it's zoned for two units, rh 2, and i think that's what it should be. i heard the project sponsor he enumerate the reasons why that wouldn't be the optimal use of the lot, and i understand that, but -- in fact, one thing she said is not true. the lot's difficulties made it not developed, that was not the case. my former neighbor did not sell it until recently, and it's covered with lovely trees. i knwill miss those trees, but know it's going to get developed eventually. i do support development, but not an almost 3,000 square foot home, and it would not support the neighborhood, which is two bedroom homes. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, good evening. i live at 60 lower terrace, which is literally about 200 feet from the property. it doesn't have a direct impact on me, so that's not the issue. i'm also on the board of the corporate heights association and hopefully you see their letter to you, specifically we're calling out the fact that there's a violation of the special use dis

>> the zoning. it's rh-2 -- >> i know but if you split the lot, you have a vacant lot. >> it goes down to the creation of the lots and you can't have -- you can't do lot splits that basically force noncon frommer -- nonconforming lots. you can't do something that pushes another building or existing building into more nonconformity. without getting, for example, a variance or something like that. >> will we get a variance? >> they can't get a variance from density. for example, wi have other programs like the baby bonus, you know the discounting the b.m.r. units but doesn't apply to r.h. properties, for example. things like that. in this case, this property, since it's only rh-2, it is not afforded a lot of the other intensives that we have within the code. >> commissioner? >> thank you. and thank you for the presentation. i did understand what you had presented. i wasn't here for the original hearing, just this last one, right? and i'm not ready to do anything. other tan to disapprove this project today. i

we wish to pursue its interim use because we know it's zoned in ct and rh 2, and our long-term goal is to develop as a residential next use. if our intention was to pursue permanent parking, we would be pursuing a change in the zoning, we reasoned that in the short-term, we could develop a paid parking lot which could improve the property with paved parking, landscaping, lighting, and safety. it will generate income which will hasten our long-term development plans, providing a good out come for the city, visitors, residents, and tenants. this led to our request for a letter of determination to the zoning administrator. mr. sanchez acknowledged its use as parking since the early 70's, but he did not find it to be a legal nonconforming public parking use. we believe that the record shows very clearly that the existing parking use is a legal nonconforming use. the city is on record since 1971 prior to the hayes's use of nonconforming parking, it has continued for 46 years as such. in recent years, city planning documents eventually dropped the term unauthorized parking and grandfathered

really feel like this is a time to sort of look at these lots and really make sure that if the zoning is rh-2 that we're actually doing everything we can to get two units. and because this is -- there is a large residence sort of restriction in corona heights, it may even be advisable to look at, can we provide a variance on height or something to be able to get the two units in there and make sure that they both are livable and light and air and all of that. i think that would be a preferable solution than to just saying -- to putting up our hands and saying we can't do two units here. so i'm not supportive of the project as is, and we'll see where it goes. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: staff analysis is quite clear that the project has a gross area of 3,000 square feet and less than 40% open yard within an rh-2 zoning district. that alone speaks to itself that a single-family building even with a cu is not necessary and desirable, but that, indeed, it also basically does not meet the corona heights interim residential requirements. that said if you really

that's apartment zoning, not rh, lower density. up to four units are personal -- permitted. it proposes three large family-size units to replace one delapidated house. it is consistent with zoning and character of the neighborhood. it is characterized by 3- and 4-story apartment buildings and the 3-story buildings in many cases are more than 30 feet. single-family home is an anomaly. there's a 9-unit building to the west and 6-unit to the east. these images on the screen indicate the character of the vicinity. the site is within a 40 site. unlike rh1 and rh2, which does require lower heights and setbacks at upper stories, rm1 requires no upper story height reductions or setbacks. nonetheless, the building is sculpted and detailed to conform to the neighborhood character and address appellants' concerns. it has a large, code-complaint rear yard. the first floors are full floor and so is the second. third and fourth is not, to address light on lake street and appellant's house. the planning commission ordered even further revisions at appellant's request, including removal of r

with the rh-1 zoning, 75% of the lot can be covered by the building itself and so this particular deck is entirely within the buildable area where the building could extend. and so this is a fraction of what they might have afopplied r and let me show you what i mean by that. they're only taking the deck out 9'6" because that's included in the buildable area the entire building could have been extended to that and on to that a pop-out into the required rear yard of another 12 feet with a deck on top of that. these are as of late, applications that could have been made but weren't. so, like i said, this is a fraction of what they could have applied for. the concerns are privacy, sunlight and health concerns or something along those lines, i was not really clear on that. my point in the brief was that they had made an error in their calculations. they said there the deck was extending 9'6" past their building, when it's only going 6'6" past their building because -- and this is the pdf that mr. choi referred to. it's an enlargement of the plans, page s2.2, shows the rear deck and on the

zones. green is rh-1, yellows the -- no. red is the rh-2 and yellow is the rh-3 and you have the ability as a commission to deal with the numerical criteria. it's in the planning code. it says the planning commission may reduce the above numerical elements of the criteria in subsections b and b2c by up to 20% of their values should any adjustment be necessary to implement the intent of this section. so, while this is all being jettisoned, you do have a chance to do something even though this has been discontinued indefinitely and here's my point. here's the material on it. thank you, have a good day. >> thank you. any additional public comment on the items being proposed for a continuance? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner? >> motion to continue items one, two, three to the date specified and item number eight indefinitely. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue items -- excuse me -- as proposed. commissioner fong? [roll call] >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unan

the subject property at 2523 steiner street is located within the rh 1 zoning district and a 40 x height and bulk district. the proposal is to expand the existing third and fourth story of the existing single-family home into the required rear yard. based on the design feedback from the planning department's residential design planning team, the planning department revised such that the planned structure encroached into the rear yard approximately 9'3" into the ground floor. the proposed addition -- variance was heard at a joint hearing with the planning commission on june 15, 2017 where they also held a hearing for discretionary review. so summarize the comments, the acting zoning administrator stating that can be challenging to make a required finding that the project would not be injurous to the project in the vicinity however the subject property is very small and narrow and that combination can squeeze floor plans in a way to make them planning he ceffecti. however, commissioners richards and moor are larger concerns with the project and more specifically commissioner moor thought t

i object to this proposal because for one thing, it is in violation of the rh-2 zoning district. it's already in violation, and to add insult to injury, to add more density, instead of just having two units or even the existing three units, to go up to four would harm our property values and create a denser corner and neighborhood. not only is 21st street a traffic hazard, it is a pedestrian hazard. there is no four way stop sign at castro street. it is already a -- a -- considered shortcut for uber and lyft and other network transportation company drivers, in addition to taxi cab drivers, so this will add to the density and take away from the nature of the neighborhood. so that is why i'm objecting to the proposal as it is currently laid out. thank you. >> thank you. >> if it may please the commission, my name is philip ledbetter. i am the father of denise ledbetter. i'm a widower. i first came to san francisco as a young soldier at the age of 17, having grownup in cape cod, massachusetts. i see what is coming up now is a rather box house out of place with the other houses in th

rh-3. i'm not talking about changing zoning or anything like that. we should be able to maximize the number of units we are getting in the current zoning that we have. we have a fight over heights and all of that. but we can build so much. if we added one floor to every building in san francisco, that is tens of thousands of new units. right? that is 20% of 400,000 right there. i really think we should think boldly about sponsoring legislation ourselves and working with the boater of supervisors to find somebody to bring it up to the board level. that is something we should be looking at. the next thing i would say is maintaining affordability is about creating new housing stock and more importantly about protecting existing housing stock and making sure that people are actually living in it. for existing housing stock, i have been a proponent of it. sometimes i get shot down because it is a countercyclical programme to be the most effective. but i think the small sized acquisition programme, if we were to do version 2.0 of that with some tweaks, cou

the property is located in the rh 2 zoning district. the subject permit was originally filed on july 31st and was approved by the planning department by a senior member of our pic staff over the counter on august 9th. the planner noted on the approval that the proposed deck and stairs were also exempt from neighborhood notification due to their limits height and projects. as such, it is the planning department's position it was properly approved. this appears to be more of an issue between neighbors and not a question of whether the planning department's approval was proper. i'm available for my questions you may have. >> did you see the connecting stairs for the rooms down? >> did i see the connecting stair. >> it's about 1 foot away from the wall. >> this on the proposed ground floor plan? >> mm-hmm. >> and let's see here...and what was the -- what was the question about the location of the stairs? >> no questions, just observations. >> oh, okay. thank you. thank you for the observation. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, t

, rehabilitate them, and add the additional unit. >> so unfortunately because it's rh 2, we're up to the maximum zoning so we tried to keep it as three units, keep those there, untouchable, which is above the zoning, so if we get rid of the one unoccupied unit right now, we run into an issue -- >>vice president richards: but not get rid of any units. the lot cannot be subdivided without reducing any of the units. the existing building is over the density, and so that other lot cannot be sub twieded out from underneath it because of that density issue. >>vice president richards: how long has your client owned the building? is. >> six years, i think, four years? >>vice president richards: so the building was purchased with the knowledge it was a rent controlled building. it did have multiple tenants paying substantially less than the rent. we all make investment decisions. some work out, some don't. i'm not sure -- i'm not sure what your name is. i apologize. this may need more time. >> can i respond to some of these other questions? >>vice president richards: sure. >> in terms of the mayor's office of h

zoning potential. a single family home in rh-2 is not desirable. this brings me to a statement, size does matter. the average size of a home in san francisco is 1200 square feet provided by the department 12 months ago. however, we get these applications, not only are we underbuilding, but building a single family house in rh-2, but everything that is 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 square feet is called public housing. if an average house is 1200 square feet, if you need 3,000 square feet to survive, you're probably smoking something because we can probably fit three units in that same space. let's not look at units but the size of the units. we can get more units in if we make them more reasonable and we should be looking at that when we're definitely trying to maximize the density. lastly, two commissioner johnson's point, i completely agree. a lot of property developers are looking at their proformas. the risk is the rents are justifying the risk involved given the cost to construct. if they start falling, i hope we don't have a disincentive to not build. so, it is becoming a vicious circle. a vicious cy

and finally, i ask that you request the zoning administrator to adjust the value for the administrative approval for demolitions in rh-1 districts. it was last adjusted in 2015 and it's currently at $1.63 million or you could just eliminate it as was proposed in the r.e. t. i know you have a lot of stuff. santa has a big sack on his sleigh of things for you to do next year. but i do hope you will do that and i wish you all a really merry christmas and all the best for the few year and particularly you, commissioner johnson. you have a wonderful year in your new endeavours and all of you take care and happiness and health and let's hope 2018 is better than 2017. this is for the minutes. thank you. take care. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i wanted to take a couple of minutes just to say that i think the director bulletin that came out a week and a half ago on the whole streamlining tangle was very excellently done. i don't know if it was kate or john or combination, might have taken the whole army to figure that out. it was very well done and clarifies a lot. i think it cuts through the rhetoric we've been hearin