convert the unit back to storage or garage without having to go through a cu process this may incentivizes evictions not otherwise occurred and eviction itself gives the property owners more - the history were put in the legalization program to protect tenants the review of eviction history was based on an assumption that allowing the unit to be legalized may create an incentive for eviction however, what we now release is that this eviction history won't keep the owners from environmental impact the tenants after the legalization program is completed it didn't meet the intended goal but creates an

incentive for eviction for this reason staff proposes to remove the history from the legalization program and answer more questions this is a complicate one but the approval the controls for removal of single-family homes we're not related to unauthorized units and a major part of original ordinance through the cu for removal of all single-family dwellings and has approve for rh1 and in - situations first from the building is found to be deeply unforgettable or second in the building is unsound and

to clarify the language for the sound currently the corrode e code is unclear whether this applies however, that was clear and the intent of the bravrdz made the exemption available the second recommendation is related to the zoning district with the exemptions applied to two exemptions apply to single-family homes in rh1 and rh zones the department recommends politically to all district of the single-family homes for the consistent controls cross all zoning district so far single-family homes and the department represents i'm available for questions we also received a letter of support from liveable cities and i'll leave the copies with you. >> thank you

opening up for public comment on this item. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is charley work on government affairs for the san francisco association thanks for having us i want to say this legislation if have changes on rules and regulations and so the discussion of those completely out of purview of this ordinance i'll say that we would like to advocate for a mandatory discretionary review process rather a conditional use process for small property owners that needs to remove an illegal unit it impacts thirty puss small property owners and in our experience their low income first generation americans and bought single-family homes with in-law units because they

couldn't afford the conforming two unit building and generally, we're not opposed to the policy goals for the ordinances we're opposed to the reor requisite exacted because of the impacts on the property owner for for the costs and bureaucracy and time spent by property owners our members have informed us this takes up to one or two years during the time the agreement in request they're not legally to pay rents and in the bureaucratic process but expected them to go through the pedestrian without the rental income it makes that doubling burdensome and additionally, the fee process generally speaking are significantly higher it make

sense to point out cu denial to the board of appeals rather than the complete board of supervisors it is inappropriate to bog down the board with those projects we firmly believe that pertains will have more consideration with the board of appeals we believe it is vastly a more appropriate venue thank you for your time and consideration. >> good afternoon. commissioners san francisco apartment association i'll speak in support of what charley said we are worked on this legislation at the board of supervisors and land use committee supervisor peskin, supervisor cowen supervisor avalos and supervisor wiener all sat in we got all of them to agree to the position of dr for small property owners on this issue we all know that the system in san francisco for many years has

been for permit debate you go to permit appeals for any bigger project we agreed to a cu to the board of supervisors we don't need to lose more small unit off the market or need to torture small owners with more bureaucracy than they deal with not our intent to get into a debate with the planning department we're respectful of the staff we bought this out and this is just reintroducing it to where we started from thank you for your time and consideration. >> tom from human rights committee we're new support of maintaining the cu process for the removal of illegal units i say from with the progress with

the board of appeals not a process that tenants can win by rubber stamp the demolition permits we don't on the dr process will protect the tenants or maintain the rent-controlled unit i believe that the goal of supervisor avalos legislation that goal will not be met by putting those through the dr process that is much better through the cu process i understand what jan is saying about the compromises made and the discussions from my experience i don't see this achieving our goal at human rights committee and protecting the in-law units as for the prohibition on evictions in terms of legalization number 5 of the recommendations we're a little

bit confused about that about the recommendation but certainly support of intent of the elements we're not convinced that is quite the right fix yet maybe what the fix is that the - demolition permit should go to the cu process i don't understand why there would not be a case for a cu you do not understand why the landlord does an eviction and avoids the legalization not getting a permit over-the-counter to be demolished i don't understand and if that's the case fix it by requiring a cu that takes the incentive out of the eviction and the agency vacation or am i missing something that is the simple fix for the incentive for door-to-door the unauthorized unit user unit i'll be more

confront keep in the prohibition of the eviction but make sure you require that there's a cu process if there's as demolition permit in that case we support extending the cu to properties or more than one in-law unit the - seen properties like that at the office and support including single-family units in all zones we feel this is the intent here to protect the tenants and preserve those units to stop the occasi doogs demolition of those units thank you >> hi a tenant and organizer with the cause we also are in support of recommendations 12, 4 and 5 to

insure the horticulturelists is supported in the city and highlighted a large portion the housing stock that is available and house many stay we embrace the changes to the planning code that requires the conditional use authorization process rather than a discretionary review as suggested by the supervisor wiener legislation for the process of going in the right direction that unauthorized units that fall underer rent control and given there are usually more than one unauthorized units to legalize the parcel we ask this that be protecting the units and preserve the housing stock recommendation number 4 we support this recommendation given that single-family homes and all zoning district should be subject to the same controls when seeking the removal of

units i've supported a lot of tenants that council with rent increases using costa-hawkins after a unit has gun down the road so for a single-family we don't worry about unauthorized units it is important to preserve your rent-controlled stoke and with number 5 the same feelings as tommy from the human rights a little bit confusing we are confused in terms of the owner use a false eviction the building is eligible foyer legalization it shouldn't get a over-the-counter permit but a conditional use but it could potential gets landlords

engaging in no fault evictions - >> is there any additional public comment? >> i did not hear you announce that. >> it wasn't called yet. >> (inaudible). >> it's not possible. >> no, not at this time. >> we're trying to get that - >> this is a subway site that has a high crime rate i think you're making a mistake. >> okay. thank you. >> hang tight for this item number. >> commissioners >> it says something here. >> hi georgia swedish this is my

317 file i'm glad i found this morning i am - i sent an e-mail to ann mary rogers and i'm sorry ms. - sorry hello anyway sorry about that i'm used to aaron i think this is a problem i think the exception is banning it all, all single-family homes is really a bad thing i think that you need to remove that modifications i don't see the advantage of it in my letter i said this was what form of up zoning which is very similar to the affordable housing bonus program and you don't imagine i don't know why this attached protective to protect people this is a problem given i've talked about the decisions and

the increase in prices windup with losing affordable housing right here look at this this will be a $6 million home surrounded by two single-family homes you're saying in or executive summer given the housing crisis the city should persevere housing this is significantly higher than preserving existing units those logo and another 2, 3, 4 work 6 or $7 million homes i this is infuriating your current legislation you just passed i mean, you just - i see why you have that concept in the rh1 or rh2 sometimes we're seeing homes that are $5,035,000

over the mayor's office of housing number so you know - i think the other argument that are consistent controls across the city zoning zoning it specific if you look at the definition of the rh2 which is basically, the following that is supposed to be single-family homes and devoted to 1, 2, 3 housing with consisting of two large flats that's not haven what is happening is salesladies sometimes that second unit is part of first unit i then is

complicate you should remove it and deal with many three to four hands legislation that comes in the fall thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay public comment is closed. commissioner vice president richards. >> i think taking a step back and understanding 317 with the level it is called for banner around a resounding hearing and have something that actually talks about 317 and i alluded to changes coming so mr. sanchez can you tell us section 317 when did it get started and the intent what sections there was a lot here. >> i'll do my best 317 arose a decade a little bit less than a

decade ago prior to that we operated in the series of policy policies with demolition and housing with the 3 mergers to demolition and dwelling units to a broader residential incarcerating indicating and the most - that politics to legal units and get an over-the-counter for illegal unit and the main idea to preserve and protect relatively housing and dwelling units up to increased dwelling unit without the policy finding there are certain extension that have been there regarding - preserving

the relative affordability of housing so a per units mergers exceeded over 1.5 million and demolish it and a provision too from the building is unsound that was relatively affordable housing that was unsound housing in the process that is historical backward and many tweet the issues that ms. swedish raise regarding the ability to a enforce and implement the controls i think we have a handle on the unit mergers but the issues when constitutes the demolition a couple of decisions and planning code has their definitions to have something a demolition we

can live with. >> so in the 2:00 o'clock or rewrite of 317 will we work with the planning department to harmonize the definition. >> we're looking at different options one of the options looking at something that is getting away from the demolition issue and looking at the size of the building there is. >> sure. >> a lot of discusses and certainly we'll work with the planning department and keeping the demolition issues how much of the building remains. >> that piece of wall hanging in the air will be considered a demolition. >> so i guess the question i have further only section 317 the 80 percentage demonstratively over-the-counter on rh1 d where did it come from where's the 80 percent why 80

why not 90 we often hear the average home is only now affordable by 9 percent of population i don't understand what is behind that but how would you overlay that with the percent. >> it goes back to the original 317 was adopted the idea of value the units exceeds 80 percent of the pricing of the single-family home in san francisco not a unit that will be relatively affordable and therefore could be exempted from the process. >> the 80 is a number. >> in the 317 the planning commission has the ability to modify that to 10 percent. >> 10 or 20 percent. >> that's interesting that's a discussion we probably should have where does the 80 percent based on a certain number where

does that number come from. >> go ahead. >> we work with our database to get current data but it is 10 percent the commission can modify that has amended so it is 80 percent of the combined land and structure values of the single-family homes in san francisco and this is a threshold. >> so if i question 3 properties in any immediate neighborhood one open a double lot on castro that sold recently and a cottage on it i think there is plans a 311 notice with a 3 thousand square feet home and a on one they come others planning commission and say i paid $3 million it is a double lot a huge development how do we call calculate you look at the

value of the lot. >> it must be a considerable prevail our correct there is an apples to apples comparisons so we're looking at the appraisal of that property maybe more potential but we're looking at the value of 3 property. >> do we have a list of aau appraisers. >> i question the 80 percent but this is a question for another 7, 8, 9 we need to tuck

24 both the informational how does the governor have the right we see the cu for demolition it is intooefr in the process but the demolition has a right that's a lot of concern for me so basically 317 so preserve housing so the other issue with 317 and the over-the-counter is one .6 and one .65 and one .69 and square feet 8 hundred whatever with the land and the building ms. swedish said we see an 8 thousand square feet home is in now 5 or 6 million so pushing the number the affordable is less and less and less to the extent of the population that goes against the intent of this

i call it the pacific heights but trying to see let people do what they want with their property but based on a crazy market so thank you the issue with moving it on the recommendations of - monarch the administrative approval for single-family units to anything beyond rh1 rhd ii come to you to the department and have an illegal unit in that home i want to demolish and house can it still be approved over-the-counter maybe a staff question. >> go ahead. >> no, if you have an illegal unit you will have to be completed for the cu process. >> okay.

>> got it. >> where i'm coming from i have to tell you how many friends that have been evicted that lived in illegal units and questionable house and safety they're paying a lot of money for the units and the owner passed on and the family - or the owner wants to move to palm springs ami i've taken this all of a sudden i want you out of here i want to sell any house we saw that two novembers ago and we saw that it was an eye opener i've had four or five friends experience that they're in a unit and want to sell the house and want to destroy and owned them - it sets a higher bar

>> think i have been at a table cost standard time board of supervisors, etc. i kind of looked cu is less expensive for the dr is more expensive the question i heard cu takes 12 months and dr takes 12 or 6 months. >> it still has to come before you with the continual use authorization getting on the commission calendar i don't see any reason why the cu in and of itself takes a longer time for a hearing. >> is there a way to streamline that if i'm european urgently needing to get rid of this if time is an issue can we shorten the time we can now but hard-pressed to say hey i'll

approve something more expensive at the same time doesn't make sense the thing honestly the standard by which we make an approval only a dr or cu are different and necessary and desirable and compatible for the cu and exceptional or extraordinary and a liar threshold i feel the department is phil in the recommendation but personally i understand whether or not is appealable to the board of supervisors or the board of appeals you know i'd rather have a higher threshold rather than a lower threshold the reason to preserve housing i mean, that's what that is all about not to make it easier to get rid of of a unit there are ways but i'm moving in favor of the departments recommendations with the exception of the

ability to metabolic approve single-family homes and in an rh1 or rh2 i honestly don't like that at all the other one of the gentleman raised a good point not why take out the exception for the ellis act for the no-fault evictions. >> thank you. i'm emery rogers this is difficult to explain i'll give the technical definition the way i find helpful we often look at the eviction history and put prohibitions in place what the property owner can do it make sense if there's an eviction type they have more limits what we they can and - in this case

if we look at the eviction history what we're prohibiting them from doing legalizing the unit effectively that is the opposite that enables them to remove the unit without any of the process or review you might have. >> right the issue is the enforcement of the no-fault evictions we're managing this is a person that takes an act that is a hash and good reasons kicking someone out, however, seize if they've rerented that's the lynch pin if this makes sense until we have strong laws so i'd rather error on the side of caution. >> this is important with the many action with the board of supervisors has taken to try to preserve and protect housing and

one of those being remarkable we had the ability to legalize the illegal units and so one of the issues exemption them from a great number of code requirement from the density requirements up to one unit but we the say we don't want people to be eligible if they've done an eviction we don't want someone to legalize. >> it makes sense in that connection we have a population with a conditional use authorizations to rove an illegal unit rather than making that a process and making it easier for legalize a units we say that you in order to remove the unit you need to go through a process you don't get approval you have to keep that units the thing if someone comes in this

is a real example we should someone that says i want to be able to remove this unit under our code provisions i can legalize it but they said what if i evict someone from that unit i can't no longer legalize it i'm not an unauthorized units there has ta to be a path to legalization if none it's not coming before you people therefore evict someone from their unit and there is no way to legalize it at the have - >> i that is crazy. >> that's what's. >> my question if we leave it in and they. of want to a come in and demolish and .

>> under the code no way to legalize it you'll have to keep our unit. >> it's that bad. >> yes. >> yes. >> (laughter) keeps the united and keeps them from - >> i think - >> the point to legalize the unit would be in an awkward position probation officer recommend we recognize it is illegal and keep it illegal. >> i'm a landlord and i evict a tenant; right? in an illegal unit i know i can giving me get an over-the-counter approved; right? because it's been an ellis acted unit now we take that away i require a cu for legal listings the unit. >> no path to legalization it wouldn't come before you. >> what happens to that unit. >> it goes away if you have a

unit to be legalized under the code through the process only that's the only way to do if it you ask someone from that unit you can just remove that without coming are before you. >> mirena burns i think that is important to remember the unit can't be legalized pause the health and safety doesn't meet the requirement for a safe place for people to live that's an important thing to consider here we don't want people living in units that are unsafe that don't meet basic fire requirements. >> we would have a vision we wouldn't be allowing people to procure. >> we'll take that provision out and put left-hand side that are ellis acted under the changed proposals without a change if their rent-controlled

unit for market-rate that's my concern. >> okay two - one other question i buy a house i buy the lot next door i come and demonstratively i passed the 80 percent threshold i demolition the house over-the-counter, i put the two lots together and build an 8 thousand foot's house i think i have two units is that without requiring a cu. >> can you repeat that scenario. >> i'm looking at there are ways to gain the system; right? you're seeing it is okay to have two units on a lot an rh1. >> i mean under the planning code right now you can legalize one of the units. >> right so. >> so if allows if we - we

find there maybe two illegal units in a property and rather people don't have to pick and choose if we have the ability to legalize more properties that is beneficial that's the basic of that relates for more units to be legalized rather than the current limitation. >> okay >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you i'd like to ask a - i'm sorry, i didn't catch your name ann, affordable unit we lost track i'd like to go back to the what the supervisor is proposing before the staff modifications. >> okay. >> i'll ask you to help me i think we're saying cu for removal of a single-family homes it is a dr and, of course, appealed to permanent appeals with all the things that good to

dr that applies to all single-family home or on single-family homes in rh1 district. >> i believe as we presented it was all single-family homes. >> including. >> that's a distinction that's important i think your agreeing with staff that if there happened to be 2 or more units you'll have to go to the cu process on this use the dr to remove a single-family; is that correct. >> don't believe we specified this is a our intent a statement. >> you didn't deal was that this is they're making it is important complicated way with the specific situation of a home with one conforming unit that has one unwarranteunwarranted.

>> - he then i guess you agree from the unit is unsafe or the unit and the their deemed beyond affordable housing. >> correct it follows the rest of the provision. >> right which is what we do if it is not safe is can be eliminated they don't have to go through a process to eliminate something that is unsafe and then the final point the whole idea of allowing those units to

be legalized if there was an ellis acted or another no-fault eviction. >> we support that did not have our change. >> thank you very much. >> we're perfectly aligned with the recommendation except the dr. >> i'm of that thought you know, i think we've gone 360 degrees in which that makes some sense we're at odds with ourselves for years we had zoning and we had certain restrictions as to whether or not it was zoned for a single unit and that you know in the same with all the other zones and the others were discovered asked took removed and rightly in my opinion we said okay. if

there's a road to legalization from the owner is able to bring it up to a legalization we're gone to extreme the process to get rid of the unit we might not have wanted in the first place for example, in rh1 someone can buy and house and someone put in a kitchen you don't pay attention like, yeah he put it in but you don't have to use it, it's zoned rh1 and requiring the cu to get rid of of something you didn't want in the first place the same is true of a situation someone wants to enlarge their home what is of the intent to be and this innocent was not legal in the

first place they want to get rid of of it the one thing missing no attention to the neighborhood if you live in an rh1 district zoned rh1 you bought your hope e home with the idea of a single-family home district there will be expended families and maybe more traffic and cars and congestion than you've bargained for when we add those units on top of that it defies our zoning we're adding them conflict with the zone for an rh1 district that should be only one house the only difference with our idea from the district allows rh1 or rh2 and a single-family homes with the exception to the zoning i could see a case where legalizing the

unit go ahead. >> our intended is more for having a simplified and expedited process for property owners not necessarily to lower the density of rh1 neighborhoods. >> yes. okay. >> just for that clarification. >> i understand that that's my position if someone doesn't want the unit there and they cannot afford to bring it up to you know what it make it safe they should be able to get rid of it it they have a single-family that shouldn't be there in the first place that is a lower bar everyone knows we've watched it commission for a period of time you need 4 votes to disapprove and the appellant process is more severe and make 4 out 5 or 4 out of 4 to overturn the decision of the

planning commission and potentially might tend to be a little bit easier for this process to occur as a dr than a cu. >> another point i'd like 0 reiterates the appeal process knowing this is would happen in the case of one or more units in a 1235i789 appeals going to the board of supervisors is an inappropriate venue that is a push for us and also having the criteria for the commission regardless of rules of how many votes to approval and disapproval the criteria should be the same in the discussion supervisor avalos supports this change with that mentioned yeah, he completely agree with you it is overkill it is somewhat you know to try to keep

people from removing unit eve they don't want did unit one more unit is in a single-family the numbers are relatively small numbers in relationship to the entire city we have a lot of accessory units and encouraging the establishment but i think we have to error on the side of property rights and allow the owners to do what we intended and their property zoned for i'll favor the position of the supervisors thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks on the issue of dr versus cu i'm supportive of the staff's recommendation we want to commend give a couple of more thoughts on the no-fault evictions a strange pathway in i want to demolish did you, ellis

someone and get that over-the-counter that's clearly a problem i still we don't want to allow people that had a no-fault eviction to legalize their unit. >> if you could. >> if we're trying to keep the unit. >> uh-huh. >> then we need to legalize it the primary barrier as the city attorney's office is health and safety issues so if it can be legalize we should do that. >> eve no fault i think i want to bring up that i see your point of view i don't know throw the baby out with the bath water but i don't know. i think we need to have a way to curve that behavior a commissioner vice president richards said not about this piece of legislation

but enforcement and protocols but i'm grappling with that a little bit. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i appreciate this legislation and appreciate the thought point planning department put into that it is a did you see i didn't - to commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards i agree i think what is missing we don't have a way unless we you know like the minority report that movie we should know the intent so everything we're talking about is after the fact of an eviction whether a legal or not and the people can pay it off they're

not there we don't really have a way to do that we're looking at after the fact of the units is probably empty unfortunately, i see your point i'm not sure this legislation gets that what i like about the legislation and the motivations that have been suggested is that it orient us towards action the only reason we have the actions we want to direct people we want them to have units we recognize as legally okay units that's where the legislation with the administration gets us for that reason i'm supportive of it i think in terms of dr versus cu that was the most changing aspect of this legislation and weighing those options awhile i understand both sides i understand core 40 for a cu for

a small property that is overkill if you have a property that may have some opposition to that and so you're talking about definitely going to be an appeal process beyond our decision if it go forward i think cu is over kill take the supervisors 11 people's time to look at those cases and going though the process is a lot to me and on the other hand, it has a higher bar we've been talking about here we have been talking about preserving unit count and talking about you know the mayors directive is. >> couple of years old and a cu in that direction so i guess i can support of planning staffs recommendation, however, if we were to - keep

it at a dr that's how the legislation will eventually end up that's fine to support that the planning commission level we have enough policies and direction from supervisors and mayor our own history of decisions we likely take more pointed look at any project that involves the removal of units anywhere i think either way of a case coming to us will result in us taking a look at, however, i'm supportive of the staff's recommendation and hopefully that will stay that way thanks. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i'm sorry commissioner hillis. >> thanks. >> i think i'm generally of the same mind in agreement with the staff recommendation you

hear the dr process versus the cu process for kind of a single pertaining to make that less bumgarner and going to the board of supervisors but i think the thing we're not changing this is troubling your offer arching requirements dr versus cu and the dr is necessary and desirable and the dr is exceptional or extraordinary those don't change when you talk about supervisor avalos was supportive of the conditions change it is not those. >> on 317 there are contrary that you consider outlined in the conditional use process the 40 criteria those remain with the dr process with the cu and the dr the main derivatives for cu for you to take an action for

them to have the units removed you'll have to take an affirmative vote where the dr is generally approved it is principally loud but you have to have the exceptional or extraordinary to approve it so that's the main difference but the criteria will retain e remain the same that's why i lien towards the cu i i get it i don't think going to the board of appeals or the board a huge difference from a policy stand point when i sat on is permanence appeals before the dr arrest fee requirement the appeals were not approved they'd try to work to get those units

maintained but it is still important so i agree with staffs recommendation number one and two make sense to do more than allow legalization of units more than one units per lot my question on 4 is expanding those two comments to all other zones if you're in the zoning district like an rh2 or rh3 that allows for two or three units on this one i wouldn't mind seeing number 4. >> the exceptions applied if you're taking advantage if you're building a single-family home in an. >> i understand the idea we

want people to be incentivised to maximize the density we can add that. >> i'll end up in the previous round the current law the findings into the demolition that if you're maximum missing the density that's one of the finding that's in there it is there for your consideration. >> if you have angle demonstratively unaffordable home and want to determine 0 it could you, you're going do build a bigger home co-pay could you do that without. >> cu in rh3 district. >> as currently maybe in the recommendations in order to avail yourself you have to maximize the density but certainly that was not in alignment but to avail yourself

of the exemption around other than an rh1 you have to maximum misses the density. >> i want to make that clear in 4 and 5 i i get it staff's recommendation a question if you a person living in a single-family home with an illegal unit does an ellis act to evacuate the tenants in the illegal unit they couldn't legalize it it. >> their incentive toe get rid of the unit that's a vehicle to get rid of the unit. >> correct. >> but if at the come back with the units are they prohibited from - the fact they ellis acted. >> the proposed legislation that comes to you in a week there is also a prohibition if

you're done on eviction you can't add an adu. >> i want to make that clear you know you see someone wanted to get rid of of a unit they ellis acted and not legalize and come back and add a unit under the other adu provisions i don't know if if that is possible but we should prohibit that kind of way of adding a unit and ellis acting i'm generally in support of staffs recommends with that caveat to moment misses beyond the rh1 district to take advantage of the exemptions. >> there 5 an attempt to

explain previously this legalization program a volunteery and a way to protect the tenants to put this prohibition but now after voluntary you remove the unit so we have a better way of protecting the tenants and this prohibition gets in the way of protecting the tenants so that's another perspective to look at it. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess i'd like to tease number 42, 3, 4 maximum density i see district 8 all the this sufficient is happening and you have a 7 thousand square feet home with a second unit for the girl or conglomerate waits itself minimum on a second unit

if you go ahead and say let's see administratively approve it and now for project sponsors they have to come here i see the replacement project to see what that looks like we can smoke out those units what's the planning code say with the relationship of the two unit if we allow it to be approved administratively a 8 hundred square feet unit what's the law require. >> it would not have a standard i think that is an excellent point the idea we wanted to facilitate a project for people to maximum misses the density and maybe that make sense in the case of a building unsound you can't get out of the process that is a preserve but i

concernly understand you're seeing the replacement and make those on the quality of those units that's a good point. >> sir anything else. >> i think this legislation was intended as best i understand to deal with issues of affordability and financial situations for small property owners is not the place to have this very, very important discussion made by you on concerning the rh2 areas be becoming like an rh1 if it is just over the number i know that a dangerous dangerous thing i think as i maybe not emphasis enough you know, i

think that is important legislation i think you should pass it but this administration is stuck in there you're fine quite frankly if i take the time to read the whole thing not in the small thing i no idea but i think you should wait until ms. mohan is finished with her work and understand 317 it is a complicate piece of history. >> on number 4 we've had 10 years of section 317 not the same as rhd and i agree with ms. swedish give it 6 months to harmonize that it make sense i'm for process standardization but this needs more light i'll move to approve staffs recommendations number one, 2,

3, i'd like to defer back to staff and ms. mohan an number 4 and come back with 317 is revised later in the year i recommend number 5 i understand that is kind of bizarre i want to add 5 we recommend to the board of supervisors some type of on enforcement mechanism department that actually goes and insures that no-fault evictions were good faith what that looks like we don't have an intention people are trying to rent them out at market-rate that's my motion. >> i'll second that was editorial that there's no good faith and no fault. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm opposed to the motion they said earlier and support of supervisors original legislation that was carefully

crafted with the members of the board and have a question for mr. sanchez generally it's been my experience when someone has a property and is doing things to make that more conform than the city and planning department is in support of that action so if someone has a single-family home that has an additional unit less conforming is two units and a single rh how to have a policy that encourages people to make it less conform they're trying to make that more conforming by removing the unit how do we work together. >> we have to look at everybody and the general plan calls for maintaining as much at affordable housing and the city developed we've decreased the density we'll find a lot of properties not conforming with

the units in rh1 and rh3 and so i think we have to look at the overarching of protecting affordable housing and in addition to the fact that the code priorities e provides a mechanism for legalizing those that is a code compliant option accident cod provides a mechanism to legalize those units that's what we're trying to seek. >> i understand what you're saying i'm talking about single-family homes in rh1 neighborhood that are entirely rh1 and it seems to me i know the areas have cc&rs those cc&rs will take precedent over the city's ability to try to legalize units maintenance. >> the cc&rs are private agreement and the city and enforce those that is a matter between the cc&rs are holder this cod legalize the unit that

is about having requiring someone to go through the cod process to legalize the unit. >> why not a new zoning for the rh1 we feel would be appropriate to have additional united awhile certain areas let's see for example, rh1 detached are not allowed it is consistent to rezone and selectively rather than a blanket allowance in any rh1 areas the code allows this in the rh1 zoning district currently and allows for the legalization. >> just a rhetorical question and look at it staifl to maximize the second units as much as possible. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i'll say a couple of things to

commissioner antonini's comments i think what kind of action do we want to incentivize to we've been generally taking we want to incentivize the units count and adding to it where possible and obviously when things are in our purview through different case actions that's the director we want to push for on commissioner christensen's action i'm a little bit confused that was supervisor legislation when you were saying hold back some modifications until later this case file going forward so i think we need to recommend - and i think hose recommending not to move forward with one of the staff represents but moved with one of the four; right? >> i see. >> so a time you wrap up in the overhead changes.

>> review that idea again with other piece of legislation in front of the us. >> it has merit makes sure it fits. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> sum up before we take the vote it is to preserve housing nottology make it easier to demolish the cd r process for the small property owners it less expensive and takes the same time for us as commissioner that creates a lower bar to demolish housing with the dr the zoning administrator said than the cu that's the rub that's why i strongly support this legislation and the recommendations and to commissioner hillis whether it is appealed to the board or this board of appeals is not any concern i watched did board of supervisors they went through 45 items in two hours i think they could figure out somehow to

streamline those flood their dockets. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the recommendation for approval with staff modifications removing the fourth modifications and adding to the 5 force the naushths be endorsed. >> commissioner antonini. >> no commissioner bobby wilson commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to zone with commissioner antonini voting against. >> commission will take a short

>> good afternoon welcome back to the san francisco planning commission this is the regular meeting of the thursday, june 9, disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. as he is mention during the

break if you can't find a seat you can't stay from the room many are here for the draft for ivan we'll have 45 minutes there is an overflow room in the light chamber you can still watch and listen to those procedures commissioners, we left off own item 7 ab on bush street you'll consider a conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. >> good afternoon, commissioners across the city may of planning department staff you until the time you a request for conditional use authorization to have a

previously approved project for an automotive doing business as city rents a car and construct a mixed use building with 47 dwelling units within the rc-4 the van ness special use district and the one hundred and height and bulk district foresight within the rc district states points conditional use authorization is required to constrict a structure greater than 50 feet in height the planning commission approved a similar project on may in 2014 the former proposal that is on the end of the packet proposed to demolish the building and construct the one hundred and 15, 10 story mixed use building with 32 dwelling units and 26 remain bicycles and a ground

floor commercial space 3 existing curve cuts on, on bush street and 2 on fern street will provide assess to the residential practicing and serve the rental use on the site the current project coincidence 32 one bedrooms and 14 two bedrooms and 2 three bedrooms the bedrooms are from 6 hundred and 10 to 18 hundred and thirty square feet it is 40 blow street parking garage on curve street on bush and another street will be removed class 1 bike parking spaces are provided and secured area and on the ground floor and four class 2 bike parking spaces will be provided outside along bush and fern street two ground floor commercial

space 11 hundred plus square feet the current project in both architecture vocabulary and massing 2 feet telethon with one additional story and represents an improvement over the that provides an additional 15 dwelling units 3 additional affordable units and off-street parking and 3 sorry 36 additional bilks space and contains on active use on the front and the previously approved are only commercial parking on this frontage commissioners since the publication developments to the city's affordable housing program and there are additional conditions relate to the controls requested by the entertainment commission i've received additional public comment on at this time, i'd

like to give those materials to you as i continue my presentation here. >> here we go. >> as you're aware since the publication of the staff report there have been changes to 9 affordable housing policies just this past tuesday an june 7th san francisco voters approved proposition c that adds to the below-market-rate housing more new units with 25 units or more once the election is certified the project sponsor submitted their application prior to january 12, 2016, the amount of onsite affordable units is expected to increase from 12 percent to 14 and a half percent with one additional affordable unit the draft months ago and conditions to approve to

capture overseeing changes and make sure it complies with the requirements additionally on june 7th the project sponsor ended to hearing with the entertainment commission it is required because the subject proximate cause is near structures in addition to the noise continuation conditions for chapter one 16 are already constituent as conditions of the approval in the draft motion the entertainment commission has provided additional site specific recommendations and ask the planning commission adopt them with the standard conditions finally since the publication of staff report the difficult receives public comment from the representatives the lower polk and middle polk association which have both expressed concerns with the active uses along the third street frontage

and other urban design issues staff received one e-mail from a member of the public when asked whether the amount of partnering will be sufficient for the number of parking unit the department continues to recommend you approve it with the modified language pertaining to the affordable housing project owe the entertainment commission the department supports the project that the project represents a sensitive redevelopment and encroachment over the project it that able to provide additional dwelling units and 25 fewer off-street parking and 36 additional bike sparks and curve cuts that reduces pedestrian and vehicular conflicts on both streets the project is in general compliance with all applicable

rules and say all lulz in greater than conformity that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you project sponsor. >> didn't know commissioners my name is nick a project manager with j ed sullivan the planning commission approved the conditional use authorization for the this on bush street to construct one hundred and 15 foot, 10 story 32 dwelling units and empowering commercial space for the automobile facilities as you can see 3 curve cuts to the parking on the basement, ground floor and second floor and nearly 1/3rd of the area is designated for residential and

when he inherited the project we explored opportunity to look at the entitlements and looking to increase the united count and decrease the parking but our opposed are limited we're only permitted a 5 percent increase in the units and explored and removing the second floor parking garage with the units not feasible the amended project that you'll reviewing is one hundred and 17 feet, 11 stories 47 units with a 47 percent in the number of units for the existing entitlements for a total the project also has 32 fewer parking spaces and one curve cut by limiting this to those the same envelope we were able to leverage the studies we firmly believe that is a great

improvement over the projected unfortunately on this recently, we became aware of lower polk neighbors alley project two invitations were sent to two addresses on file with the planning department the middle polk neighbors were invited and 23 other organizations and 43 pertains we meet with the polk owners and prepared an additional ground floor plan we believe this is a better - better achieves planning department as the variance is not required for the active uses and meets the activation with front street with the retail you'll hear from the middle and lower polk folks they want to ask for equivocation activation on third street we believe the ground floor plan addresses the second

is appeared nested bedrooms in one stack of units our presentation today will demonstrate those units comply with the planning code and planning code as sufficient access to light and air i'd like to introduce and then the designer the project he oversee the in house design team and the name is from the idea we're the makers and crafters of building and permitting operate on fillmore street he has concrete analysis and then designed the project in soma and was for 9 years before establish his or his on business and in the california of the arts and the group internationally 3 architecture firm has went are or worked on the project architect have the

record. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is and then part of j ed sullivan the main designer walk us through. >> louder. >> walk you through the design process and the forefront challenges that we have to deal with how to recognize the perimeters and envelope that the approved project set up and architecturally how the because of building that happening half the building was defined in the approved scheme and also the ends on two sides of the site how their defined and as part of next step on the second diagram which then allows us to begin

wrapping our hands around this diagram in reducing the height of the base still registering the base and recognizing the central bay how to better register that in our articulate on the third step the design process is then how we can dematerialize lists the bay in the scheme and what i mean by materialings this further translate into the glass bay in the middle and on the two edges of the building to further manipulate the massing to create more of a formal articulation

this the summer of floor plans and the final design so the ground floor on the lower left we enter into through bush street into right into an entry garden and at the residential lobby at the center and then with one commercial space on either side of the building one facing bush the other facing sutter street and we also kept the original organization by having two units facing bush street and 3 units facing fern at the story 11 and it is where the two or three bedroom units are and then we finish with the common roof deck at the roof level so and this is the typical floor plan i want to walk through the

commissioners through in terms of the architecture of the building one of the things to develop two courtyards light court that opens to the sky and one of them stops at the second level on behalf of the parking what that allows us to do is to reorganize and re-examine how the units can be better laid out in this confined perimeters in the city so i want to direct your attention to a basically comparison facing the two plans i think the very first rule that we established for ourselves how we can first preserve the 40 feet long light court that was

previously approved and that being said with the light court offset to the east i myself set the question if that is the best way to desecond the site so i'm only getting sunlight in half the bay it creates a blank wall facing van ness and recognizing that bush street is a one way traffic to right then and there we started to begin to dissect this to begin to re-examine the value of this molt like open catwalk that bypasses all the living units and the bedroom

units versus in our scheme whereby centering the circulation core the catwalk of the open walkway can be centralized bypasses that condition and just to clarify with the one bedroom units right at the end of the core i want to do clarify on the drawing there are windows above this wall it allows for light to enter into this bedroom and fresh air with mechanically supplied as far as the articulation we are landmarked as cladding system with various layers of reveals and how we can eliminate the scale of the fourth by 8 footed

panel that of the murdering and budding them to create a large feel. >> excuse me - do you have much more to go. >> two. >> okay. >> lastly is the last few points the facade materials we're looking replicates the look of a plaster finish and one of the recent projects only sutter street we used a brick facade that we have experienced and cladding material so he last but not least we have referenced more of recent approved projects with a more contemporary touch similar to what we went after

i believe that it is our take on tearing the language of the neighborhood and not proposing a contemporary building i'll leave the end of the presentation into the issue of the front active uses through so this is the proposed empowering plan you guys are reviewing and since we got in touch with m t m what we- the proposed design we're promising to carry across to achieve that 2/3rd's of active frontage by removing the transform back to bush a lot of uncertainty there in terms of how long it will take to make that happen you're seeing 65

percent of transparency. >> thank you i'm sure there will be questions. >> opening up for public comment two cards (calling names). >> please. thank you, thank you commissioners honorable commissioner across the city lower polk reps the lower polk neighbors thank you for your time and you've received by e-mail thank you christopher's i want to address the late engagement we submitted i note in the letter not at fault in terms of single letter that was sent to the p.o. box clerical

errors was an error we submitted the wrong there was one-digit wrong in the p.o. box on our end they sent that, however, we're it is a shadow organization the project went through a number of meetings with us with the prior project sponsor we worked with jed southern california have an they've referenced 1080 sutter street and liked to seen more outreach we met and submitted in our letter we would like your goal we submitted the letter to have a resolution from the commission today that will direct staff to see the frontage after the meeting yesterday we really feel a continuance it necessary i'll outline why the after meeting last night we outlined i believe a number of additional issues where the project i want to recognize we

firmly believe that project is going in the right direction i want to acknowledge that, however, there is parking issues that is significantly reduces from the 20 or thirty down to 5 the appropriate number it zero i don't know the answer it was game 3 of the nba finals yesterday it was limited we like more folks and our general meetings we like to have a few more people two or three weeks was was not enough time those are great views only one view right there too many questions i hope your commission will entertain a continuance i want to acknowledge j sullivan son it is in the right direction 3

minutes go fast. >> you have 30 seconds. >> oh, i'm done. >> that's the first chime our thirty second warning. >> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is kim been a neighbor are moved in the neighborhood of lower polk for the last 13 years and been on a member of the lower polk neighbors for the past almost 10 years and here in support of position of the lower polk neighbors and ask for a continuance on this project the developers is coming to our neighborhood meetings multiple times before the commission and saw the presentation last night through are a lot of thing things in the air and like to

see more refinements and figure out how they'll help to activate fern alley that sums that up thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> sir. >> good afternoon major neil i'm here as chair of the middle polk neighborhood association and speaking on behalf of the morgan the chair of the chair that couldn't join us today j sullivan have great guys done great work and unfortunately, we met them yesterday we think that is not a model for outreach they sent a postcard to my predecessor don and i assured them i was not aware of the postcard but bottom line that's not how you get a project built

and approved in san francisco you should be contacting the supervisor officer who are the 15 people i need to discuss this project and reaching out to as many people as possible i was here briefly so is a couple of words on poorhouse the owner of the bar was impractical asking everyone to support him with that said we've submitted and looked at it this quickly we tried to submit feedback if we take a step back to the previous project that came before this commission basically, the whole thing needs to be blown-up and redesigned and all 3 community groups worked together to bring back another project approved by the commission that project will not get built and sure enough sold those guys are trying to build a

great project but we have design and parking concerns and issues with dpw and the planning department on moving the transforms but many, many issues we would like to have those guys at our middle polk association meeting and introduce their project to our neighbors and discuss it we want to be able to come up and say we support this project and more housing francisco. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> >> next speaker, please. >> mr. pool. >> can i have the overhead please. i'll try to speak over the report card we submitted and hopefully it is legible. >> first of all, rob poole/san francisco housing action coalition. speaking on behalf of the three

hundred members and thank you for the opportunity so the members reviewed this project and the site is underutilized it is an improvement from the original plan an entitlement no 2014 significantly more units more bmr's their oust and we value and makes project better ones through the community input and something we currently on all that present with the issues coming brother you on the design and parking a lot of these r added if you were to support the project and approve it on fern alley the project sponsor has activated bush and fern alley and if there was more that can be done to fern alley we

currently it to work with the middle polk neighborhood successors with the design it is improved moving the building to the center was certainly an improvement the lower car parking ratio is great as a result more units and less car parking spaces i'll be concerned that delaying the project i don't want to put us in a position the project is clearly on improvement and things that the neighborhood wants to workout with the developer we certainly encourage that to happen and maybe it can happen razors of continuance or not and the bottom is fine it is a good project with the good use of land and dense building and

encourage you to support that thank you for your time. >> if you don't mind hand that in as part of record. >> sorry. >> hand that in as part of record. >> sorry. >> it's in your packet. >> i don't see it for some reason any additional commenters seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i'd like to bring the project into context how it was approved i appreciate the discussion on expanded architecture that's not really was it commission does it's primary responsibility the project that was approved that was the sexuality ration of the project that came before this commission in 2013 and it was sent back partially because of the fact that the -

this creating a proper core and avoiding substandard lightwell type of opposing rather than the code compliant courtyard the issue we have the project that has an alley on one side and a street on the on that creates different conditions from what we normally have when that comes to code required open space in order to avoids open gallery corridors which are remnant of subsidize housing of the 50s and 60s not confront in san francisco it is mighty and coming from the lobby and going through the rain this raised a question the commission sent it

back in 9 to 5 and it took a long time with the proper units this project i'm not talking about the previous architecture there 0 would have been improvements but this project is coming back the site as sold a nice and scheme how it need to come back and pencil out what this project does in a 50 foot height zone in order to get the required or projected stories there is a cu which may estimates this project necessary and desirable that's a very high bar so when somebody comes and makes a statement they're at 15 units now it is 17 want 5 units

but not closer that did of the units are nested units without access to outdoor light and air i believe that those 9 units are not quite meeting the exceptions that i have by providing equitable units below-market-rate or not to the market has this is in my opinion but the units facing the alley are 9 nestled unit not meeting the expectation on a new building on which the units can be properly schneider and here comes my biggest consideration a moment not comment on parking their pros and cons for or against parking we're next to be

built van ness brt we have a polk street bus and cable cars and west and east and north and south that is highly connected but i'll set the distribution on pros and cons for parking aside what bothers me the messing floor at the height of the building didn't assign clearly explained use inform this particular project i directing your attention to a want 1. 1 and want 1.1 a no explanation those have been assigned or labeled being mechanical spaces, however, the project provides mechanical roof deck equipment unfortunately in the wrong part

of roof we encourage the developers to move mechanical equipment with elevator housing, etc. here having mechanical equipment on the interior courts on the exterior corners of the building on the north, west and southeast corner not exactly where we wanted particularly when we wanted rooftop issues on the top floor that are questionable when this building tries to have height it can provide use for expensive units in the corridor that is primarily in a neighborhood of middle-income houses so i'm showing serious challenges not pushed under the carpet we heard a nice discussion on earth that's not the discussion this is the frosting on the cake as

far as the west wall trying to rebutting the commissions decision to send the project back fully complying courtyard the west wall is a property line wall in the future the jane building could be developed as at all as the building considered no right for any kind of grand treatment except for the time that the next door neighbor is not trying to build a taller building number one nothing about that particular wall so i can't take that has the greatest evolution of a project design but i need to direct our attention to where that matters how do we get additional units i'd like to have the commission consider not providing block or retail but using proper evaluation of the sidewalks

including the still not determined mesna for the proposed height that is one way of getting unit count but getting away from the nestled units and moving to the previous approval with the properly designed courtyard we can probably get unit for perhaps one or two require an exception for lighting so i actually will suggest that we continue the project i think the projects has a lot of promise and in the hands of good architects i want to see the questions the broader questions to be asked and reconsidered what we decides previously. >> is that a motion. >> that's a motion. >> second. >> please. thank you pursue for your comments exposure very good

comments. >> i'm sorry to trumpet you could members of the public please turn off our mobile devices it extremely disruptive during those procedures. >> we appreciate the involvement of the lower polk neighbors working together with them is productive and we've been able to provide further activation to fern alley as they requested the interests are completely aligned in terms of building on the project today what the commission is voting on this project versus the already approved project in 2014 we have contractual obligations and timing issues so we're not in the position to be able to come back so it is really one project versus the other, of course, we're willing toe with work the staff should there be a request to do so we'll not able to continue it we have no ability

to do that. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i agree with a number of the things that ever brought up by commissioner moore and while i feel this is an improvement over the 'coz a project we approved two years ago i remember the discussion and the fact that we sent that one back for design changes and of it's necessary it is necessary i'm a little bit concerned about some of the things she's raised i understand project sponsor is willing to work on activating fern alley a neighborhood issue moving the some of the supportive mechanical material off of fern and into bush that

helps a little bit but i think you know some of the questions as to the bedrooms, endorses and other things might need to be redrawn and also i have concerns about design which i think are important because this is a really large building awhile only 3 feet larger it appears a lot bigger it is monolithic in its design we have you know solid elements and glassed elements sort of mass of both of them but not much articulation between the two of them and the previous project had more articulation and had some bays and should feeling of an appearance of being a little bit shorn it is and the other thing i suggested to the architect i'd like to see some clues from the

building to the east the one to the west i mean those are more traditional kind of buildings this is sort of has no distinctive areas regardless of the ground floor if so retail or become housing as commissioner moore talked about i mean, the higher ground floor is fine i think this is 15 feet but some sort of break between the two areas before you go into the rest of the body of the project i mean typically if you look at to the east as you can see go there are distinctive breaks with arched windows that occur on the in the right direction and as they move forward they begin a different pattern and they almost all have the punched windows rather than a solid area of windows and small windows that look at afterthoughts i

think some kind of harmony between a mariah stucco makes the buildings look lessen reduce you need the separation between the first floor and the third floor fairly significant separation you need some kind of finish line or cornice at the top of the building and if you continue with this smaller windows or whatever windows you have probable needs moldinging to make them look like they belong on the street those are architecture suggestions i have and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say i remember i'm not sure we can make those changes not just the design changes but the changes in the things that were concerning to commissioner moore to be able to approve it today i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> thank you.

>> one question for project sponsor to jed folks the on the projects obtain valencia you posted several to the commissioners, i legend over and asked the commissioners did they hear from they hadn't what's the difference i think i heard from mr. silverman two days ago can you help me out. >> i can you guys are busy so we wait until you received the packet and on monday we split up the commissioners and so david silverman reached you did out to you and i spoke about commissioner antonini. >> great. >> mr. silverman and i were on the phoney have the history the project sounds good but i think that commissioner moore thought

of many, many points that need to be flushed out maybe not just the design champ but i think that commissioner antonini is elseed those concerns the project needs some differentiation it looks like i hate to say the word reptile with scales it looks like that to me something different on there and commissioner moore. >> that's a good joke i like your joke. >> i was serious mr. silverman our firm represents the largest variety of the developers large or small you stand in front of us trying to pressure us to prevent us surprise me i don't think you'll

lead your clients into the bind that a project can be disapproved the fact the project was previously a approved if you can come back on the same premise and paying attention to those things that matter to the commission that's one thing this project tries to invert principles we look at projects and again, i emphasis looking at architecture is the third or fourth important thing we love architecture but not a deterrent the people - that doesn't have bearing on the decision i'm asking you why are you putting perturb or pressure that the deal needs to be made we're in the middle of preventing you from doing that, please explain that our comments were not intended

to do that i was explaining the facts of the case and few took offense i'm sorry. >> we worked with you literally on many, many complicated situations their complicate i'd like to remind out of us of ocean center we worked with all of you this project comes back the commission spent a full year given the map and the ability for the second bite and then comes back and basically as nothing said that's a surprise to me in the disclosure of how this project was moved over i'm sure there must have of must have been some reflective how to this project was brought forward that raises a significant question the planners or the previous owner of the property is an immigrant family that

loved one obviously on us to approve a bigger building with a conditional use he basically was going to inherit this live work to emphasized sons including the somewhat unusual modifications remaining a car rental we're not meeting today is code with the parking street side i think the zoning administrator will remember we all went for it we did this to come back in this form i ask that that secretary calls the question i want this project to be continued it needs to come back in a different form and needs some work. >> i'll give the other commissioners a chance to understand what date. >> i'll suggest july 14th from

the project sponsor makes that work the motion to continue to july 14th commissioner wu. >> i think i've heard some of the issues and can be up to the teem whether they want to take it forward or not from the community questions about fern and kwachgsz activation and maybe some questions about parking i heard a mix of hands commissioner moore is it correct to say your concerns were one about the nestled bedrooms that leads to questions how to accommodate that number of additional unit without nestled bedrooms and maybe the mesna and on the corridor concerns about having a corner that is open or not as protective of a rent-controlled place is that accurate. >> the barbells that is used

basically has done to avoid to basically get around the stair sprapgsz relative to fire escapes and stairs, however, as a course of simple miscellaneous you can have - you have, stairs in the right location and add a number of units depending on how you size them with a provision we'll consider the expiration of not forcing the ground floor to be retail for which i don't think there is a mandatory - what additional units can be and on the fern street does it say,

i mentioned as drawn will not work the fern street side configuration shows two planters on a substandard sidewalk were there can be no planters not even announce the retail properly if you would leave it and not change it based on the 25 foot setback another comment with moving the transform like lyndon and blue bottle you sand indeed in the retail space with room for people to stand in the alley so it is a bunch of the two weeks and things i think we've spent a lot of time to set it up for thoughtful design. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> i applaud the fact you've been able to provide an additional 15 units above what

was the case in the earlier plan, however, if it turn out that you have to have a couple of fewer units to make the design not design but the structural changes that were poling by commissioner moore and others it still you know is a considerable improvement over a number of units over the original project and you know things have to be right novice to have more units but if it didn't workout in terms of the the elements we've talked about has to be put together in the right manner and talk with the neighborhood and make sure there are no other issues we know about the fern issues and he mechanical roof and talked about the park it is very severe cit into the composition for more available parking those are for sale units you have to work out that with them i'll be

fine with the lower parking ratio so some of the things by the need to look at in the intern between 9 next hearing. >> seeing no other commissioners on the roll. >> commissioners commissioner antonini. >> 21st and july 14th. >> i won't - >> thank you july 14th. >> on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner wu commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards that motion carries unanimously 6 to zero commissioners and is variance continued to the same date. >> thank you zoning administrator

commissioners, that places you under your your discretionary review calendar for item 8. >> case no. 2015 plus north point street request for a discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners from planning department staff the item before you a public initiated two public initiated case four discretionary review on north point street and an rh3 zoning district with 3 thousand plus square feet on a lot with a width of 25 feet and depth of would have had 37 feet plus constructed if 1939 and a reeshgd of '75 feet that includes a one story horizon

that other side 13 feet of feet to the exist building a fourth story setback 15 feet from the wall bringing the total height of the wall to 40 feet and interior alterations during the neighborhood notification period both adjacent neighbors request for a conditional use authorization both concerns relative to the privacy and the mapping to sunlight and is inconsistent with the neighborhood visible character this report the department got one letter in opposition i'll distributed at the end of my presentation this letter is relative to light and privacy the neighbors included in your packet won't be able to attend and wish to it rate their opposition ander