(laughter). >> my gut is those are obvious locations that should be considered historic but the junction we're hearing is so much work has been done i feel like the next step is to approve what's been worked on over the years. there's going to be a step 3 and 4 to it but to throw something into it the last minute to dissolve the congratulations is deserving today is important. so i'm with bob in learning towards the resolution that was proposed >> commissioner. i think we're not endorsing the conclusion or non-conclusion directly here it's not part of our work program and not part of

what we would do anyway i mean, the 4r50shgding any action would be an spc action and it goes directly to the board of supervisors unless there's some issue with historic district or general plan issue. so i think the way i worded the resolution merely endorses what the historic preservation commission itself has done well that's the intent >> i understand. commissioner borden >> if we were to vote for the resolution we support what the d h c has done but not agreeing to some controversial items. >> that's it. >> again, i recognize that the community feels strongly about what's been vested and we've had

before us and, i.e., totally get why people don't want to deter the process in the future but there's no problem with the d h c what they're proposing. >> commissioner. may i ask to confirm what commissioner borden as a seconder of the motion i want to make sure there's no down side the commissioner is just acknowledging the expiration of the landmarking so i want to make sure that's going to kwrnd correspond iowa the people have done >> it's in my opinion that it would undermine the process because one of the actions was

the addition of the one of two buildings to the work program that was not included in the larger conversation so it's a process and the department didn't disagree where the things have landed at any time a process issue. everyone can be comfortable but it's where the all of those two buildings but that's the difficulty i find in the process >> well, based on that maybe i should withdraw my second and maybe it cabaret phrased. >> just a - it's not think recognized here and they started to implement it. so if we can follow the language

for the planning commission and they recommended and implement those then himself >> that's fine. >> i get that yesterday but that allows them to do more beyond. >> so an amendment to his motion? then i'll second the amendment to his motion >> could you please restate and the commission recommends that the commission review the implementations felt o of the process because their left out. >> okay. >> so the maker of the motion and commissioner you'll resecond that amended motion?

>> yes. >> there's an amendment and a second motion on say floor to accept an endorsement including or all the time to include as a may it be further to direct the d h c to adjust their wording on that (calling names) so moved commissioners that passes 7 to zero. you consider or took accepted comment on items 7 and 8 so the matter of 8 is still before you >> commissioner okay keep going - i'm sorry i'm sorry. commissioner >> well, in that case, i approve of the planning code and

i assume as part of that motion we have to actually schedule a date to consider the recommendatio recommendations. >> that's true. >> over the 17 of the october. >> you're next hearing date after october well - you could schedule it on october 17th or the 24th. >> is the 17th open. >> it is open. that sounds reasonable to me >> whether we expected to have an acceptable date. >> i have no problem with the date and we'll speak with the environmental team and they'll talk about the outreach process so they don't know necessarily how long it's going to take we

can schedule it and move it back. >> we can probably e potential schedule it for the 24th. >> my understanding is we don't have to specify a date only to say it's no sooner than; is that correct? >> the resolution does permit after october 17th but i don't know if you need to schedule it now. >> we don't unusual schedule. >> so the motion would just acknowledge that the item couldn't come before you before october 17th and the calendar will not specify that so donates my motion. >> i'll second. >> commissioner. >> yes. i'd like to have the commission credit two amendments one lowering is parking to .5

rather than .65 and i'd like the commission to consider eliminating the density calculation and use the number of units to be constructed within american people envelope that's been designated by bulk and scale. >> well, that's a no for me as maker of the motion. >> well, we don't have a second. >> well, there is a motion and a second but the motion is to initiate so the district can be taken up when it's calendared before the commission. >> however, (laughter). >> commissioner. >> it sounds like it's not appropriate to have those in there anyway at this time so i'm

not supportive of adding those amendments. we'll have groups even if people who have worked on this for looked at and i think the parking and the density have long been contrasted and that will be the subject of our hearing in the future but not appropriate at this time so my motion didn't include that amendment >> what's going on with this thing? for the commission could, you know, discuss this either today or add it to a future hearing but one of the things we could do and i think this is the benefit of not having a specific hearing do i date is take that up with the community and when you do have the hearing we can

make sure we report back to you and i can ceremonial comment to that in the intern. >> that sounds like reasonable to me that he commissioner. >> no. if there's nothing further shall i call the motion >> on the motion to approve the draft resolution inform schedule a public hearing after our october 17th meeting (calling names) so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 17 to zero. >> commissioner with our approve can we take one more item and take a break after that. >> commissioners that will

place you on item 9 amendments to the planning code clugdz arriving the restrictions on structures. board file, please note that on july 18, 2013, following public testimony board file the commission adopted a recommendation to continue those portions of the resolution actually september 13th. commissioner anton voted against it. supervisors avalos introduced future legislation including separating those portions into a stand alone file which is a draft ordinance with 2013 board

file 16783. commissioners alice you were absent and you have to say you reviewed the video to participate >> i did. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm here to reiterate the item before you today is an ordnance that was introduced by supervisor avalos on july 30th. this is related to a more complex legislation that addressed the criteria and controls associated with the loss of dwelling units and some code reorganization. in july the planning commission recommended to supervisor avalos that the non-conforming exponents be split off and addressed individually. at that time the department had concerns about the extension of

non-legal units would have negative impacts on the nature affordability of smaller units. supervisor avalos agreed and this legislation focuses on the expansion of non-conforming unit. before i get to the departments recommendations of approval i have my colleague to a explain this. >> good afternoon, commissioners aim supervisor from jonah losses office. as ms. hay word explains this is section 81 it deals with the non conforming units. more for the benefit for the public those are sprartd from nell units that are built with permits that are zoned for a lesser amount of zoning pursuant

are the staff talks about 3 units and one would not be permitted and this asked they be treated all the same and the possibility of chang them we've made one amendment it restricts the envelope as it currently it. we feel that would sdrurj alternatives that would decreases the fieblt like add a bedroom. at the july 17th meeting we perpetrate another amendment that we're still working with the city attorney on which would deal with concerns that there could be motivation for people

to alter the unit and we're working not to alter those dealing with a eviction and we're going to model that in other places on the planning he code such as a is recently passed condo ordinance and also the garage ordinance that dealt with parking garages and with those two amendments we feel this is an ordinance that will give the flexibility to property owners but preserve affordability's and the existing housing staff. with that i'll be happy to answer any questions >> commissioner planning staff. just to summarize currently section 181-c prohibits the non

conforming units to practically speaking the non units can't be altered. and section 1 city and county h prohibits the now a units in the public works dr district but they have to be consistent with the planning district. today's ordinance would first allow non-coming from units to be expand but not beyond the envelope as it you fisted in 2013 and the supervisor will propose a further amendment that would prohibit the expansion of units where there's been a no fault e visitation in the years and finally it would allow

non-conforming units to expand in a similar way in the public works dr striktd for the department remedies approval and we felt this will reduce the likelihood that those would be less affordable. we there feel there's a change that would make a naturally unit into a smaller and less affordable unit by setting a the building envelope as it was on january 1st, 2013, we first say that the non conforming units could be expanded. as proposed the units will be

limited in size and scope. that concludes any presentation i'm available for questions. >> thank you. opening it up for public comment? any public comment on this item >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner. >> i know on its face i'm not sure i, be supportive where we - we don't have the language yet. while i think it's really important we try to improve our housing stock by making units more liveable and save for proper plumbing and others things i think this may have been better when it first start because it is not allowing the

property owners to expand too large or making it difficult to expand unit to make larger units that would be more familiar friendly and my question is: has to do with the idea those are you guess they say something like 52 thousand units in the city that are not in conformity but it's kind of a board stroke i'm not sure what's trying to be done by this ordinance >> staying i didn't with the planning staff there are 2 hundred plus constructed as recommended to the density controls that's close to 15 percent of the building stock this only deals with whether or not you can expand those legal

non-coming from units. the supervisor has been very clear about the changes that relates to no fault evictions. this legislation has nothing to do with controls through a merger, in fact, that piece of the legislation is a separate ordinance will be back on october 24th i believe. well, i still think i'm in opposition it reminds me of a garage store on chester nut and north beach. the present owners had nothing to do with the evictions and they were owners of ticking

tickings and president chiu introduced this legislation to link them long before and 10 years is a long time and you could have ownership changes and on the basis of this being part of the legislation i mean some of parts have good legislation but this in particularly i don't like >> to clarify the legislation is about allowing i guess expansions within a certainly envelope by the supervisor has introduced two tweaks to make sure it's not making the unit much more expensive. i think those changes are good and they address this when w it

was property a number of months ago. i think i call it the unimportance of affordable stock. so i would move to recommended approve >> second and a commissioner hill us. >> just a question. if i have a 3 unit believe in an rh building zone could you remodel the kitchen or add a bathroom what's altering? the spending non-forming or conforming units generally, you can't expand the footprint and can't add a bedroom or

significantly change the footprint of the building >> but you could add a bathroom and a if you have a two unit building two units would be expanding you can do is a 12 foot pop out but the third unit would be non-conforming and couldn't expand the area you could put new kitchen cabinets but if you want to add a bathroom you have to do is it within the unit. >> so still someone had expanded a non-conforming unit what was once the storage or garage space then someone

complained they couldn't get permits so they had to take it out and we'd lose an affordable unit. so will this correct this. could someone right they're wrong >> exactly if you have a 3 unit building and the third unit was at the bottom not expanding the envelope of the building but expanding into existing storage area you couldn't do that but under this proposal you would be able to do that but not expand the envelope of the building after january 1st, 2014. >> could i have a followup. >> yes. >> sophie or scott. how does in the 3 unit building how is it determined which one

is a non-xhoufrm unit >> typically we allow the property own to - it's a proposal that two of the units we would ask them to file a notice of special restrictions so in the future there's permitting an extension of that. >> okay. thanks. >> commissioner. i oppose that. i know it's widespread but typically the neighborhood likes the density most people are there because of the density and maybe it maybe harmless enough but something that may have long been permitted illegal but it's

still adds for cars to the streets probably and adds for density and couple that although this is straightaway separate from the in law problem we've got problems with illegal in-laws and over density we have two. small units in san francisco and by putting other bedroom in but you're going to cutup smaller rooms didn't make it that much more liveable. it is over density where the neighbors want it to be a certainly way and not wanting to see more units added or units made denser

>> so we're not adding density or units we have illegally non-conforming units i believe this legislation is extremely timely as we're trial court trying to play catch up and having difficulty vnt people who billed affordable housing. this couldn't be better minded so i'm in support of that and i'm glad the supervisors separated out their own legislation on pros and cons. i think we're on target to move forward >> mr. sanchez. i understand the commissioners concerns and how to address that concern. and we appreciate working with the supervisors office because

they will amended the limitation to correct the data it was january 1st, 2013, so you can put away your permit applications so it can't be expanded if you're availing yourselves to the non-conforming units. >> commissioners there's a motion and a second so call the question. >> on that motion (calling names) so movedbreak. >> for 241892421 and lombardy

street request for authorization please note that following the public testimony indicated their matter until 2013 by a vote. good afternoon. i'm with the department staff. the item before you as john avenue said was continued to address neighbor concerns that you are is project requires c u forgive the demolition. the project is here and i'm available for any questions that you have >> project sponsor please. good afternoon, commissioners. jonas could you please hand out

the changes that have long been made to the project. i'm here to present. at the last hearing the commission came back with roemgsz and questions and they asked for a list and our response to your requests. i'll go over them briefly. one of the things that was discussed is adding light wells to our western adjacent neighbor. we've chosen to provide the windows for all the property line. windows are not required to be responded to with sympathetic light roof but the applicant