They will be moving out, and moving forward, its my understanding that its to be used, the 235,000 cost or the gap that mohcd has for developing housing, times that by the 150 and thats how we got the number. Commissioner richards okay. I wondered. Every single live work unit that was approved in San Francisco has an n. S. R. On it and saying its not housing, its commercial. And so academy put students in the housing pardon me in the buildings and considered it to be student housing, but they didnt comply with the law oliv on livework units. There were units that were abandoned, and there were more on harrison street. So they were not housing at that time because they were not conforming housing. That w they were both substantial buildings. President melgar thank you, miss hester. Mr. Adams, did you want to explain the methodology further . Dan adams, mohcd. Scott sanchez explanation was spot on. Commissioner richards we had a case here probably three or four units where essex trust le
I want to end up with a few of the challenges that we are faced with when enforcing this. And the first and biggest being our inability to determine the truth since we rely on selfreported data from hotel owners. We encounter cooked books and second sets of books where theres the books for me and the books for the real use of being recorded. Ive already mentioned the misuse of the temporary conversion exception where hotel owners consider an entitlement. Another challenge is the limit on d. B. I. s authority to initiate enforcement proceedings. We are not considered an interested party. And therefore we cannot initiate complaints. And we do have the ability to assess penalties for recordkeeping violations but not for conversions, which is the main violation of the ordinance. We encounter vacancies in room warehousing, which i can talk more about later, but theres no law that requires hotel owners to rent out their guest rooms. My colleagues are about to leave me so theres not going to
Is proposed for continuance. Items 3a and b for case numbers 2018007725var the variance at 244 douglass street is proposed for continuance december 5, 2019 for the variance agenda. Further, commissioners, item 17 for case number 2018012337 saturn street, conditional use authorization proposed for continuance to december 19. Im pleased to inform you on your discretionary review calendar at 1299 sanchez street discretionary review has been withdrawn. I apologize welcome commissioner diamond. Thats what i was going to say. We really welcome you, commissioner diamond. I think we are going to do really good work on this commission. Does any member of the public have comment on the items for the items proposed for continuance . If you do, please give Public Comment now. Public comment is closed. Do i hear a motion . Move to continue second. Thank you commissioners, on that motion to continue items as positive proposed. [roll call vote] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 50. If the Zoni
Parapet thats capped, the piece of metal commissioner richards thank you point to it, please . Its here. Commissioner richards its black . Yes. And the box bays project and interrupt that. So we have a standard height where parapets are normally high, in this case, were trying to control that in such a way that it keeps it simple, but something thats not trying too hard to overwhelm the street. Its certainly something we could dial in further if need be in conditioning with staff and the like. Commissioner richards id actually like to see it a little bit higher. Well, we had a discussion commissioner richards i have had involved in that. When i was talking on the phone with mr. Kemler, when you see it on paper, it looks like a pencil mustache drawn on a big fat man. We tried to keep a relationship between those parts in a way in which one is seco secondary and one is higher. This is the image submitted to you back in may. Commissioner richards so the image okay. Right. You recall yeah.
To the restaurant. And if that entrance is more than doesnt have direct street access then this doesnt apply. Does that make sense . So you know the big double doors at Cheesecake Factory thats the primary entrance. Doesnt have direct street access so it doesnt apply. As i read this, thats what these words mean. I agree. Might want to go back and talk to whoever at public works drafted it. I agree. Its in the ordinance . Yeah, i mean so. Anyway. Probably none of that matters. The ordinance is different. So why is the language different between these two things brad, our City Attorney . I cant say why its different but there is an ordinance that has the same restriction its just worded differently. It says the prohicks set forth in section 4 shall on prohibition set forth in section 4 shall only apply if it has. Its hard to hear you. The code provides weve been looking at the order on mobile food facilities which is very similar to the code. The code provides the prohibition set forth i