mr. patterson is a resident of presidio heights. 30 years. loves the neighborhood and purchased 3555 pacific to be a home for his family. this suspect not the first property in the north americaed that he seeked entitlements for. he is building another home down the street. these are not speck properties homes for himself and extended fell. mr. patterson in his 80s and looks forward to having his kids close. we geoff began design and out roach a year ago. our first meeting with the neighbors since then we had multiple additional meetings go over concerns and address said them. over all i believe we designed i building fits in the context of the neighborhood. and is sensitive to the adjacent structures. it is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. i will walk you three through the drawings have you an idea when we are talking about. in moik on in so for looking at the drawing here. you see the front looking at pacific heavy and down pacific off the building fit in thes context of the block. . on this sheet you see the

mr. patterson you can. you're the first person. so. one minute. thank you very much. good evening. president and commissioners ryan patterson, attorney for. yes, in my backyard law. very briefly, our organizations submitted a public records request. we filed documents that we obtained with the board along with three briefs there are three facts that emerge from these documents. first, this is a new policy that did not exist before . that's why this new interpretation was issued. second, no one could look at the code and conclude that it means objectively what this interpretation says. it means. and third, and that includes planning. by the way, if you look at those emails. and third, no environmental review was completed under sequa. the legal conclusions that flow from this are that there was a mistake in the interpretation, as the appellants have detailed. second, this is a reduction of allowable residential development capacity in violation of the housing crisis act. third, it would lead to violations of the hra because it's not an objective standard. and fourth was violated. th

mr. o'neill. thank you, president peskin and supervisors brian o'neill, patterson and o'neill representing the project sponsor, mj mission. dolores llc. in addition to the profit. yes, in my backyard and sonia strauss three years ago. the project sponsors submitted an application to construct 19, a 19 unit six story group housing project at 3832, 18th street under the state density bonus law, the appellant, the appellant has submitted three appeals of the project thus far , and this is the 10th public hearing in connection with this project. despite the state law prohibiting the city from holding more than five hearings on any one project. at this process must stop, and this much needed housing project must be allowed to move forward. the project provides three bmr units that would be affordable to low income individuals, which qualifies the project for a 35% density bonus under state law. the planning commission initially eliminated the sixth floor of the state density bonus project as a condition of approval. this action was a violation of state law, and on april 20th, the planning commission correc

mr. o'neill. thank you, president peskin and supervisors brian o'neill, patterson and o'neill representing the project sponsor, mj mission. dolores llc. in addition to the profit. yes, in my backyard and sonia strauss three years ago. the project sponsors submitted an application to construct 19, a 19 unit six story group housing project at 3832, 18th street under the state density bonus law, the appellant, the appellant has submitted three appeals of the project thus far , and this is the 10th public hearing in connection with this project. despite the state law prohibiting the city from holding more than five hearings on any one project. at this process must stop, and this much needed housing project must be allowed to move forward. the project provides three bmr units that would be affordable to low income individuals, which qualifies the project for a 35% density bonus under state law. the planning commission initially eliminated the sixth floor of the state density bonus project as a condition of approval. this action was a violation of state law, and on april 20th, the planning commission correc