building height to 50 feet. there is no fourth floor penthouse of 1200 square feet addition to any original three story six-unit building that exists in the hill area period. the 50 feet height shadow study confirm diminishing access to the sunlight benefits on the streets and back yards of 160 buildings. allowing a garage will result in a loss of two street parking spaces, leaving only two to serve as the fronting of 12 rental units and the neighbors. we propose the 555 alternative to the sponsor to allow a more acceptable modification of his original plan. he turned down this attempt to accommodate. in conclusion, i find the

project does not fit in the following manner. the scope of the project is too large to qualify as a neighborhood improvement from jetctiontionthv. number two, the financial cost to add 1200 square feet penthouse and garage and an elevator will impact the sick affordable housing units to be lost in the neighborhood where housing is dwindling. three, this precedent exposes the hill area community to further request for penthouse additions. four, this project does not conform to the existing character of the neighborhood. also, it does not contribute to improve the neighborhood or the environment. it threatens the community and the environment and the quality of life as it exists. thank you very much.

president fong, members of the commission, mr. sanchez, thank you for allowing me to speak to you this evening on behalf of the pacific avenue neighborhood association. my name is robin tucker and i am the president, share of leadership responsibilities for the organization. our organization's area of responsibility that we take very seriously is to support our neighbors in those efforts that we especially feel not only impact our own neighborhood, but also impacts contiguous neighborhoods, specifically russian hill and the middle polk neighborhood association area as well. i hope that you receive their e-mails that objected to this project as well. i'm appearing before you this evening to object to the property on at least three

bases. one, the project, as mr. low stated, has at least the appearance that it is a matter of time before it's converted to a high-end condo unit or condo building. it has already occurred along pacific avenue in two buildings between market and haight street where we lost a public garage and we lost one affordable housing building to three penthouses in one and two penthouses in the other, and then high-end condos in the buildings. we can ill afford to lose any more affordable housing in our neighborhood. it is for this reason, priority reason, that we decided to appear and to ask mr. low to be the project lead on this particular project. two, the elevator that is -- that shows in the plan appears to take away some of the area

square footage of some of the existing units in the building. i know there is at least one family in that building that has three children. they're nonspeaking english family, or the parents are. and to reduce the square footage in that particular unit or any of the units in the building i think would be a travesty. the parking in our neighborhood is nonexistent. the public parking garages that did exist fell to high-end condo conversions. we have none in our neighborhood. i personally have driven around for hours looking for a parking space. removal of two street public parking spaces is really unacceptable. please deny this project permit and deny the associated variance. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please.

good evening. i come here -- i live inside the building at 1531-1521. i live at 1525 jones for over 30 years -- 30 plus years. and there's many concerns i have about this project. >> excuse me, ma'am, sorry to interrupt you. do you wish to submit your name for the record? my name is rita del sombrano. >> thank you. my concern is, number one, the scope of the building and also there is an issue around security of the building right now. when i heard about this, the private elevator -- and for the past, the winter months, the

lights have not been adjusted. and we've had homeless people sleeping up in the, up in the loft. but i'd also like to address how many people are living in the building at this moment. three of the buildings -- three of the apartments are empty, the slots are empty and three of them people are living in. above me lives a chinese family with three kids in a one bedroom apartment. or maybe it's even less than that. next to me is an israeli couple that have the flat next to me. and the two, my original apartment on the top floor, is the apartment i think the present owners want to renovate and connect with the top floor. so, my concern is just the scope of it and the lack of communication with the neighbors and myself about the building itself. and, so, i would hope that you would look at it -- look at the

perspective of this is also affecting not just myself, but other people in the building, and probably other people who can no longer afford to live in san francisco. so, i would like you to take that into consideration. thank you. >> next speaker, please. good evening, president fong, members of the commission. i need to respond to this. i need to respond to the architect's response to our dr. the first thing he mentioned was that in the appendix, he had -- >> excuse me, ma'am, before you get started, do you wish to

speak -- submit your name for the record? oh, i'm eva low chan. >> thank you. sorry. anyway, there was a dbi inspection of the building in july 1963 where they had called for the penthouse that is constantly coming up in this meeting here, the penthouse had to be dismantled at that time. however, after careful review and inspection, dbi decided that the penthouse could remain with the express understanding that it be remained as a laundry room, which it wows. and it had to be uninhabited. further down the architect's response, he talks about our penthouse. well, when my parents bought the property over 65 years ago, the small room referred to as a penthouse was part of the building.

the exterior rear wall [speaker not understood] continues the same pattern of siding up. and three of the walls are the same siding as the building. and i feel that that is very well integrated. we never added it on because it was there. this little 12 by 12 foot laundry room was also for the tenants to dry their clothes. what they had to do was walk up three flights of stairs because at that time there were no laundry -- laundromatses down the street or all over nowadays. so, they climbed up three flights of stairs to hang their laundry and they needed a place to put their laundry baskets and other paraphernalia. ~ then they were so tired they probably want to have a place to rest, and this was for them. and i remember when people didn't have washers and they would use scrub boards and we

would be scrubbing away and they would carry their laundry up the stairs. now, you know, this is a 12 by 12 room. it's like a poster size room and then you can't compare it with a 1300 square foot addition that is being added on at the fifth floor. and i think that considering how they're adding this building, it is out of scale, it is out of form, and the style is so contemporary it doesn't fit the rest of the buildings in that neighborhood at all. well, i urge the commission to reconsider and deny the permit. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

president fong, members of the committee, mr. sanchez, my name is ed kuan. i own and live in the property directly across the street from the subject property. i have three reasons to oppose this proposal plan because, one, in the fifth floor to the building will block my afternoon sunlight to my property, which my wife and i enjoy for past 60 years. i myself live there since 1943. two, i believe the open [speaker not understood] will create and decay noe i nuisance to our peaceful neighborhood. ~ noisy my family and i feel it will invade our privacy and [speaker not understood] people will be able to look down through our window. four, we strongly object to

this project going forward and hope the board supports the people who have owned and lived in this neighborhood for many, many years. thank you. >> any other speakers? in support of the dr? ~ did i call benita chan, jennifer mai, rose low? okay. thank you, president fong, members of the commission. my name is donna logan. i represent the property at 15 30 jones street, my fellow owners live directly across the street from the project. i'd simply like to say we support opposition to the approval of this project for the many reasons that have already been articulated and i don't need to repeat, but we are in full agreement with the premise that this is an unsuitable project for our neighborhood. thank you.

good evening. my name is benita combs. thank you for this opportunity to speak. for the many reasons already spoken, i oppose this. i live across the street. the sunlight will affect our building. the scale of the project is out of character for the block. and i'm also on a top floor. and a building that's higher up than i am will affect my privacy. right now i have curtains on the bottom half of the windows and it will require something else going on. but i think the project should be scaled back and i would hope for better communication with the tenants and the neighbors on the block if it were to continue. but i owe poe it as it now stands. thank you very much.

good evening, president fong, commissioners. and mr. sanchez, mr. [speaker not understood]. my name is jennifer may. i live in the neighborhood and my family has lived in this neighborhood for many generations. ~ mae we have enjoyed the small scale neighborhood design all our live and we believe if this project is allowed to move forward, we believe that quality of life would be at risk. so, for any kind of consideration you may give us, we would ask for you to deny the project permit. thank you. >> thank you. good evening. my name is sabrina louie. i am a property owner and lived on the top floor of -- third floor of 12 26 jackson street which is perpendicular to the subject property to the west for many years. the architecture and topography

go hand in hand in our neighborhood and work together with a sense of harmony. this proposed project goes against what exists and has existed for many years in knob hill. our third floor rear bedroom and family room windows, from that we enjoy lots of natural light and privacy. and the proposed rooftop penthouse addition with the deck will be built today edge of the building which is already unusually close to my windows. ~ and property. our valued privacy and sense of open space will be less -- will be left and gone forever. to benefit one owner. ~ so, i respectfully ask the board to reject the proposed application for 1521-1531 jones street request for variance. thank you.

>> any additional speakers? yes, [speaker not understood]. president fong, members of the commission, mr. sanchez, i have two concerns that i'd like to put before the commission. the first concern is -- >> i'm sorry, ma'am, do you wish to state your name for the record? oh, i'm sorry, rose low. >> thank you. the first concern is loss of affordable housing. the project as presented represents a pattern of development, reducing the inventory of affordable housing. the fact is the six-unit building as it is now contains six units affordable housing. three units are empty and have been empty for some time. one of the tenants has lived in the building over 33 years. another apartment is rented to

a non-english speaking couple with three children, four persons in a one-bedroom unit. all the proposed upgrades and additions of a fourth floor 1200 square foot penthouse, elevated for the owner's benefit and use, and a garage, will be costly. the potential for recouping their investment will obviously be through high-end tic or condo conversions. result is six units of affordable housing will be displaced. it will displace sick six families who cannot live in san francisco if there are no affordable housing. ~ we can ill afford to take away affordable housing in san francisco and replace it with expensive tic or condos. my second concern is how the project will reduce public parking. it now takes at least 30 minutes driving around to find

a parking space within one or two blocks of where one lives in the neighborhood. there are no convenient public parking garages within three blocks of this site. installing a garage with three parking spaces will require a driveway that will eliminate one to two parking spaces. it is wrong to take away one or two parking spaces from the neighbors and their families and friends to accommodate one individual the luxury of having the spaces for their own use. the knob hill neighborhood is very difficult verse. it includes many families with school-age children who have lived here for many generations. it ha many long-term tenants who live here 30 to 40 years. the people in this community wish to preserve the treasured character of their neighborhood. thank you for giving me the opportunity to respectfully ask that building permit for

1521-31 jones street and associated variance denied due to the negative impact it will have on the neighborhood. thank you very much. >> any additional speakers? you can go ahead and start talking. it will come up. commissioner, i am jerald, dr. jerald [speaker not understood], a psychologist and my practice involves teaching and consulting in psychology, in particular with organizations and organizational behavior. in this particular instance i work with mr. low and i

observed absolutely amazing, exciting organizational behavior. exactly 4 37 people were quite excited to express their negative reaction to this particular project. and it is to your advantage that we ended up getting a petition for these people unless they'd all be here. they'd all like to talk to you and you would have been here for days. but we know that this commission has already decided to approve the subject variance. so, the only reason for this meeting, this hearing is for you to consider the attitudes, opinions, and beliefs of the people who would like to be here one way or another, if not in person, by petition.

and you saw the people who -- they felt negatively affected of any physical change in their habitat. and they saw this so clearly that they asked to have the petition. we didn't actually solicit. people came around asking, couldn't we come -- how about a petition? it's interesting to note that your discovery review document indicated there were zero people in favor of this project where 11 were registered as being opposed. 11 was a good start, but 4 37 decided to add their names to that and i could not emphasize that more than i can at the moment. with that in mind, i petition

you not in any way to turn your back or ignore these people. these are the people of that particular neighborhood. you have in your possession a copy of this, and this is only the first hundred or so people that signed up. every one of those signatures is represented by a location. the subject location is right here. so, it's immediate, very immediate in proximity. finally, i believe it would be absolutely absurd, absolutely absurd for you not to consider exercising your discretion -- >> sir, your time is up. thank you very much. >> any additional speakers in support of the dr? plural, drs?

okay. project sponsor, you have five minutes. good evening, commissioners. my name is matt wren. this is patricia [speaker not understood] toby morris, our architect to answer any design questions you might have. patricia and i have lived in this neighborhood for the past seven years, literally five blocks from the subject property. we are not property developers. this project is to create a home that can house our expanding family. over the last 15 months we have done absolutely everything asked of us by the planning commission, fire, dbi, and the residential design team. in addition to this, we have tried to work extensively with our most impacted neighbor, mr. low. we believe the resulting project is first and foremost in character with the

neighborhood. these photos show a number of buildings within a one to two-block radius that demonstrates the variety and type of buildings that exist literally within one to two blocks of the subject property. our proposed addition is not visible from most public spaces. this diagram depicts the sight line from the opposing sidewalk looking back up at the building. the proposed addition isn't visible from most public spaces in part as a result of the major setbacks we have created on all four sides. this diagram shows the yellow blocking is the setbacks within our lot, the white box in the middle is the proposed addition, and as you can see we have created significant setbacks on all four sides.

importantly, this proposed project maintains all existing rent control units. it does not merge any dwelling units. and we are utilizing a unit that we receive vacant when we purchased the building which allows us to move in and owner occupy. in addition to this, there are many life safety and quality of life improvements that will benefit all residents of the building. these include replacing the failing brick foundation, performing a full-size mike upgrade, sprinklers throughout this old dry wood frame building, replacing windows, remodeling the entrance way and stairwell, implementing solar panels for efficient energy, and creating three car parkseses at the expense of just half a street space. ~ the reality is that these drs

are about views and as such i'd like to share with you some facts concerning the project and our negotiation with mr. low. in our rebuttal we also have an alternative design that we would be comfortable with that would further protect mr. low's views. mr. low collected 400 plus petition signatures on the basis of two strong statements in his petition form. the first is that buildings that exceed 40 feet in height are detrimental to this neighborhood. the second is that he explicitly claimed no buildings on this block currently exceed 40 feet. mr. low's own penthouse on this block is 50 feet. this diagram here demonstrates that.

the blue square on the left shows the height of mr. low's penthouse standing at 50 feet tall. the yellow line, the yellow box shows our proposed edition which would also be 50 feet tall. the red horizontal line above the yellow box shows our zoned maximum height limit of 65 feet and demonstrates that we are materially inside that zoned limit. mr. low's dr submission also included this elevation, which demonstrates our proposed addition, superimposed on the building to demonstrate its relative size versus the neighboring buildings. what's missing from this is that he is conveniently failed to show his own fourth floor penthouse in this submission. this is a photograph of mr. low's penthouse. clearly it does exist. this photo is of the rear of

the two buildings. the red dotted lines on the right are mr. low's existing fourth floor penthouse that comes right to the boundary both on the rear wall and the side wall. the dotted yellow line shows our proposed addition with a setback. and this also demonstrates the stiffing that comes down with the gradient of the street. there have been many compromises already conceded to mr. low through this process. we have already reduced the front height by one foot. we have modified our rear roof design from sloping to flat. we have also reduced the rear roof height by 9 inches. we have relocated our south egress stairs to the front of the building. these egress stairs now come through the middle of a bedroom. we also created entire length side setbacks as opposed to simply matching mr. low's

lightwells. in addition to this we have made multiple attempts to work and communicate with mr. low. we have sent him seven letters dating back to september 2011. we have extended three offers to meet and discuss the project, none of which he accepted. we had one meeting which was being arrangeedth and facilitated by elizabeth in the planning department which was both agreed to and scheduled for november in 2012. mr. low canceled this meeting on one day's notice citing that he opposes this project carte blanche and he thinks the meeting would be a waste of time. mr. low maintains significant golden gate bridge views even with our current proposal. i appreciate this is a little difficult to see, but this image shows the view