We kind of had the same speech. Basically, to provide union paying jobs to our members and provide a lot more housing for San Francisco residents, affordable housing, and, you know, good union paying jobs where they can afford to stay here in the city. That is basically all i have got to say. Lets keep the progress going, keep people working. It is all good. Thank you. Please approve this project. Next speaker, please. Same thing to say. Thank you, Planning Commissioners. It is a pleasure to represent the members of Carpenters Local Union 22 with greg and bob representing 261. Our fellow members were here earlier today. Pretty much what they said to support the project, high paying jobs for laborers and carpenters to keep the families and benefits with the housing they can afford. Thank you very much. Approve this project and it will be great. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. I am with the labor local 261. One fact that we have to feel everybody about supporting the project for our members. We are here with the Union Carpenter operators. We go through this all of the time. Some of the benefits we end up getting by supporting this kind of project is obvious for our members, our communities and our residents. We are talking about housing. The benefits that we all get, you know, just the idea of good jobs, you know, going our way or supporting it. It is a good benefit or all of us. I encourage you to vote yes and support this project. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . I just have to say i notice this building is 42 stories high so i hope all of these workers and construction people and architects take into consideration earthquake measures. Earthquake safety. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner koppel. Vice president joel koppel , high density. I really like the building, in a good location. Thanks to the developers for making important commitments in writing. Thank you. Commissioner richards. Commissioner richards it is a great project when you have the Community Get up to support the development. I appreciate the project sponsor doing what they needed to do out there. I absolutely love the project and move to approve. Second. Commissioner. Commissioner fung funk what would it take to make this building cast zero shadows . One quick second. Commissioner fung on the park and rec part. Overhead, please. So a no shadow project would reduce as you can see, it is based on which frontage, almost 200 feet. You would lose a little more than a third of the project. Commissioner fung on the park side, not on the gardens. On the park . This is the shadow that was performed. The gardens is not park and rec. I thought that was the one. This will be the one on guy place park. A little sharter. Shorter. 160 feet along the western frontage, as short of 58 feet on the northern portion, shorter. How many units . I think you would lose 19 levels which is approximately 228 units you would lose and 32 would be the bmr units. Okay. Thank you. Just going to say thank you so much for everyone who came out. We have seen this project several times. I am glad that we came to a solution the community could support. Thank you to the project sponsor for being willing to engage in that conversation. Thank you. There is a motion seconded to adopt findings and approve with conditions. roll call . So moved that passes unanimously 40. That places us on 6 00 a. M. And m. The shadow motion, too . Items 16 a w for 2018002602 c. U. A. And var. Excuse me, folks, if you need to leave the room if you could do so quietly, we would appreciate that. 4118 21st street. Please note on august 29, 2019 after hearing and closing Public Comment you conditioned this matter to september 19th with direction by a vote of 60 with commissioner johnson absent. Seeing the second time, do you want to take up the matter of continuance . I am sorry. I think we are going to hear it. Good evening. Planning department staff. On august 29th this was continued to legalize demolition and reauthorize the dwelling unit. The sponsor was to provide a breakdown of the Square Footages for comparison. The sponsor submitted as requested by the commission the plans to show Square Footages against what is proposed as well as reducing building depth on third floor. Since the august 29th hearing they will introduce a second unit and further address neighbor concerns. The Planning Department supports that. This concludes my presentation. Do we have something from the project sponsor . There is still opportunity as recently as yesterday we spoke with planning staff to redo you see height. We can speak to the issue nozinan approve this. I am not sure which way you guys want to diet. I can move forward with the presentation quickly for my three minutes if you like. The presentation you are going to make is about the new . Are you ready . We dont have the drawings ready i can speak to that. Did you want to say something, mr. Washington. We cant hear you. I just want to clarify the project sponsor would like to work on the design. It is not a. D. U. This is rh2 district. It is Single Family resident. So clarify and get the design correct. We want to preserve the house in terms of Square Footage and additional Square Footage could be another unit. This was calendared, you know, we got a lot of communication from folks. I would like to open up for Public Comment if anybody wants to provide Public Comment . We are ready to speak to it as well. We are speaking to the projector matter of continuance . Matter of continuance. Let me be chai clear. We will hear this because we heard this before. The project has been in front of us. The project sponsor is not ready to show what they are now willing to do. The only thing we can do is continue it. If you want to speak to the matter of continuance, go ahead and come up. I have a few speaker cards. Jerry stratler, carlos, kay, andrew, cynthia snider, rodriguez and mark antoine ne. I am kay crumb. We objectject. Wwe object to the continuance. We changed schedules. There is a violation which the commission should make a ruling on before another presentation is made. Any tweaking of the plans will not be affected by that. We would like to go ahead with our presentation about the violations today. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Madam president , may i make a comment on whether to continue or not. Might i suggest that we give them direction in terms of the demolition issue and other things and should it be not the position of this commission to grant that, and i think that changes. Please help me out. We have to get Public Comment before we can give direction. If you are only accepting testimony on the continuance you are only considering the continuance right now. My suggestion is we hear this and provide direction. Require them to come back based upon the comments of this commission, then that establishes what they need to do. The problem we have nothing to hear. They are not ready to present on the new design. Commissioner richards. I think we have a volume. There is an envelope they are intending to stay within. It is not that simple. Commissioner richards. Commissioner richards i hope we dont continue this regardless of what you are going to present because we received communication what was there versus what was represented was there. I think it is very germane to the direction we do give to staff if we give direction to staff on whatever we give. I think we should continue hearing about the continuance. I will not support continuance. Lets finish hearing about the continuance. I dont think we can hear what the project is because you are not ready. Mr. Washington just told us that we werent ready. They dont have current plans, the commission could take a motion of intent to approve with specifics and they work with staff. That is an option. Commissioner richards. A demolition of a structure. That is what we are deciding on. We are not deciding on another project. It is illegal demolition of a structure. To clarify, when a project is for demolition you are reviewing the demolition and the proposed replacement structure. Both of those are part of the package. You are reviewing both components. They are both under the purview for the ceu. I think we should hear folks talk about the continuance. I dont think there ask anything to do other than continue it today, you know. Perhaps they are not ready for continuance and want to i dont see what else we can do. Lets finish. I object to a continuance. This was 4 30 p. M. Yesterday. They decided that they werent ready the commission asked them to present an appraisal to ascertain the Square Footage on this property. How can you make any rulings or bring in any new projects unless you know the facts, the tenants. I have to tell you about the tenant that was there. I am prepared to give you facts tonight. The rest of the people here are to present facts to illuminate this commission on this project because you were puzzled the last time. Please let us be heard. 390 diamonds. I want to object to further delays in discussion of this project. You need to hear about the violations that have occurred, and regardless of what they present going forward. It is not going to change the nature of the violations and it is going to impact the decisions or the guidance you might give the project sponsor regarding further action. I am cynthia from 390 diamond. I oppose this continuance for the reasons that were spoken prior to me coming up here. Frankly, i think by hearing about the violations and issues that happened on his site as my husband mentioned. They are not going to change between now and next time. It will save people time, money and design if we can address the illegal demolition and other violations. Thank you. Anyone else about the continuance . I am katrina. I live across the street. My wife and i bought a house in 1997. We knew the owners and tenants that came through. We saw this house that these folks lived in perfectly well get torn down in front of our eyes. We have been bogeled by it. We do need to continue. It was illegal demolition. It would be nice to understand more what happened and why. Thank you so much. Thank you. My name is jerry with the San Francisco land use coalition. This is simple. It is a demolition of 27 square foot home. I think the facts should be on the table. It is no different than demolition at 655 alvarado. It eliminated two units of affordable rental housing and displacement of 20 year tenant. Second unit was illegal unit behind the garage. All of these facts need addressed prior to looking at the design solution. Thank you. Good evening. I live apartment 4105 21st street across the street. I encourage you to not give continuance. We received notice from the sponsors at 4 30 p. M. Yesterday when we changed our schedules. It is an illegal demolition. The impact is something that is worth considering today. We are happy to come later on as well. We are here to give you facts and opinion. I encourage you not to give this continuance. Thank you so much. I am tony paris across the street from the property. I am in objection to the continuance today. I feel it would be the appropriate time to hear from the neighbors regarding issues that were raised with this illegal demolition that took place. Thank you. Next speaker, please. There is a little confusion with what is going on with the continuance. Commissioner richards. Commissioner richards there is material evidence that will be introduced by the neighbors which i am sitting up here looking at that is going to change the way we view the surviving project. If we dont hear this, we are going to be sending the project sponsor off to do a project after an illegal demo lyings to create value. This is absurd we would not hear what the Additional Information is. There were two units there. They misrepresented the facts. Lets hear the neighbors, see the evidence, then we can give direction to staff to work with project sponsor on whatever surviving project. Thank you, commissioner. I think we can still give direction to staff. I think this commission has been very consistent how we deal with these issues. My problem is there is nothing there to be open pining on. There is no presentation. You dont have plans, you have nothing. Commissioner richards. Commissioner richards i move we put the Building Back exactly the way the layout was before you demolished it. That is it. I am fine with that direction. We cant, you know, they are not putting that forward today as a project. Thank you. Come to the microphone. There is no motion for continuance then . Okay. I guess you present whatever you have got. Good evening, commissioners. At the last hearing this was misunderstood. We appreciate the opportunity to present this more clearly. There is no underlying reason how this occurred. The homeowners and contractor did not realize removal and replacement with no expansion or change of the building envelope would be considered a demolition. It was not demolished overnight. The city signed off on five inspections after most of the demo was concerned. All work before the nov stopped work in january mirrored the home original contractter. Contract or. The desire was to increase the height at the basement. Under this permit interior configuration would allow new baths and laundry room in the building. This would have increased the Square Footage from 3110 existing to 3260. At the last commission we were asked. We have two different appraisers. In 2017 from north point it showed original Square Footage 2841. From the associates it was 3080 Square Footage. Because this project become ten take meant to demolition due to dry rot and stub standard construction. This has an existing nonconforming rear extending to the rear yard open space needed constructed to todays standards. As a result the plans before the commission and i will briefly describe the plans. We believe we see can provide a unit within the current envelope we are proposing now. On the second level above the basement we are pulling back the rear depth by 12 feet. A benefit to all neighbors. On the first level we are creating 5 by 12 set backs to benerage new open space on both sides. This space the home occupied at the time of purpose. On third level four feet beyond code compliant. How many minutes do i have . You had three. The Planning Department working with them suggested that we need to eliminate the nonconforming rear. As a result because of the flow of the house and this is a multigenerational home with two sets of grandparents with the family we needed the space we lost in the rear on top. It looks like i am out of town. We are proposing to put an additional united on the basement within the current structure we respect proposing. Now we will take Public Comment on this proposed project. I will remind members of the public this is the second hearing that is why they received three minutes. You will each receive one minute. Can we get the overhead projector, please. There was a second unit. Number two that multiple permits to remodel were filed instead of following established procedures to demolish. Three the structure Square Footage was misrepresented. First, the contract in septembet buyout process was underway. A series of permit applications was filed. At the time of sale one of the three applications filed only one for interior remodeling and basement excavation was issued. 11 days after that structure looked like this. Third, the records show the Square Footage was less than what the owners claim. Your time is up. I am owner pat 390. In the city there is a process to follow. What we have here is series of permits to remodel and renovate. First was filed in february 27, 2018. The permit was issued june 28. This was the only permit approved for the project. 17 days after issuance it looked like this. Two months later the foundation was gone. Four months later new foundation and rebuildinand recontinues. The second was filed for additional remodeling. Planning requested conditional use. Owners did not followthrough. On december 26 a third permit submitted violation from d. B. I. For workout of scope. It demonstrates the process was not followed. Your time is up. Commissioners may call you up for additional questions. Overhead, please. Greetings. A tenant. As they state in a letter regarding 4118 21st street we entered contract in september 2017. At the time a tenant was living there. Howard epteen, the landlord was going to issue unlawful detainer. She accepted buyout. Tenant relinquished the property possession on october 31st. The hre form documents shows a wood frame building of multi family and the tenant was displaced from her rental unit. It was subsequently demolished. 4118 21st street is one story over two unit building. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners, here is what we have learned about 4818 21st street. The property had a second rental unit which the owner failed to disclose. Overhead. The property had a second rental unit which the owner failed to disclose was rented since 1975 per the report. We have statements from the tenant and previous owners which confirms they were the second rental. It was rented over 20 years by a tent bought out months before she turned 59 and a half. According to the statement it was entered into before they entered into contract to buy the property in september 2017. The buyout negotiations were taking place. According to the statement, the owners entered into the contract to buy the property in septembet negotiations were taking place. Thank you, sir, your time is up. The top floor was rented for 10 years which the email from the forger owner confirms. It is me again, katrina. I am sharing a letter from the woman who lived in the lower unit. I was friends with her. She was bought out. These are her words about her livings situation. I lived at 1418 and a mavuntil the building was sold in 2017. I did not have any access to the apartment upstairs. Their door was at the front and my apartment was at the garage. I had separate entrance from the outside. There was a door in if garage leading to the apartment upstairs. I did not have a key. I paid 600 a month rent when i moved in and 1,000 when i moved out. That was an affordable piece of housing rent for her. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. At the last could we have the overhead, please. At the last hearing commissioner richards asked for an appraisal report on the demolished house. We obtained the official appraisal for the former owners for the 2002 refinance the total Square Footage 2613 square feet which excludeses the basement storage room below the garage level no more than 182 square feet. We located two city documents which give the demolished building area. 1955 permit certification from the hre shows ground lure at 1250 square feet and San Francisco plannings own land use information says it is 2671 square feet below legal height. No official documents show a building larger than 2671 square feet. Thank you, maam. I am rodriguez at 4105 21st street. We urge you to mandate consistent enforcement of illegal merger of the two units. This was an interior remodel of 2671 square feet. Today the project is substantial increase. It is a very large increase from what was there originally. They said that the current proposal does additional Square Footage to the ver very cal addition. I brief believe it is over what it was. They should not be rewarded with substantial increase in the Square Footage building. That reward should not be done. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Overhead please. I am tony paris 4105 21st 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