mr. teague. i was not aware that he had asked the project sponsors to consider making some changes to the third floor. nor was i aware that he believed that the city believed through him to the second floor contained too much common space. i would have liked to have review that with our neighbors. that would have been helpful information, and we didn't have it. the decision's in your hands, and we ask that you make the most fair and equitiable decision possible. there are lots of decisions when it comes to housing, and certainly, preserving quality housing for families are important. i'm one of those families, and so are families here to speak. >> i'm sorry. as one of the neighbors, are you for or against this project? >> we are neutral on this project, and ask that you give due consideration to all opinions on this project. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >>clerk: okay. next speaker, please. >> hi. i am victoria chabin. 1715 alabama. i want to say the first word of sun light, this has been an ext

mr. teague, i'm having -- you just fueled my fire a little bit. the architect fuelled it initially by saying, implying, well, that was yesterday. it's 50 years later, and everything's changed. san francisco's different, whatever, and you just said -- you said the same thing. it's 50 years later, and things have changed, but you're using it in the example why a -- a variance might change, why a situation might change. what's bugging me here is that we have an owner of an apartment building that's been there 100 years, and that owner of that apartment building bought it with a condition on the title that -- that this area would be open space. there was an n.s.r. on it. it said on the title, open space. now if the apartment was gone -- the original apartment building was gone, no argument. the condition has changed, but this is the second owner. this owner bought it with this condition. the evaluation of this building will severely suffer because those two bottom units will not be -- sure, they may be livable, but they're not going to be as valuable

sorry mr teague. the property, evidently, by the tenants that are on the property , say it has been vacant since 2015. in san francisco, we do have vacancy controls. aren't they supposed to -- and then the other thing is, they are a block book notification -- is there a black book notification. >> not that i am aware, but i can check. >> is bbn only good for building permits are planning staff? >> it is for any permit or any other application that requires review by the planning department. >> if there is not, it is recommended somebody gets a b.b.n. so if the owner were to file any permits that they will be notified. >> true. but only if it requires planning department department review. this permit, this is subject -- he did not require planning department review. it would have not triggered the notice. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. okay. >> there are plans. two sets to appeal the kitchen. sorry about that. i misread it. >> thank you. we will now move on to public comment for this item. oka

mr. teague can tell you, a number of ways through the planning code to not provide that parking be it through a waiver or bicycle parking. i would be remiss if i didn't mention that the board of supervisors is in the process of amending the planning code as mr. star said earlier to not require parking anywhere in the city and county at all. so there is a delicate balance going on here. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i feel like i'm in a bit of another world. you have an elephant and how much does it weigh. the first person says it's 1,000 pounds. one says 1100. another says 1050. the elephant weighs 10,000 pounds. why don't we look and say, you've got two lots, medical retail and housing, do two separate buildings, get the 18 units. have one building with housing and retail. and the other with the medical and retail and housing. we're not being creative here. you're self-inducing the need to create these issues we're faced with. go back and look at two separate buildings with the different arrangements. >> president hillis: i think that gives you two staircase, two elevat

mr. teague's decision. the hu's purchased the property in 2009, their site permit was approved by the planning department in october 2015 and issued in 2016. our addendum drawings were filed in february 2017. that april of 2017, we discovered our site is hindered by an n.s.r. requiring the northwestern part of the lot must remain open as open space stemming from this old variance decision. in 1970, our adjacent owner to the north wished to subdivide his property. george imperiali wanted to sell a large portion of his lot, and arthur court, the preceding owner of our property wanted to buy that property as mr. williams stated. the subdivision would cause 3030 larkin to be in violation of several requirements, yet a variance was granted. the 1970 decision transferred an area to our ownership as an area to remain an open space in perpetuity. that's depicted here. 3030 larkin, the appellant's property is now over here. subsequent lot adjustment created a new lot, lot 22, and that created our new parcel, 24, whi

mr. teague, do you want to talk about the variance at all or your thoughts? because i think we get caught up in these sometimes where there's a variance and a d.r. i'm not seeing any extraordinary circumstances. no doubt there's an impact on the neighbor, there's an additional story in this building. there's going to be impact whether you have that, but our opinion is there's extraordinary circumstance, but i'm not sure there's anything that would compel me to take d.r. and modify this project. >> sure. cory teague, zoning administrator. the last time we had a project like this, you did the same thing, asked me to go first. i was wondering if you were going to do that again. >> commissioner richards: if he didn't, i was. >> no, this was interesting. the variance and the d.r. are asking us to look at it, two different bodies, looking for exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in two different ways. here there's an argument being made that there's not exceptional and extraordinary circumstances because the lot was split, it was developed a long time ago th

i was just made aware of this through mr teague because it was the planning department action. not a building department action the only verbiage they have on the new permit now is to remodel the kitchen, so to speak. >> but we would be just putting it back in the kitchen. >> if there is no kitchen, how can we remodel it? and if there was a kitchen there and there is no kitchen now, would it be your assumption that an illegal action occurred and the kitchen was removed illegally? >> that is why they got the notice of violation from the planning department. >> do they have a tiny kitchen and there? i don't know. i have never been in the site. do they have a makeshift kitchen in there and pulled out the larger kitchen? i don't know. >> does this project require drawings? >> yes. >> and this was otc, right? >> joined the backstairs or during the kitchen? the kitchen there just putting in cabinets. >> it is not a demolition of walls? >> if they are demolishing walls , the only thing that would be required is the notification if they are distributing lead paint. >> or are there draw