he will not be here the 14th or the 21 and i know that commissioner johnson and commissioner johnson will be gone on the 201st. the following are meeting week is thanksgiving so we will not meet and the week after that we already have a closed session that has been proposed for interview, but we could have that be -- or a second closed session to look at the review and discuss the resume, which would then push us back an additional week for interviews, which would be the 12th. i just want to be clear that if we are going this way, you know, that it just pushes the timeline and by this time, folks have been waiting for a month who have applied for this job. did you want to say something, mr. sherburne?

>> we have reached out many of the candidates. many of them who have to travel. we would just want to communicate in advance whether a decision can be made here or shortly thereafter so we can continue to engage them. as we push closer to the december holidays, travel plans can very much become a factor for all of them. we will help work with any of those candidates to do that, but i am a little concerned if we push into middle of december that there could be a conflict there. >> thank you. and that concerns me, too, commissioners because there is a market for candidates and there are other municipalities and organizations hiring for candidates that have similar qualifications and i don't want to lose our best candidates, but

commissioner richards? >> my mother turns 95 on december 13th. i probably won't be here on the 12th. i'm trying to be here every commission hearing, but, you know. >> yes. [please stand by]

>> commissioner moore? >> i would like to share my own experience. i sit on the board when board members call in. i edevastate that to commissioners and it is an absolute disaster because the ability to stay in a conversation by eye contact and know what's in the room makes those things extremely difficult no matter how accommodating were to the people on the phone. i would strongly recommend against it because you need to participate in a three dimensional conversation. >> commissioner fung. >> if there's no other options, then i will have to do my review and forward my comments to the commission secretary. but i would raise one additional point and that is, there is a

potential seventh commissioner and if it all possible, we should integrate the next commissioner as a part of this discussion. >> thank you, commissioner. so the potential seventh commissioner would be seated by december 5th, which is the time of -- well, if she gets through the process as expected, by the time we interview. commissioner richards? >> i move to commissioner richards -- i'm sorry to interrupt, but we should take public comment. >> we will now take public comment on this item. any member of the public who wants to put in their two cent's worth, please come up now.

>> i'm troubled by the fact there was mooing n nothing in wn advance for any of us to see. this is the biggest decision you'll make for the commission. the city has a real housing problem, a real development problem and people need to be assured that the candidates that you're interviewing really understand the context of this city, not only the development pressures but the pressures on the real people that live here. and so, i'm not really secon san

about what i'm hearing. i'm not kidding you -- if you will swear that you read them, academy of art, you have to read a couple thousand pages of documents in the next two weeks. you're going to read those and all of the resumes and consult them yourself and i'm not sure you'll get a good candidate through this process. so i would urge you to think through, to slow down just a tad, the fact that mr. fung has been in the process for hiring the ed at the board of appeals and miss moore was involved in the process that resulted in mr. ram is reassuring because they have experience in doing this. i don't know how much experience

the rest of you have had with hiring a bureaucrat that's really important for the governance to see. board of planning is huge and it's not reassuring to hear this conversation and i say, slow down. thank you. i think you need real input from mr. fung is miss moore. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner moore? since we are shorthanded and have experienced kind of what we

want, and i'm not saying we uniformly agree, i'm saying we find every possible avenue that we are together, do it encouragely and do it with just the right pacing that we consider to be sufficient to make a highly, responsible and long-term decision on who is next and do it all with a full understanding that we are only making recommendations, nothing more than that, but those recommendations have to be as thorough and as thoroughly vetted as we possibly can. and i do hear the public saying, don't rush it. i myself feel that there has been a tendency to rush it and obviously reasons why because we are still short-handed in adding another new commissioner who does not know us, has not worked with us will not help us to make a better decision. it will help us numerically to have one additional vote but it will not improve of what we are

sitting here, responsible to do by ourselves. >> thank you, commissioner kop particular le. particulakopple. >> let's be honest, the people apply maybe have jobs and in an awkward position, not wanting their current employers find out about this and i don't want us to stretch things out too far and lose what could be good, credible candidates for the position. >> commissioner moore? >> let me make a counterpoint to your observation which i respect. becoming a planning director in san francisco is probably one of the most highly coveted positions in the entire united states. so anybody who really wants it is not going to wager one way or another. they'll stick it through and figure out how to get the job. so i am not concerned somebody jumping off.

the only thing is, and i agree with you, don't push it too close to the holidays because travel is impossible if there are as many from people out of town, we should give them the opportunity to have a comfortable time to come and go. >> commissioner richards. >> the one awkward thing that i see with this schedule is should the new commissioner be seated to december 5th, we don't have a been of the give and take that she or he would have given us november 14th. and so, that person would splash in here and we would have to start trying to understand where he or she is coming from and it just feels weird. it doesn't give us the optimum outcome, i think. >> commissioner fung? >> my last suggestion on the potential schedule would be as follows, for the closed session

of discussion of potential candidates would be that monday before december 5th and then to have the interview the following week, early that week so we're not stretching it into the 12th. >> so have that be decembe december 2nd. the early possible date that a new commissioner can be seated is october 21. so there will be time for her to at least review some resumes, i think. let me make a couple of points because i have put a lot of work into this process and i do have

experience hiring executive-level positions, including the director of dbi and several other executive positions within the city and also in the private sector that, despite this being a very visible position and very desired, we are in competition with other municipalities, some of whom pay better than this position and also have an easier political climate than this position. so i am not agreeing that folks will necessarily stick it out. i think, actually, some of the best folks may not hang with us if we stretch it out too long. but that being said, i do think that we should do a thorough job and include as many voices as possible.

we have gone through great lengths to include the staff and the comment of the public, all different sectors in the public. but i'm also mindful to to extend the timing we lose candidates and have them not be available because of travel plans during the holidays. commissioner fung? >> no, i already spoke. >> commissioner moore? >> you suggested december 2n december 2nd is that what i heard you say? >> that was commissioner fung. i am not available in december. thank you, just clarifying. may i suggest another way of looking at this is that maybe we can do two closed sessions to review resumes and not everyone needs to participate in both sessions, but if enough of us

participate and remember what commissioners have to say, that would allow us, if we do the 14th, the 21st and also the 2nd, we could -- commissioner fung had suggested the 2nd, also. we could just sort of evolve the conversation and enough of us can be there to sort of progress and that will give us three dates by which at least all of us have participated once. that is a suggestion before we come in on the 5th and the new commissioner can participate in those sessions which is the 21st and the 2nd. >> if we t to go that route, you

have to assemble a quorum. so it couldn't be one or two commissioners. >> thank you. commissioner kopple? >> just factually, i'm not available on the 2nd. >> so that means we have no quorum for that day. >> i am. >> ok. >> i'm not. >> but i think that leaves us without quorum so only three. , maybe four. commissioner johnson? is it possible to do the 14th,

the 21st and the 25th? and then do interviews the -- >> the 12th? >> yeah. so that would be pushing back the entire timeline a week. >> i'm not here. >> that's right. yes, commissioner richards' mom has a big birthday. >> can we do the 9th, 10t 10th or the 11th. ? >> i'm free everyday that week,

as well, and so are you. commissioner moore, are you available from the 9th through the 11th? >> i have not looked at my calendar, obviously, other than my thursdays dedicated to planning commission, i have not looked at other dates to set aside for this effort but i would like to suggest for the matter of e expediency, if somee can take a calendar and hand it around instead of us going over the same dated again and again quickly indicate when they are or aren't here and then look of what other dated are available. >> so commissioner moore, i attempted to do that in setting the original dates and got a poor response from fellow commissioners. so there is an attempt to make the process transpor transparen. >> commissioner johnson? >> i already spoke but those

dates work for me. >> commissioner richards? i make a motion more november 4, 21st, 5th with a decision coming the 9th, 10th or the 11th. >> second. >> if you can announce you're endorsing the process for commissioner melgar and you're announcing them as potential dates and i think we can work out the dates if they change over the course of this time between now and then and there's to requirement for you to actually set the dates.

>> there's to requirement to set the dates today. the most important thing for today is to endorse the process. so in speaking with city attorney stacie, there's a 72-hour notification requirement as long as we hold sessions here in city hall. >> i think in the endorsement of the process, for my fellow commissioners, we are agreeing to the premise we want as much participation by as many commissioners as possible in the vetting of the resumes, the discussion of the resumes and before we are interviewing the candidates. >> understood. i'm just clarifying commissioner rims said 14th, 21st, december 9th, 10th and 11th and we're not having closed sessions on all of those dates, right. >> well, we're not having session on 9th, 10th or

11th. >> it will be four closed sessions. >> got it. >> was there a second? >> i second it. on that motion to endorse the process and setting closed session dates for november 14th, 21st, december, 9, 10 or 11th and december 5. >> commissioner moore? >> this is not by normal planning lingo. this is a statement of support and intent or whatever, but not a motion. >> well, commissioner richards is making a motion to endorse this process, so it is a motion. >> a request for endorsement. >> right. he's movin moving to endorse soa

motion. >> thank you for clarifying. >> on that motion, commissioner f urinatiocommissionfung, commi? aye. >> commissioner moore, aye, commissioner kopple and melgar, aye and it passes 6-0. >> that will place under doctorrer's announcements doctor director's announcements. >> there's a connect msf and i wanted to announce for your sake, we have several public meetings on this program and the first is in the southeast, wednesday, the 13th, from 6:00 t community facility and the

second is a youth workshop being cohosted by the san francisco youth commission on thursday the 21st from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at mission high school and there will be fyi, two public workshops in late january. we don't have th the specifics t this coming your way which this is connect sf in concert with the city's other transportation agencies. thank you and that concludes my report. >> item 12, historic preservation. >> good afternoon, eric star, manager of affairs. the committee held a meeting on the implementation of to make this a city-wide priority sponsored by furer and man

mandelman. it would extend the medical cannabis dispensaries and you heard this on october 24th and the planning commission's recommendation was to extend the permits to four years instead of three. at the hearing there was no public comment and it had to be continued one week and at this week's committee hearing, they voted to recommend the item to the full board. at this week's full-board hearing, the job's housing linkage fee by supervisor hainey passed a second read and fulton street grocery store by brun

passebrownpassed a second right. the 3333 california street were continued to november 12th and that's all i have for you today >> thank you, mr. star. >> let me see if i can get this microphone and figure it out. the board of appeals met last night and heard something that is the appeal of a large project at 344 14th street and over the last year, the planning commissions had many hearings and ultimately took action earlier this year, granting large project authorization. this is a state density bonus project and was the first state density bonus project appealed to the board of appealed. appea. many things related to the environmental review appealed to the board of supervisors within the last month and that board of supervisors unanimously upheld the environmental determination that the department made on the project. similarly, last night, the board of appeals upheld the project

and the matter is concluded. >> commissioners, the preservation did meet yesterday and approved or adopted recommendations for approval for multiple legacy business registry applicants and the only item of note is they also reviewed -- i want to get the name of it correct. the retained elements special topic guidelines coming before you, as well. if there's nothing further, we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of comment may address the commission of the jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. that will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. you may address the commission up to three minutes and i have

numbers and cards. >> ok, we have mr. georgia shudish, ilene bocan, duncan lay and rose. anyone not on the agenda, please do so now. >> hi, i want to fix the overhead. >> part of this is that they blow up the kitchen and the kitchen becomes the dominant part of the house and takes over. so here is a house that recently sold and i sent you an email about it on castro street. and you can see, sort of,

there's a kitchen. it's pretty small and there's two bedrooms and another little room that they call office, but that certainly could be a bedroom and this is sort of a typical san francisco lay-out. it's a typology. i think it's a good one and if you look, there's a full garage. if you want to dens densify, you could put an adu. it's a big space and they tear down the house and this one, you can see the kitchen and here it was originally, as it was, this is a real house that sold for, you can see the original layout

there. there's the kitchen. it originally sold for like 1.2 didn't then 4.1. so it's a san francisco typoloy. here are pictures and just to show you some layouts, that's the nortra house that didn't get torn down and what made me think about it, there's the kitchen and his wife was a gourmet cook in new york. here is a picture of the nortrr house and here is a worceistrer house and a daily house in pacific heights. there's discrete rooms, reasonably small. i want to point out a couple of months ago you had that thing on courtland where they expanded the butcher and the project sponsor said, nobody cooks any

more so if that's true, if uber eats, you're looking at trends, if uber eats is going to be the future and no one will cook any more, why do we need kitchens that, basically, blow up a house when you can have a livable layout like the typology in the mary brown study and here are copies of that and here is for the minutes and i'll show you the mary brown typology. they're all kitchens and perfectly functional. you could live like that and you could do a horizonal exception and add another bedroom. so that's it. thank you. >> thank you, miss shudish. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm with the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods here on my own behalf. i'm here urging the commission to conduct an informational hearing on 2050 sometime this

month. the board of supervisors with 2050 will be introduced at the november 12th meeting. the board of supervisors' action is required by the end of this year to meet mtc deadlines. planning department staff has stated its intention to bring this issue before the commission as an informational item only after it has been approved by the board of supervisors. this is despite the fact that the planning department has been part of the team developing the plan b or 2050 component for san francisco. the planning department, the mta and the transportation authority proposal would make significant changes to the priority development areas and this would affect not only transportation but also land use. plan be area 2050 is a land use document, as well as a transportation document. therefore, i believe the commission should weigh in on the proposed changes before any

action by the board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you, network next spea, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dracari donaldson, i'm a registered adequate for a proposed cannabis dispensary at 312 columbus street. i've been sinning behind a pending application for a dispensary at 3035 grant avenue. the pending applicant has had a number of glaring issues with their application which has prevented them from moving forward in the already-extensive process in opening a cannabis business here in san francisco. with no viable plan to address these issues they've been allowed to drag their heels while my team and i are forced

to exhaust their resources and wait. the group behind the pending application already operates multiple dispensaries in the city and you have to ask yourself, is this what the equity program is supposed to represent? i'm here today as a small fish in a situation. to ask you to please inform the planning commission thats application for 1335 grant avenue is noncompliant and this applicant is out of time? thanks. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is duncan lye and i'm here to speak about the same application dracari is referring to. our group has been in second position since the applications were submitted in may of last year and the permit in front of us at 1335 grant avenue has delayed their application to the

deadlines that they've been given every time and based on the very accomplished list of people that are associated with that permit, you have to assume they understand the process and know what they're doing. they've delayed an attempt to paint a local favour to change zoning prohibits accessory use on grant avenue as it is and that proved unsuccessful and they adjusted their plans which we still find to be out of compliance with the code and accessory use. we don't believe this was the intent of the application process. they forced the only competitor to bleed money in hopes we draw. we have a zoned and qualified location and we have a more than qualified equity applicant who represents the definition and spirit of the law. so we ask that today you review the pending application and ask for 1312 columbus avenue in the first position so we can quickly pursue the opening of our business and start serving the community. this process is complicated and lengthy enough and no applicant should be allowed to knowingly drag the process alone, let

alone when there is one go in the wings. not to mention, they have, i think three to four dispensaries in san francisco with another three to four pending. so we have to ask, they know the process, they've delayed it and have had their opportunity and ithy it'ithink it's our time, t. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, long time no see. sf didn't tv, please. i'm sorry i wasn't here last week but there were birds telling me story so i'm here to present public on general public comment. a general public comment was

reordered on the following dates as you can see. to the end, after the department matters, to the end, after the department, so this is moving around. the background is in 2015, president fung formed a committee and the flee commissionerthreecommissioners d they passed a form of the agenda or what's supposed to be on the agenda on july 2nd, 2015. in r & rs responsible which is,s and regulations, it says these rules and regulations may be amended at any regular meeting by a majority vote following a public hearing providing the amendment has been calendared for hearing at least ten days. my concern is, after all of these people are calling me and doing things and i couldn't have time to come here, but in what ways can the commission handle changes listed in the items in the r & rs?

i'm submitted under sunshine 51.56 for these texts to be put in the minutes, thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? with that general public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> a question for the director. it was alleged that an application was accepted on a parcel not zoned for it. >> i just was emailing staff to try to find out what's going with that. >> just further inquiry on that, director rand. so i think we're overdue for someone from the office of cannabis to come and tell us what their process is looking like, whether the assumptions that they had made about the process have come through and

how that process is working with our process to hopefully avoid the issues that we heard about today. but you know, we also have a new director that has not come in front of our commission and i've met her and she's lovely and it would be great to have her here. >> i would be happy to do that. i don't know whether they're at the office of cannabis or with us right now but i'll find that information out and report back. >> thank you. commissioners, if you would indulge me, we received quite a large number of people who were alateralled whealarmed when thec was put to the end. that's not the first time the commission has done that and i would like to clarify the rules and regulations do list order of business, but it clearly states that the order of business at any regular meeting may be as follows, not must be, but maybe as follows. so it doesn't dictate the order of business. it further states that the president or chair may change the order of business as

determined necessary for the planning commission to conduct its business effectively. so moving general public comment to the end of the agenda did not break anybody's rules or regulations. >> so i will just clarify further for the public. and beg for your patience with us. that we are a commissioner short right now. hopefully it won't be for long. and moving public comment to the end has been, just since i've been here, a way to maximize quorum and participation of commissioners while we have them. so being down a commissioner, if someone needs to leave early and gets sick, as was the case when this happened, you know, we need to get stuff done and get it through. so we're weighing both the need to do our jobs and also that humans are humans and we're down a commissioner. so i just ask for your patience

and forgiveness while we're going through and hopefully we will get our seventh commissioner seated promptly. thank you. >> that will place us under the regular calendar for case 201 201-013522 xca, code clean-up, 2019, planning code amendment. >> when are we hearing the items that came out of consent? >> thank you, commissioner moore. i certainly overlooked item 7 that was pulled off of consent. case number 208-009548 cu8 baden street, conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president melgar, commissioners. i'm with the department staff and the case before you is a request for a conditional use authorization for the creation of one substandard lot and new

two-story dwelling unit. it is located on a vacant lot to be altered via a lot line into a substandard lot. the lot line will be on the subject property by the exist cent building at 433 bayden street. the project site is a 2,500 square foot property on the west side between martha and mangles' avenue, 40x, and outer mention neighborhood. the immediate neighborhood includes one to three-story family story buildings and the item before you is required by planning code 121 for the creation of one substandard lot and the development of said lot with the single family dwelling unit. they have not received any opposition in support of the project. they believe the project is

necessary and desirable for the following reasons. the department finds the project is consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. the project will maximize the use of a underutilized lot and provide one additional dwelling unit to the city stock. it will construct the building compatible in size, density, height and architectural characteristics of the neighborhood. the proposed project will not displace any existing residential tenants or remove any rent-control housing, as well. this concluding the staff presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. do we have a project sponsor?

>> hello, commissioners. i'm the architect of the project, mark hogan with open-scope studio here representing my client clients e here. they currently live in the adjacent house at -- >> can you speak into the mic, please. >> sorry about that. >> they currently live in the adjacent house at 433bayden, which is the house over the existing property line. they would like to develop the vacant single-family house or want to develop a vacant lot next to them. the building department will not allow that permit to proceed without the lot line adjustment because there's currently a portion of the wall, the

existing home over the lot. and the new house otherwise meets planning department design guidelines and meets the zoning, rh1, 40x zoning for the site and it is in keeping with the character of the house adjacent to it. we're proposing four bedrooms, 3.5 bands and one-car garage. the 433 is to the left and the other neighbor to the right, so the rear of the proposed house. and then this is the site plan showing the existing property line and then the proposed property line which would be regular and accommodate the bay on the front of the existing home at 433.

so the rear of the new lot would continue to be 25 feet wide at the proposed new home and it would be approximately 24 feet, 24-foot, two inches wide and the front of the lot would be 19 -- slightly over 19 feet wide. there would be partial demolition of the roof eve on the existing house to accommodate this and bring it back on to its own parcel. and then these are the floor plans. there is a basement, ground floor, the existing grade of the lot with a driveway out to the lower part of bayden street and then the second floor, two bedrooms in front and the master in the back. and this is the elevation facing bayden street. as you may have noticed on the site plan, the street doesn't

continue in front of the parcel. because of the grade change, there's a retaining wall so the two houses don't actually connect. and this is the rear of the house showing the two adjacent prompts. adjacent properties. that's the end of my presentation. >> thank you. we will now take general public comment on this item and anyone, i do have a speaker card. john mcgraph and anyone else who wishes to speak on this item, please come up. >> can you hear me ok? i love at 405b aske 405 bayden d which is the third house down from the project i'm here

because of sewer work at 411 bayden. it has been proven the existing line consists of 411, 419 and from what i've seen from the cameras, the subcontracted people that pg & e have sent through the city to check there are no gas lines or whatever interfering with sewer lines, it is only one line. it is substandard. at 411 bayden, there was just work done because her sewer was backing up through the inspection cover. and this is not the first time, but also 419, it's happened and i am not sure but i believe it happened at the top, what is now considered 427, 433 bayden. i'm more concerned about the disruption that this is going to cause to the neighborhood.

this is over 20% grade of a street that goes up to the top where they want to propose this building. as we all know through physics, feces rolls downhill and goes into my property. and i just -- this is my first time here so i beg your forgiveness, but i'm trying to get answers. because i could not hear a lot of what you've said, i believe it's been taken off the consent calendar. i'm not sure what that means. i saw that commissioner moore said something and i would like that to be explained. they have been put in for an addition previous to this and i would like to know, you know, what is the concern here. is it because they actually own

the property? it's their lot, they can do whatever they want with it and all of the notices that have gone out to the neighborhood, i'm the only one that shows up? although everybody that walks their dog across from me has asked me about this project. i said, i will come down. i will find out. i will ask questions and i will follow through and that's why i'm here. >> it just means we're having the hearing now. >> so that meant that it was going to be later on as i am right now. >> and not approved without the discussion, is we're discussing it. >> so before you rubberstamp this property thing, i think you need to take a better look into potentially what's going to happen, is the sewer an eight-inch line or not?

the person who was head of the project at 411 bayden has more information and, unfortunately, that day, i could not stick around and talk to him more about what i knew about the existing lines previous to this. >> thank you very much. any other pub comment on this item. commissioner moore? >> the idea of approving a substandard lot is a good idea. i think the building a well-designed building and that's not the reason i pulled it off consent. i like to get the commissioners' attention to drawing a111, where on the second floor, on the north wall, although it is a property line to property line wall, there's an exiting door, which i do not understand.

when properties abut with each other, there is no room for a door unless the same owner wants to leave a possibility of moving from one building to the next building. and since the architect is here, you could bring up drawing 111 and explai explain why there ise door and what you are continuing to do with it. if your idea is to have property two being sold, why do these buildings need to be connected and they shouldn't be connected anyway? >> the idea is in the interim,

they could use both houses and downsize into one of them at a future date. the building department has information sheet or bulletin that allows for that in the building code. we presented that to planning staff and received no comments. >> i believe since you are having a lot division here, you are coming here for a lot division. >> no, it's already a separate lot. >> for that very reason, it's basically allowing access between buildings on two separate properties. i would like to have the zoning administrator or an architect or somebody weigh in. that's highly unusual. and i think it raises all kinds of questions.

>> if you saw fit, you could restrict access between the two parcels, adding a condition to not require any kind of communicating doorway between the two individual parcels and add that as a condition. >> i would like a further explanation, you know, before we do something like that. i mean, i understand what commissioner moore is saying. please. >> so currently, it's actually two separate properties as it is now. what this project is doing is actually rectifying a building encroachment per the lot lines and so now what it's doing is shifting the lot line over a maximum of three feet, three inches to accommodate the existing building encroachment because without that, the building permit has expressed to applicants they won't be allowed

to build an addition that crossed the property lines or if they wanted to build a new construction, they would have to rectify that before anything could happen. and so the intent has been to provide an additional dwelling unit. they want to be able to accommodate an expanding family but the way they go about it within they could build on two lots but that means that they have to do the lot line adjustment at some time or any time or if they wanted to expand and accommodate an adu, they couldn't do that without the lot line adjustment. >> commissioner moore? >> if the department justifies this by adding an additional dwelling unit, then i do not quite see that because it's basically horizonal addition and should come in under a different discussion. i believe that it is more or less like megamention because

we'rmegamansion.we're asked to n existing dwelling or a building for the same people on two lots. i think that question is very different for me and since we are so intent adding dwelling units under the subject heading this add as nicely designed dwelling unit on a separate lot, i'm prepared to approve it if it is basically only horizonal addition, i have very big questions and i think at this very moment, since this is not properly presented to me, i will not approve it. >> thank you. commissioner fung. >> i think planning staff's explanation, we all understand in terms of why the lots are split. the question raised is whether the continued dual use of both buildings for whatever their purposes are through that

interconnecting door is appropriate. also, i thought with two separate properties, if you're crossing a property, i thought it had to be a four-hour connection. >> there's a requirement for a one-hour wall on each side of the property line and the building has an equivalency that allows for a door on each property and the building will not be structurally conducted in the future when their children are out of the house and no longer have childcare, they will be able to move into one house and sell the other parcel. it's a completely independent single. family home. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask another question. what you're describing is obviously a very legitimate attempt by a family to use the prompts. properties. why in the application did you not bother to show this commission how these two buildings are to function with

each other? because you are drawing it as if it's two different buildings. you're not disclosing what's on the other side and i think that is where this commission gets tripped. at briefly looking at the drawings, unless you really spend time looking at them, it's a separate house, fine, let's go and i'm quite disappointed to give you my personal opinion that if that is the intent of why is that not disclosed here? >> my impression was the conditional use was for the size of the parcel which we've addressed. the interconnecting door was never brought up during the entire review process and it's on the plan interests o plans ai just showed. we didn't realize it was an issue.

>> thank you. commissioner moore has stated she won't be supporting the project as presented. i just wanted to add that i have no issues with the drawings. i did not see that door thank you, commissioner. you always notice little details and i think this has been consistent in our desire policy-wise, that if we are adding, you know, bulk and mass that we want to see additional units. and so, this project is presenting us with a dilemma because it looks like it's an additional unit but it's not as presented. i'm wondering what happened here because you know we've been consistent in policy and so, i wonder if we need a little more

time or where we can go from here? because as presented, what we're doing is really merging two separate units? even though it's presented as a lot line adjustment for compliance, but the outcome is going to be to merge two dwelling units which is not something i've done since i've been on this commission. we've been pretty insist tenentf you're adding more space, add another unit. >> i'll explain the background. the proposals were to do horizonal addition and dbi said you can't do that and you would have to merge both lots, getting rid of one lot to be able to build, say, a single-family home and ad on it. so that was out of the picture, like, mo, we want to maximize the density and that's our purpose. so we came here, lot line adjustment, let's build a new construction where both other thanships arotherownerships aret we could add a unit which is

what the family is requesting. so the project sponsors have agreed to eliminate both doors. commissioner moore? >> we can approve this project with the stipulation wit, with e condition the drawings are being revised, that the department acknowledges and presents to the department that through the commission that the drawings have been amended and have a restricting condition on the approval that two buildings cannot be connected but they will come as independently as accessible occupied buildings. i make a motion for that type of approval. >> i second. >> there's a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to require that the