>> every permit was retroactive. they would do the construction, the neighbors would say you are doing construction, than they would go get a permit for something completely different like replacing windows. >> so maybe, to the neighbors, when one of those permits is issued after construction, you can contest them due to construction. >> they did not contest any of those permits. >> that's your option. if we see this happen again appear we will not be as nice. i think everybody learns a lesson. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded. >> on the motion to approve this matter with conditions, as amended to eliminate the roof deck and spiral stair, commissioner johnson? commissioners? this is a move that it passes 5-0.

>> very good, commissioners. item 17 is coueo july 12th. this is a large project authorization. >> good evening commissioners. i'm from the planning department staff. you have before you request for a large project authorization and small cast office allocation. the proposed project includes demolition of an existing two-story retail building and new construction of an 85-foot tall seven story commercial office building, measuring approximately 53,889 gross square feet with 49,901 gross

square feet of office use. and 2,667 gross square feet of ground floor retail. the project was contained with bicycle parking spaces. the project would not provide any offstreet vehicular parking or loading and no curb cuts were proposed. the building will have a roof deck with 2,670 square feet of usable open space. 1,020 square feet of photovoltaic panels and 850 square feet of living roof. a publicly accessible space will be provided adjacent to the burden -- of the building. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant a large project operation pursuant to the planning code

and an office development authorization pursuant to planning code section 321 and 322. under the large project authorization, the project seats and exception to allow for a bicycle parking which is not considered an active use. some issues and other considerations, the total office space will be less than 50,000 square feet, thus qualifying the building under the reserve for smaller buildings as defined in the planning commissioner. does not require any additional adjustments in the central soma plan. in that plan the subject lots where it is located in what is going to be proposed as the

mixed-use office zoning district which principally permits proposed office use. the department received two inquiries and one inquiry regarding a concern that the office ationca being sought is just below the large office threshold of 50,000 square feet, and concern about office space being approved a little bit at a time. the other inquiry was regarding the exception being sought for the ground floor active frontage. the project sponsor has submitted three letters of support with the south of market community network. sorry if i got that pronunciation wrong. the project sponsor is also reached out to the owners of the

community gardens by which the -- the project sponsor stated they property owner expressed metre support all session. it complies with the applicable requirements of the planning code. it is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. it is located in a zoning district where office use is expected. we comply with the first source hiring program and will take development fees which include job and housing. thank you commissioners. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> okay. thank you.

>> my name is michael. she provided a fine summary. my comments will be to emphasize a few things but first i would like to comment about the basic site planning considerations of the building. a 10-foot publicly accessible walkway is proposed on the northern side of the property line. this will reconnect shipley street to another street forming a continuous midway pedestrian linkage. much like the one that existed there before the redevelopment agency did away with that

portion of the grid. the design missed the necessary building service functions within the interior of the ground force plays no space. this allows us to maximize active areas along the building perimeter with the entire façade of fourth street. and a section all in active space. the setback on the ground level will expand the pedestrian environment and infringe an opportunity for up -- recessed lighting for ambient safety. this will also expand the sidewalk in response to community "-right-double-quote and will provide street trees improving the public realm. after the department suggestion, a prominent entrance to the office lot was added on. finally, in recent conversations with the community groups, it is

agreed that the 500 square feet of retail space that you see on the right-hand side of this image in front of you, it will be made available to community groups and businesses and a substantial reduced rent for a period of ten years. next i would like to briefly walk up through the building. this is a typical level of the office level in the proposed project. one oriented to fourth street and one oriented to the other. the seventh level will be set back slightly creating a distinctive horizontal termination to the exterior façade and provide a 270-degree covered balcony. as kimberly mentioned, the roof will be developed as a terrace for passing use by the office tenants. there will be a landscape berm around the edge so activity will

occur well back from the property line. the upper roof will feature an awning that would generate power. the exterior design of the building reflects the industrial path of the area in a contemporary architectural vocabulary. it relies on floor to ceiling glass and recessed frames that will be juxtaposed against the concrete slabs and exposed concrete columns. fix the vertical sunscreens will provide requisite solar shading in front of these. on floors 2-6, intermixed with the clear vision grass walls will be accent panels both pink and semi transparent grass -- glass in subtle colours. these insertions will not only enhance the outlook from inside the office, but will provide for these walk-in paths, multiple and changing glimpses of color and variety. the shear wall that will be located on the northern property line will feature a high --

highly textured distinguished concrete finish. members of the commission, of the community as well as a planning department were interested in an attractive design on the façade on helen mcintosh laying on the adjacent property owner process private driveway. we are looking at concrete tile that will add visual interest at this to our property line wall while not overpowering the surroundings. the entrance to the building will be delineated by a struck --'s cultured metal that is envisioned to be composed primarily of perforated metal sheet and lit at night. i hope it is apparent from the comment so far that a lot of careful attention has been paid to this design. most of this is in response to the input we've received through our productive community outreach over the past 16 months two community meetings were held in different venues late in the

summer of 2017 with the neighbors, adjacent property owners and community groups. since then individual meetings have been ongoing with community leaders and other important constituents. as kimberly mentioned, three important organizations have reached forward letters of support for the project and my understanding is the representatives are here. in closing, the project will knit together a frayed piece of the street wall with a building that is scaled to a neighbouring structure. the project will pay $2.5 million in fees to the city to support infrastructure, transit, schools, childcare and job housing linkage. most important, the project addresses and identifies needs for office space. for the past six years, we have painstakingly and methodically being involving the central soma plan. in my opinion, this proposed project is consistent with the

core objectives of the plan. even though as kimberly mentioned, it is seeking approval under the previous zoning. the plan's executive summary states that the core objectives include he was under developed sites to accommodate needed employment and housing, provide public benefit and foster an economically diversified and lively job centre. these objectives, i believe will be enhanced with your approval of this project. thank you for your attention. the project team will be happy to respond to any questions commissioners may have after the public testimony. >> thank you. >> we will open this up for public comment. >> good evening commissioners. of course, you, more than i, went through many dozens of

hours in the central soma plan discussions. constantly addressing the need for more housing in the area. and you took it as far as you believed. this location, this sight is a perfect infill housing site, perfect. the neighborhood is a very high value neighborhood. this sight could hold perhaps 50 or more units of which ten or more of the inclusionary housing affordable units, for that reason, if you really meant what you said in that central soma debate, that you really want to maximize housing when you can, if you really meant it, you will deny the prop m. allocation which you have every legal right to do, provided there is a development scenario, and certainly of market rate housing here with the inclusionary affordable is an alternate development. you can deny that a location. you should.

the 1970 redevelopment plan was all commercial. hotels and office buildings pick on this block, and i live on this block, i flipped there for 22 years. two office buildings are there from that era. their tenants do nothing for the neighborhood. no participation, no care, no contributions. they are worthless. they are all tech, by the way. they don't do a damn thing for the neighborhood. that is what office buildings are. dead zones. in 1980, there were neighborhood commands and we took it to the agency at the new staff and they listen to us and they said we want to be neighborhood. they agreed. you see all those housing developments. they change course. and on this block, there is condos as a result of that. and so they got a supermarket

and an apartment building built next door to the site. it is a perfect housing site. you couldn't get a better housing sites than this. you just it just cap be done. if you really meant what you said, if you really meant it, you will deny this tonight. they have some small community benefits that can be replicated in other ways. and instead say bring back the housing development here. that is what we want to see. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i wanted to share a letter from the program. and we are located in that committee. we wanted to express our support for the proposed mixed-use

development project. for a new office building. the project sponsor has several meetings for this and with other community organizations where the presence in the area which is the filipino cultural district. we just it was just established this past year. also in those meetings, the project sponsor has a commercial space in the project. we truly appreciate that despite what they are not doing with housing, that at least they are working with the community, and also wanted to create a mural wall in that space for the cultural district. we strongly support the project, and look forward to seeing it built. the new development will enhance this area. it will highlight the significance of the district and

help assure that we continue to get there for all members of san francisco, and appreciate your consideration for the project and hope it will be approved. >> i will read a statement on behalf of the organizational community. the community network is here to express support for the proposed mix development project. the sponsor has had several meetings with us and other community organizations that have a presence in the filipino cultural district. following this meeting is, they have agreed to provide the community at below market rate commercial space in the project.

in addition the sponsor has agreed to explore ways to address displacement of existing families. we are here to strongly support the project and look forward to seeing it built within and as a part of the filipino neighborhood. we appreciate your consideration of this project and hope it will be approved. thank you. >> thank you. >> can i have the overhead query -? i want to straighten things out. this is a small-cap allocation and a large project authorization.

sometimes the wording of the staff report wanders. i just was trying to figure out what the office allocation is. so i went back to things that should be corrected. if you are going to approve the office, this sentence needs to be converted. page 6, 53,899 gross square feet of new office use, and right above that, in another paragraph it says, of new nonresidential use. there is a difference between an office allocation as office space, and acknowledgement of nonresidential. i listened to what john said with interest because there is been a lot of talk at the

commission and in the audience, talking about every sight has to be housing, that's a priority of the city, that's a priority of the area. and this block does not have a predominance of high end housing like we have in so much of south market, because todd cho has developed a lot of the eastern area of this spot. they have a lot of low income housing on this block, and even the condos on the south end of the block are now out outrageously $200,000 income necessary to buy one. so back i think you should, basically look at what you are doing to the south market in this area, whether you are building housing as a priority or not, and correct that one little thing.

i've been asking scott sanchez to, who disappeared, for some conditions, because this is the 12th building who has come -- that has come through in the past three years just under 50,000 square feet. there needs to be some monitoring, space in this building can't be converted. one of the things it absolutely needs to be routed is a retail space that is needed to serve this community. needs to be recognized it is a residential community and not all of a sudden becomes something that basically only serves the office workers. i would ask you to have the community serving retail condition moving it back to the planning department for approval of that space. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comments on this item? seeing then, we will close public comment.

we will open it up to the commissioners. >> is it above or under 50,000 square feet? >> we can make a motion when we finalize that the commission were to approve the project, the corrections, editorial corrections regarding square footage is need to be addressed. >> yeah. it is 49,901. >> what's interesting, is when the project sponsor's representative called me and we talked about different projects, and how it must be ok. and then they get up and he raises a good question, i believe on this. i used to work with 798 which is the building next door. and that block is all residential. in fact, the block across the street is residential.

they are dropping and off list -- office building in the middle of their. how is one beating the drum for a lot of housing. this could actually, you know, be a plate for housing. we looked at the indian -- india basin today and there was office space in that project. i maybe the token of -- >> india basin has office basically. >> yes, it does. >> there was another one. it is 830. i'm sorry. i maybe the token vote on office allocation but so be it. i stand for housing. >> i'm fine for this project. it is early to relitigate the entire plan. although i enjoy the comments. i can think of a hundred sites that are better for housing, most of them in neighborhoods. but i guess it. you know, we have to grapple with, and we did during the central whether office or housing.

i think it's kind of early to start tipping the scales one way or another on a small project lik this. we will see more office too.and i can tell you there's not a lot of places that tipped the scale for me to build more office around the city. we are going to see projects come forward, office and housi housing. we did the right thing when we did the zoning kick in some places, allocate and allow for both. i am comfortable with this project. i like the design, by the way. >> it is m.o.u. zoning. including retail permitted use and that is what is in front of us. i think to speak about the policy of really looking for housing and decide what is suitable for housing as i think a policy discussion which i think we should have every thursday.

but that aside, i have a question for the architect. i think it's a lovely building. i think it fits well into the circumstance. but you have talked to me about drawing a 013. >> where is that? >> i speaking through the chair. gas, commissioner, let me see where we are. >> 813? >> zero -- a 013. >> that is 8013. that is the one. the question i have is this is the funniest question. i look at the drawings and they say why is there not a third tree over to the south? is there a reason that across from the gas metre room you couldn't have a third each weekly it looks as if there's a tree missing. >> this is the dumbest question i've ever asked in meeting. but there is a tree missing. >> let me be vague in my answer but sympathetic to your basic direction.

if there is an opportunity to put another tree on, it would be very much in the interest of the project, and in what we are to eight --gin to do. it may result from the access requirements to their transformers and their gas metres. they had a little trouble as of late and they are pesky about getting close to their equipment. i don't know. we will endeavour in our final design to place as many street trees on the street as we can. >> this just looks to me like a missing tooth. census becomes a completely more important pedestrian way with your sale, i would like to see tree planting on the east side of the building in habit more balanced and a complete street. >> excellent feedback. thank you. >> i think it's a lovely building. i think it is quite suitable for where it is being designed. >> i also agree. i like the project. i like the design of the project. i still think that it is very suitable for the office

development. not only is there 20 more -- plenty more housing, we still have the hub coming our way later on which will have thousands and thousands of units of housing. very much in favor of the project. i do encourage to seek a neighborhood serving used down on the ground floor, and most importantly, a third tree. [laughter] >> thank you. >> yeah, actually overall, i am in support of this project. i wanted to say that i think the intent of setting aside the affordable retail space is to support some of the concerns that the community group may have had about the building. to the suggestion, i think i would like to see a tenant for those ten years that is in the space it be a use to the actual neighborhood, and residents that

are there. i'm wondering if we can add to that in or, again strongly recommend and encourage that use be neighborhood serving. >> a retail. >> commissioners, if i may, there could be some discussion in your motion to encourage a neighborhood serving retail use, but we don't have a specific requirement. we can't make it a specific condition of approval to define that. >> that may get out at some point. >> but we can ask for a tree. >> you can ask for a tree. >> and neighborhood serving tree? [laughter] >> i think there is a dog grooming business that's looking for a home. >> motion to approve with the

additional tree and encouraging neighborhood serving service on the ground floor? >> second. >> very good, commissioners. the motion has been seconded. to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include an additional tree, and to strongly encourage neighborhood serving service on the ground floor, on that motion, commissioners? that motion passes 4-1. commissioner richards voting against. commissioners, we will place on item 19. this is a conditional use authorization.

>> good evening commissioners. i am from the planning staff pick the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 209, 303 and 317. to allow the conversion of the existing residential building at 460 west portal avenue for a school educational use within the zoning district. the project proposes a change of use from the residents to a building serving as administrative office, meeting and guest faculty housing space. for the adjacent san francisco high school. the existing building has a vacant three bedroom plus bath single-family resident and one vacant and authorized dwelling unit at the basement level. the project includes the addition of an exterior ada accessible ramp to provide disabled access to the front door. the project is not proposed an increase in student enrolment.

the internal configuration and the existing kitchen would -- kitchen would remain. the number of employees at the site will likely be eight and they include a marketing director, and advancement direct or, advancement associate, enrolmedirect, enrolment associate registrar and an administrative represente. the hours would be 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. the high school has occupied the property for over a decade. they approved a pud allowing a two-phase expansion of the school. at the time, the pud authorized the total enrolment of up to 240 students. the subject site has been owned by the school since october 2016. the building has been unoccupied since that time and there are no indications that this area is other than owner occupied before the full purchase. the department has confirmed there have been no evictions at the property.

the basement level was added at some point during a 2011-2013 occupancy. the department has not received any public comment on this item. the department recommends approval of the project with conditions found in the motion and finds a project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policy of the general plans. although the project results in a loss of residential units, the lack of physical changes to the home increases the ease and likelihood of the effort -- future perversion back. a specific condition of proposal was found which requires the existing kitchen in the building should not be -- shall not be removed. no other alterations should be permitted. i also have drafted the wishes that if the school use is abandoned at the project site or if there is a lack of use of

this use for a period of three years or more, this authorization would become null and void. it is an appropriate use at a residential area to the surrounding neighborhood. the project, the administrative and faculty uses our low impact and would have no significant negative effect on the surrounding residential and nearby commercial uses. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> thank you very much project sponsor. you have five minutes. >> good evening commissioners. i am counsel to the school. we respectfully request your support of the conditional use authorization this evening. the use of the house is going to free up space within the school to use for additional

classrooms. there are 20 what rooms being used for offices in those rooms to be used for classrooms in the future. it will be administrative space for the school. there is also a bedroom that is used for faculty in the school and they plan to use is frequently. visiting language professors and visiting counsellors and visiting teachers that will be at the school. the house will remain exactly as it is. there are no modifications being made to the house. we are supportive of the conditional request that they refer back to a dwelling unit if the school abandons the house. thank you very much. >> as their public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close public comment. >> i like the notice of special restriction on if this were to cease. it would revert back to our h. one d. i have no issue with the

project. i moved to approve. >> i second. >> we have done this before. i do believe that these types of schools are compatible with the residential district and i think the condition is reversible should this not pan out. >> thanks. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this manner does matter including the reversion back to single-family. on that motion, commissioners? that motion passes unanimously. at 89 roosevelt away.

this is a discretionary review. >> i am from planning staff. the project before you is an abbreviated discretionary review for a building application at 89 roosevelt away. the proposal includes the 400 and fourscore eight -- square foot mezzanine. the proposed mezzanine level will be part of apartment three. it would include access to south and north decks with plantar areas. existing building is 31 feet and the proposed building height at the addition would be 40 feet. the project height is located on the south side of roosevelt away near the co-owner of one of us to terrorists in the zoning district. adjacent properties on roosevelt away are three and four minute -... they are 20 what unit buildings. at 23 unit building is to the

rear of the property at the southwest corner. the cluster of immediately adjacent parcels of zone are at a one while the greater neighborhood is zoned rh to and properties across roosevelt away closer to bonavista park are zoned r. h. three. the required neighborhood notification and the notification for the discretionary review for properly and adequately note -- noticed. it was filed on the building permit by a property owner. it is a multi unit building located to the southwest of the site. the d.r. hearing on the site and was continued while the project sponsor resolves complaints filed on the property which address -- i will address in a moment. the requester's stage that the proposed edition -- addition does not respond to the topography pattern with breaking with existing roofline patterns.

to propose additional... by changing exiting air current patterns and the additional story would harm the ability to retain internet. during the 311 notification. three neighbors aside from the d.r. voiced concerns regarding the proposal to identify their location. the one at 153 bonavista terrace and the other at 169 bonavista terrace. the neighbor at 153 had concerns regarding his lower apartment and blockage to natural light. the neighbor at 169, not the d.r. requester had written -- concerns of city views in the neighborhood. the publication of the packet, additional comment letters have been provided to the department. i have a copy for the record which is passed forward. and additional copies of the commission -- if the commission would like to review them.

the office of the short term rentals had an active complaint for an illegal short term rental in the basement -- basement. [please standby for captioner switch]

. tch] >> so as currently -- proposed, the department can support the project and recommend the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. >> president hillis: thank you very much. d. project -- no, d.r. requester.

welcome. >> clerk: sir, i don't know if you're going to be able to take that apart, are you, or --

>> president hillis: all right, you ready? >> almost. is it projecting? i can't quite tell -- >> president hillis: nope, if it's not up there, it's not. >> okay. so first of all, thank you for hearing me today. i know it's late, and we all want to get home, so hopefully we can wrap this up quickly. i think elizabeth, the residential design team, have done a great job, but i'm not quite convinced this warrants a full review. >> president hillis: can you get to the -- >> all right. say it again? >> president hillis: no. it just wasn't on the screen, so you're good. >> so my client went over the background of why i'm here today. so in 2008, i moved into my

residence. i met my partner, a special education teacher, just right there. in 2014, you know, several years later, william and frank moved into 89 roosevelt. they immediately decided to expand and build up which in theory, i have no problem with. where things started to breakdown was on february 15, 2016 around 11:00. am., william started having an aggressive yelling match with my neighbor upstairs. what william didn't know, i was working from home that day. another neighbor, bob was working from home that day, and we both found it quite frankly upsetting. we actually documented what happened in an e-mail to ourselves, here. i won't go through the details behind it, but basically, at that point, i decided not to engage with william and frank due to their aggressive nature.

where we are today is i've noted 12 neighbors that oppose it. they are listed here. three of them are actually in the packet. i think it was maybe made a slight mistake or didn't request or qualify that. what's interesting is of the two neighbors that are in the packets, their addresses are not known. so from my perspective, i see 12 neighbors that are residents of the city, taxpayers that are against this project, only two support it. so my major complaint is it's really the mezzanine, but there's been some stuff that occurred. the residential design team has removed the wind screen and set the railing back. i think that's a good step, but

quite frankly, i'm worried about these folks, my wife and my kid. i'm especially worried about his development, and where this becomes an issue is is light. so if i do a calculation on linear inches in that area, my total access to blue sky is reduced by 52%. it's quite common, i think it's well known that natural light is necessary to promote proper childhood development. if 23450needed, we can go down path. i don't think that's significant. the other thing is it really reduced our easterly air current. because of the nature of our unit, it stays pretty warm, i have a temperature sensor. as the summer -- or as summer comes on, i fully well expect

us to really see the need for the open air that we have to keep the place as a reasonable temperature. the adults are okay, but again, a toddler doesn't do well in the heat. and the third one is, and this is an odd one, and i'll admit it. it is -- we use monkey brains in our access. they use line of sight, but they'll block our line of sight with the mezzanine. i don't feel with the light, the air and the internet, and i noted it here, ordinance number 250-16 which is basically doing broad band to multiunits -- residencies, i would assume that the commissioner -- or the commission will -- will go in

favor of that other notion of building code. so, really, from -- from m perspective, the way i see it is, there are 12 people that are against this. it blocks a lot of light, no development, and it's a very easy thing for the commissioners to basically, yes, let's do discretionary review and try to come up with a solution. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. you will have time for rebuttal. >> president hillis: okay. is there any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? you can have a seat, sir. thank you. >> hi. my name is terry farrell, and

i'm in 169 buena vista, and i'm behind the 89 roosevelt. my concern is echoing pretty much what shawn is saying. it's going to block a lot of our light. i'm on the floor above shawn, so it blocks all of my morning light. i live in a studio apartment that has a sliding glass door and a small outdoor area. literally this house is about 5 fe 5 feet across -- actually about 10 feet across where our building ends and theirs begins. literally, their building straight -- it's a straight shot right into my only living space, my small living space, so my choice are at that point to lose my privacy -- i can close the windows or i can leave them open and lose all of my privacy. in terms of the rest of the residents in the buding, the

mezzanine is not a problem. they've made some adjustments to the railing and that kind of thing, but the way they've positioned it is the building is a rectangle, and the mezzanine is directly in the middle, and that's where all the apartments are in our building. it's meant to be just a big blotch of our light gone. so at this point, really, what we're asking -- i echo shawn's comments. we sent them a letter when the first notices came out to us. they didn't respond -- we asked them -- tried to have a conversation if they'd like to discuss it or whatever, and it was just met with aggression and it kind of made me nervous, so we just decided to go with this discretionary review request because we felt like that was the only way we could at least discuss the project. and again, not against the building. they can do a deck or whatever, but we'd just like to discuss the light and the air flow and have some sort of considerations for our building. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank

you. any additional public comment in support of the d.r.? >> extremely short. just want to echo what both terry and shawn are saying, just concerned about the light and also the air flow. >> president hillis: great. thank you very much. project sponsor, welcome. sfgov, can you go to the projector, please. >> clerk: the overhead. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for staying up so late to learn about our project. first, i want to thank planning and specifically elizabeth for their assistance. my name is frank, and i've been a proud resident of san francisco for 25 years. i'm william's husband and

coowner of the 89 roosevelt way apartment building. we have chosen to make this property our forever home. i urge you to make the correct and informed decision and vote in favor of allowing us to complete our dream project at this time. when we purchased this apartment building a few years ago it had been sitting on the market for quite sometime. just take a look at it, and you can see why. it fails to embody the architectural integrity of san francisco. the building resembles a box with a funny hat. like mostf e architecture developed in s.f. in the 60's, it missed any opportunity to take advantage of the amazing views. you can call it no frills living. bill and i love the neighborhood where there are many quality examples of fine architectural designs ranging from victorian all the way to modern. even before we closed escrow,

we found ourselves sitting at the kitchen table, putting pencil to paper, figuring outweighs to add to the exterior of the building to add to the sophistication and curb appeal within the context of its surroundings. we plan to make it more energy efficient, comfortable and find a way to enjoy those breath taking city views, as well. our architect site plan goes beyond the roof addition which has been modified to align with neighbor's concerns, requires no variances and seamlessly aligns with the roof line elevation slope to neighboring buildings. this plan is to add substantial design integrity from the ground up. the fact is that yes, bill and i dream about the possibility of enjoying the outer living space and big views. we have gone to great expense to ensure it will not inconvenience those around us. we are planning to upgrade the exterior to make the apartment

building more energy efficient as well. the end result will be a welcome upgrade to the neighborhood, with extensive aesthetic merits that will only enhance property values and neighborhood pride. the tenant who may not even be living in that apartment six months from now who has filed this discretionary review has fulled terminology from the sfgov website to block our project because as has been brought to my attention they don't want to endure a few months of construction noise. living in sf, we're all affected by construction which is why we have hired a reputable firm to make this project quick and efficient. i think it bears repeating, this project requires no variances, seamlessly aligns with the roof line elevation slope to neighboring buildings, and the project scope includes enhancing and upgrading the building's exterior design and curb appeal. again, thank you for your consideration, commissioners.

>> hard act to follow, my adorable husband. good evening, commissioners, and happy pride, by the way. it's been nearly four years since we brought 89 roosevelt way. we saved as much as we could to actually make 89 a reality for us, and our dream finally came true. sacrifices were made, but we pulled it off. we have a vision for the property that is shared and encouraged by eight immediate neighbors and many others on adjacent blocks. it is important to note that the two buildings that actually connect ours, 85 and 75 roosevelt, all six of those units are in favor and support this project. it is also important to note that the homes directly across from us who will be looking at our finished project also strongly support us. letters from all of them have been submitted. we are not merely here fore a few years, but this is our home

for as long as we can manage those stairs. we are here for the long hall. we take great pride in this building and want to make it better for everyone. our investment in the community is not only financial but it is in blood, sweat and tears. our commitment is something we take seriously. as the community grows, all voices must be heard, and i'm glad we're here today to hear those. we appreciate your support, the hard work and time and commitment each of you make to our city. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. is there public comment in support of the project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is darren martin, and a san francisco neighbor. i'd like to speak to bill and frankie's character as neighbors and landlords. they are hard working, community minded and of the highest integrity. in fact as example, bill ran

for supervisor a number of years ago. why? to better our community. frankie is the busy type, always moving, always working. you'll find him out cleaning the front entry, adding a planter or preparing a meal for friends and family, he is a multiple rider in the sf-l.a. aids ride. they are meticulous property owners, always maintaining and improving the properties they live in or own. these are people who we want to encourage, not discourage, to improve our neighbor. if not them, who? in this building, there are four rent controlled apartments, including the one they live in. not only are they improving their own unit, but they're improving the common areas, gardens, and rental units when vacant. since they have owned the property, they've replaced flooring, painted, improved common lighting, replaced fixtures, and transformed the

garden into something beautiful that all can see. the addition discussed here is a modest addition to their apartment that will open up their space drastically. they have diligently followed the city's process to title this project over a year ago and should be allowed to start. the d.r. request is frivolous. internet access is not protected, and there are many alternatives that would satisfy the broad band needs of any reasonable neighbor. i don't think it is said enough in this forum either how costly this process is to the project sponsor and ultimately to the cost of housing in this city. first there are the thousands of dollars in direct costs with architects and others to comply with the d.r., but by delaying these projects by years, it is rarely months. construction and lending costs can increase not only by thousands but by hundreds of thousands. these increases directly impact our already unaffordable cost to live here.

in conclusion, i respectfully ask that you do not take d.r. and approve this project as proposed. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name's jeffrey squires. i've been friends with bill for about 20 years since we were friend in bernal heights. i'm just going to read a couple of the letters from neighbors. the first is from carmen karate. she lives directly next door at 85 roosevelt way. she says our buildings touch. my family has owned our building for many decades. my husband and i live in the building for decades and well comed them several years. as a small business owner, i own and manager tomas's italian restaurant in north beach, i understand and welcome them in improving the area.

this is a big investment for them, and by doing it, it helps them and the entire block. the next is from nick harvey. dear commissioners, my name is nicholas harvey. i live at 85 roosevelt way, number two, they're wonderfully respectful neighbors and the plans of the new deck do not negatively affect my home or the neighborhood in any way. i am in complete support of the project. due to this project's direction, the contour of the land and location to corona hills park, they will be no imp impingement to any property. the next one is from a neighbor across the street. ever since they moved in, the sidewalk on their side has been kept swept daily. they actively went door to door

to get the signatures. they are heavily invested in the neighborhood. they don't just complain, they take active steps to make life better on the block. they've helped several neighbors with personal issues, and i can attest they have the neighborhood's best interest in their heart. we fully support them in this endeavor. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name's conor, also a san francisco resident. as someone who's leading a project that's not for profit for childhood development i cannot this is not an issue, childhood development, but i would like to share a couple of letters with you. so this first one is from stephen colter. he states i'm i wering over a dust up of 85 roosevelt. i've lived here since 1981. i spent 20 years on the sf liy