crisis in a nutshell professional buyers buying rent control buildings and demolish those there's no policy if you're building bigger or more unit you can knock down the rent controlled housing this project doesn't quality for a occasion permit we've analyzed that in packages 6 and it means 6 for the demolition of a permit. the - this is the city's worse affordable housing crisis ever it shows the tune deafness what is remarkable if a family tried to merge them the city would say not recommendation of losing any unit on mergers the impacts on the surrounding community can't be overstated the subdivision the two very large buildings one in the rear yard is against the window it was no set back and, in fact, it keeps taking and taking i also submitted the information from the department u dot ask for 25 percent the department asked fore 25 periods of time and those are exhibits 4r5e in the brief >> i'm sorry your time is up. is there any additional public comment. oak seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini >> ms. barkley can you ask you a couple of questions, mr. williams you described your rear yard there's a variance by it's not 10 percent i believe that was just below. >> it was on the building on clemente and 27 the rashlgd is at first residential level because the ground floor essentially half of that is taken by the circulation and the parking garage and then if we don't have the parking it will also be before the zoning administrator for a parking variance and then on the other one the one facing 26 street what happens because of the building next to it a very small residential building the area in front of it is an actual a great to make sure they're not facing a big wall. right up there it's 13 feet deep whereby the code is 37 feet deep when it's facing 26th street so they have tried to keep the department of public works of the actual building itself to 84 feet >> yeah. >> to make sure there's room for circulation, the bathrooms and 3 bedrooms because they wanted to make sure their family and not an opportunity. >> yeah. i understand what is not unlike the project before this one the rear yard is provided at the first level rather than the ground floor a that's partly because it's, it's not ground floor. >> no on the 26 avenue building most of the rear yard is actually at grade there's altering corner on the towards the california street that would be at the first. >> right. >> at the right off one of the units on the second floor and right your closer to what is required. >> in terms of the grade yeah, but the depth. >> the depth is under the time i realize that but the other thing you've left a space next to the adjacent be building where the cottages you've got open space there and it's exactly so the green space? rear yard will be in front of the small cottage. >> right. >> so that one of the studies they did if you do only one building the building actually by the time you get to the 25 percent radish that will be tight against the small cottage so the urban design they're looking at city manager is to try to make sure they can be as consider at as possible. >> thank you. i think i understand yeah. architect went through a very good presentation at the given i'm trying to interject realty because nobody in they're right mind is going to sit there with those two unit and leave them the way they were. if they were allowed to demolish it they'll be subsequent improvements and use the open space for another large building thaip they'll end up with fewer a bigger unit their limit by the amount of parking has explained be able to get about 4 units because of the parking problems and match the kind of square footage our providing you'll need unit of 33 thousand to 35 hundred in you think those are expensive this is off the wall this is a good entry size for buyers 12 maybe 14 hundred square feet is perfect >> you're getting 3 bedrooms so it make total sense and obviously this is not approved we're going to go back and see something like i described and have unit less affordable you can't force someone to do small business owner something that does not make sense and nobody is going to leave those units but add a couple of other big unit you're getting 8 workmen's and replacing two and 6 units replying 3 bedrooms and 16 bedrooms replacing two units and also as was pointed out maybe at the sometime? basing past there's a renter but it's been owner occupied and it's so any rental that was ever done here would the market rate even though subject to rent control it hadn't happened and they wouldn't be family sized housing they're small this is a good project and supportive. we've been dealing with this since april and the district supervisor g did a good job of outreach and i'm not saying he's evening but no longer any opposition there's been dialog but it's a good project and answers questions about providing housing particularly for sale housing and affordable by size and location it's moderately sized a little bit further out and i think it will be the opportunity for a young family or family of any age to buy their first home and get started? market and the brand new unit so it's a good project >> commissioner moore. >> i like to talk about the project two projects and see if increase some dialog between the two this we can agree. mr. jake briefing remind me of the commercial >> for the commercial space generally in the district the commercial requirement for parking doesn't trigger until 5 thousand square feet for the residential square feet it's minimal one-on-one. >> first question i know that it's a very attractive commercial corridor with restaurants and the sites is hard to find a place having said that, the project suffers a little bit from its parking it pushes certain elements into variances which are perhaps not necessary. i would to comment on the a lot and ask the architect i appreciate your parking and pitting it in stacks what's the reason of why you didn't use the unique in the second building >> happy to answer that question. the main reason being we are you're going stackers in the lot a we have 50 percent of ground floor as actual so the ground floor is 15 feet at all. in the lot b we were unable to meet that requirement so the ceiling is two too 0 short for stackers and again, answer if i would not intrude into the rear yard have two cars standing? space >> that maybe possible. >> okay. i think parking as it starts to push the project is an issue i want to entertain i have to admit that the demolition of rent controlled housing is not just a concern but a huge concern. i think it has to stay really dead center in what we're discussing two projects one is for approve and does correct things and as proposed with the second i have issues. the issue evolves if 13th century this is not a rent controlled you are talking about if that someone want to demolish is this particular building i believe that the accommodating open space on top of a garage is something i can't approve something we've discussed at length at 601 larkin street it's the impact on the adjourning buildings that require the rear yard for more than just property line windows and light and small garden but the overall development paper sets a bad precedent to develop an existing rooftop. i want to point out and perhaps follow me, you could have define it differently what you're doing our upper floor unit 40 in mothering lot b has it's rooftop open space the lower unit has its own open space. >> yeah. >> isn't it possible if iy retained parking and have a narrow stair from the second floor down you would have accommodated everybody without the additional pop out for two private open spaces at the expense of the larger pattern. >> the first story needs a penalty how the but not require a deck. >> so it's a possibility of doing it differently i mean there are two issues one destroying the housing and the other one the development patterns and i am opposed to. i will leave that open >> commissioner can i clarify something in terms of the parking. >> at this moment if the quietly comes from accountability dmifrgsz thank you very much. until the other commissioners ask >> commissioner hillis. so just maybe on the parking issue don't it i that i have the same concerns about the bum out on the first story building b and you know it seems like you could have accommodated the floor and accommodated some of the windows on 26th street did you look at ways to avoid it bump out. well, for the bump out to accommodate the third car you can see we only have a 12 foot garage door if we element that for the 12 garage i wouldn't be able to have 2 cars i need to pit two cars and i need to eliminate probably the small portion of the lower unit to accommodate another car so basically take the whole building for 3 car parking >> you'll lose that 3 hundred plus square feet. >> exactly that's the reason we have the bump out and try to put it in a location which is not going to effect the next door small cottage. and that's where we want to place it. >> yeah. i think i get that i mean, my concerns have to do with the adjacent neighbors they're going to have a large building adjacent to that rear yard helps. an their own lots. so, yeah it's a trade off to me i'd rather see that open space on the ground floor avoid it bump out and loss the 3 hundred plus square feet minimize that it's interesting this project, you know, people use the mayors directives it maximize the development lots in a unique way we're splitting the lots and doing this which is interesting but the bumper out in the back of the garage >> the project sponsor will be happy to get rid of the bump out for the 26 avenue building this will have a rear yard all the way across. >> i don't know is there a lot line window and the building is away from the lot line window we've pulled the buildings back 3 feet from it. >> and then i think that would be helpful on clement street as you go down west is there more commercial? >> when you go the clement street out of clement street commercial street ends open 27 and as you go down clement streetful from 262027 you'll see that the commercial sort of disappears that becomes basically, all garage doors. >> does the code require i like that commercial but the code before it was it commercial. >> there are some portions of the city where the ground floor commercial space is required some have windows and on another thing i'll clarify we have in the parking situations we have limits on you how much of the frontage can be occupied so if we are talking eliminating the garage issue on 26 this is another variance and could you do that, you know, would that require if you got rid of the bump out and if the bump out were taken away it could trigger it most likely would trigger the need for the area not to mention the design issues that would have to be looked for that as well. >> okay. in the interest of fairness could the on the be given equal time >> it's up to the commissioners. >> sir, i asked the question you're out of order right now. >> commissioner hillis your comments. >> i think it would be good to eliminate that it is interesting if you need additional room. >> i can't hear you. >> i'm sorry, i i was trying to eliminate the ground floor room that's connected to the first living floor, you know, but it seems like it's possible and accommodating. >> i have a point of order. >> let's continue with commissioner comments. >> i'm good. >> i wanted to also add comments on what commissioner moore said on the rent control unit commissioner hillis i talked about the directive by we've been seeing recommendations from staff on mergers for disapproval so there's seems like some sort continuity challenge that's hard to support a initiative i know there's legal challenges is there any legal way to preserve for a moment for two of the units? >> i'm going to attempt to answer that if the demolition is approved two of the new unit would be under rent control. >> right. >> we'll not be able to do that. >> okay commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i was following up on the offer by the project sponsor to eliminate the bump out on building b and it might end up with a larger garage door but will have to be worked out. >> the question is that unless i we, figure out why the garage door to put 3 cars in i have a question with the zoning administrator reduce the 3 car parking garage into two car i need the variance not meeting the parking requirement (laughter). >> this is to clarify there is only one actual variance for this project and it's not for the parking per say they're providing the right amount of parking but their using the first 25 feet of depth of the property so i'm sure you're aware of the planning code has a lot of controls how the ground floor enacts with the street and one of the requirement any off-street parking has to be pulled bay back 25 feet and 2 should be used for active uses for the commercial or residential obviously driveways is excluded. in order for them not to provide the required parking from the 3 to 2 or zero there are avenues there can be a variance sought subject to the criteria can we but the zoning administrator has the ability to modify or wave that requirement under section 61 j so there is a potential outcome with less or no parking is provided they mite may not require a new variance for that issue >> so i think i still i was going to talk about assuming either by changing having a variance for one less parking space presumably the commercial doesn't necessarily need a parking space so they could have a two or three oh, 7 parking spaces by they'll end up with 6 their eliminating with only here and i guess they have four on the other if i'm not mistaken. >> the difficulty here as i've mentioned you can have two projects lot a on clemente has 3 residential units to provide one to one parking and lot b has 3 between the and any reduction in parking there's after a an avenue of reduction of parking. >> they could do that i remember a project we had a few years ago the parking was provided on the second lot for the first or some of the parking to to theoretically if we wanted to keep area one-on-one residential parking they can have the four and the others on the other site. >> to be clear you're saying keep the 4 parking lot and make that residential and on lot b reduce it from 3 to 2. >> that will satisfy the bumper out for commissioner moore and will not entail a larger door; is that correct? >> yes. except i'd like to check i don't have the planning code but one on the same lot do you need a variance for parking in the same neighborhood between one thousand feet so i still need a variance. >> unfortunately i don't have the code in front of me it's not coming up. >> i talked about that. >> that restriction is implied in rh1 and rh2 wore for the commercial i think i can have it within eight-hundred feet without having a variance we can check that. >> i think i'm finished for now. >> this entire project can have no parking and that can be modified or waved so for that purchase whether or not next door or not existing at all. >> so basically, we're talking about the variance for the 26 avenue building to wave one. >> a variance. >> just a decision and from a administration active process. >> yes. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much. so indefinitely supportive of potentially changing the parking to bring the rear yard back to the ground floor a couple of questions one i'm unclear that the two-story cottage this is shown on the schematic where is the egress at this point, i'm unclear from the schematic it looks hemmed in so can someone talk about the egress >> steve williams it comes out it fronts on clement street here's the com it fronts if you walk out this area right here and i'm sorry that wasn't clear from the sneefkz. >> xhishd. >> we have an underutilized lot to a over utilized lots where do you draw the line you get the rent controlled unit i'm going to understand you can't incorporate them into the project and, sir what you think that about and i'm also told it's an over parked project i would be happy with no parking by what's the zip code tracking anybody have any idea i know their family sized housing but 7 lots for 6 units that's ridiculous. >> concerning your question about the rent controlled unit they'll remain rent control i sent a note to corey and he royals it's underdeveloped 8 not 6 that's the error at the beginning of this project the rent controlled unit b.a. can be expanded and more unit they can remain under rent control and if there's a conflict with creating for housing the priority policy says keep the remaining how's theres no conflict. >> considerably you can have lot a expanding and b built and absolutely. >> that sound like a winner to me. >> much better this takes away and give us nothing. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay. i guess