Residential building at 399 free monfreemont and a portion is sitting empty everyday. Because of the configuration of the garage and the fact that it of course tends underground, it really isnt feasible to convert in unused space to, for example, residential uses or any other active uses. For reference, udr is proposing to convert a portion of the parking garage at another one of its buildings, directly adjacent to this one throug to add to thg garage area but thats not feasible here. So the sponsor would like to put this garage to better use by making about 30 Spaces Available to the public and relieving some of the unmet demand for parking in the hill neighborhood. The Planning Commission has previously approved similar nonaccessory parking uses for udrs buildings at 388 beil, and the sponsor worked with pdi to oversee the operations, manage reservations, collect revenue and ensure tax payments are made to the city and they propose for the past successful relationship with p ci, as well this impacts safety which is critical, as well. The building currently has modern security features, including a camera in the garage and 24 7 concierge staff on site. The resident floors are not . . . By anyone withouand they are loy features to the garage to secure the doors from the garage into the building. Although, they need to make sure that any changes to those doors will comply with fire and safety requirements. Similarly with respect to pedestrian safety, the proposal here is to use a recently constructed facility in accordance with the uses it was constructed for. While the sponsor does not believe there are existing safety features or safety features that require addressing, they are looking into options to add additional notification for pedestrians on the street when the gate is being open and closed. In short, we believe this is a sensible reuse of constraint space in an existing facility and the staff report demonstrates that the findings for the conditional use can be met. So we respectfully ask the commission for approval today. Thank you. Worri just wanted to get your pulse on how this building has been doing. I heard you say that it was the total spots in the 200s . 251. How many of those were used, typically . On a daily basis, about 200 are occupied, so 50 are empty. As it is today existing, are there any electric vehicle charters . There are. The propose is for advanced reservation, so the flow into the garage is secured and controlled in that way. Once individuals are within the garage, there is not a physical separation other than ramps in between the proposed Public Parking area and the residentonly parking area. Its access into the residential spaces. I think under the circumstance and the fact that the applicant has a track record of running similar programmes in other buildings that had any other issues, they didnt think it was necessarily warranted to install an additional security gate. Its also my understanding that just given the way the garage is configured, it would be challenging, because there isnt a clear point where would be place to install another interior gate. please stand by . I would be hesitant to see all vacant spaces previously assigned to residential uses now being converted to commercial spaces when we are really under the mandate to decongest downtown, making downtown more transit and pedestrianfriendly, and getting away from cars. As these spaces become commercial spaces, we are we inviting people to drive to downtown and park their car for commercial use rather than for those with which these spaces were originally intended. I think it would be a step backward to a more car free, less congested downtown. I just want to throw that out. The director his is not here today, but i see mr. Rogers over there putting it on your to do list to look at this as a trend and how do we address the chan trend as we move forward. There has always been a request for newer buildings for applicants to consider the possible conversion of how below greater at grade parking can be adapted to other uses over time. Im not sure when this building was built, but i would like us to dig deeper and not just to do parking to parking. This is not a comment against your project, but a comment by which, we as Planning Commissioners, need to look into the future and be creative about adaptive reuse of parking other than car oriented uses. Thank you. Commissioner hillis . I would fully support 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 accomplish