Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 9, 2019 3:00am-4:01am PDT

3:00 am
will seek an exception under resolution 304. also earlier this week, the commission should have received two separate e-mails from the neighbor at 215 vasquez with materials in opposition to the project. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> vice president koppel: thank you. project sponsor? >> my name is jeff burroughs, and i'm the architect for the project. let's do the overhead. good afternoon. i'm here to speak to the two issues regarding the continuance. that's the density and the shadow clarification. the unit that jeff warren spoke
3:01 am
about is in fact on the ground floor. this is it here. it has a full-sized bath and walk in closet, full-size appliances in the kitchen and its own private courtyard entry and gate as he mentioned. i can answer additional details about that in comments, but that's in the project now. the main house is in the second and third floor, the a.d.u. is on the ground. the biggest thing -- there's been a lot of misinformation flying around about the shadow study. but suffice it to say in the summer months, you can see the existing on top and the proposed at the bottom. in the summer months, essentially, there's no change because the sun is so high in the sky. in the winter months, the opposite is true. the sun is so low that no sun penetration gets to the wall on 15 vasquez. it's important to note that the
3:02 am
north, the east, and the south walls are not affected by our projects. what i studied the last three months are the period of time between the answer and the winter, that would be the he can whi can -- equinox. of the hours of daylight in san francisco, 1500 hours touched 15 vasquez on the west wall. but when i got into the granular aspects of it, and started setting the windows at 15 vasquez, i found that there are only 86 hours in the year where the direct sun is adversely affected in the windows on the west side. that's 86 hours out of 1500. that's less than 5%. so in -- in the process, why is that number so low? it surprised me, as well, and
3:03 am
the reason is, you have to understand the section -- and i've given you a smaller one to look at. the section of existing. you can see the existing house is 25-8, and the new house is 37-8. that's why the solar studies between the two houses are marginal. so in conclusion, i'd like to give some time to the homeowners to speak, but this is currently a 1300 square foot two bedroom single-family that we would like to build two units, four bedrooms, and seismically upgraded drainage handles that are efficient. >> vice president koppel: okay. i have some speaker cards for public comment. i'm going to list all the names, so please come up in any
3:04 am
order. excuse me? [inaudible] >> vice president koppel: okay. what's your name, miss? [inaudible] >> vice president koppel: kathleen darby. okay. i'm going to read off a list of names. kathleen darby, john nolte, michael nolte, peter milke, kevin and darren flynn, commissioner michael antonini, and robert kozelski. please come up and lineup on the screen side of the room. >> thank you. my name is kathy darby. good afternoon. my name is kathy darby. i am -- i passed some packets -- we passed some packets to jonas. it's the same material that was sent to you in an e-mail
3:05 am
yesterday. i live at 215 vasquez, and i live next door to the house that's planned at 225, and that house is identical to our house, and it's a very sound house. it's old and hasn't been updated, but it's a sound, live i can't believe house. i'd expected -- it's a sound, liveable house. i'd expected to come here today, expecting to hear about your decision on the project, but as i looked at the packet on the planning commission website, i see that they've been changed again. notably, the project has gotten bigger -- >> clerk: okay, ma'am, unfortunately your time is up. >> really? did i take three minutes? >> clerk: one minute. it's the second time hearing this project. >> i'd just like to say that if you -- >> clerk: ma'am, unfortunately your time is up.
3:06 am
everyone's getting one minute. >> vice president koppel: we may have questions for you later. we have to give everyone the same amount of time. we may have questions for you late later. next speaker, please. >> i'm karen, and this is devon flynn. we live at 265 vasquez. i'm speaking for us both. our concern is that the project is really large compared to everything else, and although that's not something that probably can be adjudicated, that it does cut down on sun light is an extreme concern of ours, and it is not in keeping with the neighborhood, and we hope that you do not support the project as it currently stands as it is even increased in size as it was increased in size from the previous hearing where we all attended. thanks.
3:07 am
>> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm gary. i live at 255 vasquez. i've lived there for 30 years. i live in about 1300 square feet. there's a reason why i moved in this neighborhood. it's because it's integrally nice neighborhood, and i think it's -- this is how i -- a neighborhood should look like. and i really think that this build is too big, the other proportion is not needed, and there's a reason it should not be built, and i think the sun light survey is wrong. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. i'm going to call out alina and kate. >> mike antonini. i agree. currently the amount of light getting to 215 is around 1500
3:08 am
sun light hours in the afternoon, but i based my findings on the earlier sun studies than the one they're trying to put forward now. and in that study, we lost 1,000 hours of sun to 215 vasquez. bottom line, i question those. i think there's a lot of light to 200-215 vasquez. take a little bit away from the dining room height to bring the thing down to 31 feet net height. which will eliminate a lot of the problems, so i think that is probably what we're asking. we're not opposing the project entirely, but i think it has to be appropriate. the living room has to be shorter. it's almost 35 feet along. knock it down to five more feet, so we're going to have a
3:09 am
set back of 15 feet from the street, which is appropriate. >> clerk: thank you, sir. >> vice president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. [please stand by]
3:10 am
>> i live across the street from the house. it is not true that our house is all small. our houses over house is over 2200 square feet. it is not true. i live across the street from -- [indiscernible]
3:11 am
i know i live in a old house. some people say it is a sound house, it is not true. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i lived at 215 vasquez and my parents on the house from 1953 to 1980. the house is at 1145 garcia.
3:12 am
it was owned at the time by educators. element -- the development will harm -- this is the porch. this area here, and there are all of these windows appear on this side, and also the backyard that my father built. by the way, there were five family members. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> overhead?
3:13 am
>> my name is michael nolte. my family owned the property before the previous owner of 215 vasquez. i have actual history of what they should be doing and not doing when there is a new gigantic building being built next to it. i find it ironic. and neighbors basically say a lot about the property but they don't understand the issue of sun and light and i want to point out that when the building was put up for sale at 225 van ness, basically the realtors say it is a fixer-upper. they don't understand the codes. they come in and go to the planning commission and expect them to make these changes. so that is the kind of problem we are up against when people
3:14 am
move into a neighborhood. >> thank you. one more speaker card. >> hello. i used to live on 17th avenue. i also walk in the neighborhood and i love the architecture of this neighborhood because it speaks a lot about the culture and the history of the neighborhood. people have lived there for 30 or 40 years and it has meaning.
3:15 am
thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i live at 215 vasquez. the planning commission meeting on march 7th, commissioner hillis requested that you work with the project sponsor on the plans, presumably the issues raised by the neighbors. unfortunately, nothing has happened. the department has not been in touch with us and when he was asked about switching the side, he said it would offend his personal sensitivities. >> thank you. anymore members of the public who wish to comment on this item
3:16 am
seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> definitely an appeal case. the orientation drives a lot of the comments that they brought forward. there is no doubt that the new building is taking the west of the existing appellant building. there is going to be a lot of shadow there. the question is how much. however, i was not quite satisfied with the permit holders approached in this. they could have easily given up
3:17 am
some -- the height and the upper living floor between dining and the living room could easily have dropped some. similarly, the setback could have been handled a little bit better. maybe not as much is what the adjacent neighbors want to, but i would have expected this be in san francisco because they would have been some movement there. we didn't see any. >> commissioner richards? >> i have a few issues with this i think commissioner moore said sometimes it is 20 pounds and a 10-pound bag. i have been looking at that here i think the unit size in relationship to the a.d.u. is gargantuan. when you look at how the a.d.u. is laid out here, you can even see a kitchen. if i am wrong, correct me, it
3:18 am
looks like it can be easily subsumed as a house because you have your entry door, you have the hallway door and then you go up the steps to the house. it doesn't read like a true a.d.u. it is not connected interior to the house by any kind of door or anything. i don't like the project the way it is. i think the a.d.u. needs to be much more drawn out. i think the commissioner's suggestions around making the 27 pounds is a good idea. i could approve a larger a.d.u. that reads as an a.d.u. and a lot of the things that the former commissioner had mentioned. >> is that a motion? >> we need to be specific on that. or i could actually direct -- well, it is not a motion.
3:19 am
>> commissioner hillis? >> can i ask the architecture -- can i ask the architect? i am not seeing it the same way that you are, commissioner richards. there is a separate entrance. it is kind of built into the ground floor. can you show the floorplan floor plan at the garage level? >> overhead? >> pull over the microphone. >> just to give you the layout a more detail, the entrance to the main house comes from the extra stair. the entrance to the a.d.u. is through a gate here. it is a private space for the entry. this entire wall is kitchen. this glass -- this bath is a full bath with the window and the walk-in closet. >> what -- what's behind it? >> at this -- at that point,
3:20 am
you're 10 feet below grade. we have a light well we are using. i think it is really important. for 11 years, i have lived in north beach. it had windows on three sides, which gives you a sense of autonomy. when we do a second unit, that is the key to making it livable. >> i get it is not huge, but i don't see this as a real great way to make that bigger. >> they need to excavate further >> in regard to that, can you show the size of the building? i think this is where your issue is. can you show what it was before and what modifications you made? i thank you loom large on the streets. you are an architect, you were trying to make it look good. i don't have a general problem with the design, but it looks bigger than it is and you are not making a nod --
3:21 am
>> over 20 years of working in san francisco, we have learned how to make this on the inside and the outside. the changes that we made from the beginning our extensive. between then and now, it is easier to see it here. there is some penetration to reduce the impact of this massing. this is key. originally we were not asking to demo the project. we were just looking at a new floor. if we did that, we ended up with a house. the existing top floor of the house is at 22 feet. when you added on this, this is how we went through the living room. we push the ground floor down to eight. we took the bedrooms that were currently at the main level and then we have this space left over. we did the studies to make sure we were not adversely affecting it more then the 5%.
3:22 am
i was surprised it was 5%. it was carefully because we were doing a section profile to allow late summer across the northeast corner and to go out at that cut out at the back. it was a very specifically -- >> could you show the façade -- did you make any changes since the last time you were here? >> we pushed around the light and the windows at this corner. i adjusted this and pushed it back, the overhang, which is the rain cover for the deck. mostly the work is on the a.d.u. , and then i spent dozens of hours running the floor way test. i did adjust a few on that but we had done that prior to the previous meeting where we had
3:23 am
steps back in that corner. and again, lowering the back of the house to ensure the last time we came in. i am not increasing the size of the project. >> do you have a photo of it? >> excuse me, but you are out of order. >> can you show the façade from the last time you were here? >> you should get it -- we will wait until you get there on the ground. [indiscernible]
3:24 am
>> you can see there was a little -- it was a little bit more squared off here. i cut back and made it -- the way this house works is a vertical modulation. this is one block, this is the other block, breaking the two vertically. i have not changed the size of the floor, otherwise to work on the a.d.u. i have four different projects that were much larger -- >> can you put this up? this is what i was looking at. >> i don't know what iteration of the project. this reads on the street a little less bulky. >> you mean the other image? >> if you are standing across the street and looking at it directly.
3:25 am
you can see that the highest point of our house is no higher then the neighbor to the east. we use that as -- >> is it set back from the east property line here? where that deck wraps around that you don't have? >> we have set back 7 feet, 10 feet here, i can't really recall. nothing has changed. >> from the side property line, not from the street. >> we have not made the project wider or deeper. >> can you put the new façade up adjacent to that? just push that up a little. [indiscernible] just to the side here you can see the corner of -- >> okay.
3:26 am
>> it is very carefully proportioned and laid out so that it squeezes down the bottom of two floors. that freedom at the top, in opposition to the two positions, i think it balances nicely in this project. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards? >> on the other hand, are you sure that is something that wasn't on my plan in terms of what the a.d.u. entry was? it is a solid wall further behind. my a.d.u. door looks like it is in an interior hallway. can you walk us through that? >> this is not an a.d.u. previously we had submitted the project as single-family because we did not have the new legislature. >> that is the single-family version. >> that is correct. >> okay. >> we drew that out.
3:27 am
>> is the a.d.u. plan in my packet? i think i'm looking at the wrong thing. >> actually, i should amend what i said previously. we did add to the a.d.u., but that's entirely -- >> it makes sense. thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> i don't agree with commissioner hillis' observation it is an a.d.u. by design. it is a nice unit, it is small, but i do not see any need to manifest your desire that it doesn't fit the design. i cannot support that. the building is large, and for that reason, i would feel quite comfortable with the way it is right now. >> is that a motion?
3:28 am
>> commissioner hillis? >> we have seen these before where you are trying to add onto the building and get the same results. the designs tend to suffer because of it. it looks a little large on the street. i guess some of the neighbors are concerned. it is a big lot. there is a sizable home as well as smaller ones on the street. i think tweaking this with setbacks here or there is going to make any substantial change or difference. i moved to approve. >> second. >> if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion... o-mac -- [roll call]
3:29 am
>> that motion fails 3-2. commissioner moore? >> i will ask for a continuance since we are two commissioners short. we will not find a solution to this today. >> second. >> any specific date in mind? >> i don't have a calendar in front of me. i would have to rely on your recommendation and do it as quickly as possible when we have a full commission. >> i mean, there is nothing soon where there is a full commission the soonest we could schedule it would be august 29th, but some of the items have been continue to that. you have a very long calendar after that and it is september 19th. >> excuse me, may i mentioned, we have been dealing with this for two and a half years.
3:30 am
we have done everything we could to design this project. >> honestly, i like density equity, but the size of the house, i don't care how well the a.d.u. is designed, i truly don't believe it will be rented out. it is a four or 5 million-dollar house that you will not need to the income from. it will sit there empty. that is why i do not support this project. i'm sorry. it should be 1200 square feet, it should make financial sense to rented out, not a micro a.d.u. i'm sorry. that is why i am not in support of this project no matter how well-designed. >> i agree with you, but the answer to that is we have an r.h. one zoning that we are going to allow the a.d.u. you don't want the state to come and tell us we can put two units in it. you can't have it both ways. it is in our h. one in zoning, it is a big lot, we are doing what they asked us to do.
3:31 am
i am with you, let's make it r.h. four so people can put four units in. but we are wanting our cake and eating it, too. >> further to this, even if someone builds an a.d.u., we cannot control it. that is not in our purview. >> i'm not trying to make it in our purview. the question i have is, what is the maximum size and a.d.u. can be based on a be 22? is there a state maximum? it is our h. one, i get it. can we have two units that are 1800 square feet? call one and a.d.u. and won a unit. can we have a 1200 square-foot a.d.u. any 2700 square-foot house. >> commissioner richards, i don't have all that data with me
3:32 am
, so i can't give you an answer based on the numbers, i'm sorry. i don't know if staff has those numbers. >> unfortunately, we don't know those answers. >> okay. i support the continuance. >> the a.d.u. is not my issue. the issue is the bulk of the building. i would raise this to the project sponsor. if we limited the top floor to a maximum of 12 feet, the setback of the living room could increase from 7.5 to 10 feet. would that be acceptable? [indiscernible] >> behind the houses -- >> excuse me, i raise the
3:33 am
question. i don't want to hear any more discussion on your reasons. >> the answer your to your question would be we are okay with increasing the height of our living room because we have pushed down the whole house to be able to have a beautiful living room. we have bought this land because we wanted to have the oceanview. if we push back anymore, it almost defeats the purpose of our project, which would have been happening for two and a half years and we have already -- >> thank you, i understand. the view is from the floor line, it is not from the top. [indiscernible] >> it would bring approval today if there was more height? >> would it change your vote today? would that be a quorum for approval today? >> let's put it up for a vote.
3:34 am
>> 10 feet instead of -- >> the maximum clear space within the top floor would be 1- setback on the living room floor would go from 7.5 to 10 feet. >> would it be okay if we did 12 and a half? this is very important to us. we have been working very hard on this again. >> yes, 12.5. >> thank you. we appreciate that. thank you. >> i would move the approval of the project based upon the adjustment of the current design in terms of the top floor, clear dimension to go from what's
3:35 am
currently 14 to 12 by five, and that the setback of the living room portion would be increased from 7.5 feet to 10 feet. >> second. >> let's be clear, the setback of the other side is already 10 feet? >> it is greater than 10 feet. >> okay. >> there was a motion to continue the best data available would be september 19th. shall i call that question? >> i withdraw that. >> i made the motion. >> very good. there has been a subsequent motion to approve this matter with conditions as amended to limit the floor-to-ceiling height to 12.5 feet for the living area and the living room setback increase from 7.5 to 10 feet. on that motion...
3:36 am
[roll call] so moved. that motion passes 4-1. that will place is on item 15. 24,717th avenue. conditional use authorization. -- [indiscernible] >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i am with department staff. opposable before you is another request for conditional use authorization to allow a major alteration of a residence that is considered tantamount to demolition of a two family
3:37 am
dwelling. the existing two story over basement building with no parking will be replaced with a four story two unit residential building, with a two car garage within an r.h. two zoning district. the project site is a 25-foot by 120-foot deep lot located in the block on 17th avenue between california and clement street. the building proposed for demolition is approximately 26 hundreds with -- 2600 square feet. this building is not considered historic. the surrounding area is comprised primarily of multifamily multifamily, three-story residences. per the project sponsor brief, which is included in your packet , one unit is currently tenant occupied by a family friend and the other unit is vacant. the property owner intends to occupy the new building.
3:38 am
the new building extends to the 45% rear yard line and will utilize a common -- a commonly used permitted obstruction which allows a one story, 12-foot deep extension. the top floor is setback 15 feet on the front of the building to make the building more compatible with the surrounding buildings. light on adjacent buildings will be matched. both units will have private open space in the form of a deck , and access to a large rear yard. the department has not received any public comment. staff recommends the commission approves the project as noted in the executive summary. the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code and the project will reserve and enlarge the two units, creating two family sized units. this concludes my presentation. thank you. i will be available if you have any questions. >> thank you. project sponsor?
3:39 am
>> good evening, commissioners. i am the designer. i would like to give some background of the property owner and his family. they are native san franciscans. he lives in the richmond district with his daughter for about 30 years now, and this property is actually designed for him and his family because his daughter is married and they have extended family now and they want to have some more space for the extended family. having the market in the san francisco area, it is not affordable for them to move out on their own. this is a motivation for them. you can see this is a photo of
3:40 am
the existing property. this is the only one on the block without a garage. one of our main designs for the families to build a two car garage giving the parking situation in richmond is fairly not ideal. we are proposing for a four story building, top story will be setback with a two car garage tandem. the existing property is -- there are two units, one is roughly about 1400 square feet on the ground floor, and the basement, the second floor is about 740 square feet, each of the units only has one bedroom at the moment, and the proposed project is to expand that one bedroom and have a total of three bedrooms in each unit.
3:41 am
unit a will occupy first and the second floor with three bedrooms , and unit b. will occupy the second and the penthouse on top with three bedrooms. i have brought also, this is on the same block, a few houses down. very similar design, four story building, and this larger building here as well. it is a larger building. it is four story high hi. our design is compatible to those designs and i would like to have your approval and i am open to any questions. thank you.
3:42 am
>> thank you. i would like to open this up for public comment. does anyone in the public like to speak on this item? seeing none, commissioners? >> question for staff. first of all, it's very simple, i noticed on one of the plans a space called retreat. what is that? >> i believe i would need to the project sponsor to answer that. i'm not familiar with that. >> second, the main question is, the roof deck in the front, does that conform to the commission's policies, recent policy for roof decks? >> there is no commission policy i just want to make that clear. the commission never adopted a roof deck policy.
3:43 am
>> i was told differently at the board of appeals. [laughter] i thought it was quite well done , actually. [laughter]. >> there are simply standards that the department has implemented. >> instead of policy -- >> i just wanted to clarify. there is a difference. >> does it conform to the standards? >> it does conform with the standards as required by the residential design advisory team i 5-foot setback from the front is very typical for even a historic home. this home is not considered historic. >> i thought they also had setbacks from the side. >> that has been discussed, but it is not a requirement. >> okay. >> commissioner moore? >> just picking up on what commissioner fong said that the requirement for the setback from the front façade in an area where there are no typical balconies facing the street is 15 feet. we have upheld that for as long as i have been sitting on this commission. and if that comes through to the
3:44 am
planning department, i would like to say that we have spent quite -- sent quite a few projects back that adhere to that rule. i'm going to be a little bit irritated because we have been very consistent about that. even the commissioners who have not been quite as long as i have have all participated in that in order to basically protect and reinforce the prevailing character of the street on which these alterations occur. thank you, mr. fong, for pointing that out. the question i have for staff, aside from the fact -- the deck has to hold back from the side in order to prevent impact from privacy. in this particular case, there is one side when you look at drawings. let's open that drawing. where the building would preferably hold back from the east side because there is a
3:45 am
building adjoining to it where people would be able to look into the adjoining building. my question to staff is, why would this building not be a remodel? it is an alteration tantamount to demolition. my question is, we had three recently building up on cortland we talked about the excessive use of it internal stairs, because adding the fourth floor requires a two sets of stairs, which completely defeats the efficient use of how you are designing it. so why not design a three-story unit i which two parties have larger units on their own, yet there is only one stair and not the internal stair?
3:46 am
i think these are all questions which make me wonder that this building is not really a well-designed replacement for what is, but i think with a slightly different attitude, there could be something which is more a real remodel of the building by enlarging it, yet not indeed designing something which is self-sufficient and particularly a good replacement. >> commissioner richards? >> i don't see in the packet, maybe i overlooked it. this project attends to planning property requirements. >> i'm sorry -- >> the policies that were passed during 101.1? >> those are covered in the draft motion. >> let me take a look. i apologize. i never looked at the digest. i can pass it back to commissioner moore.
3:47 am
>> i would like to remind ourselves on the cortland discussion that the addition of two cars by building -- allows building design to create units which are not better, that there are, as a total, very large, but they are not better units because of the inefficiency of adding extra stairs. i would kind of like to hear commissioner fong, who really speaks from the perspective of the board of appeals, to push back projects like this. and had better results. and we are here to help, not to hinder, but i think this project could achieve a lot more with less than what is currently proposed. >> commissioner hillis? >> just a question for the project sponsor. i am not following the staircase discussion because i think the additional set of stairs just
3:48 am
goes from the ground floor unit up to the first floor. it doesn't go all the way up, at least i am not seeing that. but, i am generally supportive of the project. what i would like to see, as a matter of increasing density. did you consider the ground floor behind the garage as an a.d.u. instead of extra space for the first floor unit? >> i would consider this, but this is for the larger family. there's two daughters that were married off. the daughters all want upper floors. and the daughters go live it with the parents and the lower floor. that is how we design this for the family, and -- >> you have an entertainment room, a study room, and a bedroom on that ground floor. i get it is space, but i mean, one thing when we look at when approving, you know, a building
3:49 am
that is tantamount to demo, it is important to note, this isn't a demo under the building code. it remains under rent control. one thing we do like to see is maxing out the density. you could put an a.d.u. on that ground floor and with easy access to eliminate that stair and commissioner moore's concern about going up to the living portion of that unit. we would have a three unit building. >> we could put that in the plan >> i would be supportive of it if you added that and if we convert that living area on the ground floor into an a.d.u. and access at the same way from the front and we would have -- we would eliminate that stair going to the first one. >> sure. >> commissioner fong? >> my starting point was
3:50 am
actually some exceptions of the proposal as is. the only thing i noted is that to prevent some potentially future impacts, you know, to look at how you separate the roof deck a little bit more from the neighbors, since the deck is above their height of the adjacent neighbors, i don't have a position on the a.d.u. i think that the fact that this is family housing, i am excepted -- accepted of their general approach -- proposal. the question that commissioner moore brought up of two stairs is, you know, two means of exit will be required, and the other issue that i think is more
3:51 am
important is in terms of whether this becomes an alteration or whether it becomes a demolition to construct a new. i have always believed that we need renewal and i am accepted of demolition to provide that renewal. >> commissioner richards? >> the issue that i have is page relative affordability of existing housing. it removes -- it is considered more affordable then a more recently constructed building, however, the project will contain the same number of units they are demolishing a relatively affordable house because -- we talk about filtering, we're doing housing, it filters over time, it becomes more affordable. if we keep destroying that housing that is becoming filtered, so what is the point of talking about filtering unless you were giving us something more? you will get a supersized house that is going to be $6 million, $2 million a unit.
3:52 am
we are going against all policies we talked about. this is a nonstarter for me. it is. >> commissioner moore? i would like to mould over about the acceptance of commissioner fong that she is supportive of a multifamily housing and i would like to resolve the question about the date -- the deck with a 12-foot requirement that would have to disappear partly because it is not possible to go back 1. with the 5-foot of the façade and the deck itself is 10-foot six, it gives us 15 feet. if we go back 12 or 15 feet, we basically have 6 inches left for the deck. you might as well ditch it, particularly, unless the rest of the unit plans change, we are not able to accommodate a deck
3:53 am
here. >> i think the general requirement from planning is 15 feet to the building face, not to deck use. is that correct? >> 5 feet off the property line. >> that is on the side property. >> we are talking about the setback. >> the deck on the top floor of the building face. 15 feet is standard. >> to the building face, not to any edge of the deck. >> no, 5 feet is standard for the setback for the decks that are located at the front of the building. >> the only thing is we would have to pinch the deck in from both sides, the east and west side and it would sit on the property line above the adjoining building. we will pull that in at a minimum -- at a minimum by 5 feet, which is not diminishing
3:54 am
the quality of the deck itself. we have in over 25-foot lot here , which is standard here. we could approve the plan by just pinching in the deck from both sides. >> commissioner hillis? >> i try to make a motion to approve the project with modifications that reduce the deck in the front by 5 feet on either side property line and convert the ground floor behind the garage to an a.d.u. >> second. >> commissioner richards? >> i can support that if the a.d.u. reads like an a.d.u., that it has the right exposure, street access rather than going through the garage to get to the a.d.u. >> the a.d.u. is behind the garage. >> i could support a three unit building here in this demolition of affordable housing and create an additional unit that is a quality unit with the a.d.u.s that we want.
3:55 am
>> it would be via the side yard >> there is no side yard. >> not going through the garage. and do they conform the deck to the new policy? >> deck and 5 feet from the sides, and accessible a.d.u. that illuminates that stair to the first main floor and it is independently accessible. >> is there a second? >> commissioner fong? >> just a question for the permit holder. you are in total agreement to add an a.d.u.? >> it is beneficial to being a rental as well. i believe they will be fine with it. thank you. >> if there is nothing further
3:56 am
-- >> second. >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with the conditions as have been amended to reduce the roof deck 5 feet on all sides, including the front, and to provide an a.d.u. behind the garage with intended street access. on that motion... [roll call] >> i would like to add a comment , it requires elimination of the stair. >> we mentioned that. >> that stair goes all the way up. >> it stopped at the first floor it doesn't go all the way up. it is an internal staircase for
3:57 am
the lower unit. >> it will eliminate the internal stairs for the first four and the second floor in the main stairs will go to the third floor. >> okay. >> the deck conforms to the deck standards. i just wanted to make sure. >> the deck standards have interpretation involved. >> we did it. we pulled it back. >> thank you. thank you. >> okay. w -- [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. that will place is on item 16. 2478 gary boulevard. conditional use authorization.
3:58 am
>> i just need a moment to shift gears here. good afternoon again. planning department staff. this is another proposal for conditional use authorization to allow demolition of a one-story over basement, single-family home and construction of a new four story, three family dwelling within an r.h. three zoning district. the project sight mac is rather small. it is 26 feet wide by 80 feet deep and is located between lyon and baker street. the building propose for demolition is approximately 1229 square feet and it contains one bedroom and was constructed in 1891. the project was evaluated by preservation staff and the existing building was determined not to be historic. the surrounding area is zoned r.h. three and an c3 with
3:59 am
allowed building height ranging from 40 to 105 feet. per the project sponsor brief, which is included in your packet , the project -- the property owners previously occupied the home and intend to occupy the new building. currently, the homeless tenant occupied under a short-term lease. the new building extends to 45% rear yard line and will utilize the permitted obstruction that allows a two story popout extension with 5-foot side yard setbacks. each unit will have private open space in the form of a deck. the department received one late comment today at approximately 1:45 p.m. and the message was not extremely clear, but it did say that views and sunlight at 2472 and 2474 gary would be impacted.
4:00 am
and there were photos. staff recommends that the commission approve the project as noted in the executive summary. the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code and will add two new dwelling units to the city's housing stock. this concludes my presentation. thank you. i will be available if you have any questions. >> thank you. is there project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. my wife and i brought -- bought the place in 2017 out of necessity because my wife worked in san francisco. after four years living there, we do love the place and we intended to rent out units after construction.