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 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 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