this is a rental unit. this was stated on the project's sponsors application. this is intended for owner occupancy. this met the third findings of prevailing occupancy. there are quite a few single family dwellings. this did not meet the fourth finding which is that it comes closer to conformity with the prescribed zoning paren. the final finding is that this was a dwelling unit that was added fairly recently in the 1980's. the project sponsor has raised issues but really there are functional deficiencies which would preclude the enjoyment of both of these units. it is with those findings that the department recommended the denial of the building permit application and that the planning department denies application. a letter was submitted after the planning department had prepared the initial and before the hearing. this was presented to the planning commission. i would like to point out that the application itself said that this is a tenant unit and this is in fact a rental unit. for those reasons, the board upholds the and -- we request that the board uphold

this would be appropriate to to remain as a two-unit building. >> the rental unit had been vacant for a year. did your department to verify that? >> we have not verify that independently. the issue here is to meet the finding and this seems to be owner occupied in currently this is not owner occupied. >> that made me think of something else. both units are rented now? >> the owner does occupy the lower dwelling unit and this is the upper unit on the third floor which are the rented units. >> i think the owner occupied thing probably comes from jersey street and we have done some of this. i don't know if you remembered jersey, this was one of the first that was done. it seems like you can come up with something other than that. on the owner occupied a share, the fact was that no one was living there and the couple was occupying both floors. the thinking was that it had more to do with the fact that someone was going to be effected from the unit and the board was trying to prevent that. i don't see that being the case. the tenant has written a letter saying that she intends to be a temp

this rental unit has been left on occupied for a long line of time has to understand from to the prior ownership according to the realtor, it was empty for a year immediately prior to the purchase of the property. this is sufficient. we have tried living there and it does not make sense and it does not work. the property is not designed or function two units. we do not intend to read this in the future. thank you. >> it looks like one is meant to be an exercise room and the other would be redone in the dining room. >> that is correct as i mentioned in another case a couple of years ago, we considered a merger that has been below this as well. we require them to keep their utilities. would this be something that would work for you? >> this would not be our first choice. >> is to any public comment? >> mr. sanchez, you have rebuttal. >> i want to provide a better answer for the affordability finding. there is an exemption from the discretionary review hearing. this is something that would be more than 80% of the cost on a combined land and structure. with that, it was not able to meet th

he did not exempt rental units entirely and we did create an opportunity for them to develop through development agreement because we believe rental development is very important to the city. i wanted to mention a staffer for -- staff report. i wanted to mention a couple of changes that the mayor's office of housing is also proposing. we are proposing we work with the planning commission to address some stakeholder concerns that are coming up over the past few years in response to the ordinance. it is an exciting program. there are many opinions about the program both from those who own the units, but the units, assist those trying to get into the units, and it has been a pleasure to work with everyone on their feedback and incorporate what we can. i want to highlight the challenges we have had with reselling units. although most of our units resell nicely, and in a timely manner, are resold at an affordable price to a qualifying households, some of our owners are facing some challenges, and i say about four dozen or so of our units are facing this challenge. what we are seeing is tha

this is a rental unit. this was stated on the project's sponsors application. t

the ellis act says a public agency can't require a landlord to continue to offer rental units as rental. here we're going to have some kind of agreement that the landlords are doing that. in a case that just came out in july and the supreme court denied a re-hearing -- president miguel: thank you. >> one more burma shave ad? president miguel: thank you. you may submit anything as you know, sir. >> the court said we're not going to look at the agreement. it is an unwaveable right, you're out. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. it's to the commission on initiation. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i would like to ask mr. switzky, have we asked in the last five years ever initiated something prior to an e.i.r., and if so, could you please state the project for me. >> i believe that we have, but i don't believe that initiation requires environmental certification. >> you did it recently on the shipyard project. you initial before you take action on the certification. that's pretty routine. commissioner moore

that related to the affordability piece, to the piece around the development agreement and to the rental units. if that's not what the focus of this discussion that the developers want to have with me personally is about, i'm not interested in meeting with them. i'm not being interested in being sold on a project right now. i want the specifics around the development agreement. that's what i said to the staff at that time. so it wasn't like i was told -- it was not presented to me totality that, oh, the developer want to come before the commission to have meetings with the public so the public can hear about this project and discuss it and talk about the phasing of the project which was an issue that we had raised before. there were issues about the specifics around the project that related to the phasing and other aspects of the project that had been raised. so when i felt like i was just going to be sitting there and being sold on a project that none of these issues around that we had been raising here, i wasn't interested in sitting there until these these issues had been resolved. that is

rentals was one of the logical steps. >> the healthcare delivery in the united states, regular price of a new book is $75.he student would pay 33.75 to rent this book. another example would be here with the employment law for business. 187.65 is the regular price. this student would rent it for $84.45. >> the savings on this one is unbelievable. >> that book was regularly 135 for a new text and the rental price is 60.90. aside from tuition and housing if they're living on campus, the next largest expense generally is their course material. >> reporter: lesson two, your bookstore doesn't offer rentals yet? that's all right. get your textbook list and go online. if you're a broke college kid, these sites are a must. at e campus, book renter you can rent textbooks for 50 to 60% off, have them delivered right to your dorm and when you send it back at the enof the semester, shipping is free. -- end of the semester, shipping is free. lesson three, shop for textbooks like you shop for anything else and that means not paying full price. never order anything online without checking to see if there's a coupon today