Footage, dont expect more units. It doesnt even make sense. And as for the other neighbor who was happy having a family of three, i have a family of five. I mean, i wouldnt im i mean, we need three bedroom units. Two bedrooms may work for him or Something Like that, i suppose, but i hope that you would actually increase the square footage, and if you can fit in two units, that would be great. Thank you much for your time. President hillis thank you. Any additional Public Comment . Good evening, commissioners. Im actually the project sponsor. My name is kieran hardy. If you were the project sponsor, you had to speak during the presentation time. Okay. President hillis we may have questions for you. Any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson yeah, i cant be supportive of this. If you look at this lot if you look at the buildings adjacent to this lot to the left, im not sure if thats east or west, theyre multiunit, and clearly, theres some excavation had to be done to get some units in there. That hill isnt just there by itself. So im open to whatever other commissioners have to say, but i really feel like this is a time to sort of look at these lots and really make sure that if the zoning is rh2 that were actually doing everything we can to get two units. And because this is there is a large residence sort of restriction in Corona Heights, it may even be advisable to look at, can we provide a variance on height or something to be able to get the two units in there and make sure that they both are livable and light and air and all of that. I think that would be a preferable solution than to just saying to putting up our hands and saying we cant do two units here. So im not supportive of the project as is, and well see where it goes. President hillis commissioner moore . Commissioner moore staff analysis is quite clear that the project has a gross area of 3,000 square feet and less than 40 open yard within an rh2 zoning district. That alone speaks to itself that a singlefamily building even with a cu is not necessary and desirable, but that, indeed, it also basically does not meet the Corona Heights interim residential requirements. That said if you really look more closely at the drawing set, the plans are highly unconvincing. Theres excessively large areas dedicated to uses that dont really quite create what is supposed to be a family home. The master the first floor has a master bedroom, a huge master bath outside of the common area. You can go in and do a forensic on the plans, they dont really quite add up. In addition, i think this project looks as if its purchased to be flipped for something else. It makes disclaimers about certain aspects that an architect would think about when he submits the drawings. We dont need to go into details. I make a motion of intent to deny with the possibility of the project to come back and present itself with a more appropriate building configuration in the zoning district. Second. Commissioner moore that means two units. Clerk commissioners, theres a motion that has been seconded to take a motion of intent to disapprove with the option of the sponsor reconfiguring the project. Commissioner, when would you like to have it continued to . I would imagine reworking the project may need some time . Commissioner moore it needs some time, yeah. Clerk march . Commissioner moore yeah. Clerk march 8th . President hillis that works. Clerk very good. To the maker and the seconder, march 8th . Commissioner moore that would be fine, yes. Clerk very good. So theres a motion of intent to disapprove and continue the matter to march 8th. On that motion. [ roll call. ] clerk so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 60. That places us on item 15 for case 2016002914 c dlsh ray at 2297 folsom stre2at cray at 2297 folsom street. This is a conditional separation. Good evening, commissioners. Michael christiansen, department staff, presenting for kimberly durandet. The item before you is a request for conditional use authorization for two dwelling units located at the ground floor of a three unit residential building. The two units proposed for merger were legalized and approved by the Planning Department in 1975 and received a certificate of final completion and occupancy cfc for that scope under permit application 449293 from the department of building inspection on june 30th, 1976. The commissioners and sponsors have received multiple letters of opposition from neighbors and interested parties. Merger of the units would result in the displacement of one or more of the existing tenants and the direct elimination of a unit subject to the residential rent stablization and arbitration ordinance. The project sponsor alleges that the cfc issued in 1975 was done so in error and that the work under permit application number 949293 was never completed. However, the Building Department did issue an inspection in 1976 and deem that work complete for occupation of the three dwelling units. Paragra subsequently, another application was issued stating three units for dwelling units. The existing units are habitable and theres been no action by the building inspection deeming them to be an imminent hazard or that theyre not in compliance with the housing code standard. Although the proposed merger would bring the property especially cloner into conformance with the rh2 zoning, the city has allowed additional zoning in all districts to help in alleviating the current housing crisis. Therefore theres insufficient rational in this criteria to support the merger of the units. Department conducted a site visit of the property, and during the inspection, two additional unauthorized units were discovered. One was in the attic, and the second unit was in an accessory structure or cottage in the rear yard. Department staff directed the Property Owner to proceed through ddi review to determine if there was a path to legalizing those unauthorized units. Under section 106. 3. 3. A of the buildi building code. The Property Owner subsequently filed a permit to remove those unauthorized units and a subsequent site inspection confirmed there were no tenants in those unauthorized units. Therefore, the only matter before the commission today is the merger of the ground floor units within the Main Building under section 317 f of the planning code, units that have been determined to be legal units. Nard for the project to proceed, the Commission Must grant conditional use authorization to allow the merger of the two dwelling units within the rh2 zoning and 40x height and bulk. As i said, Planning Department recommends denial of the project. This concludes my presentation, and im available for any questions. President hillis okay. Thank you. Project sponsor . No project sponsor . All right. Well open it up to Public Comment. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Good evening, commissioners. My name is shawn westbrook. Ive been a resident of San Francisco for about 15 years. You may find im repeating all of the same things that the Commission Staff has said cause that was part of my prepared comments. I did say a lot of this very accurately and convincingly. I do appreciate the recommendation to disapprove of this and i urge you to accept it. I gave you my history. My long time partner has been living there over a decade as a Master Tenant of the unit, and member of the community and employee of the city and county of San Francisco, and my front neighborhood and friend, he is a member of the night life and Service Community and also the art life of San Francisco. I wouldnt like to see any of us displaced. I just think it flies in the face of our Current Situation of housing, so apart from going through a lot of stuff that would probably oppose what the project sponsor would have said, let me just go back to reiterate what id like to approve in conjunction with the Planning Department. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im a 20 year resident of the mission. Im scott cowgill. Im a resident in the unit. The constant meetings and whatever, and i just want to say im very against being displaced for no apparent reason other than they need to knockdown a wall. When i was there originally, there was no stipulation that think wall was going to be knocked down at some point in time when i built a life here living and working, getting through the community, and thats it. Im just basically opposed, and not very well, but thank you so much. President hillis thank you. Any additional Public Comments on this item . Hey, good evening. My names eddy steel. I live at 2847 folsom street. Im here in solidarity with my neighbors. I just want to speak a little more generally. I wrote a letter, but i want to speak in public. This conditional use didnt require a preapplication meeting, so for neighbors and other interested people in the community, we dont get any heads up on this kind of stuff until 20 days before you guys hear it, so i feel like thats a reform that your department could do is to require a preapplication meeting for those residential mergers. Im on the residential notification list, so i see the notices. I see the permits for people that are building decks. I dont go to those, but when my neighbors might be getting kicked out of their house because the landlord wants to build more units, im interested in that. The second issue i have, and this may not be directly to your department, but it came up in this on this project is the dbi path to legalization. This is new to me. But theres a cottage in the back yard of this property that people have lived in for as long as the cottage existed, and now, no one lives there, so i dont really understand what the standard is for the path to legalization is . Because the Property Owner doesnt want to legalize it, so he encourages dbi to deny legalization, but if it was already empty, and he might want to put a tenant in there, itll qualifying for legalization. Somebody liveds in this property until about a year ago. Im not exactly sure on all the details, but i feel this is an agency where city agencies i feel this is a situation where city agencies are working at differences with each other, where developers are now making laundry rooms and stairways, and who knows what into legal units, that when theres a cottage in the back yard, people should be living in there, and there should be a set standard where dbi cant just sort of arbitrarily decide or because theyre encouraged by the Property Owner to illegalize a unit that could otherwise be lived in. So thank you for your time, and i look forward to your decision. President hillis thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is eric, and im with callente cuatro. Were posi were opposing this project. It doesnt make any sense, losing this rent controlled unit and make it into some sort of monster home. Its against what were trying to do in the district and the mission, which is create more housing, so please deny this issue. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this issue . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner richards . Vice president richards i just want to say the project sponsor saw me in the 4 all during a break. He said he wasnt allowed to come in and present the project. There was no disrespect to us. I guess to the director, you do understand the path to legalization. Staff might be able to help here, but there is a pretty rigorous process here. This came came up when we defaulted and tried to legalize units that were previously not authorized. Karl can probably give you more specifics, but it is looking at the physical characteristics, what would it take to legalize the unit and how both financially and physically what it would take to legalize, so karly can probably fill in the details. Sure, and this is one of the first removal of an unauthorized unit. Theres been a handful, but none of them have actually reached this no path to legalize issue. There was some inconsistency of how dbi was applying the standard and how planning was applying the standard. There was some confusion that the commissioners would actually be evaluating the Construction Cost or the cost to legalize. Dbi also believed that the scope of work was so extensive that the it would be infeasible for the Property Owner to legalize. Since this issue has come up on this project. Weve been working with dbi to clarify those standards and actually make them a little more arduous and closely related to life safety issues more so than a scope of work that may seem too extensive or to expensive because thats what youre going to be consider considered. Vice president richards sure. What bothers me is the Property Owner im not singling this Property Owner out was okay taking money from a renter in a unit that was maybe substandard but still liveable, and now were applying a different standard and saying it costs too much to upgrade, and so therefore, you know, byebye tenant. And thats part of the findings that you would make that dbi didnt make this call, that it was able to be legalized, is evaluating the cost of legalization versus the gain in property value. Did you do the site visit . I didnt. Kimberly durandet did. Its a converted shed. I think this request is wrong on all levels, and id love to have any one of my commissioners make a motion to disapprove. President hillis commissioner melgar . Second. I make a motion to disapprove this project. President hillis commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson we dont have good guidelines for what makes a legalization infeasible, and sometimes ive also been a little bit challenges when we hear some of the cases where there is some detail provided around what the work would take to legalize a unit, but because the current Property Owner states that they cant afford it or cant do it, you know, were looking at some sort of action that would make that unit not a legal unit anymore and there it was taken out of the circulation for housing. And i do i dont have any answers right now, but i do want to echo that i think thats something that we as a city need to contend with. I dont know that its okay to say especially when you have units where people are living in them, and weve seen them before, that were kind of saying theres nothing we can do. I think we need to look more closely at what financially infeasible mean or have some kind of stopgap measure in our planning code that allows livable but substandard i think we need to create another standard, because again, i think weve got kind of a loophole. Weve got units that people live in, and units that landlords say they cant afford to fix it, but then, people live there. How much fixing does it really need . Its definitely a thorn owe problem, a thorny problem, and its not just the Building Department. Its puc and all the other departments that have anything to do with the physical infrastructure of housing. President hillis commissioner moore . Commissioner moore i think it would be a good thing to add to our discussion with dbi. Most important metrics are lights, safety, and standard requirements by which livable homes are designed and these units have to follow the very same metrics, and in many cases, its not achievable, but again, i do believe that in order to be very clear about, that discussion could be an ongoing discussion with dbi, but when this particular piece in the back yard is identified as a former shed, i think there are already many, many things that come immediately to mind because in the definition of shed, it is not a small home, it is a shed. I can only take that word game here, but i think it requires a definitely a better understanding of what codes apply and in what form do they need to be applied equally to all, including these questionable units . President hillis commissioner richards . Is. Vice president richards interestingly enough, when i saw this, i didnt really read the packet, because it was a no right off the bat, but if you look at tab g under mr. Gladstones brief, you can see why they said there would be no road to legalization. It would cost 230,000 to bring it up. Its incredible what the way they decided it, more for the list of dbi stuff. Clerk commissioners, if theres nothing further, theres a motion to disapprove and a second the conditional use authorization. On that motion. [ roll call. ] clerk so moved. Commissioners, that motions passed unanimously project complies with the planning code and existing structure was determined not to be Historic Resource and the project increases the amount of housing on the site and maximizes density. Staff recommends the project with conditions. This concludes my presentation. Im available for questions. President hillis sponsor. Since this is the second time weve heard this, well limit to 7 minutes and public to 2. Im Lucas Eastwood. Before we get into specifics, i would like to introduce myself. Im a general contractor. Foreign war veteran and member of indian tribe. After being with the 82nd airborne, moved here and started working as a laborer. The robust market allowed me to rise the ranks of the firm and getting my constructors license and start my own company. Now i employ 20 personnel. Our office is in the mission. My son goes to school in the mission. My wife and i started our family in the mission of the neighborhood is very important to me and im proud to be a member of the community and continue to get to shape the changes that are happening. Brett gladstone, architect, will represent the changes, as requested. Up to now, we dont know of any adjacent neighbors who are opposing this project on either of the three sides. One of the commissioners asked us to look at the alternative, one that keeps the front area of the nonhistoric facade. What does it do . It creates a threeunit building and removed the two familyorie