Plans show the intent of james, owner and project sponsor, with the Real Estate Investment portfolio of 32l. L. C. Is seeking your approval to eliminate the four existing affordable units on this parcel and maximize the potential of his investment. The tenants in units 1 and 3 didnt accept the buyout. Im a former owner in may 2017 when the building was for sale. They taught a tenantoccupied building in 2017. He didnt intend to be the landlord for long. Andrew zachs law firm offered the tenant buyout disclosure declarations in february of 2018 on his behalf. On march 22nd, 2018, when noonmaker had a preapp meeting for his project, how extremely distressing for these tenants to learn that their rentcontrolled homes would be gone. I live in a sixunit rentcontrolled building. I wouldnt know what to do if i was faced with this calamitous situation. The building would be completely reconfigured, moved and added to and naturally occurring affordable and smaller rental staff would be eliminated. In contrast to policy objective 3. [ please stand by ] approve this exception to our policy. Caller a number of the tenants unit and senior and disability action. I want to expand on the general plan applications in this case. The second major objective of the 2014 Housing Element is to retain existing Housing Units without jeopardizing affordability. Policy 2. 1 is to discourage the demolition of sound drifting out of in a net increase in Affordable Housing. And this is going to result in Affordable Housing . It is not. Its all going to be market rate. Does the permit call for demolition . It Marshall Neal does call for demolition. The Housing Element policy 3. 1 says to preserve rental units, especially rentcontrolled units, to meet the citys Affordable Housing needs. In the end the project will have eliminated affordable rent controlled units to have four unaffordable units. Taken as a whole theres no project more inconsistent with the general plan, and as such must be rejected by the commissioners. If it is approved it will render the Affordable Housing preservations in the general plan meaningless. And it will have a blue blint for speculators to mock and bypass them. [bell] if the project goes forward, i urge the commissioners to keep this building largely affordable and rent controlled. I also urge the commissioners to consider devising a process whereby tenants and affordability status is mandated to be examined to the general plan consistency at the start of an application and not as in this case way afterwards. Thank you. Caller hi, i am joe garvey and i live near this project and i fully support the project. I support it because the Planning Department supports it. And i support it i support because it maximizes density. This parcel is three blocks from bart. It also keeps four units rent controlled. While adding eight new units, eight to nine new units. I was noticing that in the d. R. Request statement, they said that this project goes far beyond the average or norm on san jose avenue. This is a 40foot tall building, three blocks from bart, in a major city. That thinking and that mentality of far beyond the average or norm is what weve been experiencing for decades, which has us in a housing crisis now. So i would urge you to support this project at its 40foot high limit, its scope, its proximity to bart, its density, and allow new residents to live in this neighborhood and enjoy it with the other residents. Thank you. Caller hello, my name is Michael Gowan and i live near this project also and im in support of the project. Mainly because i dont believe that we can solve our housing crisis by keeping things the way they are. We need more density along transit corridors. And if were going to have the number of People Living in california and living in the bay area and in San Francisco, the number of people who are here and want to come here, we need to shake things up and rethink how were using our space and people who have enjoyed things being the way they are are going to have to be more flexible. Because it doesnt work the way that it is and if we continue to build urban sprawl, we dont have the freeway infrastructure to support that. Its back to the environment. Leaving things the way they are is simply unrealistic and its not sustainable. So to be inflexible in thinking and, you know, feeling that folks have a right for things not to change and stay the way they are while we have this housing crisis is just childish and makes absolutely no sense. So thats why i support the project. Good afternoon, commissioners. San francisco landuse coalition. I urge you to support the d. R. S before and you to scale back the proposal project, the proposed picture at 350 san jose avenue to send a clear message to serial speculators that making profits on the back of dispossessed tenants is not okay. Heres the facts the law firm initiated a buyout shortly after they bought the building in february 2018. As evidenced by the prebuy out document. One tenant died three months later and the sole remaining tenant, ann kong, somehow buys the apartment nine months later. We dont have the smoking gun but theres circumstantial evidence along the way, including the Mail Exchange between the sole remaining tenant, miss kong, and mr. Numamacher which she ends with the following statement im still interested in discussing the buyout but i was out of town for a while and came home to news. Things a bit heck tic hectic at. This is not the only gross miscarriage of justice in this case and there is another issue at hand. This is a typea Historic Resource which has a much lower threshold for demo cal. The staff should have had a conditional use authorization for this property anyway. In light of all of these misdeeds, our ask is simple [bell] shrink the building to shrink the serial speculators profit, knock out the fourth floor to make sure that this monstrosity will not become a public park, and require all 12 units to be rent controlled and much smaller. Yes, you heard me smaller. To make them affordable by design. And those people who think that these demands are childish, im sorry, its unemployment crisis. The state of california has to shut down the Employment Office for two weeks because they cannot manage the workload. So, please [bell] stop the accusations. Caller hello, commissioners, my name is nicholas spanger and i live and work close to the project. And our city is in a housing crisis and blocking new housing just shameful. The city will never be able to support our growing population by trying to keep buildings as small as possible. Those against this increase wish to live with less density. Theres a plethora of areas that are not a big city such as San Francisco. The site is located three blocks from bart and its a perfect location for additional homes. This is a good project that is fully code compliant and approved already by the Planning Department. It has the Historic Building into the new project while maintaining the rentcontrol status. It renovates the existing floor units. So i urge you to support this project. Thank you. Caller good afternoon, commissioners. My name is mike chen an and im a resident of San Francisco. Im not seeking in support or opposition, but i would like to make note that the commission has before it a series of allegations around tenants and tenant buyouts but does not have really sufficient information to really make a make a decision. And i would say also that its a poor place to have these decisions at the Planning Commission, they should be made through city law or through civil courts or as a criminal case. I think that thats the way to adjudicate these things is, for example, for the commission to advocate for a registry to be able to track buyouts better and to make sure that you advocate that buyouts must be public. And it just seems really strange that the way that we protect tenants is not by doing a holistic thing, only by blocking developments through d. R. Process. I would want a more comprehensive way to make sure that tenants get the protections that they have and deserve in San Francisco. Thank you. Caller hi, can you hear me . Clerk we can. Caller can you hear me, folks . Clerk yes, we can. Caller hello . Great. Commissioners, my name is mark norton, a 45year resident of San Francisco. Others have made very articulate arguments about what is wrong where this project. I wanted to add my voice. We have a clear example of profit in the interest of speculators above people. The more we go down the path of destruction of Affordable Housing we create the growing social and political unrest that we are experiencing in this country. You know this, we all know this. But somehow we want to stick our heads in the sand and pretend otherwise. Good luck with that. Thank you for your consideration. Do right thing. Clerk okay, members of the public i take it i take it back. We have one more caller. Caller hello . My name is robin germane and i have lived okay. I have lived in the neighborhood for many years. I just really want to just take a moment and pause and im very much against this project for a number of reasons. I knew penny, and i have lived next to her and i know this story and what the tenants went through. But more importantly at this point im really concerned that everyone keeps saying that we need to build more housing, we need to build mor more housing. What we have is empty apartments. I have counted two blocks on san jose avenue between 24th and 26th, and there are at least 20 empty apartments that have been empty even before covid. Although, of course, more units are empty because of covid. And i really dont understand why we need to build something when what we really need to do is to make these apartments affordable so that people, families, people who are students, people who have service dogs can live in these places. This development is not going to meet any of those needs. He has made so much money, he doesnt need anymore money. I dont understand the idea of packing so much into a very small space. To say that theyre small units and were going to have lots of them does not help the community. It does not help the neighborhood. And im really upset, i just feel that we should take a moment and look around. There are a lot of empty apartments. [bell] why are they empty . We need to look at what is already built. We dont need to tear down Historic Buildings, turn them into ugly glass and steel high rises and, in fact, that was done across the street. Its a four unit condo that has been built, they tore down a Beautiful House and built that. Half of the units are corporate housing. Theyre not even for real tenants. Every few months new people come in. And the other unit is empty. So i feel like we need to look around. [bell] you people on planning should step up to what were experiencing now. And the idea of commuting is clerk thank you very much, your time is up. Caller good afternoon, commissioners. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Caller hi there. This is catherine petrin, an architectural historian and i write in support of the d. R. Requesters and urge the commission to not approve the project for the reasons stated in the letter that i submitted earlier. To summarize, the project will demolish an intact historic iraq that wilitalianate residence, a 145yearold building. This was determined by the citys south mission Historic Resource survey. So this is a city designated arated Historic Resource individually eligible for the california register, a building of the highest importance. Though the project sponsors characterize the proposed project as a remodel, it is by all definitions a demolition. Because the buildings footprint is low, and its to add new construction. Its an opportunity to retain and incorporate an Historic Building into a meaningful project that would satisfy many more department and city goals regarding preservation and antidisplacement, Affordable Housing, sustainability, etc. I have to question the value of the myriad longrange planning efforts, multiple surveys planned and Design Guidelines that have taken place over many years all requiring vast amount of time and resources. Theyre meant to facilitate meaningful preservation planning. And the spirit of this work should not be disregarded as is happening here. We can do much better. I support the d. R. , i hope that you will too. Thank you. Caller hi, i am ed dileski and i live and work in the neighborhood and i support this project. I support housing. This is a muchneeded addition to the Housing Stock in an otherwise very dense neighborhood. The lot is currently underdeveloped. There is far too many restrictions on new housing in San Francisco. This project respects the facade and the architecture, the original italianate architecture will not be demolished and it will be enhanced and improved and made beautiful. Please, approve this project as the sponsors have presented it. And thank you for your time. Clerk okay, members of the public, this is last call for public comment. If you would like to submit your public testimony, please press star, 3, to get into the queue. Commissioners, i have no members of course one more. Go ahead, speaker. Caller hi, yes, my name is sergei genomi and i live and work in the area. Im definitely happy to see that were going to get more housing in this particular area that has been as i believe it does not have the amount of housing that it should get. I definitely appreciate that the sponsors are keeping the architecture and the style. I totally approve of the project and i hope that it does move forward as definitely most families in the city, and we need workingclass families in the city as well. I support it. Thank you. Caller hello, i am john paul, and im a supporter of this project at 50 san jose avenue. The project developers have done a lot to maintain Affordable Housing in San Francisco. I believe that four units are going to remain under rent control and they have accepted parking and its also going to be under rent control. And the former site, i live close by, i have seen it outside of this smaller building. We are now going to have housing, 12 units from the a. D. U. And i believe this is good, this is good for San Francisco. This is good for the community. And its a better use of the lot which was, like i said, an older building which four of the units will be remaining rent control and then the parking lot is now going to become more housing. Thank you so much. Clerk okay, commissioners, i have no members of the public requesting to speak. So the matter is now before you. Im sorry, i apologize. Of course, one more member of the public is requesting to speak after we closed public comment. Go ahead, caller. Caller hi, this is joe cassidy and im a residential builder and one of the project sponsors a brother of the project sponsors. Im in favor of this project. Its unbelievable that this project has gone on for three years and everyone wonders why housing is so expensive in San Francisco. So id like to educate some people who made a lot of comments here today. You have to buy the land. Construction costs are 550 a square foot on the hard costs. The soft costs are another 50, which is 20 of the hard costs. And then theres the banks and the loans. And then theres the real estate fees. The total costs are over 1,200 a square foot and thats a fact. I would also like to say that there was an awful lot of attacks on these people and my brother has built all kinds of buildings in San Francisco and contributed to the tax base and built many affordable units throughout this city for the last 30 years. In fact, mr. Butler said that if my brother was involved in a project down on in north beach and he is the very one who drove up on to the sidewalk and attacked one of our workers with his car and then sped off. So this is a great project, number one. I think that the setbacks are reasonable. I mean, 57 feet back from the back fence. Decks are what people want today. They want more outdoor space, especially after covid. [bell] and the the project is good. Its affordable. The planning staff approved this project. So, please, approve it and move this ahead. People need to get a life. Thank you. Caller hello, can you hear me . Clerk we can. Caller oh, great. Hi. My name is alexander wells and im a tenant, actually, in this building 350 san jose and i strongly urge the commissioner to continue to support this project. Our city is in a major housing crisis and to stop this project from happening, which will be building new homes, just seems crazy to me. Ive been listening to all of those speaking and im appalled by their comments. My husband and i are teachers in the city and we work very hard and we have grown up in San Francisco and the bay area. And listening to all of these neighbors comment is just it saddens me, it disgusts me. I think that theyre sounding dramatic and insane i know every tenant in this building and i knew the ones that used to live here and there was absolutely no pressure, no abuse for anyone to leave. The project seems like a wonderful addition to San Francisco and especially to this neighborhood the plan is to create new and much more livable homes for young families like mine, which is growing more and more. And we realize how much space we need. This current apartment is not enough space for us to live in. I would love to have a deck, especially with covid19, we know how important outdoor space is and decks being built into our home so we can have private outdoor space. Its unlivable in terms of space for our family and we as a growing family really need more space. I strongly feel that the size of this building is very important and i feel that the size stated in the plan makes sense to me. Its what the needs of families like mine are scrin asking for. I dont see how a new wall that other tenants talked about will affect anyones sunlight and i feel that theres so much space in the front of this lot that is wasted that could be used for more housing and a beautiful deck and a beautiful garden and things like that, that its not used for right now. This project will create it to be a much more livable and beautiful space for families like me to live in the city. We all than we need more housing. I want to say that the landlords have been more than supportive to my family. And theyve been honest and willing to listen and im in full support of this project. It makes more sense. Caller hi, i think that its only are only fair to point out is that the last caller is his daughter and shes who is in the building so thats important to keep in mind. So, yeah. Clerk okay, commissioners, lets try this one more time. Well, okay, maybe not. I believe that this caller has already spoken. Have you already spoken, sir, or maam . I have. Clerk okay. Commissioners, the matter is now before you. President koppel commissioner moore . Vicepresident moore i would like to ask miss connor to give us some guidance on the rent controlled units and affordable there is a suggestion that four rent controlled units would be maintained. However, what are the metrics for when they would be maintained. Thats a very important question for us to put this project into the context of what many responders commented on. Would you mind explaining that to us, please. Sure thing. Can everyone hear me . President koppel yes. Kate connor, Planning Department staff. Theres evidence to imply that they are subject to rent control and so those four units in proposal would also be subject tto rent control. In terms of affordability restriction, rent control allows the rent to increase by a certain percentage every year, however, when tenants are moved out you are allowed to move it to market rate. Vicepresident moore so are you saying that the starting point for these rentcontrolled units would be today, and not the time at which they were taken off the market . Correct. Vicepresident moore thank you, thank you for explaining that. It makes it a little bit difficult to understand given where San Francisco is with rents. I would like to conduct my next question to mr. Kevin. If you are around, you spoke as the attorney and you spoke as the architect for the applicant. I have a question for you if you are there . Yes, can you hear me . Vicepresident moore i can, thank you. And my question to you is, it was very interesting for me to see the proposal coming forward and some interesting aspect where is you made changes. One thing that surprised me and mr. Windsor pointed that out to you is, indeed, the access to over a threefoot wide easement which is technically not possible. You are a bicycle rider and you know that doesnt work. None of us has long enough arms to kind of indiscernible but i would like to ask you, the basement floor of the building as it is proposed now completely lacks what is referred to as back of houses. No mechanical room, for garbage cans, for water heaters or any other things that typically come together in storage and building amenities into the mechanical part ever the building. Where have you envisioned where this would be located, if you could explain that. Yes, thank you, commissioner. First let me go to bike parking. Up until this updated version, we developed last week in working with the g. R. Requesters, the a. D. U. Unit was the parking and had bike parking in it as well. So it was a bit of an oversight as to what to do with the bike parking once we converted them into an a. D. U. And clearly we need to bring it into the building and thats the intent and, obviously, it would be akin to approval on this project. I have been in touch with the architects. The mechanical space can be taken care of with the rooftop penthouse, which is located at the center of the roof. And so that that is adequate for the mechanical needs of this building. Vicepresident moore you need a water heater and other meters that are normally serviced from the ground floor, including perhaps common laundry room as well as tenant storage. Im just wondering if theres less begin to some of the necessary functions that normally occur on that level. Is there any attempt to adjust the a. D. U. A. D. U. S typically do not have two bedrooms, and a. D. U. S have either studiotype bedrooms or one bedroom, and are you intending to reexamine that area to provide for the necessary back of house functions . What about the roof, which makes the roof less attractive given that people have concerns over the height of the building. So i think that adding it on the roof is not really the correct response here. Thank you, commissioner. Let me add to my last response. The front the back actually has landscaping with space beneath it. Which is where we intend to put the gas and other meters for the building. I will acknowledge that the a. D. U. Was added to the parking area last week in response to requests from the d. R. Requesters. I do think that the project sponsors in general recognized that this is its a location that has access to a lot of services. And so it doesnt necessarily need to provide all of those amenities on site. Vicepresident moore well, it is so basic to all of us, so the green cans and the blue cans and the black cans, where are you intending to put those . Hold one second. Vicepresident moore you can perhaps explain that later. I just wanted to point out as a couple of basic function questions. This is a complicated project. I think that you have made some changes, which i fully support. And the entrance to the lower units from the easement but putting in the front entrance, are all good moves and talking about the reduction of roof decks that impacts privacy. I am going to float this out and let the rest of the commission to weigh in. I just had initial questions to put on the table of how observations and to clarify our assumptions about the project. Thank you. President koppel missioner imperial. Commissioner imperial thank you. Initially i, you know, to keep rents low recommendations, i think that is a d. R. And were more and the commission were more looking at it in the design aspect of the building and whether its in compliance, but initially i am, you know, i am in favor of taking the d. R. With the staffs recommendations, especially on the setbacks on the patios of which i think that is enormous. I do find it quite, you know, difficult also at the same time when there are issues of tenant space and there are limitations in what the d. R. Can do. But i believe that this can be a way of having a further discussion, especially when it comes to the demolition that is one thing. And i appreciate that the public, you know, commenters and i know that calling the commission every week about the demo tax and i really appreciate that. I believe that the Planning Department is also analyzing on that. But one thing that i thought with were thinking about demolition or tantamount demolition is really, you know, to how do we know like, what can we do in a way to protect tenants. I believe that there will also be further proposal whether theres a rental registry. And for the Planning Department i think that we need to start looking into how the rental registry in connection to the demolition calculation is a way to protect tenants. I think that we need to look into that. Because whats going to happen is that the four existing rentcontrolled units, they will be back to market rate, and they will be and the capital may even be passed on to them and thats when the rent control will come in. But at the same time you have already displaced a tenant. So we do need that the planning you know, as planning we need to be proactive in looking into the demo calculation. And im looking forward for a rental registry. I hope that the Planning Commission will also look into that as well and how can you do this effectively. So thats my comments. There has been a lot of, you know, of course comments on this when it comes to tenancy. Clerk i would entertain a motion to take d. R. And approve the project. President koppel commissioner diamond. Commissioner diamond so i am generally in favor of staffs recommendation. I am interested in hearing more about the issue that commissioner moore raised about where on the ground floor were going to have room for the infrastructure for the building, the bikes, the garbage caps and water heterowater heaters. President koppel are you there, okay, hold on. Commissioner diamond, can you hear me . Commissioner diamond yes. Im here to explain. Reza . Commissioner diamond was following up on commissioner moores question about utilities, garbage storage, et etc. . Is she unmuted . Clerk is reza on your line, the conference line . Yes, can you not hear him . Clerk no. Reza, youre not coming through. Let me respond and tell you guys what hes telling me. There is space under the front stairs going up to the second floor that can accommodate garbage facilities. Reza, anything else . Umhmm, umhum, okay. So, commissioner diamond, that was the response to the garbage question. Do you have anymore specific about commissioner diamond where are the bikes going and the water tanks and the laundry facilities going . Umhmm. Umhmm. Clerk maybe if you put your phone on speaker hell come through. I merged the calls, jonas, so for some reason his is not coming through. What you are saying is that tankless water heaters can be used in this context potentially on the patios themselves, theyre not very large. The heaters themselves. We have started having conversations with mr. Winslow about parking access. Bike parking access. We dont have to access the easement in order to get to the bike parking. We can get to the downstairs potentially shrinking that a. D. U. Unit, so that folks can come in through the front door to access the bike parking. Theres also some potential to access from the rear. I dont think that is necessarily ideal in this case. And so i think that the focus has been through the front door, down to the basement bike parking. Commissioner diamond okay, and what about laundry . Great. The units are large enough to incorporate stacked washer dryers. We dont have the layout in the space currently showing them. Commissioner diamond i think that is all the answers that i am looking for now. Okay, thank you very much. President koppel commissioner moore. Vicepresident moore so i wanted to introduce an idea about the space. The building with 13 units requires more space for black, green and blue cans than what is possible under stairs, aside from older and i dont think that is an adequate answer. This is a Single Family home, with someone taking care of it. I live in a building of 24 units and its small units and i can see the amount of trash cans it takes and what type of care it takes to organize and to keep it together. I do not believe that the space suggested here is sufficient. I would really rather see the back of the house plan that is a little bit more carefully answering the questions that commissioner diamond asked. I know that they can say everything here and we can work on it, im not opposed to working on it but trying to get answers off the cuff is just not thank you, commissioner, wed be willing to work with staff to set up an adequate situation. Vicepresident moore i hear your chuckle. Something is lost in translation there, sorry. The details that have been discussed are ones that they will have to resolve. And are probably not that difficult to resolve. The bigger issue here is and i would go back to an impression that i had when i first saw this project. It is that the project is cocompliant, however code compliant, however, theres an unusual situation there though it is compliant. That is the diagonal wall at the rear which sets the basically the farthest extension of this addition was set at the 25 rear yard line. However to provide light and air access to it, theres an excavation in an unusual type of geometry that would allow those units at the basement level to be livable. When i first saw that, i thought that it then created an unusual situation in terms of the rear yard. As a usable rear yard. And my impression was that it probably needed to be pulled back in terms of that rear wall face from the 25 rear yard line. This revision does pull it back a little bit. Im not sure that it would have matched my initial impression. It does pull it back a little bit. Staff is also suggesting that the decks be pulled back. I would support that at a minimum of five feet from the property lines. Im probably accepting the location of that rear wall line with respect to the 25 at this point in time. And well be prepared then to move on this project. Is that a motion . President koppel commissioner . Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to ask a question. My understanding is that the four units that are subject to rent control, and maybe this is a request im not sure for staff or City Attorney, to understand the mechanism in which that will be happening. So if we kind of take d. R. And approve modifications, is that an automatic thing or condition approval with that that, you know, with that specific condition that these existing four units are subject to rent control . Deputy City Attorney. You can certainly condition the approval on these units being subject to rent control. And i think that youre talking about the four existing units and also including the a. D. U. In that . I was trying to look at the staff packet and i remember reading about the rent control so i wanted to get clarification about that. It certainly can be included in your condition, yes. If not, are the four units automatically going to be subject to rent control . Thats a good question. We dont advise rent board, but my understanding is that they would be. But its probably an easier enforcement lift if you have this mechanism. Its easier to enforce by the Planning Department, certainly, if its reflective in the condition of approval. Okay. I think that generally speaking i think that the new revised plans seem reasonable to me. I really thank the Planning Department staff for working with architects and the neighborhood to get to this point. The real Sticking Point for me here is to have some sort of a sense that the a. D. U. Is also subject to rent control. So if the commission is open to it, to meet the conditions for our approval, to make it fairly clear that those four units will be those existing four units will be subject to rent control. President koppel before i call on commissioner moore, im sorry if i cut you off, commissioner fung. Did you want to make a motion . Commissioner fung i was prepared to but if there are further commission discussions, lets go ahead and get the comments out. President koppel fair enough. Commissioner moore, youre up. Commissioner, moore, youre on mute. Vicepresident moore im talking to myself. Thank you, commissioner chan, for restating what is important to all of us and i think that it is not out of the extraordinary to put that into our conditional restate stated just to have the documentation of it. I would like to ask mr. Winslow to one more time to restate some of the additional conditions that were mentioned in the moving of the bike rack, the use of the north Side Entrance for service but not for major unit access. I would like to see some conditions about the addition of the mechanical, garbage, etc. , room, while reconsidering the interior room the interior addition of a back of house room. The reduction of the second floor, and just cutting it back by five feet and a couple other things. And go through that one more time. Absolutely. So i did not just to be clear, i did not include in my staff recommendation for modifications any language about access to the ground floor units from the side easement. But let me recite the current proposal modifies the building by moving it forward an additional eight feet. It reduces the portion of the rear upper floor at the Southwest Corner by about five feet in depth. And removing the onsite parki parking. We will also need to relocate and redesign the bicycle parking to be in compliance with the planning code section 155. 1 with respect to dimensional requirements and access. In addition, a minimum of a 5foot setback on the second floor deck from the indiscernible line is recommended. Thats all i have in the in the modifications. Commissioner chan, you added that there be some stipulation regarding the rent control status of the four existing units plus the a. D. U. Commissioner chan correct. To include a back of house function to incorporate laundry or storage, trash, mechanical equipment. Vicepresident moore i do want to make sure that not all of a sudden because were not spelling it out and the mechanical equipment appears on the roof. That would be totally counter to everything that were trying to do here. So i would like very much to see that is spelled out as being somewhere in this. Some mechanical equipment might be best suited for the roof, and im not entirely sure what systems theyre thinking of, its an air handling system. Do you want to be specific with what you allow or not allow on the roof . Vicepresident moore we do not want to see the water heaters or the pumps on the roof. We may see some ventilation equipment because of requirements. Given that you have multiple units. We want to avoid any excessive bulking up of unnecessary equipment that normally is in the basement, to not be on top of the roof we dont have a full basement here and we have a lower level that is dedicated to the functionality of parking. And that requires modifying the size of the a. D. U. , that is fine. Particularly as the a. D. U. Is very detailed and indiscernible not workable anyway. So it is in that area that wed like to see the functions of the building mostly accommodated. Okay. President koppel missioner diamond. Commissioner diamond i have a question for miss garner. Kate oconnor. Could you clarify the rent control situation . Are these four units in a. D. U. Subject to rent control, whether or not we impose a condition . The understanding of the baseline is, yes, the four units are subject to rent control. The a. D. U. , because were requiring a density waiver, is also subject to rent control. Commissioner diamond im opposed to adding a condition that is already required to be subject to rent control. I too want them to be subject to rent control. You know, my vote is in part, a vote in favor is upon the fact that those four units are subject to rent control. But im very leery of starting to impose Planning Commission conditions for rent control and moving out of the spirit of our landuse jurisdiction. So i would i dont think its necessary to adopt that condition, id rather not include it. President koppel commissioner moore. Vicepresident Moore Commission sought counsel from the City Attorney who actually said that it would allow the Planning Department to have better oversight and control. And i believe that for that very reason i would strongly support both the citys attorney advice as being my guideance on that subject matter. Again, i would entertain a motion to take d. R. To approve. Took the worth right out of my mouth. President koppel commissioner imperial. Commissioner imperial i was on mute. I would make a motion to take the d. R. With i believe what has mr. Winslow described to us as the staff recommendations. And also i agree with the commissioner chan and moore and at adding to the existing units that are already subject to rent control and the a. D. U. That are subject to rent control to be part of the condition as well. Vicepresident moore second. President koppel very good, commissioners. Theres a motion to take d. R. Through the project with staff modifications. Clerk i apologize. Im still struggling with the rent control condition. If the reason that you are imposing it is exclusively to allow the Planning Department to be engaged in monitoring, it could the City Attorney give some advice on what that means that the Planning Commission would have enforcement around rent control versus the rent control board . I would like to understand what that means. As commissioner diamond mentioned before, it is the rent board and not the Planning Commission, that has jurisdiction over rent control issues, rent issues. But the question was asked before whether the commission could impose conditions of approval. And the answer of our office is, yes, you could. It would certainly excuse me, my alarm is going off. Youve got to love technology. You certainly could impose the condition which would give the commission something to look at if the project sponsor came back later seeking other approvals and there was evidence before the commission that they were out of compliance, to require conditions of approval. But you wouldnt mean that you are in the position to enforce in the place of the rent board because that is their jurisdiction. Im not sure if that answers your question. Commissioner chan so im trying to understand what were getting with this condition. I would like to be in a position to be able to vote on this project with this condition. And im trying to understand how we would actually use this. What it accomplishes in the absense of having it and why we would impose it on this project when were not imposing this kind of condition on other projects. And are we beginning to set a precedent for imposing rent control conditions on projects which we at least i dont think we have done or at least not since i been on the commission, or not that long. Have we done this before . Im not aware that the commission has done it before, at least not in projects that i have worked on. Okay. And so could you go back and explain further your prior comment about if we impose the condition and the project sponsor came back and wanted to make a modification that we would do what . How would having that condition give us more authority, power, you know, what is it accomplishing . I am trying to press you a bit here to understand what it means. If the project sponse are came back with modifications to his project or seeking a future approval on something and there was evidence brought to the commission that they were out of compliance with conditions from a prior approval, from this approval, like the rent control condition, then that would certainly give the commission something to look at in terms of whether or not to approve a future project approval request. But i would in answer to your previous question, i think that the staff would probably have a longer history and a better ability to answer the question of whether the commission has imposed this kind of condition of approval before. They would know better than i would, in other words. So, staff, can you weigh in on this, have we done this before, and how have we used it if we have. Kate oconnor, Planning Department staff. Not to our knowledge have we done this before. Okay, so, again, im trying to im still trying to understand why were doing this and setting a precedent and why this project. Does it mean that well do this on all projects . I was listening to the City Attorney say that if they came back with additional approvals and they werent in compliance that would be important. But we would know that anyways, would we not . The staff report would indicate if they werent in compliance with the rent control condition, correct . Right. No, i believe that that would be the case. I mean, i think that here, you know, when youre dealing with the rent board, these units are subject to rent control and theres significant evidence that they are. I think that this is just maybe another level of security. Okay, thank you. I will just say to the commission that i am still not convinced this is a good idea because it feels like will beginning were setting a precedent here and im reluctant to do that without a lot more thought about what the consequences are of doing this. With the exception of the rent control condition, i am otherwise in favor of taking d. R. And subject to all of the conditions that mr. Winslow laid out. If i might suggest a compromise position. You could als