occupancy. this met the third findings of prevailing occupancy. there are quite a few single family dwellings. this did not meet the fourth finding which is that it comes closer to conformity with the prescribed zoning paren. the final finding is that this was a dwelling unit that was added fairly recently in the 1980's. the project sponsor has raised issues but really there are functional deficiencies which would preclude the enjoyment of both of these units.

it is with those findings that the department recommended the denial of the building permit application and that the planning department denies application. a letter was submitted after the planning department had prepared the initial and before the hearing. this was presented to the planning commission. i would like to point out that the application itself said that this is a tenant unit and this is in fact a rental unit. for those reasons, the board upholds the and -- we request that the board upholds this. >> does this give it any way to the fact that the work will return to the way it was when it

was billed? >> this is a chilling in its and there are other alterations that can be made to the building that can pertain to the dwelling units which would be appropriate for the design of the building. this would be appropriate to to remain as a two-unit building. >> the rental unit had been vacant for a year. did your department to verify that? >> we have not verify that independently. the issue here is to meet the finding and this seems to be owner occupied in currently this is not owner occupied. >> that made me think of something else.

both units are rented now? >> the owner does occupy the lower dwelling unit and this is the upper unit on the third floor which are the rented units. >> i think the owner occupied thing probably comes from jersey street and we have done some of this. i don't know if you remembered jersey, this was one of the first that was done. it seems like you can come up with something other than that. on the owner occupied a share, the fact was that no one was living there and the couple was occupying both floors. the thinking was that it had more to do with the fact that

someone was going to be effected from the unit and the board was trying to prevent that. i don't see that being the case. the tenant has written a letter saying that she intends to be a temporary occupant of that building and it had been vacant for a while. i would have some real problem with defining that criteria. you have said that this is ok and the owner is going to occupy one of the units and will occupy one of the units when done. the density issue is not a problem. the only time that someone could remove a unit, i am trying to get him to respond to the fact that i don't feel like all of

them respond. the one having to do with the zoning is that if someone has two units, this is illegal so they would be required to move it. there seems to be some logic to this bunning thing. they could have the two units. >> our department has to take a look at to the fact that this is a rental unit and there is a tenant in there. this is a finding that is at first. they might want to consider additional information and make more of a judgment call on that but we did not find that there was sufficient evidence with that. in regards to the finding about the zoning, this really is relevant because of we were talking about a unit, this would

be coming closer to conformity because there are many noncompliant buildings in the city. there are cases where they don't have the amount of required parking or open space. somehow -- >> the parking situation under that particular zoning would not be allowed, the tandem parking? >> tandem parking is allowed under the parking code. we have the tandem parking in

response. >> this has to do with affordability or something like that. i was shocked to find out that the unit was considered affordable at this price. >> this is a market rate that is not subject to rent control. once this is merged, the rent will be much higher.

we consider existing housing to be more affordable than new housing. >> i am to stand when you raise example of nonconforming -- and this is something that is more conforming. should this be the key units? >> i think i understand the

point you might be making an but yes, there is and that is what we have some in the would allow that. in this case, the finding is really meant to deal with the difference between code compliance and the basic zoning. this is coming closer to conforming with the zoning. this is not coming any closer into conformity. this is still in conformity but this is not improving the situation. >> i have one other question. i know that this board has considered converting the two units back to one or one back to

a key. does the planning commission ever consider that? i think the department denied this. >> this is an excellent point. in these matters, it is more inappropriate for them to make more appropriate decisions. the sport can exercise authorities find making such a decision.

-- this board can exercise authority. >> good evening. our family are the lives in the original single family residence that was from the 1920's. we believe that our proposed projects needs a majority of the city's criteria for the trolling units.

these are examples of the strong support we have from our neighbors. the prevailing density is predominately single family residences. next door to us are single- family homes. while it has been the knowledge that the properties in our streets are r h two. most of the neighborhood is single-family home. there was no separate entrance on a separate unit. there is no privacy and security for the unit.

the dining room in the unit we occupy is not functional. we have been advised by our architect that these items cannot be created through interior alterations. the tent is young, financially able, and interested and fully supported by our project. this rental unit has been left on occupied for a long line of time has to understand from to the prior ownership according to

the realtor, it was empty for a year immediately prior to the purchase of the property. this is sufficient. we have tried living there and it does not make sense and it does not work. the property is not designed or function two units. we do not intend to read this in the future. thank you.

>> it looks like one is meant to be an exercise room and the other would be redone in the dining room. >> that is correct as i mentioned in another case a couple of years ago, we considered a merger that has been below this as well. we require them to keep their utilities. would this be something that would work for you? >> this would not be our first choice.

>> is to any public comment? >> mr. sanchez, you have rebuttal. >> i want to provide a better answer for the affordability finding. there is an exemption from the discretionary review hearing. this is something that would be more than 80% of the cost on a combined land and structure.

with that, it was not able to meet the finding. >> what about the rental value? >> it would have to be the value on the property. >> we have had in this for you have to walk through a bathing facility and this is an interesting one.

>> you have to walk to the bathroom and get to the kitchen. things like this would clearly be an edition. i think it is difficult for us to make the findings. >> and looks like this door, rather than going into the hallway, it would be to the left. >> this has been very well

defined for ability criteria that they reinvented one here based and not upon income. >> the reason that this was put in here, i was not directly involved in. i believe that these were clearly not affordable. if you are demolishing a single- family dwelling and the value exceeds 1.3 million, you are exempt from the mandatory process. this can exempt you from the

process. 80% is a typical figure used in the affordability of dwelling units. yes, they are different issues when you're basing them on income. how would you apply that in this case? >> if you had $4,000 a month, assuming this is only 1/3 of your income stream and the income stream as $120,000, compared this to your affordability issues. what is 50% of median that you normally use for affordable housing? >> this is ok to use based on the standards we have developed. been you can bring this up to market rates, you can charge

whatever you want. this can be an artificial number or not. >> this house, we know this to be a substitute? >> the recent purchase price was just over 3 million as indicated in the appellants papers. the assessed value of have to be in excess of 1.6 million in order to qualify under the exemption. >> instead of up gaming the system by increasing the rent, they would have to make improvements to the house.

>> in this case, we would revive diminish traders review criteria. >> they wouldn't change that into planning. this would have been called not affordable. this would have affected the whole process? >> had the finding been made that day appraise the this said more than 2.6 million, we would not have made the finding that this was affordable. in section 1 01 0.1, this is a general plan and this is a separate review from section 317.

-- in section 101.1. >> there seems to be a question. we did perch in the house for slightly over $2 million. this would not meet the $2.6 million test. the only thing i want to point out is that this is a matter of timing. this will leave any moment in time. >> do you understand that if you had not granted it at all, you would be in in ease your position now. >> we understand that now.

>> the matter is submitted. >> since the issue was just raised, we don't have an affidavit. i don't know why i was under the impression that this was a female tenant but this is not important. the intent to not live there is there. i don't see how this is not reasonable to apply the criteria particularly given the fact that unless mr. sanchez wanted to dispute this, let's not cause someone to be evicted in order to not allow a dwelling unit merger.

this is a point that can be argued. this really does not apply. we spoke about an overly narrow interpretation. i would consider giving the facts around to the tenant. this would be an overly narrow interpretation. if we decide we can have that, this has to do with the owner occupied, this can be great. the fact that this doesn't have efficiency, i would not to be

someone occupying the lower unit given the way that you are entering the building. if that is not going into the asset column, this does not belong in a liability:. i don't think that there are too many people out there who would consider $4,000 affordable. let's assume that the tenant moves out of here and the banks continue to live there under

better circumstances in that they have any two-unit building which they could legally do. i think a very reasonable compromise has to do with the fact that at some future date we would leave open the possibility that this could be a unit and could be achieved by the appliances. i am in favor of granting this appeal and allowing this to go forward. >> i agree with commissioner garcia. >> i agree.

>> i would move to overrule the department. the overarching policy of protecting affordable rental housing is not certain this particular way. >> do we need to condition this? we will leave this up to commissioner goh. >> yes, i shake -- i think it is importance to uphold the potential for another family. >> --

>> i recommend it dumped in the findings under 317. >> do we have to enumerate or give reasons? >> okay. >> this is not the majority. >> 3 out of five. >> the supermajority to be exempt from the discretionary review process. generally, if the department is recommending approval, three out of five. >> who will do those findings? >>