that other side 13 feet of feet to the exist building a fourth story setback 15 feet from the wall bringing the total height of the wall to 40 feet and interior alterations during the neighborhood notification period both adjacent neighbors request for a conditional use authorization both concerns relative to the privacy and the mapping to sunlight and is inconsistent with the neighborhood visible character this report the department got one letter in opposition i'll distributed at the end of my presentation this letter is relative to light and privacy the neighbors included in your packet won't be able to attend and wish to it rate their opposition and understanding the

proposal is well westbound the volume didn't include a penthouse and the vertical addition is setback 21 feet from the street and 15 from the existing building wall the department if feel that meet exceptional or extraordinary and not recommend you take dr pecks i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> great, thank you project sponsor. >> i'm sorry, i apologize dr requester. >> my apologies. >> you have a 5 minute presentation. >> thanks very much for hearing us i appreciate it i have 3 primary issues with this addition i wanted to show you - >> overhead of the neighborhood and explain where we are i don't know if you can see that well, this is where we

consider a key lot restricted on this right hand by the department of building inspection and the addition will block you'll notice the front is over here and goes across this way the shadows reflective in the baked as opposed to this in the street it affects us in the back of the house we had all the open spaces so the proposed plan the extension of the back syndrome the property line and will box our particular key lot in as i mentioned i want to show you the view a what it would look like here this is a backyard view from you can't see the writing - so that's our view now. >> can you please talk into the microphone.

>> sorry. >> this is what it looks like with the wall is the extension is there our assess to the open space will be gone if you look at it from the another view this is the backyard this is oh, talk into the microphone this is what we have looking over whoops the emotion will look like that ma'am, you can move the mike over. >> that's correct that better the open area will be closed though not in the plan the builder will put a 6 inch fence around the property none has that in the back it is much different than the character of the neighborhood that will not only block us but everyone in. >> this is a view so as you

can see from the upstairs and this is a view of my particular guard my neighbors were condo and this is the sunlight so what that wall it appears here we're going to be completely in the shade this is afternoon sunlight this is when we get most of our sunlight. >> next thing that's pretty much it then there is also the deck issue in the back not only an extension but a deck on top of that deck will have access into our bedroom window and view it is on the property line that is a privacy issue sfoord and here's one for instance, taken the time to make that flush with the house next door so that they

don't effect the privacy or the sunlight this is they've moved it back this is their deck their house is flush and that's the key lot house too so you know it is as big impact i have a neighbor on any co- - well the woman that owns the condo downstairs is 92 years old she couldn't be here today and she uses the garden a lot she's for health reasons and she's home a lot it is going going to effect their assess and warmth and it is a sense of well-being the additional story that is proposed plus a deck so kind of like 5 stories is going to block us in glycoagain on this particular side we'll be

restricted and block a lot of light to the apartment building next door this is a view of the roof - that had will be obviously the light and privacy will be affected i'll do this quickly the apartments building next to me that's the light from the afternoon sun that had been gun and reiterate the character of the neighborhood will be affected here's a picture of the neighborhood how does one on each side so there we go this is will have a structure on the top that effects the character of the neighborhood in a negative way. >> ma'am, your time is up. >> you'll have a two minute rebuttal.

>> dr requester number 2. >> you have 5 minutes. >> if you use the proerj please talk into the mike thank you. >> you can move the microphone if you need to. >> thank you my name is scott i live in the adjacent unit to the west with my wife and she's in the audience we are one of the folks that object to this nearly 20 years residents we occupy the property to the left 15 people that made specific comments and i counted throughout the process author a they're all obtaining to proposed construction the gentleman the sponsor of the

project has informed us has no intention of residing in the property not going to be a neighborhood only to buy the property and make a lot of money it is a not an unusual pursuit he outbid the previous people that live in the neighborhood this is a unfortunate set of circumstances we want to submit the property to a a dr and bring it into xrienls with the residential design guidelines as well as the code so with regard with respect to privacy percent spofs spoken a deck proposed for the back of the house that puts the residents and guests within 18 inches marry of of my office and

bedroom and the 92-year-old lady spoken to i could not imagine to make the point this is what it will look like from the far side of my bed those are lovely manikins they'll be able to view my bedroom and office and reach inside of my bedroom this is how close it is to my bedroom. >> light the light into the center of our units we're on the second floor and the light at the center part is one hundred and 73 foot square lightwell the proposed construction will add 11 folded wall to the west and blocking 9 light and as well as to the south as you may know the sun is lower in the sky to the south this reduces the amount of

light into our living space the kitchen and diagram that's where all the natural light comes from and it effects the large structure and the light in the garden and again, the garden on the north side of the building. >> the affordability is not necessarily part of code it is an important topic for the city was happening by removing two residents from the property address a significantly expanding the scope and call of the building were moved at least one of the families with small children from the city replacing the people i've spoken to that manage the real estate will go to over $7 million this is a

significant increase the my mind petitioning in that will open space and in the backyard of those buildings are low and transparent the fence about the size and structure what you see front of the you this allows us to come together minimal an area one and 50 feet long and 75 feet deep the neighbors communicate over the wall there are dozens and dozens of human beings that like to come together as well as the comments from the developer has suggested and show a 6 foot o pack wall will be played in the middle of the middle-income spatsz building compound. >> compatibility and character there's a lovely picture that was shown an aerial picture that

was shown of the neighborhood i'd like to point out that of the thousands of streets in streets of san francisco this one block between broadway and - is one of the 31 segments that are skeeven streets of san francisco this kind of a street that is impacted by this very, very ambitious project to build this prong we see you know we're aware of no other center the assistant city of san francisco that provides the city of fine arts no to the street like it in summer you should reject this application. >> - >> sir you'll have that time in your rebuttal. >> speakers in support of dr requester

(calling names). >> thank you commissioners i'm not shawn he's asked me to read a letter am i allowed to do that cool he wrote directly to brittany and expressed his deserve to be here i'm concerned that the neighbors concerned or concerns are not addressed and 14 letters you've received understand hair part of the page the commission has to review but stunned the applicant has not added those making any modifications to the plans or reaching out to the neighborhood i've attached two things and hope to hear with the building inspection and first reattach my letters you have it in your packet please consider the following number one i strongly believe that the applicant didn't need 4

of the 5 proposals with the residential design guidelines and outline old in my letter he did expect the decided residential design guidelines will be take into account when considering approval if not not much in having the residential design guidelines and fourth two detailed examples marks sure the scale is compatible with the building and please see the attached picture into my backyard trying to pull that up can you in fact on that for me adding the fourth applicants building second from the left so if you look at shawn listed here he lives there we want to commend develop this green building here adding the fourth floor the roof will stick out no scenario that is compatible scale

and insure the building represents the middle-income open space and no respective as you can see the building comes out into the yard a little bit but 5 for the minimum setbacks from month property lines that gift relieve to the neighborly buildings your giles say it out of scale leads to residents feeling boxed in the applicants plan is absolutely box in the residents and no relief along the property line this can't happen and no area to make the findings this will respective the my mind open space and the rear addition needs took scaled back the letter talks about scaled back to - which further drives home there are additional neighborhood i find this application ambitious with no right to the neighborhood i'm sorry, i can't be here and sent

a quick video showing what our street looks like. >> do you have time to pull it up. >> 7 seconds. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners scott clearly addressed the conflicts with the section 101 with the proposed development i'd like to reiterate the impact of light and air and privacy that impacts b street the knowledge directly behind the proposed construction and currently hav wind current through sufficient privacy that has been violated with the additional fourth floor and roof deck the neighboring building has pled for reference the same height as the fourth floor and below the roof deck during this time the engineers cut a line

into my bedroom and living room that made me feel uncomfortable and drawing the curtains diminishing the natural light and patricia based on her george washington high school and make sure the building respective the open space and violates the george washington high school as it encroaches on the noise pollution and additional violations previously discussed including insuring the scale is about compatible with the surrounded building it didn't and in order to preserve the virtual character it does not and the proposition and the size of windows to the existing believes in the neighborhood it didn't not i strongly oppose that thank you for your time. >> thank you.

>> project sponsor any other is there any additional public comment? >> in support of dr requesters seeing none, project sponsor you have 5 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners tom of reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the project sponsor i have a few brief comments and i'm going to turn it over to to the architect to talk about the details we appreciate staffs support in particular the residential design team the rdt determined that the proposal is consistent with neighborhood character it is consistent with the rdts proposals in this neighborhood and project expansion in the district, we have sensitive to

the neighbors concerns and i'll submit that many of the concerns are addressed by the original design of this project that is modest and sensitive in scale the fourth floor addition as mentioned is setback 15 feet from the front facade a total of 21 feet from the front property line the rear addition is just one story and extended to the 45 percent rear yard line where up to four stories are permitted this is an extraordinarily deep lot at one hundred and 37 feet with that, i'm going to turn it over to to the evict to talk about the project i'm available to answer any questions as it the project sponsor thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm kelly the designer the

project some the arguments you have heard or read in the dr filing this that there are not any fourth stories in the neighborhood there are - this okay - >> this right here a fourth story addition down the street it is visual from the street there was also a letter of opposition from a fifth person who claims we are harming the character of the neighborhood an additional closer to 15 feet from the house and not 2, 3, 4 character with the buildings around there are in the neighborhood many fourth story additions we have - as you can see them

as you march down the street some of those buildings with four stories and fifth story penthouses this is a five story with a roof deck the fables that spoke about privacy so there's a pattern of four story additions in the neighborhoods and federal and state it is a two unit building so on the ground floor we've done the redistribution and the new units is one thousand and 80 square feet so the building on the ground floor was - the addition stops at the 40 percent property line we could do that on the pop outs beyond that we stop at one story and at 45 percent setback line on the top we did our addition

the fourth story as discussed before that setbacks 15 feet from the third wall a legislative setback on both sides of the street already and stops 13 feet before the standard 45 percent setback one. >> i don't know if you have questions further about that but i didn't explain anything but there are studies too. >> you have 46 seconds. >> okay we did some studies there are impacts to light obviously when you have a story that's us existing conditions okay i'm done. >> is that ding for me. >> thank you we're available

for questions. >> you'll have a two minute rebuttal dr requester i'm sorry public speakers in support of dr requesters any public comment in support of project manager dr requester you have a two minute rebuttal. >> there were 3 story structures on the block there are not a couple of pop ups and i don't think that anybody is you know focusing on that that that's fine a fine compromise further back if 15 feet from the front of building and also no deck on top of those that is proposed that hobo one point the other point she showed a building a four story building in the middle not on our streets

in fact, here's a picture of our street if i can with e have the overhead there we go no four story structures another picture looking at the other way from the penthouse again no four story structures. >> so also on the back she says you know i don't take up much room that's true they're at the does the property line with the sexually assaulted that had been the one story with a deck still shades our property and completely diminish our light what we get mainly not a lot of light our yards on the north side but in the summer we get a whole generated of sun at this point we will have nun thank

you. >> thank you dr requester number 2 you have a two minute rebuttal. >> ma'am, you have 20 seconds left for additional comments. >> one of the things when i initially talked to the building inspection we show him the backyard and the impact the comment i got in fact, an e-mail look so many issues with the neighbors we'd rather work with the direct. >> for the benefit of the public the first chimney indicates 30 seconds left the second louder chime is 30 seconds. >> thank you for hearing me i know that is small potatoes but it is important to our neighborhood we had and preapplication thirty people

there easily had you done this as 7:00 p.m. we'll be there we have other properties in the backyard 5 foot setbacks we'll be up against that we're not asking i am him to build but open to negotiations hosed not this is what it is going to look like those poles are two call that shows you the extension he'll add didn't talk about the first floor with the deck directly community-based my bedroom window this the other point we've not brought up the street is super uniform a lot of the streets in the neighborhood but if you look at this is what i gave in the packet yes, i've told about the pop united parcel service you can see p them about in general on north point is a 3 story weekly with two condo

units that's the other side of the street heros one more pop united parcel service or up towards barker street and those are pictures i've submitted i think you get the picture too big for the neighborhood we want him to scale back and make administrations to protect privacy and light and maintain the character of the neighborhood. >> a two minute rebuttal. >> just a couple of quick comments clarify ford we community a significant amount with the neighbors and made specific offers of roegsdz and then also as to the two lightwells that are on the east

and west side it is improved light and air should improve we're roving the staircase if that lightwell i'm available to answer any questions and this portion is closed. >> it is in its own right some of the questions we're asking when the building is set up for being flipped in large development and it is not to say there are issues by which this project does the right thing we've asked ourselves we go through them question number one we wouldn't have continued 437 hoffman last week i'll put that in as a place holder when we hear that on june 30th the question i have the second units

is one which i believe by assess and location is a very difficult units to feel comfort and sufficient square feet is 24 inform feet wide and almost 75 feet along with no proper windows or lay outs other than wrapping itself around the garage and having an indirect assess from the front of building. the other issues that raised concerns for me is the additional terraces and roof deck i'd like to look at the drawing e 5 which is the proposed second level where i believe that the stares on the garden side of the property is

too wide and interferes with privacy i ask that be cut back from both sides if 5 feet it becomes narrower to provide the privacy for the properties moving on to organization 7 that particular floor puzzle me two floors that provide oversized master brainstorms and it looks puffed up when that floor is used to also provide a roof terrace that for me is not possible in that neighborhoods and again, the neighbors concern about height and looking down on other people and thurp your nose at others that didn't work we've talked about that many times a deal breaker and again on that particular floor with the rear sticking out as much i think

that that particular floor has to pull back a little bit perhaps reconsiders the area around the powder room i'll leadoff with those thoughts those are the issues we discuss all the time i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree with commissioner moore yeah. i think the decks have excess and support of shaving the deck on level two and perhaps that could be carried through to level 3 are no - is there a deck on this level 4 is this a deck also. >> okay 3 decks okay. >> excuse me - ma'am, ma'am. >> there's a deck at the second level on behalf of the first floor at the rear and this

is the one you want to see brought in by 5 feet there's a deck let's see. >> fourth floor at the front and that one i get rid of i don't think you need that one, if you have that one on the floor like second floor okay. >> so that eliminates that let me go into that in a little bit more depth if you look at the plans two masters bedrooms doesn't make sense so i think what could be done is you could take that third-story you have 3 bathrooms with the mart bath and then two other bathrooms i believe on the third-story and you would be able to shave off

cut back a little bit on that master bathroom and the size of the what is marked as the master bedroom and master bath that is a sheet number a-6 okay so if you cut some of the rear area off of that - >> commissioner antonini you're talking about the third-story. >> that projects that piece and oh, the fourth story. >> i'm talking about the third i'm trying to make that a little bit smaller or take - we're keeping the depth the same we're moving the den from the fourth floor to the thvrtd by making a deriveder in the master bath and on the third-story making that more of a regular sized bedroom

but put the den in the area there and remove it from the four-story and you can by taking about 10 feet off the front of that and eliminate that den and those areas and the deck on the four-story so i'll defer probably to the dr requesters it to find out the position i think that if we move the whole four-story back instead of 1 feet a separation it will answer their light and air concerns and make that a little bit more in keeping with the neighborhood more of a pop up than an entire floor so that's kind of what i have in mind. >> i think there are two concerns with the dr requesters has put forward the privacy issue from the deck at the front and also the privacy in the

massing from the four-story so if there is a reductions in mapping on the four-story the discretionary review requests ask for it at the rear. >> no. you he wanted it both. >> so - >> we're not in negotiation here and after your can you think i'll call up the gentleman. >> i'm kind of throwing this out those are ways to make that possible to shrink that four-story whether string or shrink it from the rear are a little bit of both you've eliminated the ken from the four-story and a lot of other stuff up there the area going to the deck and the front was a wasted space you still have a market-rate bedroom and a bath and dressing area on the

four-story but noting nothing else everything else on the third-story. >> i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner hillis. >> yeah. i'll agree where this is going as far as massing and deck i think the second floor the deck needs to be squeezed in by a foot the third level exists but on the fourth level the elimination of that roof terrace the question we're getting and massing on the future and ask mr. convincing 5 feet on both sides with the back and the fronts but interesting to hear from the dr requesters kind of. >> just it is a little bit hard to follow the modifications but the light coming both is the air well and blocked by the massing at the front and the top

story that blocks the light into the lightwell the privacy area that in the back is caused but is first floor expansion in the back move that in; right? like we've done with the neighbors to the left so we don't have 18 inches but move it it from the back and pull - i'm sorry move it towards the center in the back on the top and pull it back ten feet is a good starting .10 feet is good pulling the whole mass of that top floor back and the deck on the top i don't know why it is there to be honest but those are good issue to address did two privacy and light concerns. >> thank you we'll get dot fence in the back by the way. >> and the project sponsor you mentioned you made concessions

and did not move forward can you tell us what those were. >> we'll be comfort with the 5 foot setbacks or pinching in of the deck on the rear addition and taking away the terrace on the four-story the 15 feet in the fronts i'm not sure that addresses privacy ace light impacts we'll be go comfortable with pulling back the future four-story from the restore perhaps 3 feet. >> thank you yeah, so i would try the consensus you don't want to see the deck on the second floor pushed by 5 feet from the east and west side the elimination of the deck on the four-story in the front that front deck

intoifr and having a setbacks on the future 5 to 10 feet. >> additional. >> i mean additional 5 feet a setback of the entire building 5 feet on the four-story no additional in the fronts but the setback is more important to be setback in the rear. >> is that a motion. >> i mean to start discussion let's see hear i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'll doctor to the dr requester, sir if you want to come up and answer my questions we're willing to shrink that four-story a minimum of 5 feet and possibly 10 feet it's sized east west i believe if i get the direction right. >> north-south. >> north-south in any case. >> the question whether you take it all from the fronts

moving the elements back or you take a little bit from the back and a little bit from the front which is the has the biggest impact on you, you should know. >> i can speak to - any other dr so on the west side and the mason is top the additional four-story primarily effects the light that is coming into the lightwell and since the building faces the south we would like to take that mass off the south to get the maximum sun from the lightwell that's my preference to pull it back 15 feet. >> it is back 15 it might go back further. >> alisa miller 10 is my preference and reduce it into the backs like more of a pop up like the rest of the neighborhood. >> realistically i don't think

the commission will go for to reduction 10 maximum 5. >> 5 in the front and 5 in the back. >> more in the front would be appreciable. >> and what about the side from the fostered can it come from the side that's where the light hits. >> your constricting them quite a bit so we'll stay with the width and cut it up from the back. >> from think side property line and in the ability to reduce the deputy of that first floor. >> no, i think you have to have enough space for to units to be over one thousand square feet but the next nor we're bringing in the deck 5 feet on

each side building. >> can there be an exception it abducts us on that side. >> we'll think about that. >> exposure. >> i like to remind us with the roof deck on top of the four-story is also something we want to take into consideration away was that note mentioned from the applicant wants to reduce the building mass in the fronts and pull it back to the extent that beyond the 10 feet he still has a small balcony that is of no consequence but reduces the mass further on the unoccupied roof to the street side is 10 feet minimum beyond that would be another three or four step outs balconies for this upper level but that is an option the applicant can purview with the

caveat it has to pull back if either side and not sit on the property line as to the rear i think that would be kind of interesting to explore how on the extended ground floor as shown on drawings drawing drawing drawing - >> okay. where is that. >> the for better or worse the ground floor occupant as to whether or not that ground floor unit should pull in from this side by 5 feet as a pop up we often pull buildings back in order toediate the expansion and the impacts on the other buildings by doing so that could

architecturally being making valued for on the windows and i'll kind of like to encourage that can you formulate this into a motions are you comfortable. >> i think we the lady may have to draw it up and community-based around and show it to us i think we've all expressed the kind of soft points we want to see i think many 101 amenable and pull back the terrace. >> how many feet. >> 10 feet from the front and if there is an additional balcony by further reducing the four-story that is beyond the 10

feet but the balcony will have to pull off from the property line. >> you're referring to the rear of the four-story. >> no, i'm talking about the street side. >> this is essentially the deck on the future wouldn't be able to have a firewall. >> we will not bring it into the property line. >> right. >> if they do desire to do of it's traditional for that area we're taking away the roof deck it might add a juliette balcony three or four feet. >> how far from the front. >> 10 feet, yes it has to hold 10 feet and modifications on the terrace on the certifying thsect

needs to - mr. sanchez explained it very well with those types of building we hold them 5 feet off the property line and that's an additional. >> added. >> is that a motion to go take dr. >> yes. >> second. >> a motion to take dr. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. on the first floor your what are the sizes on each side. >> 5 feet in. >> total 5 feet. >> no comes in 4 feet of property line i was in a meeting the other day where that was police department to me as typical for -

>> i'll go along with that by desiree design it and taking that back you make the bedroom narrow but even with a hall you don't have in separating the dining room from the living room you'll be able to capture enough space to have a fairly large bedroom i'll be poster of that narrowing of that pop out and done the motion that contains the other lightwells. >> commissioner the project sponsor representatives is asked me to point out by rue the ground floor units and the capacity is effective becoming a merger so the project has to come back to the planning

commission agency a conditional use authorization by the way, it is no longer 75 percent of the existing unit. >> so the relocation of this unit into the lower level the way the merger definition the new unit has to be 75 percent of the gross floor evident exist net we have 80 square feet to play with before that's triggered that requires the project coming back as a conditional use. >> how many feet on each side 5 feet will it losses. >> one hundred and thirty. >> 65 on each side that trirgdz and cu. >> so we can do a 45 window and see indeed we can see. >> 3 feet works. >> 3 feet works too.

>> maybe 3 feet on each side that is a pretty good separation. >> 70 feet we have 70 square feet total. >> is there anyone raising their hand. >> hopefully, we'll wrap up the reduction in space on the become a choice the designer was trying to make the unit on the first floor we're trying to fight against that we getting the capacity and open up the proerj here the adjacent building immediately to the right this is the subject building and this is where i live the building to the west shawn it was written for him those o are 5 foot savings accounts that calls for 5 foot ear here on the other side i'll

invite the owner to look at the existing second floor. >> this is a a one story pop out we're taking 10 feet if the front on the four-story and come in on the deck above the pop out we're okay with just enough square footage to keep it at a 75 foot. >> commissioner moore will be amenable to change our position. >> we have to stay otherwise we're defeating we have a hard time with how the unit is designed to wrap around the primary use it hard for me i'll let that go i'd like to see the sides coming without impairing

the ability to have the footage if it is 3 feet i'm fine with that. >> i accept as the berserker 3 feet. >> i have a suggestion. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. my suggestion you've are is a very deep rear yard and i think outside the box you could possibly go further into the rear yard without rear yard expectations is that true or not. >> so the obviously moose is a 4 story box including the 15 for the set back they've carve out at the front of the building and the 3 storehouses they're not developing above the pop out and beyond that any one of the pop out provisions in section 136 usually an additional 12 stories or sorry 12 feet addition or a

10 foot deep, 2 story with 5 foot setbacks not proposing that they're not proposing the fourth floor and not proposing 9 four-story they've taken away the massing and remind you this is an rh3 zoning district that has two abatements. >> that question about that single floor if we setback 3 feet on each side if we could their to a verdict their extension if we go out another couple feet what do i mean twhoil pinching that would maybe capture enough square footage in the unit. >> they could do that. >> it would require relocation of the project. >> well, we don't want to do that. >> that's in the realm of

possibility going back to commissioner moore suggestion we accounted articulate it brought in on the suicides it meets the 75 percent threshold and then the decade what about brought negative impact an additional 5 feet which i think sounds like that is up to the commission. >> is that amenable to the maker. >> yes. the core i i don't believe making this building is in the interest of having a quality unit. >> i accept commissioner moore any additional thought commissioner moore additional thought. >> no secretary to summarize and call the question. >> certainly try i think i got all but one there is a motion that has been seconded to take doctor and

approve that xhoifgsz specifically a 5 foot setback on the second level terrace and a 5 foot setback - right from the side property line and eliminating the four-story terrace with a 10 foot reduction at the four-story and eliminating the four-story roof deck and setting back the rear additions presidential 3 feet inform allow for no triggering the conditional use, was there the 5 foot setback at the rear of the four-story. >> no, just 10 foot at the front. >> only the front. >> that's all i have very good on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson no

commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to one commissioner johnson voting against. >> the commission will take a 5 minute break literally in 5 minutes we'll be thursday, jun give me a minute question should i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under our on item 9 for case no. 2013 e at mission street the mixed

use project for the draft urgent please note that written comments will be accepted at the planning commission until tuesday june 25, 2016. >> good evening. i'm deborah. >> excuse me - one announcement to make i have an announcement to make a comment of disclosure i worked for 28 years for the firm that prepared the background for the eir while i had an engagement that that first name for decades and to a certain extent e stent because of long-standing relationships i'd like to put it to record no conflict of interest and mire contributions ♪ discussion is partial and

unencommit murder >> thank you i'm sorry. >> that's okay. >> good evening sxhifksz and members of the board i'm deborah a hearing to receive comment on the environmental impact report or dir for case numbers mission street mixed use project briefly the project will diminish the structures and constrict an 38 plus gross square feet 5 to 10 story residential building with ground floor retail use with 20031 residentials and feet will be development with a below grade garage not a hearing for approval and disapproval of the

project that follows the dir certification i'd like to provide bb greened within the mission plan the eastern neighborhoods as such the development proposed this is consistent about the density loud by the zoning rezoning for the site was a analyzed in the eastern neighborhoods eir and therefore a c pe check list was complete the list scoped out many of the inadvertent properties on background studies the department determines that the forked eir will he'd wind and shadow and golden and soil the projected project has a significant and you think yieldable commemorative shadow on the playground located to the north of the project site i'd

like to make a few rangers rashgz to facilitate the comments safe 19 staff is not here a court reporter is here that will be contributed and respond to tie in writing and the responses to document or rtc their respond to all written comments and make comments to the draft eir and pursuant the ceqa one 50 as a result the project shall manpower not be a significant impact on the environment and at this time the issues are outside the scope the ceqa process important comments today should be directed to the adequate and accuracy of the information in the draft eir and not to the merits of proposed project that will be considered to the another time so i'll ask

the commenters to speak slowly and clearly the court will produce on accurate transport and state your name for the record the draft eir was published on may 4, 2016, the public comment began on may 5th and extends until 5:00 p.m. on july 5, 2016, following the close of comments the planning department will prepare the rtc document after hearing comments from the general we'll take comments from the draft eir from the planning commission this that concludes my presentation. and unless commissioners have questions i respectfully request the public hearing be open. >> speakers i'll call speakers

please line up (calling names) okay first speaker please. >> please. first speaker. >> in any order the 6 of you are in. >> hello my name is owen i live on scott street zip codes i'm here to support in project and urge to certify the eir at&t's as written this benefits the neighborhood and the city and it is much needed because we need a

substantial increase in market-rate housing in san francisco it encourages the use of public transportation because of it's location and it also represents the gold standard in urban planning, i.e., a large dense project at a transit stop please certify the eir and ultimately support in project thank you. >> your mr. o'donnell, sir. >> yes. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> mr. tillman. >> commissioners i'm bob tillman i've owned and operated a mission and opposed property since 2005 at the 25 and mission and i'm here to support the draft eir statement for 1979

mission as written i'd like to urge you to approve that statement and i think that if san francisco can't approve a project on top of literally on top of one of the largest hubs in the desire city where can you, in fact, build a dense residential project thank you very much. >> thank you, marlyn (calling names). >> hello my name is mary line i'm from the organization we're an environmental justice organization that works primary in san francisco with the latino families i'm here to oppose this project there are folks seeing this will help transit but you're building a parking lot next to the school that effects

the families and students and in san francisco we have a problem what pedestrians are hit by cars you'll see cars next to the school put cars next to the school children are playing. >> speak slower for the transcriber. >> basically you're hearing reviewing the environment people play and live and eat and play, etc. we're the environment the environment does not want this here we're consistently opposes this we as the people who live here pray here and eat here we don't want this project. >> ma'am, ma'am, sorry to interrupt we need to keep our comments limited to the accuracy and adequacy of the environmental impact report not about the project but the environmental impact report and it's analysis. >> as someone in the

environment i oppose this project. >> i remind you this is one of the project alternative transportation that's what you speak to (calling names). >> i'm reminded members of the public to please silence our mobile didn't see if you don't know how please turn them off. >> hello, i'm scott on guerrero street in the neighborhood a few blocks from the proposed developments i just to urge the commission to please certify the eir for this project it can move forward i believe that building a dense project next to transit is an example of responsible urban design and is going to be agree for the environment putting this

here ♪ location avoids creating unnecessary car travel that causes traffic so i urge to please certify the eir so this project can move forward thank you >> thank you. >> mr. pool. >> good evening rob poole/san francisco housing action coalition. again speaking on behalf of the 3 homicide organizations and business members we ask you to certify the environmental impact report for mission street this site is zoned for significantly 10 stories for the rest of the neighborhood and if we are going to speak to the adversary eir this is the place to build a dense housing project that can hopefully serve residents of all income levels in san francisco

if so a way to encourage people to take transit to walk to work and bike and get out of their cars we urge you to certify the eir and thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, david a gibson sro collaborative i ask you to not certify this project it is not not to build is that will tie up and cause more traffic and have an negative impact on the isn't that correct or navigation with the people there thank you does not certify is this project. >> good evening, commissioners my name is charley i'm here as a 70 residents and renter i'd like to comment on the draft eir

specifically on the showed impact on the adjoining elementary school in reviewing the draft eir the project sponsor has offered to raise the playground that actually allows for sunlights on the mraurgd it was the project sponsors expense we firmly believe that this is a win-win alternative we firmly believe that is an acceptance community page and not result in decreased affordable units under the planning code we ask for your support of the draft eir today or i do excuse me - >> thank you. (calling names) >> hi good evening city commissioners i'm in favor and doctor glenn favors it we need people and housing we want to be

dependent and thank you for the hate and masonic is done and the project is done on fulsome the agreement is done for disable for housing thank you for the exemptions we favor we had seven hundred and 47 clients in group homes i've beening in san francisco in the mission district we need changes we need see in the - they want changes they're tired the homeless and people selling travel ticket and we the retail use has been there for many years we need hours and thank you for gwen in a lou in a and i live locally thank you. we have thank those

people they're doing a good job. >> (calling names). >> last call okay (calling names). >> sir. >> somebody talk. >> hi good afternoon planning commission i'm with the mission collaborative with community services and with the plaza 16 coalition here to speak about the impacts we support of alternative the draft eir before

you is i think adequate because it didn't talk about the effects of displacement of local businesses we frequent and nonprofits and tenants for us specifically the sro tenants railway are we or presents with developments from private interests their adequate to the real situation on the streets one which we are two keenly aware of in our jobs and lives the impact of this involvement open rent-controlled sro buildings will be devastating we have seen it in a two block radius of mission the site of this monster project we've seen an sro fully closed for massive renovations in order to make that appealing for newer residents we've seen an sro community-based on the market when this development was proposed and one turn into i'm

quoting a tech con menu we've seen one listing hotel rooms on airbnb and booking.org this is an associate economic impact to the neighborhood bausz caused by luxury developments this report is immoral an inadequate and i think complete document bans certain impacts that don't include out the monster in the mission will effect any facets of the neighborhood beyond all the finding in the documents there are a lot of pain worry and destruction the impacts of on enfettered suit of money are catastrophic and traumatic especially during a country produces a situation in which the situations wrought in to daily with the emergency

are inadequate we ask that the draft eir include the final eir include many of the impacts i've stated and many of the impacts that will be stated by the many speakers after me. >> thank you, sir. >> nora guzman we're here to testify on behalf of the homeless folks that actually reside at the go mission center half a block from that protected project which actually, we think that is going to have a devastating input into the homeless communities in the center the only one in the mission district the only one that serves the latino cabinets and spanish speakers throughout the city that is interesting the

project sponsor never were impacted to talk about the impact it will have, in fact, it of the mentioned nothing whatsoever about the mission a half a block that supports 16 hundred duplicate homeless people a year it is important in the final requiring eir the impact on homelessness people that are with the sro teentsz a contemplate and remember gentrification kills our people we had a gentrifyer called the police we don't want this repeated if you build something look at the marvel in the mission because we're for 100 percent affordable if you want density that's what we want thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is julian an

organizer with the mission chapter of the alliance for community k3w6r789 a group of low and moderate income homeland security thought the district and city and state when we are talking about you know our members are very concerned about the possibility of being pushed out this is an environmental concern the facts of being pushed out to the surrounding cities having commute from hayward or vallejo into our job at the hotel or anywhere else in san francisco is an environmental impact it's been documented our members know that when you have so many luxury units built in a neighborhood the impact on displacement is significant

and so i urge you to reject the environmental impact report and to reject this project overall. >> thank you ms. - >> can you speak into the microphone. >> i have a presentation if you can please put the overhead on that would be great okay. so we'll i'm setting this up i'm marie i am an organizer with a justice cause i support a no project alternative the draft eir does not accurately recognition all the impacts of the environmental impact displacement so for that reason it should be rejected what i want to show here is something that the community actually developed

over one year and a half 6 planning meeting we develop the marvel on mission i can't get the internet to work on your computer here so - >> this is the computer. >> can i pause my time awhile i figure out the internet - so the maufrl on mission as you can see a lot of people talking about the need for density and for building on a transit corridor our community members are not necessarily opposed to that idea but we are opposed to density for density sake or density for luxury sake with with that building the rebate we're calling it the maufrl on mission it has enough housing that be development for community members what we have

here is the 10 story tower these are heights that were approved by our community members over here we have a community center open space we have a plaza where the needs of the existing residents people that hang out there can, recognized and actually making the spaces better we're recognizing the cultural needs of the neighborhood and the folks that use this space and facilitating that we're creating green space and parks and what is beautiful about this project aside from the fact it is 100 percent affordable and community design and community approved didn't cause a shadow impact on marshall school housing that rivals that of the monster not create a massive shadow impact on maurld is

houses thousands of families and creates and park and office space for hundreds of working class families i want to show you a video but i can't get it up on the computer i wanted to show a slice ever what a year and a half over three hundred residents over 6 communities meetings that led to this so i'll say for you to reject the draft eir for you all to reject this monster in the mission and if it is building on 16th street and mission build the maufrl thank you. >> thank you last call for edwardo. >> (calling names). >> any of those folks in the house? >> okay i understand

okay. (calling names) >> we'll be providing interpretation for him. >> why not use the other microphone then. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so my name is van very well a round for the last 20 years.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> so i'm here i also support no alternative for this project the reason he support no alternative there you are so many evictions in the city they're caused by luxury development. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> 14 hundred families are being impacted in the mission. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm not begin building are construction i don't want to be set aside because someone wants to build giant lurk condos. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> every time i'm coming in into san francisco i see the

complains and how much housing san francisco is building. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and scopes to have some of that for our community we ask you to support and approve the maufrl on mission. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it is ourself our community that puts you in the position you're in do not set us aside when our community is in need. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> our project is dignified and recognizes the dignity of people to have housing not cause evictions and displacement and make sure there are no more people living in bridges and in

tense harass day to day by the police. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> from the city has $20 million to has homelessness people why not use that money to build housing instead. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and so what i ask to you support of maufrl on mission that is about time your community gets heard. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. valenzuela. >> your public comment needs to focus on the accuracy and adequacy of the project not for the alternative for the projects. >> good afternoon. i'm sharon

i'm a 35 plus year residents of the mission and i am not against worth i didn't people some of my best friends are weighty not one of the worth i didn't people - i've seen the impact in the mission i can't drive down my street without waiting through a couple of stoplights i could get to the stoplight and cross the street now that is getting very difficult to get anywhere in the city and the impact of the new

construction is very difficult on the local people that surrounded i can speak to that forfeiture are assure they're starting new construction across the street from any apartment building and destroying the previous structure my building has been shaking the noise is phenomenal and their replacing tell poles all the activity makes we nervous wreck i have a place to live i think that lower income people and people of poverty are going the way of the dotal bird we're the ones having the environmental impact we are the ones if we didn't have wings we

would we're not counted because if there were bird in that neighborhood that was on the ensdiergd species they would stop that construction. >> so i am against the certification of the project in the mission as it is now i am for community input who are the people going to live in the luxury apartments where are they going to come from they have to displace us to live there. >> most of us not all of us but most of us very little affordable housing units in that building. >> thank you.

>> thank you, ms. york. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so my name is a - i've been living in san francisco for the past 16 years and i support a no project alternative and also a tenant that is being evicted. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so what i think if we're doing to build housing housing for lower-income or looking for housing instead of building more and more luxury housing that's

it thank you. >> thank you, ms. >> next speaker, please. >> it's her first time doing public comment can we give her a rourmz. >> yeah. >> (clapping.) >> my name is a - i'm a member of justice cause i would if san francisco for 10 years i'm a girlfriend entrepreneurial it goes to school everyday not that the rich people can go there, there are other people i go for the other building thank you. >> thank you colleagues, any

questions or comments? >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is gregory i'm a proud member of program of the lower street community services and i sand in support of no project alternative the airport through it may contain vital information it does not reflect the social and economical effect of structures this size small businesses that now have served our community for years are being moved out children and the air we breathe that be greatly effected with san francisco housing crisis i feel this monster structure will

impact the residents living in the mission that will be a slap in the faces of every adapted individual ♪ city please consider what i've said thank you. >> the mayor minority know about planning i'm jordan and david i assure you as heck will not give you my address i only live in san francisco i oppose the modern e monster in missions first i'll give a reason that maternity result in legal action i don't want poor or brown and black children blocked by this monster we're the most densely populated city after negotiation

one hundred and 63 spaces i can people driving recklessly which not only is a reckless disregard for human lives a lot of poor people like myself don't have cars this is more cars in transit i have a special stake with the resource center i receive coffee and mail and even now i receive any primary and transition care and this is others only - why is it relevant the project might cast a shadow over that but in a precursor situation they're by this project there will be a

tendency to shut down you must stop skwurgs is hurts the entire neighborhood it is an environmental review and it is lgbt and exasperates homeless consider the maufrl on the mission and no project alternative last call (calling names). >> any of you folks in the house i'll call a few more names

(calling names). >> thank you, commissioners my name is gena resident of san francisco and worked in the mission since 1983 the eir concludes that the project and the alternative project shadow will result in an adverse impact on marshall elementary playground, however, the shadow occurs mainly in the afternoon after school is over and children are dismissed for the day a reasonable amount of alternatives studied and the issue has been thoroughly vetted we hope that process precedes quickly you approve 1979 mission and the eir certified thank you thank you, very much. ms.

kaplan. >> next speaker, please. >> you know me. >> i do after all those times. >> my name is mary sorenson i'm with the unit mission i'm reading a letter from susan she's a so you aren't u couldn't be here because she has child at marshall elementary and has childcare obligations i'm speaking in regards to the eir dust and noise the school needs to be relocated at that site the building to be demolished with filled with asbestos and lead not safe for the small children the noise will also guardrail disrupt teaching and the environment classroom activities were completely disrupted when 1

thing street light was being added near the school a project this size will produce one hundred times that amount of noise rear yard requirements 24 percent the purchase of the rear yard open space to reduce the feeling of crowding that's why it is supposed to be at the edge of the lot their proposal to have are their open space in the center of the project completely eradicates the - impact of the - open space many of those students are there until 6 o'clock they're in an after-school program this is the only open space they have access a marshall parents asked for open space next to the school is

thus reducing the feeling the playground being full and given children an open have you and flatly refused these addressed the eir did not mitigate the health hazards to the school calculations at the end depiction end and not mitigate the adverse impact effected on the playground showed and otherwise i'd like to add that that in this is a transit human being inform parking spaces and they have one hundred and 60 that will be come out open capping street that is where children come and go and waiting for the first child to get hit because you think that will happen also on the eastern

neighborhoods plan it said that transit hubs should be more first responder this is more luxury thank you. >> (calling names). >> she requested to have the proerj on hi, i'm diana resident of the richmond and the south of market and in solidarity with the mission from those neighborhood i support a no project alternative and respectfully request the final eir consider the community each time that was being discussed this evening i wanted to talk about the 100 percent and 63 parking spaces when there yours no parking required this means this is not transit oriented development that goes begin the general plan

and sits on top of the bart station no parking in the logistics of putting in the parking spaces only adds to the cost of this project so that relates to the fact that they're talking about how reducing the number of units to mitigate the shadow on maushld so making the lower - but they're adding one and 63 parking spaces so you canned dismiss that alternative as invalid alternative on a cost basis and also they're hiring one of the most expensive architect firms for this you're adding luxury costs to this project where you don't need to do that and in that way they you know they can't just talk about the

project goals and costs and dismissing easements the other things the inclusionary housing the fact they're playing around with the planning section planning code section 415 and having the 49 sorry the 41 anchors before sale and one and 20 percent ami where the market-rate is maybe technically not in vision but violation but again their approve the agreements and marketing proposals instead of building 100 percent affordable housing so again, the 49 additional offsite bmr units with this is required through the development agreement this

is very familiar to what we fought begins in 5 m you're creating a bastard version of the planning code and not following who's really following the inclusionary housing and this shouldn't be used as a ploy for the public to see it is more affordable than it really is. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is christie a member of ace i'm a 50-year resident inform san francisco living no more presidio park at the edge of the mission this project to me is pillow crushing especially it is a sense occurring at ground zero of the homeless and displacement issue in the city

i increased extents is promote as environmentally friendly or progressive and that might make sense only in a different economic climate we're not in an era of acute economic disparities that has to be given consideration i realize that's not how second is designed but true nicole like many others i support no alternative i support and i urge you to reject the eir i'll speak to the first of all, the terrible consequences for the school a lot of people spoken to that the lack of light the increased traffic density but beyond that i think this project

and others like it seem to be in the pipeline for the mission completely ignored the traffic consequences it is gridlock in the mission and people running backgrounds on bart in the mission they cross the bridge and more people get adapted out of the city and commute back to the city bart is at a point beyond capacity don't look to bay area rapid transit is not accommodating the issues right now when you have more people moving into the neighborhood especially with a whole different type of class of residents with their own cars they'll be going in and out of the city generating a huge impact of people consulting to the city and drive into the city

a huk requester you have toe look at this within a large con stresses and the city that will generate more impacts the eir has to look beyond as we look at the eir alone i suggest you reject the eir and has accommodated not all the environmental impacts thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening i'm christine and i'm part of sro collaborative which is a program in delores community services i'm here to speak about the

environmental review and it is i think adequate district attorney talk about the displacement of local businesses we frequent and nonprofits and tenants as myself many of us have no where to go if we're displaced weeping we'll end up on the streets being homeless 2009200014 hundred families were adapted in the last 16 years and 2009 plus evictions have taken place and in the mission of san francisco protecting housing is much needed we don't need luxury condo but affordable housing we need parks and neighborhood clean streets for everyone pardon we need nights to be safe

for women and children to walk please no alternative develop but housing we can all be safe thank you. >> before mr. turner last call (calling names). >> mr. turner and brooke turner the preparation for the dr was very transparent process that included comments on the community planning check list and published over a year ago all of the public comments on the cpa check list are responded to on the dr the shadows and the alternative transportation of the project on this project have been studied

critically and thoroughly the dr period i'm sorry the yes period is much longer the ceqa period we believe the environmental impact process is adequate we do not see a reason to delay this much noted project thank you very much. >> thank you very much mr. turner. >> next speaker, please. >> >> (speaking foreign language.) >> hello my name is - and. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> english you're supposed to be speaking english. >> hi, i'm with the sro

collaborative a project of the delores heights and i'm here to talk about the social impact the first time. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> in the draft environmental impact report is insufficient didn't analysis the displacement on small business owners small property owners small business owners and tenants like myself. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> members of the planning commission i'm one hundred percent against the monster in the mission. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm against this the

majority the apartment are lecturer prices and executive for people that be rich and those folks will buy in stores that are executive to their price points small businesses will be completely disappear more than they already are. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so when overseeing small businesses leave they go to other cities where they're able to survive and that will have a massive impact on the mission district cultural and traditions. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and it is abused of that i ask you to make the right decision and without being racist and favoritism.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> but your decision before their well-being the residents of the mission and not cause them any harm or preoccupation. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> we are the people and we demand to be recognized thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello my name is teresa i'm from the mission sro collaborative a program with the delores street, i believe the first time is insufficient didn't take into consideration the impact of displacement this is a associating economical impact i support no project each time i do not support this project the monster in the mission housing for the rich and i would like to state that we need far more

hours for the homeless population that over 6 thousand people that also effects me and people in any community because the homeless plight is dire and in not enough affordable housing the homeless problem will persist i was homeless and it's not fun finding affordable housing is not easy by building those it gaps the residents and makes it hard for low income people to rent in the neighborhood thank you very much thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> not spirit of sport we're coming up we gave a stack all of those people had speak and you

name her they'll name themselves thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is alicia allison park 7 years old and i oppose the monster in the mission they're building luxury hours not for working class and ppose this the people needs the housing to be affordable i am sad and mad people are kicked out of their hours this is why this is important. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is davie a member i've lived in san francisco for 18 years allison park a student and city college and currently live in outer mission i used to live in the excelsior i know the impact of the luxury condo it is

not accurate and didn't address the issue the displacement and didn't name the local businesses and nonprofits that will be adapted by this such increased the times to come back to the mission for necessary services to go to school i'm here to talk about jurisdiction effects the community because culture is lost and government some prioritize families that lost their homes they should help them out it frustrates me affordable housing is lost also affordable housing is seen as a hard decision to make when it isn't and that is why you should support the marvel in the mission is it so an alternative that the poem came up with with affordable housing thank you,

thank you davie. >> good evening. i'm a member with this group i live in san francisco so far 16 years i'm used to live in bayview but i support the mission i don't want to see everything gentrified by the fulsome the government should stop building luxury housing or shelters i'm here to talk about because i want to fight for everything that the community wants i oppose the monster and support the marvel in the mission. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm a member of the

costing to i've lived in san francisco for 14 years i'm a sfosh my family has been evicted from the mission we now live in the dog patch district as low income we my family and i are one of many families that have been evicted and because of all the luxury like monster in the mission the draft environmental impact report is inadequate and not address the issue of displacement it is does not name the impact on residents and local businesses and nonprofit that will be adapted by this project such increased in commute time for those coming back to the mission for necessary services are go to school jurisdiction has affected any community by making us worry about where we'll be able to afford good housing and still

living around our jobs and school i urge to so forth and listen to our community. >> plastic bag take into consideration the marvel in the mission from personal experience i know how hard it is to find affordable housing and the marvel in the mission will provide affordable housing for all families like mine thank you. >> your name, again ma'am. >> okay. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is hiding i'm a member of the costa-hawkins i'm a self-conscious at balboa park high school the draft environmental impact report didn't name the impacts on the locals and nonprofit will be adapted by 24 project i'm here to talk about it gentrification effects the families in the missions when luxury housing are

built those families are not able to live in 245ush homes because of high costs i oppose the monster and support of marvel. >> thank you, mr. perez. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm a member the castro street to i'm a sophomore at allowing and i live two blocks away from this project i'm here representing my family and neighborhoods gentrification effects our living and - the draft development environmental impact report is i think adequate and not address displacement and not name the impacts of local businesses and nonprofits that be be adapted by the commute times coming back for necessary services work or go to school i'm here today because i want to stay in the city i've called home for the

last 12 years and urge to support the people's plan and alternative the community don't need more luxury housing what we need a truly affordable housing this is why we need to oppose the monster and support of marvel in the mission. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is yvonne a member of castro street i've lived in san francisco for 4 years and my family has lived here a long time i think or live in the bayview and the craft environmental impact report is indicated not address the issue of displacement and not named impact on existing businesses and nonprofit that will be displaced as much as increased in commute times for us to come back to the mission for necessary services work and go to school i'm here

to thank you to you decide gentrification effects my family i can't see my grandmother she's sick and they have to commute everyday so i can see them i oppose the monster and support of marvel in the mission because city government should say make that easy for people to commute to work everyday. >> thank you, ms. thomas. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is - i'm a member of the castro street i've lived if san francisco my whole 17 years i'm in the conveyer not my place to talk about for the mission but it strikes as a virus i oppose the monster in the mission the community does need homes for the affordable for low income families and mrooug that one percent the

showed over user marshall high school i come here to support give us hope that the old mission had been strong and without tearing that down. >> i'm a freshmen student i have seen the challenges the families are going through i oppose the monster in the mission because the environmental impact report is not adequate address didn't address the issue of displacement it does name the impact on local businesses and nonprofits that will be displaced as much as interests in the community and times for all of those coming back for come back to the mission for others work and go

to school building luxury homes had been taking away homes and work for many people that rely on working in the mission. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm geremo 16-year-old and live in the bayview a member of the castro street i oppose this that impacts the community it will 0 cause a big shadow and who lives in a building not the people that live in the mix for a long time the building is not for protecting working families and not fair it contrasts the environmental impact report is in adequate and didn't address he did irks that displacement not name the impact of existing residents the local businesses and the fingertips that will be adapted by this project as much as the