there's $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 didn't mention the unit there, so this unit's 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. it's 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 single-family 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 that's 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 it's

attractive with the redwood siding or whatever it is. i thought it was redwood, but maybe it isn't. 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. it's 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 don't think -- those should be not applicable, and you go on down, there's 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 that's -- i only

see four. that's what i think, and it can have discussion, but it doesn't meet balance, and it doesn't 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, there's no basis for a variance. there's no right to include two oversized buildings on one lot that they're 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 can't, they're here asking for a demo litigation permit. they're replacing the building with something new, and they can build whatever they want. most troubling is their variance will have serious impacts on my client's property. hundreds of thousands of lost property value as the documentation that i provided you. it's a modernist tower that's 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, they're proposing to put four units on an rh-2 lot that's already highly developed. they can't demolish the building and build a residential use exceeding the density allowed. section 181(c) 2 only allows

use that's 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 you've 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 they're reestablishing, in quotes, residential use from 799 castro. they're demolishig it. they're building a new addu, which is great, but that doesn't explain what's happening here. >> thank you. are there any additional speakers? no? all right. so we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner richards? >> i guess i'm 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. there's a lot going on here. i mean, we've got a cu for demolition of a unit. we've got variances, we've got some design issues.

i think the first thing that i'll throw out and i'll 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. it's actually being dismantled now. there's wood left of it. it was sold with its entitlement. i don't have a problem with the modern architecture, as we'll see more up, however, i think the structure is too massive for the lot that it sits on. >> i agree. i think we're 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. i've always kind of wondered

what that building was going up and down castro street, so i think generally the idea is good. i don't mind the unit in the two-unit building. i just think it's -- it's too intense if intensefication of that one lot, and it could be solved relatively easily. i also -- like commissioner richards, i don't 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 it's too big for -- for that site to add all this to. so i mean i don't think we're going to design this thing tonight and figure out what to do, but as i look at the floor plan, there's 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 that's my general take. i think it's 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 what's 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 don't 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 it's -- it's both -- on both sides of 21st street, so i think that, you know, this project would

stick out aesthetically that i don't like. i think that's what's 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, it's fine, but it is replacing a rent controlled unit -- and it's vacant, it's vacant, but it's there. i didn't hear anything from my fellow commissioners. actually, i do object to that. i think if that's going to happen, i'm wondering what we get in return and what we're getting in return is this

massive single-family 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 that's 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 attorney's office. i'm 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. i'm sorry. i don't 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, it's not, but it will be under rent control. >> not? >> it will not, but it's kind of this half commercial -- i mean, that's why i'm not as troubled by it. i think you're kind of getting an equivalent unit. it was almost like an ancillary units that you're getting, and you're kind of using that for residential. >> okay. there's a -- there's a trade off there, but understanding that would be better. i think along the lines of commissioner melgar's 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 moore's 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 there's 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 we're continuing the cu and the dr. even though they're kind of melded together, so i think we

get the issue. >> commissioners, that'll place this on your discretionary review calendar fore item 21, case number 2015-008473 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 single-family residence. the project includes interior

remodelling and interior windows. no other work is proposed on-site. it's 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 neighbor's 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, it's 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 i'd like to display quickly; to give a sense of it. because the neighbor's house is to be built right -- this is a -- this is a picture of the window. you can see there's not much light coming in, and it is completely blocked by the neighbor's house as it stands today. this is a view of the sky, and that -- this aspect here is the third floor aspect that we're 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. we're 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. i'd 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 we're simply asking him to do the same thing. in closing, we respectfully --

sorry. thank you. >> you'll have a chance for a two minute rebuttal, too. >> pardon? >> you will have a two minute rebuttal. we'll 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 i'm 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 sponsor's 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 sponsor's 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 diana's boys' bedrooms. kurm, the ro we request -- we're requesting a reasonable modification of a 7'0" roof plate. it's a small reduction in mass and would help bring some more light into ben and diana's 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 diana's suggested modifications to be highly reasonable, and would result in very little impact to the overall design twept of the project sponsor's 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. i'm not here because i'm

opposed to the neighbor's 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. i'm coming here because we've been neighbors for 15 years. he is quick to ask concessions of his neighbors and then refuse to grant any when he is asked. that's been my experience at 15 laidley at well as my neighbor at 17 laidley. i think mr. cook's 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 that's their property line in the middle, and look at the sun reflecting on the next door, on my client's 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 i'm saying why these people, they're 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 there's 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. i'm sick of tired of hearing we're not considering the light and ventilation for the kids. we are not considering -- look

at the -- look at the fixture from the children's 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 they're 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 -- we're going to peek into their bedroom. we agree with that. we closed the window, and now, they're 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 two-minute rebuttal. >> i'm going to take on the rebuttal on behalf of ben. i'm just going to focus a little bit more -- >> didn't you speak publicly as just the dr? >> i did -- >> i mean, as a -- just a member of the public? >> no, he's his arc tech. >> i'm sorry, i'm the architect of the dr. >> you probably shouldn't have spoken during public comment because you're 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 doesn't 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 sponsor's house. this is a diagram that i attended to show previously, and it's just showing a -- you know, a lowering of this portion of the roof just over top of the project sponsor's closet and dressing room, and we're 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. it's 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 next-door 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 that's beyond a reasonable doubt that these people just all complaining about the light and air. they're not talking about light and air, they're 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. there's nothing to do with the lights, shadow, and air -- air.

there's nothing to do with that. and that's all they're asking for, for a bedroom for the kids to have more light? it's impossible. you're talking about something that's 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, that's the home. >> that's 21 laidley street, correct. >> and what's the -- what's the difference -- what's the depth -- how far is that home set back from the property line? >> 21 laidley street's set off the property line i believe anywhere between three and fife feet. i'd have to verify that, but

that's my recollection. >> and then how far is your neighbor's home where that addition is you're asking for changes. how far off the property line? >> that's probably anywhere from seven to 10 feet off the property line, if i had to make a guess. >> so it's a 13 foot distance. i'm just not understanding what you're trying to get at by those changes. >> it's probably closer to a 10 foot difference because there's a 5'8" dimension on that bathroom wall -- so closer to 10 feet. >> so 13 feet total from the edge of that addition where you're concerned to the home. >> no, i think it's 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 that's -- you know, this is going to be the area where the addition would increase, and it's directly kind of in the -- you know, sight line of the lower bedroom and would impact its access to light. that's our primary concern. >> it's still 13 feet. you'll get light. >> very little. >> and there's an 8 foot drop from your ground floor to the ground floor next door? >> that's 8 feet drop? that sounds high. [ inaudible ] >> it's a little -- it's a little tough to understand this 'cause the buildings are kind of -- >> yeah they're right on top of each other. >> but that's an area where it's not right on top of each

other. that's an area where it's kind of set back more in other spots. i get it. i get your concern. there's definitely going to be an impact for that. i don't necessarily think it rises to the level of exceptional extraordinary where we would -- where we would take action on this. i mean, it's 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 we're 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 6-0. commissioners, that'll 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 there's 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 it's 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, they're 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 i'm 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. i'm 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 i'd stay for a while and move on, but now it looks as if i'll be here for a long time unless i'm displaced, and if that happens, where do i go? this is my home, and this is my life that i'm 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 long-standing pattern of contempt that the building owners have shown not only toward the tenants, but toward the building itself, and as you'll hear later, it's not just us, and it's 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. here's an attempt to solve the garbage problem the adu's introduced by making major adjustments to stairs. that's a problem. there's 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 they've been using for years. as you have seen, our building is in very poor condition. as i've 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. here's 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 i'm 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, there's

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 that's the actual intention. commissioners, as this hearing goe goes on, you'll be hearing -- in other buildings owned by centron. you'll 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. here's 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 we'll 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 there's others who would like to speak. go ahead. >> okay. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is brenda. i've lived at 1440 clay with my spouse for 12 years. we have a seven-year-old daughter. san francisco is my family's home. we love living in the historic

nob hill neighborhood. as a long-term tenant, i have concerns about the addition of two long-term 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 e-mails 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 e-mailed 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. we'll grab them. >> okay. ne >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is alyssa ericson, and i've lived on clay street for 15 years. i love living there with the unique historical details of my apartment, and the neighborhood, and i'm 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. i've 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 family's 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 ex-terminator 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 can't 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 doesn't 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. i've lived there for nine years and i've lived in the neighborhood about 14. one of these apartments is proposed to be built directly underneath my apartment. based on my and other tenants experience in the building for the management showing a pattern of neglect, i who wholly oppose this construction in the building. i've constantly complained about mold and mildew in my bedroom, and my stove and oven

not working properly. not only did they do nothing, but they didn't acknowledge my e-mail. currently i'm dealing with darkness in the building hallway leading to my apartment since september because they won't change the broken light bulb. that one i asked for twice. earlier this year, i asked them to do something about the overflow of garbage our building seems to have leading to mice outside my ground floor apartment, and their solution was to ask all tenants to keep their trash inside their homes until trash day, when the bins were empty, and then you could take your trash out. i had a building inspector come in and say my stove is not up to code, and is missing parts, including a fan that makes it safe. because of the missing part, if i try to move my stove at all to clean behind it, i risk the possibility of breaking off a

pipe and having a gas hazard. when the building inspector moved it so i could show him the state of the wall and the floor coming up behind it, we could smell more gas coming out and see the spills behind the stove. the building inspector told me to be very careful with this until this can be addressed. i've had this appliance in my kitchen for nine years with no knowledge that it was unsafe, as tenants we shouldn't have to take it to a legal level just to enforce or basic rights to live in a maintainable level. they collect our rents every month but won't maintain the facilities under the law. i'm concerned with the current state of the building, that when they go to demo right underneath my living space, things will crumble or fall

apart. the current state of the building is unsustainable and adding two new apartments will only make it worse. i love my neighborhood, and i love my city, and i really don't want to move anywhere else because of the neglect of the building owners. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. thank you all for your time today. my name is whitney lewis, and i'm a recess dent of 1440 clay street building. i've lived in the building since moving to san francisco ten years ago. let me start by saying how much i love my city, any neighbors, and even in its current state of disrepair, my building. it has such great historic boone boo boons and potentials, it breaks my heart. this group consistently shows