thank you. mad amount clerk anything else. >> clerk: nothing further. >> meeting adjourned. >> i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and in

speaking before the commission. if you care to, state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll. [roll call] we expect commissioner richards to be late and commissioner johnson to arrive shortly. at this time, through the chair, the commission respectfully requests that you join us in a moment of silence for the eternal memory of mayor ed lee.

>> thank you very much. and just a couple of words, if you all indulge us before we start. it has been a -- it's a sad and very shocking couple of days. for the city. and i think particularly here at city hall where many of us knew mayor lee in different capacities. some as his friend or his neighbor, co-workers as mayor. and certainly our thoughts and prayers go out to his family, particularly his wife and daughters. as i was coming in, this is the first time i've been back to city hall in the last couple of days and it was -- it was hard

and emotional to come in. i used to work here and i had an office down the corner here on the fourth floor of city hall and the mayor at that time was ed lee. he was a department head and ran the purchaser, not the most glamorous job. that you could have at city hall. but i recall kind of wanting to buy things and it got to be a little more difficult and it was because the mayor or the purchaser at that time was implementing policies to favor local businesses and neighborhood businesses here in san francisco. which was great. and then i got to know him later on working directly on a project that was the lowe's down at bayshore, which was extremely controversial at the time. it had been home depot and lowe's and he was involved as the director of public works. and very much focused on the issue of day laborers and how they would be affected by that project.

i think he had that same, you know, kind of thinking that the mayor's office didn't change him. his approach to things were very much about how it would benefit the people of san francisco and i think that is great. and it was a pleasure to be appointed by him to this body and to work with him and get to know him. i'll miss him personally. i think he was a great, funny guy. and i'll miss his approach to being mayor of san francisco. so, we'll adjourn today's meeting in his memory and recognize commissioner fong. >> thank you. yeah. very sad, tough week for all of us in different ways and we've all read the different accolades and accomplishments that mayor lee has done for the city. had the pleasure of working with him on several different levels as well as personally and i think like a lot of us when we start to work together, you can't help but become friends and that occurred over

a 25-year relationship with him. and we share a lot of different passions obviously for the chinese-american community. he was a champion for us, a leader for us. i think many of us are extremely proud to have the first chinese-american mayor and i'm sad that he wasn't able to complete his term. like commissioner hillis, he was the head of the sewer department at the time and we were bold and brash and tried to demand a fisherman's wharf clean-up day so we all showed up at 7:00 in the morning on a sunday and he showed up with a truck with a broom and handed me a broom and said there you go, go at it. so that was the start of a long, good, professional and personal relationship with him and i will miss him on the golf course. i will miss his laughter and someone to really share genuine, deep belly laughs with and he is capable of doing that

and providing that for me. so, we are going to miss him and i just -- you know, i feel it's important for us to keep on with his dedication to the city, his dedication to those who are less fortunate. he's a big believer in the underdog and i think we should support them all and as a fabric of san francisco, really make sure that all san franciscans are taken care of. one last thing, i know that many people are going to be very critical of some of the things that he was able to accomplish and did over the last few years, but i believe that his intention was for the long range of san francisco. and those aren't easy decisions as a lot of us know. they're difficult decisions and make some people very unhappy. but i think to his core, the basis of a decision was for long range and the shape and fabric of san francisco. >> thank you. commissioner koeppel? >> yeah.

pretty speechless. i've been speechless since finding out about the incident. and i wanted to just shed some quick light on what mayor ed lee did for the construction industry as a whole. between 2008, about until 2011, there was the worst economic downturn the construction industry has ever seen. more than just paychecks were at stake. these were working-class people that have, you know, wives, families, kids, house payments to make and people were out of work to a degree that had never been seen before. and it was disrupting families, their households, people were not able to take their kids to the hospital because a lot of the health care and benefits were based on those work hours so there was a time where there was no activity. i think 333 harrison may have been the only project that kind of got started or completed for a number of years.

and ed lee came in and gave a shot of insurgency to our industry and promoted industries coming into our city which created a lot of work for a lot of people and literally allowed people to survive. so, we, from the construction industry, will never forget what he did for us. and then myself personally, after applying for this seat right here, i did sit down with the mayor for a while and his last words to me during that seating were very memorable. he said, joel, i just want to make sure you do one thing up there and listen to the people. that is what we're going to do today. and again from here on out. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner? >> so is i'm an immigrant to this country. my family immigrated to the missions when i was a teenager.

i think that i -- i was interviewed by the mayor's office for your seat also and i was told i was a little too left for the seat. and, you know, i think that -- you're chuckling. you know, i think that more than anything, what i think of my relationship with mayor lee and the time that i feel lucky to have known him, what rises above everything is fa -- is his incredible kindness and his goodwill. and, you know, i did sometimes disagree about policies, and who doesn't in this incredibly complex city. made of, you know, so many different people. so many different experiences. so many different agendas. but there was never a time that i didn't admire his leadership. of an immigrant.

and knowing how he grew up and what he understand and what he struggled with. to dedicate his life to public service and to take, you know, this relatively thankless job because i think that all public servants know how much -- there's this -- you get criticized from every angle, no matter what you do. you know? and it is stressful and i think that he did it with grace. and kindness. above all, kindness. i will always remember his smile and his civility. you know, despite the passions that sometimes these battles incite here at city hall. so, i think that, you know, in the past couple of years, i will always be grateful for his

national, invisible defense of immigrants during a time when immigrants have been zeroed in on by federal policies to be, you know, the bad guys in our national discourse. so, i -- i'm grateful that he stayed that claim for our city. that he was forceful in defending our sanctuary city policies. and that he defended who we are as a city. city of immigrants. and so i will always remember him fondly and honor his memory. >> thank you. commissioner moore? >> as we all pause, it was a sombering tuesday morning at 6:00 a.m. to get a text message and it was take your breath away. and i have not -- i was not appointed by the mayor. however, in my early years, i did see him on the fourth floor as i was in the stream at that time already and everybody's

correct remembering his warm smile and he had a twinkle in his eyes you just could not miss when you walked down the hallway. and for many, many things. he will be remembered by his strong stance and our own national question about who we are and what he stands for and what he held up high as the commissioner was saying. and then there are other noteworthy projects that we will always remember, be it the stadium, the serious effort of mid market street and revitalizing that part and on and on and on. we have all sat here long enough to know that. and just last thursday, i spoke about acknowledging him for this wonderful pre-christmas event that the small business is having on the north court and having a lovely prechristmas holiday so you just have all of these things flood through you as you just express your condolences and that we'll miss him.

>> thank you. commissioner johnson? >> thank you. this is still a shock and in a lot of ways it still doesn't seem very real. i actually received a text message at 1:30 in the morning on the morning that he passed away and i couldn't sleep for a few hours and i woke up the next morning and i was like this isn't real. but i got myself together and came to city hall and saw everyone there and realized oh, my goodness, this man has passed. mayor lee appointed me to two different commissions. ocii and planning commission. and it was striking to me just, you know, not only how civil he was, but also how fierce he was in a lot of ways. he was a man who would put himself in whatever position was necessary to do good things for people. that's how he became from, you know, being if a housing rights activist in the streets to becoming mayor of this great city. he was willing to take on whatever role was needed to move the ball forward.

and so he implored that upon me to use the roles that he was appointing me to to move the ball forward. he is really an inspiration in that way. he will be sorely missed. my condolences to his family, first and foremost, and to all the city family. city family beyond that that worked really closely with him. this is a sad week. his memorial was on sunday and i think maybe it will strike more of us then. but i think it is incumbent upon all of us to continue the good work that he wanted to do and to remember always to put ourselves if whatever position we can to help people and make the city the best it possibly can be. >> thank you. director? >> thank you. obviously it has been a challenging week for all of us. it's been challenging for many of my department heads who have worked very, very closely with him. people like mohammad and naomi

who worked with him for 25 years or more so it has been really challenging for the city family. i would just offer a couple of thoughts. you know, i had regular meetings with him and he had that really corny sense of humor that everyone has talked about. and the reason he was so adamant was keeping the meetings me is partially because he wanted to keep an eye on me. [laughter] and that is completely legitimate and i appreciate that. but he was always genuinely interested in what we were doing and i teased him about being a closet planner and i think he was really interested in -- and really understand that we had a role in playing in the future of the city in the long run, as commissioner fong said. the things i was thankful, being one of his primary elements of his legacy is what he did for public housing. i don't thinking it's generally known how he -- in conversation and in collaboration with then-secretary donovan at h.u.d. created this whole new model of how we were doing rental housing with the demonstration program.

the rad program. and it has completely transformed public housing in a ways that are unique to the country and has become a model to the rest of the country. that was something that he insisted on doing as soon as he realized what poor condition the existing public housing was in. that is -- i mean, to me that is an incredible legacy. talking 7,000 units of housing and the city's poorest residents whose life could be transformed because of this. and i think that is extremely important to remember as a -- as a really important part of his legacy. i will miss him terribly. >> thank you. and thank you all for hearing us and thank you, mayor lee, for your work and you've set a high bar for us in kind of how we conduct ourselves and go about looking at these issues. >> commissioners, consideration of items proposed for continuance, item one, case number 2017-006700cua,

conditional use authorization proposed for continuance untilian 11, 2018. item case, case 2009 at 2100 mission street iss ed for continuance until january 25, 2018. items 3a and b for case numbers 2013.1037c and v at 650divisidero, conditional use and rear yard modification at the release of the agenda. it was scheduled for march 8. the project sponsor is not available at that time and is now requesting march 29, 2018. further, commissioners, under your regular calendar, item 15, case 2016-0010 at 338 polk street, conditional use authorization, we received a contact to continue this matter on february 1, 2018.

i other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> all right. do we have any public comment on the items being proposed for a continuance? mr. tunney? >> hi. tom tunney on behalf of the project sponsor for 650divisadero. did i hear that the project sponsor requested march 29? >> that was my understanding. or there was an exchange of e-mails with the planner today that seemed to indicate that people weren't available. >> oh, ok. >> good afternoon, commissioners. chris may, planning department staff. it was a neighbor who requested that. yeah. i did advise john of that. but i'm not sure if he got this message. apologies. >> we would like to hold the march 8 date, the only issue -- this has been two years now and the only issue we have to resolve is the b.p.r.

requirement. we're work with the supervisor's office and we'll have that resolved in time for march 8. so, we'd like to hold the date. >> ok. any additional public comment on these items? >> my name is donna thompson. my husband and i own the adjacent building to the property. my neighbor has requested the march 29 date because she wanted christopher may to be here. available. and he is not available on if 15th or the 16th. she can't make the 8th. and she has been following this for a long time and is just as concerned about my property's tree as i am. i'd like you to consider putting it to the 29th for her sake because she cannot make it on the 8th. i'd also like to know if any of you commissioners ever received my request for a site visit.

at 1265 grove street in relationship to the 650 divisadero project because i have heard nothing from you and i've made that request three types so far and i think it is important that gets done before we get to our very last meeting. i can't bring up information at the last meeting and think that you will be able to consider it when i don't even know if you've received those requests. i mean, i don't know what your process is. maybe you wait until just before that very last meeting to accept a site visit request. maybe you have no intentions for it. but i think it is pretty pertinent to me and my property that you see the property and see how close that property line is to my dining room windows for my tenants and i don't think i can adequately show you that in a photograph. >> thank you. we do receive requests.

we have obviously hundreds. >> i've been requesting since 2016. >> there hasn't been a hearing yet. so, thank you. >> ok. >> next eke spaoer, please. >> commissioners, good afternoon. chris shulman, lower polk neighbors speaking to item number 15, 1235 polk street. first of all, i'd like to thank the project sponsor, the representatives for agreeing to a request on continuance. our lower polk neighbors would also request a continuance. we provided materials to you. certainly take this issue very seriously because of ramifications of the decision. we want to make sure the neighborhood organization provides you as an accurate of appraisal of this circumstance as well. we would like to hear the item in our general membership meeting in february which would give them a couple of po*ns to see how their improvements are

taking effect. so, question that you have the hearing after february 16, if you could kindly consider that. thank you. >> thank you, mr. shulman. any additional public comment on the items being proposed for a continuance? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner koppel? >> move to continue items one, two and three with the date of march 29 for 3a and b. and item number 15 to a hearing after february 16. >> that would be february 22. >> so, february 22. >> second. >> very good, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to continue matters as proposed, specifically items 3a and b to march 29.

and item 15 for polk street to february 22, 2018. on that motion, commissioner fong? [roll call] so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. the acting zoning administrator could continue item 3b. >> yeah. i'll continue item 3b to march 29 as well. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, that will place us under your consent cal. all matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and pay be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff, so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

item four, case number 2017-0127cua, conditional use authorization. item five, case 2017-o122465, conditional use authorization. case number six, cua at 2906 fullsome street. please note that on november 30 after hearing and closing public comment, the commission adopted a motion of disintent to continue the matter to december 14, 2017 by a vote of 4-2. commissioners fong and koppel were against. commissioner hillis you have to acknowledge that you reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> i have. >> thank you. case number four at 1360 jones street. please note that on november 16, after hearing and closing public comment, the commission continued the matter to december 14 by a vote of 4-1. commissioner melgar, you were against. commissioner hillis you were again absent so you need acknowledge that you reviewed the materials and hearing. >> i did.

>> so, if we take this as a single roll call vote, i would recommend that you take up items four through six if you so choose. because commissioner moore was recused from item seven. she should probably not partake in that voting. >> let's first open this up to public comment. any members of the public that would like to remove any of these items from the consent calendar? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'd like to remove 2906 from the consent and have it continued to the second week of february, if possible. >> ok. we can remove it from the consent. we'll hear it as the first item in the regular calendar. >> ok. any other items? commissioner johnson? >> [inaudible]. >> ok.

so, let's take action first on items four and five. >> move to approve item one, two, three, four and five. >> just one -- >> sorry. four and five. >> sure. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve items four and five under consent -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. >> and then item seven and commissioner is recused. commissioner koppel? >> move to approve. move to continue. >> move to approve -- >> as the consent. >> number seven. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve item seven under your consent calendar -- [roll call] >> so moved, commissioners.

that motion passes 4-1. with commissioner melgar voting against and commissioner moore being recused. commissioners, that places us under commission matters item eight. consideration of adoption draft minutes from november 30, 2017. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> move to approve minutes. >> aye. >> i'm sorry, yes. approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to adopt the minutes for november 30, 2017 -- [roll call] >> so move, commissioners that. motion passes unanimously 6-0 and places on item number nine for commission comments and questions. >> seeing none -- >> very good. that will place us under department mares.

item 10, director's announcements. >> no new announcements today, thank you. >> item 11, review of past evens of the board of supervisors. board of appeals. there was no historic preservation committee hearing yes. >> good afternoon. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs for the planning domestic. this week land use committee heard hub street area. these would promote parking on what was already permitted. or will provide on-site affordable housing at 25% of the total number of units. these controls are in effect for 18 months. the committee recommended this item to the board as a committee report. federal election on the agenda was the second informational hearing on the center soma plan. the focus of this hearing was the plan's proposed community benefits package. during public comment, there were over two dozen speakers. public feedback was broad, but common themes included a desire to ensure that the community's

benefit packages social programs and supports the cultural districts, te thans, schools and small businesses. a support for the environmental sustainability and park strategies in the plan. a is sire for more community control over the spending of public benefits funding, an interest in making sure the plan supports good jobs and a desire for the plan to be completed sooner rather than later. during the hearing, supervisor kim made statements echoing the community's desire for more money for social programs and more community influence on funding decisions. supervisor peskin expressed interest in potentiallier metering of jobs relative to housing production. there was no action required on this item. at the full board this week, the general planning code and zoning map amendments for 1629 market street passed their second rae. also on the agenda was an appeal hearing for the project at 218 27th avenue. this project proposes to demolish a two-storey single unit building and construct a

four-storey three-unit building in its place. you heard this issue october 13 of this year and voted unanimously to recommend approval. the appeal hearing was for both the category exemption determination and the approval of the c.u. the issues during the hearing marry those that were brought up during the planning commission hearing. the neighbors to the north were concerned about the loss of privacy and light to their property and wanted the fourth floor removed. they also claimed that proper ceqa procedures were not followed there. were a dozen speakers in favor of the appeal and handful of speakers in favor of the project. once the public comment was finished the supervisor expressed his support for the project and to maximize the density permitted on this lot. he then made a motion to reject the appeal of both the c.u. and the ceqa determination and this motion passed unanimously up holding the department's

decision and rejecting the appeal. finally the market street h.u.d. controls were adopted and that concludes my report. >> thank you, mr. starr. any questions? ok. we can move on to general public comment. >> i don't have a report for the board of appeals. very good. we can po*ef on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that within a subject matter jurisdiction of commission exempt agenda items with respect agenda items your opportunity to address the commission when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> go ahead, sir. you can speak. >> [inaudible]. >> no trouble. >> i have presentation materials for members of the

commission as well as for staff. >> there it is. >> go ahead, sir. >> yes. my name is kevin chang. i'd like to talk on the topic today of section 317 tantamount to demolition in rh districts. there was an informational hearing scheduled for last week before this body. the hearing was continued indefinitely to solicit more public input. i'd like to apply some input today. section 317 has been described as a complex system of policies and even more complex definition of demolition.

especially from the perspective of planning versus the building department. any code which is complex creates winners and losers. resulting in disspirit and adverse outcomes. unfair impacts on especially certain classes. consider the tax code to criminal code. imagine a tech engineer with stock options versus a public schoolteacher. white collar crime versus class-a drug offense. what i'd like to do to bring that point home is to make some observations from projects that have been suspended, to share in these cases some of the observations you can make about sections 317, parties have been suspended. one thing in common for all these suspended cases a structure has been demolished. key differences, the length of suspension between -- before

hearing or decision have ranged from four months to 22-plus months. where the hearings are held or required, not always. some cases, no hearings are held. whether upzoning is required, fun so far. in one case, you eliminated all projects permitting expansion of the building size. in some cases, up to four times larger. so let me just go through quickly some examples just to bring home these points. this is a picture of 24 to 26 ward street in corunna heights. it was suspended for 17 months. for working without a permit. unpermitted razing and to create new living space. no hearing was held. no corunna heights member [inaudible], no neighborhood opposition. no change in unit count. it went from three units to a single family. what was created was a large single family unit above 3500 square feet and small in-law of

900 square feet. originally there were three units presented and a two-bedroom renting for $1200. and it was eventually eliminated. quickly going through, this is 412 lombard street. if it was suspended for six months with no hearing required and no change in unit count and expanded the building from 900 to 4100 square feet. the interesting part is after the building was suspended, when i was released of suspension, the project sponsor went on to demolish the rest of the building and put on structural steel elements. >> thank you. your time is up. >> i'm sorry. if there are any questions i'm more than happy to give you -- i think the only summary point is that there is a wide discrepancy in outcomes in how these cases are handle. >> thank you. your time is up. >> you can certainly submit additional information. any additional general public comment?

seeing none. >> very good. commissioners, that places us under your regular calendar. item -- >> sorry. commissioner moore, i apologize. >> if we have a moment, aye like to finish this presentation. this is very important for us. at this moment, the demolition discussion is also tabled. however, to put this in our memory bank would be rather important. >> you can certainly ask him. go ahead, sir. finish your presentation. >> can you do it if another two minutes? >> i will certainly try my best. there's only two more cases to go through, commissioner. the next example from lumbar street after it was demolished, essentially went from 900 square feet to 4100 square feet and remained a single family. it was zoned rh-3 but was asked to stay a single family. the next property i'd like to go to is 2178 pine street.

it was suspended for 22 months. there was a complete demolition except for the facade they can see it's barely being held up. it was also suspended for working beyond the scope of the building permits. a conditional use was held in this case. if i draw you back to the attention of 412 lumbar street, both cases were suspended at the same time. however, that lumbar street was only held up for six po*ns with no hearing. where as pine street had to wait 22 months and didn't have a hearing. no unit count was asked. it remains a single family home and the building went from 4100 square feet to 5100 square feet. the last example is 79 craigmont avenue. that was a complete demolition. everything was torn down. it was heard -- it was suspended for four months before its first hearing and it

was continued for about five months later to nine months in total before it regained its permit. it was a conditional use hearing. kept a single family. approved it as proposeded. there's no change in unit count, although there could have been an increase in unit count and it went from basically 1600 square feet to 2400 square feet. in summation, what are the observations here? there is a wide disparity in outcomes in these cases. more in depth study is required for suspended cases because there are clearly more cases its there. however, the issue of fairness and equity needs to be considered because there's widespread treatment of these cases. one thing i urge you to think about is in the tax code and the criminal code, there is at least an attempt to level the playing field. and the way they do that is in the tax code there is the alternative minimum tax and in the criminal code there's

federal guidelines, sentencing guidelines, something to make sure that cases are all treated similarly. it's important. >> thank you very much. and we certainly are going to address this as part of the r.a.t., but that has been put on hold and is coming back. >> very good, commissioners. it will be under your regular calendar. item six was pulled off consent and take up the matter now for case 2014, 2906 fullsome street. you continued this matter from november 30 with the motion of intent to disapprove. commissioner hillis, you already acknowledge tad you reviewed the previous materials. >> good afternoon, commissioners. department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization for residential merger at 2906 fullsome street. the project involved new construction of dwelling units on a newly formed lot at the corner of 25th and fullsome street. currently 2906 fullsome possesses four dwelling units.

the project would retain and expand two dwelling units at 2906 fullsome and construct two new four-single family residences on an adjacent lot. on november 30, the planning commission adopted a motion of intend to deny the project. currently what has been put forward in the commissioner's packet is the revised motion expressing the nile. this concludes our presentation and i'm available for fi questions. thank you. >> project sponsor? since this is the second time we've heard this item, you'll have try minutes here. >> we'd like a continuance on the matter until the middle of february to have better communication with some of the residents in there. and continue to work through some of the issues. >> ok. thank you. is there any public xenl on this item? -- comment on this item?

>> good afternoon. you weren't here two years ago when we heard this before. my name is eddie steele and live at 2887folsome street, diagnose fally across from the building. i'm here with residents and there's two households at 2906folsome that were here two weeks ago. it is very difficult for them to come to these meetings. they didn't come today. i just want to say that i would like you to put an end to this condition and deny the conditional use today. this project has -- i don't want to go through the specifics of project and you all heard it already from me, but this project was first calendared for april of 2016. it was -- there was a motion for disapproval. it was continued again until february, i believe, of 20 -- i'm sorry, first one was 2015. 2016. and then we went to february

2017 and once again there was another continuance and you've already taken action two weeks ago. let's stop this. the landlord has had three years to communicate with the tenants. i don't know where he's been all along. i'm asking for this to be done so that residents can put this is behind us and live if peace and freedom, which is what has not been done since this person bough the property. thank you very much. >> thank you. next eke spaoer, please. >> hello. good afternoon. my name is isis, i live on 1 horace street add jay stoenl what's proposed. ever since they first mentioned the possibility of the project being built, there's been several discrepancies. there hasn't been much communication between the land lord and us and a lot of the residents on 2906 are afraid of their future and they're afraid of what is going to happen if this were to go through because if that were the case, then the

refnl they would be given would be a lot higher and there is no guarantee that they will be there once this proposed project is completed. everyone is worried. everyone is scared of the future, what would happen and i ask that you consider the future of the tenants currently living here for over 37-plus years. thank you. >> any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson. >> thank you. the last woman who came up and give public comment noted that there was a lack of communication between the project sponsor and the residents and i think that that sort of miscommunication extends to the commission as well. i've been on the axising when we heard this once or twice it may have started and i am still thoroughly confused by this project. it is not clear to me from the plans and from the various presentations we had from the meeting two week ago, was not the only one.

i don't know if we are voing for an eviction or not. i don't know if -- you know, the plans there's been discrepancies. i've seen differences in the plans. it is not clear what is demolished or kept. what is expanted. but people will have to leave. clearly it would be nice to see the first couple of hearings focused on the actual part of the lot that's all the parking spaces and so a lot of the testimony was about people using that as their storage and other uses. we've had different focuses and other hearings. i'd like to understand what we're voting on. if we could have a clear presentation on was proposed and how it affects those residents today, i'm happy to move forward on something today. if not, then as much as i don't really hate con wantses, i feel like we have to. i'm very unclear on what this project is about. and how it will affect the

people that are going to live there. >> commissioner johnson, just to provide a little more clarity in terms of the project that is before you, the entire slot located in rh-2 and because of that it is limited in terms of its density. that it can provide basically housing. so, currently it is an existing, nonconforming building with four dwelling units located within this rh-2 lot. for them to remove or kind of readjust the density on the lot itself, they basically are allowed four dwelling units across the lot itself. currently they have four. in the existing building. for them to build two new units aed jay send to the existing building, they would basically have to remove those two units and put them on to the two new units that are adjacent and

split the lot and build a new house adjacent to it and then -- but in theory it would not affect the existing two units that are currently occupied within the building. par of the issue that we have with the current building and the record is that the three-hour port as reported by d.b.i. shows four units during a site inspection of the property. we didn't see evidence of the fourth unit. it is a fourth unit on paper and not what we see in reality. we saw evidence of three units of which two were occupied by some of the tenants that were before you. so, technically by the planning code's definition, that is considered a residential merger because they would be expanding two of the units and adding them on to another portion of the lot. splitting the lot in half and building two new units. >> ok. >> so, net-net, there's no change in density and number of

dwelling units ton lot itself. >> so this is kind of where i got unclear. especially at the first hearing, we focused so much on two new units that were supposed to be on part of the lot where there is currently the parking spaces half a block. it is very unclear to me and i feel like the story changed. what was supposed to happen to the existing building? because the 3r report said there was four units, on inspection there's only three. the plans were based on four units. becoming two. >> correct. >> but if reality, that is not what was there. that's where i'm zeroing in on because that is what's actually going to affect the people that are there. that's why i'm saying i'm highly confused. it didn't take sense to me what was supposed to happen to that existing building. if there is really three units, are two of them being merged? if it's four, are we really -- >> in working with the

architect, we made the best assumption of where that fourth unit would be within the building and be dated to the plans to reflect that. realistically what would end up happening, the two existing hfp-the units within the existing building would become full flat units. correct? so the two units that are currently there and that are currently occupied would be expanded within the existing building envelope itself. and those two would remain the architects and the sponsor would build hfp-would take dense notice that they're allowed to build on an adjacent lot two more units that are adjacent to it. leaving the two existing residences with the two existing units and building two brand-new units on an adjacent lot and doing a lot split of which they would be allowed to do. >> and continuing on that line of questioning by was happening. so, that expansion of the two flats, however you consider it, just a straight expansion or

merging of two other units, another thing that was unclear to me is that a level of work that would require displacement or are -- is there concern more that after all the work is finished, the units would presumably be larger and would command or need at the higher rent. that par of the story was also -- i don't feel that was as clear to me. >> the lower flat already acts as a lower flat. that is where we suspect if there was a fourth floor -- fourth unit within that building, we suspect it was the front part of that flat matching similar to what's above so there would be no change whatsoever to that unit. the upper unit, the upper flat, which is currently broken up into two units, we were proposing to just remove the kitchen. so no construction could happen in that tenant unless they wanted to have any updates to their unit because it hasn't

been touched in a very long time and propose that as being storage space for that upper floor tenant that has some stuff located in the garage below. >> ok. and then other questions to the project sponsors out there and commissioner melgar, you are up next. why are we not seeing this new [inaudible] staff as well, last question on this, why are we not seeing this as a splitting the lot to new units where the zoning would be rh-2 and existing nonconforming use on the remaining lot. why are we not seeing it like that? >> they physically can't. they're not allowed to split the lot. keep four units in the existing building and build two new units. so, because the lot split would result in a density that is not permitted by code basically. they would be having -- you're basically intensifying a nonconforming condition and the

planning code and zoning doesn't allow you to do that. there is no way for them to split the lot and keep the number of units within the four existing units or even the three existing units and still build a new unit adjacent to it. >> ok. that sounds to me -- that clarifies. that sounds to me like a bureaucratic loophole that we should maybe talk more about it. i don't think we've had as many questions about the two new units maybe we did. i don't remember us focus a conversation on that in our previous hearing. >> can i ask to clarify -- on that, what code is dictating that? >> the zoning. it's rh-2 -- >> i know but if you split the lot, you have a vacant lot. >> it goes down to the creation of the lots and you can't have -- you can't do lot splits that basically force noncon frommer -- nonconforming lots. you can't do something that

pushes another building or existing building into more nonconformity. without getting, for example, a variance or something like that. >> will we get a variance? >> they can't get a variance from density. for example, wi have other programs like the baby bonus, you know the discounting the b.m.r. units but doesn't apply to r.h. properties, for example. things like that. in this case, this property, since it's only rh-2, it is not afforded a lot of the other intensives that we have within the code. >> commissioner? >> thank you. and thank you for the presentation. i did understand what you had presented. i wasn't here for the original hearing, just this last one, right? and i'm not ready to do anything. other tan to disapprove this project today. i understand the quandary there. i wonder if there is a different way to solve this

issue than on the backs of the tenants because i do think that what i took away from the last hearing was that the t scheme that you had come up with to have those units be b.m.r. units was not fully cooked for me and it also has very large policy implications in our city. you know, that is a rent controlled -- there is a huge number of rent control units and older buildings. you know, this one is -- there's lots of places that are, you know, underbilled. and if we're going to go down this road, i would like to hear from the mayor's office of housing. i'd like to see a program. i'd like to see an administrative and regulatory regime already in place to take these units. i'd like to have written assurances that -- there's just so many things that i think --

i understand what you had presented as the project. but i do think that there is more issues here that are brought up that i'm not ready to touch. and so i'm not ready to do anything but disapprove this project today. >> i'd reich to see -- to me, i couldn't approve the project clearly as it is now. but i think we need to get at that issue of -- because i know, and i'll send you this address by my house. there was a five unit building with a garage next to it that they used as their garage. and i thought it was a great project where they tore down the garage and built a three-unit building. it makes total sense to me. i would love to see that here happen if there is a way we can do i. maybe that was two different lots and they had a garage on two different lots. if we want to encourage that, we should figure out a way to change the code to fix that. >> one of the issues has been

if we do do the lot split, then we jeopardize the rent control or risk someone coming in as a t.i.c. and kicking someone out. we wanted to make sure there was permanent protection for those units. >> for the old xwllg? >> for the old building. i don't think that jeopardizes the rent control. >> we were told that in planning that we couldn't create a two-unit lot -- >> a new lot would be not subject to rent control. the new building would be. but the old building would still be subject to rent control. >> as long as you don't -- >> that is the problem. >> there was to displacement whatsoever in the project at all. and there is no displacement in the project. >> but you're -- i mean, we had four units and now we have three units. >> we'll have two. >> or two. all right. commissioner moore? >> i would agree that there are just too many questions, even the one you just asked and for that reason, i am prepared for this project just to go back to square one, deny today and let it re-emerge with a much more clear deck about what is

possible and support what is possible, but not what we would like to be possible but there is no precedent to it. >> commissioner johnson? >> so normally i would be in agree i can't understand of when there is too many questions, go back to square one. the questions that are posed are not ones that this project sponsor or any f*ut project sponsor could answer on their own. it sounds like our zoning code makes it such that we're doing mental gymnasticks to make this work. the only reason that they're touching the existing building is because we have a code that says you can't intensify the density on a lot and make it more nonconforming with a lot split. that seems to me like bureaucratic gobbledygook that we should be -- that we need to get through at the government level. there is no project sponsor that will be able to come in and propose a project that would rewrite our zoninging code. we have to do that. i think this is something where

we need to figure out what change or override be a special use district or something else would be necessary so they can do both things. split the lot. create some new units and not have to touch the existing building. remember it is not like the building is falling down. the building doesn't need to be touched. the only reason it is is because we got this confluence of things that are planning and zoning codes. so i think that we should look for a continuance. but the work isn't for the project sponsor up front, but it is for what zoning code do we need working with the supervisor's office or something so they can do the lot split without having to artificially touch the existing building for no reason and build new units. that is what we need to do. >> i don't think it matters if we continue it or deny it. because they're probably not going to come back with a merger. right? even if they could figure out

this issue and figure out how to build on the garage. it won't be this. right? it won't be a merger. i'm comfortable going either way because i don't think we'll ever see this back as a -- >> ok. >> hopefully the code has some room for it to allow it to be -- mr. gladstone is walking up here. [laughter] we can't talk about it right now. but if there is a way to do it defrmly. you know, or it may be an s.u.d. or some other mechanism or changing to the zoning code to allow for this. this is fairly common where there is a garage on another buildable lot and we should encourage that. >> i'm not recommending these people, but is there public comment on this? >> we had it. did we not have it? >> we had it. >> we did call it. >> we did. a couple of people actually commented. >> can i say one thing -- >> no.

no. unfortunately we're done with public comment. but thank you. commissioner moore? >> this requires further discussion as a discussion item, i think we should agendaize it as a generic discussion. and have the department talk to us in which zoning districts and what reason it is, and it is impossible, to have a clear metrics that we don't understand your double guessing. for this project to come back by the end of february as they're currently asking for. and there will be a foremost disclosure and robust discussion in the room being allowed to comment in public comment and take it further potentially as a policy discussion beyond what this project challenges us to do. but i appreciate commissioner johnson raising it to a level of much broader discussion. >> commissioners, i might recommend if you want you could do an indefinite nit continuance and once we work

through whatever issues the project might have or -- and/or do additional consultation, we can come back and recalendar it with whatever iteration comes forward in the future. that way we're not locked into a specific date -- >> is there even an advantage to continuing this if >> it probably leaves options open to the upon sort to help revise the project and/or keep his application open if need be. that is the only advantage. >> commissioner johnson? >> yeah. i would say that i concur with commissioner mooser on having it be a more deaf policy discussion as we look at dense fiing the city. this kind of stuff is going to come up. but it is helpful to not talk about in the abstract and the specific. that's where the rubber hits the road in this stuff. i don't think this is going to come back -- while i agree with commiser