Traditional, some of them are more modern. It gives a vibrancy to the city, and i really think this project should go forward. Good evening. Jennifer fever with the San Francisco tenants unit. I also want to speak in support of the project and against the dr. This strikes me as classic nimbyism. As long as no tenants were displaced, it seem dos totally reasonable. We have a severe eviction crisis as the dr knows, so were desperately in need of housing which is affordable. Thanks. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you. My name is pat buskovitch. Im a neighbor. I live at diamond and 23rd. I speak here on behalf of my family who lives at 22nd eureka and jersey and diamond. We live all around this. My family has been in this neighborhood for 30 years. This project is truly a creative request to develop four units on one lot with a second unit building in the back. Theyre going to take that two unit building and eadd an adu n an illegal office thats been there for years. Theyre going to take the front building and demolish it and building a mansion resulting in 6,000 square feet on one lot. I worry about allowing demolition of rental housing, that they refuse to acknowledge. Housing that i looked at. This mcmansion will have negative impacted on the neighborhood, way out of the neighborhood scale. I drive down castro driving to my favorite place. You all know where that is, and im really concerned about the facade of this street. There is a three quarter of a Million Dollar variance, a three quarter Million Dollar top floor penthouse chlts theres 2 million of greed in this house. The front building was built in 1909 as a Grocery Store with a unit in back. My unit lived in this one. She was the owner of the one around the corner on castro and 22nd, i believe. There was a permit in 1980 to enlarge the office. They didnt mention the unit there, so this units been there for a long time. In 2005, the project sponsor got a cu to remove the unit. I ask for a cu to demolish a building, how is that in the best interests of my community or anywhere in the city, to demolish real Affordable Housing to build a five level mcmansion . How is it in the best interest to tear down a modest housing or how is it in the best interest i have no problem with this guy building modest housing, but five levels . Finally, ask the commission not to reward the project sponsor who refused to rent or acknowledge and fought to keep this unit off the book with permission to demolish rental housing and building something that we all know will never be rented, will be only for the 1 of the 1 . Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Please. Hi. I agree with the tree on the castro, as someone who rides that bus all the time. Its difficult for me to understand how this project meets the criteria of protecting the relative affordablity of existing h housing, which it must meet as part of the granting of the cu. Demolishing a structure that may or may not have a small unit on the site, and creating a huge singlefamily home that will sell for many millions of dollars does not protect relative affordablity. If this project was to preserve the existing structure and create a new larger dwelling unit within the existing footprint of the structure, then, the criteria could be met. Or even with a modest vertical expansion of the existing vertical structure. There are many types of this conversion where former Grocery Stores have been turned into housing completely. Or if a home with a smaller footprint was built it would be more likely to meet the criteria, and thats 317 c 3 d 9. Also, a smaller structure would make the building more compatible with the neighborhood character than the proposed project. The existing building is quite understated, and its attractive with the redwood siding or whatever it is. I thought it was redwood, but maybe it isnt. It compliments the neighborhood. The proposed project is too massive and too glossy. I want to comment on the the idea that the findings says it meets the balance of the criteria. Its supposed to meet the preponderance of the evidence of the bulletin, and when i look over it, i only see it meeting four out of the 18. The first two have to do with the decision of the property. I dont think those should be not applicable, and you go on down, theres a whole bunch of not applicable, and then, we can argue about the affordablity, the relative affordablity that i did, and whether it meets neighborhood character, so thats i only see four. Thats what i think, and it can have discussion, but it doesnt meet balance, and it doesnt meet preponderates. It only meets four. Good evening. Ryan paterson for denise ledbetter. Assize from this project be a bad proposal, the variance proposal is from 2015 for a lot split. Neighborhood notice was also issued before the variances were issued. Normally, that may not be a big problem, but here, theres no basis for a variance. Theres no right to include two oversized buildings on one lot that theyre somehow constrained from buildings. In fact, there are nothing justifying building this at all. Even if the existing structures could be in unusually condition meriting variance, which they cant, theyre here asking for a demo litigation permit. Theyre replacing the building with something new, and they can build whatever they want. Most troubling is their variance will have serious impacts on my clients property. Hundreds of thousands of lost Property Value as the documentation that i provided you. Its a modernist tower thats going to stick out like a sore thumb among its historic queen ann neighbors, and on top of it all is a Massive Party deck. On a more basic level, theyre proposing to put four units on an rh2 lot thats already highly developed. They cant demolish the building and build a residential use exceeding the density allowed. Section 181 c 2 only allows use thats nonconforming to the use as quoted. The conditional use criteria for removal of a dwelling unit are not met either. With regard to criteria in e, or f criteria g and h, as well. The project does not protect the relative affordablity of existing housing, nor does it increase the number of permanently affordable units or supported housing. The project is not of a design that enhances neighborhood character as youve seen. The proposal features a stark facade with a flat roof and roof deck and thanks to the front yard variance is going right up against the street. Lastly, they say theyre reestablishing, in quotes, residential use from 799 castro. Theyre demolishig it. Theyre building a new addu, which is great, but that doesnt explain whats happening here. Thank you. Are there any additional speakers . No . All right. So well close Public Comment and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. Commissioner richards . I guess im probably one of the people that live closest to this site. I live across the street two blocks up, so i know this site very well. Theres a lot going on here. I mean, weve got a cu for demolition of a unit. Weve got variances, weve got some design issues. I think the first thing that ill throw out and ill wait, let some other commissioners also give me their opinion, give the commission the opinion is if we compared this to the project literally one block up on noe and 21st, same lot, same position, we had a problem with that project, as well. I think you might recall that one. Its actually being dismantled now. Theres wood left of it. It was sold with its entitlement. I dont have a problem with the modern architecture, as well see more up, however, i think the structure is too massive for the lot that it sits on. I agree. I think were doing a lot here, which is good. Increased density and add some units, figure out how to use that commercial building in a better way. Ive always kind of wondered what that building was going up and down castro street, so i think generally the idea is good. I dont mind the unit in the twounit building. I just think its its too intense if intensefication of that one lot, and it could be solved relatively easily. I also like commissioner richards, i dont mind kind of the more modern architecture. I think it could fit in a little more, but to me, it should be kind of a smaller, you kn you know, building on that lot. There certainly are large buildings on castro as you go up and down, but not also with kind of the larger building on the back of the lot. So i just think its too big for for that site to add all this to. So i mean i dont think were going to design this thing tonight and figure out what to do, but as i look at the floor plan, theres a family room on the ground floor, and the top floor is used for kind of a large master suite. Could you kind of put the master suite on the ground floor and not have a top floor . Certainly, i think the deck is a little too much on the top of this building. So thats my general take. I think its got to kind of go back and figure out how to reduce the scale in the front, but generally okay with adding a unit there and putting a unit in the back building. Commissioner moore . I would agree that replacing the Office Building with the Residential Property sized where the residential building is a good idea, but whats in front of us, by far, far exceeding what the lot coverage on this site should be. I believe that the adu as proposed does not work unless the yard between the two buildings is increased which may mean that the parking disappears. In order for that unit to be livable, i think we need to give it proper exposure around the side because it is already partially buoyed for going up 21st street, and for that reason, i really think the project should be reconfigured based on criteria by which the replacement building is smaller and the adu unit has proper relief from a structure not intruding on it. Commissioner melgar . Thank you. So i also dont mind the modern architecture in general, in theory, but on this block, i kind of do. So this is a very lovely block of older homes, and its its both on both sides of 21st street, so i think that, you know, this project would stick out aesthetically that i dont like. I think thats whats wonderful about San Francisco neighborhoods. We do have some eclectic mixes, but this is totally out of character. Just putting that out there. Then, also, i think sort of the design, the boxy design where every single building has, you know, the peaked roof, except for one, you know, down the street is also problematic in terms of views and light. And, you know, i the adu, i mean, its fine, but it is replacing a rent controlled unit and its vacant, its vacant, but its there. I didnt hear anything from my fellow commissioners. Actually, i do object to that. I think if thats going to happen, im wondering what we get in return and what were getting in return is this massive singlefamily home which, you know, is not consistent with what we want to do. So i would also like to send this back to the drawing board to come up with something thats a little more in keeping with our policies. Commissioner richards . So i guess the question for the city attorney, the issue of rent controlled unit and demolition of it on a property such as this, with a replacement structure with a demolition permit be consistent with the commissioner, kate stacey from the city attorneys office. Im going to have to look at the rent control provisions and talk to the rent control expert in the office and circle back with the answer on that question. Im sorry. I dont know all the ins and outs of the demolition and new construction at this point. Great. I think this will kind of serve as a guide for the other ones that we get, if we understand what surviving buildings are actually under rent control or not. As i said, its not, but it will be under rent control. Not . It will not, but its kind of this half commercial i mean, thats why im not as troubled by it. I think youre kind of getting an equivalent unit. It was almost like an ancillary units that youre getting, and youre kind of using that for residential. Okay. Theres a theres a trade off there, but understanding that would be better. I think along the lines of commissioner melgars comments, i think we should would instruct i would hope if we continue this, we are to instruct the department to work with the project sponsor on reducing the mass by eliminating the top floor in the garage to create a yard, so i move to continue this matter until. Two months. Two months. And commissioner moores point on the adu and making it more livable. We would capture that by increasing requiring the deeper rear yard and eliminating the garage in its current position, yes. But i think theres the opportunity to build kind of a more modern cottage on this, kind of what we would see in rear yards. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion, then, to continue this matter, then to february 22nd, 2018. [ roll call. ] continued variance hearing until february 22nd, at well. And were continuing the cu and the dr. Even though theyre kind of melded together, so i think we get the issue. Commissioners, thatll place this on your discretionary review calendar fore item 21, case number 2015008473 drp at 531 30th street. This is a discretionary review. Commissioners, nanny tran, Planning Department staff. The item before you is a discretionary review request for 531 30th street. The proposal is to construct an approximately 640 square foot vertical addition to the existing singlefamily residence. The project includes interior remodelling and interior windows. No other work is proposed onsite. Its located on the south side of 30th street between laidley and noe street. The neighborhood ranges from single to multifamily units. The subject property is [ inaudible ] constructed circa 1900 and contained wholly within the rear yard. The residential design advisor team reviewed the project and the department is in general support of the proposal design. The proposed project meets all applicable this concludes our presentation. Thank you. Dr requester . Good evening, Planning Commissioners. My family and i live at 21 laidley street, which abuts the property in question, and i appreciate the right to present our concerns here today. We understand the Planning Commission is busy. The city needs housing, and that the planning process must ballet lot of needs and wants of stakeholders. To be clear, i am not wishing to to hold up the neighbors project, but simply request small changes to his plans as they would finally be approved. During the neighbor notification process, we had asked the neighbor to consider changes which she was unfortunately unable or unwilling to consider. We regretfully had to seek this venue to escalate that discussion, given the detrimental impact that the project would have on our kids bedrooms without that change. By way of background, its important to note that the house was not built at it would normally be done at the front of a property. It abuts our property because it is at the very, very far back of the property, so the instead, the the result is that the neighbor hits right against our house and already severely limits the amount of light, air, and privacy. The neighbor now wishes to further build up vertically along that same back of the Property Line. We know the final height and size of the project, given its location at the back of the property, and its negative impact on our privacy and access to light and air, particularly the light that goes into the bedrooms of my two small boys. We do not wish to keep the neighborhood from building out his house, we just want to make sure that we can limit the negative impact, especially of the light, to those two rear bedrooms. The bedrooms of our two boys along the shared property would be impacted i have two pictures here which id like to display quickly; to give a sense of it. Because the neighbors house is to be built right this is a this is a picture of the window. You can see theres not much light coming in, and it is completely blocked by the neighbors house as it stands today. This is a view of the sky, and that this aspect here is the third floor aspect that were asking to reduce minorly. We met with the neighbor and his architect on july 27th to review the proposed plans and discuss its impact on us. We reviews many of the above concerns and proposed three requests that would mitigate the impact to our house. In particularly, we asked him to consider certain alterations to his current plan in order to reduce the overall massing and increase our access to light, especially at the ground floor bedrooms of our two boys. The first one is reduce the side of the third floor dressing room and closet. This is a large dressing room that is in question. Were requesting that he move the outer wall by several feet to reduce the impact on the light reduction. And second, to reduce the roof ridge by approximately 2 feet and and the head roof over the southern edge, and then, finally, to omit a window on the south wall for privacy. Given these requests, the neighbor offered to meet some but not all of these requests. He did offer that the hipped roof, but what we really are seeking is simply a reduction of 2 feet of the the ridged roof the roof ridge as well as a reduction of the of the massing by 3 feet. These would significantly increase the amount of light to our small kids bedrooms, and we have no other concerns, you know, with the project. It would obviously reduce the amount of privacy. Id like to just say one more thing, which is we had a parallel situation in the building of our house, and the neighbor in question asked us for quite a number of things. We reduced the we pulled back a wall so that he could have light by approximately 3 feet, and were simply asking him to do the same thing. In closing, we respectfully sorry. Thank you. Youll have a chance for a two minute rebuttal, too. Pardon . You will have a two minute rebuttal. Well hear from the project sponsor, though, next. Okay. Good afternoon. You should be taking Public Comment in support of the dr. Sorry. So is there any Public Comment in support of the dr . Good evening, commissioners. My name is daniel holbrook, and im with feldman architecture. We worked with ben and diana on the addition of their home at 21 laidley street. As ben mentioned during the planning review process of 21 laidley street, we had a healthy back and forth with the project sponsor and his family to minimize the impact of our project on his home. Similar to the project sponsor, both planning and the Residential Design Team supported the project at 21 laidley and suggested there was no need for modifications based on the project sponsors concerns. The project sponsor maintained his opposition and threatened dr. In an attempt to be neighborly and respectful and avoid the process, ben and diana offered to give some living room space to give some light into their back yard. The project sponsors home is unique. It sits within the rear yart set back at the top of an up sloping site, making it uniquely impactful to the neighborhood. Given the situation in the yard, it impacts the air, light, and privacy into the boys of ben and diana. Our primary concern is with the vertical addition and the mass of the height and roof over the third floor closet and dressing room, reducing the roof height and mass over the specific area would help maintain the small existing of Natural Light in ben and dianas boys bedrooms. Kurm, the ro we request were requesting a reasonable modification of a 70 roof plate. Its a small reduction in mass and would help bring some more light into ben and dianas boys bedrooms. The project sponsor proposed 150 square foot closet, bringing this east wall in would have minimal impact to the design intent, in my opinion. As a design professional, i consider ben and dianas suggested modifications to be highly reasonable, and would result in very little impact to the overall design twept of the project sponsors content. We ask that you consider these modifications before approving the construction at 531 30th street. All right. Additional comments in support of the dr requester . My name is will. I live at 15 laidley. My property abuts the 531 address. The houses in the neighborhood were built generally around 1907. Mine was built directly to the Property Line, so everyone is very tightly packed in there. Im not here because im opposed to the neighbors modification of his house, despite the fact that his addition is going to block all right to my deck, but he has the right to build it. Im coming here because weve been neighbors for 15 years. He is quick to ask concessions of his neighbors and then refuse to grant any when he is asked. Thats been my experience at 15 laidley at well as my neighbor at 17 laidley. I think mr. Cooks requests are quite reasonable, and i believe the neighbor should agree to them. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment in support of the dr . Seeing none, project sponsor. Good afternoon, commissioner. My name is ahmad, and i am the project sponsor. Before we start, i would like to see the picture of the of the you can see thats their Property Line in the middle, and look at the sun reflecting on the next door, on my clients property. You can see on this, the small the light the light is already at 10 00 in the morning we took a picture at 10 00 in the morning. We took a picture at almost 11 00 in the morning, and also you can see that the sun reflected. The sun is basically coming from the east. Coming right through the south, and coming passing by, so how far the sun exposure, they have no problem, as you can see. I hear all these i want to prove it to you beyond a reasonable doubt that this is not because of light and air. They are concerned about the view. I can show you some of the some of the pictures they have on their bedroom, and all the concern all this is this is a view from their dining room, and this is a view from the bedroom. That bedroom over almost 130 degree angle, all glass. See all downtown, and the reason im saying why these people, theyre only looking for the view. This is this is used this is used to be the back yard up here, the back all the trees and stuff like that. During the construction, they cut they cut the trees they cut the trees. As you can see theres no more trees around the building, and all they can see completely view the San Francisco. In the bedroom, they have a floor to ceiling, a glass block. So if i was standing over there, you can see downtown to the left, you can see the trees you can see this tree from the bedroom, which i show you the picture let me show you the picture. This is a picture from their dining room and living room. Im sick of tired of hearing were not considering the light and ventilation for the kids. We are not considering look at the look at the fixture from the childrens bedroom. This is one of the kids from one bedroom, and the other one the other one is this one. They live in the top floor, which is 130 angle, and theyre putting the kids down in the basement in a hole in the wall, and they asking us to concession give them a concession. Let me read you a section of the code. Section 121 a 2 of the planning code, the property at 125 laidley, at and 30th street, therefore, technically corner lot, persection 122 of the Planning Department code, the previous lot having 125 feet away from the corner considered to be a corner building. So therefore, corner building does not require to consider giving you a midblock open space. Therefore, we not supposed to give him anything as far as open space, air, light, and ventilation. Our property sitting 15 feet away from their property. As you can see on the picture i showed before, we they they told us to make concession like this, okay . They first of all, they want us to cut the piece of red line this is their design. They cut the red line at a 45 angle to make this stop. Close the window close the window because we were going to peek into their bedroom. We agree with that. We closed the window, and now, theyre telling you have to cut the building 3 feet down . Thank you very much. Sir, your time is up. Okay. Any Public Comment in support of the project and opposed to the dr . Seeing none, dr requester, you have a twominute rebuttal. Im going to take on the rebuttal on behalf of ben. Im just going to focus a little bit more didnt you speak publicly as just the dr . I did i mean, as a just a member of the public . No, hes his arc tech. Im sorry, im the architect of the dr. You probably shouldnt have spoken during Public Comment because youre the architect, but go ahead. Okay. Appreciate that. So i just want to focus on the the impact of the addition on this is the photo directly from the boys bedroom, and this is going to be the area of the third floor addition to the project sponsor house. We are asking simply for a lowering of the roof and pulling back this wall to allow as much light exposure to to blue sky. While this room doesnt get direct sun light, the ability for it to see blue sky is important, and it will lose that once the addition is is placed on top of the project sponsors house. This is a diagram that i attended to show previously, and its just showing a you know, a lowering of this portion of the roof just over top of the project sponsors closet and dressing room, and were proposing a 3 foot reduction to the wall of his closet to bring as much light and sun exposure into this bedroom on 21 laidley street. Thank you. All right. Project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. They keep talking about the exposure. There is no exposure from the basement which it has 8 foot fence in and in the Property Line. If you look at the if he look at the the kids bedroom, which they talking about the kids bedroom, look at the fence. Look at the Property Line fence. Its over 8 feet tall. How can the light and ventilation light is going from the south. From the east to the south. As i show you the first time i show you the picture, showing the reflection of the sun against the other property. That shows how sun travel from one way one side to another, so the light and ventilation is not going to be affecting at all to that bedroom. This is to prove it to you that this look at the reflection of the shadow of the sun, the shadow on the floor, you can see, is over the at 12 00, this is this is no more light is going to get into the kids property which is sitting 8 feet below the grade of the nextdoor neighbor. How can the light, when the sun goes a different direction, your house is going to be dark. And they want us to move the cut the building, has nothing to do. All these people looking at the view, and thats beyond a reasonable doubt that these people just all complaining about the light and air. Theyre not talking about light and air, theyre talking about the view from the bedroom to see well, as far as i can see. I prove it to you, i show you the picture. This is the picture showing what they want to see. All they want to see, the view. Theres nothing to do with the lights, shadow, and air air. Theres nothing to do with that. And thats all theyre asking for, for a bedroom for the kids to have more light . Its impossible. Youre talking about something thats impossible. All right. Thank you. Can i ask you, can you put up the no, the architect. Certainly. That last drawing you had, can you put that back up for a minute . Sure. So in that building in that drawing, that blue shaded portion, thats the home. Thats 21 laidley street, correct. And whats the whats the difference whats the depth how far is that home set back from the Property Line . 21 laidley streets set off the Property Line i believe anywhere between three and fife feet. Id have to verify that, but thats my recollection. And then how far is your neighbors home where that addition is youre asking for changes. How far off the Property Line . Thats probably anywhere from seven to 10 feet off the Property Line, if i had to make a guess. So its a 13 foot distance. Im just not understanding what youre trying to get at by those changes. Its probably closer to a 10 foot difference because theres a 58 dimension on that bathroom wall so closer to 10 feet. So 13 feet total from the edge of that addition where youre concerned to the home. No, i think its about 10 feet total from the face of the home to the face of the addition. So 13 feet total. Right. And your concern is the is the are the bedrooms in the ground floor of that building . Yeah, and thats you know, this is going to be the area where the addition would increase, and its directly kind of in the you know, sight line of the lower bedroom and would impact its access to light. Thats our primary concern. Its still 13 feet. Youll get light. Very little. And theres an 8 foot drop from your ground floor to the ground floor next door . Thats 8 feet drop . That sounds high. [ inaudible ] its a little its a little tough to understand this cause the buildings are kind of yeah theyre right on top of each other. But thats an area where its not right on top of each other. Thats an area where its kind of set back more in other spots. I get it. I get your concern. Theres definitely going to be an impact for that. I dont necessarily think it rises to the level of exceptional extraordinary where we would where we would take action on this. I mean, its 13 feet. I get it. You all can keep talking about how to be neighborly, but for me, it does ntd rise to the level. Commissioner koppel. I was just going to say these houses are extremely close to each other on some awkwardly oriented lots, and protecting the direct light on those bottom floors is going to be extremely difficult. And then, this this expansion is really modest compared to what were seeing every thursday. Commissioner moore . I really think the Building Department did a good analysis. I think they looked at that very closely. 13 feet is a luxury given what we have in the three or less feet tolerances on other in other situations, so i do not think this rises to being something being exceptional or extraordinary, but i would move that we do not take dr and approve the project as proposed. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to not take dr and approve this as proposed, commissioner. Commissioner Johnson Johns [ roll call. ] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 60. Commissioners, thatll place us on item 22, at 1440 clay street, discretionary review. Good evening, commissioners. Marselle boudreau, permit staff. To convert approximately 824 square feet of Storage Space to two accessory dwelling units at the basement level of a 15 unit building. Stairs would also be constructed from the lobby to the basement, and a corridor would connect to the stairwells to the rear yard. At the time of neighborhood notification, a new trash storage room would have been constructed within the existing lobby, however, since that time, the proposal has been revised to locate the bins to a new enclosure at the stair landing in the light well. The reasons for the publicly filed discretionary review by one of the existing building tenants, which is included in your packets include building conditions, that the building is not properly maintained and the addition of two units would worsen the insufficient building units and facilities, that the proposed garbage storage in the lobby would take away usage space and cause odor problems in the lobby and that theres a loss of storage by the tenants. The project was reviewed by the department, and the department supported the revised design that relocated the garbage recycling room away from the lobby. The dr requester obtained 50 signatures on a petition in support of the dr. This petition was inadvertently not scanned as part of the dr, so its not included. I have copies today. Jonas, if you could help me. Thank you. The reasons for opposition of the project in support of the dr, theyre included in the petition, include lack of maintenance, cleaning and repair of the building, increased demand on common yash areas and building facilities for the new units, location of garbage and recycling, and removal of storage lease to tenants. In addition, there was another public communication submitted yesterday that we have copies of for you. And some of you may have received this, but im also providing an additional copy. I may have an few misspellings. Department recommends the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed. This concludes staff presentation. Im happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Dr requester, miss rebstock. Hi. Welcome. You have five minutes. Great. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for the hearing. My name is geraldine mudstock, and i filed a dr on behalf of me and my tenants. When i first moved in, i thought id stay for a while and move on, but now it looks as if ill be here for a long time unless im displaced, and if that happens, where do i go . This is my home, and this is my life that im talking about. I moved to the building in february 1998. In 2006, the building was purchased by the current owners, centron group. We learned to be realistic, to be responsible, to solve our own problems and to pick out battles. Commissioners, this is our battle. This fall, we learned that our building was to seismic retrofit. We scheduled a tenant meeting to try and make sense of what was going on. The first thing that struck us was the fact that the drawings proposed a large enclosure in our building to accommodate trash cans. This is symbolic of a longstanding pattern of contempt that the building owners have shown not only toward the tenants, but toward the building itself, and as youll hear later, its not just us, and its not just our building. Our 38 page document documents many problems that also includes several pages of violation notices based on our own reports or Housing Department inspections with roughly 35 individual issues. Many of these complaints have never been resolved, and others after multiple threats of conversations with the Housing Departments. Heres an attempt to solve the garbage problem the adus introduced by making major adjustments to stairs. Thats a problem. Theres no way to know if this work can be down without altering units or displacing tenants. Another ongoing issue is bike parking, which two tenants would lose along with a large Storage Units that theyve been using for years. As you have seen, our building is in very Poor Condition. As ive mentioned, one of the major issues with the proposed project is how garbage is handled. One proposal was to remove garbage chutes on either side of the building. The solution would be to go up and down on winding stairs. On july 20th, 2012, an inspection required that those same stairs must be repaired. Heres a picture taken in september, showing that years later, nothing has been done. No paint, no safety treads, no upgrade, no nothing. These stairs are dark and dangerous. I live on the third floor and im older now than when i fell. At this point, our concerns are this. Due to the age and Poor Condition of the building, when demolition begins, builders may identify major problems in order to accommodate the Additional Units they are asking for, but by then, it will be too late to stop the project. Depending on the amount of work that might be required, theres a real and serious risk that multiple tenants can be displaced temporarily, if not permanently if we just give up and go away. We wonder whether thats the actual intention. Commissioners, as this hearing goe goes on, youll be hearing in other buildings owned by centron. Youll also here from other advocates more knowledgeable than we are about patterns, and subject issues. I thank you for giving your full attention to all the details. Heres our ask. We ask that you deny this Building Permit application for these reasons. Adding new units is unsustainable. It would increase wear and tear on the building in competition for insufficient services, and the owner has a habitual is a habitual violator of the link code tenant rights. Thank you. Thank you. So well take Public Comment in support of the dr and opposed to the project, and if you can lineup on the screen side of the room. If theres others who would like to speak. Go ahead. Okay. Good evening, commissioners. My name is brenda. Ive lived at 1440 clay with my spouse for 12 years. We have a sevenyearold daughter. San francisco is my familys home. We love living in the historic nob hill neighborhood. As a longterm tenant, i have concerns about the addition of two longterm dwelling units, including the lobby of our building that was constructed in 1914 which is visible from the street and subject to Historical Preservation guidelin guidelines original glass windows that let light into our lobby would be replaced with doors, providing an entrance for the two proposed units. Centron has demonstrated many years of neglect regarding maintenance to its buildings to issues involving health and safety. Overhead. This is a picture of the leaking sun room in my apartment which was first reported to centron november of 2010. I actually eat meals in this room with my family. The sun room was not repaired until almost six years later, after multiple emails and a notice of violation was issued in march of 2016, citing mold, dry rot, with lead paint warnings. It is actually leaking again and has been reported to kent mar. It has not been repaired. In may of 2017, i emailed kent mar multiple times regarding the pigeon infestation in the common area regarding a hole in the roof top yet. For months, pigeon droppings which are a health hazard, were everywhere, atracking attracting rodents. I filed a complaint in october of 2016. This is a picture of our bakt yard which has not been landscaped for years. According to the inspector, it was also attracting rodents, with the overgrown vegetation. Nancy mar, our Golden Century l. B. Own approximately 13 buildings in San Francisco. These this is a list of three located here at 11 0 filbert, 2180 sacramento, and 780 geary, that have multiple violations. Adding two new dwelling units to our building would be unsustainable as centron has a pattern of neglect, ignoring current complaints of its current tenants. Thank you. I wanted to submit with your permission a copy of the complaints about the from these other buildings that they own. Thank you. If i can bring it up. You can leave them right there. Well grab them. Okay. Ne next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name is alyssa ericson, and ive lived on clay street for 15 years. I love living there with the unique historical details of my apartment, and the neighborhood, and im very upset by the proposed architectural plans for my apartment building. This poses a threat to the quality of life and safety for my current tenants. Ive had multiple issues with water leaking from my bathroom sealing my overhead leaking water leaking from my bathroom seal ceiling aceilf heat in my unit. I have yellow markings next on a wall which looks like mold, and i have notified centron as of august, which has yet to be fixed. And i will loose 94 square feet of space and a secure place to store my familys bicycles which is our primary transportation. We would like to continue to honor the San Francisco transit first policy by having a safe place to store our bicycles. I reported bed bugs in my unit and was told it was my responsibility to take care of the problem. I paid for an exterminator to come into the building and get rid of the bed bugs. The landlord has entered the unit without giving me notice, for once which i have proof. I also had been told that someone needed to enter my residence for a retrofit on the building. I negative was given notice that anyone would be entering my building. I have asked several times for centron to put my husband on the lease and they have not responded and crossed out his name that i have sent on the rent checks before they deposit them. I expect a certain level from the Management Company i was contracted with. This project makes me feel unsafe. They cant maintain a building properly, how are they going to execute this construction plan . All i want as well as my fellow neighbors, is for them to spend their time and energy fixing the existing problems. This is not the right building to add fore dwelling units. The plan, with its additional and revisions of staircase and plans to change the garbage system doesnt work. It feels as if centron has no respect for a building this age or their tenants and are just interested in making money. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name is heather keba, and i live in apartment 42 at 1440 clay street. Ive lived there for nine years and ive lived in the neighborhood about 14. One of these apartments is proposed to be built directly underneath my apartment. Based on my and other