>> 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. 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 don't 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 don't 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 t-mobile, 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 t-mobile 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 department's 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 t-mobile 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 t-mobile 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 company's management and team members have been promoted internally. i am proud to be part of the t-mobile 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 city's 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 department's 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. requester's property, since the subject property is north of the d.r. requester and extends only 5 feet beyond the depth of the d.r. requester's 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. requester's 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 i'm 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 square-foot house with enough solar unit that had been providing additional housing in our housing for over four decades into a 3,000 square-foot 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 self-contained 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 mid-block area were built in the 18 nineties and incorporated large side setbacks. that isn't 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. i'm 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 façade will be improved. that is what we haven't 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 couldn't think of anywhere else we could go. this is our home now. so knowing we were in it for the long-haul, 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 didn't 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 didn't have any other issues with the property. i recall you saying you would write a letter of support, and we don't 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 wasn't 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 full-sized 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 don't 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 family's living space. we couldn't 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 good-faith 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. i'm 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 neighbor's 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 doesn't 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 that's what that is. >> okay. thank you. commissioner fung? >> i am prepared to support staff's recommendation. i don't 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 don't 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. i'm 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. there's 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 hadn't 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 doesn't 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 can't go on here -- we can't 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 aren't 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 there's 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 8-foot 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. >> i'm 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 4-1. >> okay. we are done. >> good morning and welcome to the transportation authority's meeting for today, election day, tuesday, november 5th, 2019. our clerk is mr. alberto kinta nix a. role call. pai(role call). >> we have a quorum. >> thank you, colleagues. i have a request from commissioner valley brown to be excused from today's meeting. is there a motion to that effect made by commissioner stephanie and seconded by commissioner mandelman and we will take that without objection, even though it might upset council. with that, can we go to the citizen's advisory committee. mr. larsen, good morning. turn your microphone on, john, and go ahead. >> good morning. i'm the care of the citizen's advisory committee and i'm here to report on the most recent meeting of the cac. beginning with item 5, allocation and appropriations of prop k funds for 6.5 million, cac members expressed concerns of tacs used the express lane by the doorpool and express lane project request. the main issue was t n cs adding to congestion in similar ways to add congestion on city streets. there was also keen interest in the equity study and how it would be structured and conducted. they were to free up regular lanes from slower moving heavy vehicles there and thereby speed up regular requests. the members were surprised even though the station predated the add, there was little to provide accessibility in the ensuing years. the long-term plan is to move the station with the tunnel realignment, that is so way off, staff were urged to think about technology and infrastructure solutions that could be deployed to make the 22nd street station accessible now and for the foreseeable future. moving to item 6 on your agenda, the amended programme of projects for the 2020 art tip funds, they asked about the communication-cased train technology that would be the subject of the tip funds. the biggest concern was how to avoid the mun i-meltdown in the metro. sfta staff noted the new system will be side by side with the system in a series of phases and if there were to any problems, the new system could revert to the existing system to avoid delays and system break downs. the cac received an update on the geneva san jose study carried over from a previous meeting. it was encouraged to see that pedestrian-focused improvements were addressed at this complex intersection with a number of transit, traffic and transportation conflicts. especially with regard to the m-line mid-block, drop-off and boarding areas that result in passengerring walking on san jose avenue in the middle of the street. the pop-up meetings during commute hours with met with favorable response as a way

Related Keywords

Sacramento , California , United States , Greece , San Francisco , Greek , Jack , Kendall Wilkinson , Diana Gomez ,