if you want to speak during that >> ok. >> president hillis: thank you all right. we will move now to the project sponsor. >> good afternoon. my name is stephen lee and i am the owner of the lot across the street that we are trying to build our house on. the proposed plan should be approved for these reasons. first of all, the project meets the planning code requirements. secondly, it requires no variances. thirdly, it has been reviewed by the san francisco planning residential design team to be in conformance with the san francisco residential design guidelines as well. so far, the project has been scaled down from its original plan in direct response for the

neighborhood's comments. and as far as environmental -- excuse me, environmental evaluation that hasn't already been done, it is filed with the san francisco planning department already. the project will comply with the san francisco slope protection act process for construction. in december eighth, 2017, rock ridge geotechnical conducted a safety report to evaluate the landslide slope hazard stability grading, foundation type and concluded that the current proposed plan can be constructed as planned. we plan to incorporate this recommendation, of course.

my architects have reached out to the d.r. requester and concerned neighbors to meet in person and listen to concerns. in order to see design solutions in response, i have agreed to revise the profile to be 4 feet lower than originally designed, as well as the revised windows on the south façade, to reduce the number of openings and adjust the location to avoid direct visual connection with windows facing the 20-foot wide public access on aerial way. these changes were made subsequent to the filing of the application and have been shared with the d.r. requester his. next i would like to introduce my architect. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is julie jackson. we have been working with stephen for quite a number of

years in order to get the project that he would like on this lot. this currently vacant lots. several years ago, we had our preapplication meeting with the community. we heard a lot of concerns at that point. we had a much deeper building, a higher building. we have reduced the project significantly and reallocated the entire building. it is a new building design. if i can show you a couple of things. >> president hillis: it is up now. pulled the microphone over so we can hear you. >> so the lines indicate the location of the project site. you could see that both adjacent properties are on double wide lots. those houses are essentially rotated 90 degrees to, the way the houses are oriented. the houses a little bit further down on the same side of the

avenue, just two houses down is actually a deeper house. it is around 56 feet deep. our project is 52 feet deep. this is totally in scale with the neighborhood context. the street is a mix of two and three story building heights along the avenue. we have kept the primary front façade height to be well within the scale of any of the neighborhood properties. they are all averaging around -- between 20 and 25 feet. we are at 22 feet at the property line, as david winslow mentioned. 20 feet back, we have a flat roof so we can bring some daylight into the living areas of the project. so we don't feel like the scale concern -- we feel like we have

addressed those. in terms of privacy, it is a public stairway. it is very well-traveled. the planning department and the residential design team did ask and agree that that should be designed as a primary façade and not a blank wall with no windows we have addressed the concern and there is no direct sightlines. there are some high windows, so bringing in light but not any visual access. >> clerk: your time is up. >> president hillis: is a public comment in support of the project? >> hello. thank you for hearing us. i am in support of stephen's project because he has promised to build me a dream house and this was it. it was about to -- it was supposed to be a bigger scale with elevators for our twilight

years back we had to get rid of the elevator because -- >> clerk: where you -- >> president hillis: you are part of the project team? >> not legally. [laughter] >> maybe one day. since we are in city hall, i said license bureau is down the hall. getting back to the master, we wanted to build our dream home since we are both born and raised here. we were both born in chinatown at the chinese hospital. i, unfortunately left san francisco and i have always wanted to come back to san francisco. i met steve nine years ago and we made that dream can't -- come true. i am back in san francisco and we wanted to build this home. police, please help us build our dream home. thank you. >> president hillis: any additional public comment? you have a two-minute rebuttal.

>> hello. i wasn't going to mention this, but i live across the street for 25 years. i know the former owner of this lot all that time until he passed away. he always told me, for that number of years that i have been there. he never wanted to sell the lot to his nephew to build anything. because stephen is the real estate agent. he wanted to build. the owner specifically told me that he wanted to keep the trees there for the birds and for the environment. and also, right after the passing of his uncle, stephen also told me that he would never live here because there was a house there already. he split the lot because the house was originally built on two lots. anyway, stephen always told me that he would not live there.

and he asked me, you know, if i was in his shoes, what would i do? wouldn't it be just to build and sell and make money out of it? anyway, i wasn't going to mention that, but just because you have said that you want to build a dream home, and you never intended to live there. i know. i got the motion. because a previous owner already told me that he never did want stephen to buy the lot before he passed on to build a house there thank you. >> president hillis: thank you project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> i wanted to address a couple of concerns that were brought up one of them to deal with the tree that has been removed. there's quite a few trees that are not being removed.

as the environmental evaluation indicates, we are removing one tree of many. you can see the arrow here pointing to a tree that is being removed. i don't think it is a natural habitat being destroyed in this area. as previously mentioned, we will be following all the requirements of the slope coordinates. and then, just in response to the latest comment about not wanting to build anything, we have gotten a sense during this project that it has been the motivation of the neighbors. we have not received, along the process, we have done considerable outreach in connection with them and initiated an in-person meeting. we have not been getting the -- maybe you can make slight adjustments or shift this left to right. it is an all or nothing issue. it is difficult when there is an empty lot and there will be something there that wasn't there before.

we realize that has an impact. but every property owner has a right to develop their property. i know that stephen has full intention of using this as his home for his family, for his children, for his future grandchildren. i can assure you that this is not a spec house and this house is within the scale of the neighborhood context. >> president hillis: thank you we will close this person of the hearing and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioner moore: commissioner richards -- >> president hillis: c8 i think you would appreciate going first. >> commissioner moore: this is a very interesting discussion. all of us fall in love with the vacant lots next door and the natural environment et cetera that they create -- creates. however, as the building is in front of us and i appreciate mr winslow's careful description and analysis of the project this is a full compliance project on

a legal sized lot which used to be a larger lot subdivided into workable lots. on its own, there is nothing in this particular building design that does not to meet any of the criteria with which we normally look at buildings. you may like the style or you may not like the style. this is not what we are discussing here. we are not judging on architecture but the build ability on the compliance of this lot and the context with what we need to look at eric i do regret that there are tensions between the neighbors. they seem to be obvious. that is unfortunately occasionally the issue when we are listening to d.r. his. i believe this building has been carefully shaped, pushed back by the department department, relative to openings on the public stairs, and i personally believe, that as we know, trees on private lots, unless they are

landmarked trees. it rarely happens on private lots. they are not under our approval to use or denial -- or deny. i have to support this project as proposed. it is suggested we do not take d.r. and approve the project. that is a motion. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? his ph just a question for mr winslow. it's what we have in the pocket of the revised project where they got rid of some windows? >> yes. >> commissioner richards: oh, k. is there a second. >> president hillis: their wives. >> clerk: if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. that will place us in item ten.

please note on april 19th, 2018, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter where it was subsequently continued again to today by a vote of 7-0. as this is the second time you're hearing this matter, commissioners, commission president to list, what do you want to place the timing at? typically we do three and one. >> president hillis: it is a d.r.? let's do three and one. >> clerk: very good. the project sponsor and d.r. requesters will receive three minutes. public comment will be limited to one minute. >> president hillis: we can do a one minute rebuttal. >> clerk: as you wish. >> good afternoon. the item before you are to publicly initiated requests for discretionary review of a building permit application to convert approximately 1200

square feet of garage space and two accessory dwelling units. a modification to the whole building, interior building remodel and reconfiguration of two of the existing units at a one-story vertical addition to the existing three-story six unit building. as for the changes to the unit configuration with the current proposal, unit number five will be reallocated to the proposed fourth floor and you number number 6 would expand horizontally into the former space occupied by unit number five. as mentioned, this was last heard on april 19th and continued twice to allow additional time for the project sponsor to discuss the project with the existing tenants. as an update, since that april 19th hearing date, additional 37 letters were submitted in opposition to the project. for a total of 55 letters.

and concerns raised were with the can pallet -- compatibility of the project with the neighborhood and the adjacent historic district, loss of parking, the potential for eviction of tenants or displacement of tenants, the affordability of the units after remodelling, and then other issues related to the inconvenience and relocation of tenants. the department also received letters are for support denoting the improvements -- improvements to the building and the need for maintenance of the building. in the planning staff has been contacted by two tenants, as well as a project sponsor, communicating a desire to have additional time to reach an agreement. the department ''s recommendation to the commission was to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed with the revision. as the project is co- compliant, at with the revision, is

consistent with the residential design guideline and would add additional housing. this concludes staff presentation and i am happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: we will hear from the d.r. requester first. and the project prompts or your sponsor will get six minutes. go ahead. >> ok. i am submitting to you a copy of the buyout offer that the attorney e-mailed to me. the owners are going to tell you how they are in negotiations with the tenants who previously appeared at the first d.r. they have asked them to drop their objections in exchange for buyouts. this is up to the tenants if

they want to take this personal choice but that does not mean anything changes with my objections. buyouts are the same in our world as eviction his. in 2014, we passed section 37.9 e. of the rent ordinance to prohibit condo conversions for ten years when buyout of tenants has occurred or when senior or a disabled tenant accepts a buyouts. eighty use are prohibited when there has been an eviction. the intention was to lessen the intense pressure that tenants face with buyout offers by reducing the potential profits for a speculator if they can get the tenant out of the way. we calculate a building that is offered to vacant can increase a sale price 20% so a few thousand dollars in buyouts is chump change. the buyout legislation benefits us all by limiting housing prices after tenants have been actively displaced. buyouts are now considered -- not required to be registered with the city so that their scope and effects can be studied

to. considering the history of buyouts in san francisco, i believe the planning department should also follow this policy. at the last d.r., there was discussion amongst you whether you would approve the building if it was completely vacant of tenants pick a sort of seem like you would. but do we want a process that encourages owners to clear out opposition through coercion and buyouts and then reward them with a green light? to the buyout offer in front of you, as you no kak the project conclusive fourth for addition. this letter on page 2 claims the tenants on the floor below can stay in place during construction if they choose. with the scope of the work that is being suggested, adding an entire floor above our heads seems impossible. the letter states that the tenant already wrote back to say they are uninterested in taking the buyout. owners are supposed to respect that once they get that letter. instead, the lawyer kept pushing

i continue to up -- continue to object to this plan as it fails to protect affordable housing and rents which is a priority of the general plan. also attached are two adds of other units in the building that appear and now running for $2,900. i could find no permits for that work. so i would ask this commission to guide this project today and remove the fourth floor. the structural work involved will affect the tenants too greatly and will increase the per unit cost going forward to. if the owners have indeed agreed and reached an agreement about the garages which were part of their leases and part of the issue on the first d.r., then stick to adding a couple of a.d.u. and leave the fourth floor alone. please don't approve anything that will harm these tenants, otherwise we are condoning aggressive displacement of residents to gain a rewards. that is not good for the city.

>> president hillis: thank you we have two d.r. requesters. >> sorry, trevor summers. i filed the second d.r. this is an eviction notice that was given in 2015, just to establish a pattern of behavior. so i would like to briefly stay, in the last d.r. hearing, there were two things that the commission said to. they said the building was empty and the plan would be approved. they also said that if there was no fourth floor, the plan would be approved. i would like to note that the project sponsors and the five months since that meeting have not submitted any new plans. they have used up time to

continue to pressure the tenants to accept buyouts and leave. so i've got a letter that i want to read from the property owner next door. i apologize i'm not able to attend this meeting in person. i was uninformed about it and not aware until tuesday of this week. it did not give me time to give -- to rearrange my schedule. i have not seen any new plans despite asking for them repeatedly. the owner ignored my e-mails emo street added into the process. it is difficult for me to follow them. dates change and jumper rounds and some of them even have future dates. at the discretionary review, they promise to take objections and come back with new plans. they have not done so. they have continued to work on strategy of coercing and evicting tenants. this time by rent evictions. they continued to oppose the projects. i previously submitted more than

50 objection letters for immediate neighbors. at this point, my main objection is the way the owners are conducting their business. they have believed existing tenants and made their lives miserable. they own multiple properties in the city and area and have a long history of evicting tenants according to the document for this property, they have begun trying to evict a long-standing tenants in 2015, which they had to resend. they tried various eviction notices for late payment during planned vacations. they have lied to neighbors about their intentions and they are aiming to line their pockets by presenting a thin veneer of adding a couple of affordable units. this is definitely not doing -- i used to be rent-controlled and below market rent and making the vast majority of it harder for people to stay. the proposed fourth floor does not add any additional units to the building. it forces them to move a tenant for no reason other than to

create luxury units to maximize their profits. it is my belief the owners are adding a fourth story is part of the retrofit plan and giving them a loophole in forcing tenants to move out for longer. this is not the first time we are hearing about these evictions. by approving this plan, you would legitimize this spin on your time is up. >> president hillis: thank you we have public comments first. in support of the d.r. >> clerk: i must be late for something. >> president hillis: yeah. >> it is a demonstration of the progress of the planning commission and building inspection commission.

it is important that the planning department and the planning commission and embrace this project -- progress, excuse me and support d.b.i. and his position that any vertical addition, by definition, includes a demolition. i have been told that adding a fourth floor will displace all the tenants on the existing three floors. the amount of work on the units below the fourth floor will depend on the transfer of the share load, and how the walls below align with the walls of the proposed new floor.

>> president hillis: your time is up. >> i would like to hand this out as evidence, exhibit a, about how these units were modeled. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. teresa flandick. i'm here in terms of one of the last standing tenants happens to be a senior and i understand that there were other seniors at one point also in this building. again, we have great mistrust in terms of the real intent. what has thus far been done in terms of trying to get tenants out. and the lies in the terms that the tenant would not have to leave. and so, again, it is -- you know, the same thing with rent evictions by an owner of the

building who first started with an o.m.i. and three bogus evictions and now mr. gladstone is asking for a continuance. and the tenant is seeking an attorney and, thus, needs more time. the onus is on the tenant and this is a horrible position for them to be in and to be coerced on a regular basis. and we know this. it's the reason that we did put legislation in place that we not reward these types of behaviors. so, please, do not do this. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment in support of the d.r.? okay, mr. gladstone. >> thank you, and thank you for giving me six minutes. first of all, commission president, thank you for allowing me to speak first about the continuance. we're asking for a continuance to october 2025. and you heard that two of the tenants are asking for continuance as well.

if you have a chance to ask many of the speakers who just spoke whether they're representing the tenants or representing a cause or representing what kind of building -- what kind of building they want to see, i don't believe that they tonight are asking for a continuance. two tenants, linda -- linda has been represented by represented for months and now they have asked her to have an attorney help them as some of the issues are legal. and the other has been working with an attorney. and they just want more time. and i want to remind you that three 1 tenants in the building have written letters of support and two have not. those two are not here tonight to oppose. those two are working with the client. we simply ask for more time.

i think that we should also keep in mind that there are -- well, anyway, i think that you should keep in mind that the tenants are working with us, not with me, i'm not a landlord tenant and we ask for more time. and the clients are focused on the relocation. it may be true that they focused originally on the buyout and it started in o.m.i. well before i was involved. one of the clients wanted to move there and he changed his mind and rescinded it. but since i have been involved, and that's the last two months, there's no talk of forcing tenants out through evictions. you know that i don't condone that. i have been working with the tenant attorney representing my clients to make sure that there are assurances such as no capital improvements pass

through when the tenants come back. and i have been talking about putting something in agreement with the tenants if there's any revisions to what is proposed later that these revisions have to come back to you, no matter what they are. i know that speculators have made later revisions to cause relocations to take much, much longer and then the tenants consider not coming back and you have a rent eviction. but i hope that with that kind of a condition we can deal with that and i hope that you give us the time. the -- i want to just remind you of what the benefits are of the project and to talk about the benefits versus the downside of giving a continuous. first of all, we have a half a floor, 60% of what a floor could be, added to the top. that gives three more bedrooms to the top two floor units. they're tiny. we have two a.d.u.s. we have 65 -- 58-year-old

building build with the shoddiest of construction and outdoor quarters, finally getting a useful life that's going to be expanded for perhaps 70, 80 years. we have to remember that our existing housing is our most affordable housing. i think that you should look at our existing housing. how do we increase its useful life? we sometimes have to have tenants relocate. there's some greater good here. the next tenant and the next tenant after that and the tenants 30 years from now. there are inconveniences. and we're just hoping that you allow us to make those inconveniences worth it by making sure that the tenants don't have to suffer anymore than they have to. and to the incident they have to, they're compensated for it. i think that i mentioned washer/dryers are going into the units for the first time.

again, we have a contractor's report that we have sent you saying the useful life of some conditions, including the dangerous electrical condition that needs a great deal of work. the contractors told us that the amount of work of the seismic and the electrical and the plumbing which will cause bathrooms and kitchens not to be usable at all times is the, you know, 80% of the cost of this. the extra floor, which is really 60% of the size of what the floor could be, is a small incremental amount. it does give us family-sized rooms with the two units that are family sized that we didn't get before. what's the downside of a continuance? extra time of the d.r. people who came tonight. it's all true. but i just ask to look at the benefits versus the downside and we ask you to consider an extra useful life of a large building,

more units and all of that and whether it's worth a little more of your time. i also wanted to say that the -- the comments that you have heard, i don't think that they're accurate. i'm told by my client if you look at what jennifer fieber put before you which is something very old and not since i have been involved and not recent. it talks about relocation and buyout and it gives them a choice. so please look carefully at what you have been given tonight and look carefully at the fact that you don't have the tenants or the representatives here asking you to decide this case tonight. i just ask for a little more time. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. any public comment in support of the projects? seeing none, d.r. request that you each have a minute for rebuttal.

>> i just wanted to address the tenant part. soim in touch with yuka and mioki, and they agreed to move out completely. so they won that. you know, they got a market rate unit now. the other woman is -- they are not lawyers, they are advocates so they're translators and not lawyers. so she's looking for an attorney. she was trusting that letter that i gave you that she could stay as far as i know. and the terms are that they need to drop the objections to this d.r., so that's why they're not here. and carl jenson was offered relocation and i good cause to not believe the word that the tenants are the ones that are being cared for here. >> president hillis: right, thank you. >> i'd just like to say that the neighbors and, you know, are not

in opposition of the project itself. we're happy to work with the project sponsors although they have not been cooperative. and we're super happy to see a.d.u.s put in next door and our primary concerns are, you know, to add that they're adding a fourth story and that will relocate all of the tenants in the building. that's it. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. project sponsor, you have a minute. >> well, first of all, i took a risk tonight and i talked to you about the continuance and i have not talked to you about the merits of building and i haven't talked about the things that we'll do to change the facade to make it less slick. i haven't been able to talk to you tonight about some of the other benefits and some of the redesigns. that was risk. i only ask that if you decide to hear the case on the merits

tonight that you allow us to present the architect and present some changes that were made, some of the things that we're proposing as conditions of approval. if you are so kind to give us a motion of approval. again, i prefer that we have that time. i prefer that you give the tenants the time to decide whether to relocate or not. and i leave that up to you. thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. so that closes this portion of the hearing. commissioners? >> so let me just kind of try to sum this one up as best i can. it's slightly complicated. as we go to the grandview the addition of the fourth floor which are not dwelling units, but bedrooms, require a seismic upgrade to the building which require the tenants to be relocated temporarily. additional a.d.u. units without

the fourth floor may or may not require the tenants to be relocated because you're not trying to, you know, take the weight of the fourth floor and put it down the wall. so we went over this with 505 grandview. we're being asked for a continuance because i believe that there were six tenants to start and there's now four in the building? >> two. >> two left. >> there's five and an empty unit. so there's five tenants and they're being discussed. >> so you started with six units that were full? can we go over the history here. >> it's now vacant, become vacant. >> they became vacant a few -- it became vacant a few months ago. and at that point mark had moved in. >> mark, the owner?

>> yes, mark, the owner had moved in. and i believe that at the moment that there is -- mark has left for a couple months and there's currently somebody in his place at the moment. >> commissioner richards: so there's five units left and it wasn't a buyout? >> no, it was a vacancy -- they were moving to another location. >> commissioner richards: great. so there's five units left. of the five units how many tenants want to have a buyout? how many want to remain? >> there's one tenant that -- that said she was most interested in a buyout. and then the other tenant she said that she may be interested in a parking buyout. >> commissioner richards: so she'd want to remain in her unit though. and the other two tenants, they want to stay? >> the other tenants do not want to -- from what i understand -- they have other plans during

construction and would not stay. >> commissioner richards: but eventually they want to return? >> yes, there's been comments about returning to an upgraded unit. >> commissioner richards: so that would be a total if the buyout doesn't go through of four? the one parking buyout and the two who said they'd relocate but come back, that's three. and if you don't have the buyout agreed to, you would have four units -- the tenants would want to return? >> i'm not 100% sure of the plans of some of the other tenants. but they've -- their plans are compatible with the project and that's -- i know that one of them wants to return. >> commissioner richards: so is it your understanding that if you just do the a.d.u.s that the people that want to remain in the building to continue

living there can? >> if we just built the a.d.u.s, we believe that there -- we believe that -- we've gotten another opinion from -- from construction contractor that is -- the tenants want to remain in the building with the a.d.u.s or with the fourth story, that we can work with them to remain in the building. although there would be a lot of disruption. we want to do what the tenants want to do. if they don't want to relocate, then we are working with them to provide what they request. we've also offered them the option to decide at a later time. if they do during construction decide maybe they actually do want to relocate, we will provide that with them and we have offered them a relocation

expenses beyond the three-month limitation. it's just whenever. >> commissioner richards: so, i mean, here's kind of where i'm landing. you know, we want to make sure that the tenants are taken care of. we want the building to be upgraded. and potentially allowing the fourth floor to halt and ensure that the tenants who were relocated or temporarily evicted, i guess, were able to remain in the neighborhood and not suffer financially but still come back, it could be a good tradeoff for me. but, you know, we continue and continuing to, you know, it's been alleged that we're pressuring the tenants to leave and if you come back in october when that building is completely vacant, i would say that is not what i thought we were trying it do here. you were trying to do a temporary relocation like the school of music did, that there was a real assurance they were

willing to return. that's for me what the issue is. >> that's what we have experienced over the past few months is that the goal -- the endgame is to get rid of all of the tenants so we can build up another floor. it's bad precedent and you're doing an a.d.u. to disguise the broader fourth floor of this building. so i think that is what is causing all of your problems and i would be supportive of some improvements to the ground floor in addition to the a. d.u.s but no fourth floor. i apologize. thank you. commissioner melgar. >> vice-president melgar: i agree, i think that it's a bad precedent in terms of our policy. it invites to open the door for the displacement of rent-controlled tenants from these types of buildings in san francisco. i think that, you know, there is a way to add density to underbuild lots.

and the way to do that is very strong tenant protections. i think that we do not currently have those in terms of the legislation. and i am just honestly not trusting that this is the way that it is going with you. we just heard too much. there's so much history for this project for me to trust that it's going to happen. so i would be in support of, you know, having a building of the a.d.u.s and doing some improvements but not adding a fourth floor. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: this is all of our sentiments that the ad adding of the fourth floor is too disrupting. and where it's demolition and it's an impact on tenants that is far too big. i believe that in the upgrades for the ground floor, that may be necessary, i don't know, but it can be done, including adding

a.d.u.s without any real interference with the tenants. if they are intended to have improvements, given a modular kitchen and restorative design, that can be easily done. and each tenant living with a certain inconvenience. and with the impact and the improvement of the unit. but that's not what we're discussing here. so i'm in full support of not adding the fourth floor and approving the project that envisions two a.d.u.s and one parking space, and the improvement that is otherwise considered in the plan that has the addition of one cut on the opposite street. and that would be the extent of what i'm ready to support. >> president hillis: a motion? >> commissioner moore: it's a motion. >> president hillis: motion is to take d.r. and allow the improvements -- i mean, disallow the fourth floor -- >> commissioner moore: with the department that the plans

evolve and from that modification of the d.r. with strict attention to minimal or no disruption to the existing tenants with the pursuit of a.d.u.s that address the extent of it being sketched out here, with the streetscape improvements to taking parking away and adding one more curb cut at the opposite street. >> president hillis: very good, commissioners. there's a motion to take d.r. and approve this project with conditions as amended to eliminate the fourth floor, creating minimal disruption to the existing tenants. and eliminating a curb cut, and ensuring appropriate light and air to the a.d.u. units on the ground floor. >> commissioner moore: and work with the department under the supervision of the

department to implement the plans that are described here. >> president hillis: and implementing the plans described by word. >> commissioner moore: working with the department. >> president hillis: on that motion commissioner johnson? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> aye. >> clerk: commission president hillis? >> clerk: so moved it passes unanimously, 6-0. >> president hillis: and the meeting is adjourned.