Normally storage does not require windows of this kind. Storage does not require doors going downstairs into the garden and coming in from the breezeway i think this is somewhat unusual and i would like to ask staff as to whether or not that was discussed, considered, or was the applicant asked on what the Storage Space already entails. The option would be to not have this wall dividing the storage area. You could have a three car tandem garage, although that is not very feasible for moving cars around. And a. D. U. Would trigger new requirements under the Building Code, which might make this project unfeasible for the applicants. There is a narrow lot. They would have additional egress requirements. When this project started, i believe in a. D. U. Was not possible until you would need at least three years to add it, so at the time it could have been added with thought for the future, but i believe the staff and the project architects can speak more directly on the requirements under the Building Code because they did investigate this. So if no one else has questions, i do have questions about the existing tenant and i do not see anything in the packet. I see that her lease his lease goes to august is there an agreement that she is coming back, or has she put anything in riding that she is no longer a tenant . I would like i dont want a permit that we are, you know, approving to be causing the eviction of a tenant. Absolutely. That is not the intention. I am 56 years old and named julio. I was born and raised in that neighborhood. The idea is to enhance it and not do anything to detract from it. Specific to your question, the property sat vacant for about a year and recently, in september, we wanted it out to a couple that is, one of them is an employee of ucsf and the other one was trained at ucsf. The Lease Agreement that we signed, i informed them there were plans in place to create a different structure there and i told them that if the plans were approved for demolition, the earliest anything would be done would be in three years. In fact, that timeline may be pushed out, but i told them at least they could be there for three years without any action at all. I dont anticipate any action. I am a very open to a grace period if there is difficulty in them finding another place, even if they stay for the full three years. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner richards . I like the explanation that was given. I think we should at least put in the findings that we approve this that we acknowledged that the tenants to have three years. That is one of the reasons why we are going ahead and doing this with a tenant and it. I moved to approve with that finding. Second. If there is nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. With the correction read into the record by staff and an additional finding regarding the tenant and tenant see. On that motion. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 6 0. Placing us on item 243501 geary boulevard. Conditional use authorization. Good evening. One moment. I believe commissioner johnson needs to request a recusal. I am requesting to be recused because i live within 500 feet of the subject property. I will acknowledge that request and motion to recuse commissioner johnson. Second. Thank you. On that motion to recuse commissioner johnson. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 6 0. Good evening, members of the planning commission. I am with Planning Department staff. The agent before you is a request for conditional use authorization to convert a vacant ground for commercial space with approximately 1,866 square feet of floor area to a formal retail use doing businesses tmobile, a Wireless Communications store. The proposal will involve interior tenant permits to the ground floor space. They would be no expansion to the existing building envelope. The proposed store will consist of a sales area of merchandise, display areas, fixtures, sale and service counters, two storage rooms and two restrooms. The proposed store will sell or rent to customers, various telling munication projects, information service, personal Communication Services or products. Currently there is approximately 5,300 tmobile store locations worldwide, of which approximately a dozen are in San Francisco. The proposed project will allow for the option of a new tea mobile store location and within the Inner Richmond neighborhood and first time tenant for the subject commercial space. The similar retail findings are included in the draft motion for the commission to consider. The department has not received any letters of opposition to the project. The department has received correspondence from three people which asked about the status or expressed support of the project as long as the business signage is compatible visually. The project sponsor has conducted a preapplication meeting on the project in february of 2019 to persons other than the project sponsors that were present at the pre application meeting. The Planning Departments recommendation for the project his approval with conditions. This concludes my presentation. I am available for any questions thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have a project sponsor . Hello. Thank you, commissioners, for your time and consideration today. I own a Company Called mobile one. We started our journey into thousand and eight selling tmobile part since products and services out of a kiosk in the mall. We have grown our company to 132 Retail Locations and employ over 900 employees. Almost half of our employees are employed here in the state of california. Many of whom in the bay area. We operate 45 stores in the San Francisco bay and sacramento areas. We operate the tmobile store inside of the galleria were many of our employees also attend the university of San Francisco which is located up the street. We are very excited about the opportunity to open a store in the Inner Richmond neighborhood and continue to be a job creator for local residents. 100 of my companys management and team members have been promoted internally. I am proud to be part of the tmobile brand for almost 20 years. In 2013 we launched the Carrier Campaign where we solve customer price points and have eliminated contracts, termination fees, fees for using to do much data. We also offer discounts to Senior Citizens and first responders. We set provide a lower cost option to the other wireless carriers out there and i think we will be an excellent addition to that richmond neighborhood. Thank you for your time. We look forward to your approval of the conditional use authorization. Thank you very much. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Public comment is closed. Commissioner koppel . Motion to approve. Second. Thank you. If there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 4 0. That will place us on your discretionary review calendar. Item 21 was continued to november 14th. Placing us on item 22. 1132 avenue. 1130 potrero avenue. The idea before you as a public initiated request for discretionary review. To construct a horizontal side addition and a third story vertical addition to eight two story over basement and one family residence. The d. R. Requester is from 325 nace street, and adjacent owner of the property to the south of the proposed project who is concerned with that. The project conflicts with the citys priority policies preserving neighborhood character and preserving affordable housing. And the proposed rear addition is incompatible with the residential design guidelines. Respecting the existing pattern of side facing buildings and articulating the buildings to minim eyes impacts to light, air , and privacy on adjacent properties. To date, the department has received no letters of opposition and no letters of support. To this end, the departments Residential Design Advisory Team as we reviewed the project and confirmed this addition does not represent any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with respect to preserving affordable housing, privacy, sound and light to the adjacent neighbor to the south. The project sponsor has submitted an affidavit attesting there is no unauthorized dwelling unit. The rent board has no records in their database regarding the existence of a rental unit. And furthermore, a letter from a firmer former tenant a test they shared the house. They report that the authorized use of this is as a one family dwelling. With respect to the impacts of the d. R. Requesters property, since the subject property is north of the d. R. Requester and extends only 5 feet beyond the depth of the d. R. Requesters building, it is also set back three and a half feet from the side, our team proposes they meet the residential Design Standards with respect to scale, light, and privacy in relation to the d. R. Requesters property to the south and the property to the north. Specifically because the proposed third floor addition is set back from the high front parapet to be visible from the street. It shows a modest floor to roof height of 9 feet and procreates the front front deck that is tucked between behind a parapet. As well as a rear deck that is minimal and also set off the adjacent Property Lines. Staff deem the third story addition is minimal to his impacts to light and privacy. Furthermore, the d. R. Requester asserts that the proximity of building a Property Line wall close to his would impact sound. The Property Line walls in San Francisco are pretty typical and when constructed to current standards of separation and insulation should not present an issue with respect to sound transmission. However, there is no provision in the planning code to regulate such issues. As such, staff does not find any exceptional or extraordinary conditions and recommends the commission not take the d. R. And approve the project. This concludes my presentation and im happy to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will now have here from the d. R. Requester. Start speaking. Good evening. My name is diana gomez and my husband has owned this home since 1984. There are two big picture items that we would like to bring to your attention today. The first is the alarming loss of starter homes in our neighborhood. The proposal seeks to turn age quote 1200 squarefoot house with enough solar unit that had been providing additional housing in our housing for over four decades into a 3,000 squarefoot mega home. At the house was purchased 10 years ago for 749,000 and is now valued by a public website at 1. 5 million. The project sponsor seeks to turn it into a sickle family home that may push the value of up to 3 million. A home that only very wealthy people can afford. Second, there are existing loopholes that make it easy to eliminate auxiliary units. The only thing that was provided to planning to satisfy the removal of the auxiliary unit is a letter from a former tenant. The letter does not mention the fact that the unit itself is fully selfcontained that has no direct access to the house. The letter uses a plan simply stating that the tenant rented it as part of a main house. Allowing this massive expansion will make this home much larger than any other Single Family home in the immediate square block area and create a terrible precedent that will change the charm and the character of our historic walk. There are Single Family homes that make up the majority of the buildings on our block. Not one of them has a third story. All of the homes that make up the midblock area were built in the 18 nineties and incorporated large side setbacks. That isnt what we now refer to as Green Building techniques. That makes these homes environmentally friendly. This proposal seeks to remove a large south facing setback that is the best source of light and air to both of our homes. If you feel this expansion is necessary and desirable, there are some modifications that we respectfully request you consider. First, the east facing roof deck should be reduced in size and the wall between the deck and our home be raised to the height of the front parapet to reduce noise transfer to the main living area of our home. Second, the light well provided for a bathroom window should be increased from 7 feet to 8 feet. This would reduce the proposal by less than nine square feet. This modest change has been made has made a big difference to our home. The third floor rear deck should be eliminated to preserve privacy to the rear yard open space and finally, the existing first floor rear deck should be replaced with a conforming landing and stairs and includes a fire rated wall. As it currently exists, the deck is an extreme infringement on our privacy as it encroaches into backyard open space. And since it is built on the Property Line without the required safety feature, it poses a real safety hazard. With that, my husband would like to make additional comments. I would like to add. I never agreed to anything to the meeting i attended where a plan to address the light well for my bathroom window was first presented. I was asked for letter of endorsement, at which time i informed the project sponsor it would not be forthcoming. Until i saw specifics on how they would address the privacy issue involving a glass of rail on the terrace that overlooks our bathroom window. I also asked for specific information on why a variance would not be required if they chose to replace existing nonconforming deck. Despite repeated requests, no alterations were made to the railing until three weeks after the notice was sent out. Information on the variance requirement to replace the existing nonconforming deck was not provided to me till two days prior to the d. R. Finding the deadline. At this time, i offered to support a variance which would include a deck that would be 5 feet from my Property Line and 4 feet into the rear yard open space. However, i also indicated that if a variance was denied, project sponsors should replace the existing deck with a code compliant landing and steps. This was rejected. Im still willing to support a variance as previously stated and under the same conditions. Thank you very much. I would be glad to answer any questions if i can. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the d. R. Requester . I am with the latino cultural district. This home falls within the district. We are in support of the d. R. Record discretionary review. We are not in support in this type of building. It is a monster home, we have seen them all over the neighborhood. It does reduce privacy and light for the existing neighbors. I grew up a block away from this house. This block has many Historic Buildings. This particular sight is a Historic Building and the facade will be improved. That is what we havent seen in the neighborhood. As far as removing the auxiliary unit, i think we need to really think about that we are removing housing from this particular sight. It is a place where elderly folks can live, families can come and stay. A lot of these homes in the neighborhood, these older homes have these lots to provide housing for a lot of people. We are opposing this design and supporting the d. R. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment in support of the d. R. Requester . Okay. Project sponsor . You get a presentation. Thank you, commissioners. I am the owner of this property, along with my wife julie. I bought this home nine years ago at a very different time in my life. I was single. At that time to help cover the mortgage, i rented out rooms. Since that time, a lot has changed. One of those roommates is actually now my wife. We replace our other ruminants remains without two daughters i think we can all agree this is probably a bright spot in the history of landlord and tenant relations in San Francisco. Bad jokes aside, we have made this house our home and we have found a community here. Our doctors go to preschool down the street. My wife and i both work in the neighborhood now. We know the Business Owners around our neighborhood and like most parents, we eventually had the conversation which is, you know, can we raise our children in the city or do we need to move . We really couldnt think of anywhere else we could go. This is our home now. So knowing we were in it for the longhaul, our only option was to invest in trying to remodel this house to accommodate our very different needs now. From there we hired our architect who is here today and can probably answer some more technical questions. He helped us come up with a design that we felt was very respectful of the historic character of the house, which we have always celebrated, and we tried to be mindful from the beginning of the impact of this will have on the neighbors who we know and are generally accepted. No other neighbors aside from mr. Gomez who owns the property medially to the south, and voiced any concerns. This includes george who lives to the north of us who mr. Gomez also claims will be impacted. He offered to have his daughter write a letter of support, but i didnt follow up on that. Since then, we have spent a considerable amount of time trying to accommodate mr. Gomez s evolving demands. In the early plans, our design had infill in an acceptable light well. We recognized immediately that this was going to impact mr. Gomez because there is a nonconforming bathroom window on his Property Line. And so we thought, okay maybe there is a way for us to offer a skylight as an alternative. That was not acceptable to him. We reworked our designed to accommodate that and provide a light well for his nonconforming window. We sat down with mr. Gomez and his wife and discussed it. He agreed the solution was acceptable. He said specifically he didnt have any other issues with the property. I recall you saying you would write a letter of support, and we dont need to litigate that here, but at that time we made it clear we were really trying to address all the concerns upfront to avoid this. So wasnt until the 30 day neighborhood notification in june that we started hearing from him again. I will acknowledge there was a privacy issue with that side deck that should have been addressed. That was something we discussed. We did follow up on that. They was reducing the size of the other roof deck, adding clearance around the nonconforming window, replacing fullsized windows and clerestory windows to eliminate sightlines into his nonconforming window. We did all of this. We followed up with this in a very timely manner. Would try to do everything. We felt like we could a cup we could accommodate him without compromising the designer extensive cost, we did that. But finally, the final straw was this rear yard to deck that he pointed out that is up against the Property Line. He asked us to either move it away from the Property Line or to tear it down. Like i said, we compiled all these requests with the exception of being able to remove the deck because this was never part of our permit application. It is an existing feature of the property. It was there when i purchased it in 2010. I imagine it was there for a long time before that. Our understanding is we cannot simply move the deck. We would do that if we could, but it encroaches into the rear yard setback and that would require a variance. We dont believe that variance would be approved. So we did not adjust our plans that we would make that change. Is an important part of the house. It is part of our familys living space. We couldnt agree to that. Explained all this to mr. Gomez and we made a genuine attempt to find other Solutions Like adding a privacy screen to the deck. We thought this would provide a level of privacy should he ever decide to move in or rent the home. And when we went to mediation, he said we should tear it down or else he would file a request for d. R. Here we are. We made a goodfaith effort to work with him every step. I hope that you will see and approve this as is. Thank you. Your time is up. Okay. Im here to answer any questions thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the project sponsor . Okay. Public comment is closed. D. R. Requester, you have a two minute rebuttal. I think i would just like to add a couple points. Irony. Prior to seeing any plans or anything, the project sponsor was at our home and they mentioned that they would make some alterations to their home because they had been shopping in the neighborhood and they were shocked by how expensive the larger houses were. It is a problem. It really, really is. Only the very wealthy can afford the size of the home that they are proposing. So it is ironic that instead of being part of the solution they chose to be part of the problem. The other thing that is an irony is they are mentioning, when i asked them to reduce the roof deck, that why was i asking for that . Because it was the one and only place that they had true privacy so they want a sanctuary, privacy, and yet they are proposing a deck in the rear that inferences on all of our privacy, in addition when i pointed out that they are on the benefit side of having the deck that looks right into your neighbors yard, and to consider , you know, i told them i would provide a variance. None of that went to fruition. I thought they were playing games when they put a glass railing on a terrace that looked right into my bathroom window. And the fact that it went into the 311 notice and took three weeks after to even send me a correction for that, that was egregious. Thank you. Thank you. Project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. I would like to apologize for that. There was miscommunication in how that glass railing was handled. There was never meant to be an issue. We have operated in good faith this entire time. I also quickly want to mention the downstairs, you know, it came with the building. We used it. My parents stay down there when week when they come to visit. I have had friends stay down there when they come through town. It is a space that has been used it doesnt have a kitchen when people stay. They come upstairs. If you go down there, the ceiling is low. It is not a great place to stay. So thats what that is. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner fung . I am prepared to support staffs recommendation. I dont see anything extraordinary here and i am prepared to to deny the d. R. And approve the permit. Commissioner moore . The only thing i would like to ask, our staff architect, what exactly prompted the inclusion of so many alternatives that reading the application is really quite difficult. I see alternatives in here. What do you mean by alternative . Options, two options here. For how to deal with the . Can you be more specific and page number . It is just like the way you put it together. You dont know what the final is because they are all tumbled together. Are you talking about drawings . Application drawings. Application drawings. Unless i got an extra package here in mind. I am not clear. We are starting withdrawing said s. P. Switching to drawings that are labelled. It is confusing to read. Im curious how you put these packages together. I believe the first one with the red bubble options represent the changes that were made post the 311. So things that were done to address further refining and address the issues with request with respect to the bathroom and the Property Line window. The jack jack deck adjacency at the front and, yeah , the elevation. It would be helpful if staff could help you with that and put the final on there so this commission immediately can move to those drawings, which are really being discussed in front of us. I appreciate background in helping us understand the evolution of your thinking. For us to review this, and i am quite familiar with reviewing drawings. It is hard to read. There is a page in front of those that say the plan revisions were submitted received from mr. Gomez. They were suggested. Is that correct . They were suggested from mr. Gomez. They were not [indiscernible] thank you. That was the only thing i wanted to ask. I want to ask about, so, i have lived in this neighborhood for very long time and i have actually been to that house before you bought it. That was a unit. I have been in it. I am wondering what is we know this commission has been very consistent and when we allow horizontal additions and there is, you know, the potential for maximizing density , we will want another unit. Theres something about this that strikes me wrong, of permitting this expansion without legalizing this unit, which had been a unit in the past, even if it hadnt been legal. That is one thing that bugs me. The things that i heard from the d. R. Requester are not outside the scope of what we have done in this commission when it comes to privacy of roof decks, specifically, and it seems like these are modest things. It is 1 foot in the light well. And then, you know, the roof deck, the firewall also seems like a pretty modest request. So i am ready to grant d. R. And add at least some of these things. It doesnt seem like it is such it is outside of what we have done before in this commission during d. R. I would like clarification about the policy on unauthorized a. D. U. S. That is important to me. Yeah, so from the department standpoint, we have done our due diligence. When we suspect an issue on an authorized dwelling unit, we have we sent a screening form to the project sponsor who silence an affidavit. We cant go on here we cant go on hearsay, with all due respect. We are not the ultimate arbitrators of every last fact in the universe about these things either. So sometimes people come to things and they arent used as unauthorized dwelling units. I think the project sponsor described it quickly. I could go out there and tell you what i see and report back, but in addition to that, we perform Voter Registration rolls we see if there is anybody living there. And there is another rent board check to see if there is a rent board record on dwelling units. That is our screening. That is what we do. But the questions i asked specifically is what our policy is for unauthorized units. Do we just not count them . If they are determined to be unauthorized dwelling units the policy is to legalize them. To legalize them. They are unauthorized dwelling units. In this case, the screening that we did did not yield a determination that this was an authorized dwelling unit. I see. I will take issue with that screening determination methodology. If it is about the rent board, we know that there are false records and they are not a great methodology. So it strikes me wrong that we are dismissing the units when i knew it was a unit. Okay. Commissioner richards . I think one of the things that rubs me the wrong way is i had to submit recusal form because they lived within 500 feet of a project and it was under penalty of perjury, yet we have project sponsors not saying anybody is lying. We have falsified plans, we have demos that are it blows my mind that i have to do, under penalty of perjury, but nobody else does. I think any documents submitted to the city should have that. I will work with supervisors to get this on here and go after some people who actually put in fraudulent fraudulent offers that we see nearly every week. Commissioner melgar saw a unit and i thank you are making this house a very, very big. I think theres room to add a small and modest a. D. U. Unit to give benefit to the housing stock. I would approve the project with some modifications to ease the livability issues next door as well as to add to the housing stock. You clearly were a landlord before and have had great tenant relations. I hope we continue to do that with the new a. D. U. If i may, this document in the packet has i certify under penalty of perjury. I apologize. Moved to deny d. R. Is there a second . Is there an alternate motion . Commissioner richards . I will take d. R. And refer to some of the livability issues, but also add an a. D. U. Unit of modest size of 750 square feet in and the most appropriate place. Is there a second . I will second that, but the requests that i heard were for the expansion of the light well by 1 foot to 8foot six is what i heard. Come up to the mic, please. The roof deck has a wall that appears to be maybe five or 6 feet in height and the roof deck is directly in the main living area of the home. So one of the requests i made. Let me clarify. The rear deck is not part of the budget. It is one story above grade and has stairs down to the rear yard so then we are just talking about the roof deck. Im looking for friendly amendments. I have a motion that has been seconded and accepting those amendments. The motion is to take d. R. And approve the project as proposed, adding an a. D. U. Of at least 750 square feet, expanding the light well by a foot and a half and extending the wall on the roof deck. On that motion. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes 41. Okay. We are done. Thank you. Neighborhood in San Francisco are also diverse and fascist as the people that inhabitable them were in north beach about supervisor peskin will give us a tour and introduce is to what think of i i his favorite district 5 e 3 is in the northwest surrounded by the San Francisco bay the district is the boosting chinatown oar embarcadero financial district Fishermans Wharf exhibit no. North beach Telegraph Hill and part of union square. All of San Francisco districts are remarkable im honored and delighted to represent really whereas with an the most intact district got chinatown, north beach Fishermans Wharf russian hill and knob hill and the northwest waterfront some of the most wealthier and inning e impoverished people in San Francisco obgyn siding it is ethically exists a bunch of tightknit neighborhoods people know he each other by name a wonderful placed physically and socially to be all of the neighborhoods north beach and chinatown the i try to be out in the community as much as and i think, being a the cafe eating at the neighborhood lunch place people come up and talk to you, you never have time alone but really it is fun hi, im one the owners and is ceo of cafe trespassing in north beach many people refer to cafe trees as a the living room of north beach most of the clients are local and living up the hill come and meet with each other just the way the United States been since 1956 opposed by the grandfather a big people person people had people coming since the day we opened. It is of is first place on the west that that exposito 6 years ago but anyone was doing that starbucks exists and it created a really welcoming pot. It is truly a legacy business but more importantly it really at the take care of their community my father from it was formally italy a fisherman and that town very rich in culture and music was a big part of it guitars and sank and combart in the evening that tradition they brought this to the cafe so many characters around here everything has incredible stories by famous folks last week the cafe that paul carr tennessee take care from the Jefferson Starship hung out the cafe are the famous poet Lawrence William getty and jack herb man go hung out. They work worked at a play with the god fathers and photos he had his typewriter i wish i were here back there it theres a lot of moving parts the meeting spot rich in culture and artists and musicians epic people would talk with you and youd getetetetetetetetetett