The ceqa extension date of the existing two story with the was approximately 3190, and that the proposal that was reviewed is ready 940. I am not in is 3940. I am not entirely sure if ceqa was before or i think it was done at the same time. I am sorry. When this home was sold, and says clearly it was 1640 square feet. Wheres the discrepancy . Sometimes what areas you include in your Square Footage will be different depending on who is calculating. I am just saying, i cant speak to how they calculated what their Square Footage is area sometimes they dont count the garage, or storage space. There was a crawlspace that was not a habitable space. Prior to the proposal here, was to actually make that habitable race. I dont know if that area was included in the calculation. The only numbers i have to that effect in this case report from the ceqa review. Thank you. One more question for planning, on this, so we go to commissioner richards, bill back what was there, what is plannings disagreement with that staff can speak about the design review. Generally speaking, when someone removes voluntarily removes, a portion of the structure and they want to put it back, the baseline is co conforming, and then reviewing it again fresh with the residential Design Guidelines. From that perspective, i think the staff review with a Residential Design Advisory Team determined that what is in front of you today, along with perhaps taking the variance portions away would be more consistent with the residential Design Guidelines. Portions of this would require correct. The pop out at the rear is permitted. If youre going to do two stories you have to have a 5foot setback on each side. The alternative is you can do full lot with only one story. The proposal was, or the recommendation from staff was to either make that completely co compliant, and also there was obviously a bit of tradeoff that staff felt was consistent with the residential Design Guidelines for adding the third floor. Thank you. Commissioner moore. In fairness to all people, and in fairness to this commission, as we are going back and forth as what is the Square Footage what is proposed . I think on all levels including the drawing on the screen, which is not in our packet, this the middle lacks information by which we can compare. The comment that mr. Teague just made a minute ago, is just one of the concerns expressed by the rdt hissing in the application that the fourth floor has to fall back on both sides, which this the middle does not do. There is also no real credible 3d other than what is on the screen right now which makes the project, as submitted, very hard to understand. There is no discussion on materials. There is and was insufficient discussion on the proposal. I believe this project should be sent back to really explain to us, in more detail, of what it is trying to do, and where it came from . Aside from the fact, i feel as frustrated, as commissioner richards described that this is another demolition. D. B. I. Is not here to help us through the process. I am seeing generically, for this commission to work through applications, like this, without having the support to resolve the issues at hand. Im asking for a continuance with specific instructions of what needs to be shown to us probably more sensitive response to some of the neighbors relative to privacy light, and air. The project is not put into context that we really see josh we would have a much clearer understanding area understanding. Thank you commissioner. I also hear commissioner richards call for consistency in terms of our approach to illegal demolition policy. The vacuum of not having this defined, by the board of supervisors and getting it cleaned up. We are just going to real life, you know, project where we have to be consistent and give the public, you know, and expectation of what will happen. With that, i am not sure what really happened here. I do not have enough information. What was the original Square Footage . Its like a really big question for me. I hear that there was storage there was not space under the deck. I would like to have, the more dearly defined what was there what was approved and you know, what they are asking. While i sea on the packets, there is a side comparison it is not enough for me. It is not clear to me what it is that was approved. I see, you know, it has been talked in a little bit. I think the top floor vastly over compensates for what they are losing. I would like to be able to really see, you know, was this a case where, you know, the contractor way overshot what they were doing . That is what everybody says all the time, right . You know, i would like to, you know, be open enough to consider that maybe this happened. Or is it a case where someone was just trying to, you know, circumvent the permitting process that get a vastly more Square Footage, without having to go through the hoops. Hoops . I dont have enough information to say definitively that this is what happened, and i would like to support the call for continuing this, until we can have a clearer understanding of, you know, what was there what was proposed and approved and what is being proposed now . Commissioner richards. When i bought my house, i had rooms down. My house had a Square Footage on it that the assessor showed, in the real estate agent, the assessors map did not show it. I went down and appended the record to show i look at the assessors date on this parcel, you want to maximize your sale. You have additional Square Footage you want to call it bonus rooms, rooms down, whatever. It shows a connection. Did it say 1640 . Did it say subject to we are going to append the data at the Assessors Office . What we are hearing is double i mean i want to see proof next time of what the Square Footage is. Right now i am looking at the assessors data and its the only thing i have going on and it is axing 40. 1640. The assessors data generally does not include areas that are considered habitable. It would be hopeful to have raw numbers in a case report and on the plans. The plans, what we ask a project like this to do, on floor side show what was approved to be done and what was the existing condition. What has been done so far on the site and what they are proposing. You can see on the basement plan , and the First Floor Plan all of that area was considered storage and did not have an exit to the rear. The first floor was a garage with three different storage rooms. My guess is that was not included. You can get a pretty good sense about the floor plate for all of the floors, except the third for match up pretty well except for that they reduce the mass in the rear. That is where you get into the question of, they have clearly reduced the size of the building in the rear and they are proposing to increase the size of the building vertically. How much of a trade is that from a numbers perspective . Going down the road, if youre thinking about a decision that is going to put it back, as it was, that is going to lead to the question, do we put it back as it was literally, or as Square Footage was . There may be a proposal with some type of third floor that may work better, and have less massive rear portion to it and work better for the neighborhood. Before i let you let me be clear about what i was saying is that i am not advocating actually, that we put it back exactly as it was. I think these folks were doing something, they were trying to remodel and expand a little bit within what, you know, they thought. We made them do something that was co compliant where, you know, there was a demolition and it was clear that they werent going to keep the original structure that they had to build something new. I am clear on that. What i do not want to do, you know if folks think by demolishing something illegally they can then get a whole new floor, and a bunch of Square Footage, we are sending out the wrong message. I want to be clear. I dont have enough evidence that this did not happen. In the context of that it is now 6 00 oclock, we have been hearing this story all day every day, four months actually for years. Before you come to the Planning Commission with something i would like to make sure that what we are doing is not exacerbating the problem. I am not there right now. I just wanted to make clear, i am not advocating for putting a bat i understand what youre saying. I totally agree with your description of this. I do feel like we should generally be consistent. There is issues like this that will come up, somebody is adding another unit, or, what they have demoed cannot be put back or we would rather not have it be put back. What are do then . Do they get penalized more because what they had was in the rear yard encroachment and you can get a variance . And then Something Like hopkins was a more Speculative Development than someone trying to live in the home. I think commissioner richards, i agree we should generally be consistent. We should generally have all of the facts. That is why we are here to make a judgment call on this. Generally support the same Square Footage. It sounds like there issues with the height. I think we need more of, kind of the story. If you put it back the way it was, but we dont want to put it back the way it was given where it is in the rear yard. We have things competing against each other. We should get more facts on this one. Im looking for consistency but more in the realm of what is given to us. The drawing lacks significant dimensions. The drawing missus a whole bunch of normally required elements of which we need to understand the project. We are here to support building remodel, building expansion, and all of it, it needs to be done in a manner in which we can understand. Any architect can indeed retrace what was, give us the proper Square Footage including the interpretation that may be existing between the Assessors Office and what an architect describes as habitable, versus generally assigned rooms. Everything is possible. However, needs to be in front of us. If it is not you get basically finding a commission that will not support flybynight approvals, but will ask for apples and apples to look at what we can, need to approve. That is basically where this project is not have a complete submittal. We ask for that. I asked for a continuance, and emotion and it means to establish a date that is suitable for the commission, as well as the people. Second. What are the dates on the calendar . I dont think this is going to take that long. I think we needed more information. It should not take you that long to, you know, gather what we are asking for. If youre asking for Additional Information commissioners, again, all of your hearings are impacted, at this. , through october. You could potentially continue this matter to september 19. After that, i would not continue it until november 7. Lets do september 19. I want to say something. The thing that is going to convince me about what was there as your appraisal report. You bring the appraisal report when you bought the building, it has photos of every room, all the dimensions. That will tell us an awful lot. I really would like to see that. Okay. There had to be an appraisal report unless you paid cash for it. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion on the floor to continue. On that motion to continue this matter with direction of of the commission september 19. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 60. I will continue the hearing until september 19. So yet another one for you. Item eckstein a and b im. The commission is asking for a 15 minute break area is that okay . Sorry for everyone that is here. We have been sitting here for a long time. Were going to take a little when speaking before the commission, do state your name for the record. Commissioners, we left off on your regular calendar on item 16 a and b. 336 pierce street. You will consider kit the conditional use authorization in the Zoning Administrator will consider a request for variance. Good evening commissioners. I am with Planning Department staff a the project before you is requesting conditional use authorization to legalize the demolition of a sickle family dwelling located in the rear yard and authorized construction of a replacement to the dwelling unit pursuant to the planning section. The subject property is located at pierce street. In february 2010, the department of building inspection oakland opened a complaint case regarding the attached home in the rear yard stating the building was abandoned and partially collapsed. In november of 2012, the permit to repair the dwelling was issued. In april 2015, the Planning Department opened an enforcement case after receiving a complaint that the building was demolished the demolition was confirmed by staff. At the time of the demolition the code required mandatory discretionary review for residential demolition. The Planning Commission hearing was held on march 10th, 2016, in the Planning Commission guidance at the time included a reduction in building mass of the replace and structure removal of offstreet parking from the ground floor of the rear dwelling. It was continued and during the continuance a planning code was amended to require conditional use authorization for residential demolitions and that is how we are here today for conditional use hearing. The proposed building will be 700 square feet compared to the previous building which was 1,160 square feet with 580 of that being the dwelling unit. Since the publication of the staff report, new information was provided to the department by the applicant. Previously was thought that existing developed but dwelling unit was 21 feet in height. The applicant has clarified that existing building was exactly 17 feet tall and will be revising the plans for the reconstructed dwelling unit so that the maximum height will be 17 feet. Reconstruction of the dwelling unit at a height greater than what was previously was listed is not permitted by the planning code. Because replacement structures located in the required rear yard a variance is also required. Additionally, while the subject lot only permits five dwelling units in the proposed dwelling unit would be the ninth dwelling unit on the lot construction is permitted as the replacement of a nonconforming density dwelling unit pursuant to planning code section 181. That department has received one comment from the Property Owner on the project expressing opposition. The concern is centred around the previous unpermitted work and privacy issues that would result with her request for a onestory dwelling. On balance they find the project to be compatible with the general plan and desirable for the community as it restores a unitive housing and recognizes approval with conditions as approving the draft motions with a condition that the proposed building shall not exceed a height of 17 feet. Thank you and i am available for any questions. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is mark and my family has owned the property since 1991. The cottage was in distress and i had a contractor provide permitting repair the structure. He got permits to get the repairs and the contract exceeded the permits and rebuilds the structure. This is absolutely against our instructions. We brought in a new Team Including a wellknown engineer and architect and a Forensic Consultant to help us evaluate what was there and what is what to do now. We have worked diligently with planning staff to design an appropriate unit without parking following the commissions directive. I cannot change the past, i can only move forward with replacing the unit. With my familys it sincerest apologies to the labourers and to the city. Thank you. Thank you. If i could have the overhead, please . Commissioners, Ryan Patterson from the project sponsor. This is a completely new team and we had no involvement in the prior iteration of this project. We have taken the time to meet with neighbors to carefully rethink the project and to do a sensitive redesign and take the commissions comments to heart. We have removed the parking, we have removed to the entry stairs internal and away from the neighbors in the south and the windows only look forward into the subject property. I will note there is a large tree in between the proposed unit and the property to the south. Is approximately 63 feet away from the neighbors to the south and i would note, unlike the previous cases that you have heard, we are proposing something that is significantly smaller than what was there before. Thank you. The building was there for over a century. It was one dwelling over multiple garages. The structure had failure to the facade due to a storm. It was prepared with permits. There is no denying that. We are apologizing for it. I have been tasso putting back a onebedroom unit. Nothing beyond that in terms of height stories, what will go back is what is there. I have a challenge i have an existing retaining wall on one side of the building that has incredibly high oyster readings. That does not look concrete. That moisture is coming through. What was put there and what i am tasked to go back is a garage retaining wall with loopholes in it weep holes in it. I cannot change that. I have to build to it or i am working on a neighbors property which is not feasible. So my choice was to put the bedrooms on the second floor so people dont breathe in the moisture coming through the building and thats why there is a onebedroom on the second floor. I have designed the building such that on the second floor, all there is is a bedroom and a full bath. On this side of the building where all the moisture is coming through is a dead space, stairs, storage to get up. So while it seems a bigger space , most of this is space to get to the second floor so people are moving away from the moisture coming through this wall. There is a design option which we investigated for a onestory