Street. The building was demolished on july 24, 2018 before the structural problems were reported. The foundation poured is the subject of variance requested today. This is not an extraordinary and exceptional circumstance. We ask the commission not approve this variance and uphold the previous rulings by mandating building in the predemolition size and restoring breezeway and not rewarding violators with a vertical addition. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, commissioners. I am carlos. I own 4124 21st street next to the project. The Planning Department received the false letter. Please remove that from your records. I have never supported th the project. The space around my home because of the new construction. They said they were going to stay within the envelope of the new house. The new wall is up against my house. Before i could walk between the houses. The new construction touches my roof and the space is flush with my house. Please dont let that happen. Thank you. Next speaker, please. An i am jerry dratler. In addition to misrepresenting the side of the existing home, the project architect submitted flans that failed to show the size of the home demolished. He did not attest to the accuracy of the information in the environmental application and submitted the knowledge permit Building Permit with the increase in cost. The project is not necessary or desirable given the citys need for affordable rental housing and should be denied. The Planning Commission should inquiry construction with the same size home with the same number of Housing Units that were illegally demolished. Public comment is closed. Commissioner richards. Commissioner richards my issue was how big was the prior house . We have an appraisal from 2002. There were no Building Permits to enlarge. Then we have a Planning Department notification 2671 square feet. These to me seem irrefutable it was no bigger than the appraisal of the planning notice says. Appraised in 2002 noted the crawlspace, basement space. I think 2002 had a Square Footage 26 something on the document. The liveable square foot as the appraiser typed it like the permit it was livable 1200. I dont see the copies just from the slide 26 something total. Mr. Took. We talked about that at the last hearing. Every time the area of a home is calculated people use different methods which areas to include sometimes it is livable. When up the ground floor with a garage open to Storage Space, basicicly the well floor was open. It is hard to determine what much of the area the appraiser and assessor calculated to the usable or livable floor area. It is pretty clear from the floor plans how the building was laid out. You can get that from the Aerial Photography as well. It was made clear they got permits to extend the basement level and fill that in to convert is not livable space not finished to livable space. It is challenging to compare numbers between different documents with Square Footages by different methods. We dont have a definition how each assessor chose to include Square Footage. I want to put that as a challenge in terms of comparing actual numbers and understand that is going to be hard to get to an exacted calculation. Based on the layout of the building itself and the floor plans between what previously existed you get a ballpark feel to what they can comparable areas were. Is that 2671 on the Planning Department document as total Square Footage . The best numbers is what the sponsor provided. They actually provided updated plans with area calculations based on what was original, what was proposed now. The issue with the project sponsor said Single Family house with two units. The envelope of the building that existed in the past is not in dispute. We have documentation how big the building was. They are not demonstrating that the basement level was 20 feet deeper than it was or ground floor was 20 feet deeper than it was. Ththe numbers you can measure in different ways. The mass in the building that is something we can derive pretty clearly based on information we have. The issues are more challenging to derive we can go through that with the documentation we have. Before i pass the mic, if you look at the appraisal from 2002, how much does it match what is handed in tonight . Appraisers are licensed professionals. They dont make things up, trust me. I have had many, many appraise sams. Appraisals. Appraisals. I am not saying we shouldnt trust appraisals. It may use a certain method for liveable area. I have the same thing in the house i have. They give you value for this livable space and do the Square Footage on the nonlivable space and a fraction what it is worth. Take a look at this, please, to see what was handed in how faroff we are. Commissioner tang. Commissioner fong the variance request has changed, hasnt it . No, i dont believe so. The variance is required. Previously the building was not conforming. It went to the rear yard. After the demolition anything rebuilt has to be code complies. They scaled back the rear. The rear is conforming. The code allows a two story popout. Up to have a knife foot set back on each side to the ground. They are proposing to keep those. The front set back is still requested a variance . The front, i believe is, i dont know if there is an issue. There is a short sidewalk and the window requires the measurement from the landscaping. My opinion is you are taking a building that was nonconforming, sticking out further in terms of impact on adjacent neighbors and making it more conforming. It is still not conforming in terms of popout dimension. Weighing that against what occurred with the demolition. The project sponsors have indicated that they are not speculators and that it was accidental with respect to the demolition, i accept that word. The question is what is the proposed project in terms of anything that i would find objectionable . I dont find any. Commissioner richards . Commissioner richards do you have a copy of the appraisal . Could we see it . The 2002 one. The one at the time of the purchase, the mortgage appraisal if we could have the overhead. If i could see the hard copy. It is the one that i referenced. It shows 2841 of square feet gross livable area. At the time of the construction loan because this is just a family home they had Square Footage with different calculation of 3387. That is why we submitted the lower number as we noted the plans. It was 3025 and the 2841 because of the discrepancy. I am happy to entertain what your appraisal is if i can have a hard copy of it. I apologize. Yes, sir. One other question. One of the accusations was there was a dry rottish shoo. The whole building was knocked down before the drew rot permit was sought. We got five inspections. The inspector did tell the contractor to do an exploratory permit. The contractor did not but nevertheless the inspections continued to happen. While the owners knew the contractor asked for 150,000 more for replacement of dry rot. One of the interesting things we as a commission have centered around is the architect, structural engineer, contractor, they are all part of the project sponsor team. We have on 655 alverado if architect did this and the believe is down. Wait, these are your folks, auhired these. If you have a claim you need to pursue the contractor and hope he is in accident. Business. We have before us the project sponsor and what happened. On that point, we have had subsequent inspections. I am told they are passing. Uneducated to this process, i think you are well said i have a legal action against the contractor. It is within my control. For that i take full responsibility. When you had d. B. I. Coming out to in over multiple five inspections i would have hoped that they also would have instructed us to proceed in a different fashion, but it is well said that it is our responsibility as the owner so for that i apologize. I would love to hear dbi come and say there was a permit. This is what happened. Here is the date. This is what happened. We get this every week. When i said this, mr. T and our new director and i am going to the board of supervisor, we have to have people reconstruct things is crap. I am sorry. It is garbage. It encourages bad behavior. Absolutely agree. In this case these are two working parents with a family. The inspections arent stopped but the contractor says here is the money. The contractors are trying to get more money from homeowners. This is very unfortunate. The facts are different on other two properties. Now they have to reconstruct their home. That is the difficulty we are in. Commissioner richards. Commissioner richards i move to disapprove. Second. Commissioners if there is nothing further there is a motion seconded to disapprove the conditional use authorization and i would recommend we take a motion of intent to allow staff to draft that disapproval motion. Absolutely. On that motion of intent then to disapprove and to continue out to i would say october 10th, commissioner. roll call . That motion fails 22 commissioners. Is there an alternate motion . There is no alternate motion. There will be de facto disapproval. Move to continue this case to allow other commissioners to weigh in. October 10th. We are only going to gain one more commissioner. Further out then . Move it out to november . November 14th. I make a motion. 11 14. Okay. Is there a second . Second. On that motion to continue to november 14th. roll call . The motion fails 22. I think we are stuck here. Unless somebody wants to change a vote it is a de facto disapproval. Commissioners that places us on items 17a and b case no. 2018 no. 2018009534 c. U. A. On 45 cull he bra terrace. You continued to july 18th by vote of 50. Commissioners fung and hillis were absent. On july 18th it was continued again. Again subsequent continued without hearing to todays date. This is our third hearing. One minute. I am Christy Alexander with the staff. This is to allow demolition of the dwelling and construct a new four Story Building with two dwelling units. It proposed one off Street Parking space and variance for exposure and two feet encroachment to the yard. Since the memo last week we received letters of support from all neighbors and this morning you should have received the final email letter with the neighbors who were in opposition before are now in full support of the parking garage, conditional use authorization and variance. With that said the Department Recommends that you approve the project and the project sponsor would give a presentation. I am here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. You get one minute. I will be quick. Thank you ryan patterson. Happy to report in the time since the last hearing where you directed us to go back to work with the neighbors to find Common Ground and a solution to this we have done so. Neighbors are in support of the project. You have a letter in the records and on the overhead as well from the neighbors who were opposing the project. This is in addition to the i believe three additional letters from other neighbors supporting the project with the garage as proposed supporting the conditional use authorization and variance. The architect is here to answer any questions you may have when the projector variance. It was fleshed out and i want to take a moment to thank planning staff for the staff time to get to this point and the neighbors themselves. We have ended up in a good place. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Good evening, michelle scott. We havwe have reached an agreemn the letter he emailed you. The agreement is that mr. Eastwood will surrender two parking passes in exchange for garage in space 8. Spaces 7, 8, 9 will not change in any way. My clients wanted to be clear about the point that support of this project is solely limited to the project and did not constitute a waiver of anylem rights of any kind. As for future contracts which impact it the parties assert easement or otherwise to contest the further project. They want to be clear that their agreement is solely intended to support this project only. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . I am jennifer lender across the street. This is a really special treat the community is engaged in. It was important to find agreement which is the reason why we agreed to the garage. The community in general still feels the building is too large. It is out of context with the rest of the street in terms of size. It is a one story cottage with a small space underneath that is two units and increasing parking beyond what the building having a garage and space is. My personal home looking to my bathroom and bedroom removing all light, narrow street. My Children Play in the street. Moving all the things. It is designed to go on a large lot rather than small one cottage space currently there. If we get a building we want to agree with the new owner but we feel the building is out of size and context for the street. You dont accept this agreement . Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment be is closed. No, no, no, i am an immediate neighbor. As part of the community i disagree with the last speaker. I think the project is perfect. I support it. I support a garage as many other neighbors have for quite awhile and have submitted letters to the commission. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. Commissioner. Commissioner fong fong is there agreement or isnt there . I think i should distribute the written agreement the letter from the neighbors. She was standing up to say she does support the project as proposed. It is surprising to me. The statement signed by counsel is supporting this project as proposed. Commissioner richards. Thank god. I move to approve. Second. On the motion to approve this matter with conditions. roll call . That motion passes unanimously. Close the public hearing for the variance and grant with standard conditions. If we could go back to 16b. Sorry. We need a small break. We are down to four. Hold on. Go ahead. Going back to 16b for. We would take that matter under advisement. Thank you. Commissioners we left off on item 18, for 2019004691 c. U. A. 1347 27th avenue. The project is conditional use authorization for demolition of existing Single Family home and construction of a new two family home in rh2. Demolition of two story Single Family home and construction of new 5355 gross square foot four story two family home. Unit one on the bottom with two bedrooms and total of 1925 square feet. Unit two four bedrooms and three full baths 2158 square feet. One vehicle and one bicycle space for each vehicle. There was an application meeting on mar2019. Three maybes voiced concerns of the height of the building. The department received 25 letters of support describing the dwelling unit to the neighborhood. Consistency of the project design with existing neighborhood character and the garage spaces will not impact Street Parking. The department received four letters of opposition to the project from neighbors voicing concerns over the fourth floor on light and privacy to add jay sent buildings and out of context to the the neighborhood and concerns of the conversion of three unit structure and effects of neighboring foundation. I believe there was one additional. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization request as noted in executive summary. It does involve demolition of the structure, proposed will provide two family sized units. It is not Historic Resource. This is a point of clarification. The unit is not occupied it is vacant. No known evidence of eviction it is consistent with rh two zones. That is concluding my presentation. The sponsor is here with a quick presentation. Good evening, president melgar and members of the commission. I am going to edit this on the fly so bear with me. The reason we are asking for demolition is because the existing driveway goes up 4 feet 9 inches from the street. Any attempt to modify the building to add fourth floor. The existing building is seen from the street yesterday. Here is a closeup of the driveway. So again the building on the left has 17 grade in the driveway. Ours is 29 . On the right is 26 . This is what we are proposing. Four Story Building, 40 feet tall. It is only 15 inches taller than the building on the left, a three story Single Family building 38 feet above the roadway. The building on the right is three story Single Family. I can go into more detail. The long and short the building is not bigger front or front, a few inches here and there. Taller by 13 feet to add 7 bedrooms and additional Single Family housing dwelling unit rather. This is designed for the homeowners who have a few words to say. I am lydia. This project will provide housing for my family. I have lived in San Francisco for 15 years. I continue to work downtown. We have been looking for housing for a few years and unable to find anything with enough space for my family. We plan to have three generations me, my husband, two young kidses and inlaws and parents. My husband and i work from home. The Additional Office space is needed for us. Thank you. We will now take Public Comment on this item. One speak consider card, mr. Lee. Okay. Any other Public Comment . No. It is you . Come on up. I am the neighbor in the sun set area. I lived in sunset for 40 years. I think sunset Needs Housing now because the children are growing up and family is expanding, and we need more, you know, housing, actually. The kids are growing up, they have married and have children. We need places for children to sleep. I believe the project is really