i would ask, would you allow an owner to remove a bedroom to turn it into an adu, so this is the same context of remaining design housing services from these tenant's units, and i'm pretty sure you have a mandate to preserve and not diminish rent controlled housing units as they're currently defined. these garages and storage spaces are all part of their current leases and rental units, so i ask you to take discretionary review and honestly, i feel the city attorney should get involved in this building. >> good evening, commissioners. i'd like to point out many problems with this project, and one of them is the elimination of the bike parking. i don't believe you can approve a project that removes bike parking. allow me to explain, please, and bear with me. parking is required in the rm-3 zoning district. removal of parking, even when it does not provide the size requirements of the code, requires a variance. replacement of vehicle parking however is permitted on a 1:1 basis with bike parking. this apartment building has no vehicle parking but does have bike parking in the storage uni

they're going to take that two unit building and eadd an adu n an illegal office that's been there for years. they're 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 i'm 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 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

, so it w was -- i was discussing with rich the property could be phased, an adu, which could be a comparable unit. i don't know how the project sponsor would respond. >> i was just speaking to my client, and they need that the neighbors around the project were not happy about that, but i really like that idea 'cause it's a creative solution that solves lots of things, and it does allow for another unit. >>vice president richards: yeah, the neighbors are in the -- >> well -- [ inaudible ] >> i would need to make sure that my clients are happy with losing those two other parking spaces. >>vice president richards: do you want to take five minutes and talk with them? >> yeah, if we could have a moment. >>vice president richards: yeah. i think we could get a resolution here. >> why don't we -- [ inaudible ] >> so i just wanted to confirm square footages because the garage in the rear is slightly smaller than the existing unit. it's -- the current unit as we've measured it is 457 square feet, and the garage in the rear is 418? yes, but we could -- we can't actually make a nonconforming structure l

pressing need for rent controls residential units, hudsef came up with the idea of replacing it with an adu in the existing unit at the rear of the property. it comes to you as a single-family home, replacing office use at 799 castro, and a rent controlled adu added to the building. as for the single-family home, we suggest that it is reasonably sized at 3150 square feet. there are at least 13 homes that side within two blocks of the property. concerns have been raised about the over yaul lot coverage, but this kind of lot komplg as proposed, with a 10 foot gap between the two buildings is the norm for corner lots in this neighborhood. we're increasing the distance between the buildings from 8.5 feet to 10 feet. finally, over 25 neighbors have supported the project in writing, signing a petition we submitted to you. hadsaf and his team made the effort to knock on over 90 doors in the neighborhood, an additional 40 or so neighbors said they were not opposed to the project. the question before this commission is whether this project is necessary and desirable for the neighborhood. this is an

to install an adu on that motion commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> that passes 6-0. that places us on item 13. 2017-005643drp. this is the have discretionary . good afternoon. up before you the request to coa one-storey 425 sphoofort above e single two-storey single-familyg and front and rear roof deks abe existing second floor at 583, 4d avenue in the richmond district. it's rh-1 and is not seeking any exceptions or variances from the planning code. they raised four main concerns e project. first the d.r. opposed the roofn the fourth floor. secondly they opposed the rear f the vertical addition recommende squared off so it's not obliquey acrossed neighboring properties. they noted that the 311 plans dt reflect the true slope of the st which had the effect of underste visual impact on the vertical a. finally they on thed to the masf the third floor. they reviewed the project, the g code and general plan and the pt was reviewed by the residentialn advisory team three times incluo reviews ooft d.r.

it could be an adu, as one of

it could be an adu, as one of you suggested the last time, but utilize the shared open space. don't put it on the top, again, making it effectively five floors. reduce the windows that loom over our kitchen and our deck in addition to those that face into the apartment next door. thank you very much for considering our comments. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. i'm ken yi. i live in the building next to this project. my issues with this project is privacy. with the rooftop deck, there will be social functions there, so there will be similar to having a party right outside your window. so i don't see there's any privacy in there, not mentioning in the light well, there's bathrooms, right at eye level when they stand on the roof deck. so there's no privacy whatsoever. and with the light wells so small, you can shake hands with the building next door. so noise, any kind of -- even smoking, so i think there will be disturbances when the light wells are so small that equal in size of the light wells. so i wish you can reconsider the design and eliminate

here's an attempt to solve the garbage problem the adu's introduced by making major adjustments to stairsthat'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 pro

an issue there. if they want to add units, they can still look at the adu program and look at converting the garage ifthe quality of the garage structure would allow for that. >>vice president richards: thank you very much for clarifying that. he'll answer it after this one. >> okay, commissioners, that will place -- item 21 has been continued to december 21st, so that will place on your calendars, item 22, 2016-005617 drp, the structure at 1439-1441 south vanness avenue. this is a discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners. michael kirchner. building staff. located at 1439 to 1441 south vanness avenue. the site it is in the rm 1 zoning district and is currently developed for this three story residential structure containing two legal dwelling units and a full flat configuration on floors two and three, as well as a garage and one unauthorized one bedroom dwelling unit on the ground floor. the permit application was to -- until the vertical addition to add a fourth floor, a rear addition to expand all floor levels, changes and the legalization of the unauthorized dwelling unit at the ground