Thank you. Commissioner kopple . Just factually, im not available on the 2nd. So that means we have no quorum for that day. I am. Ok. Im not. But i think that leaves us without quorum so only three. , maybe four. Commissioner johnson . Is it possible to do the 14th, the 21st and the 25th . And then do interviews the the 12th . Yeah. So that would be pushing back the entire timeline a week. Im not here. Thats right. Yes, commissioner richards mom has a big birthday. Can we do the 9th, 10t 10th or the 11th. . Im free everyday that week, as well, and so are you. Commissioner moore, are you available from the 9th through the 11th . I have not looked at my calendar, obviously, other than my thursdays dedicated to Planning Commission, i have not looked at other dates to set aside for this effort but i would like to suggest for the matter of e expediency, if somee can take a calendar and hand it around instead of us going over the same dated again and again quickly indicate when they are or arent here and then look of what other dated are available. So commissioner moore, i attempted to do that in setting the original dates and got a poor response from fellow commissioners. So there is an attempt to make the process transpor transparen. Commissioner johnson . I already spoke but those dates work for me. Commissioner richards . I make a motion more november 4, 21st, 5th with a decision coming the 9th, 10th or the 11th. Second. If you can announce youre endorsing the process for commissioner melgar and youre announcing them as potential dates and i think we can work out the dates if they change over the course of this time between now and then and theres to requirement for you to actually set the dates. Theres to requirement to set the dates today. The most important thing for today is to endorse the process. So in speaking with City Attorney stacie, theres a 72hour notification requirement as long as we hold sessions here in city hall. I think in the endorsement of the process, for my fellow commissioners, we are agreeing to the premise we want as much participation by as many commissioners as possible in the vetting of the resumes, the discussion of the resumes and before we are interviewing the candidates. Understood. Im just clarifying commissioner rims said 14th, 21st, december 9th, 10th and 11th and were not having closed sessions on all of those dates, right. Well, were not having session on 9th, 10th or 11th. It will be four closed sessions. Got it. Was there a second . I second it. On that motion to endorse the process and setting closed session dates for november 14th, 21st, december, 9, 10 or 11th and december 5. Commissioner moore . This is not by normal planning lingo. This is a statement of support and intent or whatever, but not a motion. Well, commissioner richards is making a motion to endorse this process, so it is a motion. A request for endorsement. Right. Hes movin moving to endorse soa motion. Thank you for clarifying. On that motion, commissioner f urinatiocommissionfung, commi . Aye. Commissioner moore, aye, commissioner kopple and melgar, aye and it passes 60. That will place under doctorrers announcements doctor directors announcements. Theres a connect msf and i wanted to announce for your sake, we have several Public Meetings on this program and the first is in the southeast, wednesday, the 13th, from 6 00 t Community Facility and the second is a Youth Workshop being cohosted by the San FranciscoYouth Commission on thursday the 21st from 5 00 p. M. To 7 00 p. M. At Mission High School and there will be fyi, two public workshops in late january. We dont have th the specifics t this coming your way which this is connect sf in concert with the citys other transportation agencies. Thank you and that concludes my report. Item 12, historic preservation. Good afternoon, eric star, manager of affairs. The Committee Held a meeting on the implementation of to make this a citywide priority sponsored by furer and man mandelman. It would extend the medical cannabis dispensaries and you heard this on october 24th and the Planning Commissions recommendation was to extend the permits to four years instead of three. At the hearing there was no Public Comment and it had to be continued one week and at this weeks committee hearing, they voted to recommend the item to the full board. At this weeks fullboard hearing, the jobs housing linkage fee by supervisor hainey passed a second read and fulton Street Grocery store by brun passebrownpassed a second right. The 3333 california street were continued to november 12th and thats all i have for you today thank you, mr. Star. Let me see if i can get this microphone and figure it out. The board of appeals met last night and heard something that is the appeal of a large project at 344 14th street and over the last year, the Planning Commissions had many hearings and ultimately took action earlier this year, granting large project authorization. This is a state density bonus project and was the first state density bonus project appealed to the board of appealed. Appea. Many things related to the Environmental Review appealed to the board of supervisors within the last month and that board of supervisors unanimously upheld the environmental determination that the department made on the project. Similarly, last night, the board of appeals upheld the project and the matter is concluded. Commissioners, the preservation did meet yesterday and approved or adopted recommendations for approval for multiple legacy business registry applicants and the only item of note is they also reviewed i want to get the name of it correct. The retained elements special topic guidelines coming before you, as well. If theres nothing further, we can move on to general Public Comment. At this time, members of comment may address the commission of the jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. That will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. You may address the commission up to three minutes and i have numbers and cards. Ok, we have mr. Georgia shudish, ilene bocan, duncan lay and rose. Anyone not on the agenda, please do so now. Hi, i want to fix the overhead. Part of this is that they blow up the kitchen and the kitchen becomes the dominant part of the house and takes over. So here is a house that recently sold and i sent you an email about it on castro street. And you can see, sort of, theres a kitchen. Its pretty small and theres two bedrooms and another little room that they call office, but that certainly could be a bedroom and this is sort of a typical San Francisco layout. Its a typology. I think its a good one and if you look, theres a full garage. If you want to dens densify, you could put an adu. Its a big space and they tear down the house and this one, you can see the kitchen and here it was originally, as it was, this is a real house that sold for, you can see the original layout there. Theres the kitchen. It originally sold for like 1. 2 didnt then 4. 1. So its a San Francisco typoloy. Here are pictures and just to show you some layouts, thats the nortra house that didnt get torn down and what made me think about it, theres the kitchen and his wife was a gourmet cook in new york. Here is a picture of the nortrr house and here is a worceistrer house and a daily house in pacific heights. Theres discrete rooms, reasonably small. I want to point out a couple of months ago you had that thing on courtland where they expanded the butcher and the project sponsor said, nobody cooks any more so if thats true, if uber eats, youre looking at trends, if uber eats is going to be the future and no one will cook any more, why do we need kitchens that, basically, blow up a house when you can have a livable layout like the typology in the mary brown study and here are copies of that and here is for the minutes and ill show you the mary brown typology. Theyre all kitchens and perfectly functional. You could live like that and you could do a horizonal exception and add another bedroom. So thats it. Thank you. Thank you, miss shudish. Next speaker, please. Im with the coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods here on my own behalf. Im here urging the commission to conduct an informational hearing on 2050 sometime this month. The board of supervisors with 2050 will be introduced at the november 12th meeting. The board of supervisors action is required by the end of this year to meet mtc deadlines. Planning Department Staff has stated its intention to bring this issue before the commission as an informational item only after it has been approved by the board of supervisors. This is despite the fact that the Planning Department has been part of the team developing the plan b or 2050 component for San Francisco. The Planning Department, the mta and the Transportation Authority proposal would make significant changes to the Priority Development areas and this would affect not only transportation but also land use. Plan be area 2050 is a land use document, as well as a transportation document. Therefore, i believe the commission should weigh in on the proposed changes before any action by the board of supervisors. Thank you. Thank you, network next spea, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is dracari donaldson, im a registered adequate for a proposed cannabis dispensary at 312 columbus street. Ive been sinning behind a pending application for a dispensary at 3035 grant avenue. The pending applicant has had a number of glaring issues with their application which has prevented them from moving forward in the alreadyextensive process in opening a cannabis business here in San Francisco. With no viable plan to address these issues theyve been allowed to drag their heels while my team and i are forced to exhaust their resources and wait. The group behind the pending application already operates multiple dispensaries in the city and you have to ask yourself, is this what the Equity Program is supposed to represent . Im here today as a small fish in a situation. To ask you to please inform the Planning Commission thats application for 1335 grant avenue is noncompliant and this applicant is out of time . Thanks. Thank you, next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is duncan lye and im here to speak about the same application dracari is referring to. Our group has been in second position since the applications were submitted in may of last year and the permit in front of us at 1335 grant avenue has delayed their application to the deadlines that theyve been given every time and based on the very accomplished list of people that are associated with that permit, you have to assume they understand the process and know what theyre doing. Theyve delayed an attempt to paint a local favour to change zoning prohibits accessory use on grant avenue as it is and that proved unsuccessful and they adjusted their plans which we still find to be out of compliance with the code and accessory use. We dont believe this was the intent of the application process. They forced the only competitor to bleed money in hopes we draw. We have a zoned and qualified location and we have a more than qualified equity applicant who represents the definition and spirit of the law. So we ask that today you review the pending application and ask for 1312 columbus avenue in the first position so we can quickly pursue the opening of our business and start serving the community. This process is complicated and lengthy enough and no applicant should be allowed to knowingly drag the process alone, let alone when there is one go in the wings. Not to mention, they have, i think three to four dispensaries in San Francisco with another three to four pending. So we have to ask, they know the process, theyve delayed it and have had their opportunity and ithy itithink its our time, t. Thank you, next speaker, please. Good afternoon, long time no see. Sf didnt tv, please. Im sorry i wasnt here last week but there were birds telling me story so im here to present public on general Public Comment. A general Public Comment was reordered on the following dates as you can see. To the end, after the department matters, to the end, after the department, so this is moving around. The background is in 2015, president fung formed a committee and the flee commissionerthreecommissioners d they passed a form of the agenda or whats supposed to be on the agenda on july 2nd, 2015. In r rs responsible which is,s and regulations, it says these rules and regulations may be amended at any regular meeting by a majority vote following a public hearing providing the amendment has been calendared for hearing at least ten days. My concern is, after all of these people are calling me and doing things and i couldnt have time to come here, but in what ways can the commission handle changes listed in the items in the r rs . Im submitted under sunshine 51. 56 for these texts to be put in the minutes, thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . With that general Public Comment is closed. Commissioner richards . A question for the director. It was alleged that an application was accepted on a parcel not zoned for it. I just was emailing staff to try to find out whats going with that. Just further inquiry on that, director rand. So i think were overdue for someone from the office of cannabis to come and tell us what their process is looking like, whether the assumptions that they had made about the process have come through and how that process is working with our process to hopefully avoid the issues that we heard about today. But you know, we also have a new director that has not come in front of our commission and ive met her and shes lovely and it would be great to have her here. I would be happy to do that. I dont know whether theyre at the office of cannabis or with us right now but ill find that information out and report back. Thank you. Commissioners, if you would indulge me, we received quite a large number of people who were alateralled whealarmed when thec was put to the end. Thats not the first time the commission has done that and i would like to clarify the rules and regulations do list order of business, but it clearly states that the order of business at any regular meeting may be as follows, not must be, but maybe as follows. So it doesnt dictate the order of business. It further states that the president or chair may change the order of business as determined necessary for the Planning Commission to conduct its business effectively. So moving general Public Comment to the end of the agenda did not break anybodys rules or regulations. So i will just clarify further for the public. And beg for your patience with us. That we are a commissioner short right now. Hopefully it wont be for long. And moving Public Comment to the end has been, just since ive been here, a way to maximize quorum and participation of commissioners while we have them. So being down a commissioner, if someone needs to leave early and gets sick, as was the case when this happened, you know, we need to get stuff done and get it through. So were weighing both the need to do our jobs and also that humans are humans and were down a commissioner. So i just ask for your patience and forgiveness while were going through and hopefully we will get our seventh commissioner seated promptly. Thank you. That will place us under the regular calendar for case 201 201013522 xca, code cleanup, 2019, planning code amendment. When are we hearing the items that came out of consent . Thank you, commissioner moore. I certainly overlooked item 7 that was pulled off of consent. Case number 208009548 cu8 baden street, conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, president melgar, commissioners. Im with the Department Staff and the case before you is a request for a conditional use authorization for the creation of one substandard lot and new twostory dwelling unit. It is located on a vacant lot to be altered via a lot line into a substandard lot. The lot line will be on the subject property by the exist cent building at 433 bayden street. The project site is a 2,500 square foot property on the west side between martha and mangles avenue, 40x, and outer mention neighborhood. The immediate neighborhood includes one to threestory family story buildings and the item before you is required by planning code 121 for the creation of one substandard lot and the development of said lot with the Single Family dwelling unit. They have not received any opposition in support of the project. They believe the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. The Department Finds the project is consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. The project will maximize the use of a underutilized lot and provide one additional dwelling unit to the city stock. It will construct the building compatible in size, density, height and architectural characteristics of the neighborhood. The proposed project will not displace any existing residential tenants or remove any rentcontrol housing, as well. This concluding the staff presentation and im available for any questions. Thank you. Do we have a project sponsor . Hello, commissioners. Im the architect of the project, mark hogan with openscope studio here representing my client clients e here. They currently live in the adjacent house at can you speak into the mic, please. Sorry about that. They currently live in the adjacent house at 433bayden, which is the house over the existing Property Line. They would like to develop the vacant singlefamily house or want to develop a vacant lot next to them. The Building Department will not allow that permit to proceed without the lot line adjustment because theres currently a portion of the wall, the existing home over the lot. And the new house otherwise meets Planning DepartmentDesign Guidelines and meets the zoning, rh1, 40x zoning for the site and it is in keeping with the character of the house adjacent to it. Were proposing four bedrooms, 3. 5 bands and onecar garage. The 433 is to the left and the other neighbor to the right, so the rear of the proposed house. And then this is the site plan showing the existing Property Line and then the proposed Property Line which would be regular and accommodate the bay on the front of the existing home at 433. So the rear of the new lot would continue to be 25 feet wide at the proposed new home and it would be approximately 24 feet, 24foot, two inches wide and the front of the lot would be 19 slightly over 19 feet wide. There would be partial demolition of the roof eve on the existing house to accommodate this and bring it back on to its own parcel. And then these are the floor plans. There is a basement, ground floor, the existing grade of the lot with a driveway out to the lower part of bayden street and then the second floor, two bedrooms in front and the master in the back. And this is the elevation facing bayden street. As you may have noticed on the site plan, the street doesnt continue in front of the parcel. Because of the grade change, theres a retaining wall so the two houses dont actually connect. And this is the rear of the house showing the two adjacent prompts. Adjacent properties. Thats the end of my presentation. Thank you. We will now take general Public Comment on this item and anyone, i do have a speaker card. John mcgraph and anyone else who wishes to speak on this item, please come up. Can you hear me ok . I love at 405b aske 405 bayden d which is the third house down from the project im here because of sewer work at 411 bayden. It has been proven the existing line consists of 411, 419 and from what ive seen from the cameras, the subcontracted people that pg e have sent through the city to check there are no gas lines or whatever interfering with sewer lines, it is only one line. It is substandard. At 411 bayden, there was just work done because her sewer was backing up through the inspection cover. And this is not the first time, but also 419, its happened and i am not sure but i believe it happened at the top, what is now considered 427, 433 bayden. Im more concerned about the disruption that this is going to cause to the neighborhood. This is over 20 grade of a street that goes up to the top where they want to propose this building. As we all know through physics, feces rolls downhill and goes into my property. And i just this is my first time here so i beg your forgiveness, but im trying to get answers. Because i could not hear a lot of what youve said, i believe its been taken off the consent calendar. Im not sure what that means. I saw that commissioner moore said something and i would like that to be explained. They have been put in for an addition previous to this and i would like to know, you know, what is the concern here. Is it because they actually own the property . Its their lot, they can do whatever they want with it and all of the notices that have gone out to the neighborhood, im the only one that shows up . Although everybody that walks their dog across from me has asked me about this project. I said, i will come down. I will find out. I will ask questions and i will follow through and thats why im here. It just means were having the hearing now. So that meant that it was going to be later on as i am right now. And not approved without the discussion, is were discussing it. So before you rubberstamp this property thing, i think you need to take a better look into potentially whats going to happen, is the sewer an eightinch line or not . The person who was head of the project at 411 bayden has more information and, unfortunately, that day, i could not stick around and talk to him more about what i knew about the existing lines previous to this. Thank you very much. Any other pub comment on this item. Commissioner moore . The idea of approving a substandard lot is a good idea. I think the building a welldesigned building and thats not the reason i pulled it off consent. I like to get the commissioners attention to drawing a111, where on the second floor, on the north wall, although it is a Property Line to Property Line wall, theres an exiting door, which i do not understand. When properties abut with each other, there is no room for a door unless the same owner wants to leave a possibility of moving from one building to the next building. And since the architect is here, you could bring up drawing 111 and explai explain why there ise door and what you are continuing to do with it. If your idea is to have property two being sold, why do these buildings need to be connected and they shouldnt be connected anyway . The idea is in the interim, they could use both houses and downsize into one of them at a future date. The Building Department has information sheet or bulletin that allows for that in the building code. We presented that to planning staff and received no comments. I believe since you are having a lot division here, you are coming here for a lot division. No, its already a separate lot. For that very reason, its basically allowing access between buildings on two separate properties. I would like to have the Zoning Administrator or an architect or somebody weigh in. Thats highly unusual. And i think it raises all kinds of questions. If you saw fit, you could restrict access between the two parcels, adding a condition to not require any kind of communicating doorway between the two individual parcels and add that as a condition. I would like a further explanation, you know, before we do Something Like that. I mean, i understand what commissioner moore is saying. Please. So currently, its actually two separate properties as it is now. What this project is doing is actually rectifying a building encroachment per the lot lines and so now what its doing is shifting the lot line over a maximum of three feet, three inches to accommodate the existing building encroachment because without that, the Building Permit has expressed to applicants they wont be allowed to build an addition that crossed the Property Lines or if they wanted to build a new construction, they would have to rectify that before anything could happen. And so the intent has been to provide an additional dwelling unit. They want to be able to accommodate an expanding family but the way they go about it within they could build on two lots but that means that they have to do the lot line adjustment at some time or any time or if they wanted to expand and accommodate an adu, they couldnt do that without the lot line adjustment. Commissioner moore . If the department justifies this by adding an additional dwelling unit, then i do not quite see that because its basically horizonal addition and should come in under a different discussion. I believe that it is more or less like megamention because wermegamansion. Were asked to n existing dwelling or a building for the same people on two lots. I think that question is very different for me and since we are so intent adding dwelling units under the subject heading this add as nicely designed dwelling unit on a separate lot, im prepared to approve it if it is basically only horizonal addition, i have very Big Questions and i think at this very moment, since this is not properly presented to me, i will not approve it. Thank you. Commissioner fung. I think planning staffs explanation, we all understand in terms of why the lots are split. The question raised is whether the continued dual use of both buildings for whatever their purposes are through that interconnecting door is appropriate. Also, i thought with two separate properties, if youre crossing a property, i thought it had to be a fourhour connection. Theres a requirement for a onehour wall on each side of the Property Line and the building has an equivalency that allows for a door on each property and the building will not be structurally conducted in the future when their children are out of the house and no longer have childcare, they will be able to move into one house and sell the other parcel. Its a completely independent single. Family home. Commissioner moore . I would like to ask another question. What youre describing is obviously a very legitimate attempt by a family to use the prompts. Properties. Why in the application did you not bother to show this commission how these two buildings are to function with each other . Because you are drawing it as if its two different buildings. Youre not disclosing whats on the other side and i think that is where this Commission Gets tripped. At briefly looking at the drawings, unless you really spend time looking at them, its a separate house, fine, lets go and im quite disappointed to give you my personal opinion that if that is the intent of why is that not disclosed here . My impression was the conditional use was for the size of the parcel which weve addressed. The interconnecting door was never brought up during the entire review process and its on the plan interests o plans ai just showed. We didnt realize it was an issue. Thank you. Commissioner moore has stated she wont be supporting the project as presented. I just wanted to add that i have no issues with the drawings. I did not see that door thank you, commissioner. You always notice Little Details and i think this has been consistent in our desire policywise, that if we are adding, you know, bulk and mass that we want to see additional units. And so, this project is presenting us with a dilemma because it looks like its an additional unit but its not as presented. Im wondering what happened here because you know weve been consistent in policy and so, i wonder if we need a little more time or where we can go from here . Because as presented, what were doing is really merging two separate units . Even though its presented as a lot line adjustment for compliance, but the outcome is going to be to merge two dwelling units which is not something ive done since ive been on this commission. Weve been pretty insist tenentf youre adding more space, add another unit. Ill explain the background. The proposals were to do horizonal addition and dbi said you cant do that and you would have to merge both lots, getting rid of one lot to be able to build, say, a singlefamily home and ad on it. So that was out of the picture, like, mo, we want to maximize the density and thats our purpose. So we came here, lot line adjustment, lets build a new construction where both other thanships arotherownerships aret we could add a unit which is what the family is requesting. So the project sponsors have agreed to eliminate both doors. Commissioner moore . We can approve this project with the stipulation wit, with e condition the drawings are being revised, that the department acknowledges and presents to the department that through the commission that the drawings have been amended and have a restricting condition on the approval that two buildings cannot be connected but they will come as independently as accessible occupied buildings. I make a motion for that type of approval. I second. Theres a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to require that the connecting door be closed. Eliminated, completely eliminated. Creating well, just eliminated. And that the two properties can never be connected. Very good, on that motion, commissioner fung . role call . So moved, commissioners and that passes unanimously 500. Were at 20915322 for the code cleanup 2019 planning code amendment. Good afternoon veronica floris. The item before you is code cleanup amendments and the ordinance would amend the planning code to correct typographical errors, update, outdated cross previous refereno clarify the code language. The proposed ordinance will amend article 4 to move the language regarding timing of the payments to the beginning of the article and crossreference that new subsection in the impact fee sections. Lastly, the proposed ordinance will also add an additional fee waiver based on the replacement of gross floor area and buildings damaged by fire or destroyed by other calamity. Pair i havi have a signed copy r changes for you. please stand by . I am still not sure if it is all nonsubstantive. I noticed that the definition, there are some changes. There is an insertion of the word primarily for definitions of use and im just wondering, is this to accommodate flexible use . What was the intent to their . Section 260, height limit exemptions. I believe it is pages 26 through 27, although i dont know what version you have. The new text there, section one b. Has a description that is hard to comprehend clearly or envision. It is like the definition of demolition. It talks about, within the first 10 feet, there are particular analysis. No more than 40 of horizontal areas. It goes on to talk about dimensions and heights and it is very confusing. I dont know what is meant by areas, and, in fact, some planning codes have illustrations. It would be helpful to have illustrations for that. Was a 10 feet alliances thing for the height limit. That would make the description less cryptic as i see it. Please include this in your minutes under section sunshine 6516. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner koppel . I would like to make a motion to initiate and consider eight consider an adoption on or after december 12th, 2019. Second. Im sorry, commissioner fun . Question for staff. The question is not so much regarding this task, but to raise the question of whether there are obsolete sections of the codes that could be easily removed. Planning Department Staff. In terms of the existing planning code sections, they are considered obsolete and are no longer no longer an auto object. There are some still under review per those code sections. We want to make sure we have the longevity and project history and code history behind it. We have chosen to take the conservative approach and retain some of these more obsolete code sections. From the first time i was on this commission, that code has doubled in size. It seems to continually grow. Anyway, i remember having a discussion with one of the previous is owning administrators who said that the code could easily be half. Anyways it is probably just a nonsensical comment. We are always looking for ways to make the code smaller, but it is a specific task. If theres nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to initiate and consider adoption on or after december 12th, 2018. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 4 0. Item 14 has been continued to december 12th, placing is on item 15. 367 hamilton avenue conditional use authorization. Good afternoon. Im with planning Department Staff. We want to allow demolition of an existing singlefamily home within the r. H. One zoning district. The project included adding an accessory dwelling unit on the ground floor. The project required conditional use authorization per planning code section 317 because it is considered tantamount to demolition and includes the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit on the ground floor. And just for clarification, that is the area that is to be converted to an a. D. U. So part of the proposal includes the demolition of said residential building and then a new construction of a threestory building. The project includes one dwelling unit with three bedrooms on the second and third floors, and an a. D. U. With two bedrooms on the ground floor. The project includes about 1300 square feet of common open space via the groundfloor courtyard, in addition to private balconies and decks for each unit. The current Property Owner has occupied the lower unit since purchasing the property circa 2012. The upper unit was previously rented out to a family friend on a monthtomonth lease. That tenant has since moved out about last month. The department has received four letters in opposition to the project with concerns related to overall massing, design, and parking. The project sponsor requested a continuance last time in order to hold an Additional Committee meeting last month. This was to be able to further engage with the neighborhood. However, there were no attendees at said meeting. The department is in general support of the proposed design, which was reviewed with the Residential Design Advisory Team , and the project meets all relevant planning code and Design Guidelines. The Department Recommends approval with conditions for the following reasons. The project proposes two family sized units that will add to the citys housing stock. The project will not displace any tenants as a result of this project and the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. This concludes staff to do presentation. I am available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a project sponsor . Good afternoon, commissioners i have a few backgrounds on the project. The project started in 2018 and this is [indiscernible] originally we asked for a re edition to a 900 square foot singlefamily home on a 3,000 square feet lot, but since the preapplication meeting, we have been working with three planners now and amended the project to better fit the Planning DepartmentDesign GuidelinesDepartment Design guidelines with the midblock open space. It fits with the neighborhood content. The project in front of you today, like i said, went through a series of amendments, and revisions. We also propose an a. D. U. On the ground floor. It is three stories. The groundfloor has one of the a. D. U. S. The second and third floor is one unit. They were two separate Community Outreach that we did on this project. One in 2016 in april. It was a preapplication meeting. There were seven neighbors that came to that meeting and we did pass we did have concerns on that meeting. And again on october 16th, the Second Committee outreach that we did had no attendance and despite all our efforts reaching out through emails, posting on sites, this will conclude my presentation and im happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . I do not have any speaker cards. But if any members of the public want to speak to the item, please do so now. Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner moore . I have a few questions about the fact that the unit design looks as if they are still connectable and not really fully separate units. The lower unit has quality that i question to be fully acceptable unit due to the fact that the deck which comes down and extends over the living area is only so deep that the unit itself is basically in the dark. For to qualify as a second bedroom, it does not work quite either because the second bedroom is actually not a legal bedroom. So that said, i think this project, in order to be really approvable as two units, even as an a. D. U. , has to make a couple of changes. And foremost, it has to break the ability to connect the two units and use the house is one large home. That is the most important requirement here. Commissioner koppel . I hear what commissioner moore is saying and i am definitely okay with any amendments you would like to see in general, i dont think this task is too much. It makes cases for us to continue the discussion about maybe lifting density controls because this is an r. H. One. I would suggest we would continue this because the changes that need to be made are not for me to design, but for the applicant to professionally meet on his own because he must know the code in order to do so. So i make a motion to continue. We are in support of two units, however they have to be done slightly differently. May i request, commissioner moore, we give guidance to staff a little bit further about what specifically the changes that you were wanting to see to make do you think that you got up about habitability for the second bedroom, and also the deck . Thank you, commissioner melgar. The deck of the second unit and the stairs coming to the garden have to be designed differently to not obscure the livability of the leeward lower unit. Second comment, in order for the lower unit, it is very desirable to have two bedrooms. The second bedroom has to be a legal bedroom. Has to do with light and air and where it sits. The third point, and the most important one, in order for it to be an a. D. U. By the standards we are all discussing, the unit needs to be independently accessible from the outside, have its own little address or whatever, and read at the front of the building, rather than being accessed through a common corridor by which, at the moment , it could be easily connected to the upper unit. Those are the requirements for what we pretty much say to everybody who is fine to do this thank you. Is that clear . Okay. Did you want to make you made a motion. I am making a motion that the project be continued