Bedrooms, while theres five of them and theyre fairly modest size, its not what weve seen in other places where theres bathrooms on every bedroom. So i think the program works. I would just like to see some design modifications so it doesnt read as large from the front on 27th street as it does under the renderings we have before us. Commissioner i was going to Say Something very similar in that, you know, yeah, the difference to me is the design. It doesnt have, you know, two media rooms and some of the things that weve seen in some of these other massive expansions. It is clearly designed for a family, a large family. So that makes a difference to me. I do agree that, you know, theres some Design Elements that could, perhaps, be tinkered with to make some of the neighbors, you know, less you know, more comfortable with how it fits in to the fabric of that block. But, you know, i think that expanding the back unit actually is a good thing. It makes it rentable and provides a home for someone. So i think that with some design tweaks, i could support this project. Commissioner richards. Commissioner i guess the question is we have one 3d drawing, and it clearly really jumps out because its a very big building. Do you have any other 3d drawings from the neighbors back looking towards the front . Any other things we could use . Does it help to look at the model . Sure. So the neighbors house, can you walk us through that . You into he had to speak into the microphone. If you can set it up on top of the flat surface there, we can see it. Great. Okay. So the 761 27th street, one of the reasons the front yard setback is as severe as it is is because altogether the other houses are kind of all of the other houses are in there line here and this one jumps back. Basically, it goes from its right here. Okay. Okay. And because we have to average between this and Karen Buckleys house over here, because of that average, we have to push it back to the maximum front yard setback. In if we could do the normal averaging, we would probably be where we are right now. So in the demo counts for the tantamounts demolition, were both buildings, walls and all that, considered one unit, or did you do we look at only just that building . We were just looking at this one. It was just this one house because this house here basically all this exists right now. All that is happening is part of this was jetting over to this side. So it was just a matter of reconfiguring this. By the way, we did lenore and rachel have a lot of support. We didnt have a chance to present that, if you would like to look at that. It looks like the commission is going with changing the design of it. I think the design needs changed. When i heard stucco, i kind of thought oh, you know, generally not a to me, not a high quality finish. I think there needs to be something with the masking. There is a deck in the front. Theres a deck on the side. Theres a deck in the back. A lot of decks. I appreciate you bringing the model. Im open to design changes to make it less aggressive. You need to switch on your microphone. Commissioner when i first opened the packet, it seems like the more typical oversized and then looking further with our limit of two units and the, you know, compliant height limit, im learning towards supporting this project. I am totally open to any design changes, but within my head, racking my brain to see what other options i can think of and dont have too many. So im still open, like i said, to hearing any design changes you would like to see. Overall, im probably going to support this project. Commissioner moore. Commissioner i still would like to see the project modeled in context of the adjoining heights because that is what is throughout. That is where the building rather large and that is what i personally like to avoid because it invites just this continued maximizing real estate notion which is part of how i feel about this building. These are buildings set in traditional neighborhoods warehouse holds are mod where households are modest. Theyre on a slope. To really understand and benefit the project and full disclosure, i would like to see it in the context of the adjoining heights, modeled in a 3d or added to that model. It can be in design block. Its not very difficult to do. But that would be for me a determining factor to look at this. My instincts tell me i would probably suggest at this juncture to take the 4th floor off. Again, i think its not enormous. That 4th floor could read differently. Youre designing it so it reads that way with the awning and kind of that infrastructure around it. So im fine. I think youre trying to, you know, solve an issue to accommodate a large family and extended family. It is not the type of project we have seen where theres decks and media rooms. If you look at the layout of the plans, theyre modest size bedrooms and bathrooms. So i think its fine, but it is set back fairly significant from 27th street. I dont mind continuing this and having the architect work to minimize the impact to the 4th floor. I think the first two floors read kind of tall because youve kind of put them which i think could be fine, given some adjustments to the 4th floor, but i would just work with ret and work with a design to bring back that 4th floor from the street level. Commissioner move to continue four weeks, which would be february 15th february 22nd. Commissioner to the maker of the motion, i would like to ask that there is further disclosure on the massing and height of adjoining buildings as part of this investigation. I would also like to suggest to visit with commissioner hill is is hillis, i would like to see a partial 4th floor which modifies or kind of composes with lower heights and adjoining buildings because those buildings are all lower. Just extruding it out 4 floors here, i will not be supporting it now. If theres an attempt to preserve a portion of the 4th floor, then it will deal with adjoining massing, including sloping, collective hill form, et cetera. If you could, with the architect, you want to bring back a model that shows the adjacent neighbors in the same form and or do the 3d renderings with the buildings. I look at the 3d renderings i dont think you have to bring back a model with the neighboring thats expensive. In like to do that because its not difficult to do. Others like 3d. Whatever you choose. So when i see the when i see the last actual 3d drawings, i see the front of the building looking, looks like, west, but theres kind of something over here, and its like, is that the neighbors house . I mean, i really want to see what it looks like contextually. So have one looking forward if youre going to do a drawing, but if youre requesting going to do wood, that speaks volumes. I would leave it up to you. Commissioner just purely a suggestion, i think i initially didnt have a problem with that perspective drawing if the third floor looks like its set back. The reason i dont have a problem with the 4th floor was asks because its so set back. I dont know if setting back that third floor half the distance of the 4th floor setback might be somewhere to start or an option just a suggestion. Okay. I did not hear a second to the motion. Shall i call the question then . On that motion, commissioners to continue this matter to february 22nd with some varying degrees of direction from the commission. Commissioner [ all ayes ] commissioner continue the hearing to february 22nd as well. The commission will take a 10minute break. Welcome back to the hearing for thursday, january 11th, 2018. I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate outbursts. Silence your mobile devices and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, state your name for the record. We left off on your regular calendar item 16. Its 668 through 678 page street. This is a condominium conversion subdivision. Commissioners, the case before you is a request for a condominium conversion, subdivision for a building and a 40 example height and bulk district in a residential condominium. To alterations to the buildings other than those resulting from the department of Building Inspections physical report. The subdivision code requires that the Plan Commission hold a public hearing to review conversions containing 5 to 6 units for consistency with the general plan. Prior to the publishing, they received one letter of opposition from the Housing Rights Committee and one email letter requesting that the case be pulled from the consent calendar and be placed on the regular calendar. There will be three more received. An email from iris, a member of the San Francisco tenants unit, francis taylor, a Community Member and from [indiscernible], from the Chinatown Development center. They are being distributed for review. This focuses on ms. Iris canada, a Senior Citizen who resided in one of the units. Ms. Canada was granted a life estate giving her the status of owner and allowing her to occupy the unit. In 2017, the superior court said she had not permanently resided there since 2001. Per the orders, ms. Canadas belongings were removed by the San Francisco county sheriff in february 2017. The commissions role in reviewing condominium conversion cases is to determine the projects consistency for the january plan and the subdivision code. The code section 1396. 2e defines any six as a notice terminating tenancy. Section 1386 directs the commission to disapprove condominium conversions projects in which an elderly or permanently disabled tenant is displaced. Given ms. Canadas life estate agreement and the courts finding that she had not resided in the unit since 2012, she was not considered a tenant nor was the residence considered a leasing united. Because it complies with the applicable standards of review, we are recommending that the commission approve the projected. Thank you and im available for my questions that you may have. Thank you. Project sponsor. President hillis, members of the commission, im scott. Im here speaking on behalf of the applicants. Because were restricted to ten minutes and there are several applicants, i would like to ask them to stand so you can meet them at least a little bit because theyre not all going to be able to address you in the ten minutes that were allotted. This is obviously a rather unusual situation for the Planning Commission to be dealing with, but you have regularly had applications come before you involving conversion of 5 to 6 unit ti cs into condos. You get a staff report almost like the one you received in this case that recognizes that the conversion is consistent with the planning code and with the subdivision code. Then, this Commission Approves virtually every one of those. This application should receive that same treatment. Theres nothing about this application that differs from a code perspective from the scores of other applications youve approved in terms of compliance with the planning code and compliance with the subdivision code. So why could this application be treated differently . I could think of three reasons, and i urge you to reject all three. One is that perhaps the commission doesnt think this application satisfies the code. But since its the same set of circumstances as every other application thats come before you that, would mean you would have been making mistakes all these years in approving the other applications and necessarily would be against further conversion of condominiums of this size. I dont think thats the commissions policy, and i ask that you dont single out this application for differential treatment. A second reason this might be something that someone might disapprove is essentially politics. The opponents of this application are politically savvy. Theyre wellconnected, like the residents of the building. I urge the commission to leave the politics, if it belongs anywhere, to the board of supervisors where this application, of course, has had it. I urge the commission to address the code compliance issues within the per view. The third reason they might object is frankly falsehoods. The opponents have spread a series of falsehoods about the applicants. If you took everything they said at face value, the applicants are just about the worst people on earth. When i was first contacted late last year by the applicants, i didnt want to touch this with a 10foot poll pole. Then i realized, if you look at the facts here, its the applicants who have been suffering and victimized by this whole process. In todays political environment especially, facts matter. I invite you to listen to some of the applicants, hear the facts about this building, and please just give them a fair shake. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im peter owens, and i am the original owner of the page street property. My family and i have been portrayed as the bad guys here. I thought it might be useful for you to hear briefly my side of the story. In 2002, we bought and renovated the building on page street with the express goals of creating entry level homeownership. However, there was one tenant in the building who didnt want to move. For good reason. Iris had been there for many, many years. Even though law mandated we evict here, we didnt want to do that. So what did we do . We found another way, a legal way, to keep her in the building so she could age in place by making her an owner. For nearly a decade, this worked well. Even as her health declined. But then in 2012, her family moved iris out of the apartment, which ended her life estate because the life estate was based on her actually living in the apartment. The family then proceeded to cut off all communication between myself and iris canada, and soon became apparent there was another agenda at play. The commissioners, there was no eviction. This unit has been not lived in for 6 years. For anyone who doubts this fact, even in the face of multiple court judgments, of sworn testimony, of the sheriffs independent verification she was not in fact living there, i would simply ask you this question why do you think that over the course of 12 months of a trial, neither ms. Canada nor her family presented or testified a single piece of evidence that she actually lived there . Theres no court in San Francisco that would foreclose the home of a 99yearold woman if there was any credible evidence she lived there. Heres the real kicker. We still cared about iris. We wanted to help her and offered a simple remedy. The family wasnt interested. They werent interested. Instead, with the help of activists youll hear from them tonight they made they devised a tv story, a jointly we were something kicking an old lady out in the street forcing the sale at a wind fall place. It boiled down to giving the unit or paying me off or ill cry eviction to the press and raise holy hell. Thats pretty much what happened. In the process, not only was a lovely and gentle woman exploited, but she was exposed to absolutely senseless distress in the final years of her life. In my mind, that is truly the unconscionable part of this story. Certainly is no basis for denying the motion before you. Thank you. Hi. Im ana munoz. She was not evicted. She moved out in 2012 and left the unit vacant. That is a fact along with a fact that i along with several of my neighbors testified to in our declarations during the litigation process. A fact that was only verified by the sheriff, a fact that couldnt be contested during the litigation process business her herself neither her family. The syrian disability action groups harassed us, bullied us, broke the law by breaking into the building next to ours so that they could get on to our roof in september 2016. They created an atmosphere of hostility in the weeks following. Three of my neighbors cars were broken into. Will you go to the overhead . Sorry. This is them on my roof. Here is a member of the committee on my roof as well. They created an atmosphere of hostility. Our garage was broken into. Three of my neighbors cars were broken into. One resident was assaulted at our building. Here is her. Thats the Police Record that she filed. She had nothing to do with the litigation process. She was assaulted in october of 2016. They lied to the press. The Housing Rights Committee, her family, and the Senior Disability Action Network lied to the press. They made it appear as if she was still living in her unit, which she was not. They will stand here to today and they will lie to all of you because they can without risk of perjury. If they so want to claim she lived in her unit up to the day that the sheriff changed the locks, then they should have submitted their own testimony in court in her defense, but they did not. Why . Because they would have been committing perjury. Instead, they engaged a campaign of lies and harassment and exploited an old layy in the last precious years of her life. They are dishonest to say the least. They put me, my family, and my neighbors through distress. I personally had to seek therapy just to get past this. The lies they tell you today deserve zero consideration in this matter. Here is Housing Rights Committee, she trespassed on to my property in 2017. Heres another member of the Housing Rights Committee who trespassed on to my building and harassed me. Here, again, is a man from the disability action network. They were filming in our building and they were also violating the law by filming in our building. Heres further evidence of harassment, a poem written by tony mecca, another passive aggressive harassment aimed at the residents of the building including myself. Here he is, tommy mecca, along with teresa while people were trespassing inside my building, they were standing outside. More harassment. I want to talk about the affordability my husband and i purchased our unit in 2010. The market was low. We were lucky. Our Interest Rate at the time was 7. 5 on a 7year arm. We had to morey against our Retirement Plan to put enough money down for the down payment. Im im sorry. Your time is up. I have a number of speaker cards. You can approach in any order, but organize we can line up against the screen side of the room. Tommy mecca, tony robles, iris, suzanne prentis, iris cox, cynthia fong, and gus brown. You can speak in any order. Good afternoon. My name is dennis zaragosa. I substituted in as the attorney for iris canada in june of 2016. On the day i substituted in, i actually met peter owens, and i was with iris canada and her grandniece outside of the courtroom of department 501. And after this was after a hearing. Actually, it was 502. B