concerted into udu, along with storage unit. and therefore those are illegal that was clear to me with what you were taking. what i was struck with immediately, if this was a residential home or let's say a three-unit apartment building, and somebody had stuck an illegal unit, then that would be an udu and under today's laws, you would not kick out the resident unless it was impossible to legalize that legalize that. >> sure, when it comes to udu, we try our best to figure out and find ways in the planning code and prophecies to allow for legalization of them. in this case, i think it's very challenging, because the code does not allow for that. in your hypothetical scenario where it's located on on the ground floor but in the basement, we have to explore whether it could be legally made under the planning code and building code, if it's, not able to, there is no light, there is no ventilation, we're not going to support legalizing a unit that is does not meet the code. so my point is, unlike a residential situation, where there

you can still be a udu. we have a lot of unauthorized dwelling units based on the broad definition. that's purposeful, and then you're required to do, you know, if you do have a confined, confirmed unauthorized unit there, you're required to legalize it or you have to get planning commission authorization to remove it. and one of the considerations that the planning commission had to make was, how expensive was it going to be to legalize it? and a lot of times this the ceiling height issue was a big expense, right? because that costs a lot of money to excavate and do new and dig out and do that work. a couple things to note. so these plans actually will do that work on their basement level, like the resulting basement level will be sufficient to add an adu. and they again, they have a permit in file to put an adu in there. it's just a question of are they required to do that work. and they're not required to do that work under the code. they're not required to put the adu in there, it's also important to note that there was actually legislation, an ordinance that passed and became e

the udu i was probably pretty livable. i mean, all those people lived there.ou saw the picture in the packet. it looked pretty nice. i just think that that is the original crime that that wasn't there. and there were ads in the on the internet saying it was a two unit building and you could see it from the mailbox. so that's just the problem that the project sponsors were not upfront at the beginning. and that sometimes happens. and that's kind of why it's up to, to everybody, the public and the staff to make sure that, you know, it's you know, what's actually there at a site when a project makes an application, i'll just say the following. i totally agree with in their brief of the about the demolition review criteria, it doesn't meet the preponderance that's here in your sid code implementation document. that is so important that that these are these are the rules that they've had since 2009. it does not meet the preponderance of the criteria. i don't see how you can approve this, regardless of any lawsuit or anything. the other thing i'll say, and this high

>> for udu removals, we do--as routine inspection, staff do do routine inspection. >> it isn't mandatory? >> happy to jump in. it is staff requirement for all removals of dwelling units to do as site visit. yes is the answer, it is required. it isn't in the code, but it is a department procedure i reinforced to staff, you shall take a site visit before you sign off on anything that is removal of dwelling units. >> just asking because, there was something a project that came before this commission a few weeks ago where there was tenants in there. >> that's where we had that conversation where it didn't happen but was supposed to happen. >> was supposed to happen. >> it was supposed to and hadn't and if it had we would have--i reinforced with staff and management this is requirement so it is a protocol in the department. >> just want to comment on that protocol. my feeling is that a requirement and mandatory to do to have a vite visit and make sure there is no one living there. i just want to put that out there. i thought we would have some kind of a more conversation on this subject a few

the udu i was probably pretty livable. i mean, all those people lived there.he picture in the packet. it looked pretty nice. i just think that that is the original crime that that wasn't there. and there were ads in the on the internet saying it was a two unit building and you could see it from the mailbox. so that's just the problem that the project sponsors were not upfront at the beginning. and that sometimes happens. and that's kind of why it's up to, to everybody, the public and the staff to make sure that, you know, it's you know, what's actually there at a site when a project makes an application, i'll just say the following. i totally agree with in their brief of the about the demolition review criteria, it doesn't meet the preponderance that's here in your sid code implementation document. that is so important that that these are these are the rules that they've had since 2009. it does not meet the preponderance of the criteria. i don't see how you can approve this, regardless of any lawsuit or anything. the other thing i'll say, and this highlights t

no udu guide afrngs. a big hole and had to we could not do when we wanted do. which is when we would do today there are new codes sent letter say zeeing noticed a big hole in the dyke, we suggest the board you recognize that hole and fill through better legislation. in this case i don't think it is ours to deal with that which was advocate bide the property owner. i think it is outside of our jurisdiction. but i would suggest we notice the if we feel had way and come to a consensus we noticed that ambigutey to the board of supervisors for legislation. that you will said we have to uphold the codes. . can and we have to recognize that one of the owners that is subject to a variance that variance has been offered. and and -- we have to recognize that dpw has done when they say they do which is, okay. build a gate. low are fence. and -- and -- i'm sorry you can't build and dot fire. i would uphold the appeal sxsh the permit with the conditions that the permit issued with the recommendations that have been stated by dpw. >> commissioner trasvina. i will have commen

people can 'udue me running this campaign. people can judge me by _ running this campaign.ks ago, before the election campaign even began, so i don't think it is right to politicise these things. i stuck to the itinerary set for me as prime minister weeks ago, before the election. 50 minister weeks ago, before the election. ., , ., minister weeks ago, before the election. ., ., ., minister weeks ago, before the i election-_ 0n election. so no shame at all? on reflection. _ election. so no shame at all? on reflection. it _ election. so no shame at all? on reflection, it was _ election. so no shame at all? on reflection, it was a _ election. so no shame at all? on reflection, it was a mistake - election. so no shame at all? on reflection, it was a mistake not i election. so no shame at all? on| reflection, it was a mistake not to stay longer and i have apologised for that, stay longer and i have apologised forthat, but stay longer and i have apologised for that, but i also don't think it is right to be political in the midst of d—day commemorations. the focus should be on the