it's against what we're trying to do in the district and the mission, which is create more housing, so please deny this issue. >> thank you. any other public comment on this issue? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: i just want to say the project sponsor saw me in the 4 all during a break. he said he wasn't allowed to come in and present the project. there was no disrespect to us. i guess to the director, you do understand the path to legalization. >> staff might be able to help here, but there is a pretty rigorous process here. this came came up when we defaulted and tried to legalize units that were previously not authorized. karl can probably give you more specifics, but it is looking at the physical characteristics, what would it take to legalize the unit and how -- both financially and physically what

it would take to legalize, so karly can probably fill in the details. >> sure, and this is one of the first removal of an unauthorized unit. there's been a handful, but none of them have actually reached this no path to legalize issue. there was some inconsistency of how dbi was applying the standard and how planning was applying the standard. there was some confusion that the commissioners would actually be evaluating the construction cost or the cost to legalize. dbi also believed that the scope of work was so extensive that the -- it would be infeasible for the property owner to legalize. since this issue has come up on this project. we've been working with dbi to clarify those standards and actually make them a little more arduous and closely related to life safety issues more so than a scope of work that may seem too extensive or to expensive because that's what you're going to be

consider considered. >> vice president richards: sure. what bothers me is the property owner -- i'm not singling this property owner out was okay taking money from a renter in a unit that was maybe substandard but still liveable, and now we're applying a different standard and saying it costs too much to upgrade, and so therefore, you know, bye-bye tenant. >> and that's part of the findings that you would make that dbi didn't make this call, that it was able to be legalized, is evaluating the cost of legalization versus the gain in property value. >> did you do the site visit? >> i didn't. kimberly durandet did. it's a converted shed. >> i think this request is wrong on all levels, and i'd love to have any one of my commissioners make a motion to

disapprove. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> second. >> i make a motion to disapprove this project. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: we don't have good guidelines for what makes a legalization infeasible, and sometimes i've also been a little bit challenges when we hear some of the cases where there is some detail provided around what the work would take to legalize a unit, but because the current property owner states that they can't afford it or can't do it, you know, we're looking at some sort of action that would make that unit not a legal unit anymore and there it was taken out of the circulation for housing. and i do -- i don't have any answers right now, but i do want to echo that i think

that's something that we as a city need to contend with. i don't know that it's okay to say -- especially when you have units where people are living in them, and we've seen them before, that we're kind of saying there's nothing we can do. i think we need to look more closely at what financially infeasible mean or have some kind of stopgap measure in our planning code that allows livable but substandard -- i think we need to create another standard, because again, i think we've got kind of a loophole. we've got units that people live in, and units that landlords say they can't afford to fix it, but then, people live there. how much fixing does it really need? it's definitely a thorn owe problem, a -- thorny problem, and it's not just the building department. it's puc and all the other departments that have anything

to do with the physical infrastructure of housing. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i think it would be a good thing to add to our discussion with dbi. most important metrics are lights, safety, and standard requirements by which livable homes are designed and these units have to follow the very same metrics, and in many cases, it's not achievable, but again, i do believe that in order to be very clear about, that discussion could be an ongoing discussion with dbi, but when this particular piece in the back yard is identified as a former shed, i think there are already many, many things that come immediately to mind because in the definition of shed, it is not a small home, it is a shed. i can only take that word game here, but i think it requires a -- definitely a better understanding of what codes apply and in what form do they need to be applied equally to

all, including these questionable units? >> president hillis: commissioner richards? is. >> vice president richards: interestingly enough, when i saw this, i didn't really read the packet, because it was a no right off the bat, but if you look at tab g under mr. gladstone's brief, you can see why they said there would be no road to legalization. it would cost $230,000 to bring it up. it's incredible what -- the way they decided it, more for the list of dbi stuff. >> clerk: commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion to disapprove and a second the conditional use authorization. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved. commissioners, that motions passed unanimously

project complies with the planning code and existing structure was determined not to be historic resource and the project increases the amount of housing on the site and maximizes density. staff recommends the project with conditions. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: sponsor. since this is the second time we've heard this, we'll limit to 7 minutes and public to 2. >> i'm lucas eastwood. before we get into specifics, i would like to introduce myself. i'm a general contractor. foreign war veteran and member of indian tribe.

after being with the 82nd airborne, moved here and started working as a laborer. the robust market allowed me to rise the ranks of the firm and getting my constructor's license and start my own company. now i employ 20 personnel. our office is in the mission. my son goes to school in the mission. my wife and i started our family in the mission of the neighborhood is very important to me and i'm proud to be a member of the community and continue to get to shape the changes that are happening. >> brett gladstone, architect, will represent the changes, as requested. up to now, we don't know of any adjacent neighbors who are opposing this project on either of the three sides. one of the commissioners asked

us to look at the alternative, one that keeps the front area of the nonhistoric facade. what does it do? it creates a three-unit building and removed the two family-oriented units. it removes one because the rest station alternative is a smaller building. it removes the other because while remaining three bedrooms, bedrooms are small and there will only be one bathroom left and real families of two kids, two parents, just don't buy or rent with one bathroom. it downgrades to what was originally a studio. and, finally, it keeps two unusual open side yards, which are a wasted space, but have to be kept to keep the interior to the ground floor unit that will remain in a renovated building.

the problem here involves economics. the economics of three fore sale units first the appraisal and planning department file shows that the building was worth $1.45 million. today it's worth about $1.65. it's likely -- it's rented by a person who rents at $7,000 a month on a short-term lease the owner-occupant vacated upon closing of escrow. it's oversized at 3 bedrooms and inefficient, but a new, four-unit building would mean that none of the units would have a value close to $1.6, which is not a surprise since dwelling units are smaller, more efficient and share the cost of the land. as rental units, same thing. $7,000, right now, could be worth $8,000 soon to rent. none of the units will rent for that. two units in a brand-new building would rent for that.

finally, i wanted to talk about the fact that the mayor'sive -- mayor's directive, "whenever possible, high-density units be approved." the reasons for opposing demolition or reduesing the units, according to the mayor's directive, should be based on an explicit regulation, such as affordable housing resource. we don't have one. historic resource. don't have one. with that, i will turn it over to our architect. thank you. >> commissioners, i'm jeff gibson. two months ago when we were last year, your discussion of the

project centered on two topics. is there a way to save the existing building and build something new behind it, even though the planning department has stated that the existing building is not historic or in the historic district. if that doesn't work, can we make the new building less modern and fit into the context better? first, what you are seeing on the overhead is a sort of re rendering of what the project would look like. your design guidelines call for new additions to be set back 15 to 20 feet. to do so, would only provide enough space for a 1-bedroom university i. to squeeze in a 2-bedroom unit, we have a setback of only 5 feet. it overwhelms the existing facade and doesn't look too good. this is a cross section of that proposed building. if we were to add a unit in the basement, the basement unit would be a studio and mostly

underground. the existing three-bedroom unit is pretty inefficient and really a wasted resource for the city. even though it's oversized, two of his bedrooms have windows that don't beat egress or building code. it will fail to cover his land or construction costs due to the need to excavate and create a seismically safe top floor. it would have less square feet it. would make more sense to renovate the existing family house and sell it as a premium. if we retain the existing building, we can only add two new units. the existing facade would be retained, but the new addition would overwhelm it. i will show you that view again.

structural requirements would probably post us past the scope and he would be back for a tantamount to demo project. let's look at the changes we've made to the proposed building, taking into account the feedback that we got from you all at the last hearing. here you can see a before and after. the upper image is the project that you saw at the last hearing. below, the changes that we've made. swapped stucco for siding. using some profiles commonly found in the area. we changed the windows to double hung encasement windows. and street rendering showing the building in context. i think it really blends incredibly well with the context, material, style and function. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll open it up for public

comment. >> greetings, planning commission. thanks, again, to each of you for your time. i'm leveon contreras. i've returned to speak for the neighborhood who cannot attend. since october 12, the neighborhood has continued open and objective dialogue about this proposal. those voices come from all sides of the spectrum, homeowners, residents, long-time and newcomers, neighbors, local merchants, friends, even tourists that visit the block for photos. the voice of the people is clear -- no to demolition.

no to luxury condos. as a mission district native, resident and co-owner of a home, i reject the plan to demolish this and replace it with a luxury complex. for environmental health, quality and safety, it puts us residents at risk of exposure to chemicals such as asbestos and lead paint. without an environmental impact review or containment plan in place, we're left it suffer from short- and long-term health risks. sunlight blockage. the plan will block sunlight because it encroaches on already packed, dense housing. no design changes were made to remedy this obvious, severe flaw.

noise and public health nuisance. they're home to several sick, elderly and special-needs residents. the proposal to demolish 792 capp will have adverse effects. we cannot over look the needs of our citizens to indicate tore a luxury condo project. >> president hillis: thank you. your time is up. >> if the owner would have spent any time in the neighborhood in the last 2 months, he would know the pulse and we say no. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please? >> yes. my name is dorothy graham. i'm a resident of capp street. i can't come last time. i wasn't aware of the project at that time, so i would like to have 3 minutes to speak, but i have very severe lung disease. i was a hospital planner at alameda health system for 23 years and worked on many

environmental impact reports. i was shocked in reading the report about this, that there was no analysis done about the contents of the structure. no mention of if it contains lead paint or asbestos or mold. without any examination of the current structure, it makes the unfounded claim that the project will not be detrimental to the welfare of persons residing in the vicinity. there is no basis for saying that without examining what is actually inside the building. and i wanted to let you know that i came to a meeting of the board of supervisors land use committee in november where they discussed a different project with a similar demolition and the neighbors came by and said their residences were covered with flakes of lead paint after a demolition. how can you do a demolition on a residential street without knowing what is in the current

structure. even if specific toxic materials are not existing in that structure, there's no mention in the report of any kind of construction mitigation on the dust that would be contained. we had a project on our block at 711 capp that's gone on for the last few months, a tiny construction project, where they put a giant pile of dirt in the street, covered it with a tarp, which blew off and asthma-producing dust has been blowing around the street for a month and that's for a tiny, little project where they just jack hammered the sidewalk. this is the entire demolition of the structure. >> president hillis: thank you, ma'am. your time is up. thank you very much. next speak, please. >> i'm robin stukow and i live across the street from the project.

in 2010, 792 capp had a family and several day laborers that were all eviction. one of the men died on our street, homeless last winter. to quote the architectural review, to destroy architecture is to dissolve the identity of communities. the east side of our block has some protection because it's historically protected, but the westside's fate has yet to be determined. if 792 capp street, a home from 1865, is demolished, it will set a precedent so every building sold can do the same thing. the plan has practical problems in terms of density, parking, traffic and rats on our block because of the construction happening. the mission district has received many, many large structures built. we have the huge one on mission street a block from our house. we've had fires.

it's affecting us disproportionately. if 792 is going to be altered to create subsidized deficiencies to accommodate the lady that sleeps outside the church that compliments my home or the man that sleeps outside with his feet sticking out, maybe it would be justified. today is the first day of winter and every year the healthcare for the clinics across the nation go outside and read the names of the homeless people who have died in the prior year and decisions made here will influence the numbers those dead for generations to come as more and more people from our street will be evicted based on the decision, precedent, that is set here. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i have a business about a

block from this development and i've lived in the mission for nine years and i want more housing because it allows me to keep my friends and customers in the neighborhood and it seems like a lot of the density on mission street and the bigger sites is politically trapped, so we have to rely upon these smaller, underdeveloped lots in order to create the housing we need to be an inclusive neighborhood. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> dear commissioners, my name is edwin horalsco. i'm a resident of the mission. i grew up in the mission. after high school, i reached out to lucas eastwood who used to employ my mother. he has treated me fair and given me an opportunity to expand my knowledge base and given me

constant raises. i came here today on my own time because i wanted to address the building on capp street that my boss is attempting to get permits for. this project is important for me because i cannot afford to take time off work. i feel strongly about this project because it's close to where i grew up and i enjoy the opportunity to work close to home, as i have a young son and it's really hard to get childcare. i ask that you think of me and my family when you consider the fate of this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm real ramone garcia since 2013.

lucas is a good boss. he has helped me to support my family. also my brother is working for him. i really like working for lucas, because he's a really good boss. he has given me an opportunity to grow up in the business. i would support capp street. i really want it have the chance to work in the city again instead of having to drive across the bridge. we need these jobs to keep us busy because we cannot afford to go without work. please think of us when you guys consider approving this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> dear commissioners, good evening. my name is tony sivlon. i live in the mission for 10 years. several years ago, lucas gives

me a job. over the years, he's promoted me from carpenter to superintendent. i no longer work for lucas. he helped me to get a very good job with another construction company. it's important to me and my family that builders continue to build apartments in the city in the mission so that there is local work for me and my friends. we don't like driving across the bridge or anywhere else. we like to work in the city. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> dear commissioners, i'm clemente. i live in the mission and i have been here for many years. i work as a carpenter for lucas. i work with the company and i

like working in san francisco. this year it was hard to drive across the bridge every day. i really want to work on capp street. it is close to my home and i enjoy working to make my neighborhood nicer. this project is very important to my job and my family. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm joshua gold. i'm a resident of the mission for the last two years. i'm originally from puerto rico. and i was attracted to live in the mission because it reminded me of home, but we need more housing. we need all kinds of housing in the city and a project like this, i think, adds to it. housing in the mission is a positive thing, so i support

this project. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. i'm andrea contreras, i'm 37, born and raised on capp street my entire life. if our project manager is such a great person, i would love to see that the workers are included in low-income housing on our street. and we would welcome people that are from our neighborhood. as you can see, it's obviously a temporary fix or a temporary solution and people who will only temporarily benefit from it. the long-term goal is to keep good people here in our city and if this project manager really spent time on our street, he would see the community impact that he is going to cause the detriment to the -- of neighbors across the street. there's a lot apartment complex with the same type of people in my community that you will be jeopardizing. one house down to the left is also affordable housing.

you will put a big, red flag mark on my street for people like me that have low-income housing from big monsters to come into our city and take us all over. this is not right. if you are looking at excelsior and trying to protect the community, you are not doing that in the mission. you all have failed. you are our only hope, to preserve what we have now. i'm so sad to see that this is what it's come down to, people paying off people to come up here and say that they're part of our community when you're not. you are only here for your cash out. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. let's be real about this. build housing for who? yes, there's a housing shortage. clearly, there's not a housing shortage for the people that can pay so much money, the top 1%'er rs that come here.

housing for who? my people will build that housing, but will it be for them? this is a temporary fix. i'm sure the developers of this project -- if this proposal doesn't get passed, they will have no trouble moving on to the next and providing work for their workers. please this has come to a breaking point, please don't set the precedent for the cultural genocide of our community. born and raised on capp street. born and raised in san francisco. it needs to stop. it's out of control. seriously. what is it going to take? this is just one example of a worldwide issue. whether it's the tax break. it's all connected. and it needs to stop. we implore you. do the right thing. it's clear what the ethical issues are. forget laws and loopholes.

what is real. please do not approve this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> john jimenez, former pastor saint charles church, a few blocks from the capp street project. i would like to address, first of all, what the woman spoke about people being evicted from this particular building even that has died on the street. keep that in mind. second, to the construction workers, one who i played basketball with, i think you may know the gallardo family, who the father -- who was a construction worker, they got

evicted. what is causing this eviction is when you allow luxury housing, it causes pressure for owners to evict or find a way to get the tenants out. there's a lot of construction work. how about here in the city, many places. we don't need to have people evicted from affordable housing. the third point, what happened to the tenants before in this building? from what i understand, whether they were evicted or there is some pressure, even paid money to leave, but they were tenants from this neighborhood that could afford it. and that pressure to push them out is why we should not allow this kind of project to go forth. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> victoria pierce, legal advocation and education fund and i'm here to inform the city of san francisco that you have the issue to obey laws and housing accountability act in particular. this is zoning complaint and you have an obligation by the law to approve the project. and i think that the concerns raised here today are valid and legitimate and there are ways to go about that, for example, requiring regulations to prevent demolition of rent-controlled housing. this is not rent-controlled housing. i don't see how this is affordable now. it's $7,000 a month.

it's already luxury housing i don't think it really matters a whole lot. please approve this. we're here to enforce housing lows as a 501c3 organization. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker. >> i'm mary mendoza and here to speak on the next thing on the agenda, but when i was waiting outside, my friend elsa, who i have known for several years, both danced in the same group for 15 years for carnevale, the distress that i saw on her face is something that i've never seen before. and i think that has to do with the quality of life that's happening to the city. and when you talk about the -- there are some things mentioned about what real families -- how

real families live. and i think that term when it was used earlier, you know, versus what? how many people in a family can use one bathroom? to consider it a real family or not a real family? that's outrageous to me. that kind of terminology, that speech is super racist. i'm just going to call it out. and that's something that i've heard time and time again. i don't know if that's even in the mind-set of the developers, but when they bring people up here to speak that use verbage like that, it's insulting. that's what people are talking to in terms of the stress factor that happens, you know, when we hear that there's another development happening in the neighborhood and the effects that it has. when you were talking about the evictions of the people previously, i went to the

funeral at duggan's of the man killed on the street. we left the hunger strike we were doing when we were fighting against police brutality happening to people of color and the hunger strikers that i was coordinating. and we went across the street during the hunger strike to go to his funeral. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i think for me, yes, we need to build housing, but there are so many other circumstances surrounding building housing, what kind of housing? who will live there? will it benefit the community? i'm hearing that this particular building paying $7,000 in rent will stay at $7,000. sounds like it wasn't good at

the beginning and that's part of the problem because rents are so high. so we're not really losing anything or gaining anything. we're just staying in a pretty bad space. i hope that these gentlemen that came up here to support the project are going to be able to live there. it's temporary benefit for them. that's what we've seen with a lot of construction. they come from the outside to work. they need jobs, but they're building for wealthier people, not for them or their families. so i just wanted to mention that. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, if there is any additional public comment. seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? >> commissioner melger: you are looking at me. i will start first. i'm still opposed to this

project. i think that, you know, i've received a lot of correspondence from folks about it, both in the community, on that specific block, who are against it, and folks who refer to the housing accountability act and our obligation. and so i think that i heard about the asbestos and the lead and it, frankly, doesn't sway me. i understand that environmental issues are what folks are zeroing in on. i think that the city is completely full of older houses full of asbestos and lead. anything that involves demolition will create that. i think that demolitions are not appropriate when there's a sound structure. and, you know, i think that the

proposed project will affect the neighborhood character. i think it's out of line with neighborhood character. it's not just buildings. we as humans have attachments to places and spaces in this city. we love the city because of the building, configuration, the streets, things that make up our environment. so it is within the cultural district. i think that that neighborhood does have a character. but the most important part for me is the precedent we're setting under the housing accountability act, actually. because it seems that there are structures and lots all over the city that are underbuilt and this structure in itself is not rent-controlled, there are all over the neighborhood, three- to

five-unit buildings that are older. if we set a precedent that it's okay to demolish, it will be the end of -- not just the end of that cultural district, but a lot of what makes this city wonderful. >> commissioner johnson: i have a question. did the city attorney leave? >> right here. >> commissioner johnson: were you in the back? watching downstairs? they're probably going to ask for me. okay. we talked about this a little bit. i asked about it last time. can you talk a little bit again about the housing accountability act and how it affects this

project or not? >> kate stacy, city attorney's office. the housing accountability act applies to housing that complies with objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria including design review standards. when the city is going to disapprove housing development project, whether it's affordable or market rate, certain findings are required. those findings are -- sorry. i'm looking for the specific statutory language. the planning commission must find both that the project would have a specific adverse effect

on the public health or safety. that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigator avoid the adverse impact with disapproval. the housing accountability act defines a specific adverse impact as a significant, quantifiable with health and safety standards and conditions that existed on the date the application was deemed complete. the decision makers findings must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence in the record. >> commissioner johnson: okay. thank you. i think commissioner melgar makes a great point. policy-wise, we should be focused on true opportunity sites.

we just approved one in the case before where it was literally a lot with some shrubs and trees on it. all things considered, we look very partially at demolitions. but, you know, i want to hear what other commissioners have to say. it's problematic to me to set precedent of denying housing projects. so i think this one is a smash-up of a lot of issues we've talked about over the years, coming together in one project. and, yeah, i'm really on the fence with this one. so i would like to hear what you have to say. >> commissioner fong: yeah. it's a tough one. but i'm leaning to not being in support of it. it's a habitable structure. it's midblock. if it was the corner, it feels

like you would get a larger project out of it. i don't see it as a necessary demolition. if it was falling down, of course. we just had a discussion about the excelsior and the character and this to me is part of the character of the mission. while it's tiny, it plays an important role. >> commissioner richards: mr. eastwood, we heard that people were living in the house before and they're no longer there. when you purchased the property, was there anybody living in there? >> when i purchased it, it was owner-occupied. and that owner vacated when they sold it to me. >> commissioner richards: and there were no additional tenants? >> no. it was not empty. [inaudible]

>> commissioner richards: i will ask you a question in a second. my understanding, i bought it from the owner-occupant. they vacated. i purchased it. i put in tenants of my own. they're still there. right now, they're paying $7,000 a month. they plan on being there through april. >> commissioner richards: thank you. somebody from capp street -- do you have anything to add? come up to the mike. i'm giving you the same chance to make a comment. one person. >> it's been completely unoccupied since it was purchased last june, 2016, and there are temporary, maybe vrbo or air bnb, but nobody's there. it's vacant. it's a facade. >> commissioner richards: thank you.

>> president hillis: when we had this hearing and now, have you met with the neighbors on capp street that have had concern about this project? >> i have not. i called them and emailed them and they were unable to meet in the short time window we had between the two hearings. the neighbors i had contact with, the building across the street, the immediately adjacent structure, and one other reside resident has given me support and nobody that showed up opposes the project. i've talked with them but they have not made the time to meet me. >> president hillis: are you willing to meet with the project sponsor?

>> for us, it was too little, too late. myself and i believe two other residents got phone calls yesterday asking if we could meet late last night or early today. they have known of us. we put up fliers. it's not a movement. it's a community. and they wait until the 11th hour to try to strike a deal. no legitimate attempt to communicate with the community has ever been made. >> president hillis: thank you. >> the letters that they wrote in opposition were submitted two days ago, so as soon as i got them from mr. christiansen, i reached out. >> president hillis: you knew from the last hearing there were concerns on our level, neighborhood level. >> sure. >> president hillis: i give you the example -- and thank you. last week or two weeks ago, we approved a project in the mission. i think it was a unanimous project. it was clearly housing in the

mission, but it was done in a way that was respectful of neighbors, people asked for input. there was an ongoing discussion. i think, you know, we're in a tough place here because, one, i don't think the housing, if it's le left, will be affordable. it will sell for a high price. i would rather keep it as that than support this project. and you certainly all can pursue other housing accountability remedy acts, but it's hard for us when you don't do the due diligence of talking with neighbors. it can be three units. it's good. we need housing. i think you need to weigh -- it's a sensitive block. it's extremely historic on one side. and figure out how it works best in that neighborhood, instead of just arguing the housing accountability act. so i certainly can't support it as it's proposed today.

>> commissioner johnson: i was going to say that, you know, we live in a city where all lots are not equal. and i will almost say that i do -- i would want it hear what -- i haven't heard that the neighbors would not have come to some sort of agreement. all i'm hearing is that there wasn't an outreach for communication. as much as i hate continuances, i kind of feel like that needs to happen. it seems like maybe there was last-minute, not enough effort. i cannot tease apart that piece of the story, but i would like to hear what attempts would have been made to come to an agreement or intent, because just -- something about this strikes me wrong, that we're leaving a unit that's $7,000 and not going down anytime soon, undersized for that lot. it's a small home in the middle of a larger lot.

it's historic on the other side of the street, but we've seen projects that have similar characteristics in the mission and also other neighborhoods where we haven't had this degree of act r -- acrimony. there is not enough information here to say there is no middle ground whatsoever. it seems like there's a lack of communication all around, even though that's unfortunate because it's not the first time we're hearing this project. >> commissioner richards: question for the city attorney. i'm considering -- do we have two actions here, one the demolition and the second is the approval of the replacement project? i mean, this house is not unaffordable under section 317. so we have to determine if it's necessary, desirable,

compatible, to demolish the house. that said, we have a replacement product that has four units. how would you parse what we've got in front of us? >> commissioners, i would -- first of all, i would acknowledge that there are some ill-defined and unclear aspects of the housing accountability act and how it would apply where conditional use permit is required. what is difficult here is that you have a conditional use permit that's for the demolition that has fairly general, nonspecific standards involved. that the -- and that the replacement housing, as far as i

can tell and planning staff can correct me if i'm wrong, complies with the objective zoning standards. what the housing accountability act does is allow a decision making body to disapprove the project where it makes specific findings. it certainly doesn't disallow the commission from continuing the item and asking project sponsors to work on some design revisions or some discussions with the neighborhood so that it's less problematic for this particular block. if the commission were to disapprove or make a motion of intent to disapprove the project, i would certainly ask the commission to articulate what the housing accountability act directs local entities to

articulate. having said all that, i don't know if there is threatened litigation here. but if there is threatened litigation, i would recommend a closed session, so we could give you our legal analysis of sort of the city's position with that litigation in confidence. >> president hillis: great, thanks. one thing for the community. you live in a zone where this is permitted. if there's an issue with what's happening today on that street, other streets, i suggest that the neighborhood get rezoned, so less could be built there if that's what the community wants, so we're not struggling with this state law versus local law and what is permitted or not. that says, i will leave that up to supervisor ronen if that's what you come up with.

>> commissioner fong: thanks for asking that clarifying question. i feel like we're fought leaning towards a demolition, but if the existing structure wanted to stay and we wanted to continue that replacement project and the project sponsor came back with an extension into the rear yard or one story up or something or added some space there or maybe another unit, that that would be okay. is that what i'm -- >> president hillis: if it's a denial, the path that people have expressed, it's a sensitive street with historic resources and this building is a contributor to it. and that would be the rationale. it's a significant street. we'd ask staff to relook at the historic resource report in the broader context to maintain the structure.

>> commissioner moore: commissioner hillis, would you add to the list that you just mentioned the fact that it's sound housing, not in disrepair, and it's affordable, value not exceeding the number way which we normally get pushed into a corner? i think those issues would weigh into preserving the building as is. and i found the attempts of preserving the facade as prevented as the applicants unconvinci unconvincing. i would gravitate that preserving this type of housing is of key importance and i would basically lean to not supporting this application. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i really would -- could be open to it, but if we're going to do

it, i really want to hear the commission's ideas on what the findings would be? so far, i'm not hearing it. what are the findings that we would -- specific findings that we would put in an intent to disapprove motion? if we're going to do it, we really cannot do it just on the motion. it has to be on what are the findings, so not only are we -- can we stand strong in our decision on this project, but also have a precedent if we want to set it for other projects. this is not where we're at today and it may be a reason for continuance. if we think that demolishing sound structures should be part of some finding on public health and safety, that needs to go in our planning code. we can't just say it up here. i mean, i really want us to -- if this is the way we feel things should go, we have to find ways in our code to support

that. i think one good aspect is that it forces you to do that sort of thinking. i would be supportive of a continuance to have the -- maybe the -- there can be some intent in the neighborhood and/or to work on what the specific findings would be. right now, i don't hear what they would be and i have, i'm sure, my successor might agree, whoever that person is. >> commissioner richards: i'm a dyed-in-the-wool preservationist. i objectively looked at the report, even though the building appears of the mass and scale and setback of its time, which is 1865, the building itself is not historic. it's -- the facade has been

changed. it's not the same as it was, if you look at the buildings across the street. and, honestly, i get where the neighbors are coming from, i truly do. but i would be a hypocrit to say, we have 141,000 available capacity and say no to this. the neighborhood needs to work with the supervisor if there's an issue around the perceived density issues and potential demolitions. so i'm going to force the issue and make a motion to approve the project with conditions as outlined. >> commissioner melger: i said what i needed to say. >> president hillis: do i hear a second? >> second. >> can i ask for further discussion on the outcome of

continuance versus approval. what is the outcome if there was a motion to continue? >> president hillis: i think we've seen projects that have happened where there's, again, 100 units of housing, that there's give and take and there's discussion and i can't ask that of the developer because it hasn't been done and the neighbors, in that we're in a difficult situation in which this housing will not be an affordable home. it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. it's an old building, but we at least have documentation that says -- which we can relook at, it's not historic. so, you know, you can have three units of equal or smaller size that are probably cheaper than what this house will ultimately sell for. it's how that is contextual

contextuallized. i think you changed some material on the facade. there's an historic building adjacent to it that's smaller and more of the cottage vernacular. i could think of ways to change the project architecturally. i think there's ways to talk about this project and engage people who live in this neighborhood to figure it out. i think we're being -- gun is being put to our head, which is not comfortable. i don't think there was a full engagement on this project as we would like to see. >> commissioner koppel: we saw two projects tonight. one that was almost a no-brainer. zero units to four. our next item was on saturn. st