many issues raised are about the ccnr. the city does not enforce those. that is private between the parties. as far as the planning code and compliance nothing is raised by the appellant to indicate anything is not complying with the planning code requirements. we request the board address the concerns raised over the bicycle parking the board may do so without violating the planning code that the bicycle parking can be removed if that is the board's wish. >> mr. sanchez because the a.d.u. is accessory to the primary residence it would not establish a separate unit. >> this is a five unit building. it may be called accessory. it is a new dwelling unit. accessory is the name. it creates a new dwelling unit. this can be an issue when you go from two units. >> my question is which may or may not apply. maybe not the building or planning code, but when you change the status to four to five unit building everything changes insurance changes, mortgage definitely changes, because it is now two to four units is considered residential and five plus is a business.

our homeowners association is working to change the ccnrs to eliminate the problems that come with other buildings that you approved recently, 1515, 15 street, 3420-18 street are all corporate rentals that were approved and built recently. we're watching 18011863 mission that we spoke about at the 1863 dr and have talked to you about this before. we're watching this before because this same developer has a history of corporate and short-term rentals and 180 is almost finished. as we're tracking sanders the growth rate is concerning. many more buildings could be operating this way instead of becoming real housing solutions for the city. hundreds of millions of venture capital dollars could be pouring into this model that goes against every person who has stood at this podium and tried to make a housing supply argument. we need to stop it. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, corey smith. thinking about the san bruno project as well and i know we were really disappointed that the proposal got turned out. i'm interested to know what the num

the installation is prohibited by the ccnr would require the other members to sign amendments to the plan which has not been done. five. there are other false misleading permits. the estimated cost. they estimate $14,100. this is excessively low in light of reality of the needed work to add a new kitchen, in plumbing, sprinkler and reroute sewer lines for the toilets for the bathroom upgrade. she provides false and/or misleading information to minimize the scope of the project. another issue is false and misleading statement regarding affordable housings. on page 7 they ask if the city supply affordable housing be preserved. it will be enhanced because it adds to the housing stock. it is a four bedroom and four bathroom unit. the application and appeal would subdivide to two units 3a and b as sited on the plans. this does not increase the city housing stock as it has the same amount of people. the mortgage contracts based on this being a four unit not five unit building. approved plan problems. it is a deeded four condo building. legalizes cannot pursue the condo. it is prohibited no