I think, ultimately, i do really like the idea of this house going back to two units, wanting to make sure that it actually is rented out and used as two units , but if a fellow commissioner wants to weigh in, i will pass the microphone. You can see we are a couple commissioners short tonight, and we are not going to be able to literally come to a decision with four votes. I would feel better if the d. R. Applicants had a little more information regarding the sun study and had more time to review it, but also, i see the need for the expansion, but also see the possibilities for the excavation and staying within the envelope. I will make a motion to continue this. I will continue it for a month. I think a month is adequate. To the project sponsor and the. Just to be clear, we are asking them to share the information about the sun study, also explore other alternatives about relocating the expansion through excavation as opposed to adding on that extra story on top, correct . Correct. Mr. Lamb, you have been in front of this commission enough to know where we are going here. I think, you know, folks feel like, you know, it is an excessive, you know, having that fifth floor it is a basement, sorry, i am a little confused. Where does one excavate further . Are you asking to go we are already down a grade level on the basement and first floor for the unit, so i am a little confused on how we should excavate further. I think that what i will not speak for commissioner moore , because she is the expert on the design, what i can see is you have a lot of Square Footage already, but if your goal is to get two units, and, you know, social space and bedroom space, that there is room within the envelope that is already there, and then there is a crawlspace, you know, there is no crawlspace. There wont be any crawlspace. Actually, maybe now that im thinking out loud, we had talked about also adding nad you as an option also adding an a. D. U. As an option. We think it would be possible. Again, the goal is not to get the largest house possible, but they would like to get their three bedrooms on one level. It is really critical. They have almost a two and a 4 yearold, and you can understand that the current house configuration doesnt allow that. So just to be clear, we need to have two units, and if this is a request about an a. D. U. , that would be a third unit. That just needs to be very clear go ahead, commissioner. Youre suggesting that within the existing propose Square Footage, the existing massing, that they add an a. D. U. . I was not saying that. He said that. I was quickly thinking about that to understand that. I was thinking about the geometry and the need really it is a strong need for them to have three bedrooms on one level , and so, you know, maybe we can look take some of the social space and make it an a. D. U. Or taking are taking in the lower guest bedroom and sweet and making it into an a. D. U. , that would really be allow them some flexibility, too. Commissioner richards did you want to . No. Commissioner moore . I wouldnt mind exploring that. As i said earlier, the fact that we are doing a remodel rather than having a clear definition of a demolition, a demolition would require a new building to operate as a smaller building with 25 rear backyard. We are excluding a building already too large on its lot, so i would become trouble exploring building it out with a caveat that with in that Square Footage , we are providing an a. D. U. , and that would allow you to resize the slightly oversized Living Spaces and put it into the use of an a. D. U. I would like to see that. Im a little confused. You already are proposing two units. So you are proposing a third . This is a little complicated, but there is currently it is undefined. All the planning information just to be clear, you are proposing a unit that is 1200 square feet in addition to the 3,000 squarefoot unit. We would remove the thousand square feet for the other larger units, and we would remove Square Footage from that to make an a. D. U. You have a 3,000 smaller then a 3,000 squarefoot unit to create. Lets say a 2400 square squarefoot threebedroom, and but, you are proposing, i think theres confusion here about the concerns. I think the commission has different concerns. We are not on the same page here. I mean, what you are proposing would be do an a. D. U. To justify the existing mass and size of the building. The proposed mass and size of the building. I had concerns about the proposed mass, so im not sure the a. D. U. Is being answered here, frankly. I took i think there is a difference of, you know, where the commission is right now, and it might be helpful to have the two additional commissioners. I would support a continuance, you know, my concern was about the mass and the impact on the nextdoor property because of the positioning of the lot, i would rather see less mass then an a. D. U. , but it seems like other commissioners are, you know, not on the same page, if i may, when a look at the project, when i heard commissioner moore, i i heard her concern, not so much about the size, but about the privacy issues along the south wall and all those windows, but were you concerned about the mass going into the backyard or the fifth floor . I believe the building is very large, but i believe the department could shave it back in a massing that is, for me, acceptable. I would prefer, though, given the rather slightly oversized nature of the living accessory spaces, to become a slightly tighter building, in which an a. D. U. Could potentially find Square Footage that would take 3,000 square feet, to perhaps 2400 or Something Like that. It would be two units, plus an a. D. U. I think that is what is possible here, and since we are continuously battling with singlefamily homes that dont exist in San Francisco, we heard a big presentation here this morning. I think we could use this as an example of an otherwise welldesigned building to practice that. Sorry, did somebody second a move . I was going to ask if that was a second. I dont think anybody i guess i can second it. I second the move to continue it commissioner richards . I understand commissioner moores point about the existing building is intruding, but if we demolish the building and come back with a see you for a new building with two or three units , or whatever, the backyard is kind of useless. Is on a slope, it is dark, it will be i. V. Growing all over everybodys building. It will be smaller, it but it will be smaller by 9 feet. There is only 8 feet now in the backyard, so youll create a bigger useless backyard. I dont think thats what is being suggested. No where i am going with this is it i agree with commissioner moore. I think we should take d. R. , approve the project with a new a. D. U. Added in the existing the larger unit Square Footage, and get rid of the issues on the south side by having no windows and no deck that opens to people s living areas. So that proposal would then, basically, insert an a. D. U. Into the existing bulk informant Square Footage of the proposed building. Taking it out of the 3,000 square feet. And then getting rid of the windows on the south side. That is my motion, yes. Commissioner moore . The only reason why i am trying to spell out something, and im not the only one who has the right to spell something out , is the fact that if we are continuing, one, we are not the full deck of commissioners care, but we need some construction instruction. If you only come back with the same thing and were starting on the same loop next time, we have not gained anything, so i think we need to add a little bit more here that we, indeed, can present some consensus among five people of why we are sending it back, otherwise we could make a decision today and say, it is what it is. Commissioner richards . First thing, if we wait for the other two commissioners, we will have a 43 situation. We will just make the disagreement larger. We know how commissioners behave and what the views are on these things. It doesnt matter, it doesnt matter, and im not picking on commissioner hillis in any way, shape, or form, but i think the findings are that there is too much social space in the top unit, that is the issue. I think we all agree on that. We are saying to convert some of that social space, keep Everything Else the way it is and convert it with rubrics and how you want to design it. You may have different units on different floors, but make sure the top space is 2400 square feet or less. Keep Everything Else, and get rid of all the stuff on the side , the window, the deck, the opening, et cetera. I truly dont believe that the way i really dont believe it has an impact on the people in carson street. It is probably less intrusive. The one concern i have is how you design a space within those floors that is actually a separate unit. That is what the architect is for mac. We have considered that, and in the foyer, the common foyer, then you would directly open out it is not exactly clear because the a. D. U. Installation and the two unit building makes me think that i have to use space that is not ever used for living space, if that is still a regulation. But i think below the garage level, we do have spaces that are definitely not used for living. The a. D. U. Law did not change for r. H. One, what our age two i know there is a strong encouragement to create them and they are very supportive. That is what i was referring to. I saw on the map that it was storage, or whatever it is. It is just kind of a crawlspace. I think it is a question of what you call the a. D. U. Versus the second unit. Exactly. You can make it work. I would like a continuance, but no second on that knee on that motion. Commissioners, there is a motion to continue for one month to july 18th. There was a second motion to take d. R. , but i did not hear a second. Can i just clarify . Your proposal is, is it with an a. D. U. Or not with an a. D. U. . A commendation. So the procedural matter would take precedent. Well take of the matter of continuance to july 18th. On the motion to continue with some direction from the commission. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes 41 with commissioner richards voting against. That will place us on our final action before you tonight, or today. Item 14 just a second, please items 14 a and b. He will consider conditional use authorization and the sony ministration will consider a request for variance. Good evening, commissioners. The item before you is a conditional use authorization for demolition of a singlefamily home at 45 the project would demolish the existing 1600 square foot singlefamily dwelling unit and construct in approximately 4,000 squarefoot building with two dwelling units. The project proposes one offstreet parking space and two class one bicycle Parking Spaces the project is also requesting a variance for exposure and a variance for a 2foot 2inch encroachment of the building into the required rear yard. Sincere packets have been published, the department has received three phone calls and one email from surrounding neighbors outlining concerns related to the rear yard variance request, and impact to the adjacent neighbors. After an analysis of all aspects of the project, the Department Recommends approval for the following. The project of maximizing the in the r. H. Two zoning district, and contribute to the Housing Stock by adding an additional unit. The project site does not have a history of evictions according to the rent board. The project provides adequate front and rear setbacks to preserve the existing midblock open space, and the project is consistent with the planning code and with the objectives and policy of the general plan. The project sponsor will now be making a quick presentation and i will be available for any questions. Thank you. Good afternoon, has now become good evening, planning commissioners and zoning administrator. I am dennis, the project architect. Im here with lucas eastwood, the project sponsor and general building contractor. As was mentioned, the proposal seeks to demo an existing twostory singlefamily home, and a privately owned street to construct a new fourstory two family home. We are here in front of the commission requesting a conditional use authorization to remove a dwelling unit, additionally, we are seeking a variance for the newly proposed building to extend 26 inches deeper into the lot than would normally be allowed under r. H. Two zoning codes. First to address the see you for demo. Our design process looked at options to alter the building under a renovation permit, however demolishing the structure emerged as a practical route as the following considerations were clarified in the process. The written historical evaluation of the 1912 structure , which notes its overall High Integrity from a lack of alterations over the years, concluded, nonetheless, that it does not stand out as being exceptionally representative of the period. Many similar homes exist within a two block radius. The planning Preservation Team also concluded no Historic Resource to be present and we are satisfied the project is not is not removing any structure of historic value to San Francisco. The second consideration, one of the projects goals is to align at the entry floor level with the existing sidewalk elevation. Demo avoids lifting and lowering the building half a story to provide the floor plate shift, vehicular entry necessitates the street to four alignment, as well as a pedestrian entry without space consuming additional steps, often atypically narrow, 5foot sidewalks. This critical alignment allows the entire building to be elevator accessible for adaptable living. The third consideration is the scope and scale of the project, as the new fourstory building with subgrade excavation requires structural work far exceeding the capacity of the existing foundations and building framing, as a renovation, the project would be considered tantamount to demolition, and the design team opted for the demo, new construction permitting route to provide the highest level and product with the shortest construction duration. If we had saw some aspect of the existing house was saving, we would have proceeded to keep it. Now onto the variance request. This is a very unusual site whereby the lot depth is not only shallow at 68 feet 9 inches , but also starts at the midline of the street. The first 13 feet and 8 inches of the lot overhangs the street and the sidewalk. This block is one of over 250 street segments in San Francisco tagged as private, and one applying the proper r. H. Two development standards, is 75 buildable lot depth leaves a mere 37foot 10inch building. The project is requesting a variance to construct a 40foot deep building, 26 inches deeper than r. H. Two zoning to align the northern adjacent four story 40foot deep building, the result to the rear yard is 15 feet deep which meets the planning code minimum. As you can see in the floor plan , the benefits for the project allows for a more spacious onebedroom lower unit any viable threebedroom upper unit, both with appropriate bath and closet amenities. Overall, the room proportions and spaciousness is built on all three floors, with the top floor conceding the additional building depth and a set shallow exterior balcony. Approval of the variance does not negatively impacted impact adjacent buildings as we proposed on the north side, and provide a signed setback on the southside south side to mitigate the request of the extension. In this particular project, the specific context of a private lot containing a sidewalk and half of the street was not anticipated by the planning code our buildable envelope is truncated by unusual site conditions, that is the hardship where we are requesting a rear yard variance. Our team is very proud of this project, their communication with our planner, we were involved informed that the team was overall impressed with the quality of the design. They had minor comments, and we set aside with them for a couple rounds of revisions. The final version is in front of you today. The project meets, and in many cases, exceeds requirements for ground story visual interest with 50 4 of the lot with featuring planting and glazed facades, better roof ordinance, which combines over 260 square feet of solar ready zones, and planted roofs, are providing thank you very much for your time. Youve 30 seconds. Okay. We do have a roof deck on this project and it is designed with the new roof deck policies in mind, access is via a rollback skylight. It is limited in size, and provides a setback that the new policy asked for. I am available and happy to answer any questions, and the contractor is also here today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . I have two speaker cards. Michelle scott and pat. Good afternoon, commissioners out in the hallway, we had a discussion with the project sponsor, im not sure what he wants to do in here. This is a conditional use hearing. I represent a number of the owners on this private street. It has to show it is in the publics best interest. There was a variance, no impact on variance with my client. The primary and sole issue is to is the garage, which is moot removing parking space number 8. This is a private streets that has 13 private, grossly substandard spaces, and the idea is to continue this case so we can work out a deal with the neighbor so that he can be assured that he has parking with all the neighbors agreeing to give him the space in front. Thereby, he doesnt have to remove probably two spaces, not just one, to provide one private space. And i believe that if we can continue this case for two weeks , we could broker some support of his project, and allow him to move forward with all the other city agencies. This is a private street that has been there for 80 years. It has worked out a relationship in San Francisco. It is amazing that for almost 50 years, there has been agreement on how to park on this street. If there can be sometime given, maybe we can work out a continuance of how do these 11 Properties Share these 13 spaces , because it is a conditional use, they have to meet some standards, and i question how they can meet standards in terms of affecting parking in an entire neighborhood by this project. On item eight of conditional use findings, not affecting traffic, because there is an agreement on how to do these 13 spaces now, without giving us the time to work out a deal, you may find all 13 blow up, a