Space so that way would be adding an affordable dwelling unit. The proposed four as far an a. D. U. , it cannot exceed the existing height of the building. The height restriction is intended to prevent projects like this one. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. I am a 41yearold tenant, and all of these years they have been an asset to the neighborhood. The building has been vacant, pretty much vacant, and the paint has been peeling for the last four years. It is time to get going on this renovation. I think from my standpoint, i dont have all of the facts and figures. I think theyre going to do a good job, as they have done in the neighborhood. As i said, i have been there 41 years, i know the buildings that they own, and manage, and they are all beautifully kept. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Good evening. And 33 years old, born and raised in the bay area. For the past ten years i have lived at 2908 octavia street. This is the residence that is directly next door to i fully support this project. It is something that needs to be done as soon as possible. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, needs to be done quickly, in a timely manner. I have known this family for quite a while now, ive seen it projects they have been a part of and they have done. All of them have been topnotch, environmentally safe. They have done them the right way. They are not mass contractors by any means. They just want to make the neighborhood a better looking place. I agree this project will do that. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am with the San Francisco action coalition. We have reviewed the project and encourage that you reverse the denial. We particularly appreciated that the project is proposing an accessory dwelling unit. Representing growth and much needed Housing Stock, particularly the amount that provides the least impact from local residents trying to keep the communitys needs in mind. Theyve gone above and beyond for the project are trying to make sure they work with the neighborhood. Its clearly much needed thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is mike, my sister and i own properties directly across from where the oltrantis want to do their work at, and kitty corner. Both corners. She couldnt be here, because shes out of town. We are both in favor of it. They came up, told me what was going on. They never try they have been there, their whole life, as i have. They are good people. They are just trying to get something done. You know, there are so many dirtbags that are in the city that are landlords, that when you get a good one, its kind of nice, it would be nice to take care of people like that. Its kind of like you cant see the trees to the forest. Anyway, i totally support this project. If any building was impacted by this, it is my building, thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. I lived on filbert street 415 years, i just want to say if few things. The project architect has done some outstanding work in the past. He has 30 years of Design Excellence in San Francisco. I hope you keep that in mind. The oltrantis have been subjected to a process of an unfair moving target in terms of the projects size, the elevator, concerns for the existing tenant. 1755 filbert, the 28 unit headquarters, in the opposition has approximately twice the number of units allow in the rhi k3 zone, even with a i did make this undesirable is a place to purchase the home. The elephant in the room here is a blockage of use. That is what this is about. I dont believe they are protected under the planning code. Thank you. Next speaker, please. You look like the Virgin Airlines guy. [laughter] welcome. Good evening, commissioners. I have one minute, so ill be really quick. President. To come i want to urge you to allow the planning to permit to go through these these are new plans, and if anything, we would like to follow the procedure for any new plans that arrive. There is an affordable units, the bottom unit that is going to be demolished. Affordability is an actual crisis. I think we really need to give that a second look. We dont want to demolish affordable units in exchange for building luxury units. Youre depriving the public from the neighborhood notification. I believe the public has a right to look at these new plans and weigh in on them. Its going to be 30 days, that this project has taken over two years, for whatever reason. Thirty days, or two months here in three months there is not going to make any difference. Thank you very much. Maam, may i ask you a couple of questions . Are you here representing your organization . Yes, San Francisco lannys coalition, a coalition of various coalitions are or activists from different parts of the city. Members from district three, five, district eight, and district one. Great, i appreciate you being here. The revised plans call for an a. D. U. On the ground floor replacing the unit that i believe there a. D. U. Will be smaller i mean, larger than the unit that was there before, around the same size. Can you explain what the objection is to the revised plans that would provide if planning signs off and everything works out . Sure. The objection is this. Existing homes on existing units are always going to be cheaper the new units. If we maintain the existing unit that is on the ground floor, i am sure it will be definitely more affordable than building an a. D. U. That is bigger, and that is the objection that i have. Even according to the realtors association, existing homes are 30 , cheaper than new homes. So okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Good evening. Anastasia, San Francisco tenant union member. The project at 1794 filbert proposed a round for residential unit that ozzie was reversing to, and replacing it with a one car parking garage, and constructing a thirdfloor luxury penthouse. The tenant on the second floor unit would be dislocated for an undetermined length of time. Plus, the project sponsor is constructing a residential unit in the commercial space on the ground floor. The tenant unit confers with the Planning Commissions denial of the site permit, because the proposed project would not contribute to the retention of existing Housing Stock, the unit would be out of scale, and would not be considered affordable. Please deny this appeal and allow the public to weigh in at the Planning Commission hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello commissioners, i was born and raised in San Francisco. Im a separate cisco landlord with a rent. It is hard for me to understand why the planning that renovates a 110yearold Apartment Building when we are having housing crisis. Its even harder why the San FranciscoTenants Union would align itself with the condominium building, against a rent controlled Apartment Building. The new construction will improve the Living Conditions for the renters, and seismically strengthen the structure. These are basic objectives. I think we all want in San Francisco. I have a lot more to say, but my time is up. The owners are trying to do everything right, instead of receiving support they are being targeted by building across the street, afraid of losing its views of the golden gate bridge. There are many letters of support from the neighborhood. The Planning Department supported this project. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . We will move on to rebuttal. Just a few things great i think you know this, i do want to confirm, this is a denoble, you have the power to review the project before you and send it back to the Planning Department to do the tweaks they talked about, we agree without approach. The problem reapplying is that you can see there are still some opposition here, we will end up back here anyway, even if the Planning Commission ends up agreeing with us, and and approving it. The public will get another d. R. , and then another appeal of to hear. I think you should take your chance now to approve the project, if you like it, with the conditions that may be necessary to provide further planning refinements. The a. D. U. , in terms of the procedures here was originally suggested at the Planning Commission hearing, by the commissioners, that was one of the things of the project sponsor then went back to try to revive before the second Planning Commission hearing. It was provided, but the actual site permit was not revised, so it was not before them at the time which is why the technical project before you is the original one, just three units. I also wanted to confirm that yes, the groundfloor unit is really being relocated to the front. That unit that is there now, needs to be upgraded anyway. We provided a letter in our exhibit showing the foundation needs to be upgraded. That we need to be fixed up anyway, and even it would still be modernized in some capacity. The new adu is slightly bigger, but roughly the same size. I think that is about it. We hope you support the project as proposed and approve it. Whatever minor conditions are appropriate to make it even better. A couple of questions. First of all, we are used to people coming in, on appeal, and trying to stick vigorously to their original plan, i really appreciate your ears, and your willingness to it may come back to haunt you, but your productivity with two hearing the public, hearing the Planning Commission, making the changes proactively, is refreshing. Let me ask you this. You heard from planning, and you say well, we need the windows fixed, and we also need the entrance to the adu fixed. Would you be amenable, if we continue this, i cant say that we are, continue this, and instructed you and planning to sit down together, put the finishing touches on what seems to be about 80 there, and get planning comfortable, and then with a new set of plans come back, present those new set of plans, which just about everything fixed so you can move on . How much flexibility do you have left . Whether it is done that way, or some other way, a condition that we work with planning, maybe we come back to the boar board sorry to interrupt you, with my president , that it is cleaner and the members of the public that came here, get that pound of flesh, to be honest. That way, it is before this body, rather than releasing it over to planning. How long would that take you. Not that we are there yet how long would that be . That might be more of a question for planning. Maybe the architects can come up and talk to you that. The primary question is one, excuse me, are you more flexib flexible . And are the windows important to you, and is the current door treatment important to you . Im sorry, did we get ahead of ourselves . I can come back and talk. Is more appropriate to hear the appellants, and then we can talk about this wrap up and make our decision. Thank you. He is the appellant. At this point were going to hear from the Planning Department. Welcome back. Scott sanchez Planning Department. We respectfully request you uphold the planning apartments decision to the application and allow them to go back to the appropriate process. The board will decide what to do, and i hear some of the discussion as being, approving the revised project. The department will be more than happy to work with the project sponsor to convey those design comments. They were the direct entrance from the street to the adu which should not be an issue because theres an existing entrance there for the commercial space. The window proportions and detailing are not compatible with the core dating buildings. Also picking up on the comments from the public about section 317. We do not have a section 317 calculations due to the part of the plans before you. We did separately get them from the project sponsor, and you know, any project needs to comply with 317. If you are to either continue it, we would work with them to get those demolition calculations, or you could condition it that they simply comply with section 317. Lastly, the building is not a historic resource. I was found not to be a historic resource. We would update any ceqa determinations with any provisions they proposed we can also, you know i guess if there was some clear indication from the board that this path would be acceptable, we could even try to go down that a. D. U. Path now. Get those appropriate waivers and the contract with, i dont have the timing of that exactly, the citys Attorneys Office that may need to come after the board take action and we can finalize those documents. We are happy to work with the board, if that is the direction from the board. Our preference would be for, you know, the Planning Commission to have their say in this, to review the revised project and make a decision. Thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. I will start off. As a longterm resident of San Francisco, as a realtor for a very long time, i am constantly seeing landlords from the city that are not walking away, they are running away, you know . They are trying to get out especially with a retrofit. Weve seen quite a few sales in our city. Its actually refreshing to see that you have a landlord that doesnt have a path, or history, that is trying to stay in the city, and to do the things. The fact that they are adding another a. D. U. , to the stock. As we heard from the department, they have the ability to add a legal unit. Which would not be subject to a lot of the restrictions that the a. D. U. Has. So, as you alluded to earlier, i am very supportive of the project sponsor. Also, as my president said, it would be nice for them to have a revised project so that we are looking, and we are voting on the plans that are before us so that we dont have left hand, right hand. It would be nice, i would support it to be continued for the project sponsor to work with the department, fulfilling the wish list that they said earlier today. Anybody else have any comments . Im just curious, for any of you who have been on this board longer than i have that is everybody here, by the way. All of you. Im curious about the difference in your mind between continuing and conditioning. I think mr. Sanchez said something about conditioning . I will answer that. It would segue nicely into my comments, so thank you very mu much. If we continue this, we have the opportunity and instructing project sponsor to work with planning, to get where he wants, where planning wants the proje project. If we start conditioning, that dialogue, has yet to be fully flushed out. We may be leaving something out. There may be something we cant see, because we dont have the ultimate settle plans in front of us, what we can do by continuing, as i can turn to the project sponsor and say, okay, what we would like you to do is sit down with planning, we would like you to revise your plans according to what you have hea heard, during testimony tonight, and continue to be flexible in the way you have, and get planning comfortable so they flip in short, we still have control of the case. And then they can come back with a revised set of plans, we are still in denoble, planning can say this is a project that we, and we can move forward instead of making this project be continued by having to go back to planning for another 69 months, maybe a year. And then we hear it again, over a year ago, because it might get bumped again by planning. Or, and might get approved by planning and still somebody might appeal it. A year from now, the same thing, really going to request a continuance, the period of a month, plans can be revised, planning can get their arms around it, they can flip, and that we have a new Housing Stock in San Francisco which is really good thing. We will see this again anyway because they will have the option to appeal the plans. Have to say, look at this permit, i think in two weeks, they will have its three year anniversary. Its crazy. Lets get her done. That would be my motion, to continue this project so that the department can work with the project sponsor, specifically on the list that was provided to us in our brief, as well as what was orally given regarding the a. D. U. , and removing of the commercial space as well as to memorialize the agreement that was met with the tenant, that they are supplying housing. Pretty much, there is a list on our briefs. Of course, the tweaks that the Department Requires regarding the bay window and then potentially the egress from the a. D. U. Okay should have told me that in the beginning. Attorney theres a a. D. U. On the ground floor. I think they know. Would not be acceptable . That works for me. Okay. Lets talk about a date to continue it to. Can you come to the podium. How long do you think you will need . Scott is really fast, he could do this like yesterday. [laughter] we were going to say two weeks. The department is telling us they need longer. I dont know if that includes the a. D. U. Part of it. Then you have to make some calculations. We could tried to do it, in two weeks. I think it will be tight because we need to have plans to use by next week on the design side. But then how far do we go with the a. D. U. . That process does take some ti time. I think, we would like to do this as part of the permit, as i understand. I think a little bit more time. Is impossible, because i heard you say, i would love to see an a. D. U. A. D. U. There, i would love to see another housing on San Francisco stree streets. As a possible that you may advise the project sponsor that an a. D. U. Is not desirable by planning . I mean, you know, given the concerns that have been raise raised i would like to see a a. D. U. , to make that perfectly clear. I think that makes a better package in the end. October 23 would be a good date. I would like to discuss with the Zoning Administrators back in town next week, the city Attorneys Office and our adu staff about how much we should do right now. Do we do the hawkins agreement,