on the whole, i am supportive of this project, and i will turn it over to the director. >> thank you, commissioner. i will emphasize this is 25% affordable. it is a pretty su substantial number of affordable. to commissioner johnson's point, it is common in much of the city to have taller buildings at the corners especially in the commercial districts. it is common in the richmond and pacific heights with the multiple story buildings with lower rise single family or two family between, and because this is on a major transit line, as many of you pointed out, this felt like the right place for this amount of density. with respect to the transition. this is a very narrow lot. 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 home-sf 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 i's. 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 don't have an issue with the number of units here based upon the people's 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 market-driven 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 don't think residential uses are active uses especially on the ground floor. walk by the ground floor use and the curtains are drawn and people don't 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 can't 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 25-foot homes next door rather than just a big wall, but to the person who doesn't 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 home-sf 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 t-mobile 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 well-done. 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 home-sf. >> 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 don't see why we would eliminate the retail. i really don't 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 can't 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 wouldn't 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, let's 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 won't 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 6-0. that will place us 17a and b for 2018-011430 c.u.a. >> sorry. we are going to take a break. sorry for the public. it has been a long day. left ofr 2018-01143o 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 rh-2 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 multi-family 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. follow-up 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 46-foot 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 40-foot 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 wouldn't 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 e-mailed all the commissioners on my opposition. i don't know if you received them, but i have hard copies if you like. i am a 20 year resident on octavia street. i'm 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. there's 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 i'm 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. there's 1300 square feet of heavy duty party roof decks. and if there's 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 side-by-side 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 doesn't 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. that's 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 i've 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 i'm 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 garage's 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 façade. 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 left and three more children two doors down to me to my right. sherman elementary elementary school is within a block of this site. so from an overall health perspective, i just don't understand how the city could give a blanket exemption to an ordinance and the california environment of quality act that is in place to protect the public and protect citizens. i was not even aware of all of the findings of the sampling, even though we had asked the developers or than a few months ago to provide that, his response to me was they are all okay, or looking okay. and so after reviewing this, it really does not look okay. the matter of the roof deck is secondary. i do think that there is plenty of outdoor terrace and patio space that is built into this plan that is larger than some living spaces that are in doors that people live in in the city, and that's plenty of space, well within the requirement of the planning code that the roof deck is excessive. we don't need a party space for young millionaires that are going to be affording to buy these condos at seven figures and above. and because of the building next door, it is really loud noise and a privacy factor. thank you very much for your consideration. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? with that, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask mr. may, was there a shadow study done? if there is indeed a public park nearby? i have never seen the department verse themselves on the findings >> yes, for buildings that are below 40 feet, we do not require a shadow study. >> so there may be a study? >> i guess there could be, but construction that are less than 40 feet in height, we don't devalue that just evaluate that. >> is in the structure higher than 40 feet? >> a talking about the elevator penthouse? >> those are permitted above the height limit. the proposal is not subject to prop k. does not require the shadow analysis. >> thank you. >> commissioner fung? >> several questions. the issue of public health, i understand it is in their jurisdiction to deal with any type of cleaning up. what is the status of that? >> our planning staff ever viewed the application and the categorical exemption. it does state that the project sponsor has enrolled in the program, which i believe director ram has mentioned earlier that is administrated by the department of public health. >> the private open space that has been provided for the five units, does that resolve the requirement for the planning code for those units? >> yes. they do have adequate private usable open space. >> so the roof deck would satisfy the open space requirement for the a.d.u.? >> that's right. >> and what would that requirement be? >> i don't have that on hand. i don't have the planning code right here. >> 130 roughly? >> it would be around that. >> okay. so the roof deck is much larger than that. >> it is larger than that. >> and this project sponsor's architect mentions there has been a revision to the roof plan >> yes, that is right. the roof deck was a lot bigger before. >> do we have that revision? >> do you mean the earlier version? >> when she talked about -- >> the project sponsor mentioned the roof deck had been revised since the initial submission. >> it is not in our package. >> the question is, do we have -- >> i did not include the original plans in the packet. >> last question would be, if there was no rear yard variance, what with this project look like >> i would also ask the zoning administrator, but i don't think they would be allowed to have any residential uses within the rear yard portion of the building because that would be considered an identification of a noncomplying structure. >> mr. sanchez? >> the variance is required because existing building is a legal noncomplying structure and the change of use from commercial use to the residential use is an intensification under the planning code. even though discrepancy is not getting any greater by the project, the vertical addition is code compliant and they are overall reducing the encroachment into the rear yard by the courtyard. we just the fact that the change of use is disturbing the variance. in order to comply with the planning code, it would require demolition of existing noncompliant portions of the building including the front façade which is part of the character defining features of the historic resource, and then also cutting back the existing encroachment into the required rear yard which would be allowed under the project. >> my question separated the discussion on front setback versus rear. i'm only talking about the rear. so if there is no variance to the rear yard portion of it, then it would affect approximately four floors of the residential use that then intrudes into the required rear yard. >> the vertical addition is code compliant. only -- it is only the existing building that is not code compliant. >> does the lower two floors. >> which have residential use? >> that's right. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> my question is, if truly what he says if this court case exists and the loss of ceqa -- and subsection and subsection, does he have a point? is he right? can we even consider this? >> we are trying to find that out. we didn't have that information to date but we are trying to double check that information to see if that is the case. hopefully we will get an answer soon. >> great. >> commissioner moore? could you please tell the commission why the list is not really a normal kind of trigger that comes up when you are looking at gas stations, and again, there are all kinds of variations on gas stations. why is it not automatic? >> the list is kind of like the state's superfund list of the worst contaminated sites in the state of california. not every leaky underground storage tank, not of a gas station is on that list. it is only the worst of the worst. there is the listing. it is the state water resources control board that puts together this list. most of the sites we find, even if they are on the list are what is called closed. so they had a leak, it has been cleaned up. this isn't open, active sight which means it has a lot of contamination, it has toxic chemicals, and hasn't been clead up. so that is the worst possible scenarios we talking about putting people, residential development, and to be excavating a lot of soil. the significance is when you excavate 50 cubic yards. this project proposes to excavate 1,300 cubic yards. a lot of contaminated soil. and the ceqa case was clear. there is a case called mcqueen which we have cited and another case called creed, but in this situation, ceqa review has to be done first so that there is a cleanup plan that is legally enforceable and legally adequate and you can determine that it can, in fact,, be cleaned up. some of these sites can't be cleaned up to residential standards. we need to know that before we approve a project that puts human beings on top of contaminated soil. how will you clean it up, can it be cleaned up adequately, and will there be soil vapours, that over decades in the future, may or may not intrude into the space above? that plan has to be set forth before the project is considered and approved by this body so this body can make those conditions in -- and forcible and binding condition of approval. >> does this -- to add onto my first question, proportionally, how many projects of that kind are, for example, in the city of san francisco, if any? >> i'm sure there's others. hunters point is on the list, of course. treasure island has some sites that are on the list. i'm sure there are some other contaminated sites, many others in the city that are on the list i don't know the exact number off the top. the state water board keeps this online. so when the client called me about this, i said, that is interesting. it is an auto shop from 1914. i wonder if it is on the list. and i called our expert used to run the superfund program. it took them two minutes to say, it is on the list. they can't exempt this from ceqa it was that easy. why that isn't in your staff report is a mystery to me. that should be, in fact, in other cities, and i practised in a lot of cities, under every exemption there is a box. is it on the list? yes or no? san francisco doesn't have that box. if they say yes, they all know you can't exempt it from ceqa. it is black letter law. it is in the statute. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> if i may, i am concerned that not only this comment and disclosure, but the follow-up by dr. kim puts me on notice to want to look at this a little bit more closely. it is a little bit too unnerving i am not blaming the department, but i think when there is testimony to the severity of that, i think it requires us to at least pose a question about it. >> director ram? >> thank you. my recommendation is to continue for two weeks. but just to be clear here, there is no reason why it cannot be issued. this is in the jurisdiction of the department of public health and we can -- we might have to make a slight correction to the cat ask at most, but it is -- we do believe the cleanup plan can be moved forward and that it can be issued. this is come up several times. i will ask steph to cite other projects where we have done the same. i do recommend a two week continuance. >> thank you. perhaps i might suggest that when we come back in two weeks, we have staff include what the details are of participation in the program because i think that is key. i think that we don't understand what that is, perhaps even have someone from d.p.h. who can walk us through it. i do think, actually two the point, san francisco takes this very seriously. i think more seriously than most that is why we have the program. so i would like us to walk through what exactly would be entailed in this when we come back in a couple weeks. will somebody make a motion? commissioner moore? >> if i may, so we are not doing -- continuing to review the project until we have further clarification on that particular issue? i make a motion to continue the questions to when? >> two weeks would put us on november 21st. >> november 21st. >> there are two commissioners who will not be here so i cannot support that motion. >> then pick a date. >> we may have to move into december. december 5th or something like that. >> december 5th? >> that is a long day. >> do i hear a second? >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to continue this matter to december 2nd -- >> december 5th. >> excuse me, december 5th. [roll call] assistant zoning administrator? >> continuing the variance to the same date. thank you. >> that will place us in item 18 , 3360 sacramento street, conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am with planning department staff. the proposal before you as a conditional use authorization to legally establish a trade office to doing businesses the devonian group within the sacramento street m.c.d. the planning code requires conditional use authorization for trade office uses within this zoning district. the subject property is developed with a three-story, mixed use building, constructed in 1909. no exterior modifications other than business signage are proposed. the ground floor tenant space has been occupied by the existing tenant since january, 2013. prior to 2013, the space was used as an office for a design professional. the project is zoning and -- has a zoning in compliance complaint the department received a number of complaints on sacramento street at the beginning of 2018 and the department recently had cleared another complaint with this commission very similar to this one just a month ago. the commercial establishment characterizing this portion of sacramento street include a mix of specialty shops and professional service establishments, with a high concentration of interior design related businesses. the surrounding zoning is primarily residential. as noted in the commission packet, the department received seven comments in support of the project from residents and neighboring merchants. they cited that the existing use has been in place for many years and supports the surrounding related architectural and design uses in the district. staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization because the project does meet all applicable recommendations and requirements of the planning code. the trade-off would continue to fill ground floor commercial space that is occupied for nearly seven years and contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood, which has been described as a mini design centre. this concludes my presentation. i will be available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. do we have a project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. last time i was here it was late and the a.c. was also off. at least we don't have that. good evening, my name is ashley. i'm here on behalf of my client. they are a long-standing commercial tenant of the subject property and its business as a long-standing business in the vibrant sacramento street commercial district. today's action is to legalize the trade-off of use which has been in operation at the location since 2013, and to address the notice of enforcement that was issued for the property. the project does not involve any interior or exterior changes, rather the request before this commission is solely to legalize existing trade office use. onto the sacramento m.c.d. zoning, they want to include a business office of building contractors that requires a conditional use authorization. the subject property has a long history of being occupied by usage related to design professional, architectural, and interior design services. indeed this entire corridors occupied by these type of uses and they use similar uses. this community of businesses is supportive of the presence in this area is evident by the numerous letters of support that the project has received. i will now turn it over to joe and joey who can provide some additional insight into the use and community relationship. >> i don't know if this is too close. thank you for your service. my pops and i, every time we're down here, we say that stuff does not happen in san francisco unless people put time -- put forward the time and effort. you embody the san francisco -- the sacrifices anchor for soto san francisco needs. we are general -- general contractors by trade. this is not our first time at this microphone. the last time we are at this microphone, my father and i said we won't be back unless it is for 100% affordable projects. obviously we didn't know our office space would be challenged here we are. one thing that everyone on the commission might not be entirely aware of is the eighth those of our business, which is that we are not just invested in this town from a financial perspective, but our families ae both here, we care about this place, we care about the vitality of san francisco and care about that it works for everyone. my pops, as i think some of you know, built the first 100% affordable building that was privately owned in san francisco every single project that we have come to this commission with has had more b.m.r. then where required. often times i think activists and builders are at odds and are highly combative, but the activists who come to our presentations and speak in support of what we are trying to do. i think the reason that i bring all this up is because it offers context, this complaint that was put forward into that -- and 2018 is accusing that our small shop on sacramento street does not offer a net positive gain to san francisco and to the vitality of the sacramento street corridor. i would argue, from the sentiments that i have ever mentioned, that is obviously untrue. with regard to the retail space in sacramento street and whether our design shop aids and some of the other retail establishments, i can tell you that i have had clients in that have gone down the block and bought a wedding dress, that is a true story, at the woman who sells wedding dresses across the street. a lot of the folks we build homes for will walk across the street and pick up the dry-cleaning. every other tuesday we have a staff meeting and we cater our lunches from café luna across the street. it is the biggest credit card charge that they have every month that comes from us. folks go to hudson graze down the street to buy things. the point is, i think, we are the exact thing that adds to the vitality of the sacramento street corridor. the alternative is the design shops and trade shops leave the sacramento corridor and then we are left with empty storefronts which obviously is counter to the vitality of the district. as ashley said, it has been used by design shops not just before us, but before them, and andrew going back all the way to the nineties has his shop there. it is nearly 30 years of a design shop usage, and i guess this is sort of the way to formalize it. thanks a lot. >> thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. i don't have speaker cards, but if you wish to speak on this item, please come up now. okay. public comment is closed. commission moore? no? commissioner koppel? >> i kind of see this as similar to the kendall wilkinson case we heard a couple weeks ago, multigenerational, long-standing local business owner that fits right where they are. i will let other commissioners speak. >> mission richards? >> i agree. moved to approve. >> second. >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. placing is on item 19 for case 230 kirk come him avenue. conditional use authorization. >> good evening. i am here again for planning department staff. the proposal before you is another conditional use authorization request to allow demolition of a two story single-family dwelling and construction of a new three-story, two family dwelling within the r.h. two zoning district. the project sight is a standard -sized 25-foot wide, by 100-foot deep lot. located between sixth and seventh avenue. the surrounding area is zoned r.h. one and r.h. two. the building proposed for demolition is approximately 1800 square feet and contains a two bedroom home constructed in 1922 that project was evaluated by preservation staff and the existing building was determined not to be a historic resource. the replacement building will contain two modest sized 1200 square foot flats with a two car tandem garage. the building will extend to the 45 -- per the project sponsor brief, the property owners originally investigated modifying the existing buildings but found that option to be unfeasible. currently the home is tenant occupied and there is no history of evictions at this site as reported by the rent board. department received greek public comments after the commission packets were distributed and one letter is from a neighbor who is opposed to the project because it removes naturally affordable housing stock. the other letters are from adjacent neighbors who are concerned about the mapping of the three-story building and loss of light and air. i would like to read a correction into the record. page six of the draft motion contains an error. it refers to the new building as owner-occupied. both units are intended to be tenant occupied. the final motion will reflect this correction. staff recommends the commission approve the project as noted in the executive summary. the project meets all the requirements of the planning code and will maximize the allowed dwelling unit density and we'll add one new family size dwelling unit to the city's housing stock. this concludes my presentation. i will be available to answer any questions. thank you. >> do we have a project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. i am the architect for this project. my client is proposing replacement of his family's single-family house with a new two unit building. we originally planned on modifying the existing structure for this increased density, but found the foundation was inadequate in all respects. the number of walls and floors that required removal for modification were tantamount to demolition. it was determined that it would be more cost-effective to demolish the existing building and start fresh. that's the reason to request approval for demolition through conditional use. the owners who previously resided in this neighborhood for several decades have rented out this building for more than a decade and planned to plan to continue to rent out these units in the future. the three-bedroom units are designed to accommodate families or communal living. the owner of's intent is to address the need for housing, for faculty, students, or patients of ucsf, and any other potential renters. the exterior of this building was designed to be compatible with the scale and architectural features of houses typically found in this and your sunset neighborhood. like the proposed building, most houses are two stories over garage. the shingle and stucco finishes, and windows separated by structural mullions of the proposed building are details that can be found on many homes throughout this surrounding block. the gabled roof is also a neighborhood characteristic. because this project will add an additional housing unit to the neighborhood and has been designed to be compatible with the neighborhood, we respectfully request that the commissioners consider this project as an asset to the neighborhood and approve the project as proposed. >> okay. do we have any public comment on this item? with that, commissioner richards public comment is closed. commissioner richards? commission moore? in itself, there's nothing wrong with the building. the only thing i question, and i would like the commission to open the drawings to page 82, is that the first floor in the back looks as if it is set up for an additional unit. the reason being that it has ample windows, it has all the right exposure to the rear yard, and it is labelled as storage. there is 414 square feet, and i am wondering why this space could not be actually considered to become an a.d.u.

Related Keywords

California , United States , Sacramento , Johnson Point , Greece , San Francisco , Greek , Roger Moore , Kendall Wilkinson ,