Renovation process, like i said, he was issued a permit to unit three on 39th avenue, he started work on the taraval unit as well. Not just light construction, were not talking about painting, or, you know, change carpets. He was excavating the concrete floor. This was for a weeks time. Taking down drywall, during that time. The noise was disruptive, obviously. The fact that he was doing heavy construction, without a permit. We reported this to the city, with a citation number 201963731. I believe that was a friday complaint, and i believe, if i am not mistaken by tuesdaywednesday, the owner was issued a permit to do work at taraval. Instead of issuing a stop order, for his work, the city actually turned around and gave him a permit to continue the work on taraval come overthecounter. The owner violated San Franciscos municipal code under the californias unfair competition law and housing law, because of the rest of the San Francisco residence, including myself, have two apply with these rules. I have a permit application, outstanding since january, im not hung one nail or taken down one nail, im still waiting for that to be appropriate in the owners eye, in his brief, insinuating that the city is improving, by all means go foz he had i understand there is Due Diligence the city goes there to make sure everything is compliant. The next page, talk about the noise level. Jack hammering, seven days a week, random time times. It was expensed by myself, my neighbors, well above noise level that is permitted. I pulled his permit application. Question 1720, was incorrectly completed. Intentionally done so to mislead the city, to think there is no height addition to the building. In fact im he is actually adding a roof deck. The condo conversion. He received a condo conversion, under the application of new construction. I know that there is a Conversion Program the city offers. That also stipulates of a commercial unit is converted to condos, it stays as a commercial condo, commercial unit. It doesnt get converted to a residence. Like i said before, it wasnt until he was caught tran, you have time in rebuttal. Your time is up. Dinky. Thank you. We will hear from the permit holder. Good evening. I am mr. Wong, i am the owner of the building at 2901 taraval street. May i have the overhead please . I am here to respond to the appellant, ms. Lee appeal of my current permit to convert the commercial space into the residential unit. Again, before i begin, i just want to say that i did want you to see her brief, that is why i included it, which according to this gentleman here, who i handed it to, is quite unusual. I did want you to see it to be fair to her, just because she did not get it in on time. That you had a chance to review it, because i think after you review her brief, you realize, the accusations and insinuatio insinuations, and the words she uses like getting caught, and mansplaining. Her strategy is to call into play, a lot of Different Things, it is muddying up the waters, just talking about the appeal of this particular permit to convert commercial space to a residential space. She is convoluted the different ordinances, like the or noise ordinance. She cites we are not supposed to go above 5 decibels. That is for work outside of the normal construction hours. 5 decibels is equivalent to a screw gun. You cant do construction, without making more noise than a screw gun. We are well within the hours. We dont work on sundays. She says we are doing it seven days a week, we are working monday through saturday. Another claim is the dumpster. I dont own the dumpster company, i dont own the dump truck nominee. I can only hire them or fire them. The guy that parked the truck up there, i didnt like it either, i fired him after that day. I apologize to her, in an email. I had no control over it. The only control i had was to the dumpster company, they have a yearly permit to do the dumpster parked on the streets. I hired them, but they are responsible for the permit. All of these things are not relevant to her, to why this permit should be appealed. I mean, yeah, these are problems that we have two fix as a construction goes on, that is not a reason why the permit should be appealed. Also, in her original statement, she stated that she was concerned about the neighborhood losing a commercial space. We were population dense. I find it interesting, in her brief, all seven or eight pages of it, she does not mention one word about losing a commercial space. It feels like it is disingenuous. She says that to stop my work in progress, filing this appeal, and then does not address it, not one word. To me, that is disingenuous. Our building is located in rm1 zoning. Low density. With the Planning Department, and the Building Department, they said that this low density is a situation where my commercial space is an ideal candidate to be a residential unit. There was not a lot of demand for these commercial units. The best use and highest use would be to convert them to residential which a me, my building, the neighborhood, and the city as a whole. They were the ones that suggested it, while i was talking, this is going back 79 month ago. My architect and i went through the motion, to go back to the planet apartment on the Building Department and get this permit. Was issued overthecounter, it was nine months work prior. It wasnt something where the Building Department just issued a permit to someone right overthecounter. She doesnt see all of the things that came before it. The other thing is, many of the neighbors have expressed support for this, residential unit, because they see the vacant commercial spaces. They see the trash in the doorways. They see the graffiti. My building, which is right next to hers, she cannot like that. You can see they tag my building. The neighbors are saying when someone is there, they are living there, this doesnt happen. It happens mostly with the empty commercial spaces. Theyve also said, one block away, theres a whole block of commercial spaces, as you can see from this photo. So, there is plenty of commercial spaces, maybe too many. Also in her brief, she is throwing out a lot of stuff out there, in the hopes that it will convolute the whole conversation here. In doubts, we dont have the time and bandwidth, in this hearing, to dangle to tangle all of that. I hope, and trust that the knowledge and expanse of this board will see that, and be able to discern what is applicable to this particular permit. We dont have the time to address all of the things she has mentioned, which happened quite a while ago. So, i am hoping that the board will see that she is trying to lump the end with a lot of Different Things that we cannot get to it all. Its like going pasta on the wall to see how much of it will stick. It is all dried pasta. I asked the board to review the facts of the case, and in doing so, will find that her appeal has no merit, and that i am respectfully asking the board to uphold the permit as issued, without any new conditions and without any delay. Thank you for your time. I have one question. In her oral comments, she indicated that you had no permit to do the work on your 39th or your taraval, can you respond to that . I had a permit to work on the upstairs, first. That was two weeks before the permit downstairs. In apartment upstairs, which includes a roof deck, which is a separate condo. We need to put support posts that go all the way down to the foundation. Telling her that, she asked me about that. I said hey, we are putting in the support posts. Its in the plans for the upstairs to put a post there. She thinks when the permit says you cannot do any work downstairs, that you can even be in the downstairs. Just want to ask, im sure our representative of the department will have further comment. Im hoping when you hear their statement, you know, i dont know what theyre going to say, i am hoping they will basically say that i am doing everything that is proper in the permit was issued properly. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department, mr. Sanch mr. Sanchez. Thank you, scott sanchez, plenty department. Subject property 2901 taraval street, rm1 zoning district. Constructed approximately 1945, based on the records, as a ground for commercial use with a singlefamily residential use above. The applicant, in 1980, was the previous Property Owner. Continuous authorization from the Planning Commission to allow that use to continue indefinitely. Probably became a nonconforming commercial use around 1960 area determination requirement. They had not abated. It still has to be a commercial use, otherwise the rm1 does not allow commercial uses. They recently sought condo conversion to convert the building, from the one unit, residential, one unit commercial to make a commercial condo on the lower floor and a residential condo on the floor above, and subsequent to that sought to convert the commercial condo into a residential condo. There is nothing in the planning code that prohibits that. We need to make some adjustments to their condo map with the department of public works. Im not aware of any planning Code Provisions that would prohibit what they have proposed here. Under the rm1 zoning district, three dwelling units are allow allowed. It was sought and approved under the base density. No neighborhood notification required for adding a wall unit, it is code compliant as proposed area there is actually incentives for conversion of nonconforming uses under residential spaces, because there is a provisional code that allows you to exceed density limits, if youre converting a commercial, nonconforming commercial use into a residential. You can also seek various waivers from the planning code. They do not need to do that, because it is allowed under the zoning. In terms of the order of things, their goal is to quickly and efficiently make it into a two unit residential condo. The process that they have followed would be the quickest path. By doing the condo conversion first, then it is a much simpler process to convert to the residential unit. No notice is required, it is completely code compliant project. There have been an enforcement case that was done illegally, by a previous Property Owner. My understanding, from our enforcement half that the current owner has required permits to restore the location, as a complaint. With that, i am available for any questions youd otherwise it is a code compliant condition of the unit. Thank you. We will now hear from the department of building inspection. Joe duffy, dbi. The building permit, for the addition of a dwelling unit, a residential unit to include a living room, kitchen, four baths, three bedrooms install energy efficient, and replace windows, energyefficient units. [please stand by] [please stand by]. Exceeding the scope of the permit. Dbi did receive complaints from miss lee and the building inspector found that no work had been done that was outside of the approved scope of work. Bearing in mind there would have been a 16day work to do. So work could have began and then subsequently stop. I heard reference to a permit on the upper floors that did involve posts going down to the floor. And regarding that, but if there is a standalone permit on the second floor, it could still be done technically, because it didnt interfere with the work that was under the appeal if that makes sense. I dont see anything that has been brought up, as i said, regarding the Building Code issues on this permit. And im available for any questions if you have any. So no notice of violations to the permitholder . Only to tell them the permit had been suspended. We closed a complaint regarding the scope of the permit. That got investigated. Thank you. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Hi, its me again, susan. I came to talk about the trees, but im sitting here listening and this is exactly the same thing that goes on in my neighborhood. Its people with a lot of money come in, start work without a permit. There is no way a permit filed on june 24 for a project that big could have appropriately been issued on june 26. She complained for him doing work without a permit on june 24, there should have been a stop work order and she should have had a chance to sit down and negotiate with this guy how to do it in a way that is respectful to the neighbors. Yes, she did bring up a lot of issues. Thats because there are a lot of issues when youre next to Major Construction like this. And maybe she wasnt right about the noise ordinance, et cetera, but its a lot for the average lay person to take into account. He should have gotten a stop work order. There should have been time for her to sit down with this guy and work out a way this could be done to minimize the impact on the people who already live there. This guy who started work without the proper permit, if you let him do that, youre sending a signal to all of the people in San Francisco that its okay for them to flout the rules. Its clearly its clear, just from listening here tonight, that he flouted the rules. And i really dont think you want to be sending the message to people all over the city they dont need to follow the rules and can stomp all over the people who already live in the city. All over the city, people who live here now, are having their way of life severely impacted by people who want to come in and build mcmansions in working class neighborhoods. Which this is. Four bathrooms, that is highly unlikely to be characteristic of the neighborhood. Its happening all over the city. You need to send a message to builders they need to follow the rules. Thank you, but, maam, the department got up and said he followed all the rules. Have you worked with dbi . Because they dont always enforce the rules . They may not have given him a stop work order, that doesnt mean he should have had one. If he started work without a permit the Department Just said he had all the permits. Thank you. The department is not infallible, believe me. I worked with them a lot. Any other Public Comment . Welcome. The three people speak today. My name is michael nolte, im native san franciscan. Ive done a lot of things in San Francisco, one of them being Program Director of organization of coalition of residents. And you know, one of the issues we have here is that a large number of the people that live in San Francisco are renters and renters have rights, too. Its unfortunate that a lot of times, yes, owners can do certain things and they have more money, but the average renter does not necessarily know all the rules and when something happens within their building, they have to figure out, what is going on and how to fix it and how to make things amenable to them. I think, yes, maybe a lot of the City Departments say, okay, well, everything is hunkydory, but the real issue here is a renter is now thinking about, well, this place is going to be turned into a condo. And that changes the makeup of the building. The building will be two condos, or more later on, and that means its a higher paid parcel. So the owner makes out of the property makes out. So we see this kind of problem all the time, where the change of use of the its a change of use that is happening here. And so thats the problem i see, is the change of use. Its not necessarily what is on the agenda, but the problem here is a renter is being asked to deal with a lot of problems because the building owner, he has property rights, but then what are the rights about the person that lives there . And how are they being dealt with . Im not saying that the Property Owner doesnt have any rights. What i am saying, this could have been handled better and, you know, the City Department heads can come in and say, this is what the rules are and the laws are and what not, but the poor resident and neighbors have to figure out and deal with the outcomes. So anyway, this is an ongoing issue about how many City Departments pass the buck, too. Thank you for your time. Any other Public Comment . We will move onto rebuttal. Miss lee, three minutes. Do you need help . Im just going to finish up my last point. I filed an appeal. The owner found out the appeal was filed. Received notice on july 12, which is friday, and literally the next morning, hes still doing work on the units, on the permit that was suspended. This was a picture taken. Im not sure, you know, why the dbi said there was no violation, but a notice of violation was issued on july 17 per public records. I went online to find that. In conclusion, i guess, again, there is a lot of facts that ive pointed out, a lot of rules. Im just going to leave the board with the fact that, yes, individually, everything that hes done, or permits hes requested was probably approved, compliant, et cetera, et cetera. But if you look at what hes trying to do, its pretty much mirrors what our City Attorney has put in one of the recent cases. If you get a permit to remodel your kitchen, it doesnt mean you get to build a new wing on the back of the house. They tried to make a quick buck by flouting the risks and cheat devel developers. Let this be a warning to those who think they can flip as many houses as they can. They look to profit off San Franciscos housing crisis. Im going to leave the board and general public with that statement. Thank you. I have a question. So you live close im sorry, are you done . Are you finished . Yes. Do you live in close proximity to the property . I live next door. You applied for a permit to remodel your home . I applied for a permit to add a storage room in the down stairs unit not downstairs, ground floor. Given the noise complaint that you have, how are you planning to do that in your own property . Im not going to do excavation work. The issue i have is excavation work. I think doing excavation work with jack hammers seven days a week at odd hours is quite disruptive. Putting in drywall is like mr. Wong has said, normal construction noise. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from mr. Wong, the permitholder. Thank you. First of all, i am a native san franciscan. I went to school here. I went to college here. I work for the Fire Department. I am a Fire Department retiree, 9 11, big day for me, but i have to be here, but thank you for being here with me. I plan to be occupying this building. This citizen that said, why do i need four bathrooms and three bedrooms . I have boomerang kids. I am 58 years old. I have adult kids who are boomeranging back after college. If you need to know, why did i condo the building, perhaps one day i would like to convey the unit to my kids. I dont know why shes kind of grouping me in with a rogue developer, building a wing or the tajmahal. This is adding a residential unit so i can house my family. And the thing that is really the hardest to digest is miss lee is my neighbor next door. I barely know her. I said hi to her passing twice in the street. And now, having had all this dialogue, its going to make it really tough and awkward to live right next door to her for years to come. And i just hope that, you know, at some point, you know, maybe we can still be civil. In fact, one of my best friends is someone that i butted heads with 20 years ago, were the best of friends now. Im hoping that is the case, but i dont know what else to say. Characterizing me as if im a bigtime developer, building a mega mansion. Im staying within the inside of my building. She was alluding to the fact that the upstairs condo has a deck and according to planning and you can ask mr. Sanchez this having a deck does not mean youre going outside of your building in the planning standpoint. Yes, the deck sits outside of the building, but its not adding any height to the building from a planning perspective. So i will answer any questions you have regarding my project. Thank you. No questions, thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Thank you. Planning department. Again, the permit is compliant. Adds one dwelling unit. No expansion that requires neighborhood notification. It appears to have been appropriately reviewed by planning staff. Does not require notification. They used to require notification, but a few years ago the board of supervisors removed the requirement to facilitate the creation of new dwelling units, which is what this permit does. From some of the Public Comment, its like the appellant is being displaced from the building. The appellant does not live in the existing property. Theyre taking the commercial space converting it to a dwelling unit. That is all compliant. This is approved over the counter. We could have held onto it for a few months, but there is no reason to do that. With ereviewed it we reviewed it appropriately, issued it. Dbi has investigated the complaints and found out there is no issue there. In regards to linking this to the case of grewal, there were deceptive permitting processes. That led to the resolution. I dont see any of the facts present in that case in the permit that is before you. So i dont see any parallels in the point of bringing it up here. I frankly dont see. But im available for any questions that the board may have. President swig thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duffy . Dbi, i dont have much to add. I do respect Public Comment, but if youre going to make Public Comment, get your facts right. These people did not do work without permits as far as im aware. Dbi took proper action. We issued the proper permit. We issue 60,000 a year. We investigate complaints. We do our inspections. I wouldnt say im sure there are times when there are mistakes made, but getting up and making a comment that someone did work without a permit and dbi did something wrong without facts is not right. And where i come from, and as far as im concerned, there was 16 days here to do work until the permit got suspended. And im sure they did start work and then subsequently stopped it. Im available for any questions as well. Thank you, joe. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioners, thoughts . [inaudible] any other comments. Okay, motion from Vice President lazarus to deny the appeal and up hold the permit on the basis. On that motion . [roll taken] that motion carries 40. And the appeal is denied. Were now moving onto item number 8. This is appeal number 19031, paul oltranti and the estate, versus department of building inspection, with Planning Department. The subject property is 1794 filbert street. Appealing the denial on march 27, 2019 to paul oltranti to a site permit. Add new floor and move one unit on first floor, commercial space on first floor. Add space at rear and maintaining on second and third floors. Install new siding, elevator. Permit disapproved by the Planning Commission based on extraordinary circumstances exist and it would not go to existing housing stock. See discretionary review action memo 639. This is permit number 2016 already 92278915s. Good evening, commissioners. Im with the duane moore law firm. We represent the appellants and theyre requesting that you overturn the denial of the proposed project located at 1794 filbert street. The appellants are not professional developers, but families that own other properties in the neighborhood. Theyre trying to expand their property. The original project was supported by the Department Staff and the project sponsor believed then it should have been approved as proposed. Theyve made several modifications to address the issues raised by the commission, as well as legitimate concerns of the opposition. These modifications are discussed in detail in the brief and i will highlight the issues. But i want to discuss the status of the tenants on the property. There are unsupported allegations the tenants would be evicted. The truth is at the time of the Commission Hearing and today, there is only one occupied unit in the building. The owners have agreed to pay to relocate the tenant to one of their other Properties Close by in the neighborhood and then shell be allowed to move back into the remodelled at her current rent under her current lease. There is a legally enforceable relocation agreement provided with the brief, as well as a letter from the tenant confirming this arrangement and her support for the project. These are not bad landlords, theyre good landlords. I hope youll see that. There are no other tenants at the property now and no eviction of tenants at this property or any of the other properties owned by the tenant. Getting back to the project. The project before you today is a renovation and expansion of existi existing 3064 building. And nonconforming retail space. The project would relocate and expand the existing ground floor unit into a threebedroom flat. Renovate the two existing units on the second floor. And also convert the commercial space into a onebedroom accessory dwelling unit. It includes a one car parking garage, elevator accessible to all floors of the building. The commission stated reasons for granting and denying the project included that the project would not contribute to the retention of the citys housing stock. The original project retained the commercial space, but as revised it includes an accessory dwelling unit so were going from three rent controlled units to four as currently proposed. Thus the project would not only retain, but add to the inventory of housing. They found that the top unit would be out of scale. The original Product Design included a third full unit that was 1822 square feet and required variance because the unit encroached into the rear yard setback at the third floor. However, now the project has been resigned to no longer require a variance and requires 15foot setback. As a result, the top floor unit is only 1294 square feet. And because the rear yard can be used for open space, the project sponsor has removed the previously proposed roof deck and penthouse. These were specific objections to some of the project opponents. Some opponents had suggested that the third floor addition makes the project too large. This is not correct. There are some three story buildings on filbert and octavia streets, on the blocks of the project. Including the large building which is located mid block on the opposite block from the project. This is where most of the project components reside. You can see that on exhibit 3, page 5 and 6. The residential guidelines specifically state that corner building should provide greater visual emphasis. This will reflect slope of octavia street. In addition, the third floor will minimize the height and amassing of the building adjacent to the building on octavia. The project will complement and integrate into the neighborhood. Including a threebedroom unit is consistent with policies. They encourage remodelling of existing housing for families. Thats not required here, of course, but including the three bedroom unit is included with the same policies and goals. With respect to parking, there is parking for only one car. Originally proposed two. Parking is not required, but it permitted. And ratio of 1 space for 4 units is consistent with the city policies. To conclude, we respectfully request you reverse the Planning Commission denial and approve the project before you for the following reasons. No tenant has or will be evek victoried and the only evicted. The project will add rent controlled unit to the housing stock. As well as a family sized unit as previously mentioned. Project does not require any variances and its consistent with the residential guidelines. The project is well supported by the owners and residents in the neighborhood. There are more than 30 letters of support provided with the brief. Im available for any questions. Im also here with the project architect and representative of the family if you have questions for them. Thank you for your time. President swig thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Thank you, scott sanchez, Planning Department. The subject per property located at 1794 filbert street, the subject permit was submitted in september 2016, underwent neighborhood notification under section 311 in november and december of 2017 during which time two discretionary review requests were filed. The Planning Commission held multiple hearings on the item. Hearings continued requesting modifications and changes to the project. It was the calendar again for january 17, 2019 and continued at the request of the project sponsor for additional time and was heard by the Planning Commission on february 14 of this year, on valentines day. There is an associated variance for the proposal that was denied. That variance decision letter was issued on july 10 of this year and no appeal was taken of that, so that decision is final. A bit of a unique situation here, in that the project that is actually before you requires a variance, which hasnt been approved. Theyre talking about modifying the project in ways that arent on the permit that is actually before you. So they wanted to get that point, that technical point across to the board. That just simply if the board did want to overturn this, it wouldnt simply be overturning the permit as it is, you would also have to adopt revised plans along the lines of what they have proposed. The planning this is not the best way for the permit process to work and these changes should have been made and considered by the Planning Commission back when the hearing was considered. But were now doing it at this process very late in the game. So it would be a different project that they are proposing now to you than what the Planning Commission at that time considered. And that there is doesnt require a variance because the plans theyve shown reduce that top floor addition, so the variance is not required and they also have the additional unit which was not part of the revision permit that the Planning Commission had considered. So some of the reasons that the Planning Commission had taken action on this, part was the concerns about the tenants and the loss of the affordable rental housing that this building represents. Also the scale and character of the proposed vertical addition and the fact that that proposed unit there would not be affordable by the commission standards. So for those reasons, the commission denied it. But they have come forward with now a revised project. Again, to reiterate, step back again, through the course of the permitting process, the Planning Department reviewed this and found it to be needing a rear yard variance, compliant with the guidelines, so when it went to the Planning Commission it had recommendation of approval from staff, but the Planning Commission reviewing it found that it was not appropriate. And did not comply with residential guidelines, in particular, that vertical addition, and had concerns about the loss of Affordable Housing that the project represented and the prioritization of parking over the housing because the parking is going where the unit is currently located and it would obliterate that unit and that was one of the concerns. My understanding is that the relocation and the status of the tenants, that was a primary concern at the original hearing. I think based on the records submitted with the briefs, an agreement was made at the end of january, but from the testimony that i saw at the Planning Commission, they did not have that documentation. They said they didnt have the paperwork in front of them showing that, which you have before you. Again, like the previous case, this is a denovo hearing for the board to consider, but you know ive had many conversations with the permitholder about this project. I have to defend the Planning Commissions decision even though kind of what the project theyre proposing now is not what the Planning Commission saw before, so i cant speak to what the Planning Commission might say on the revised project or with the Additional Information provided. But with the information that the commission had at the time of the hearing and the design of the project at the time, its not one they could support so they denied the application. I reviewed the improvised plans with our staff architect. We noted a couple of issues. [please stand by] having this go back to the Planning Commission. For review, and hearing. Im available for questions. It is interesting, i agree, it is denoble hearing, the project we are saying is not the project that the whole concept that we are upholding or denying a planning positions commission, its a mute point anyway, because its not the same project. If, lets say, we were hearing that project, and that was in fact, put in front of planning, i am conjecturing that we would have supported your position and we would said to the project sponsor, forget the variance can you adjust the deck . And the size and the scope. Can you do this, can you do that . All of the things that the project sponsor just told us that he already did, right . If we would have applauded the flexibility, i think, because we generally do that, and say thank you for your willingness to hear what we are saying, and we would uphold the appeal and condition the permit on the issuance on all of the changes that we would have probably discussed. Here we have a situation where the project sponsor has been proactive. The project sponsor listened. Yeah, there are two issues that i hear, the windows and the access. Other than that, yeah, we have a pretty good project. So, why it and we could use another unit with the change of the axis, we certainly could use another unit of inventory, for housing in the city. Why cant we give me the argument for not making a difference on normal, and moving forward with the project where the project sponsor has really adjusted, without coming into this hearing and having to fight it all over again, and with the exception of the window and access, they have a pretty good project. Why are you saying lets stop it, go back and reapply for a permit . That is what is confusing for me. We were not want to deprive the Planning Commission to review the project as is been revised. It is completely before this board, the permit that is technically before you is the same on the commission denied. Theyre wanting you to consider, if the four of you adopt, revise, plan. With that, the board is inclined, there are other details that we would need to resolve. But, yeah again, i hate to be redunda redundant, but if this was the same project that if, the project sponsor came in here and presented the exact same project that the planning did, and we said to them, that is not a good project, but, what we would like you to do is all of the things that planning said you should have done in the first place and you have added now, in addition, the window and the access, and at the end of that hearing, again, we upheld the appeal, and allow the issuance of the permits, with, we are over it. We are done. What is the difference between that and having to go all the way back to planning, and putting the building owners are all of this. The Planning Commissioner did not take d. R. , i make those conditions. They did not outline what would have been acceptable to them. Had that been done, and they listed Clear Conditions that would have resulted in an approvable project, there were not be a need for the hearing tonight. It was just a disapproval. I cannot speak for all seven commissioners, or any of them, as to whether the revised plans that have been put forward would be acceptable to them. That said, and much to the previous case, it doesnt matter, because it is denoble, and this board has the final call on it. I a question, if we denied the appeal and they had to go through a re permitting process, do they have to wait a year, or does it start tomorrow . They could go tomorrow, because they have addressed the underlying causes that led to the disapproval of the permit. The application only applies to the same project when they havent materially made changes to the project. I would agree, given the changes they have made, the material changes to the project such that it could be reviewed again. And if all of the changes were made that i had just gone over redundantly, and removed it forward, and we moved forward, the permit would be issued. If we went and denied it, and he did what you are saying. How much longer with the project take it to get off the ground, assuming that the wisdom of the Planning Commission would move that new project forward, with all of the positive changes . Several months. That was my question. By several how many do you mean . It could be 69, given that we would have to go back to the Planning Commission. To see whether they would accept revisions on approve the project as a result as revised. If they say no . What does this board think about this project as they revise and put forward to you. Has your department, your staff reviewed the revised plans, other than just your preparation for this hearing . Are we in a position to say, this is good to go with the revised plans . Would you be looking for, this is good to go, but you need to get with planning and come back in a month . I think it is the boards preference. I think the issues that are left are relatively small. The bay window, which i think they could come back with code compliant bay window. There is the direct dimensions, which you can just state, theres already out door from the street for the commercial space that can be retained. Then there is the issue of window proportions. You can direct the permit holder to work with staff to revise those details and have that submitted as a special conditions permit. Thats a pretty common condition that the Planning Commission gives that his direction to the applicant to continue working with staff on the final design details. One last question, which we had gone back and forth with the permit holder on. They talked about it being an adu, theres a provision where they could do it, as i almost mentioned in the other case, if you have a nonconforming retail space, they can actually convert that to a dwelling unit. There is that provision, although that would not be subject to the same limits as far two adu which would be the rent control and the restriction on the shortterm rentals. The question is, how would they approve that unit if its under the adu process. There is additional process that needs to be done on our end, including, having to review and grant waivers. I discussed with the zoning administrator, and he could kind of see the possibility of an adu coming in here. There is a lot of paperless work in terms of the hawkins agreement that gets recorded on the property and trying the rent control limitations. That can be done at processing when we are doing the special conditions permit. This is where it is not ideal to have the a. D. U. s come in at this stage. I do want this to be precedents where people go into the Planning Commission and try to get the project that they would really like, and then getting it disapproved, and having a whole set of other things. I think that should be done at the beginning of the process, not at the end. It puts everyone and an awkward situation. We will do what the board asks us to do. Okay, so, similarly, pryor was a legal nonconforming commercial use, right . Correct. They had abounded that 2014, or 2013 . After three years, is now just a nonconforming use . Yes, and abandon commercial use. What would be the chances of getting that reinstated . I think the Planning Commission has been pretty receptive to restore, the conditional use to restore the lca. They see the need for the neighborhood serving commercial spaces. Its been a bit of a balance. We do see people coming in, you see it being computed converted, where we are looking at more on a casebycase basis. In some cases we want them to preserve the commercial use, because it is a viable commercial use enough location that is going to get a lot of use. In other cases its going to be in a less useful commercial use. I think the commission has generally been supportive of restoring commercial uses on cases that have been before them in the past. As long as the uses that go in there and not disruptive to the community. Second question, we rarely actually, the Planning Commission doesnt come up in our conversations very often and you had to cases. This is a busy night for you. In the bucket list that the Planning Commission did, is there anything they left out, other than the tweaks regarding the window as well as the egre egress . I mean, its a question of, you know, preferring to be in adu, i assume, because you have the rent controls on the limits there. And then its the demonstration, having additional Design Review work with our staff. The access to the adu, and the co compliant bay window. They cleared the bucket list, and took care of what the wants and. They have listened, i believy were given, and you know, i think that they have made progress, yes. Twenty thank you. Mr. Duffy . Is there any Public Comment on this item . How many people are here for Public Comment . Okay, please approach. I believe we have seven people, is that right . Raise your hand. I believe we have ten. Were going to limit Public Comment to one minute. Please approach the microphone. If you could line up against the wall. We cant have anyone blocking that door for fire code reasons. Please line up against that wall. Make sure you give a speaker card. Thank you. I apologize for the short time, we have a couple of other cases that are going to have a lot of Public Comment come as well. My name is richard sukkot, im going to short my comments because of the time constraint. I want to address two important points. One is that, this is an illegal demolition. I would like to address your attention to my statements in opposition of this project, that i submitted on june 4 and supplement to that submitted on august 29. Which it details some of these issues in response to my opposition, the architect for this project sent to me a letter to the building, explaining why her calculations for demolition were incorrect as i pointed out. She then sent ten entirely new calculations and new drawings, which also are not credible and not accurate. If you look at the scope of the project. On the replacement of the south and western facades in their entirety, and the condition of this building. There is no way that they can retain this is a non demolition. This building was not built with to a standard thank you. Please hold onto your speaker cards and hand the in as you come up so we can keep track of the speakers. Thank you, next speaker. Welcome. My name is sherry schonberg, i live at 1755 held her i am opposed to this project because it violates the rhi code three density limit. Moving the first floor residential unit to the commercial space does not make that unit and accessory dwelling unit. It does not add a dwelling unit to the housing and uses a portion of the space from an existing first floor dwelling unit, which is not allowed by the planning code. If the owner wants to build a valid adu, he needs to drop his plan