final completion and occupancy was issued improperly. there is a lot of work that needs to be done to this house. the neighbors are interested in having work proceed here. they're interested in getting on with the restoration. if you have questions about the record, i am happy to respond. i do not want to take the time at 930 p.m. >> there is 1c. you can do it on the overhead. that was the water, right? >> this is the start of water service. this is 1903.

>> is there a reason why the 130 is crossed out and 138 put there? >> i have no idea. what that actually indicates. there is no are also in the record that indicates there is more of that. it can see in the list of fixtures there were authorizing that it lists two water closets and that is consistent with the assessor's rec for this single- family dollars and three and a half floors for an attic. >> when was the last time someone lived in the unit? >> that was in 2009. >> was anyone evicted? >> there is no act.

>> it was occupied as a to unit building. there was always someone in the house. it has always been -- the owner was a guy named mike and he was a building contractor. he was sophisticated and knew what he was doing. when that address shows up as 136 in the directory of 1982, the second unit is occupied by a maria liu. >> could you put back on the overhead photographs of the unit? >> you have some in the beginning.

>> which property is that? would you make that a full screen to a can see a better? >> let's go to the overhead. i have the photographs that the inspector took when he was out there today. if we could go to the overhead. this is the subject property. >> where is the entrance you said was created? >> the second entrance was added right here. and there was a permit issued that removed a window that was in that location. and you can see from the moldings of the interior floor where the original entry foyer

terminates. where a wall has been placed and the second door is pushed all the way to the far wall of that stair going up. >> did you take photos of that? quex on the interior, i did not. i did a walk-through today with mr. duffy, he can really what he saw there. >> in the report there is a 1986 item that said bring the building up to code, remove the basement, convert to two units. is that not making it a to unit building? >> it is not. thank you for the question. for -- at that time, for a second did it to be added, it would have required a variance from the parking ordinance. what actually happened is by gaming the system and giving to record by saying that we're going from -- the made an

application to legalize a third unit. the planning department rejected the third unit. assuming that the documentation submitted to them was accurate. as an existing two unit building. the planning department rejected the conversion into three without legalizing or commenting on that second unit at the time. >> the approved this 3-2? >> yes. because the building inspection, the housing inspection, department of hotel inspection had issued citations on what it would take to legalize that sword unit. -- third unit. what's that application got to city planning, city planning said, the zoning will not permit a third unit. that was rh2 at the time.

it would have required a variants going back into the 1950's to legalize the second unit. in order for city planning to have acted to include a second unit, it would have taken an action of the a master at the time and it would have taken an application to planning that did that. the record shows there was never an application that showed an actual change of this building for one to two. someone did overtime by gaining -- gaming record. reading history, you see the thumbprint of this property owner and the contractor watching how he did what he did at the time. it is an interesting forensic expiration. >> thank you. mr. duffy.

>> commissioners, when i read this, i thought it was a little unusual. i started reading it. i need to see this building. if -- you can read all you want. when you go to a building you can see what happened. i did go to the house. mr. paul was enough to give me access. i think the building department put them through the verification true microform and records. that created the building permit. mr. sweeney was dealing with it. when you look at it you do not know what it was. the owner, if you want to say gaming the system or whatever. even the permits to put the door in, he said it was a two unit building. why do you put a door in if you have a unit? the door on the left side of the

property, what i thought was interesting was what i was there, the door on the left side, that is where the window was. if you look at the property next door, it has a door and window beside it and it is around the same time they put the door on the left side and bill a wall across were you would have come in on the main entrance which was the right side. you would have turned left and went up the stairs. now there is a wall there. i took some photographs today. i am sorry to link than this. i am agreeing with mr. paul. i went to show you where i was coming from. this is a joint on a baseboard in the middle of the hallway. you would never see a joint in a piece of baseboards so there was a wall put in. my conclusion is i think it was

a single family and over the years, this owner got permits and came into the building department, i am not sure how to get issued. he would start off with one and then he went to two. no one said wait a minute. i am ok and i spoke to mr. sweeney before it came to the meeting. based on my site visit. we're ok with the single-family dwelling. however you want to use it to regarding the disapproved permit. >> all that remains is whether he will rest his case. >> he just rests his case or whether he needs to add anything. >> i will ask for public comment. seeing none, director case or do you have more to add? >> i have nothing more to add. thank you. >> you used to retire earlier

on public testimony. for case to do -- knew nothing about. >> anything more from the department? no. commissioners, the matter is yours. >> a move that we grant the appeal -- i move we get the appeal and allow this to be properly reconsidered as a one- unit building. based upon evidence from several sources presented by mr. paul and a concession on the part of dbi that in all probability was always -- meant to be a one-unit building. >> it was originally a one-unit building. >> thank you. >> i failed to add there is a permit to merge the units. if the board does take this action and overturns the denial

of this permit, that permit, the scope will change to removal of the illegal unit. it will not be subject to the merger requirement and will continue to be processed. the permit would be issued and the could obtain a cfc. >> that make sense. thank you. >> i believe we have a motion from president garcia to grant this appeal. overruled the denial, and issue the permits. i believe you said it was on the basis the building was originally a single-family dwelling. >> that is correct. with evidence to that fact. >> and a concession by dbi. >> the building was originally a

single-family dwelling as evidenced by documents presented by the appellant and concession by dbi. with that basis, commissioner fung, aye. vice-president hwang, aye. [reading names] >> the permit is issued. >> having c[gavel] who soon

>> one item on your regular calendar. item 14, case 20 11.1151d. there's a request for continuance. i have not heard whether or not the project sponsor is in agreement with that continuance. i did not have anything at this moment, so i will ask that you take up this continuance of the call of the item as opposed to right now. i'm not sure if anyone is here to speak to that, but even if they were, i would ask that you take the item of that the call of the item.

would you like to allow them to speak on that? >> we can have public, about the continuance itself, but i think that the bulk of it should be discussed at the item. >> at the call of the item. thank you. with that, commissioners, we can move on to your consent calendar. items one through five make up the consent calendar this week. they are continue -- considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote on the commission. there will be no separate discussion of the items unless the member of the commission, the public, or staff so request. in that event, the matter or matters would be removed and discussed at a separate future hearing. item one is 375 alabama street, a request for office development authorization to establish 40,189 gross square feet of office use on the entire third floor and a portion of the fourth floor at the 375 alabama

address and a pdr 1-g. two is 901 cortland avenue, request for conditional use authorization which would then enable the small scale neighborhood commercial zoning district. item three is 5098 mission st., request for conditional use authorization to allow formula of retail use operating as a self-service specialty food use within an existing automotive gas station and retail grocery store in a neighborhood commercials moderate scale district. item four is nine west portal avenue, a request for conditional use authorization to modify the conditions of approval contained in motion

18163 and allow an increase in the permitted hours of operation and an increase in the number of seats for the existing bar and liquor store. in -- 5a is for 929 broderick street, a request for conditional use authorization to add a sixth dwelling unit to the existing five-unit residential building on a lot measuring approximately 6351 square feet. the project site is located in a residential house. 5b, requests for variance at the same address is to encroach into the required rear yard. commissioners, following public

comment, which would remove these items from the consent calendar, these items are before you for your consideration. commissioner wu: is there any public comment on the consent calendar? ok, seeing none, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i would like to ask that item four be taken off the consent calendar. but i would move that we approve the other items, if i could do both. at the b-1, two, three, 5a only. >> on the motion for approval of the items as they are pressed on your calendar, commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. >> thank you, commissioners.

those items are approved as they have been proposed. commissioner fong: on item 5b, c and a public comment, we would be inclined to grant the requested variants. >> we will take item four at the beginning of the regular calendar? commissioner wu: yes. >> commissioners, we are now at commission matters. commissioner moore: i wanted to join the director and everybody else congratulating eir staff on winning a national planning award. there are very distinct projects which won awards, many of them went into things similar to what the city does, so i encourage the director to support the department to continue to

showcase what the department does. second point, i had a brief conversation with mr. putra on why we are not discussing the consent item which was approved a few minutes ago. i would like to raise a policy issue, at least as a discussion item only. we have a formula retail applying for occupying a gas station convenience store. the gas station probably falls under the formula retail category as well. i am wondering why, when there is a ready-made store and local small businesses would not be the ones which would have a shot at occupying the spaces. i think we have plenty of people looking for business opportunities in space which are easily adaptable for small operators to find a space. these spaces would be ideal.

i just want to hang that out as a discussion item. we do not have to discuss it right now, but i would like this commission to expand some but -- to spend some thought on it. as we all know, our formal colleague just declared candidacy. she sent an invitation to all of us to join heard this evening. i am just saying it in recognition of our colleagues. commissioner miguel: yes, there is an article that came out in "cities and towns" that dealt with the comparison of the migration out of cities in the 1950's and 1960's in the current migration back into cities and some of the reasons why, which i

found interesting. they are discussing it in light of generations, from safety of suburbs, isolated to connected inconvenient to convenient and card dependent to car independent as well as a number of other reasons, including the aging population that had moved to the suburbs and now finds when they have difficulty driving, unable to drive, or difficulty driving at night, that they do not have access to services and so are tending to move back into the city. i have a copy of it here if anyone wishes to see it. also, last thursday, b. "wall street journal" had an article -- the "wall street journal" had an article about rules and

lightening the burden on entrepreneurs, and it had to do with the item that was just passed by the board of supervisors unanimously. prior to that, regarding restaurant definitions and some other items. although we often appear in the "new york times" bay area section, i do not think we have appeared too often in the "wall street journal." a couple of things involving the department -- this week, spur's second of a for your monthly programs, part of their noontime forums, dealt with medium urban design. the last one is small. the next will be large, and then very large. steve was a member of the panel,

and it was, as usual, in spite of the inclement weather, standing room only, so there is a great deal of interest in this. those four programs are sponsored by spur. also, the annual housing forum that was yesterday. this one was entitled "housing after redevelopment, quarter man and was again, as usual, very excellent speakers involved in it -- entitled "housing after redevelopment," and was again, as usual, very excellent speakers involved in it.

it is an excellent program, and i would be happy to discuss it with anyone who is interested, but in particular, having seen staff members this week fight -- and of course, many times in the past, in non-planning department or commission functions -- i really want to let everyone know that the department's staff comport themselves beautifully. they represent the department, and i think the commission also, in a manner that is really admirable. they engage with the public. they do not speculate. they deal with fact. they are able to answer questions, and it is really a great representation of the department. commissioner antonini: i, too,

was in attendance at the housing action coalition's excellent hearing. a very, very good staff of speakers, including mayor lee and matt franklin, and a number of others, and they came up with some early interesting ideas. the theme was that even though everyone is disappointed with the loss of redevelopment, they see it as an opportunity to maybe more broadly address our housing needs then was the case even when redevelopment was a round. in particular, i think it was the mayor who presented some very interesting concept that he will be, of course, going into more detail in the future, but i think that franklin really looked at some of these issues -- matt franklin really look at

some of these issues and talk about something i have been thinking about for some time, which is if you have shallow subsidies and make a higher percentage of affordability at a higher price level with the recipient, being a rancher or an owner, contributing more, you can produce more housing and begin to address the gap, which we will address in a few minutes as part of the housing study that has just been finished for the last year. but he had some really good ideas along those lines. to be able to do those kinds of things and coming from his present position in the mid- peninsula housing group, which actually has extension all the way up from the south bay and all the way up beyond nevada, so that is another possible source of housing, partnering with jurisdictions to try to deal with some of our housing needs. a lot of the same ideas we have

heard before, but some good ones. i forget who it was brought up the idea, but the one-time conversion fee for condo conversions, which is a great source of funding. i think it was tim walk heart who talked about the fact that san francisco has very high bond ratings -- i think it was tim la carte -- tim lockhar who talked about the fact that san francisco has very high on raising. those are some of the slots but i thought i would mention those, because i thought they were very good ones. hopefully it will begin a dialogue that will answer a lot of the challenges that we have. commissioner borden: i will not say a lot more but just piggyback on commissioner miguel's comments and say that the staff was exceptional. the city hall fello'