver in and out of the compound sloped

driveway sloping down to the garage. shifting four feet won't work. it doesn't net any more off-street parking. finally, we have been through a process. helene has listened to the neighbors and made a lot of compromises, lowered entire building, removed peak roof and put on flat roof for the sake of views from across the street, completely reworked the decks and stairs to accommodate privacy and views for both neighbors. received support from 12 neighbors on the street, two of them sent letters to you. we sent the petition signed into i the other neighbors to mr. wins low. we are hopeful that you will approve this with the mod affections we made for the neighbors and we have shown you

today. thank you very much. i am available for questions if you have any. thank you. >> we will open up for public comment. members of the public, please come up to line up an along the screen side of the room. press star 3 to raise your hand. >> if we can do the caller online. there is a time crunch. then we will go to speaker in the chamber. >> you have two minutes. >> you may begin your public

comment. >> good afternoon. this is and asstacia, member of the san francisco union. the property owner asked to remove two flats from residential renting and the remaining tenant now proposes to raise both units to make room for garage. irrespective of effecting the tenants i oppose bringing more cars and pollution to the neighborhood. it is not to build more garages in our neighborhood and for the environment to have more pollution. thank you.

>> we will take callers and then in person. >> i am susan. i am a tent certain -- tenant of the upper unit of the rent controlled buildings. evicted november 2019 through ellis act after 10 years. the other tenant moved out in july 2018. these were taken out the market. for some reason which is undisclosed. the landlord occupies a separate home with a garage. remodeling these for personal use. landlord has no intention to combine. he can return to the market when the ellis act time restrictions expire five or 10 years.

he stated this on page five quote. the ellis act can you hear me okay? [indiscernable] if i need a home healthcare worker or anything like that i have an option. there are limitation to ellis act how many years you are free to charge the market rent. it couldn't say i couldn't change my mind. when i am older than i am now whatever. there are limitations that it could be done. i hope i answered your question. end quote. this landlord skirt the law and violates tenant privacy that allows access to certain areas of the unit. it is harassing behavior

including taking away part of the lease as well. i was a tenant there. >> thank you. that concludes your time. >> members of the public. >> good afternoon. neighborhood council on san francisco coalition. i would like to echo the comments particularly the tenant that was done wrong. you received my letter. i truly believe the planning department has disjointed policy. if you are allowing two units off for represent while allowing it. it doesn't look like an extreme project. i agree these are not the units. i am speaking to the policy. clearly the owner in this case

if they were not planning on building a garage they were not going to ellis act these tenants. it is a matter of one causing the other to happen. it doesn't look like that on the surface. my question to this commission is are we going to at what point are we going to implement a policy to take housing into account for everybody? not just homeowners. we have to take into account what the construction is going to impact the residents. i am not talking about in terms of noise or inconvenience. those who will lose homes. i would really appreciate you taking these into consideration.

ms. cohen to do what she did. it wasn't too long ago when somebody would show up with a construction project that would displace tenants and this body would stop it because they would say it would send the wrong message. it requests nothing like a garage. let's see what the cost was. >> thank you. we will move to rebuttal portion of the hearing. d.r. requester. if anybody is wanting to public comment stand in line. >> introduce yourself for the record. >> i live on homestead street. >> you aren't able to speak on

this problem you are part of d.r. requester number two. if you are a signer on one of the dr applications you are aren't able to speak during public comment. thank you. >> on the other hand if we understood that you were talking about anybody who signed we would be eligible for 10 minute coordinated presentation. >> what you have. you are signatures with five minutes each. in that time whoever is part of the group can speak. that didn't happen. now it is for people not parties to share their testimony. >> you are declines us to have the 10 minute presentation. >> that is not what we are talking about. if a member of public not a party now is the time.

>> the primary objection to this project currently the building that 2.5 stories popout acceding the neighbors on both sides and beyond. each have one story popout. this plan raises two stories. rear elevation is unreasonable and out of proportion with surrounding structures. second, we would like to consider a conditional use permit. we believe the properer intends to merge the units. i was on the property 21-22. a truck was double parked. remained at the window as the truck was parked. waiting to hear to answer the door. the proposer identified herself and asked to disconnect and remove second set of utilities.

technician asked why? it was her intent to merge the units. he could not disconnect, not remove second set of utilities. long story. this is discoverable. she signed the service order removing the utilities to merge the units. thank you. >> public comments. anyone not part of d.r. requester come forward now or press star 3. no additional public comment. public comment is closed. we will start one minute rebuttal. d.r. requester number one please come up. >> thank you. my primary concern is the question whether raising this unit will impose additional privacy concerns into the

bedroom that was shown. i am going to utilize the prior slide from the requester's representative of side 13. at that point there is a direct line of sight to the bedroom from both kitchen windows in a way that seems to violate the goodwill of removing privacy concerns from the building. that is my concern to the room not to shared spaces which seems irrelevant such as the backyard. thank you. >> d.r. requester number two. >> i don't think that you have forms for drp02 or 3 in your packet. you were doing three copies of drp01. you have to decide when de

factor merger is something that you should take into account. that is just a legal issue. council will give you good advice on that. with respect to the solar. there was no objection. no current plan to putting solar. there should be no objection to the deed restriction to put in something to take away the benefit of the proposed compromise. the owner admitted in the papers filed on may 18 that nine parking spots will be reduced to 7.5 parking spots. two removed from the street. >> d.r. requester number 3. no rebuttal? project sponsor. you will have two minutes.

>> mark thomas architect for helene. i want to summarize the project. i will speak briefly about the ellis act and what i know about it. confluence of circumstances for helene that you can invite her up and talk with her about a loss of long time tenant and major health issues all taking place at the same time. that influenced her decision. she intends to live in this building in one of the units. the other unit is for her daughter and granddaughter. in general to summarize. first, this project is in conformance with the planning code and residential design

guidelines. there is pro horizontal addition proposed. the scissor type stairs rebut with more compact stair and decks. third, changes we made on behalf of the neighbors include removing hip roof and putting on flat roof to reduce height of the building. fourth, the proposed garage will all comply with the standards of the planning code and the san francisco department of public works. they will be minimum required to get a car in and out of the building. fifth. privacy north south facing windows. because the kitchens face north and they have a countertop in front of them and windows have an elevated fill height you would be hard-pressed to reach

over top of the windows with your neck and crane your neck to look into directly into the bedroom space or another living space in an adjacent residence. >> thank you very much. available for questions. >> thank you, commissioners. the item is now before you. i do want to ask about my perspective. i don't see it as unique or extra ordinary except for the ellis act. that is my major concern. that is why i will focus my questions. the other issues. only building issue i want to hear from project sponsor and architect regarding ellis act. property line windows my understanding we do not support more property line windows. could you help me understand why

they aren't set back? i am trying to understand. my recollection and my feelings on the board of appeals people are upset the neighbor is covering property line windows. they are not protected. i understand the fire code. >> two-way street on that. we don't say you can't have property line windows if you apply for them. there are no special restrictions for the window removed and replaced in another property builds next to it. this is a case where there are windows. there is no attitude from the department you should remove them unless, of course, by doing so it creates unusual extraordinary circumstance, privacy as they contend. what can we do about the windows. my case report didn't address this. the property line windows were

sufficiently analyzed with respect to the fill height and proximity from countertops. the bleakness of the angles didn't present that circumstance. >> on the wall with the windows? >> building code issue depending what you are doing you keep what you have as existing nomcomplying condition to such an extent you may need to come into compliance up to the building department. >> that was my concern. the other issues. i can see why people have concerns. i would love solar panels. they are adding parking spot within the code. privacy i encourage folks. i have a great set of curtains that i can close and open. that can protect your privacy. issue of the ellis act.

i don't know if the architect or the owner wants to answer. i will tell you what it looks like. it looks suspicious. it looks like persons were evicted. we her from susan in 2019 that she was evicted. take it off the market. helene's statements quoted do not look favorable in terms intentions here. a.d.u.s are not required to be represented. if she were to live if they are not actually merged she can maintain two units. i have serious concerns a tenant was evicted to have a unit it is empty in san francisco. somebody needs to tell me why we should support this. >> mark thomas, architect.

regarding the ellis act. there is no intention to merge the units. a lot of the quotes taken were nicely cherry picked to run them together. i will turn the rest over to helene to answer your questions directly and you can talk with her. >> good afternoon. just to give you a little brief history. i have owned the building 42 years. bought it when i was 25 tenants in common with my best friend and her husband. after my mom died she left me money. we said do this. i said okay. i lived in the downstairs unit for years. they wanted to move out for the son to have their own room. they are only 830 or 840 square

feet. they couldn't fit. i bought them out. i moved upstairs after four years. i rented the downstairs apartment. then after four more years my daughter was born so i moved to the sunny side neighborhood so she can have her own bedroom. that was after living there eight years. then i rented the building for an additional 31 years. 34 years altogether. i had great tenants all along. long-term. rent control. didn't makeny money. that is nothing. you know, i had the tenants. they were great. i rented the building. then in may of 2019, i got notice from my longest tern

tenant 17-years moving for bigger and better things. we had a great relationship him and his partner were moving. they moved in july of 2019 they moved. in september 2018 i had an emergency surgery. i am not going to get into details. major surgery. when i got done in may i was still recovering. he was leaving. the house wasn't upgraded. i thought, you know what? i am not feeling well. john is leaving. i am turning 65 that december. i cannot continue to do this. it is 44 years. a lot of work. i raised my daughter by myself. a lot of work. i spoke with a lawyer. i have done everything legally

with permits. i decided i have to go out of the business. i did it for a good amount of time. i have to go out of the business. i am 65. i am turning 65. i can't restart again. i went out of the business. then i thought i love the unit, my daughter loves the units, she was born there. she is 35 now. she was born there. my house where i live i did it for convenience. bigger. i could sell that to a new family with stairs to go up to the bedroom. getting older. i can live in the unit and my daughter and granddaughter to have the other unit. we don't be know what is going to happen down the line. this took three years to get almost 2.5 years. it is going to take another year and a half or so minimum to get

it done. i will be almost 70. i want to enjoy the house. when you are in the house you are on one level so you don't have to go up and down and up and down. there is more medical stuff. >> do you own any orintal properties? >> i only own this house because we have 27 and you have 47, let's do this together that is the reason i could afford that to begin with. when i was living there when i was 27 three years later my father passed away. that is how i was able. i was married at that point. i was able to put down payment on the sunny side home. i am not a landlord.

i want to sell to a new family, move back to the house near and dear to my house where my parents died while i was there. i want to get there. my daughter was born there. two perfect units for us and big family or another family can live in my house. >> one question. right now are you occupying the premises? >> just to say i have no desire of merging it. i love 7981. i never applied for it. everything is two units. who knows in the future. i want to keep it two units. you have to keep nit the city. the pg&e man somebody was describing. i go to dig in the gardens and clear out the weeds so i don't have to call the garner.

i like to sweep the front streps for the mailman so nobody trips. i am there once or twice a week for maintenance purposes. i went there about four months ago and the down stairs unit smelled like gas. why? this is after two years of being vacant. never used the stove. just garden. i go home, think about it. i don't want this to blow up. i called pge we are coming now. meet us there. i drove back. met the guy there. comes in and does the thermometer thing. there is a gas thing. after you remodel you have to address it. i am turning off the gas. i have a picture. he is down there. the meters you have to climb down over the stair railing.

they are unaccessible. he turns off the gas for both units. electrical panels are still there for both units, gas boxes both units there. it is two units. he turns off gas for safety reasons. that was it. >> i think you answered my question. commissioner imperial you are next. thank you very much. >> i appreciate that question. the ellis act is not a very -- it is heavy. usually in terms of discretionary review the way i would see things is match the stories of the project sponsor and the blueprint. i watched the pre-application meeting. i believe in my opinion from watching the pre-application

meeting that the project sponsor is not speculative landlord. i believe the landlord wants to live there. there are differences when we look at the blue print and see people are exploiting. i do not think it will be one. i do not see it will be a residential merger. i also appreciate the conversations. it looks like the project sponsor made a lot of amendments on the property as well. in my opinion i take this staff recommendation. >> second. >> that was a motion and second. on that motion to not take dr and approve as modified. commissioner ruiz.

>> aye. >> diamond. >> aye. >> fung. >> aye. >> imperial. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> mover. >> aye. >> president tanner. >> aye. >> very good. that has been approved 7-0. that concludes your calendar for this evening. >> we are adjourned. thank you.

>> chair borden: first meeting of the sfmta to order. >> clerk: this meeting is being held in hybrid format with the meeting occurring in person ate city hall room 400, broadcast live on sfgov tv and by phone. we welcome the public participation during public comment period. public comment will be taken both in person and remotely by call in. for each action or discussion item, the board will take comments first from those attending the meeting in person and then those calling remotely. the phone number to use is (415)655-0001. the access code is 2495 334 6992. when prompted, dial sr