Minimum 50 openable of area. You could literally do the top half openable, or you can take a portion of the wall and make that openable. That is what we do. We take a portion of the wall, we slide the door past and now it is wide open, but then you have to take the ventilation requirements for the nested bedroom, which is a 4 of the floor area, and the light and air requirement which is eight of the floor area, and add that to the same four and eight for the in between room, and that tells you the minimum Natural Light and ventilation area you have to provide in the exterior wall, the window. Right. On these nested bedrooms, what percentages are you at . The opening . How would that stack up . Have you provided the minimum . In most cases, we are over the minimum, just to be sure. We are somewhere between 50 to 260 . The units are tight and some of the kitchens run to that wall so we have a drywall partition there, and we make the window a sliding partition as large as we can. We use a private firm from San Francisco and we have been doing it for years. I want to get paid for that. I have one of the same doors and my bedrooms. Let let me add to that, you mentioned that the Building Code requires 50 opening. The Building Code allowed that to be like a wall and literally be open. That 50 opening has to be wild walled off in this way. It has to be enclosed so that is why we often see these floortoceiling glass doors that provide an opening for the light and can provide a full enclosure. Versus a pony well. If i might, one last thing. And all of our units, we are bringing in outside air for mechanical ventilation for all the apartments. Because it is on venice, so meet to to meet the sound issues, we are bringing fresh air from the inside, putting that into the bedrooms, but the bedroom does not have to rely upon the sliding glass door to be open to get ventilation. Great. One of the questions with administrator, the apartment requirement, people injured mentioned that there is too much parking. What is allowed on van ness . I would defer to the project planner for that answer. Sorry, i should have asked you first. There is a maximum of 35 offstreet Parking Spaces for proposed uses and they are proposing 24. Oh, so they are way below. They are below already, yes. Im happy to second a motion provided that theres no Corporate Housing on this, as well. I am amenable to that addition. Commissioner moore . I just wanted to say, that generally in comparison to other nested bedrooms, the rooms that are exposed to the outside are slightly better proportioned than what we normally see, so given the sliding nature of what is proposed here, the nested bedrooms or better than in many other cases. Singh nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended, including a condition prohibiting Corporate Housing. On that motion. [roll call] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 60. Zoning administrator, what say you . Approve the public hearing on the variance and grants the standard commissions. Thank you. That will place you on item 14 at 233 san carlos street. This is a conditional use authorization. Please note, of every 21st, 2019, after hearing and closing Public Comment, you continue to this matter to march 21st by a vote of 70 and subsequently continued the matter again on april 25th, may 9th, and june 27th, all without a hearing. Commissioner fong, you have not yet been seated, so if you could acknowledge if you had reviewed the previous hearing and materials in order to participate today. I did. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners i am with Planning Department staff. The project before you as a conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 233 san carlos street. The Convention Must provide a conditional use authorization to demolish an existing onestory Single Family residence and construct a new four story two unit residents at 233 san carlos street. The project includes a demolition of existing onestory 1300 square foot Single Family residence and construction of a four story over basement, 40foot tall, 4,500 squarefoot residential structure with two units and two offstreet Parking Spaces. The proposed dwelling units include it four bedroom unit, measuring about 26,000 square feet 2600 square feet. And another threebedroom unit which is about 1400 square feet. The department has received a few phone calls about this project which have expressed both support and opposition. The department did receive an email from the existing tenant which stated their support for the project and acknowledgement of a planned relocation. In addition, the department has received a few additional emails in opposition to the project, which are all included in your packets. Of figure 21st, the commission reviewed the proposal and expressed concern over the difference in size between the water proposed dwelling units in the facade design and its compatibility for the surrounding neighborhood. Since a public hearing in february, the project sponsor has revised the project as follows. They redesign the project to provide more equity between the two dwelling units, they have expanded and created a basement level, they have reconfigure the entry to provide for a future a. D. U. , which could be accomplished by converting the tandem garage into a studio apartment. They set back all roof decks by 5 feet on the building edges, and included revision to the project designed to discourage future build outs by reducing height of the front parapet and have reduced the size of the exterior windows to better fit in the surrounding context. After analysing all aspects of the project, the department committed approval. The project complies with the requirement of the planning code and is consistent with the policies of the general plan. The project is fully code conforming does not require any variances or touch ins from the planning code. Is located in a Zoning District where residential uses principally permitted in the project is necessary and desirable and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and provides for one additional housing unit on top of the one existing, which is a top priority for the city. The project sponsor is present and is prepared with a presentation. The sink concludes my presentation and im available for any questions. Thank you. Hello, project sponsor. Three minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners it is nice to see what again and welcome, commissioner fong. I know they are missing you at appeals because even reference to last week in the hearing. My name is serena calhoun, im the project architect for the project. As a quick refresher, when you sauce in february, it this project includes demolition of a onestory Single Family home and construction of a new four story two unit building with significant increases to both front and rear setbacks to conform to planning code. We have designed this for the option of a future third unit, which i will show you quickly. In response to staff comments at our last meeting. This project is for our client and his very large, multigenerational family. Last time we were here, the whole family was here. They took up an entire row. Unfortunately they cannot all be here today, but my client his is here in case you have questions. The ground floor is intended for use by his elderly father and we designed it to be accessible for that purpose. You may recall that we requested approval of a two car garage due to the larger size of his family and the many generations who will live in the building. Since we last appeared before you, we made substantial changes to the overall project design in response to your feedback and we believe we have responded to all of your outdated updated concerns. Your feedback at the last hearing included the following, you preferred more equality between the size of the dwelling units. So in the previous design, we had a groundfloor apartment for his father, which was just a onebedroom, and then the three stories above for the remainder of his multigenerational family, which included four bedrooms and four and a half baths. We were not able to easily connect the groundfloor up into the second floor. We evaluated that, but it was cutting off rear yard access for the upperlevel unit, so we chose instead to go down and excavated a basement level for two additional bedrooms, two bathrooms, a den, and we reconfigure the entry where you come in so that the elevator could be utilized by his father to get to the basement. We have also moved the garage to the opposite side of the building from the middle, so that, again, in the future, that can easily become a third a. D. U. Studio apartment. This is the basement level, showing the two bedrooms, the closets, the bathrooms. We have created this large light well set back and actually, because of the grade, this is not a fully below grade basement apartment. It is about halfway below. I will just buzz through really quick. There is the new a. D. U. I thank you have it in the updated designs. The plans upstairs did not change very much except for the setback. This was our previous design. The size of the windows was a concern, so we have change the design radically to really confirm conform to the proportions and scale, with a large windows or still important for the way that we live now with an open floor plan of creating Natural Light. That is it. Thank you. We will now open this item up for Public Comment. Since we have heard this item before, we will limit the Public Comment to one minute. If i dont have any speaker cards, but anyone who wants to speak, come on up. Okay. I guess that is it. Public comment is now closed. Commissioner johnson . Thank you. I know our comments around this last time were really focused on making sure that if this house does transition, it really could allow for not only the uses that the family needed, but future uses that might incur after the family isnt there anymore, and those changes have been made. Also, just the comments about making sure that the exterior fit better with the neighborhood i appreciate those design changes. Overall, i am supportive of the project and i would move to approve. Commissioner fong . Perhaps my question would be, could we perhaps be handled offline, but i have been hearing this for a number of cases where there is discussion about equalizing the size of units, and im not sure i understand the logic of that as a desirable effort on the part of this commission. If you have it doesnt matter whether it is a larger size in terms of four or five bedrooms, multiple floors, combined with a smaller size unit, the smaller size unit, logically, probably, and market wise, would be more affordable, not necessarily affordable, but more affordable, and so im not quite sure where my fellow commissioners are going with this were they talk about equalizing unit sizes. Perhaps we could have that policy can discussion. It has been a consistent policy direction of this commission for a couple years now. I heard it in reviewing the video of this particular case. Yeah,. We can handle that offline. Okay. We dont have a second to the motion. I will second. Great. Thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve this matter with commission with conditions. On that matter. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. Placing is on item 15. 2966 24th street. This is a conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, members of the commission. I am with Planning Department staff. The item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow the conversion of unauthorized Group Housing and to retail sales and service use for two retail tenant spaces. The unauthorized Group Housing, which includes an interior floor , stairs, bathrooms, and 28 bedrooms, was constructed within the building envelope of a former automotive garage. The proposal includes removal of all unpermitted construction within the building envelope and interior remodel of the facade. It would result in two existing commercial tenant spaces of 517 and 1,410 square feet. In order to proceed, the project requires a conditional use authorization to allow the conversion of the Group Housing to a Retail Sales Group service use. The project would result in the loss of the Group Housing through conversion, however, the unauthorized Group Housing is substandard. It lacks open space and exterior windows. Legalization of the Group Housing would require the demolition of the rear quarter of the building. Construction of a vertical addition and would yield only eight rooms. Such a project would not be financially feasible, furthermore, the legalization would create a gap in the active groundfloor retail uses required upon 24th street. The department has received correspondence and support from the project from the latino cultural district. They express, that in this circumstance, the removal of substandard housing and conversion to commercial space would be appropriate and create potential new local and Latino Business opportunities. In summary, the Department Finds a project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons. The product is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the missionary plan and general plan, the project meets applicable requirement of the planning code and provides new commercial spaces consistent with the intent of the Zoning District, the project promotes opportunities for Small Business ownership and employment opportunities, and the unauthorized Group Housing to be removed was substandard and an ice unsafe and could not feasibly be legalized. This concludes our presentation. Im happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have a project sponsor . Or we having technical difficulties . I dont think so. There we go. It is up on the screen here. Start talking in San Francisco and San Francisco government t. V. Will help you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is robert salma, i am an attorney, and i have represented bill rodriguez and his mother who are both here this morning in the front row this evening in the front row. They are the owners of the building. I have been working with them since march of 2018 to help navigate the planning and building process related to their property, in addition to abatement notices and the challenging requirements of planning code section 317. We are all relieved to be here finally before you today because this is not a particularly easy process. I will speak for a few minutes and then i want to turn over the presentation to the project architect, and then over to bill to tell you about his Family History in the neighborhood. My main purpose, however, is to urge you to approve the conditional use authorization to return the rodriguez property to a commercial use. The family has deep roots on 24 th street that continue today. Sylvia founded the music shop on 24th street in 1972 and made significant contributions to the neighborhood between 72 and 2012 when the store was closed. The reason i put the image up was because it is to the left in the former disco and the former music shop is to the right. The sign was preserved because of the historical value and the role of the music store in the rodriguezs family in the neighborhood. Bill grew up in the neighborhood and around the store. A little bit more about bill and sylvia, they are of modest means and it is their only property other than their homes in daly city and pacifica, and they have always rented this building for a commercial use. Unfortunately, it is honest tenant converted the property without ill and sylvias knowledge and without permit to illegal and unsafe housing, which amounted essentially to very small sleeping rooms with no light or windows. Acting on the complaint, the San FranciscoFire Department deemed the property unsafe and alert to the Rodriguez Family who learned of the problem for the first time. They followed the Legal Process and funded the other tenants low relocation. The property has been vacant since 2017 which has meant that it has generated no rent for the Rodriguez Family since that time worse yet, d. B. I. Continue to issue notices of violation of vagrant orders despite the fact that the planning code requirements require that no work be done to address those abatement orders until this conditional use process was complete, so we were stuck between a rock and a hard place in terms of responding to d. B. I. , which we communicated to them and the Planning Department this has been an extremely time and cost intensive process to get to you today. So far it has taken 16 months and it has cost bill and sylvia about 300,000. Two examples, there are two appraisals required as part of the section 317 process. This two appraisals amounted to 18,000. Theres also a requirement for a Construction Cost analysis, and it includes bids by subcontractors. That amounted to about 7,000. Those are just two of the costs that contributed to the 300,000dollar cost. These costs have forced bill and sylvia to get a hard money loan and use their homes as collateral, and all the while they havent had any rent. So the two reasons the Planning Commission should approve this c. U. A. Today are the Rodriguez Family has always rented this property is a commercial use and wants to continue to do so, but for the dishonest tenant, the property was continued as a commerci