Commissioner moores comments on this. Were definitely seeing this trend and i believe we will see it Even Stronger as we move to the future. Ideally this would be housing. We are seeing it even with 80 used a. D. U. S in some of the neighborhoods. I think it is a great idea to look at this broadly and encourage housing where we can get it. I moved to approve. Second. Commissioner moore . To take this further, thank you for your support. What we would also need to look at is where is line or space possible because the report speaks about activating straight friends through greening and active uses. This particular garage, which is simply a garage would continue to be one. It is not really a visual transformative adaptation here, but we should think about that as well as we move forward. If there was nothing further, there was a is a kept motion that has been seconded with conditions. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. That will place us on your discretionary review calendar for item nine. Discretionary review. Note on june 6, 2019, after hearing and closing public comment, we continue this matter to july 18th, 2019 i a vote of 50. In order to participate, those absent will have to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. I have. I have. Thank you. Subsequently on july 18th and august 29th of this year, you continued the matter without a hearing. Good afternoon. A staff architect. As jonas just mentioned, we initiated request for discretionary review of the Building Permits to construct a third story vertical addition to existing two story, two family house that was previously heard on june 6th. At that hearing, your deliberations focused on the following issues for the project sponsor to continue to explore and address one, the privacy issues at the rear south facade, second, some study sun study with respect to the properties at the rear, and three, the possibility proposed by the project sponsor of adding an accessory dwelling unit. All of which they have done. Staffs recommendation was that the situation does not represent any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with issues brought forth by the d. R. Requester. Thank you. Can we hear from the d. R. Requester . There are copies of my submission. Is that the time allotment here correct . You will have three minutes. Thank you. Commissioners, my name is james. I live at 49 steward street, unit one. I am one of the d. R. Requester his. The project architect wants you to believe the project complies with the residential design guidelines. But here is a comparison of what the guidelines say and what seward street reveals. The example given in the guidelines might as well be our exact block because 50 seward street as part of a row of six identical homes. This project will destroy that and set a terrible precedent. Complete the mirroring the illustration on page nine of the guidelines, the block revival style homes has a strong visual character. How does allowing this project respect the integrity or the spirit of the guidelines, which are meant to preserve the city we all love . It states that the subject block is characterized by two mediterranean two story revival style homes just like the subject style property. She goes on to say half of the homes on the block were constructed in either 1928 or 1929 and show the same general massing and appearance of the subject property. She further points out that these homes, including the subject property, all have double canted bay windows at the second floor level, surmounted by a red tile element, which exhibit a concentration of buildings historically and statically united by plan and physical development. The plans you are considering today would result in a home that objectively dishonour defies the guidelines and destroys the block face visual character. Furthermore, at the last hearing , the architect quoted his sun sons study and claimed my property would only lose a small amount of sun. However, the sun study done at the interim of this commission shows the project results in new shadowing on my residents of at least one hour and ten minutes, which amounts to a loss of approximately half of my total direct light. My partner and i keep the heat off and allow our home to naturally warm up in the morning in an environmentally hent friendly way. We also redirect sunlight from our front garden. The impact of the proposed project shadow effect on our residence is substantial. The plans include an additional story. The desire to amass an absurd amount of additional Square Footage doesnt justify seizing a valuable resource such as light from neighbors living within their footprint. I am not opposed to my neighbors improving their home, but the owners project is costly in a zerosum game and they run afoul of the guidelines and an un ignorable way. The project does not enhance or conserve neighborhood character and does not balance the right to develop the property with the impacts on nearby properties. I believe the Planning Department has not provided sufficient consideration of these facts and that discretionary review should be granted. Thank you. Are you part of the d. R. Requester . Yes. You have three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon. I will be speaking on behalf of myself and my husband. We reside at 49 steward street across the street from 50 seward we would like to make it clear we do not oppose renovation, we oppose the scale and a sign of the proposed building and its impact to our neighborhood. Fifty seward is already a large building, it is 3400 square feet it has a nonconforming narrow rear setback. The proposed plans at approximately 1800 square feet by moving the front of the building 10 feet closer to our building, adding a fifth story, and switching the garage to the garage. The plans are extensive. However, the owners do not want to demolish the building because a new construction would need a proper rear setback and that would cause the building footprint to become smaller than it is now. The owners claim they need to enlarge the building to get three bedrooms on one floor for the safety of their family and to request store a second unit, yet the adjacent sister building is currently undergoing a gut renovation and has achieved those exact same features within the envelope of the existing building. Our neighbors who own 54 seward is here today to describe his renovation during public commentary. The owners claim the building must be expanded to meet the familys needs are without merit the plans also include a third unit, at 281 square foot a. D. U. That is the size of a hotel room it is hard to imagine that will be a desirable rental units. The idea of the a. D. U. Did not come from the owners, it was introduced by the architect during the june 6th hearing. On the commissioners at that time were asking to reduce the living size living space size , he offered the a. D. U. As a shot from the hip idea. It is a strategy, frankly, to maintain the proposed Square Footage of the building while trying to appease the commissioners concerns. We invite you to watch the recording if you doubt my assessment. On the overhead here, some data. I believe the one true goal of these plans is to maximize the Square Footage of the building in order to maximize its value. There was a trend in our neighborhood of dramatically upsizing buildings for profit and it has been consuming our neighborhood and the data i show on the overhead, just in the last five years, we have seen five homes on adjacent 19th street that were similarly developed into large Luxury Properties and flipped. Allowing the proposed changes to 50 seward will be a turning point. It will put the character of our charming street at risk. Sixteen of the 34 buildings have the same style as 50 seward. If it is allowed to be demolished and turned into a giant luxury building, the commission will be setting a precedent to allow future developers to consume the rest of our neighborhood. Thank you. Is there anyone here in support of the d. R. Requester his . Third and final d. R. Requester. Thank you so much. I also have materials for the commissioners. And live at 64 seward street and im speaking on behalf of myself and my husband. I will just focus on key concerns, but i think there were a number of items in need to be addressed with this project. The proposed changes are extreme and extraordinary and if approved would increase a property to one that is over 5,000 square feet with eight bedrooms and one parking spot. There are 15 letters of objection to this project from neighbors on record, and neighbors have every right to be concerned. To start, and james mentioned this, the San Francisco residential guidelines are very clear. They state proposed projects must respect the existing pattern of building entities. From this picture, the building entities four seward street for all six homes, and the entrances are consistently located on the lefthand side. The proposed design is incompatible with this, is a failure to design this would be blatant disregard. Why do the sponsors want to switch the entryway . First it was because they said their car bottomed out. There is no evidence of this in terms of markets on the concrete or the garage. After that was pointed out, they said, it could be because the driveway is unsafe. Again, this driveway has been in use for 90 years and theres no record of any injury on seward street. There is no hardship involved for the sponsors and keeping the entryway on the current side and consistent with the drg. The next point is something in which i am no expert, but it is regarding to the front setback. The design uses the alternative method for calculating the front setback pick this methodology incorporates the front setback of the adjacent properties for 54 seward street shown on the left, it is 12 feet and 3 inches , and there is no front setback for others. And for the purpose of the point i want to make, all this all that is important as 54 Stewart Seward street has a greater setback of the two adjacent properties. If you look here, on section 132 of the planning code, it states when using alternative my fridge method of averaging, all portions of the property must be directly exposed laterally to the setback of the adjacent building having the greater setback. That is not the case here. That would involve this part here. You have to walk through the garage to get to this side of peters house. Im no expert, i have asked for explanations. Nothing has been provided. I think it is important a logical explanation is provided. The third floor deck needs to be cut back 5 feet. Thank you, your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, anyone here in support of the d. R. Requester . You have one minute. My name is peter. My wife and i and our children on the premises at 54 seward street which is directly nextdoor. I want to show you on the rendering the back facing carson street. You see in the diagram where the red flags are, is the proposed monster property. We are under construction right now, in our property, same footprint. We have not gone an inch higher or lower than the envelope of the property. We have four bedrooms on our top floor. We have a bedroom and a half down below that, and we will have a total of four bathrooms. We kept it all within the envelope, consistent with the neighborhood. This project is way out of whack you look at the home on the block, and it is totally. Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you. Anyone else in support of the d. R. Requester his . This is another example of the ongoing a rampage to transform neighborhoods into hotels, into air b. And b. , and to flip more houses in San Francisco, which this Planning Commission has been supporting. Basically, neighborhoods like north beach have been turned into hotel districts. And we are setting the same thing up for other districts in San Francisco. The neighborhoods are being destroyed in this is part of the whole development problem which this Planning Commission is representing. It needs to be opposed. These marauders who basically are speculators have to be driven out of San Francisco. Anyone else in support . Seeing none, project sponsor . Because there are multiple d. R. Requester his, the project sponsor will have six minutes. Thank you. Im representing the project sponsor. I want to introduce kelly and kyle and their son right here and there sun son knocks cannot be here because he was napping. We are here after three months. Commissioners hillis and funk were missing from that and so im going to go over the project a little bit. Commissioner richards, thank you for your support last time. The architect will go over the changes after me and will discuss the changes made after the request of the two commissioners who asked that certain things be considered. The existing building today has 2500 conditional square feet and is a singlefamily home. Where our clients have been living since 2015. There will be two Additional Units added. First and a. D. U. , and second, the restoration of a unit that the prior universe removed without authorization. Despite the addition of 2,032 condition square feet, in order to add the two units, the height is only increasing from the current 20foot 2 inches, 230 feet 3 inches. In order to accomplish this and add all that Square Footage, there are two things that have been done. One is converting existing basement storage space, and the end used streetlevel floorspace to conditioned space to be habitable. Number two, excavating to create a two store unit whose light will be excellent as it will be entirely above the streetlevel of carson, which is below the entire building. Besides allowing the children to sleep on the same floor as their parents and allowing kelly and kyle, if necessary, to bring them bring in their aging parents at a later time, this project really only adds a modest amount, and it allows the family to stay in the neighborhood that they have been in since 2015. I did want to mention, by the way, that none of the d. R. Requester his come from adjacent properties and none of the people who live next door in the multiunit building have testified against this project in any way regarding privacy or light. Finally, this project accomplishes several benefits to the city. First of all, it restores units that was previously removed by a prior owner without authorization. Second, it adds an a. D. U. Unit. This a. D. U. Project unit will be subject to rent control, will be forbidden from air b. And b. Type platforms, and can never be sold as a condominium. John . Good afternoon, commissioners at the last hearing, there was a discussion that the social space was too large, and due to this comment, we added a streetlevel a. D. U. And reduced the social space. Adding in a. D. U. To the existing space requires a waiver from the d. A. If more than 25 of that space is taken. In our case, the d. A. Waved was willing to waive enough space to create a 281 squarefoot studio a. D. U. , but not enough to create a one bedroom that we were originally wanting that would be more desirable and more rentable and comfortable from a tenants perspective. We did reduce a social space by converting the family room on the second floor from the street , that is, into an office for kyle who has now changed jobs and is working at his home fulltime. But the social space being reduced to just a kitchen, dining room, and living room. The original proposal included windows that provided light for the a. D. U. And a lower second unit and due to commissioner moores concerns, we did and up removing the two windows in the johnsons top unit but did keep the windows at the kitchen and bedrooms because they face onto the blank wall of the adjacent neighbor and impose no privacy concerns. At the a. D. U. , we wanted to keep that window so we made it smaller and we raised it to eye level, and also added a permanent privacy screens to the tenant will be able to at least get some Southern Light to the terrace we are providing for the required outer space. And at the lower two bedroom unit, we kept the window because it has no effect on privacy as it is wonderful floor below the neighbors living space. We hope that is acceptable to you. We met with the d. R. Requester his in august and had a thorough discussion on the sun study. The upper unit is that, at the worst case is having 20 minutes of shadowing that ends at 6 00 a. M. In the morning and 40 minutes of shadowing to the lower unit. We understand he disagrees with our analysis and therefore we have done a much more extensive sun exposure analysis that we were not able to share we we are going to share with you if you are interested, please ask me about that. For carson street, there is no additional shadowing. There will be increased sunlight to the neighbors below. Therefore we ask you to take d. R. And approve the project as we submitted. Im happy to answer questions if you have any. Thank you. Is there any member of the public in support of the project sponsor . Seeing none, since this is our multiple times hearing this, we will not have rebuttals. Commissioners . Question for the project sponsor. If the d. A. Does not grant a waiver on the size of that a. D. U. Unit, what is the recourse . The d. A. Did confirm that he is going to grant the specific Square Footage of the waiver for the studio a. D. U. And it was reviewed by planning staff. We were trying to, or asking him to waive further Square Footage for this, especially since the second unit is not really defined in this project, and we were hoping to get the additional bedrooms so it could be part. That is my question. You are saying that you would have preferred a onebedroom versus the studio, and im asking you, what recourse you have against the d. A. s determination. So if we dont get the second waiver from the d. A. , we will have, as i indicated, the a. D. U. Of only 281 square feet. We feel a tenant would want more , even a studio should be more, but we would prefer a two bedroom. My question is what is the recourse . The recourse would be that we would have to appeal your determination or we would have to ask the d. A. For a letter of determination that might result in a second waiver, but i ask you to ask the d. A. Himself because this is unusual. I havent been involved in it as regards to the recourse if we only get one waiver, and not the other. Im only speculating. I could add, there was a communication from the planner through conversation with the d. A. , that the quick definition of what is allowed for waiver is that it says something about it being, unless the area produced is not usable, and it doesnt allow for preferable. It also doesnt recognize the fact that we are in an unusual situation where we dont have a