corey teague again planning department. um yeah. we have no reason to not believe that the property owners are great landlords or anything related to anything they've disclosed regarding their financial situation. uh, and the challenge here is those things aren't kind of relevant to the question of the reasonable modification, because the reasonable modification is really just about modifying code requirements to address a physical need due to a disability. um, and so that here is the ability to connect to physical units, to have, you know, home health professional there. so the reasonable modification that's been provided would do that. it will allow the connection between the two units, which is not something you can otherwise get permitted in the city. um that will physically allow and accommodate the issues at hand. and the, the request is to go further than that. and and form fully and formally and legally merge the two units into one unit, which would be a loss of number of units. um which there are different ways you can slic

corey teague, planning department. um commissioner epler touched on a couple of things i was going to point out, which is, i mean, the applicants were aware of the objective conditions when they filed this subject permit because they clearly been adopted by the planning commission previously. um, also astutely, like on the ha question, i mean, i think there is a question of what is a new project and ha doesn't tell us what a new project is. um, the planning commission, you know, specifically we asked at the at the hearing, uh, the city attorney's office, you know, to give them some confirmation on the 174 premise that was supported, like the planning commission's basis for making this decision was an understanding that they were compliant with. ha. obviously, the appellants disagree, but like, that's that's that was the understanding that the planning commission had um, and the applicant was very clearly aware of the objective requirements and they did not feel that this represented a new project, even though it was te

corey teague za with the department and kelly winning or code enforcement manager. we are in front of you a follow up item on legislation you heard earlier this year which up grid the code enforcement program in the planning code. in various ways but -- created new fees and requested the planning commission within 12 months of the date adopt factors had impelevening the new fees. brief background. ordinance was buffer in earlier this year. it was order in the daily pens up it 250 i day now ump to awe thousand a day and new notice and gave the department the ability to record orders of, buyments and leans like what dbi does for unpaid fees. the big change is this introduced these 2 new one time punitive penalties that the planning code program was not. all the potential fees were cost recovery or spents to try to bring about, bait am we did nohave citation authority or assess large fees. this changed that by creating 2 new pens and one is for i have lithes where a residential unit is removed or 4 or more are added. in that development we do see a number of residentia

corey teague zoning administrator with planning departments. good to see you this afternoon.joined again today by kelly wong, our code enforcement manager. uh, we were here two weeks ago with this proposal. originally, um, it was continued today just for further consideration, i think for more commissioners to be here. um, the commission didn't request any additional kind of information or documentation from staff, but we are here and available and just, um, as an fyi, we did pass out, um, a hard copy of the presentation on, like, the code enforcement process in general from early this year when we were here before you, um, as well as, um, it was pointed out at the last hearing that the specific recommendations on the 12 factors for the wsa to consider when assessing penalty, we only had 11. we'd left one out. so i wanted to just give all 12 of those in front of you. so those are the two handouts that are there. um, just one quick reminder is that, you know, the this ordinance required action from the hpc and the manner that's before you and also similar action from the plann

corey teague zoning add administrator for planning staff. joined are enforcement manager, and as you all know the preservation as limp the item is request to adopt a resolution it define terms and provide factors and criteria for consideration. when assessing new penalties for violations impacting historic resource. you may remember i will give background we came early 30 year in march or april. with this ordinance. that really proposed a number of changes to enforcement program. and you may recall our program is really not punitive. it is much designed to bring abatement hoist and work to correct violation and if this is in the happening we use daily pens to leverage and encourage that. we don't have citation authority or punitive components to the program that ordinance changed that it does add to very specific purposely punitive penalty this is the za can assess. it also increased our daily pens up to 250 dollars a day it a thousands a day. it created notices that we can sends and also tools for noticing and collections we can -- record o

corey teague, zoning administrator. the board of appeals did have a lengthy hearing last night, and there were two cases that were the bulk of that and that were of interest to the commission. the first was an appeal of a reasonable modification granted to 51 prosper street. and if you recall this was originally before the planning commission as a conditional use authorization request to merge two dwelling units. um, that was running into sb 330 challenges as it was determined that the impetus for that request was because the occupant and owner, um, had a qualifying disability and could qualify for the reasonable modification process instead of a conditional use. they went through that process s the proposed parcel was for a full merger. there are two criteria that must be considered out of seven for a reasonable modification. one is are there other alternatives than what's being requested to provide the physical accommodation and with the accommodation represent, um, a fundamental alteration to the code of the general