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