It would be extremely difficult, i think, to carve out some parts of this building without losing more units and getting into that whole discussion about the loss of units with respect to other aspects of city law and policy. I think on the whole weared on the side of saying this was the right project in the right place and poster child how homesf project should work that is the basis for our recommendation. I want to second your motion. Thank you. Commissioner fong. It is interesting that the flow in terms of or waves, if you will, of Housing Development in our city. If you look at this area, you know, the first great wave was after the war when sun stream and those People Developers built quite a few of the homes here. They built it on a relatively small scale for the returning g is. As i indicated at a previous time, perhaps the norm of what we are seeing in San Francisco changed. We are now getting these 5, 6, 7 story pop ups, walk ups similar to the larger cities that we have had. I dont have an issue with the number of units here based upon the peoples comments on impact. I sort of think that the commercial space may have potentially more impact upon the neighbors than the residential units. My question to staff was a marketdriven desirable use at the ground floor leads me to think that perhaps this developer in his transition from what his original project was of six units probably overcom overcomemercial or over a over the commercial or over a garage is going to a much greater density than previously allowed but still trying to maintain to maximize Square Footage with commercial space. I would be leaning toward deletion of the commercial space from the project. Commissioner richards. I dont think residential uses are active uses especially on the ground floor. Walk by the ground floor use and the curtains are drawn and people dont want you watching what tv shows they watch as opposed to commercial. We are on the end line on this major street. I would not be in support of taking away commercial space. Commercial has to figure out how to be successful. We cant predict that. It has to be. We know that many papers are written about it. I think having ground floor residential is a nonstarter for me. To the person who said they were working with roger moore on an area plan like thing, i held up in the beginning of this meeting a long time ago a Priority Development areas. If you come to my neighborhood in the upper market, this is exactly what you are looking at on these major corridors, this type of height and density. It has to be done correctly as it scales down to the 18 or 20 or 25foot homes next door rather than just a big wall, but to the person who doesnt think somebody said the buildings are going to be built. I beg to say i think that that is what is going to happen. Those little bungalows are going to go away and you will have bigger buildings there as a result of a Prior Development area plan. I support the project with car share but not with removal of commercial space. Commissioner moore. I am quite intrigued by the idea of trying a homesf building without ground floor commercial. With traditional small commercial, mostly the spaces and commissioner richards walked around enough they stay empty. In the end all you can attract is tmobile or verizon. I would be interested to see trying to design ground floor commercial. There are quite a few taller buildings with ground floor commercial. Lower broadway, the Public Housing project just approved on seawall lot 33 is very welldone. There are many ways to do that even in active corridors. It is a question how. The unit design in this particular building is actually quite good, i believe this architect has the capability of creating ground floor residential which works. I think by dropping this additional 5 feet, we would create something much more acceptable as a larger building on the corner. I am intrigued by the idea and would actually be interested in trying that as a new variant to deal with homesf. Commissioner fung. Contrary to what was presented by one of the other commissioners, i think there is a lot of disagreement about whether ground floor residential works or not. There is a lot of people who think ground floor residential works. We have seen it all over the place on newer developments, even in very large transit or car transit type corridors such as oak street. It is also a question of whether commercial will continue to decrease and whether residential is a good filler for commercial districts. I was just going to say i dont see why we would eliminate the retail. I really dont in this particular project because of what that street is. The sun set Youth Services center is right across the street. It is full of families and kids, there is a decent Mexican Restaurant there. There is a laundromat. There are people in and out. It is right there. I cant think of why we would do that. You know, because commercial spaces have failed in other places, to me that is not a good reason to eliminate this ground floor commercial, which i actually think would make the corridor more vibrant. There are people there coming in and out of judah and also existing businesses that could be complimentary. I wouldnt want it for this project. I want to report i was communicating with staff about phase 1 environmental testing. Department of Public Health determines if a phase two is needed. They reviewed phase one and determined that phase 2 analysis was not needed. I wanted to report that. Commissionecommissioner moor. In my neighborhood, i believe commissioner moore is the only one that recalls. That we have a prominent space on 16th. Maybe 1500 square feet, 2000 square feet. We said, you know, we want to make sure we carry on the rhythm of the commercial, lets condition the project on three units 500 feet with common bathroom and trash in the back. It worked. There has never been a vacancy. It is affordable. We have a candy store and we have a skin care store. You know, one of the things, yeah, with a 2000 square foot commercial space it will sit empty for a long time. We should say these spaces you have three spaces of 500 square feet. That is how you will get somebody in there. It wont it is there forever. I will show you the project that i am talking about that worked. I think 2,000 square foot or 3,000 square feet leave open is the way of the dodo bird. We could subdivide that to three spaces. The project sponsor is amenable to adding the car share space. I would like to add a friendly amendment two delineated 700 square foot spaces, commercial spaces. And the car share. Commissioners just to adjust the car share and make sure the record is clear. Department staff will add additional findingses as to the necessity for the car share space something to the effect adjacent to the transit corridor and need for shared off street vehicular driving options for the surrounding neighborhood, generally, when we add these we need to make sure we provide findings in the record. Staff will make those amendments to the motion. The family wants to go to cost could to get a palette full of stuff. That is when you need the car. There is a motion seconded and the maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendments to amend the conditions of approval to include the car share space and to divide the ground floor commercial to two commercial spaces. Commissioner fung. I would vote yes on the project. Commissioner johnson. Aye. roll call . So moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 60. That will place us 17a and b for 2018011430 c. U. A. Sorry. We are going to take a break. Sorry for the public. It has been a long day. Left ofr 201801143o c. U. A. At 1776 green street. You will consider the conditional use request. Good afternoon, chris may of the Planning Department. You have before you a request for conditional use authorization to construct a vertical addition from automobile repair use to residential use within the rh2 and the bulk district. This is required to exceed the principal two dwelling units per lotto max mulotto max mum of ong lot. It would result in a total building of 40 feet and the change of use would allow for total of five, three bedroom units 1369 square foot of open space above the fourth floor and 2265 of private open space with balconies and terraces. 10 existing Parking Spaces retained and five bicycle Parking Spaces. It includes the restoration of two pillsters removed to allow a wider garage door opening during the 1933 alteration. While not shown on the plan the sponsor indicated the 17,000 square foot Storage Space will be an accessory dwelling unit once the residential uses are legally established on the lot. As currently written it allows it to be constructed within the multifamily buildings already occupied by residential use. While the subject property permits residential uses a. D. U. Cannot be added until the residential use is legally established through the certificate of completion for the five dwelling units. They are seeking variances to thtorear yard. The existing building occupies the rear yard and front set back. The Zoning Administrator will consider it at the hearing. I would like to read a correction to the error in findings on page 11 of the draft motion which should read that the project does not cast shadow on any parks or open space. It currently reads that it does cast shadow. Since the publication of the staff report the department received 12 letters in support and four letters in opposition of the project. Department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan. The project will add five dwelling units to the city Housing Stock bringing this into conformance with the residential uses with the planning code. I am available for further questions. Thank you. Go ahead, please. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am the project architect. The building at 1776 green street was built in 1914 as auto repair garage associated with repair on van ness avenue in the early 20th century. The front elevation retains historic characteristics. This block of green street includes two to three unit residential i don units publick and commercial section of union street. We have three residential units. We feel the density and scale is appropriate for the neighborhood and this block in particular. The new masses is to respond to the much taller and eastern neighbor and smaller structure to the rest. The two prosed addition is proposed addition is back 20 feet and it further reduces mass from green street. The rhythm of the three bays is to become meto be successfully. We look at the piers. The restoration including the 1933 renovation along with doors and windows with those in the original drawing. As you can see from the street perspective. The structure is minimally visible into the surrounding context. The walls of the existing structure encompass the site. The current commercial use fills the entire footprint. Proposal is to change the use of the existing building volume to residential use requiring a variance for the change in use only at the front set back and rear yard. We will remove a portion of the existing building volume at the rear for open space and lower the roofline at the front and rear not conforming areas. No new enclosed space or volume in the front set back or rear yard. This is to allow five residential units. We are proposing an additional dwelling unit after the building is converted to residential use at the time of substantial completion for six residential units. It will be over 1,000 square feet and one bedroom with exterior exposure. We will maintain privacy with glass and transom windows. The a. D. U. Will be one of the larger units to add rental housing to the neighborhood. We have made significant efforts to engage neighbors through public and individual meetings. Neighbors were invited to the meeting july 18, 2018. Followup Public Meeting held february 6, 2019. In addition over the past 16 months the team has held over 40 individual and small group meetings. Neighbors concerns were voiced at the originally proposed commercial space and we revised to add the a. D. U. And remove the commercial space. In addition we made the following changes in conversation with the neighbors. Residential design advisory steam and staff. We increased set back to 20 feet. Removed two stair penthouses, elevator penthouse to be left visible. The area of the roof deck to maintain privacy, neighbors have not expressed concerns about the roof deck. We modified the configuration of the light well to maintain two Property Line windows. The owner of the building is in full support of the current configuration and agreement is in place. All affected rooms in the large Apartment Building will maintain light and air through the large 12 by 46foot existing light well. We have strong support from both adjacent neighbors and neighbors in the block and neighborhood. We believe 16 neighbors have submitted written support. The two neighbor the stating opposition to the Planning Department are across the street. We met with them several times beginning in july 2018 and we can derm no reason other than views. The homes are 88 feet from the south so light, air, sun will not be affected. Roof deck is set back to 124 feet to maintain privacy. In summary, we worked closely with planning and neighbor to add six housing units. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will open up this item for Public Comment. I have several speaker cards. If the board considers it, remove the roof deck. It exceeds the 40foot height limit, as does the elevator penthouse. It also requires the rear setback. It should be 34 feet of rear yard. If we had the full rear yard, they wouldnt need the roof deck i would be happy to take any questions. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, good afternoon, or good evening. I have emailed all the commissioners on my opposition. I dont know if you received them, but i have hard copies if you like. I am a 20 year resident on octavia street. Im located directly east of this project and i oppose it for three major reasons. Those are, first, contamination. This is a Public Health and safety matter. As you know, it has been an Automotive Repair facility and collision facility for over 100 years. Theres heavy metals, paint contaminant, lead, carcinogenic material in the soil. It could take up to 50 years to naturally degrade. This is an ecological catastrophe and a threat to human health. The soil vapours are what im most concerned with. During the excavation and build, these are airborne chemicals. And through inhalation and skin contact, it poses a serious hazard. I am a parent of small children. These chemicals are known to cause learning and developmental disabilities, possibly autism. This project needs to stop immediately until the sight is decontaminated. The second issue i have with the project is the building height. It is going from an r. H. R. H. 22 beyond 40 feet with a roof deck. There is light issues, serious shadow impacts, loss of light that i will have at the back of my unit. And privacy issues at the back of my unit. I have one window and people will be able to look in. What will i do, you satiated the whole time . And then the noise issue. Theres 1300 square feet of heavy duty party roof decks. And if theres four or five of them, i can guarantee you during the day, and mostly in the evening, there will be a lot of noise. We are living in a small, confined area. There will be a lot of reverberation between the sound with the building. I had spoken to one of the developers and i agreed to the existing envelope. I agreed to maybe possibly have two units in the existing envelope. You could put two units sidebyside and put all the rooms you want. They disagreed. They want to go higher because it is all about money. They want to reach the climax. The bottom line is like sticking a square peg in a round hole. Historical value is being lost. This is a beautiful building as it sits. It doesnt fit the new proposal does not fit in existing housing and neighborhood character. It disrupts the preservation and residential character of the area and it looks awful, in my opinion. What does this project stand for it is all about money. Thats all it is. Luxury condo condominiums. It is not affordable housing. If they wanted affordable housing, you should have these units, many of them built on corridors such as gary, lombard, and then nest and have them subsidized by the Tech Companies , the big Tech Companies who want to kick people out of this city. So this overbuilding is leading to your time is up. I hope you take what ive said in consideration and oppose this project and at least keep it to the minimum of the envelope it is. Thank you, sir. Next speaker please. Hi. My name is maggie. I just recently got this notice. I immediately dropped everything to come here for this hearing because im passionate about our area. The area has been very, very nice with historical value and neighborhood character which will be ruined by this massive expansion, especially the roof deck. My house directly looks at the garages roof right now. It is low, but it will build up. It will be massive. The traffic is going to be massive in our quite in our quiet neighborhood. I am passionate passionate about keeping the neighborhood character if it is worth anything. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. I am the neighbor directly across from this property. My family and i live at 77 1775 green street. I wanted to also mentioned that there were several other neighbors who could not make it here, as we all found about this found out about this one week ago. We did have a chance to meet with the developers in a couple of occasions and i have been mischaracterized. I really am not concerned about my view. If you can see the appearance of the garage, i would welcome a facelift. I would welcome to see a nicer building and a nicer facade. What i am really concerned about , i took time out of my day i am a physician and a surgeon in some in San Francisco. I am really concerned about the Public Health and the hazardous and carcinogenic chemicals coming from this site, especially with the excavation that is planned. I have two young children. There are three children two doors down for me to the