Traditional, some of them are more modern. It gives a vibrancy to the city, and i really think this project should go forward. Good evening. Jennifer fever with the San Francisco tenants unit. I also want to speak in support of the project and against the dr. This strikes me as classic nimbyism. As long as no tenants were displaced, it seem dos totally reasonable. We have a severe eviction crisis as the dr knows, so were desperately in need of housing which is affordable. Thanks. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you. My name is pat buskovitch. Im a neighbor. I live at diamond and 23rd. I speak here on behalf of my family who lives at 22nd eureka and jersey and diamond. We live all around this. My family has been in this neighborhood for 30 years. This project is truly a creative request to develop four units on one lot with a second unit building in the back. Theyre going to take that two unit building and eadd an adu n an illegal office thats been there for years. Theyre going to take the front building and demolish it and building a mansion resulting in 6,000 square feet on one lot. I worry about allowing demolition of rental housing, that they refuse to acknowledge. Housing that i looked at. This mcmansion will have negative impacted on the neighborhood, way out of the neighborhood scale. I drive down castro driving to my favorite place. You all know where that is, and im really concerned about the facade of this street. There is a three quarter of a Million Dollar variance, a three quarter Million Dollar top floor penthouse chlts theres 2 million of greed in this house. The front building was built in 1909 as a Grocery Store with a unit in back. My unit lived in this one. She was the owner of the one around the corner on castro and 22nd, i believe. There was a permit in 1980 to enlarge the office. They didnt mention the unit there, so this units been there for a long time. In 2005, the project sponsor got a cu to remove the unit. I ask for a cu to demolish a building, how is that in the best interests of my community or anywhere in the city, to demolish real Affordable Housing to build a five level mcmansion . How is it in the best interest to tear down a modest housing or how is it in the best interest i have no problem with this guy building modest housing, but five levels . Finally, ask the commission not to reward the project sponsor who refused to rent or acknowledge and fought to keep this unit off the book with permission to demolish rental housing and building something that we all know will never be rented, will be only for the 1 of the 1 . Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Please. Hi. I agree with the tree on the castro, as someone who rides that bus all the time. Its difficult for me to understand how this project meets the criteria of protecting the relative affordablity of existing h housing, which it must meet as part of the granting of the cu. Demolishing a structure that may or may not have a small unit on the site, and creating a huge singlefamily home that will sell for many millions of dollars does not protect relative affordablity. If this project was to preserve the existing structure and create a new larger dwelling unit within the existing footprint of the structure, then, the criteria could be met. Or even with a modest vertical expansion of the existing vertical structure. There are many types of this conversion where former Grocery Stores have been turned into housing completely. Or if a home with a smaller footprint was built it would be more likely to meet the criteria, and thats 317 c 3 d 9. Also, a smaller structure would make the building more compatible with the neighborhood character than the proposed project. The existing building is quite understated, and its attractive with the redwood siding or whatever it is. I thought it was redwood, but maybe it isnt. It compliments the neighborhood. The proposed project is too massive and too glossy. I want to comment on the the idea that the findings says it meets the balance of the criteria. Its supposed to meet the preponderance of the evidence of the bulletin, and when i look over it, i only see it meeting four out of the 18. The first two have to do with the decision of the property. I dont think those should be not applicable, and you go on down, theres a whole bunch of not applicable, and then, we can argue about the affordablity, the relative affordablity that i did, and whether it meets neighborhood character, so thats i only see four. Thats what i think, and it can have discussion, but it doesnt meet balance, and it doesnt meet preponderates. It only meets four. Good evening. Ryan paterson for denise ledbetter. Assize from this project be a bad proposal, the variance proposal is from 2015 for a lot split. Neighborhood notice was also issued before the variances were issued. Normally, that may not be a big problem, but here, theres no basis for a variance. Theres no right to include two oversized buildings on one lot that theyre somehow constrained from buildings. In fact, there are nothing justifying building this at all. Even if the existing structures could be in unusually condition meriting variance, which they cant, theyre here asking for a demo litigation permit. Theyre replacing the building with something new, and they can build whatever they want. Most troubling is their variance will have serious impacts on my clients property. Hundreds of thousands of lost Property Value as the documentation that i provided you. Its a modernist tower thats going to stick out like a sore thumb among its historic queen ann neighbors, and on top of it all is a Massive Party deck. On a more basic level, theyre proposing to put four units on an rh2 lot thats already highly developed. They cant demolish the building and build a residential use exceeding the density allowed. Section 181 c 2 only allows use thats nonconforming to the use as quoted. The conditional use criteria for removal of a dwelling unit are not met either. With regard to criteria in e, or f criteria g and h, as well. The project does not protect the relative affordablity of existing housing, nor does it increase the number of permanently affordable units or supported housing. The project is not of a design that enhances neighborhood character as youve seen. The proposal features a stark facade with a flat roof and roof deck and thanks to the front yard variance is going right up against the street. Lastly, they say theyre reestablishing, in quotes, residential use from 799 castro. Theyre demolishig it. Theyre building a new addu, which is great, but that doesnt explain whats happening here. Thank you. Are there any additional speakers . No . All right. So well close Public Comment and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. Commissioner richards . I guess im probably one of the people that live closest to this site. I live across the street two blocks up, so i know this site very well. Theres a lot going on here. I mean, weve got a cu for demolition of a unit. Weve got variances, weve got some design issues. I think the first thing that ill throw out and ill wait, let some other commissioners also give me their opinion, give the commission the opinion is if we compared this to the project literally one block up on noe and 21st, same lot, same position, we had a problem with that project, as well. I think you might recall that one. Its actually being dismantled now. Theres wood left of it. It was sold with its entitlement. I dont have a problem with the modern architecture, as well see more up, however, i think the structure is too massive for the lot that it sits on. I agree. I think were doing a lot here, which is good. Increased density and add some units, figure out how to use that commercial building in a better way. Ive always kind of wondered what that building was going up and down castro street, so i think generally the idea is good. I dont mind the unit in the twounit building. I just think its its too intense if intensefication of that one lot, and it could be solved relatively easily. I also like commissioner richards, i dont mind kind of the more modern architecture. I think it could fit in a little more, but to me, it should be kind of a smaller, you kn you know, building on that lot. There certainly are large buildings on castro as you go up and down, but not also with kind of the larger building on the back of the lot. So i just think its too big for for that site to add all this to. So i mean i dont think were going to design this thing tonight and figure out what to do, but as i look at the floor plan, theres a family room on the ground floor, and the top floor is used for kind of a large master suite. Could you kind of put the master suite on the ground floor and not have a top floor . Certainly, i think the deck is a little too much on the top of this building. So thats my general take. I think its got to kind of go back and figure out how to reduce the scale in the front, but generally okay with adding a unit there and putting a unit in the back building. Commissioner moore . I would agree that replacing the Office Building with the Residential Property sized where the residential building is a good idea, but whats in front of us, by far, far exceeding what the lot coverage on this site should be. I believe that the adu as proposed does not work unless the yard between the two buildings is increased which may mean that the parking disappears. In order for that unit to be livable, i think we need to give it proper exposure around the side because it is already partially buoyed for going up 21st street, and for that reason, i really think the project should be reconfigured based on criteria by which the replacement building is smaller and the adu unit has proper relief from a structure not intruding on it. Commissioner melgar . Thank you. So i also dont mind the modern architecture in general, in theory, but on this block, i kind of do. So this is a very lovely block of older homes, and its its both on both sides of 21st street, so i think that, you know, this project would stick out aesthetically that i dont like. I think thats whats wonderful about San Francisco neighborhoods. We do have some eclectic mixes, but this is totally out of character. Just putting that out there. Then, also, i think sort of the design, the boxy design where every single building has, you know, the peaked roof, except for one, you know, down the street is also problematic in terms of views and light. And, you know, i the adu, i mean, its fine, but it is replacing a rent controlled unit and its vacant, its vacant, but its there. I didnt hear anything from my fellow commissioners. Actually, i do object to that. I think if thats going to happen, im wondering what we get in return and what were getting in return is this massive singlefamily home which, you know, is not consistent with what we want to do. So i would also like to send this back to the drawing board to come up with something thats a little more in keeping with our policies. Commissioner richards . So i guess the question for the city attorney, the issue of rent controlled unit and demolition of it on a property such as this, with a replacement structure with a demolition permit be consistent with the commissioner, kate stacey from the city attorneys office. Im going to have to look at the rent control provisions and talk to the rent control expert in the office and circle back with the answer on that question. Im sorry. I dont know all the ins and outs of the demolition and new construction at this point. Great. I think this will kind of serve as a guide for the other ones that we get, if we understand what surviving buildings are actually under rent control or not. As i said, its not, but it will be under rent control. Not . It will not, but its kind of this half commercial i mean, thats why im not as troubled by it. I think youre kind of getting an equivalent unit. It was almost like an ancillary units that youre getting, and youre kind of using that for residential. Okay. Theres a theres a trade off there, but understanding that would be better. I think along the lines of commissioner melgars comments, i think we should would instruct i would hope if we continue this, we are to instruct the department to work with the project sponsor on reducing the mass by eliminating the top floor in the garage to create a yard, so i move to continue this matter until. Two months. Two months. And commissioner moores point on the adu and making it more livable. We would capture that by increasing requiring the deeper rear yard and eliminating the garage in its current position, yes. But i think theres the opportunity to build kind of a more modern cottage on this, kind of what we would see in rear yards. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion, then, to continue this matter, then to february 22nd, 2018. [ roll call. ] continued variance hearing until february 22nd, at well. And were continuing the cu and the dr. Even though theyre kind of melded together, so i think we get the issue. Commissioners, thatll place this on your discretionary review calendar fore item 21, case number 2015008473 drp at 531 30th street. This is a discretionary review. Commissioners, nanny tran, Planning Department staff. The item before you is a discretionary review request for 531 30th street. The proposal is to construct an approximately 640 square foot vertical addition to the existing singlefamily residence. The project includes interior remodelling and interior windows. No other work is proposed onsite. Its located on the south side of 30th street between laidley and noe street. The neighborhood ranges from single to multifamily units. The subject property is [ inaudible ] constructed circa 1900 and contained wholly within the rear yard. The residential design advisor team reviewed the project and the department is in general support of the proposal design. The proposed project meets all applicable this concludes our presentation. Thank you. Dr requester . Good evening, Planning Commissioners. My family and i live at 21 laidley street, which abuts the property in question, and i appreciate the right to present our concerns here today. We understand the Planning Commission is busy. The city needs housing, and that the planning process must ballet lot of needs and wants of stakeholders. To be clear, i am not wishing to to hold up the neighbors project, but simply request small changes to his plans as they would finally be approved. During the neighbor notification process, we had asked the neighbor to consider changes which she was unfortunately unable or unwilling to consider. We regretfully had to seek this venue to escalate that discussion, given the detrimental impact that the project would have on our kids bedrooms without that change. By way of background, its important to note that the house was not built at it would normally be done at the front of a property. It abuts our property because it is at the very, very far back of the property, so the instead, the the result is that the neighbor hits right against our house and already severely limits the amount of light, air, and privacy. The neighbor now wishes to further build up vertically along that same back of the Property Line. We know the final height and size of the project, given its location at the back of the property, and its negative impact on our privacy and access to light and air, particularly the light that goes into the bedrooms of my two small boys. We do not wish to keep the neighborhood from building out his house, we just want to make sure that we can limit the negative impact, especially of the light, to those two rear bedrooms. The bedrooms of our two boys along the shared property would be impacted i have two pictures here which id like to display quickly; to give a sense of it. Because the neighbors house is to be built right this is a this is a picture of the window. You can see theres not much light coming in, and it is completely blocked by the neighbors house as it stands today. This is a view of the sky, and that this aspect here is the third floor aspect that were asking to reduce minorly. We met with the neighbor and his architect on july 27th to review the proposed plans and discuss its impact on us. We reviews many of the above concerns and proposed three requests that would mitigate the impact to our house. In particularly, we asked him to consider certain alterations to his current plan in order to reduce the overall massing and increase our access to light, especially at the ground floor bedrooms of our two boys. The first one is reduce the side of the third floor dressing room and closet. This is a large dressing room that is in question. Were requesting that he move the outer wall by several feet to reduce the impact on the light reduction. And second, to reduce the roof ridge by approximately 2 feet and and the head roof over the southern edge, and then, finally, to omit a window on the south wall for privacy. Given these requests, the neighbor offered to meet some but not all of these requests. He did offer that the hipped roof, but what we really are seeking is simply a reduction of 2 feet of the the ridged roof the roof ridge as well as a reduction of the of the massing by 3 feet. These would significantly increase the amount of light to our small kids bedrooms, and we have no other concerns, you know, with the project. It would obviously reduce the amount of privacy. Id like to just say one more thing, which is we had a parallel situation in the building of our house, and the neighbor in question asked us for quite a number of things. We reduced the we pulled back a wall so that he could have light by approximately 3 feet, and were simply asking him to do the same thing. In closing, we respectfully sorry. Thank you. Youll have a chance for a two minute rebuttal, too. Pardon . You will have a two minute rebuttal. Well hear from the project sponsor, though, next. Okay. Good afternoon. You should be taking Public Comment in support of the dr. Sorry. So is there any Public Comment in support of the dr . Good evening, commissioners. My name is daniel holbrook, and im with feldman architecture. We worked with ben and diana on the addition of their home at 21 laidley street. As ben mentioned during the planning review process of 21 laidley street, we had a healthy back and forth with the project sponsor and his family to minimize the impact of our project on his home. Similar to the project sponsor, both planning and the Residential Design Team supported the project at 21 laidley and suggested there was no need for modifications based on the project sponsors concerns. The project sponsor maintained his opposition and threatened dr. In an attempt to be neighborl