6-month update that will be fully noticed as a potential revocation action or amendment, amending previous approval. >> commissioner fong: aye. >> commissioner johnson: aye. >> commissioner moore: no. >> commissioner melger: no. >> president hillis: aye. >> so moved. the commission passes, with melgar and moore voting against. that places us on item 13 for commerce and industry inventory for 2016. this is also an informational presentation.

>> good afternoon. i'm paulo ikezoe. and today i will give you a brief presentation with some background and a few highlights on the 2016 commerce and industry inventory and then i will be available for any questions or comments. so just as a reminder, this is the commerce and industry annual report combining information from a variety of internal and external data sources. in addition to compiling an

annual snapshot, the data we compile every year should serve as a background for updating the commerce and industry element of our general plans. 2016 was the sixth consecutive year of job growth in san francisco and it's estimated that we had over 703,000 jobs in the city at the end of 2016, which is a new record. the city added just under 29,000 jobs in 2016. over the past decade, we've added almost 150,000 jobs. unemployment has continued to fall to 3.3% in the city. as you can see, the city continues to outperform the region, the state and the nation on unemployment. employment has grown across all sectors of the economy, with the notable exception of hotels.

as you mentioned, construction jobs did grow from a low of 13,860 in 2011, which was the low, lowest point of the economy, to over 20,000 in 2016. so they're back to the highs that they were prerecession. and construction jobs do, in fact, make up one of the largest proportions of pdr jobs in the city. average wage citywide is $101,640, and has grown consistently 7 the last decade. average wage is probably not the most outful metric. one of the reasons it's not the best is it concealed the discrepancy between a retail wage, which is under $40,000, and average office wage, which is now over $150,000.

the inventory tracks building activity, measured by the number and construction value reported by our building permits. we saw a slight decline, down to 28,750. however the total construction value of the permits grew by 11% to $6.5 billion. bringing you now into 2016, right as we're ready to head to 2018, the latest estimates on unemployment in san francisco show an incredibly low 2.7% unemployment. believe it or not, there are two counties that have even lower unemployment, and those are our neighbors, san matao and marin. the report and data is available on our website and at dsf.org. with that, i'm happy to take any

comments or questions after public comment. thank you. >> we'll open this item up for public comment. any public comment? seeing none, commissioners? no questions. thank you for the report. sorry, commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: really quickly. as usual, the mandated reports are helpful to us as we think about the overall context of the work we do. it's notable the significant increase in construction activity in the city. people thought they saw -- they have seen cranes for years, but apparently there's more of them. it's interesting that we continue to see that, but there's talk that it may not last forever, but as we talk about our city budget and how we'll maintain the level of prosperity that we're seeing and making sure that it's more

equitably distributed. it talks about sub regions and neighborhoods, so that number is not universal. and it's not universal either across neighborhoods or industries. so i just wanted to say, thank you for the report. i hope that everyone gets a chance to download the entire 127 pages and take a look at it. it's fascinating. thanks again to the data team. >> thank you. >> one of the reasons this is useful is that we constantly need -- we're constantly looking for specific elements of data throughout the year in our work and getting questions about unemployment, jobs and where they are and it's helpful. i find striking the fact that we're over 700,000 jobs in the city. and also the increase in value in building and land use permits, the value was

quadrupled in eight years, which is pretty extraordinary. that number is an amazing figure. and it's a real indication of changing patterns about where people are planning to live and invest and choosing to locate. so that's an interesting stat to me. >> thank you. commissioners, if there is nothing further, we can move on to item 14, 2014, 1459cua, 214 states street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening. jeff horn, planning department staff, presenting case 2014,

1459cua, 214 states street. this is to allow the legalization of work completed and to allow the tauntment to demolition of an existing two-store single-family home and an addition of the ground floor garage, front entrance, horizontal rear addition and three new roof dormers and enclosing two front decks to create bay windows. and to accommodate the proposed ground floor garage, expanded first floor and retaining walls to increase the patio. the proposal will increase the 1,635 square feet by 1,214, for a total side of 2,849 square feet. the project requires conditional use authorization because it

will result in the removal of vertical and horizontal elements as in sections 317. in 2014, the project sponsor was issued the first in a series of over the counter building permits to resolve complaints and notices of violation, some of which predated the ownership's sponsorship of the property. it includes facade altercations, enclosing the balconies, relocating, adding dormers and a roof deck. and relocating what permits and plans have labeled a garage. the plans didn't exist at the time of the permits. it was shown on the plans

provided. several complaints were filed for working done beyond the scope of permit. on december 29, 2014, it was open without 311 notification. permits suspended and construction activities have ceased since the complaints, though showing of the building has been allowed. to correct the violations, the project sponsor submitted a building permit for expanded work. the project was scheduled for a planning commission hearing in february, 2017. the mdr was submitted by the sponsor because the sponsor declined to alter the proposal in a manner requested by planning staff. the department determined that the proposal conflicted with the guide lines and condition concluded that the building

should maintain a raised entrance and stairs. in review of the conditional use application, the department supports the facade. it's in the review of the mandatory and public dr that staff determined the staff exceeded the thresholds of 317 and required the conditional use application another condition that arose, a newly built retaining wall encroaches to the property on the northwest. the department considers the resolution of this issue to be a private matter. since december 7, publishing of the case report, planning department has received 12 letters and emails in support.

i provided copies of 11, that i had early enough to print. in seeking conditional use operation, the project add a second dwelling unit to maximize the density of the sites. the modified project with two units would meet criteria q of the residential demolition, asking whether or not the replacement project would maximize density. the project would need to be designed in the manner that both units would meet building code requirements. with that said, the department finds the project with modifications to be necessary and compatible. the project will increase the number of units from 1 to 2 and maximize the density allowed. the density and scale is in keeping with the neighborhood

pattern. no tenants will be displaced as a result of the project. and though the structure over 50 years old, it is not historic. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. project sponsor? welcome. you have 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. todd mavis, project sponsor. the planning department and some of our neighbors want us to replace our single-family home at 214 state street as a two-unit building. we would like to make clear for us in our opinion it's not fair or reasonable to make this request and we would like to

illicit three main reasons as to why we don't think this is feasible to convert 214 state street from a single-family home to two units. first, it's economically not feasible to do this. i'd like to stress that we cannot afford to build two units out of our home at 214 state street, two heating systems, two kitchens, two sets of utilities, two fire-prevention systems, more costly construction methods like fire doors, emergency lighting in common hallways, monthly monitoring for sprinkler systems, monitoring from the city for fire systems, etc. we cannot afford to make our home two units. second, we wouldn't be able to finish our home because i think this is what our neighbors would like us to do, go through multiple hearings, come back

again and again and again and ultimately nothing gets built. if we were forced to make our home a two-unit building, it would be, in essence, forcing us to start all over again. and that's going to take i don't know how many more months or years. we've been trying to get a permit to finish remodelling our home for three years. we can't afford to continue to pain the costs for our unfinished home. if we were asked to convert our home to two units, like i said, it would be tantamount to asking us to start this process over again. and also it would delay us so consiberably, i'm not sure what we'll do. the second point i would like to stress is that fees -- feasible

to meet the requirements for open space, for example, and two-car parking. if we had two units, we would have to have two parking spaces. each space would have to have its own dedicated, private open space. it's not feasible to meet the building code requirements for light, air, and 10% of the floor area or 12 square feet of windows are required. and keep in mind, our lot is unique. most of the second floor is still below grade. so the ground floor is built into the hillside. the second floor is also built into the hillside. and once you get to the third floor, three sides are still covered by most of the hillside because it's that steep. you either have the building next to us or the back of the lot, it's abutting the back of the building.

so you have extremely limited opportunity to put in windows. also, in order to make a two-unit building feasible you need two ways out of the building, second egress and be required to add stairs. and because the stairs would have to meet the requirements, we would have to have landings at every 12 feet. so we would be left with two units that are extremely small and not able to get two bedrooms in each unit. further more, i would like to talk about fairness. we about the our home in 2013

because we wanted to live in a single-family home. it was marketed and sold to us as a single-family home. in 2014, based on a false accusation, the building department asked us to stop work and let them research whether or not it was a single-family home. after six months, they did a lot of research and confirmed that it was, indeed, a single-family home. we admit that mistakes were made by our prior contractors and architects, who signed and stamped our drawings as accurate. as owners, we've diligently all means available to correct the mistakes and move forward. our proposal is to keep the building as we bought it, a single-family home. right-sized, for one family. we're actually reducing the footprint of our building by approximately 100 square feet. and we're adding about 700

square feet of habitable space by adding dormers to get a little third bedroom and through excavation. the original building only had two legal bedrooms. the total habitable square footage is only about 2,000 square feet. it's just enough in our opinion for our home, for our family. hallways, stairs, utilities for a second furnace, second water heater, all takes away space from habitable area. it's not as simple as taking the space that we have now in the building and divided it in half and saying, now you have almost 1,500 square feet for each unit. we're upgrading our home for new fire systems, installing new sprinkler systems. making many nonconforming areas conforming. in other words, we're making our home a much safer place to live

in. and finally i would like to stress that there are many other property owners that have not been forced to wait three years to get a permit or told they must live in a two-unit building with other people when they don't want or can't afford to do that. for example, at 79 craigmont avenue, they were not asked to build two units on a double-wide lot that was demolished. they were allowed to rebuild as a single-family home and they got their c.u. approved in june, 2017. they also added square footage to their building and made the footprint larger. 2178 pine street demolished the entire building except for the facade. they received a notice of violation about the time we did and yet they were allowed to rebuild as a single-family home. in other words, they were not

asked to build in the over 5,000 square feet of space they had into two units. at 24 ford street, they were cited for work beyond the permit, but both building and planning departments investigated and the new permit allowed them to change a three-unit building into a single-family with an au pair. and it's being marketed for sale right now, coming soon. sign is out front. so there two units were lost. none of the neighbors said anything about that loss to the city. that makes me turn to what the neighborhoods have written about and want. the neighbors's concerns or motivation is that they want to prevent us or anybody else building on museum way, because we're a through lot. let me clarify -- we're not

planning on building up on museum way. we don't have any plans to build up on museum way. all we want to do is finish our home and move in. many neighbors i spoke to do not want added density. the zoning administrator said that it's extremely unlikely for somebody to get a building permit to build on museum way because of variances required. some of our neighbors think that with less than 3,000 square foot is too big, but we're making the footprint smaller and the additional square footage is excavation and dormers, converting an attic. the neighbors made unreasonable demands over many, many hearings.

there could have been new buildings built on the through lots and nothing has been built. many people live right next door or across the street. many of them have taken time out of their schedule to speak to you about why it's important to be able to finish our home as a single-family home. please approve or permit for a single-family home as shown on the drawings. i appreciate your time tonight. thank you very much. >> thank you. i have a couple of speaker cards, if folks can line up on the screen side. jesse ray, bill knudsen, joe land, joseph collins, steven brown, mike schulte and joel halliwell. speak in any order. please line up on this side of the room. if you are ready, sir, go ahead. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i'm crispin hollings. i live on collingwood street. this is my neighborhood. i'm here to support the permit. normally i would favor adding a unit to a property, but in this case, i think that planning is proposing a density change mid stream. planning has allowed the property owner to make substantial progress. to add another requirement is unreasonable. i am concerned they will slow it to such an extent that not even a single unit will be built for some time. planning has for a long time discouraged me from adding a unit to the backyard cottage i live in. it has a basement that could be turned into an additional residence. it's supported by owner and neighborhood alike, but as i've been told by commissioners and staff, creation of additional

unit would require variances that would prob certainly prevent creation on that site. on state street there, if more density is the goal, a, make the decisions at the beginning, and, b, modify variance rules. i support the 214 state street project without the density modification that's been proposed mid stream by planning. thank you for your time today. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> go ahead. your time is teicking. >> i'm mike schulte. my wife and i own the house next to the subject property. i first want to direct you to section 249.77 of the corona heights large residence special use district. i will paraphrase sub section f, because it's the crux of the matter before you today. it essentially says, if you have a through lot with existing residential unit, any new residential unit should be located on the same size of the lot of the existing unit, unless it's infeasible. what the project sponsors are hoping to skirt the ordinance

getting approval for one unit now and then apply for a second unit on the opposite side of the through lot and claiming it would be infeasible to build both units on one side of the lot. i want to tell you how we got here. in may, 2014, the project sponsor submitted a permit for a foundation replacement. after witnessing significant overexcavation, i asked them to share their plans and drawings. they refused. i went down to the billing department and reviewed the plans and i discovered that the project sponsors fabricated existing conditions on their drawings, including an entire basement and garage. purportedly behind these carriage doors fabricated and installed decoratively. i made a complained to dbi and

their permits were revoked. i will finish up. in conclusion, i ask that the commission take the planning commission's recommendation and require that the project sponsors maximize the density new for two units. this can be achieved in three ways. first, project sponsors can divide the proposal now before you into two units. you have the drawings in front of you how it could be done. secondly, they could also provide a bona fide plan showing how an additional unit could easily and fees -- feasably be added to the proposal. and then they could come back with a greater two-unit plan expanded to the area and the rear of the lot. they have plans to build up top.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm joel halliwell, adjacent property owner to the east of 214 states. my partner and i have been residents since 1986. we've suffered under numerous threats, deceit and false promises from these developers who have no intention of living in this house and have told us that numerous times. our foundation has been damaged. walls bulldozed without permission or permits and bedrock removed. we believed we could eventually work it out with mr. mavis and chang to ensure the safety of our home and repair the damage to our property. we believe the most important issue today has to do with the future of our neighborhood. it's possible we may be adversely affected by an

additional unit next door, but we want to enthusiastically suppo supporting adding a second unit. the additional square footage to housing decreases affordability. 214 states was a modest size, affordable house. the sponsor's proposal would almost double its size and price. we were told by a construction foreman the developers plan to flip the house immediately and ask $4 million for the finished project. even in san francisco, this can certainly not be considered affordable. we're discouraged by the destruction of another affordable house in our neighborhood, but a feasible plan to create two units in the existing footprint is possible and preferred by everyone in our neighborhood. each unit would be over 1,500.

these two units would still be 600 square feet larger than our current 2 bedroom, 2 bathhouse. and the new configuration will result in two affordable homes as opposed to one overpriced unit. they've already illegally demolished the building's interior and made every square foot less affordable. there is only one way to mitigate that fact now, but including two smaller units. we believe the illegal work done thus far was orchestrated through a very purposeful of serial permitting compounded by grossly inaccurate plans from the beginning. please don't reward this developer for extensive illegal work or allow the affordable house with one that's

unaffordab unaffordable. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i want to introduce these letters of opposition to the development. >> just leave them right there. >> i'm rick goldman and i'm a homeowner that lives at 230 state street, a few buildings up from the project. i oppose the c.u. application and support the planning department's recommendation to incorporate a second unit. as a resident of this neighborhood, i've fought very hard with other neighbors to protect the rear yards of through lots like at 214 state street. street-facing rear yards is one of the special things in the

neighborhood. initial protections for rear yards were put in place by supervisor weiner. these controls became permanent thanks to the help of supervisor sheehy. the current cua does keep the rear yard, but it does open up the possibility to add an additional unit. by doing the development in two stages, sponsor would divert the controls to protect roads on through lots. the developer said that he has no plans to build on museum way, given the misrepresentation of the project that's already been made, saying that the house had a garage, laundry room, i don't think we can rely on the word of

the project sponsor not to be considering such an option. all of this can be avoided by adding a second unit to the project. therefore, i request the commissioners do what is in their power to ensure that the rear yard is protected in the future. i can think of two options that would be acceptable, including for the commission to reject the cu and have the sponsor work with neighbors and come back with a design for a two-unit building to maximize that density. it would preserve the street-facing rear yard and minimum construction time and impact on neighbors. or reject the c.u. and have the project sponsor come back with a design where it would be feasible to add a unit at a later date. the developer mentioned other

lots where they were able to add one unit instead of two, i don't know if they're through lots, so they may be different. that's why we're opposing just one unit on this project. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, leighs. -- please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm marianne dresner. the building that i live in, the back of the building is on state street. 5 want to support the planning department's recommendation that the project be approved with two units, rather than the single unit in this rh2 zoning district i will provide you with three reasons. first, the creation of relatively greater housing affordabili affordability. although the residential expansion threshold program has been dropped, we learned an important point from staff's work, that's the addition of square footage for existing

housing decrease affordability. thises with a modest-sized, affordable, single-family home. this would turn it into a home double its size and price. experience tells us that developers are producing large units. if we want to create housing for everyone, we have to produce housing for everyone. two units of over 1,400 square foot each will result in housing more affordable than one unit of almost 3,000 square feet. second, addressing the loss of existing affordability. and we know from the city's findings that existing housing is more affordable than new housing 0 on a per-square-foot basis. this is why so many of these

developments are being opposed. the developers of this project have illegally demolished the existing unit, and therefore, made every square foot of replaced area less affordable. there is only one way to mitigate that fact now -- by including two smaller units in the building envelope instead of one larger one. third, eliminating extensive illegal work without a permit. the illegal work was orchestrated through what appears to be a very purposeful strategy of serial permitting, compounded by inaccurate plans and false statements that were used to obtain building permits. like there was an existing garage on the property and they wanted to efrm -- expand it. there was never a garage on that property. it's an unfortunate circumstance that's become rampant throughout our city. please don't reward this

developer for illegally replacing part of a formally affordable home. don't allow the replacement with an unaffordable home. and please don't approve a speculative housing project without maximizing density and affordability today while you, the planners, have some control over the project. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? if there are others that would like to speak, line up on this side. go ahead, sir. >> hello. i think that every neighborhood in the city has to embrace the prospect of increased density, but some neighborhoods are more able to realize those goals. state street is on a narrow street with limited parking, and thus, a better place for larger units as opposed to more units. there is, more over, a dire shortage of family homes in san

francisco. 214 state street is very close to the playground at corona heights park and schools like mckinley. it's close to the diversity of the castro, but far enough away from the noise. i have lived there for 15 years. i am pretty much across the street from the proposed development. 214 state street should not be a two-unit building because it relies on a steep slope and the units would be small, dark and undesirable, with much of the rear unit below grade. that with not be livable with the desired amount of light, air, open space and parking there's a lot of opposition in my neighborhood. this is because of increased vacant properties and crime. the police had to come and remove squatters a couple of

months ago and i'm very bothered by that. we've seen the neighborhood decline because of the increased presence of homelessness. we need property owners that care about their homes and have their eyes on the streets. people should feel safe in corona heights. i question the motives for the opposition to this project. i wonder whether it's really to steer development in a certain number of units or if it's to stop development. i seep the result of the opposition to development in my neighborhood and i don't like it. there are too many vacant homes in corona heights and it's not okay. the owners of 214 state street have spent four years trying to realize their dpreereams and i k they should be able to finish the home they started in 2013 2013, a long time ago.

it's time for the owners 214 state street to get on with their home. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thank you for your time today. i want to say i'm in support of this project as a single-family unit. mr. mavis and mr. chang have purchased this some three years ago. there's every expectation to get what they paid for as any consumer. they purchased it as a single-family unit and that's what they should get. additionally, they're being asked to change it into a two-unit building on a very narrow, tight street. i can't imagine this is something that's easy or something that is in any way cheap. this is already a crowded street, lots of people

i don't think they need any additional increase in population. in all fairness to mr. chang and mr. mavis, it's been three years. for those three years it, could have been someone's home. instead, it has served no purpose to anyone in the city. so i would hope that the commission would take what i have said into consideration and give them a speedy resolution. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is erin eisenberg. i live across the street at 249 states. i want to voice my support for the proposed permit application. i've lived across the street for four years. my husband, daughter and i pass 214 states every day as we work and play in the neighborhood.

this is an area that we love. we have noticed that the site has been in limbo for nearly the entire time i've lived there. we're desperate to see the construction site become part of the home as a livable home. i've reviewed the plans and am in favor of them and would like to see the project move forward immediately. states street is plagued with several stagnated projects and it means these properties are not providing housing in the city. there are fewer eyes in the neighborhood watching for crime, vandalism and squatting, which has happened. and i'm increasingly concerned about the safety of myself and my family in corona heights, which should be a great place for people to live. so i urge you to take immediate action and let the project move forward now, so we can get

someone into that home as their home, so i can have a neighbor across the street, instead of a house with no one there. thank you. >> thank you. >> who should i give this to? >> leave it right there. >> hi. i'm a neighbor and san francisco resident and homeowner and i'm here in support of the sponsors to develop the home as a single-family home. we hear a lot about mischaracterization of individuals as developers. that may be their profession, but it's their single-family home that they plan to build as their dream home. why are we revoking the rights for them to have a home that they want to build to live in? i know kevin and todd through other means, charitable enz m--

means. they're loving, community, charitable individuals. i know them through muttville, a senior dog rescue organization. they've adopted a dog that they know for a fact that has a lot of ailments and very expensive procedures and they willingly adopt that dog and took care of it until the dog passed many years later. and i also know them through abe's lifecycle. they've raised tens of thousands of dollars for h.i.v./aids treatment and prevention. i'm here in support of todd and kevin to have this home. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i'm here for bill knudsen. i have a letter to read for someone that couldn't be here. "what i'm concerned about is the mischaracterization of todd and kevin. i cycle with them every week. i know their hearts. the fact that they keep, being referred to as developers, is wrong. they've been excited about developing this property for themselves. a place to live. we have a number of friends that live in that area. it's disengenuous that they're concerned about extra units for rental or purchase and yet both of the properties are

single-family homes with buildable lots where they could expand it and yet they have not done that themselves. that seems hypocritical. one has a solid cement wall. and the other an ugly staircase. i find that a little bit offensive that people would have mischaracterized todd and kevin that way. they're great guys. they want to live in this area. they want to build and develop and live in a very nice home and, yes, they take way too much care of their dogs. >> thank you. any additional public comments? >> hello. i'm kevin chang. i would like it address the accusations that neighbors have made about misrepresentations on our property. we hired fully licensed architect engineers that signed and stamped --

>> is this your property? >> yes, it is. >> you are project sponsor? >> i'm one of the owners. >> your opportunity to speak was in that initial 10 minutes. >> okay. i apologize. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. >> good evening. i'm here because of 317 i saw on the calendar. i guess the question is, if this project had come before you in 2013 or 2014, would you have approved a demolition? it's moot now. it's over. is there -- the architect said it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. but would out have approved it? overhead, please. back then it was $925,000. in 2011, i think it must have been a foreclosure, it was $700

and something. so you have the issue of affordable. the project, they said when they had it, it was abatement. so they knew that was a problem. could they have fixed it up and lived in it as a single-family home? i think they could have without even what happened. what happened was unfortunate. theres wi s witwas a tree in fr. what happened to the tree in front of the fake garage. so does this protect the relative affordability of existing housing? and how do you do that? do out do that with the two units? they don't want the two minutes. neighbors want the two units. you should not put the two units and put a unit on museum way. that would be wrong, terribly wrong. maybe what you need to do is ask them to pay into the affordable

housing fund. i don't know. you don't have a plan in front of you. so i don't see how you can approve anything if you don't have a plan in front of you to go on the assumption that two units will be there. sometimes they put in a sham unit and it's a single-family home. so it's a big mess. it's very unfortunate. i don't know what to say other than if you look on-line there's a bunch of llcs connected with these owners. they have a right to have a business. whether it's speculative development, i don't know. it seems like it. nobody that wants to live in a house will take away every wall that exists. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item?

if there is anybody else after you, line up on the screen side of the room. >> i'm speaking on behalf of the owners of 214 state street and i'm writing -- or speaking to express my support for the 214 state street unit as currently proposed as a single-family home. i strongly believe that the owners who own 214 state street should be permitted to proceed with their current plan, which is the same as originally proposed in 2014. i'm a san francisco resident and i'm also a student preparing for medical school. so i understand firsthand some of the economic pressures spurring on the affordable housing crisis in san francisco. finding affordable housing is both economically -- there are a

llt lot of economic pressures. it's financially challenging and unnerving. in the last five years, i've had to move almost every year. and i've also spent a significant amount of time in the castro district, volunteering for sf aids foundation, and working at california pacific medical center. i've also been able to establish meaningful connections in the neighborhood. as part of the community, i firmly believe that having -- being a part of any community has a need to express freely and respecting the boundaries of others to live with fairness and respect. in a similar way, creating any neighborhood housing requires it to be done in a manner responsive to the neighborhood

context and appropriate to the given topography. forcing two development units is undesirable, because it would make most of the habitable space surrounded by walls obstructed by the hillside. and there is no adequate amount for light or air or open space to reach the interior rooms. even at its current state, much of the interior space is dark. forcing the owners to change their plans to accommodate two dwelling units is not fair. four years ago, the owners purchased the unit as a single-family residence and they had to prove that it was purchased as such when falsely accused otherwise. not only that, they just want to continue with their initial proposals to build a single-family residence and members of the community should be able to respect that decision. after three years and counting,

after this is being held up in the air, please don't continue to drag this out for the owners and please allow them to continue to build the single-family residents as originally planned. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> so i sit here every week and i hear the processes and code and i'm sitting here wondering why we're hearing this. honestly, i think this commission should send it become it dbi and have them follow their own code. 103a.2. tearing down or construction of a building containing one or more residential units that destroys or removes those terms defined by the department of

building inspection, containing one or more residential units. the construction that determines the shape and side of the building, such as exterior walls and bearings elements or construction alters 2/3 more of the elements such as walls, partitions, floors, ceilings. furthermore, same page on building code 10383.3. shall hold a hearing within a reasonable period of time after discovering unlawful demolition may have taken place. i think it needs to be evaluated under the building code and they need to determine if there was unlawful demolition and follow their own process, instead of us getting it handed to us. >> commissioner moore: i agree with that assessment. i would be interested in who assisted the owner with the falsification of information.

i don't see the date of what happened. i assume if this property was purchased in 2013, there must be a number of those permits following within that time frame. and i'm asking, who can walk into d.b.i. and get these approved? it's a complicated issue and i'm not prepared it look at this project today. >> commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: yeah. i'm not sure whether this means continuance, but the demolition,

we've seen this before. i would like to see what the resolution would have been. sometimes i don't even know. we get cases and i'm not sure what the resolution would be. several more, it was put to us in public comment, would we have approved the demolition? and i think that i've talked about this more and more and it's come up at the commission more and more, not just recently but over the past couple of years, that we need to take a stronger stance on maximizing the current stand. this is zoned rh2. two minutes. so zoned rh2 when the purchasers' purchased the property, doesn't have a law on the books that says you don't have to maximize zoning, but we've been stronger on that.

that said, i'm still a little bit at a loss as to what our action is, because the overriding concern seems this needs to be a building department action and then we can figure out land use going forward. >> can we get clarification from planning staff on what d.b.i. -- what their process has been to date and if they took this up and considered demolition or a director's hearing -- >> in terms chtd resolution to correct the notice of violations, they allowed the new building permit to come in in to remedy the situation and had they determined a demolition, i believe there would have been a

demolition permit and new construction. this is under planning's more stringent definition of a demolition, which has 50% of verre vertical and 50% of horizontal. >> and i think commissioner richards is asking for more clarification on that. it seems like it would be. and dbi as we've seen is more lax on their own rules, but i think it would be good to understand that. i'm troubled by that. the process of getting here, the fake garage and the dbi and how they interpret this, i think it would be good and helpful to get that information. on the project itself and what has come out of it, so that's

the process -- i don't think as proposed it's a bad project. i disagree with some neighbors i think i would go with two units on this, but i would like to see a smaller building on museum way. i know that's in conflict with this interim controls that we have but i think it makes for a better project. currently, i think cramming two units in that building, we'll get either a nonlivable unit on that ground floor because it only has light to the front, or a taller, more expansive building with more demo of the hillside in order to get some light and air into the first floor. so it's kind of -- our neighbors oppose the single-family and want two units because they don't want to see something on