Not to build housing. I want places for my kids to be able to live. I want others to enjoy what i enjoy which is housing security. Thank you. [indiscernible]. Im here to speak in support of the lot. Im personally squared when i transfer i wont be able to come back home and start a family. This is a perfect opportunity for that. What better way to have the inaugural day than starting off on the west side. Im really excited for the project and hopefully you can support it as well. Im a neighbor in this area. I dont support the project only because i dont support the height of it. Its a complete mismatch with the neighborhood. I love that were adding more Affordable Housing to the neighborhood. I think we need to consider the height of it. Most housing is two stories, this is four stories. Its a complete mismatch. Im a resident of San Francisco in d8 and a renter. I strongly support this project. I think if you look at it replacing a gas station with environmentally Family Friendly housing just a few blocks from a light rail station is exactl exy representative of the steps San Francisco needs to take to be a Family Friendly city. Were in San Francisco, the second densest city in the United States and a five Story Building should not be controversial. If you consider the fact that its so close toi would say it should have less parking to encourage people to take public transit. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is mike chan. Im a resident in district two. Speaking in support of said project. We had lots of concerns about Racial Equity in San Francisco. When we talk about this project we must talk about the racial history of the sun set which in the plaf past excluded ain an pe as well as black people. One way to remedy that is look at building more buildings and market rate buildings. This housing with below market rate units will be a gift and asset to the sun set district. It will make our neighborhood more racial just. Thank you this ends my comment. Im a member of the Housing Action coalition sm th. The proposed project is precisely the kind of development we need on the west side of our city. It will create homes for forty one families. As a home sf project its the kind of project that the citizens of this city said they want. 25 affordability. It will replace a gas station with all the environmental problems such facilities cause. Thank you. Good evening. I live in district five. Im in support of this project. I think if you want to view this project in terms of racial and structural equity, we cant look at height. We need to look at adding Affordable Homes on the west side. Hysterical toriclhistorically it people of color. This is build for Environmental Justice and housing justice. Please approve it. Thank you. Hello, im a home owner living a couple block blocks awm the proposed project. I visit this block often. I feel like this project is very well suited for this block. There are a number of taller churches right around here. I feel like the project has made a goodest to se good effort to e height. Im excited to get the retail strip thats developing there. Im excited about more low market rate housing. We certainly need it. I went to high school in the sun set. I couldnt be more excited about this project. Seems to fit in nicely with some ground floor retail. A lot of Affordable Housing. It seems like it fits all the boxes. Thanks. I support this housing. Im a sun set resident. Im been in the sun set since 1987. This is a great opportunity to build Affordable Housing on the west side. The west side has not built its share of Affordable Housing. This will be 25 Affordable Housing. I like the idea of ground floor retail spaces. If were going to make retail work, it needs to be in spaces like this. Thats good for both the Business Community having more people around as customers. This is a poster childthis is a good project for the sun set. If you cant approve this, im afraid no housing is ever going to get buil built here. This is martin. I am in strong support of this project. Im happy to call in because home sf was a project that was litigated for years. The board of supervisors came to a unanimous consensus about it. Its a project we should support. Its going to be replacing a fossil fuel, a gas station that we know we need to move forward with more environmentally friendly projects especially replacing fossil fuel developments like a gas station. Twenty five affordable on site which is incredible for the neighborhood. To have 25 affordable in a Development Like this is really incredible. I urge you to look at the west side for more housing opportunities. I a Richmond District resident. Im calling to voice my support of the project. This is a great project. Residents will be very fortunate to have 25 affordable. I would like to see many many many more projects submitted and proposed across the city. Thank you very much. Commissioners that will conclude Public Comment. The matter is now before you. Seeing as though im a resident out in the sun set district im really pleased to see this project in front of us today. Whenever weve seen a corner lot gas station theres a likelihood thats a development for residential properties. I like the size of the smaller more flexible retail spaces on the ground floor and in support today. Im also in support today. I really appreciate the design of this project. I think its a relief from some of the gray boxes that we see around the city. I also like the mix of unit sizes. And i alsoits just the cherry on top that we hear from so Many Community members that support this project as well. We want to see more home sf projects. I know the richmond and sun set and west side can take this type of density and can really b beprojects like this can be an example of how we have a nice mix of density while also having the neighborhood feel that so many of us would really like to enjoy. For those reasons, im in support of the project. Im in support of the project. There are a couple of comments id like to add. I think this project allows us to learn something and take a more discerning eye on some issues which ill get to in a minute. Replacing a gas station with housing is a good site just by nature of location brings in more density. I think its in support of the site and its in support of receiving the project of a lower height than it actually is. The next point id like to make is that the increase of units from originally 13 to fou 41 isn additional stretch even if we add an additional floor. I believe that particularly on the fourth floor, we have unit 31, 32, 33, 34, the number count is working against what we should be supporting as equity design liveable units. I think the units are too narrow and too long in order to be really quality units and more in line of what the rest of the project provides. I like us to go beyond numbers and we equity by design. These are one bedroom units provide slightly better unit quality. I would like staff to spend a little more time looking particularly at that floor and those units. The next point id like to make is the ground floor. Im very much in support of trying to animate part of the ground floor is commercial units, im concerned with sharing a four foot three corridor with 41 units and five merchants is lowering quality of residential life. The back of house entries are not exatable for equitable to f a obscured lobby. Normally units of this size have a slightly more generous entry lobby. If theres not a doorman, at least there is a drop off for packages. I dont see much of those types of amenities which i would think we should be looking for when we look at higher density Apartment Building. I would suggest while im in support of the project that the department sends a little more time tweaking those particular two elements of what is proposed here. Thank you. Looking into this particular building where there are more one bedrooms. There are 27 one bedrooms out of 41 buildings. If were going to take into consideration as well the inclusionary housing there are[indiscernible]. I understand that the home sf with the legislation that was passed, i believe probably three years ago. However, i feel thats something that we need to relook in terms because home sf is something that applies in the west side. Who are the people who are going to live here . Are we having more family units . Thats something that is disturbing to me that there are more one bedroom units instead of more two bedroom or three bedroom units. Especially seeing that sun set or we need to build more family units or Family Friendly units. Also i would like to see more comments when we look into design. I think this is becoming an issue when we look into more affordability or just Housing Units being built in the city. We dont really take into consideration the liveablity, whether the hallways or big enough for people. I think there needs to be some sort of minimum requirement or threshold as to how do we design the type of units that we think is going to be liveable especially if there are Affordable Housing units on site. Those are my critical comments. My comments about this project, i generally support this. Im not sure if actually if director can answer in terms of home sf projectwas there any requirements on housing unit sizes or that is not something that is included in the home sf . Commissioner, i believe they need to follow the rules that the city has and the Building Department has on unit sizes. I dont think theres anything specific in home sf that controls that. Okay. The affordable units need to meet the minimum unit sizes for the California Tax Credit Committee sizes. Those are set forth in section 415. Seven hundred square foot for a two bedroom. We would make sure that at least the affordable units would meet that as well. Any language on the percentage of the types of units like more5 or 12 percent on one bedroom oris there something included in that in the home sf . There are two specific ways that can you meet unit mix for home sf. One is 40 two bedroom or greater unit mix. 40 twos, that includes 10 threes. Or 50 of the bedrooms in the development have to be in units that are at least two bedroom or larger. And the development has to include at least one three bedroom unit. I believe this project meets the second criteria. Sounds like this is something that if something proposed an amendment in home sf especially if were looking at Family Friendly units wondering if thats something that planning can look into. Yeah. I would like to say my support but break through the glass ceiling. We have codes and regulations regarding size. I would like for the department to take a more critical eye at unit layout for the proportionality of the units with width to length. We had controversial units last week as well. Its only guiding applicants to do things slightly different. Its not reducing unit numbers its just spending a little more skill on what units are desirable and what one rs are n. I ask everybody else and pose themselves a question, would you like to live in that unit. That is a determinant for equity and design equity. Im making a motion to approve the project with conditions that the applicant work with staff in improving the common corridor on the ground floor and the particular unit layouts on the fourth floor. Second. Commissioners. There is a motion and a second to approve the project with conditions. This is to reconstruct a rear deck and extend a garage at the rear without the benefit of a permit. And since this work is in the required rear yard, it requires a deed requester of 147 and 153 missouri, adjacent neighbor to the east. This is the shared Property Line into the dr requests yard and acts for privacy. The proposed alternative are to one, restore the deck and two, remove the horizonal garage extension and three, remove the work into the dr requesters yard and four, replace Property Line windows with fixed fire rated assembly and obscured lacing. To date, the department has received seven letters in opposition of this project and no letters in support. The notice of the violation to legalize the addition did not recognise that a portion of the structure extended over the neighbors Property Line and buildings are not permitted to extend over neighboring Property Lines and it is the responsibility of the project sponsor to correct this condition. It is anticipated any Building Code deficiencies specifically related to fire condition would also be corrected with the permit to correct, that the Good Neighbor gesture, the project sponsor proposed a sixfoot high screen on the deck to ensure adequate privacy between the two properties. And therefore, staff recommends taking the dr and approving with modifications of the sixfoot high privacy screen to be within the rear Property Line as determined by the survey and this concludes my presentation and i am available to answer questions. Thank you. The dr requester, are you prepared to submit your presentation . Yes. And through the chair, you will have five minutes for your presentation. Hold on while i queue up your presentation. Thank you, david. Can you see the presentation . Yes. You can begin your presentation. Good evening, commissioners. This is Deborah Holly. This is adjacent to and behind the project sponsor, Craig Johnson who owns 145 missouri. David, slide one, please. As you can see in the aerial photo, the project sponsors rear Property Line runs the entire length of miss oskanozis front Property Line and to make matter more challenge, the structure not only encroaches within 100 of his rear yard, he has constructed it without permits over the Property Line. Slide two. Mr. Johnson built the deck and tendeextended the deck over the frontyard and this situation created by the project sponsor resulted in privacy impacts and news onoise and other problems r over 20 years. Slide three, please. Slide three is a photograph of the rear of 145 missouri, the project site, as it existed with enclosed porch before the project sponsor demolished it in 1998 without permit. Slide four, please. After demolishing the enclosed porch, mr. Johnson illegally constructed the rear detective d extended the garage. Slide five, please. Slide five shows the deck and the garage as they exist today and in addition to the illegal rear yard construction and construction over the Property Line, there are two other reasons that this project is exceptional and extraordinary and why you should take the dr and that the variance should not be approved. David, slide six, please. The project conflicts with key elements the residential Design Guidelines, especially those protecting privacy. Slide seven, please. And like the former condition with the enclosed porch and the rear, as you can see in the slide, the deck has direct views into the bedroom and home office office. It requires a variance and that cannot be supported. For example, variance finding four, that the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the Public Welfare or injurious to the property or building. The building was constructed and does not meet current life safety codes, including seismic and fire codes and subjects mist threaten her welfare. Thank you for your time and ill hand this over to my client describing the plan modifications to mitigate the health and safety violations that have been created by the project sponsors illegal work. Thank you, deborah. Good, commissioners and hello, david. I have lived at 147 missouri street for 27 years. Project sponsor isn spons sponn the city. I experienced the problems by his noncompliant problems on a daily basis. Could you turn to page 3 of mr. Winslows report which he spoke with you about earlier and the first one is regarding the encroachment issues, that the deck is reconstructed, extends into the dr requesters yard, my frontyard. They did not recognise this and it is the responsibility of project sponsor to correct this condition and must be included in a revision. I request the project sponsor remove the construction from my property. Two, regarding the life safety issue problems, they state Building Code deficiencies related to Fire Protection on the lot line condition be corrected with the permit to correct and i request that all life safety be included in the revised plans. David, slide eight, the privacy screen picture. Regarding the privacy screen issue, planning staff States Project sponsor proposes a sevenhigh privacy screen. This week i emailed the dib for codes and my sketch is cocompliant. While the ones in your packet are not. I request the privacy screen be seven feet high and fire rated and coclient as i have sketched. Slide 9, ive added a fourth item. Additionally when the project sponsor illegally remodeled his bathroom, he add aded a window d this looks directly on to my front door and walkway. I request to have that window replaced with a fixed fire rated window and glazing that is sandblasting and obscured. Theres another that allows for fresh air. Dr requester, that concludes your time. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. P