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 threestory, 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 tradeoff 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 dont have that. Good evening, my name is ashley. Im here on behalf of my client. They are a longstanding commercial tenant of the subject property and its business as a longstanding business in the vibrant sacramento Street Commercial district. Todays action is to legalize the tradeoff 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 dont know if this is too close. Thank you for your service. My pops and i, every time were 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 wont be back unless it is for 100 affordable projects. Obviously we didnt 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 drycleaning. Every other tuesday we have a staff meeting and we cater our lunches from cafe 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 dont 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, longstanding 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 singlefamily dwelling and construction of a new threestory, two family dwelling within the r. H. Two zoning district. The project sight is a standard sized 25foot wide, by 100foot 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 threestory 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 owneroccupied. 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 well add one new family size dwelling unit to the citys 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 familys singlefamily 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 costeffective to demolish the existing building and start fresh. Thats 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 threebedroom units are designed to accommodate families or communal living. The owner ofs 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, theres 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 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 p