No. It was not empty. [inaudible] commissioner richards i will ask you a question in a second. My understanding, i bought it from the owneroccupant. They vacated. I purchased it. I put in tenants of my own. Theyre still there. Right now, theyre paying 7,000 a month. They plan on being there through april. Commissioner richards thank you. Somebody from capp street do you have anything to add . Come up to the mike. Im giving you the same chance to make a comment. One person. Its been completely unoccupied since it was purchased last june, 2016, and there are temporary, maybe vrbo or air bnb, but nobodys there. Its vacant. Its a facade. Commissioner richards thank you. President hillis when we had this hearing and now, have you met with the neighbors on capp street that have had concern about this project . I have not. I called them and emailed them and they were unable to meet in the short time window we had between the two hearings. The neighbors i had contact with, the building across the street, the immediately adjacent structure, and one other reside resident has given me support and nobody that showed up opposes the project. Ive talked with them but they have not made the time to meet me. President hillis are you willing to meet with the project sponsor . For us, it was too little, too late. Myself and i believe two other residents got phone calls yesterday asking if we could meet late last night or early today. They have known of us. We put up fliers. Its not a movement. Its a community. And they wait until the 11th hour to try to strike a deal. No legitimate attempt to communicate with the community has ever been made. President hillis thank you. The letters that they wrote in opposition were submitted two days ago, so as soon as i got them from mr. Christiansen, i reached out. President hillis you knew from the last hearing there were concerns on our level, neighborhood level. Sure. President hillis i give you the example and thank you. Last week or two weeks ago, we approved a project in the mission. I think it was a unanimous project. It was clearly housing in the mission, but it was done in a way that was respectful of neighbors, people asked for input. There was an ongoing discussion. I think, you know, were in a tough place here because, one, i dont think the housing, if its le left, will be affordable. It will sell for a high price. I would rather keep it as that than support this project. And you certainly all can pursue other housing accountability remedy acts, but its hard for us when you dont do the Due Diligence of talking with neighbors. It can be three units. Its good. We need housing. I think you need to weigh its a sensitive block. Its extremely historic on one side. And figure out how it works best in that neighborhood, instead of just arguing the housing accountability act. So i certainly cant support it as its proposed today. Commissioner johnson i was going to say that, you know, we live in a city where all lots are not equal. And i will almost say that i do i would want it hear what i havent heard that the neighbors would not have come to some sort of agreement. All im hearing is that there wasnt an outreach for communication. As much as i hate continuances, i kind of feel like that needs to happen. It seems like maybe there was lastminute, not enough effort. I cannot tease apart that piece of the story, but i would like to hear what attempts would have been made to come to an agreement or intent, because just something about this strikes me wrong, that were leaving a unit thats 7,000 and not going down anytime soon, undersized for that lot. Its a small home in the middle of a larger lot. Its historic on the other side of the street, but weve seen projects that have similar characteristics in the mission and also other neighborhoods where we havent had this degree of act r acrimony. There is not enough information here to say there is no middle ground whatsoever. It seems like theres a lack of communication all around, even though thats unfortunate because its not the first time were hearing this project. Commissioner richards question for the City Attorney. Im considering do we have two actions here, one the demolition and the second is the approval of the replacement project . I mean, this house is not unaffordable under section 317. So we have to determine if its necessary, desirable, compatible, to demolish the house. That said, we have a replacement product that has four units. How would you parse what weve got in front of us . Commissioners, i would first of all, i would acknowledge that there are some illdefined and unclear aspects of the housing accountability act and how it would apply where conditional use permit is required. What is difficult here is that you have a conditional use permit thats for the demolition that has fairly general, nonspecific standards involved. That the and that the replacement housing, as far as i can tell and planning staff can correct me if im wrong, complies with the objective zoning standards. What the housing accountability act does is allow a Decision Making body to disapprove the project where it makes specific findings. It certainly doesnt disallow the commission from continuing the item and asking project sponsors to work on some design revisions or some discussions with the neighborhood so that its less problematic for this particular block. If the commission were to disapprove or make a motion of intent to disapprove the project, i would certainly ask the commission to articulate what the housing accountability act directs local entities to articulate. Having said all that, i dont know if there is threatened litigation here. But if there is threatened litigation, i would recommend a closed session, so we could give you our legal analysis of sort of the citys position with that litigation in confidence. President hillis great, thanks. One thing for the community. You live in a zone where this is permitted. If theres an issue with whats happening today on that street, other streets, i suggest that the neighborhood get rezoned, so less could be built there if thats what the community wants, so were not struggling with this state law versus local law and what is permitted or not. That says, i will leave that up to supervisor ronen if thats what you come up with. Commissioner fong thanks for asking that clarifying question. I feel like were fought leaning towards a demolition, but if the existing structure wanted to stay and we wanted to continue that replacement project and the project sponsor came back with an extension into the rear yard or one story up or something or added some space there or maybe another unit, that that would be okay. Is that what im president hillis if its a denial, the path that people have expressed, its a sensitive street with Historic Resources and this building is a contributor to it. And that would be the rationale. Its a significant street. Wed ask staff to relook at the Historic Resource report in the broader context to maintain the structure. Commissioner moore commissioner hillis, would you add to the list that you just mentioned the fact that its sound housing, not in disrepair, and its affordable, value not exceeding the number way which we normally get pushed into a corner . I think those issues would weigh into preserving the building as is. And i found the attempts of preserving the facade as prevented as the applicants unconvinci unconvincing. I would gravitate that preserving this type of housing is of key importance and i would basically lean to not supporting this application. Commissioner johnson thank you. I really would could be open to it, but if were going to do it, i really want to hear the commissions ideas on what the findings would be . So far, im not hearing it. What are the findings that we would specific findings that we would put in an intent to disapprove motion . If were going to do it, we really cannot do it just on the motion. It has to be on what are the findings, so not only are we can we stand strong in our decision on this project, but also have a precedent if we want to set it for other projects. This is not where were at today and it may be a reason for continuance. If we think that demolishing sound structures should be part of some finding on Public Health and safety, that needs to go in our planning code. We cant just say it up here. I mean, i really want us to if this is the way we feel things should go, we have to find ways in our code to support that. I think one good aspect is that it forces you to do that sort of thinking. I would be supportive of a continuance to have the maybe the there can be some intent in the neighborhood and or to work on what the specific findings would be. Right now, i dont hear what they would be and i have, im sure, my successor might agree, whoever that person is. Commissioner richards im a dyedinthewool preservationist. I objectively looked at the report, even though the building appears of the mass and scale and setback of its time, which is 1865, the building itself is not historic. Its the facade has been changed. Its not the same as it was, if you look at the buildings across the street. And, honestly, i get where the neighbors are coming from, i truly do. But i would be a hypocrit to say, we have 141,000 available capacity and say no to this. The neighborhood needs to work with the supervisor if theres an issue around the perceived density issues and potential demolitions. So im going to force the issue and make a motion to approve the project with conditions as outlined. Commissioner melger i said what i needed to say. President hillis do i hear a second . Second. Can i ask for further discussion on the outcome of continuance versus approval. What is the outcome if there was a motion to continue . President hillis i think weve seen projects that have happened where theres, again, 100 units of housing, that theres give and take and theres discussion and i cant ask that of the developer because it hasnt been done and the neighbors, in that were in a difficult situation in which this housing will not be an affordable home. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood. Its an old building, but we at least have documentation that says which we can relook at, its not historic. So, you know, you can have three units of equal or smaller size that are probably cheaper than what this house will ultimately sell for. Its how that is contextual contextuallized. I think you changed some material on the facade. Theres an Historic Building adjacent to it thats smaller and more of the cottage vernacular. I could think of ways to change the project architecturally. I think theres ways to talk about this project and engage people who live in this neighborhood to figure it out. I think were being gun is being put to our head, which is not comfortable. I dont think there was a full engagement on this project as we would like to see. Commissioner koppel we saw two projects tonight. One that was almost a nobrainer. Zero units to four. Our next item was on saturn. Almost equal size house, one unit. So that was almost just as easy as a decision for us. This is not as much of a nobrainer because theres an existing house there. But one thing that pops up in my mind is the proximity to bart and the fact that for planning purposes, we should be densifying near the bart stations. It doesnt have a fourcar garage or anything like that. Its a fourunit building, which is if you think about it, it will make it more affordable than it would be if it stays asis. And proximity to bart is putting me over the fence on this one. It wouldnt be the end of the world if it was continued, but im supporting the project asis. Commissioner richards we talked last night and we talked about the dominos falling and this will be the first of the entire street and then there goes the entire street. And i asked you to provide us with a look at what the street looks like even though ive been there. This would be for the rest of the commissioners. And you said you would. Can you help us out by showing us what the context is . Can you go to the overhead . There was a comment at the last hearing by one of the commissioners that led to the conversation commissioner richards asked if tearing this down would have a domino effect on the street that we would be losing either Historic Housing or rentcontrolled housing or both. And theres a chart showing the other units on the street. By the other units, i mean this. This is the unit in question that were talking about today. This one is the corner and the one next to it and the singlefamily home that were talking about here today. What this chart shows and i have surveys for the planning department, historic surveys, that every building on this block, other than the small one right here, but every other building is rentcondition controlled or historic. Its my belief and your commission has said this over and over, where theres a rentcontrolled building or a building with historic nature to it, it will not be something that the commission will be allowing to be demolished. Commissioner richards you mentioned housing accountability act, i believe. Is it your understanding that rentcontrolled buildings would be allowed to be demolished under housing accountability act if their supplanted with more units . The building question today is not rentcontrolled, but i dont know ive read the housing accountability act. I dont know whether use of it would allow the demolition whether the city would be liable under it for saying we wont demolish if theres a multiunit building. I dont think you are liable if you refuse to demolish a multiunit, rentcontrolled building. That could create a finding that you could make thats not in the health and safety and in the best interests of the public. Thats a finding that i think would work. I dont think findings on turning down this project as proposed are easy to make under the housing accountability act. Commissioner richards my fear is, and i made the motion it approve this, if we went this way and the dominos started to fall and we get to the multiunit and people say, theres no historic and theres no health or safety issues. Like they will get hurt physically, that were not on solid ground still. And that really worries me. [please stand by] for 7,000, a replacing it with what youre just saying is an economic equation, i think were going directly against that policy support. And for that reason, i cannot support the application. Its for that very reason. Vice president richards i understand. Commissioner moore its a game that is skillfully played, and we are sitting here, not quite knowing how to respond to the housing accountablity act, although i believe commissioner hillis gave a very good four or five reasons of why we should not support this billing. Vice president richards you can tell its conflicted internally. Commissioner moore yeah. I hear you, but i also hear of what we call supported with a lot of work and a lot of work from the community to do here. It was a very simple answer and a very simple support to do that. Vice president richards sure. Perhaps we should have recommended a rezoning here, as well. Again, i would support a continuance. I dont think we have a great reason to deny. I think weve got legitimate design concerns about this building that havent been addressed by what he kind of came back to us. We asked to kind of look at the context, and thats the massing, also. Its not just putting on a different facade to this building, and i think in good faith, you should have met with folks in the community to try to figure out what works best. So thats you know, i im not comfortable at all taking action. President hillis Commission Commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson yeah, and i know this is my last hearing, but i also agree. I dont think the commission has enough information to deny this. I still have not heard what those objective findings would be. I think that if, you know, theres a couple things that actually could happen. If we want to say that demolishing safe structures goes against the health and safety code, that is one thing. But i look at the plan that is presented here, and weve seen similar projects that there have been various attempts. Theres four units in this plan, and weve seen projects with four or five units where developers have greed to give one unit to the voluntary hows Housing Program because its not required for buildings under ten units. Weve seen other sorts of benefits or other ways to sort of make projects conform a little bit more with the community, and i just dont feel like weve had any opportunity for that discussion to have happened. All im hearing is people saying theres been no communication and people havent spoken. I would have even felt better making a decision one way or another hearing if theyd met and screamed at each other for an hour. I think weve been backed into a corner as a commission, and we need to push our way out of this and put this work back on some of the other parties, so i would be supportive of a continuance. One for people to potentially talk to the Supervisors Office for potential changes that she may want to make supervisor ronen may want to make with the planning code to make sure we have approve will for those specific projects in the neighborho neighborhood. And i want the ability for the pr sponsor to have a meeting with the community other than saying i tried. I want there to be evidence that there was actually a meeting and there was discussion and there was no agreement, and i think that at minimum, the commission should request that before getting backed into a corner to make a decision. I also think we should engage with the City Attorney and have a potential closed session on the housing accountablity act . Commissioner moore. Supervisor campos and then supervisor cothen actually participated in the reform of interim controls and helped the Community Come as far as we did. We just need to remind ourselves that they did that. That was a very important step to acknowledge. I was not here on december 12th when when you discussed the project. However, i followed it, and i did not here any objection to the design except for the location, and for facade modification, this particular case, including the changes in demonstration, which makes it a nice building. I could comfortably say in any other location, this would definitely be an approval of the building. However, where it is with the overlay that at the core of this is the demolition of a sound structure, the whole discussion has a completely different meaning, and i do not think that a continuance of this project would create any other result other than the community rightfully presenting the year or 1. 5 or 2 yearlong work with particular emphasis of where this project is. So i personally cannot support a continuance because i dont think it would create anything other than they might scream at each other, and we would be confronted with the same issues that are in front of us right now. So that is my interpretation of where we really