Little bit on the Carriage House. This is a little odd, but i want to talk about our variance request. About a month ago, after more than a year of processing, staff told us it may not or that it is disinclined to grant our rear yard variance request for the Carriage House on the grounds that it can be approved as an a. D. U. With a waiver from the Zoning Administrator. And respectfully, this is not something the project sponsor supports for a few different reasons. First, it would prohibit this unit from being available for someone to buy. While that may not sound like much, the Carriage House is a unique Home Ownership opportunity, nearly all new 800 square foot homes are in multiunit buildings. This would be a stand alone home, allowing someone who wouldnt be able to afford a home, that opportunity. This would aban awkward a. D. U. Unit. Would be an awkward a. D. U. Unit. Finally and most importantly for the Zoning Administrator, converting the rear garage into a dwelling unit meets all the criteria for a rear yard variance. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. This is an oversized lot. The Carriage House is already located in the rear yard and has been there for decades. Literal enforcement of the rear yard requirement would result in an unnecessary hardship or difficulty. It would force the Carriage House to either remain vacant or have a tenancy type imposed on it. The difficulties would be using it as storage. I would point out the a. D. U. Approach requires the administrator to grant an exception from the rear yard requirement. Its done as a waiver administratively and without this public hearing. I would say that its necessary for important property rights, other similarlysituated projects in the last few years have been granted this kind of variance, including the project on york street which got it for a number of new units. Its a little different. I would also argue that having control over tenancy type is a significant property right as well. Converting this to a dwelling unit will not harm neighbors and create new housing in existing structures, consistent with many different policies in the city. So we ask the commission to approve this project and respectfully request that the z. A. Consider granting the rear yard variance. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Really . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner fung. Question for staff. This conditional use, then, is for the five units which includes the detached yes. Unit. And that detached unit or Carriage House is not previously a residential use so its not nonconforming then . The structure is a noncomplying structure. The use is not. Storage is permitted in the rear yard. Storage is, but residential was not there, so its not a nonconforming residential use . Correct. Okay. So the but its tied into the five units for our purposes, and the rear yard for the z. A. s purposes . Yeah, this is a little tricky depending on the outcome of the variance. What you are reviewing is a density request, and based on the Zoning Administrators take, we can sort of play with that as well. Has it ever varied . Good question. Ill go to my senior on this one. I cant recall a case quite like this. Its something for the commissions consideration as well. Because the staff noted you are considering the density. So you wouldnt need to grant the conditional use authorization for the fifth unit if they pursue the a. D. U. You would still need it for units three and four because its hr2. So you wouldnt need to grant as much of a conditional use authorization because there is another path available. The provisions are relatively new. Maybe nay they didnt hear the direction until recently. Its something the Zoning Administrator and i have, when a project comes in for a variance, and theres another alternative where they dont need the variance, that they can go through the a. D. U. Process, we have often denied those variance requests. A number of those have been appealed to the board of appeals as commissioner fung knows and the board of appeals has overturned those denials on a couple of occasions. So i wanted the project sponsor to be able to explain why they didnt think the a. D. U. Process was feasible or available to them here. So that was their opportunity, and thats what they have now done. So if the commission feels that its appropriate for all five units, i have no issue with the project itself and having housing there, its a question of is there another process by which they dont need the variance and that we would have an a. D. U. Which would then be rent controlled. Is that better than what they are proposing now . I was just confirming what entitlement request is in front of us. If we have the five units as a conditional use entitlement request but the variance is turned down, what happens . They would have the ability to have five units on the lot somewhere. Yeah, but they wouldnt have the ability to convert the rear unit. They could still do it through the a. D. U. Program. If you granted it, they wouldnt need it for the density. You want to address only the procedural question that was raised, please come forward. When i discussion discusss issue, it was suggested to me this commission could adopt a motion that is conditional, its conditional use, but it would be conditional that there would be five units. If the variance is granted and four if the variance is denied, with the idea then that that fifth unit would be an a. D. U. It would be up to five units, effectively. If the variance is denied, the project sponsor would pursue an a. D. U. Have you considered that . Thats under consideration. Okay. Commissioner moore. I want to set aside the a. D. U. Question for a moment, as much as i would like to see it, the project indeed builds condominiums, the addition of an a. D. U. In its location i think is manageable and quite a nice idea, because it was labeled as affordable by design. That holds for building an a. D. U. , that holds for renting an a. D. U. , but that aside, i think the project is approveable. I only have one question for the architect, and that is that i believe that the unit one has serious issues of no privacy at all. And im asking as to whether or not you would consider making slight modifications to that particular fact. When you look at how you get into the unit, you have to turn to page 81. Youll see that those people will be rising on the stairs going up to the other units, basically walk by the bedroom units, including those who go into the unit which one is that here . I forget my numbers, here. Unit 4, going straight to the passageway would also walk by those bedroom windows. So all three bedroom windows of units one are affected by people walking right by. The same thing happens in the rear where theres a master bedroom where the stairs, the fire escapes, the rear stairs are coming right by bedroom one and bedroom two. I consider that a lack of livability. And im wondering if theres a possibility to slightly reconfigure how those windows get light but do not come directly to the edge of the walkways and undercutting, creating an alcove. Good afternoon. Im with consulting. If i may have the overhead, please. So correct, thats the entry to unit four and unit one can be the walkway from sidewalk to that open area in front can be reconfigured to be away from the windows on the unit one and also basically provide more privacy for unit one, a buffer between that windows to the entry area. On top of that, that allyway or breezeway between the front of the house to the back of the house will be soundproof so basically mitigate any walking noise or access of the tenants in the back of the house, mitigate those noises to these two units. Thats open to work with staff to find the best solution for that. I appreciate the passageway. I dont think its ultimately a deal killer if its properly insulated, thats fine. My concern is about the windows just do not have the privacy i would be looking for. Thank you for your answer. Commissioner koppel. Yeah, i wanted to commend the architect. We have seen each other before. You guys always pretty much come by with a really contextually and modestlybuilt addition to the neighborhood. Im okay with the project as proposed but with commissioner moores additional comments included, i would like to make a motion to approve. Second. Im sorry, can you clarify the motion is for the staff recommendation with commissioner moores suggestions for design . And then if i could, i would also clarify in the motion that it would be up to five units, if thats what the commission wants, just because of the a. D. U. Thing. Wait, can you clarify what you just said . Because its two Different Things that could be. Right. So im asking if the commission can clarify in the motion you are about to make if you are okay with basically if you are okay with the project that only takes four units if they decide not to pursue the rear yard. Thats very important. To the maker of the motion. Im okay with five units, and im okay with having the fifth unit be an a. D. U. , which is what i understood the staff recommendation was. And so right . The back carport or storage being used, being the fifth unit. Thats where we get into tricky territory in that the staff recommendation is for the commission on the density the staff didnt make a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator for the variance. So they are kind of okay. But if we are approving five units as density, then the Zoning Administrator can can either grant the variance so they have the fifth unit under just a regular c. U. Provisions or deny the variance and they can still pursue it, but with the a. D. U. Its convoluted but if the variance is denied, they can still move forward with the project but with an a. D. U. And even if i guess what is the commissions consensus on the a. D. U. . I will speak to that and maybe you can provide us more guidance because im confused about what you want. I get it that you cant give them advice. He gives us advice. So i would like that to be an a. D. U. , and i get it that it provides it would possibly provide an Home Ownership opportunity for someone that would be at a lower price point than could be available. But it alsovoys a Home Ownership opportunity for it also provides a Home Ownership opportunity for someone with rental income to support their high mortgage and will provide a rental unit for someone who is going to be living there, so that would be consistent with what weve said in this commission. It is rent controlled. So we will go with that to me that would be my preference, to have five units and then have the unit in the back be the a. D. U. And i get it that it has to be attached to one of those units. I think that in the market, thats actually desirable. In the real estate market, people do look for that. Commissioner koppel. I wanted to clean up my motion. My motion was intended to include commissioner moores requests, but with the project as proposed. So please feel free to chime in and chip away at that. But that was my motion. It, it commissions preference is for the fifth unit to be an a. D. U. , then a. D. U. S get density waivers, you wouldnt need to grant the fifth unit. You could limit it to four. In the project as proposeed four plus one. Five units, but if the commission would like to see that rear unit being an a. D. U. , it could grant the i need to read what the motion says again. So in the motion, you are sayin so the motion is for the project as proposed from the applicants, it includes five units with the fifth unit being in the rear yard, obviously granting the fifth unit as a c. U. In the rear is contingent on the variances, the Zoning Administrators variance. If that doesnt go through, it is no more as proposed. So it can be separate out of this process because it doesnt need a conditional use. Okay. Got it now. I havent eaten. I will commissioner moore. Were you then saying that we support the four units with slight modifications to unit one, but the fifth unit, we would prefer not to take a variance but manifest itself as an a. D. U. , thats what we are saying. Thats not staffs recommendation. That is not staffs recommendation but that is what commissioner moore and i have said. And i think thats different from the motion that you have made. The motion of intent. Yeah. So do i hear a second to commissioner koppels motion . Second. Okay. Commissioner johnson would like to im sorry. Commissioner johnson. So the motion i think i got it, actually. So if i if it doesnt pass we have to make a counter motion. I will say i would like an a. D. U. At the rear unit. Commissioner diamond. If im to vote on commissioner koppels motion, am i voting for a five units or am i voting for a four unit c. U. And an a. D. U. . A fiveunit c. U. And the variance. You are not voting for the variance, you are even if the commission is encouraging that fifth unit could still be an a. D. U. , to complicate things further. If i vote against this motion, then we start against . Yeah, we would have another motion, yes. So, as i understand it there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the project as proposed with commissioner moores design modifications. On that motion [roll call vote] that motion fails 24 with commissioners diamond, johnson, moore and melgar voting against. Is there an alternate motion . Commissioner diamond. Oh that was not okay. Commissioner johnson. Make a motion to approve the conditional request of the four units with the amendments made by commissioner moore. Second just to clarify, you are saying four units and they have the option of adding an a. D. U. . With the option of adding an a. D. U. Do you need a second . Go ahead, commissioner diamond. Second. Okay. Theres a motion thats been seconded to approve a project with four units with the potential of an a. D. U. And commissioner moores design modifications. For unit one. Im sorry . For unit one. For unit one. On that motion,. [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes 51 with commissioner koppel voting against. Deny the requested variance that they can seek the unit through a. D. U. Program. Very good. That will place us on item 19 for case number 2018011904cua at 1420 tar very well street, a conditional use authorization. We received a request for Translation Services on this matter. Is that person here . Good, because our translator left. Good evening, planning commission, commissioner melgar. Southwest team. Im actually going to be presenting this for linda who unfortunately was ill today. The project before you is a conditional use authorization for the demolition of an existing threestory approximately 2,176 square foot singlefamily dwelling and construction of a new fourstory approximately 6,219 square foot mixeduse building with three dwelling units and ground floor commercial. The subject property is located on the parkside neighborhood and was constructed as a Single Family home in the early 1900s. Historic resource evaluation conducted for the property concluded that the home is not a resource. Properties in the immediate vicinity consist of two or threestory Single Family and multifamily dwellings, commercial buildings and two to four story mixed use buildings of varying design and construction. The block face is characterized by a two to four story builds, mixed styles. The existing structure is a twobedroom, twobath home with an attic which measures 34 feet, overall for the structure to the midpoint of the sloped roof. The new structure would provide three bedroom, three threebedroom units, two bath dwellings ranging from size up to 1632 square feet and will include a ground floor area of commercial space of 1,731 square feet. And overall building will have approximate ate of 45 feet. In addition, the project will include 1,392 square feet of usable open space through a combination of private and common open space. To date, the department has received one comment expressing opposition to the demolition of the existing residence, which is constructed back in the early 1900s. Due to to its historical value in the neighborhood. The staffs recommendation is approval of this conditional use authorization. Its on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan, all the project does involve demolition of a residence, the proposed replacement building will provide three familysized units of varying comparable size and a new ground floor commercial space. The Department Also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons of adjacent properties in the vicinity. This concludes staff presentation. Im available to answer any questions. The project sponsor is available to answer questions as is my preservation tech support. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Washington. We will now hear from the project sponsor. My name is bill, im an architect practicing and living in the city. Ive lived there since 1977 and practiced. This is my 43rd year of practice in San Francisco. I enjoy doing what i do. I raised three kids. I really try and feel that i enjoy working on projects where they are family. I do my best to have my projects be familyoriented in terms of the design, particularly in this case of the threebedroom. I also feel as a bonus you also get the commercial space at the ground level, what was there now has been rather plain, white stucco walls, its very empty, and not an attractive street to walk along. I think this will greatly enhance the pedestrian space along the street. I want to be brief. The only thing i would mention, there was confusion on my part at one point, i thought i had an email from the planning about a continuance that didnt happen, but our rendering which we did was submitted rather late. The only thing i saw on there, when i originally started the project, i assumed that it was a 40foot height limit. I was notified by planning because the retail or commercial space, i should say, below, that there is a 15foot requirement for the bottom floor so we went from 40 to 45 feet. Looking at the project now, i certainly feel, i hate to say this if my wife is is looking, but i feel the top should be eliminated. I think it would be nicer just at the set height. Thank you. One more thing. The owner isnt here. Hes owned the building 19 years. There was nobody evicted. As far as we know, there was no opposition. Ive g