all carefully noted as not to scale. this project is not compatible with the block or the surrounding neighborhood. the project represents what the planning code calls a disruption of district character. the cemetery of the neighborhood is exceptional and extraordinary. not one single building on the block is over 40 feet tall, not one of the 48 different buildings on all the block faces. and the surrounding blocks also look that same way as you head north. look at the photos i've submitted as exhibit 5. that shows you what the block looks like. it has a strongly defined visual character of 3 and 4 story buildings. this is a five story building. the department's analysis acknowledges if you look under analysis at the top of page 2 it says that. the project architect on the other hand provided you with an incorrect or at least misleading information. the only pictures that he provides as neighborhood character are not in the neighborhood at all.

they're a block and a half to the north. if you look at the two photos in his brief at appendix 3 page 13, those photos were taken a block and a half north. at washington and jones. they're not near the site. that's not how you define neighborhood character. the residential design guidelines tell us you look first at the adjacent buildings, then the block face, then across the street if necessary. in this particular case, it's not necessary. we're asking the commission to listen to the neighbors and look at the neighborhood. the second extraordinary exceptional circumstance in this case is the way in which this housing has performed for more than a hundred years and more than 35 years as affordable rent control housing. the project looks out of place. it's far too large. it gives the impression of the creation of some luxury condominium or tics. when you have the two top

floors, individual elevator, two-car garage, it gives the strong impression at some point in the future all the units will be transformed into tics, condos, it's really the only way to recruit this investment in the building. even if you accept it at face value the proposal is far too large. the variance cannot be justified under any theory. it's really an insult to injury to try to tack on this variance at the end. the architect's letter claims the project is sensible -- sensitive and respectful. he also makes the outlandish assertion the project is code compliant. that is not his first page, paragraph 3. it is not code complaint politectionv. that's right. it requires variance from the code. look at exhibit 6. there are two different illustrations there, both from the architect's plan. it shows you what this is. the variance and this project are both in your face. they go out of the way to buildup, block windows, and

overhanging brow right in front of the window. the addition is 1300 square feet. that's not a penthouse, that's a full build out. they constantly refer to the lowest penthouse, the lowest penthouse is 200 square feet. it's not even close to being comparable. we need setbacks on the rear that match the front for 15 feet. we need additional setbacks on the side to the five feet to make it minimal lie visible and we need a compression of the heighttion making ceilings of 11 feet tall on the fifth floor and over 10 feet tall on the fourth floor. that's not sensitive, that's not respectful. the garage is also out of character with the neighborhood. there are three garageses out of the eight buildings on this block face. we'd you to reject the variance and reduce the size of this project. >> thank you. the second dr requestor.

good evening, commission, president fong. thank you for your time today, this evening as well as for those that i've met and also i've communicated with prior to today. my name is john casey with cnc property management. as the dr applicant in rejection of the jones street project, i represent myself as the owner of the abutting property to the west. i represent the properties managed by c and c, and lastly the residents of the properties share the same position of rejection [speaker not understood]. with that said, we do understand property improvement may arise, but at the negative expense to many neighboring and/or nearby properties and the community as a whole. negative impacts as proposed are noncompliance of the sf building code with need of a rear yard variance that would exceed approximately half of the rear yard distance, currently the rear yard deck. [speaker not understood] with

pro poed vertical addition, no respect to building character type for proposed masses, modern box type structure on top of a century old [speaker not understood] building. much smaller a [speaker not understood]. set to the far rear of the property line and has an enormous and open vacant front yard. knowing this the entire proposed vertical addition is visible from the street. even though the minimal three foot setback is there. of course there is going to be natural loss of light, loss of privacy and loss of open air space. yes, these last three items can and mayo can you remember with the additions. the rear of the subject property and neighboring corner properties, mine being one of them are very tight currently and does not warrant need of vertical construction especially with the rear yard variance which i provided in photo 5. there is increased noise, front and rear of the subject property. none like the proposed front rear deck as it exists today, as far as the eye can see

rooftop. the vertical zoning of 39 parcel square block [speaker not understood] is drastically a queue. it has a cookie cutter implementation. some are 44, other parcels are higher vertical. this zoning approach presents ers such as this, otherwise we would more than likely not be here today if it wasn't. bottom line square block should [speaker not understood] guidelines in order for topography to be adhered to. the one and only core example the project provides is the corner property to the south of the subject property at the top of knob hill with adjacent high-rise he 10 to 15 stories in height. which obviously does not mirror the subject property's proposed mid-block and quotation next to buildings of similar proportional height. the project sponsor does note the project is unusual and we all concur to that. the project sponsor states this is a partial addition. if it is partial addition it is an entirely different mean tog all involved.

call it what it is, massive 1300 square foot structure with increased height of 10 feet with the highest point topping at 50 feet in total building height. it encompasses 0 plus percent of the existing roof line with exterior and front decking. ~ 90. there is no like construction of proposed mass on the entire 39 parcel square block. as far as the eye can see to the north and to the south of the subject property, the building topography slopes accordingly with the terrain and not against it which is proposed. in doing so if this project is approved, it will forever negatively change the existing pattern and slope topography which has presently existed for over a century. the alternatives that were submitted were to merge the two current two upper floor vacant units which exist today. there has been no other alternatives that were submitted to me subsequently to date. so, [speaker not understood]

rejection two drs submitted, neighborhood petitions over 400 plus individuals, to my understanding that is not the norm for a typical discretionary review. that alone speaks volumes and warrants the commission to delve further into the project. the sf planning notes 11 adjacent neighbors, three other neighbors on the block or adjacent to, and one neighborhood groupo pose he this project with absolute zero and support. we ask the planning commission in conjunction with the planning department to give this project the hard and long look. as we can see the massive structure, 1300 plus square foot proposal, fourth floor addition with front and rear decking, [speaker not understood] it is not a viable option. in closing as we all know this is not a one on one neighbor concern. this is a of the community as a whole and we respectfully ask this commission to reject this knowing all the facts. thank you. >> thank you. going to call speakers in favor of the dr.

mr. lowe, sabrina lye, robin tucker. if you just want to make your way up this way if i called your name, you can speak. eva chan, donald logan, bernadette, ed kwan. any particular order unless you have a predetermined order. >> the project sponsor will have an opportunity once the dr person is in favor of the dr speak. i'm opposed. >> right, you're in favor of the dr. you're in opposition to the project. correct, that's correct. [speaker not understood]. i'm opposed to the project. >> yes, go ahead. mr. president, fong, members of the commission, mr. sanchez, mr. luellen, i'm

[speaker not understood]. i'm a member of the pacific avenue neighborhood association. i'm the panel chair for the 1531 jones street project. i'm a native of san francisco. i was born and raised in chinatown. so, this permit calls for a vertical extension of 13 feet. it allows a four-story penthouse addition of 1200 square feet to a three-story six-unit apartment building 38 feet 9 inches raising the 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?