tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 7, 2018 4:00pm-5:01pm PST
>> good evening and welcome to the december 5, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. vice president rick swig will be the presiding officer tonight. president frank fung will be absent tonight. to my left is deputy city attorney brad russey who will provide the board any legal guidance tonight. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases
before the board this evening. we expect scott sanchez, acting deputy zoning administrator, representing the planning department and planning commission, joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing d.b.i., valerie lopez, office of the city attorney, representing the department of public health, and jillian gillette, representing the department of san francisco city street on us and mapping. the board requests that you turnoff or silence all phones and electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carrie on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and respondent are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within the seven or three-minute periods. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked, but not
required, to submit a speaker card or business card to board stuff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, or board schedules, please speak to the board staff during the break or after the meeting or come to your office. we are located at 1650 mission suite 304. now we will swear in or affirm all those who wish to testify. please note that members of the public may testify tonight without swearing or affirming prior to the sunshine act. if you would like the board to
give your statement evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able and repeat after me. okay. we will now move onto item 2, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anybody to speak on a matter that is within the board's jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar. is there any general public comment? all right. so we will move onto item 2, commissioner comments and question. >> commissioners, anything? >> clerk: okay. we'll move onto number three, adoption of minutes before you for possible adoption are the minutes of the november 18, 2018 board meeting. >> do i hear a motion? are there any changes or additions? contradictions? conflicts? >> i'll motion. >> clerk: okay. on the -- is there any public comment on that motion to adopt the minutes? okay. on the motion to adopt the
november 14 minutes -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries 4-0, and the minutes are adopted. we will now move onto item number four. this is peal number 18-090, jason hughes and carrie iura versus the zoning administrator. i don't see the zoning administrator. mr. scott sanchez, the zoning administrator, is not here, so we're going to have to wait on this item. >> do you want me to find out where he's at? >> clerk: that would be good, but we can move onto the next item. okay, and that's another variance, so we can move onto item number six. is that fine with you, vice president swig? >> vice president swig: yeah, let's do that. >> clerk: okay. item six is appeal number
18-133. do we have jillian gillette here? okay. so we don't have the city representative for -- okay. mr. sanchez is walking down the hall, apparently, so -- this -- okay. appeal 18-07 -- excuse me. 18-090, jason hughes and kelly iura versus zoning administrator. subject property is 1715 alabama street. appealing the denial on june 13, 2018 of a mass reduction variance for the proposal to construct a vertical and horizontal addition with stairs to an existing single-family dwelling with a reduction of only 82 square foot of maximum floor area whereas planning code section 242 requires a
reduction of 262 square feet. on november 14, 2018, the board votes 5-0 to -- voted 5-0 to continue this to december 5, 2018 to allow the parties to prepare written findings to support the amended written plans dated november 7, 2018 that were submitted for the hearing. >> why don't we give him another 30 seconds. he said he was coming through security, right? >> clerk: okay. >> we can all gang rush him when he walks in the door. when he walks in the door, we can all say hello, scott. >> and each side gets three minutes? >> clerk: yes, each side will have three minutes for
rebuttal. >> thank you for waiting for this so we don't have to come back after other items. thank you. >> vice president swig: he went shopping in the civic center before he walked over. >> hello, scott. >> clerk: so mr. sanchez, i just called out this item. each party will be given three minutes each, and we'll hear from mr. gladstone first, representing the appellants. >> good evening. brett gladstone, representing the filing appellants. i submitted some paperwork, and the zoning administrator submitted some. we're find with the zoning administrator's findings. i'd just like to mention two things. we note that the findings don't rhenwhich plans you approved at
your least hearing, and the pla plans you approved were dated november 7. i think for the record it should be included in the findings. and second, the finding number one referenced the number of -- references the number of years my client have lived in the resident. i think the correct number for the x is 13 years. so with that, we'll accept the findings. thank you. if there are any questions about when we last presented the drawings to the -- to the neighbor who remains in opposition next door, we sent him a link of that about seven to ten days ago, and since then, also sent him the plans directly as a pdf, not through the link, to make sure that he has seen what you all approved at the last hearing.
and if there are certaoncerns the neighbor have about property line issues and protecting their foundation, we're very happy to work with them. we've started talking to them to make sure how we can agree foundations are protected, and we look forward to future discussions along that, including taking a video of existing conditions, so that if anything occurs during our construction, everyone has a record of, you know, what changed. and we -- you know, so we're prepared to deal with that. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez? >> welcome, scott. >> thank you. good evening, vice president swig, scott sanchez, planning department. apologize for the delay. the planning department is supportive of the two minor changes that were proposed by the appellant's counsel in regards to clarifying the number of years as well as specifically referencing the date of the plans upon which
the revised project is to be based. i am aware of continued opposition from a neighboring property owner to the north. actually just spoke with them just before the hearings. i think they'll be here to speak to that. the building permit would be appelable to this board upon issue wednesda issuance. i think some of the concerns that they have raised related to the light and air are somewhat separate from the variance because you could have the variance completely denied, but the project could proceed and impact them in the same manner because it doesn't speak to just the encroachment or to the adjacency to their property, but appreciate the opportunity to provide the draft findings. i think that zoning administrator teague prepared excellent findings that were submitted to the board. >> is that the first time you've said zoning administrator teague? >> i've said it many times
nicely. >> okay. >> is there any public comment on this item? okay. is there anybody else that wants to give public comment, raise your hand? okay. go ahead. thank you. >> not going to read everything i wrote. victoria chaven, 1709 alabama street. we are their neighbors, and we want to support them and move them forward, and they're our friends. but at the same time, we need to protect our property, and there is -- granting the variance will manifest a great injustice to 1709 alabama and our sun light. i'm just here today because we want to work with them and solve this. and right now, the current plans aren't resolving it, and the variance is still causing that injustice. so we just want a guarantee together that we talk and that
we work together and see if there's still a solution for us because we want there to be peace in the neighborhood, and we want there to be an amicable process for everyone. and it's been extremely stressful. we know they want to move forward, but we want also to protect what we have. i'm here today asking you to help us as a community and its neighbors between us in the resolve, and that's it today. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> and it still needs resolving. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. seeing none, commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> vice president swig: commissioners? >> i'm prepared to accept the draft findings as prepared by the zoning administrator with the two amendments.
>> i concur. >> is that your motion? >> that is a motion. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the motion and overturn the appeal based on the comments by the zoned administrator and the comments on the record, adding that the residents have been there 13 years and that the revised plans dated november 7, 2018 be adopted on what basis? >> commissioner lazarus: on the basis that the findings support the granting of the variance. >> clerk: okay. on the basis that the finding under 505 c are met. okay. on that basis -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0. okay. we will now move onto item
number five. this is appeal number 18-075, kristina saber versus the zoning administrator. subject property is 2330 turk boulevard, pealing -- appealing the variance issued on june 17, 2018. the portion is to in-fill a portion of the existing building at the rear and to add first accessory dwelling units at the first and second floor of an existing three story eight unit residential building under going seismic retrofitting. three of the residences requires variances. one grants a rear yard variance to construct one a.d.u. on the second floor that will require in-fill in the driveway taller than 10 feet in the rear yard
set back. and we will hear first from the appellant. miss saber? >> thank you very much. the -- i request that the variance granted -- i believe it's unit c, i request that that be denied. it's our garage space. i don't see how -- i don't see a basis under the law -- i believe cory made the decision. i don't see a basis under the law to take our garage without just cause. i'm looking at your form, your intake form for a.d.u.s, and the owner-landlord, pegasus, is required to certify this permit -- they are aware of the
legal requirements and they are not severing -- severing garage facilities, parking facilities, driveway -- driveway, storage space, laundry rooms without just cause, and this decision grants exactly that. so i don't see how you can reconcile the decision with your ordinance. number two, there was two variances, and in cory -- i bring this up in my brief, so i don't know that i need to belabor the point. but in cory's own decision, he provides contradictory reasonings. he denies a variance in part in 2220 because it will not grant off-street parking, but he grants it in our garage space because he says it will not decrease the living space in any of the existing units, but seems to ignore the fact that this is our garage space. i also would just like to address a few points that were
raised in the appeal response brief. they start that they applied for -- they applied for the project, and they followed all notices. we were never notified of anything. the only reason the tenants ever became aware of the a.d.u. projects which were intended to sever our garages was because two of the -- i'm sorry, there's four buildings that are connected. two of the four buildings required a variance. had that not been the case, they would have been secretly applying for a.d.u.s in all three of our buildings and severing the garage s.
the only notice we received was in 2016, they indicate this had we would need to vacate the garage for the retrofit. they said the garage would be done in stages, so it seemed like a project that would be done bit by bit, and there's no everyone's in agreement that the retrofit needs to be done. so once -- it was just by luck that we even became aware of this. they applied for the a.d.u.s at the same time that they applied for the retrofitting, again, in secret. i also want to point out inconsistency -- or an inaccuracy in their brief. this was never approved and rescinded. this matter was due -- was due to administrative mistake, had to be rescheduled at a later time. and i then requested the matter to be removed from the consent
calendar, so it was never approved and rescinded. that's not quite accurate. they also state that this is providing improvements for all tenants. again, not true, and they are also eliminating all of our driveway spaces. they made a half-hearted attempt, prior to the original hearing, which was -- appellant hearing, which was scheduled for august 6, john hood contacted me to work out some sort of resolution, which i was amenable to because we had had a huge turnout at the rescheduled hearing in january , and all the tenants came, and the neighbors came. so what i was anticipating at that point was a collaborative -- a collaborative kind of
put-down-your-sword session where we work something out with all of the tenants. they don't have a legal right to sever the garages without just cause. it's causing a huge disruption in the neighborhood, as well. so i was thinking they were maybe going to do the a.d.u.s in part and making sure that everyone who had a garage would be -- would be taken care of. i didn't expect to receive an agreement just for me that was supposed to be confidential and hidden from the other tenants. i also didn't expect to be told on numerous occasions that if i didn't like the deal, i should go to the rent board. they made that suggestion to me orally and in writing, and when i pressed the landlord's counsel for what exactly that means, she explained to me that means if a service is severed, we just then petition for a reduction in rent. we don't want a reduction in
rent, we want to keep our garages. we cannot stay in the apartment without garages. i think many of the tenants feel the same way. so it's not an option for us to have a rent reduction, we must have the garages that are in our leases. it's an expensive neighborhood. it's unfortunately expensive and dangerous. off-street parking is -- i don't want to say nonexistent, but it's very limited. it's dangerous. i think i have it in my brief, as recently as july, a couple was robbed at gun point walking back to their car from their apartment at night. so it's not safe, it's expensive. there's break-ins, so that's not an option. and i don't feel that they are operating under -- in good faith, and no think they're really prepared to offer us an alternate space.
they made a very half-hearted attempt to reach an agreement with me. they sent me a contract. we did one turn of the document. they said take it or leave it and did not return any phone calls, so that's it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: i have a question. so your garage space is included in your property. >> yes. >> commissioner honda: yes. is there any other property or space that's being removed because of the a.d.u.? >> well, our storage is in our garage. i don't know exactly about the laundry. >> commissioner honda: so did they propose alternative storage for you? zm well, they want us to vacate our garage for an entire year, during which time we would have no parking and no storage. >> commissioner honda: no, the question was -- >> afterwards? >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> i don't know. i guess it would be in the
you, gary. >> clerk: okay. >> hello. good evening, members of the board of appeals. my name is john hood, and i'm the architect that's representing the owners of this project. after 35 years of practicing in the city, this is my first time to be before the board of appeals, so this is my initial voyage. our project with the approved variance adds to the city three accessory dwelling units and maintains three parking spaces in the existing building. miss saber has appealed the variance because she maintains that we have unlawfully taken her parking. in fact, we have offered here a parking space that it is -- that is in the same building and closer to her unit than the one she had before.
the same size, offers the same storage, and she may still park on the sidewalk in front of her space, even though it's illegal, but that is the nature of this neighborhood. and she has that same right with the new parking space. so i'd like -- i'd like to show you the project now quickly. the -- the diagram -- the green rectangle. can you turnoff the words, please, thank you. >> commissioner honda: we can't. that's required. sunshine ordinance requires that. >> okay. we'll work with that. the green rectangle is the project. turk is on the right, and nieto is on the bottom. next slide, please. this shows you a list of all the times we were to notice or meet or go to a hearing, and it's 18 times over the period of time that we worked. next. this shows you our
preapplication response approval letter from fire, building, and -- from fire and building. next. this is our building permit application screening form. this is our variance application hearing poster notification and affidavit. this is our second variance application hearing proposal and affidavit. now this is the actual project. there's a garage to the top and a garage to the bottom. next. and if the variance is approved, there's a one-bedroom unit on the bottom with a two-car garage and lots of storage and stuff around. this is the rear of the project and for the writing, it shows you -- you'd be able to see what the variance is for. it's a rear-yard
requirements -- rear-yard in-fill. next. this shows you what the final variance was approved. it shows one unit on top that no longer needs an exposure variance and a unit on the bottom that shows one parking space that's maintained, and two units in the rear. next, please. this is, frankly, the salient point. there are -- the three blue squar squares are the parking spaces that are leased in the building. and when they asked us to get rid of the spaces in front of the building, we picked up two spaces. so we have two parking spaces on the street that are added because of our curb cuts being removed. so -- now i'd like to talk to
you about the procedure and the process. we followed all the notice deadlines. we're not required to go and knock on every door and say am, we're going to do -- yes, ma'am, we're required to do this. what we're required to do is post on the building of what's going on. and miss saber has all kinds of stories about what we did and didn't do, and in our rebuttal, we'll talk about the facts. the variance has approved in the consent calendar. now nothing is approved until 60's while the staff has the option to see do the notifications, but in the meeting, it was approved. the next day, the neighborhood felt they were unheard, which was accurate. they thought they'd be able to speak at the hearing, and they did not. so for a technicality on the form plus the d.a. wanting to give the neighborhood a right to speak, a new hearing was scheduled. and the new hearing was
scheduled by the z.a., and the neighborhood was well able to speak. and why this is is this was not held in a room like this where one person stands to talk. it was a conference room, and there was 18 to 20 people, and there was back and forth between the sponsor and the neighbors. many people spoke two or three times, and the z.a. sat in the chair and let everybody speak. to it was a little bit wilder than the normal hearing, like it is tonight. the variance was granted from what our original application was, and the number of units was reduced from five to three and maintained three parking spaces. miss saber appealed the variance on june 1, 2018. the hearing was postponed three times. twice because miss saber and the owners were faithfully trying to reach an equitiable replacement of her parking
space. unfortunately, miss saber's demands increased to an inreasonable level, and in the rebuttal, we can talk about those demands. in closing, we have followed the rules and received thoughtful approvals by all of the city agencies. we met with the neighborhood, and the project was significantly changed for the benefit of the neighborhood. my last thought for you is this: in ten years, our city's going to be desperately needing, even more than we need now, additional small-size housing, and that's all the a.d.u.s are, is small housing, and a desire for parking will be significantly diminished as you've read in the reports of automotive cars and the useful generation needs less cars and those kinds of things. so we respectfully ask that you uphold the variance approval.
thank you. >> commissioner honda: are you done? >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: i've got a question for you. i know the building has transacted several times. how long has the current owner owned this property? >> i believe it's 18 years. >> commissioner honda: could you put on the overhead the in-fill that you're doing? >> yes, sir. >> commissioner honda: so personally, i know this building. i went into this building as a youth. there's a lovely courtyard as you enter, so could you put that above and show me what you're going to in-fill. >> okay. while we're waiting -- okay. so right above the word "waiting," and that rectangle -- above that, there's an overhang that's just
actually extended driveway. so the parking space for miss saber is inside that hatched -- that hatched section. and the in-fill is under the envelope of the existing building. and more often than not, this variance is approved because the building already has its mass, and by allowing to in-fill, it's usually a noninvasive variance, and now, the new a.d.u. legislation has increased to you no longer have to apply for a variance -- >> commissioner honda: i get that. and the other question was there was a prior slide you showed -- was there something that's happening in the cord yard? >> no, sir. that's demonstrating where we are achieving our unit
exposure. >> commissioner honda: okay. you indicate you live in the city, but your firm is from pleasanton. do you live in the city? >> can you confirm commissioner honda's question, on the blue slide -- >> that is unit exposure that is provided. >> that just outlines the 15 by 15 exposure area? >> yes, sir. >> okay. can you talked about, and i think you provided a helpful diagram of the parking spaces. so you show the three leased parking spaces, and that two are going to be displaced for a.d.u.s, and on the following slides, those are leased spaces. can you tell us, are those leased spaces, and who is leasing those parking spaces? >> so those are not leased spaces. the building has currently seven parking spaces, but there
were only three leased spaces when i came to the project. and the other three buildings that this family owns, there were multiple spaces that were not leased. i can't give you the exact number today because i didn't prepare for that. >> so you're saying three are only leased to tenants currently and the other spaces exist but are not leased. >> yes. >> can you tell us if they're -- >> there is one space that no one uses as a car, but they use it as a parking space for their stuff. >> okay. >> commissioner honda: okay. so the parking spaces aren't leased. are there any services that are severed in creating the a.d.u.s with the current tenancy. >> no, sir. >> commissioner honda: garage parking, storage? >> garage parking, storage. we doubled the amount of washer dryers in the proposal. we've made the building safer which miss saber objects to,
which now we have a second exit. if there's a fire in the building -- >> commissioner honda: but that was required under the soft story work requirement -- >> not soft story, building code for the a.d.u. the trade-up has always been, we will make the building safer -- >> commissioner honda: okay. you'll have time to present your rebuttal later in the case. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we'll now here from the deputy zoning administrator. >> commissioner honda: i'll never get used to that deputy. >> i'm acting. >> commissioner honda: okay, so you're acting now. >> scott sanchez. the building was built in 1956 and is an existing legal structure that extends partly into the rear yard which is part of the reason for the required variance that's before
you today. this item was on the consent calendar. i was the zoning administrator at the time and did hold the hearing. i did grant the item on consent. it was my understanding that members were there actually from the very beginning of the agenda, where we had this process where we state all the items that are on the consent calendar, state that they will be granted unless someone has public testimony to give, and if there is no public testimony, we take the action. we made that call. no one stepped forward. it was granted. i believe at the end of the hearing, a couple members of the public said they had some concerns about the project. we realized there was some confusion or understanding, so we did subsequently have a hearing, which mr. teague did hear the following month. i was not present for that hearing, but he did hold a very full and complete public hearing, and i think we have provided full public process to allow everyone to be heard, as well as we've had this appeal
before the board of appeals which has been continued numerous times to allow additional dialogue between the parties. so as i stated, the application initially was for five a.d.u.s. there were variances required for the rear yard in-fill, as well as exposure variance because it does have a noncompliant rear yard. the project was adjusted to comply with the unit code, and even those other units would now comply with the exposure requirements because exposure has been reduced to i think about a nine-foot-clear area and 225 square feet, so i think even under the previous approval -- previous proposal made the approval variable under current law, but that is not what is before you.
the main issue here seems to be parking, and the retention of parking. the project was revised to retain the leased parking spaces as stated by the project sponsor. i think there may be some disagreement as to the exact terms of that, but i think the project sponsor has worked to try to address those concerns voiced by the appellant. maybe some overview or discussion about parking in general. yesterday, san francisco, i believe, the second major city in north america to remove parking requirements across the board, so there will no longer be a parking minimum in san francisco. that was passed by the board. it would of course require approval and adoption by the mayor, but that would be a major step forward. i would note that even under current law, by -- automobile parking in certain districts such as this, the rh-2 zoning district, while parking is
requires 1:1 for each dwelling unit, there is a provision where you can reduce that parking by providing bicycle parking. so this property could technically remove audio of the required vehicular spaces and provide bicycle parking and would be in compliance with the planning code, would not need any variance or modification or waiver of the code, just simply allowed that. so there's no requirement to maintain off street vehicular parking. they could provide bicycle parking and that would be completely compliant under the code. in the appellant's brief, they say this is beyond what is allowed under the code. you can't remove required parking for other units to provide for a.d.u.s, and that's not correct. you can have a waiver for that requirement in whole or in part as long as it facilitates the
creation of a.d.u.s. the case studies for a.d.u.s, we have buildings where you have all ground-floor parking. could be a corner lot, you could have 12 parking spaces, you have removal of all of those and conversion to dwelling units. that's something that was very much thought of and certain the initiative behind this a.d.u. legislation. this issue's been raised to the planning commission in the past. commissioner richards has always been very vocal to this point. are we prioritizing parking or are we prioritizing housing, and the planning code is clear, this is allowed. parking spaces can be removed and a.d.u.s can be installed. there's no doubt to that fact. with this, i think that the zoning administrator made the five findings necessary to justify this rear-yard variance, and that's what it is. it's a rear-yard variance to allow the inclusion of accessory dwelling units --
actually, one last point. while i don't think it was addressed in the appellant's oral arguments, there was comments in their brief about driveway parking, just to clarify what that is, and maybe i didn't understand the issues that were raised in the brief, under the m.t.a. and under the traffic code, you can park across your driveway on the street, that that is parking on the street in front of your driveway. you cannot park in your driveway on your part. that is generally a violation of the planning code because if it's located within the front set back under the planning code, parking is not allowed to be located within the required front set back. so maybe there was some confusion there as to what is or isn't allowed for driveway parking. they're two separate issues. if you're crossing the driveway and you're parked at the street in line with the curb versus across the sidewalk or in the front set back, so i just want today clarify that, and i'll
be -- wanted to clarify that, and i'll be available for any questions. >> vice president swig: my feeling, i think, differs from yours. i don't think this is about parking, i think it's about a lease term, and the term -- the promise is in terms and conditions of the lease. we had a similar -- we had a similar case on presidio avenue where the tenant was concerned that the terms and conditions associated with his lease, which included storage, parking, etc., etc., were being abused. my question is, is -- is this going to -- this is going to surface again probably, maybe. is this a permit issue or because it's clear that you can take away parking, or is this a
tenant's right issue as with regard to the terms and conditions of a lease? >> you know, we would agree that it is a tenant-landlord issue, and this issue has come up. the a.d.u. program is not new. it's been around several years now, and it's been very successful. we've tried to address the problems the best we can. these matters are beyond the purview of the planning code, so we have been trying to, over the summer, improve the notification done to tenants in these kinds of applications to kind of highlight the rights that tenants have to the property owners as part of the application process so they're aware if there is a reduction in services then someone would be eligible for a reduction in their rent under the rent ordinance, so we're trying to put them in touch with the appropriate bodies. this is generally a rent board matter, if there's going to be a reduction in services.
this is not a planning code or planning compliance matter. >> vice president swig: yeah. so i'm looking to the city attorney, maybe, for some help here. so i'm clearly hearing from you that in the current planning situation -- and vl obviously, there is a movement toward creating more housing. ru thus, the a.d.u. activities which are occurring. the by-product and inclusive of that, the city department and planning are aware that parking may be sacrificed for a.d.u.s. am i going in the right direction at this point. okay. so from a planning standpoint, a -- a building owner has the
right to terminate parking for a.d.u.s from a planning standpoint. >> yeah. >> vice president swig: all right. so that's that. and i'm really sympathetic to anyone that does a lease, to the appellants. i'm very sensitive to your concerns. i'm just trying to figure out a jurisdiction issue here. so from a planning standpoint, this seems to be an okay thing to do. from a contractual standpoint, this is clearly a conflict between a landlord and a tenant with regards to promises made in their lease. so is this -- this argument about taking away a parking place because it is in a tenant's lease, is it now or may have been before, is this now in our jurisdiction as it's
in the appeals sector or is it not and should it go to the rent board? >> i think this question was raised the last time -- >> commissioner honda: on the presidio case. >> correct, and i said there was no requirement in the code. there is a remedy in the -- with the rent board for the severance of tenant services. >> vice president swig: so in looking -- in looking at this item tonight, based on the planning code, based on what the city attorney just said, really, we should not -- we, as the appeals board, we should not -- this is the question. we should not consider the belief in this situation; rather, we should only consider the planning code, question
mark? >> commissioner honda: can i speak. >> commissioner lazarus: that's before us, which is a planning code issue. >> vice president swig: all right. >> commissioner lazarus: very clearly. >> vice president swig: all right. this is going to come up again, and there's somebody sitting in the audience that has signed a lease and has said that that lease will overrule any planning code issue. i think it's a -- you know, it's a pertinent discussion that should be clarified for the public. >> commissioner honda: but getting an a.d.u., you're not allowed to sever any existing ties -- are you finished? >> vice president swig: yeah, yeah. >> commissioner honda: so does the property meet the open space requirements for all the additional units? >> i believe they're -- under the a.d.u. process, they can seek a waiver for open space