apply so the conditional use is required for those preempts thank you. >> i think we need to be careful with the terminal the permit was issued. >> yes. the permit was issued and suspected by our department. >> i understand. >> the fact it was suspected means that whatever happened in the intern that was applicable to the permit to permit that are suspended. >> thank you. >> not at many moment i'll ask we take public comment next is that okay. >> i'm sorry misquoted. >> public comment would be good. >> can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak under. all right. so whoever wants to

go first please please step forward >> (inaudible). >> that's correct no one not a named requester that wants to speak okay. so then no public comment? all right. so then it's up to the board whether you want to entertain further discussion from the parties otherwise commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> mr. saks i'll be interested in hearing. >> i'll be brief judge j recognizes we're a landscape in the property her order reprimand the matter to the board in the board denies the request for late jurisdiction the board will not on intersections deprived to rule on that question the reason we're here vigorously that judge jackson orders was clear if this is the issue and not the other issues the board has i think correctly decided so the

questions that commissioner lazarus asked suggested perhaps the board not have the authority that's - >> what very, very contrary this matter. >> i'm asking about the set of circumstances to look at the permit if it comes back. >> it is obviously for another day in our view thank you. >> mr. collier you want to - we'll give you equal time. >> yes. thank you a few other points first of all, inform evidence any strategy plan on trying to - >> i mean i'm sorry this is sou sounding rebuttal. >> mr. saks argued that judge jackson we could seek jurisdiction before we still could he said and we sought that in our exhibit so he took a different position from the

judge. >> i'm for public health department i'm not sure how are we commenting now. >> we are. >> i'll also punt we have litigations not fully implemented the judges order is not- the judge made an order but opposed to hearing motioned that means it is still open and so anything we do tonight maybe for nothing our ill con accepted the judge has not completed her work i'll move to continue this item until the judge as. >> entered a ruling. >> rendered a final rules of law that will not have any

opposed hearing motioned. >> we're thinking. >> the judge's order is actually more multi faceted than that that than presented by taser for the permit holder the question of whether we take jurisdiction is not necessarily tied to the legal case and i'm sure they're going to take that has far as they president in an ongoing manner if i looked at this that you recall as a jurisdiction regardless of the amount of time regardless of the various things that occurred i would liking look at if in the following way

and properly not change from what i said before is the actual permit an established condition effective or not i find it still the same so what are you recommending. >> by then take it from that the question how to traffic signal from the translate /* translate from the department erred i find if didn't happen the type of information should have been in the purview therefore the department erred in accepting that. >> the reason he was going after the information now a now whole set are circumstances so, i mean any intimaticlinatio

it comes back we'll tale with that, i can jump to conclusions but i don't want to do that and i on intersections we all could but are you sensitive of a continuance. >> let's go that to the call of the chair. >> basically, we not know when it comes back. >> i'm curious if you want this sent to the call of the chair until such time the matter is reprimanded if it is or the other matter the appeal or i think that commissioner swig i mentioned until a final decision is made which could be a long time after that if there are further appeals outside of you know after what happens. >> a good question. >> a good point. >> i'll argue some soft - any

i think sting the to the call of the chair the other appeal that reprimanded you do you want to make that. >> i'm i'll move to continue the item to the call of the chair which will be issued when judge jackson formally reprimands the matter before this board ; right? >> taking judge jackson outline i out of that and saying the associated appeal returns. >> that's fine that's fine. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus to continue this to the call of the chair until the related appeal returns to the board commissioner fung

commissioner honda and commissioner swig okay 0 so that will be moved to the call of the chair with a vote of 4 to zero item number 11 gore, llc verse the deserve the property on 660 third street street on 2015 of a notice of violation and penalty alleging planning code that the first and second story the subject property not authorized for office use and we'll start with the appellant. >> again, i apologize i need to make a reuben, junius & rose disclosure wish to disclose i've hired reuben, junius & rose of counsel on a project reuben, junius & rose of the entity appearing before the board will not have an effect on any decision tonight. >> you've done that before. >> a couple

i think the whole firm is here tonight. >> is there not a reuben, junius & rose case. >> that's a good thing good evening commissioner fung i'm jim rebecca reuben, junius & rose with the owner ever 66 third street street and try to look at this presentation and hope to save you time by stimulating now that the first 7 pages out of 10 submitted with fewer sites are correct there's no dispute over what that record says but unfortunately as almost always the situation involving 20 more years of history permits don't tell the true story i recognize the planning department and the da must live with the record but hopefully to explain a little bit more of that and convince you it is right to provide relieve ♪

case the owners the properties are the raven family and managed by the folks danny and others nanny a hidden me an urban raeven bought this as raeven auction house over 60 permits since the 1980s and they say front office those permits include seismic fire safety and ada upgrades in 1980 bernard were partners in the burt field action house that moved in and opted out the building into the early 90s toept at the time it was mc-2 and office building was lout you

can read but the building was fused i used more auctioned that fell accessoryy there is inform arguing the fact that building was office as lout in 1980 and not used for anything other than office except a piano store in 1990 it was rezoned didn't allow office and the building was a legal non-conforming office with burt field and butterfield the political climatic change

is change but without controversy in 2013 investigating or less taken over management danny and arey talked about the building the building was used for office and non-conforming to allow for the legal office to make sure the records were clear to any it was clear if he were seeking to do the right thing clear up city records and pay the fees and move on as a result i went through the options with them, they were multiple first do nothing the building was running smoothly and a variant of the finishes the central soma zoning district westbound pending and designated this block as office with the wait for central soma and then do whatever the process that central soma called for to turn it into office a third option to tampering the legitimate process

program excuse me - which was ceron amnesty for some business owners i sunshine had experience and find if difficult not completely clean rift history a fourth option seeking a letter of depreciation if the zoning administrator determining the building was grandfathered as office but that is problematic because of the number of permits effectually finally it was to seek a conditional use to allow the office under the planning code sections which allows office in historic believes in the zone that's what we did we researched every prior applications was approved by the planning commission ironic across the street 665 in any order was approved in october of 2013 when sue hester speaking in support of the restriction this

was the right way to do office conversions i explained the risk was minimal if any by third street on 2013 our hearing which was may one 2014 only 6 months later had a problem in showcase square hit hike a tsunami that is was successful 9 times in the past we became collateral damage by the time the dust settled settled we had 40 at the 80 feet no implication and wonder in the building qualified flat planning code sections wait the rational for half approval with the political atmosphere we were just unlucky

dan and arey were drying to do the right thing and clear up the record and reached the planning commission 6 months earlier we would have an approval like third street where do we go from here the planning department has issued the notice of violation as it must it is directed as one and two the central soma plan is preponderance of the evidence and a pending and now both floors will be office if you upheld the enforcement danny and arey will have to end this even if in the central soma plan passes office uses will once again be allowed we request you hold this in abeyance until the rezoning a approved it only has attended for office in a

year we're here only because danny and arey are trying to do the right thing >> mr. reuben i want to clarify i went through a conditional use authorization. >> correct. >> it was granted. >> true. >> to occupy those two floors. >> yes. >> no appeal of that decision. >> that's right. >> that's because- >> the political atmosphere. >> i made a jewish-american judgment call and illegally occupied the others floors. >> in no there never a tenant. >> but instead we're moving overseeing office tenants because you were not supposed to occupy those until the planning code found you in violation. >> that's right. >> when do you think the

central soma rezoning is going to occur. >> we're told maybe scott sanchez has a better idea the second thing if you're not amenable to delaying the kworment of the rezoning that will cure a lot of the problem. >> i do not hold off you are rebuttal one last question is related to italian-american to ask the same question as the da eastern neighborhoods legislation rezoning had a mechanism for maintaining the previous zoning based upon notice to the department; is that correct and not that i'm aware of i'm sure you're referring to something didn't ring a bell. >> that would have been -

>> anything like when the conversion from mc-2 to s l i. >> i don't think so santa monica might know the answer. >> one last question question over how much turnover has there been in the office use of floors one and two offer the period of time that the zone was on the property in instant turnover a series of leases or related to a single contributor entity. >> not a single contributor tenant and pretty stable i can get you more information specific about the turnover any particular tenants. >> so in instant turnover or is that consistent. >> can i have the - and i'm dabbling raeven thank you for your time

we don't have one tenants since 2005 and the majority. >> sorry could you speak closer to the marching and effective if i'm botching the dates one tenants since 2005 and one tenant this space turned over before we had our hearing with the planning commission and then we had one tenant that we recently put under there complies with the recent zoning. >> okay mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so don't i don't know where to begin that is an appeal of a notice of violation and penalty i think our appeal brief is clear to the history i appreciate the parapet says the history is true and correct the

legal use has been recommended that the appellant on the multi applications the use of property is or was as a warehouse use and in the 1987 so you get an application to convert for retail uses a variance was required for parking because the retail use had a more dense as the parking requirement as the office use there was a notice of special restrictions which specifically noted they can have a very small amount of accessory office space but anything else is needing planning code permission and coagulate back to the early 1980s impact fees with the conversion from the chair to office for transportation and, in fact, those beginning if 1985

and 86 office variances for this building as well subsequent to the 1987 authorizations that permit was perfect with the seismic and exterior work that was the final inspection and a converted to sympathy or prejudice office space with the office and never sought a permit to subject to the planning code requirements the planning code did change in the early 90s to make office permitted prohibited in that to allow for office space but never sought that would have been suggest to the office allocation but not sought it we appreciate they came to try to legalize

those uses and appreciate that you know they have different expectations and our department recommendation was for approval the entire building with the historic preservation commission which had reviewed that and signed off on that once the planning commission with hearings ultimately had a recommendation for maintaining part of building as industrial use and part of building as office to benefit to reduce it to a small cap authorization we have limited excuse me - limited in the cap for the projects 50 thousand square feet and more but for projects that contain 25 thousand because we have itch more availability and our office kept the program that he usa vails themselves the small cap program that was more reeled available to maintain the pdr on

the ground floor and the commission took the action on 2014 public policy that they did go though the appropriate process and paid the fees and legalize the upper second story and with the office attention didn't appeal that and continued to occupy the building in violation we have enforcement and sensitive to the displacement issues raised by the patented but note it is almost two years since the planning department decision we have tried to provide time for them to comply with the decision we're at the appealing hearing they clearly are in vision of the planning code not providing argument that demonstrate point building was legally converted

to office in violation and uphold our notice of violation i'm available to answer any questions. >> so the other building that was mentions across the street is it 6. >> 664. >> this building was approved no violations fully appropriate how would you characters that believe and this building. >> hard to distinguish the differences it was the timing and having a public hearing and hearing the public comment made the decision we're now implementing. >> and that's where i have the issue why is there i hesitate to

use the word discrimination when across the street you said there is no no difference. >> what am i missing. >> those are arguments for the appeal decision but the decision that is final and that's what we are obeying. >> and so i'm asking firing advise from the building across the street and this building are the same what are the steps if they're the same you're saying that that building here and this building here are appropriate for the seam use how do you get a small business operators small to memoranda seller family business how to get them to, yes to the seam status as the

building across the street that's where i'm skrechd i don't know. >> no, i know the appellants have the same thoughts and questions i don't know all the details in xaern of 665 to 660 looking at 660 the commission found the lower levels could be used as used with the underlying zoning perhaps pdr uses the building across the street i don't know the same potential and it had historically been a warehouse all warehouse building at one up to this point in time i don't know the history of that this but the fact we have a final planning commission decision not challenged and the position we are applying. >> thank you. >> can you shed light reference to the new zoning potential. >> yes. the central soma plan that has been sometime in the

making anticipated adoption by the board later this year but looking more spring as the timing for that which could make that perhaps for perspective not a use the use is allowed through a process they went through the process and the commission said no. >> i understand. >> i don't know if it will change anything come next year with the zoning controls that make it easier perhaps a conditional use is not required but an office allocation so still need planning commission approval for an only a year if now or today. >> i scratch any head put an office building many if hoax the

confusing part with a series of preempts for a long period of time this building has been operating as an office building and nobody raised the red flag the community and neighboring community is fine none made a serious phone call in the middle of the night with a violation against it i believe mr. reuben want the raven family is seeking to make everything clean so they can get everything clean and operate as an office building and suddenly penalized that doesn't make sense. >> they were operating without the permits and paying the appropriate impact fees for the use they've established there so they bend for quite sometime without paying the fees that the everyone in the city pa pays.

>> is there a solution i'm looking for a solution rather than making a bumpy rode not necessary a solution where impacts historic impact fees are are paid and how is that possible to turn this around and make you a happy camper. >> it's not me but the planning commission has the authority to approve that i don't have the authority this was before the planning commission and they said no to the bottom two supervisors if they said, yes they have or would have paid did impact fees and you know we're here on the in violation because they've not come mrirld with the commissions decision. >> what are the fees for

continuing to operate. >> the penalties under the planning code i think 200 and $50 a day for each day the vision is unabated. >> there was a process in the eastern neighborhoods you could have locked somehow the preceding use before it was zoned. >> eastern neighborhoods program that is now expired and called an amnesty program to answer your question mr. krooub reuben a similar program when the 346 to the south of market mixed use zoning district i'm aware of any litigate or legalization permit that was

legal at that point that was unclear when the uses chang's changed the permit is 87 and called that has a warehouse with the retail and the auction it is unclear exactly had the current tenant came in we saw the permit in the mid 90s more more office to office and perhaps the appellants can discuss the wave of that unopted out building. >> the central soma rezoning you're saying probably not impact the potential use. >> it may make office more

permissive but a whole host of things in central soma it could make office more per administrative and pressure the replacement of pdr i mean, i don't know that it will be any necessarily any easy or better or change things much not do away with invokes and do away with the office allocation process. >> thank you, thank you. >> any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none we'll have our rebuttal. >> so the office use that building started in 1962 and raeven bought that and remained as a office building an auction house auctioned on the ground floor and on the 3 floors always

been office you can find a lot of setup stuff number two the planning commission unless we've done that 50 times in any office very a large volume of work from the appearances here the planning department takes the position not grandfather the office until you have a permit like some use as what is a or retail was the use exist use intended use office that covers the scope of work that covers virtually the entire building with a sign off on the back that's a unicorn they don't exist i don't blame the planning code from wanting to protect themselves that stuff good evening ever happen i'll be precipitated in that board two or three buildings work themselves with that system the conditional use application a

difficult process 4 signatures from supervisors or you need to get the signatures of 10 percent of land use owners the board of supervisors had just passed malia cohen passed a law prohibiting landmarking that hemispheres on 665 and our building 630 we're not getting relieve from the planning commission no point i'm not sure we could have gotten through not a freebie but signatures the central soma plan the map if you look at central soma right now there is our building the scheduled to be mixed use office entirely office, of course, i don't actually on intersections that scott was direct that's what it says anything can happen we know that but if you read the plan it is office in terms of the fees ravens

don't have a problem with paying fees they'll pay them with the opportunity i had pictures here of the two buildings 66 o 5 directly across the street was over 100 percent thousand feet or 80 mr. reuben. >> flush out for me a little bit in terms of the specific details when you talk about the auction house being office versus the retail sales that the folks incorporated as. >> so you know, i think that the image that people think a a auction house a great big area where auctioned are held not the case most of work is dub in the office or consignment and deals with people in the con

assignments. >> give me an idea of percentage of square feet. >> 60 thousand this is an 80 thousand foot building 2 and 3 and 4 floors are office with ground floor with storage and some occasional auctioned. >> what was the split. >> i'll ask danny who visited the store there there were auctioned to draw a lot of people they did them elsewhere and the storage for the con stimulate was the office for butter field and butter field shingles 1962 i've told you about 1980 and no fees for office use scott the va is referring to the tdif was the transit fee and glad to pay the

fees. >> so where we are - well, you want me to get the answer. >> >> gave me enough. >> where we are an enforcement action i get it and understand it was inevitable we've appealed central soma will rezoning district the area and office again and if we have to evict some tenants in a year from now we'll go georgia back to the same tenants a they'll be - not fair we choose to do the thing that worked 100 percent of the time in the past and in the planning code tipping the goals goal to allow the owners with historic building. >> i'm sorry was your time up. >> thank you. >> oh, i thought i got to answer a question.

>> mr. sanchez. >> sorry i interrupted his time. >> scott sanchez planning department so again as was stated in their application from 1987 listed the use of warehouse and had an office listed as office lowered they're parking requirement and maybe not seek and justify a permit putting chair actually puts a lower parking requirement as part of environmental review there was a site visit conducted and need the building was partially occupied with chase and wine and 4 floor administrative office for the auction company and the variance they noted that the action company dealt with large and bulky items a pamphlet with

trademarks and equipment that are available for auction even in the appellants own application for the conditional use authorization they listed the former auction abuse as being clarified as wholesale of good ideas and customer storm this is the light wholesale part i understand they're seeking to try to justify this is as legal office space not in the documents overflow room and the concerns of paying fees it would be great if even paid the fees when necessary converted the office and now they're coming through the process unfortunately for them the planning commission did deny their application and it was half available for them i don't know what difference the moh

they feed to go back to the planning commission for the office allocation he process may say no, not allowing them to convert if moh or not so plus whatever provisions may get added to the central soma plan so again, this is illegal office space not through the process and didn't pay the fees he understand there is some frustration about this we've gotten complaint over the last year or two with the illegal conversion they've not paid the impact fees we want in this process to bring people into compliance and some cases we can legalize and there was a path to the legalization the commission said 2 stories of office two stories have to comply with the

zoning and i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> i request a have a quick question n s r was filed on october 2015 and want the enforcement notice was someone paying attention and . >> we were getting complaints photocopy from the community the people came out and spoke in opposition and follow-up of the status of enforcement case the commission was interested i've been reported back to the commission that the status of enforcement and we now will report to them tomorrow. >> a silly question you got enforcement and a fee if they don't comply potentially legislation that takes effect maybe in a year to two years what happened if necessary stay out the compliance and pay the

fee until that new legislation comes into place. >> you know this is just not the first time that has happened we have enforcement issues with final penltsdz accrue and typically if we have non-response to the penalty and people are not compliant the city attorney's reviewed it and takes the predicament action. >> 40 thousand square feet and 2 led hundred and 50 day penalty. >> this can you please the concerns you can have one hundred square feet building with illegal and paying 200 and 50 day penalties is not an incentive that is raised as an issue. >> thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'll be clear where i

stands. >> go go ahead i kind of know. >> it was the planning commission decision i think that was not adhered to there was a violation i think that need to be upheld. >> so let's talk through through what happens if we make that what's the next step fm there, i on intersections that goes the same way either way. >> what happens next is not our issue. >> yeah. yeah. as. >> a reminder this was an error standard. >> well the planning department have their own procedures and temps timeframes when they pass it on

- it's hard to fully accept some of the points made regarding the political compliment climate- i don't know why you're raising our hands the point had i looked at the permit i do so a lot of the permits and so there was a pattern involved in the use there and i'm not sure that i'm willing to make that determination that it is office space in any form or manner we

don't have that particular authority but have the authority to give them a little bit of breathing room we could continue this - >> penalties will still accrue. >> no and he'll have to make they're on business decision based upon what may or may not occur with enforcement. >> i will lean towards a continuance but not towards for the penalties to not keep on accruing. >> yeah. yeah. >> we have. >> money is not the issue at this point. >> right but. >> i think it is timing they're going to have a make a decision they need to determine

gives them some ability to - >> i'm with ann the decision was made they know or knew the decision. >> i'll not support a continuance. >> i don't know - >> commissioner lazarus. >> pardon. >> what did you say. >> i'll not support a continuance. >> okay. >> i'm kind of with commissioner fung and why i rays my hand you referenced the political atmosphere that is the problem here we're facing it completely unrelated issue you know we have to conjecture but i pointed to the building across the street which is the zoning

administrator completely agreed was a similar project seems to have sailed through and then across town there was the interest effect and an emotional political issue even sued and i don't see - that's what bothers me and i don't know how to get over that but that's why i raised my portion there was political emotion i'll support the continuance b it gives us more time to figure this out continuum. >> but the gel climate they've

owned this since the 60s and lirnd. >> i i understand but the initiative to recognize the conditions and to come out and try to resolve those conditions and then there's the emotionally april climate. >> if a decide made by the planning commission with the process that's what the decision was that's also true. >> i think we all understand that quite well, that implies. >> well, let's i'll move to continue this for a period of 6 months. >> you want to.

>> on the ground. >> excuse me - >> (laughter) do you want a november date or december date are available. >> i mean 6 months is november, november 9th and 16 and december 7th and 16. >> december 7th. >> december 7th okay december 7, 2016, do you want to say why you are continuing to that date what you want to see happen between now and then or not. >> not. >> okay (laughter). >> yes. you you can the motion by the vice president to continue the appeal to december 7, 2016, commissioner lazarus. >> no commissioner honda?

commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 3 to one >> okay then the next item is item 12 appeal castro hill boosters versus the planning commission property at arkansas protesting to martin building copy of the planning code large project authorization to allow the new construction of a 5 story weekly with exceptions for rear yard pursuant to the session dwelling unit with the section off street loading and pursuant to planning code 207.6 this is on for hearing this hearing for this matter was reschedule at the request of the parties.

>> what a surprise i need to make a disclosure wish to disclose i've hired reuben, junius & rose on a project as counsel reuben, junius & rose representation as a entity before the board will not have an effect on any decision. >> i'm glad we can do this i'm representing the appellant in the matter you're asked who the exception to the eastern neighborhoods the second does the respondent meet that standard in depends on the answer to the first, we ask you overturn that mixed use project and the large project authorization be conditioned on the mixed use requirement if our unable you overturn or continue the appeal so the planning commission may have time to

legislatively clarify the code relating to project it is helpful for interpreting say we should look at the mixed use with the statutory framework from the languages is more one litter interpretations that results in the third consequence look to the protective history reasonable to read the code with the variance project mixed use exception the context supports this screening approvals in the eastern neighborhoods are split according to size the zoning administrator makes the desertion and the planning commission makes the sdergz sdeshgsz it together the mechanics for large project and provides the expectation to the code read as a whole section provides a fraction states the

applicable in the mixed use cross-reference other code and so forth the standard and looking at those closely the standard used by the zoning administrator parallel each other the provisions allowing the expectation to the parking ratios and open space and on-street parking loading zones requiring the large and small projects they should be read and this state the unit mixed through the variance process so forth in section 304 or 329 through the procedure in celebration this is minimally unclear we're not reading in celebrati isolation - the eastern neighborhoods mixed use district

maybe misdemeanor pursuant to the section 329 the rear yard requirement in the eastern neighborhoods mixed use maybe misdemeanor by the zoning administrator pursuant to the procedures in section 307 paraphrasing criteria met as unclear with the mixed use language and unclear in exactly the same way and large project handled by a different department they see, yes the large project authorization authorization quotes the same provisions and makes philanthropic decision the commission and planning department prepares the motion and the city attorney's found the same criteria under the section has applied to the zoning administrator with small projects the code is not clear it is responsibly to follow did fraction for the standards to be

the same we're not asking. a novel use of reading but a reading that conforms to word it in the provisions the application of the criteria recalled find project size is consistent with the code and therefore reasonable any doubt have not meaning of the status look at the history for guidance further accepting the respondents interpretation is an absurd consequences when applied to small projects no criteria whatsoever will apply to large projects >> the unit mix has to insure we maintain the living rarmentd and not shut families out of the arrangement those with large project and open door to the mixed use awhile requiring the minority projects to approve the net under the variance criteria

it is absurd and undermines the purpose of the unit mixed requirement we look at the protective history and found last december was amended striking the language that says it applies to large project the prior version left no question we must determine why the legislation intended to grant that exception well the legislation purpose was clear and intended to correct the errors and add the language update the code with provisions to simplify the text and put another way to make substantial clean up changes that the code shows the intent to move the criteria many argument should be rejected a - something gesture should be read at the same kind of specifics update the code to

update in a nonsubstantive ways the history shows this is the appropriate reading the legislation the text amendments quote explained because prior code quote various error and cross-references and lack of clarity and grammar mistakes and other errors to correct those errors with the language no mention of the unit mix or any other new substantive changes in the developed new planning code given the purpose of the history no change was intended in the criteria should be continued to be applied the language maybe reasonably read for the criteria for the mixed use exception a career reason is absurdity and the protective history no material changes from the clear prior version were intend we ask

you apply the criteria and revoke the mixed use exception thank you. >> okay. we'll hear in the motion holder. >> good evening commissioners thank you for happening in there prpg commissioner honda andy with reuben, junius & rose representing the martin building company thank you for your attention the legal arguments are clear that was one clear simple idea do appellant is they can't pick and choose the planning code they apply to the project it is coming down to that simple there is really no dispute about the facts and part of amendment the 329 changed in many version the planning code what the planning commission and planning department staff look at it and approved the project that is today's planning code not

finding of any kind to grant this expectation on interesting pattern by the way, really not that unusual that the planning code is riesdz in 2014 over 20 new all the times many 201532 code amendment and there are 8 with 14 more pend if we got into an argument 0 nothing would be settle we point back to this and that shouldn't have been changed the appellant says - again, this is the way the code was written in 2015 and not read the day we had the hearing before the commission and still not there appellant cites no case law and logic that supports that and allows them to point to another code and let go back in time we don't know what the applications

would have done the - that is speculation none knows what the commission would have done from the code was in effect then those finding were not required the code changes were lowering the commission to proceed on the thirsted that issue do of neflthd bedrooms you'll hear in patrick a bitter of a convoluted history the exception an interrogation by the zoning administrator late in 2009 is part of conversation here i'm leaving it to mr. sanchez to explain the history but note that during the commission hearing the planning commission specifically asked mr. sanchez what if that are interpretation good evening exist and mr. sanchez clarified by saying this exception didn't exist that interrogation the exception would not be required but again

none of this changes the fact in finding were required by finding were certainly made the law requires them to be made from the planning code didn't provide guidance the commission makes the finding they did on page 14 the planning commission goes and say, however, given for recent changes with the dwelling units reminder equitably the department is conducting a comprehensive view that may result in future revision and the department researched and was in consultation with beginning request the mayor's office of housing with other city departments and other jurisdictions where this nestled bedroom was going they said research and conclusion in consumption with other city agencies shows consistent support for the nestled bedroom there is a two bedroom unit this

is at the heart of the issue the appellant eve the code changes back when the interpretations goes away will in the near future is mute those are two bedrooms you'll hear from mr. patrick in a second to sum up commission did the iconic no. nothing has been presented that changes that result so i'm going to turn it over to to patrick to talk about the nestled bedrooms. >> good evening patrick of martin building company just for a moment elaborate on the nestled bedrooms we've been building for almost 25 years built hundreds of overseeing units indeed hundreds in the eastern neighborhoods and in the south of market they are - we do that because we are passionate about great design and something we've held on to strongly their

creative inner solution for one bedroom and two bedrooms units we certainly, if is to hold onto this component we asking could have changed the design this is a aspire design and it is validated by our occupant resident and owners of those units and have had dozens and dozens of families paved and present living in the units i continuing hearing nothing but positive february on the configuration we know the of all the evidence bedrooms are a solid evaluation so i want to say oftentimes they hear about the nestled bedrooms their ideas are going to something like a windowless room and converted walk-in closet if i could have the overhead. >> it is difficult to see but

you'll see the large windows and doors that impact with the living space here's a good example the living room it is a tremendous amount of light as you can see this is a general configuration where the outside wall is this wall here and the bedrooms are in bound and face on the living space paw tremendous amount of natural light they're nice more au currently the entertainment commission applauded this design because of the nirlt use anyway and want to do in conclusion with this project we are definitely stakeholder and condominium to doing high quality work and committed not only in the $2 million fees we

pay we volunteered over $500,000 in payment to jackson playground and improvements in the jackson playground across the street and the project is voluntarily increased the affordable from 14 to 20 percent affordable so there's a lot of merits to this project i ask for your support and denying the appeal thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so the real as i said two issues that are here first, as the and i applicable standards whether or not it was the review criteria of section 329 or the variance in 305 section c it is true that prior to last year and with the code amendment it referred referenced that was removed and our staff identified

one other reference to 305 c as something needs to be removed for the relevant and went to the city attorney for drafting they removal the provision we'll address that by having legislation that be people's exhibit 10 pending before the board next month and reintroduce them to add back into the code so is a discussion about the criteria but applying the law that didn't have the 305 criteria and in regards with the kind of unusual i'll say it is usual as part of 305 process that is the only provision we don't do that are inform a downtown project with the various project the zoning administrator administered i can't recall another findings on

the 905 k it is unusual and coming to the commission i'm surprised to hear that is a possibility but that is what what in the code not in the code currently and take it back to the planning commission to have a public hearing to provide what the employment standards showcasing should be that will be addressed and been reviewed by this project the appropriate standards to see the laws in effect today and the second item the mixed use requirement the issue is but with the exception is about in 2008, we adopted the mixed use as part of market octavia so today a project certain size percentage of two bedrooms and if you don't mc that or three bedrooms that an exception and the market octavia large project authorization and it could be through the 329 process

then the question of what is a bedroom and which is a great question and in 2009 when in the eastern neighborhoods plans which followed by year the market octavia plan it was brought to our predecessor zoning administrator that i think was raised that the brad had changed went to the international building code much different standards with light and air and early versions the san francisco code and application of the didn't have things like requiring natural light so i know there were concerns about what the quality bedrooms we would see at that point an interpretation was only for eastern neighborhoods so everywhere else in the city the bedroom the interpretation didn't apply only in the eastern

neighborhoods and for in particular and for the mixed use requirement i revised this in 2014 to make that more flexible we find if over time after the negotiable adoption of international building code bring backs to the use for the local code for light and air and quality for bedrooms and for sleeping rooms so we kind of made the interpretation that more flexible and had firefighter discussion about doing away with that and had discussions intense discussions with dbi about adopting their procedures we're still working through that but on the path towards removing this interpretation the code version applies still have to is where bedrooms but more towards what department of building inspection says is a bedroom

rather than a different definition so we're headed that makes the need but concerns the neltd bedrooms if done well, can be good sleeping spaces the planning commission found that granting ass will be quality bedrooms not a question of not providing those rooms it is but it will be absent different style so we're working through those the finer details but we expect it so change with a flexible interpretation if not completely with the building code application and the provision something that might modified only slightly so that's where we are on intersections of the planning commission appropriately reviewed this project and recommended approval of that and did have discussion with concerns with the project

sponsor they've addressed all of those and the planning department and planning commission approved the proximately so i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak also want to make sure that folks if you're an officer the association the appellant our time to speak is with the attorney and not under public comment but none not an officer of potrero boosters neighborhood step forward. >> good evening. i'm drew i live others arkansas just a couple of blocks up the street also introduce for 14 years and lived in the 200 block

for a year i'm familiar and love the neighborhoods i have a 5-year-old and 9-year-old daughter and a heavy user of jackson playground i said to just provide a neighbor perspective and specifically address did nestled two bedrooms owe had the opportunity to actually go look at one of the projects in the neighborhood castro in the dog patch and taking into account and what that would look like i thought that the throughout the lay out wasreat and instead of sacrificing the light and air and put that bedroom inside i

guess from a dads perspective a little bit darker at night but those bedrooms still have a lot of light and air during the day so i thought person lovely his ceiling heights appear higher they're beautiful and as a neighbor i'm excited about folks living around the park and making that more satisfactory so specifically to the liveability and desirability is a positive thing i noted when we were i came to the planning commission to hear the dialogue how careful this was thought throw by the planning commission from a neighbor's perspective he want to show support for the nestled bedrooms thank you. >> as a parent of a daughter no outside assess good job.

>> next speaker please. >> i'm this parents of a daughter and son and i'm raising two kids in the city and jackson playground is a critical piece of green space in the eastern neighborhoods and objective 2.3 requires a significant number of units have two or more bedrooms and encourage family units especially located in close prompt to parks this is not just any space a space with a park in the eastern neighborhoods and we need housing which is more accommodating to families in the eastern neighborhoods

when i look at the documents that was approved by the planning commission there the project includes one hundred and 27 units 5 of which have two bedrooms and one thousand square feet a greater number of bedrooms with a smaller square footage 2 and 3 bedrooms complying but tiny units and they really does not afford family living this is a space which really needs real family apartments and that is what this variance should be required - required and the units mix is critical to the community taking advantage the amenities that eastern neighborhoods have and we don't have very much open space at all so i would the parks fraternal

this is the safety park there is franklin park but not let my kids play interest the playground was not properly designated as wildlife refuge they needed more window space this was circle to the building requirement. >> would you care to state your name for the record. >> i've talked with social their skeptical for adoption. >> next speaker please. >> good evening my name is alison i'm representing castro responsibly he urge you to uphold this appeal the eastern neighborhoods plan established a high threshold for expectations to the dwelling unit requirements as the zoning

administrator he described during the planning commission hearing the eastern neighborhoods place was nearing completion with nestled bedrooms were allowed in other neighborhood plans then as now there was concern about our ability to build housing for families it allowed did nestled rooms for the plan that was approved by the board of supervisors did not allow those rooms to count towards the requirement of 40 percent of requirements with 2 or more bedrooms in the objectives that specifically requires a significant number of units in the new developments have 2 or more bedrooms the expectation with the mix is part of planning code since 2008 and not challenged until now the project sponsors have you belief refrj those to intentionally correct

an error in the original plan and it was part of a large package of technical corrections and remove now appears the planning department is now acknowledging it and we've learned they've initiated the large project authorization to roar the 305 finding your decision to uphold the appeal will confirm the law since the package of the eastern neighborhoods plan that will sure all developers are treated equal we we retain the only tool to encourage the family-friendly housing thank you. >> any other public comment seeing none, we'll have our rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> thank you you can there is a tough case in a lot of ways the issue is not nestled bedrooms that is fine if

nestled bedrooms were there in addition to the bedrooms required from the eastern neighborhoods ublt mix requirements the issue is certainly not jackson playground as the developer said that the project density will not change if they went to conforming bedrooms the same comedics will still be in play what is at issue in this case is what is riders for an exception to the unit mixed requirements and you know contrary to the respondent i cried the code incorporated versus the city of a los angeles we have to look at status and harmonize the parts if you look at section 329 b here b-6 d-7 reads the same way the zoning administrator will use those criteria and the planning

commission used 329 in the case of 7 they apply the same criteria with those newly enacted legislation on small projects and then they don't have a criteria to apply that doesn't make sense and not harmonize the code according the case i've cited we need to look at the protective history that is this is a mistake the legislation mistake lee struck part of code the planning department is trying to fix this and the stakes have happening this mistake came up with the approval the project on ministry the planning department because we've been through the process with those conversations looking at a project for 2 of the two bedrooms units in code compliant

and recommend they recognition the mistake and not want it going forward there is discussion about the changes for the zoning administrator whatever nestled bedrooms will quality that's it putting the cart before the hours or horse a progress to determine how nestled bedrooms any count towards accident eastern neighborhoods unit mix requirement right now the law says they don't count that's why with the exception pro go to begin there. >> and there is oath moving pieces if we need to continue this process until the planning department made the derpgz but i'll suggest we let this project go on as code compliant for the eastern neighborhoods right now. >> thank you. >> sir. >> to with a few closing

rakers first of all, the characterization of clean up versus substantive this is interesting i will note that while i don't doubt the have a right majority was clean up that was fixed it wasn't all that way and in fact, 10 different substantive changes in light 2015 are not substantive issues. >> i think the second issue the point here from our perspective this about nest bedrooms with two bedrooms units not the two two bedrooms units based on the street an different design about the layout not about anything else you can i suppose he could come up with a situation the planning commission could have a

situation their predicament evaporates a high standard in a case where 88 arkansas and mr. tuney was trying to do many studios you better have a pretty good reasons and meet the variance to get that kind of strange project approved in the eastern neighborhoods that's not the case here technically because we need the expectation for the two bedrooms but not bedrooms or two bedrooms nestled if you walk through the plan they are two bedrooms and patrick mentioned additional idea so i think that would be a much easier call for argue for studios but this project as two bedrooms in the project and the final point it is really not that unusual for not to be criteria for none of those

exceptions in fact, the process has about 10 or so expectations that can be requested that don't dr. criteria including that one not like? is the most steering wheel uncommon the code is back if the old days very little combines more guidance now but ever code section didn't have the guidance that's the case here thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> hi scott sanchez planning department just to note a couple of things with regards to the project that was referenced we recommend this approval the mexico planning commission actually did approve the project with the unit mix exceptions and with regards to the section 329 provisions it is actually across the board for smaller projects

the eastern neighborhoods created the 329 projects received by the commissioning not dissimilar to downtown projects with downtown review or in other parts of large lots for development the commission can consider a broad range of exceptions for the p u d the commission is grant expectation pretty much to everything downtown is more restricted for the 329 a set list - so for the 329 railway i can't on intersections of a says i'm there for a variance and they're considering the project on 329 is different so but the variance process is in place for smaller projects not eligible for the large project authorization so if you have a smaller project

not big enough you don't net the code compliant there are a couple of exceptions processes but most likely you'll go through the evaporates not usual with the last have perhaps hard to achieve findings with the variance process that's the way the code is set up true not every provision has the criteria it is frustrating as someone to implement and make the decisions we wonder what they were thinking a general criteria at the beginning of 329 is speaks to you know look at the unusual location and topographic factors so pretty broad it is criteria something that the commission can look at as part of their

review so with that, i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> not everyone alter one time. >> well, i've been kicking off most of them i haven't heard anything to lead me to on intersections that the commission erred i'm inclined to deny the appeal. >> me, too. >> motion. >> move to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission on the decision that never erred and adopt environmental vengd.

>> can you please put overseeing on the overhead the draft environmental finding for this matter are those the ones your proposing. >> yes. >> thank you. >> so there's a motion by the commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the motion on the basis the commission in error. >> on that motion commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner swig that item passes with a voted of 4 to zero commissioner honda there's no further business before the board