Seeing nothing further, we can move on to item 13. 1369 sanchez street. This is a conditional use authorization. On october 24th, 2019, after hearing and closing Public Comment, a motion to approve with conditions failed 22. It was continued to today by vote of 40. Commissioner johnson and commissioner diamond, in order for you to participate, you need to acknowledge you have we read the previous hearing and materials. I have. I have. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners im with Planning Department staff. Before i begin my brief presentation i want to acknowledge that the printed versions of the plans that were included in your packet may have been a little obscured, so i have clean versions if anybody would like a copy of those. The item before you today was a request for a conditional use authorization to document and legalize a tantamount to demolition of an existing threestory, two unit building at 1359 to 1371 sanchez street. The project, which received original approval in 2017 includes a remodel and expansion of the two existing units modifications to a groundfloor garage and a roof deck. This application is intended to legalize additional demolition that took place during construction. The project has not changed since the original approval in terms of design, size, or features. The item was first heard on october 24th and at that hearing, a motion to approve the project with conditions failed and the item was continued until today. No project modifications were recommended to be explored during the continuance in the project has remained the same. Just to provide a little bit of background about the project, it was originally filed and reviewed in 2015. During the neighborhood notification period, a discretionary review application was filed. The discretionary review case was heard on april 20th, 2017 and was continued to june 1st to allow time for the project sponsor to revise the project based on comments provided by the commission at that time. At the june 21st at the june 1st, 2017 hearing, the Commission Adopted findings to take discretionary review and approve the project with modifications. As previously stated during construction, additional demolition work occurred that because the project to exceed the demolition threshold outlined in section 317 of the planning code. The areas where demolition thresholds were exceeded were as followed. First, additional areas of the existing rear walls were removed such that the area of vertical elements demolished exceeded the 50 threshold by approximately 15 . Areas of the existing floor were removed and replaced such that the area of horizontal elements demolished exceeded the 50 threshold by 14 . The Department Recommends approval with conditions of the project and the project will wrote maintain two units in larger configurations. No additional changes are proposed to this project. This concludes my presentation and im available for questions and the project sponsor and architect are here to answer any questions you may have as well. Since you have rejoined us, in order to participate in the hearing, you have to acknowledge you have read the previous hearings. Yes. Do we have a presentation from the project sponsor . Or have you done everything . They are available for questions. Okay. Sounds good. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . I have one speaker card, with anyone who wants to speak on this can come forward. Can i have the overhead, please . This is the second hearing, commission president. How much time . How about two minutes. Ill need less, actually. The Property Owner built a law and was caught. 80 of the building was demolished. The Planning Department issued a notice of enforcement and d. B. I. Suspended the Building Permits. The Planning Commissions policy for bad actors who illegally does demolished housing is to require reconstruction of the existing units. In this case, 21,000 square feet units. In addition to restoring the 1,000 square feet units, the Property Owner should be required to add a groundfloor a. D. U. The net result would be units of needed affordable housing. Approving the project as proposed would be rewarding bad behavior with no increase in affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. I will take the rest of his time i want to show you the sheets that were the demo counts for different plans. If i may have the overhead, please. Here is the first original sheet for the demo account. From the june 1st, 2017 hearing. Here is the upper unit and it was labelled with three bedrooms that is the flat. Okay. Here is actually, that plan was dated january 2017 before the hearing. Here is one dated may 1st 2017 and it has been changed. Two bedrooms and a green room that is called a study, i think. It could have been used as a bedroom. Everyone knows they are used as bedrooms. Here is the plan with the demo calculations. Same thing. Two bedrooms and a little extra room. Here is the one that i got when i got the plan. This is dated september 9th, 2019. The two bedrooms. So the greenroom is labelled the study. Here is the plan for the upper unit as proposed. These are existing with the demo calculations. You saw the projects change. Here is the plan for that unit today and you can see that here it is here. There is the bedroom and that is the unit. It is like half the unit is the bedroom. So my point is, go back to where it was originally. Two units with the potential for three bedrooms and it. Here is the project here. You cant really see it in the photo. It has been like that for almost three years. The shifting of the floor. I guess i would say, if you want to do the a. D. U. , i dont know. That becomes problematic because if they are condos, which imagine they will be, who gets the a. D. U. . How do you get it to the market . Is not a bad idea. As you see from the original plan, you could go right in there. But that is up to you. You should have three bedrooms on each flat. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Commissioners, my name is kevin. I would like to bring to the commissions attention that this other projects were all they provided more housing. 1369 sanchez street should be required to do the same. The a. D. U. Should be added at the garage level to build three units as requested, not only by Public Comment and by some of the neighbors, but also by the Planning Commission back in 2017 back in 2017 there were two options presented to the project sponsor. Either go for two units, but maintain the upper unit as a single story and the lower unit as two units, thereby taking away the au pair opportunity for the flats, or add a third unit. That has always been on the table for project sponsor. If the project sponsor is not required to increase density in any way, the project would have the same entitlements prior to demolition as if nothing happens that would not be fair. The Planning Commission should treat all projects with these kinds of violations the same. If there is a deviation from this planet commission, they should explain why. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commission a couple . I dont know where the other commissioners are sitting but i would be in support of this project with the a. D. U. Commissioner moore . I would agree with the statement because the increase in the unit and adding roof deck to the upper unit is a little bit whatever. I would agree with us asking for the addition of an a. D. U. Reflects the 2017 comments on the comments on the project. This is a message that we pretty consistently tell everybody. Commissioner fung . There are standards for drawings, arent there . Yes, we do have plan guidelines. Whose responsibility is it to make sure that the drawings are readable . We do double check and triple check before we publish packets, but there are occasional situations where sometimes the way plans get printed is kind of not exactly what we are im not try to criticize, but this is the second one, the second week. They are all blacked out. If i may chime in, this is actually neck this is correct. This is a second time with this particular architect. I dont know if it is his printing that is prestigious or not. Nothing against him, but maybe it is his style. Also we are not always getting the paper drawings before they go out to the commission because we send out for reproduction, but we will definitely be on point in this in the future. Thank you. Back to the case itself, staffs analysis in terms of this project, if it hadnt been for excessive demolition, would there have been an approval . Would it have been approvable if it had come in as a new project . Yes, i believe so. It would have been under the demolition threshold. It would have provided for larger sized units while maintaining two units within the building. Im sorry, can i press you further . You said if this were to come in today it would have been approvable because it is under the demolition threshold, but i heard you say in your presentation that it was 15 over the demolition threshold on the vertical and 40 over the demolition threshold im sorry. I guess i misunderstood the question. My apologies. If you would have come in today as with the updated demolition calculations, i think it generally i think generally we would have the department would have been in support of a project that provided an additional benefit because they were exceeding the demolition threshold, but i dont think outright. Initially this project did meet was within the threshold for demolition. It currently was during construction and went beyond that realm. Youre saying that originally as they stated the project it would have been approvable, but the fact is they did not follow it. That is the point, right . Commissioner diamond . I could not hear what you said. Could you repeat it . The initial project as submitted match the threshold to qualify dozier did not it was within the threshold under the demolition calculations during construction. It went beyond that scope which is not unusual unfortunately, and in that instance, that is why we are back before the commission through the conditional use authorization because it has morphed into a demolition. Let me rephrase it so we are all clear. Had they submitted initially what they actually did, would that have been approvable . I am having what they submitted initially. No. If what they submitted initially had been what they actually did that would not be submitted double. With that would not be permissible. They went too far and that is why we are here in front of you now. Thank you. Why is he recommendation you recommendation to approve with conditions . Because the overall project hasnt changed. We are so maintaining two units, but if we would like to take another look at that we can. The commission has the authorization to approve it through the process. That is what this is here for to allow the demolition of the structure because it is either increasing the size of family size units, adding additional unit, which those are the rationale on the reasons that the commission can have approved demolitions on structures and singlefamily homes because the increase in density or size. Okay. Commissioner moore . It has to be necessary and desirable and since by our definition desirable is densification, and since necessary still does not really fully address larger family size units because the previous units were sufficient for multifamily use, i believe that the discretion of the commission as to not find it necessary, desirable and a different configuration. That is what is in front of us. Okay. I will chime in. I also support having an a. D. U. In this. I dont think the whole demolition of a total family unit to make for larger, more beautiful, more expensive units is what i would want to approve. I think that this commission, for the past three years that i have been on it, has been consistent with that is a policy in fact, i did ask two or three months ago that we formally codified that policy and i was told by the director that we would and we still havent done it, but i am requesting that again. That we put it on paper. Especially when stuff like this we dont get a d. R. , but we get another way or before. That we are consistent with the policy. I think we have all been pretty much on the same page about that i would entertain a motion if somebody wants to make it. I will make a motion to approve the project with the addition of an a. D. U. Second . Commissioner moore . Would you mind asking for a continuance so that we can see and then approve . I would prefer that if we make an amendment to the motion. That would be a continuance to add an a. D. U. And come back. It does not take very long. And with plans that are legible, is what i heard. [laughter] can i chime in on the legibility . I believe the architect is using a screening pattern, which has a lot of rejections. These are large drawing large drawings. Theres not enough transparency in this and then they will go black. I think we just have to ask him for a different technique to use commissioner diamond . I would support the motion for continuance in this particular case. And normally i wouldnt, but given the plans were illegible, we had what was asked to review them, i dont feel that is appropriate. Secondly, we are asking them to redesign the bottom floor so it is hard to know what we are approving if we dont actually see the design. And that limited circumstance, i feel the continuance is appropriate. Okay. Do you have a timeframe on when we could continue it . You are closed through january 30th. We can do february. February . Yeah,. February 6th then, very good, commissioners. I didnt hear a second. I thought commissioner moore did . I made the motion and it was seconded. Second. [laughter] very good. Thank you. There is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to february 6th with the direction from the commission to add an a. D. U. On that motion. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 6 0. That will place is on item 14. Thirtyseven saturn street, conditional use authorization. Good afternoon. Jeff warren, Planning Department staff. Presenting a request for conditional use authorization. The properties on the south side of saturn street within the Corona Heights neighborhood. The subject property is 25 feet wide and 87 and a half feet deep the lot totals 2,187 square feet and is located in r. H. Two Zoning District and height and bulk district. The sight is developed with a two story over crawlspace singlefamily residential cottage. Surrounding neighborhoods of Corona Heights gives us a very steep slope both of individual lots and laterally along the streets. The neighborhood developed over many decades and generally any mixture of architectural styles and many buildings have undergone alterations since their respective construction dates. The subject block in suits of the mixture of two and threestory family homes. On downward sloping lots on the south side of saturn street. The north side of saturn street slopes steeply up and is undeveloped in the vicinity of the subject property. It is developed with a two story family residence and adjacent property to the west. The project proposes to construct a vertical and horizontal extension. The existing structure will remain and will be lifted 4 feet and 8 inches in height and relocated 3 feet towards the rear of the lot. A onestory addition will be added to the top and a two story tall two story over basement addition will be constructed. In total, the structure is 2,948 gross square feet that includes a 365 squarefoot square foot one vehicle garage at the ground floor. There is a request for conditional use authorization for the requirements of the Corona Heights large resident special use district. For development that results in a less than 47 rear yard. The project his code compliant and is permitted to extend beyond the 45 rear yard line through the rear yard reduction allowed by planning code section 134 c. The code allows the yard line to be reduced to that of the average of the adjacent neighbors. This project went through the departments Historical Resource evaluation review and Planning Department preservation staff determines the building is individually eligible for lifting in the california register under criterion three and an outstanding example of an italian cottage. Staff finds the project at 37 saturn street will not cause a significant adverse impact to the Historic Resource. Such that the significance of the resource would be material impaired. While the building will be moved back 3 feet and raised 4 feet, it will remain on the original lot on which it was developed and will remain an overall low height to the adjacent buildings and in relation to the street. The parameters set up on the project in regards to protecting and maintaining the Historic Resource status of the structure has design implications on the sponsors intended program of the project. We propose to introduce a new curb cut and a garage at the ground floor of the existing structure. As a result of the limited raising of the building, the difference in the elevation of the basement floor of the proposed structure and the existing sidewalk would result in the introduction of a dissenting driveway that leads to a compressed garage door. Theres also a 6foot 6inch clearance at the location of the front of the building wall of the first floor. The departments Residential Design Team reviewed the project and recommended removing the garage and driveway. And the curb cut of the project with concerns over the practicality and feasibility of the vehicle manoeuvrability with the design. The garages preferred location is not consistent with the residential goods design guidelines. The project sponsor provided sufficient section drawings with an analysis of the driveway slope and a proposed Building Height clearance in regards to typical vehicle manoeuvrability. Demonstrating how the garage could be accessed within the departments parameters while minimizing the sidewalk warping to avoid potential conflicts with pedestrians. There was an increased level of concerns of Pedestrian Safety due to the narrowness of