I would like to thank those in the bay area who in supporting those projects. My neighbors and i agree. The project is listed in a town that is to lower income chinese families and immigrants. Up until this recent sale this project was offered by the demographics. We are curious as to how this story luxury penthouse wrapped in floor to ceiling windows can be desirable. This is completely out of context with the surroundings. Casting a permanent shadow that leaves many homes. Perhaps this is why the sponsor has not showed the rendering. Instead the sponsor has provided a series of maps highlighting other properties. Over half of these examples are completely different than the subject property and higher limits. The sponsors own exhibits for conditional use. Commissioners, you have over 50 neighbors who have gone on record as stating that no opposition to the sponsor adding a unit otherwise increasing the height and bulk of this property this can hardly be considered antidevelopment. This compromises holy compatible with the citys desire and the project. This project as currently proposed is an increase that is not desired. At our neighborhood meeting this is to mainly ensure the project is profitable and one that has no compelling interest. Based on these facts i urge you to deny this. In the current responding and testimony would lead you to believe they are sophisticated people. Who are simply looking to build a home. Do not be deceived. These are intelligent operators who have purchased and developed multiple properties. They have misrepresented themselves and to the city and Law Enforcement officials. These developers have an established pattern of purchasing properties and removing them through harassment and bullying. Even in the title to the building before it was sold. Intimidated and threatened my neighbors. Sadly they have been affected and including a young single mother has decided to leave rather than face fear. There is no doubt San Francisco needs housing. That said there is plenty of develop ers who are willing to take the profit. I will admit this project will have very little impact on my life. But it will impact the lives of others. I urge you to approve this conditional use. This project is not necessary and as history to any indicator it may have been developed in the displacement of a protected family listed living on this property prior to the sale but who can no longer be found. This is not the kind of profit motivated growth that the San FranciscoPlanning Commission should endorse. Based on the attendance its clear the developers are not in harmony with their neighborhoods and neighbors and San Francisco community. Thank you. Hello commissioners. I have lived at jackson street for 19 years and has been welcomed to and lived on the block in the neighborhood. I am speaking on behalf of five tennants and the Building Owner chinatown, optometrist dr. Alfred t lee. We are across the narrow alley from the proposed project. None of the apartments have views over the 24 current structure in my building and no flat roof to get any views. However we can all see the sky from the current structure without straining our necks. 4 days ago the sun shone to about 1130 where all the rooms along the house are lit up. About 1030 the sun is at the position that would crest the top of a 40foot building. If this were at 50 feet, we would not ge anytime direct sunlight at all. To train my next to see the sky at the structure. If that structure were at 50 feet i would have to put my hate head out the window to see the sky. The proposed project would likely not enjoy the light as its too narrow. The developers have demonstrated no interest in doing a shadow study for the surrounding area but did do one for a park two bloeks away. The tallest roofed to the top end dont add up in elevation. They say they are taller than them but pretty much the roof tops lineup within a feet or two. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name is richard leon. My name and i moved there 2 years ago but my wife and i actually grew up in this area. Im one of the 50 nabz neighbors who signed this joint petition opposing the project and i strongly support the points in that petition. Lets talk about the adverse affects of the 50 feet height. We talked about the east side building. Around 8 00 a. M. , the building cast a shadow across the alley. The 50foot is twice the height of the existing building. That is going to shadow onto the building across the alley. Auburn is now alley. It receives a limit of direct sunshine. The 50foot height is going to reduce that to a couple hours around noon. My bedroom they will become a lot darker. Currently he the neighborhood foot line follows the slope of the street. So the interior of the upper unit is brightly lit well into the Late Afternoon hours. This 50foot height is going to disturb that. Right now about 2 00 p. M. It throws a shadow half way to my roof. Now a 50foot building is 45 times the height throwing a shadow to my roof. About 0 0 p. M. It throws a shadow half way to my roof. Now a 50foot building is 45 times the height throwing a shadow to my roof. About the same p. M. , that is going to throw a shadow across my whole roof and the this is ub desirable and unnecessary. This is blocking the sun. The owners and architect has also alluded to adding an elevator. Thats going to act about 1420 feet. You are going to make the problem even worse. Good evening, commissioners. My name is pauline. Im at 1042 jackson street project. I have lived at this residence for 29 years and in the city for 45 years. The project proposes to add this and a rear yard variance is being requested to reduce the yard variance requirement and this fails to meet the Planning Commissions idea and its not meeting this because the proposed project oefrdz the rooftop. No. 2, the extensive shadow of the additional two floors will have an impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and does not comply with the general plan because of the additional two floors do not protect, preserve or enhance the desirable quality of the unique character of the city. This fails to meet planning code section which are required for the Zoning Administrator to grant variance. When there are no exceptional or circumstances applied to those involve apply to the properties in the neighborhood and the provisions of this code would not result for the hardship of the applicant. This variance is not necessary for the substantial prooits of subject property the granting of the variance would be detriment to the Public Welfare and adversely affect the San Franciscos general plan because of the reduction in the rear yard requirement does not provide adequate open space for the neighborhood and the city. I along with my neighbors or immediate plans with the project currently oppose the project as proposed. We request that you eliminate one floor and the Zoning Administrator deny the rear yard variance request. Good evening, commissioners. I have lived in this city for many years. Im a District Attorney in another county t project sponsors bare the burden of proof for your approval and any justifications put forth by these project sponsors that have documents in the media, city filing and the very documents that you have in front of you today. Here are just a few examples. The ducks purchased 240 missouri street in february of 2012. After harassing the rent control and trying to pressure them out, they evicted those residents. According to the notice filed with the city that you have before you today they are required to live at that address through september of 2016. By their own admission to their new neighbors they have never lived at that address. Rather that building is currently under going a massive expansion that includes the addition of two floors and roof deck. Despite the living required to live at 240 duck street, they are living at church street. Why is that address significant, because of the Standard Capital ks a lawsuit the ducks settled this year. The ducks intentionally misrepresented the scope of the Capital Improvement determining the misplacement without compensation. The building remained under construction for one 1 2 years. In fact they began construction on that project just 11 days after issuing a 60day notice to vacate on the tenant causing a portion of the ceiling to fall and the back staircase to collapse while the tenants still lived there and they are still being sued for allegedly calling the police and fally reporting that their monolingual; Spanish Speaking tennants were trespassing and asking police to arrest them instead of forcing them out. We believe this pattern of eviction occur at this building today and the buildings indicate the protected live there and the chinese families that were protected tennants lived at the building at the time of sale. The ducks told us that no one lived there at the time it was close. This should not be rewarded nor condoned. I urge you to review the packet of conditions. Hello, distinguished commissioners. Im here to express my opposition as the project proposed. My wife and i are top floor residents at the proposed structure. We actually looked at purchasing the project site. I can a test when i looked at it. I met them, they were 4 generations family. So thats not a fact that can be gated debated. My primary concerned if approved my building will lose sunlight because there are no set backs from the Property Line and its height extends above that to the east, west and north. Because my building shares a wall. My unit will only at lighting to jackson street. If this building is beyond 40 feet the light coming through my window would be coming through my wall. This is unacceptable and unnecessary. This create an issue because the building will cover 100 of lot leaving no land. This is per many code set backs. We have tried to discuss this with the project sponsor and they have been uncompromising to seek a project that over towers the area. Everyone of these is setback and as you can see from the photos submitted by our neighbors every one is approximately shining on auburn and effectively eliminated. There were protected tennants at move in. Thank you for your time. I do want to reiterate that the document that the architect showed representing all the buildings represents 45 buildings. Mine was representative 5 or 4 stories and im on the top floor. Public speaker good evening commissioner. I live at 1060 jackson street. My family has built this Building Back in 1930s. I have been born and raised there since 1947. I got for the record its a three level above a sublevel garage. Youve got to learn how to count. I built and remodeled this building without the set backs. I think these people should have to comply with the same. I could care less about the size of the lot. The height is another issue. They keep telling me its higher than everyone else. Take a look at the picture many i think this building if you are familiar with the morris code, thats what this building is. The morris code. It just sticks out. On jackson street im a 30degree grade. Everyone knows it from the back and side and the front of them, everywhere. I dont understand this. Why cant they be honest about this. Where is the truth about this. San francisco is known for seven hills. Are we going to change all of these hills and lump them into one. Are we going to level them off so they are no hills. What are we going to do . Seven hills, vernal heights. Russian hill or knob hill. Seven hills. They have all been tapered. I asked the neighbors, i complied with their wishes. Neighbors and neighborhood. We have to get along together. These people just care about their money. They are going to come and develop and leave the premise and they can care less about what they left. Someone has to pick up after the garbage. We have to deal with it for the rest of our lives. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Public speaker hello, my name is valerie leon. Im here to present a video on behalf of anna stunk of 46 taylor street. Shes not here because of medical reasons. I have a tript transcript of the video. In recent years we have lost families [video] vibe sea in vibrancy in San Francisco is being integrated [inaudible] to enjoy economically by gentrification we said we want to Rolling Hills of San Francisco. Please vote know no on the conditional use application. Time is up on that. Next speaker, please. Public speaker good evening, commissioners. My name is joe. I live at 1044 jackson street. I have lived at this residence since 1991. Thank you commissioners moore and antonini. We can see the additional two floors and the potential rooftop terrace would be in the Adjoining Properties in the neighborhood. I think those who have sent letters should be taken into account because they are many advocating on behalf of the project who do not have a legitimate interest at hand and they are not living adjacent to the project or the same block or the same neighborhood and not directly affected or relevant. Thank you. Public speaker good evening, commissioners. I have lived two buildings up from the development in question. Im here to to object to the proposed project because they are not following the planning code and the impacting conditions on the surrounding neighbors. My family has lived in chinatown for 5 generations. We witnessed that developers in knob hill have not conformed to planning codes and residents are left with higher density and less privacy. This is exactly what this proposed Development Stands to do. This proposed project would exacerbate live ability conditions to surrounding neighbors. The existing building is nonconforming with no rear yard. It would have greater site coverage to adjacent buildings and towers over the alley. This further expands the nonconforming nature of the property by not providing a code compliant with the yard and serving as a legitimate yard and eliminates the mandatory open space. Additionally, should the developer add stair and elevator access to the roof based on building and inspection code requirements, the penthouses could cover the roof. The proposal offers no redeeming contribution that would offset its lack of compliance and negative impact to surrounding residents. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Public speaker good evening, commissioners. Any other name is joanna and i will be playing a video on behalf of my father ronald liu. Honorable commissioners, my name is ronald wu. I wanted to speak to you today but unfortunately im not able to today because im in hong kong addressing family matters. Im coming to you using video technology. My wife and daughter joanna and i are owners of 1036, 38, 40 jackson street. A 6unit apartment building. We are next to our neighbors to the project. I have been a resident and Property Owner of San Francisco since 1961. From chinatown to knob hill to Telegraph Hill and north beach. The first time i arrived in San Francisco in 1961 i lived near the chinatown ymca on sacramento and waverly now im living in the peninsula. My daughter joanna was born in the Childrens Hospital in San Francisco in Laurel Heights now california Pacific Medical center. As Good Neighbors we wholeheartedly support new Development Next door. This project is at the corner of jackson and auburn. Jackson street is a busy uphill cable car route. This project is is directly across the street from the entrance to the cable car barn. The cable car barn is the shelter maintenance shop for all cable cars. There are currently about 40 cable cars in operation in San Francisco. In the morning, this cable car will leave for the streets. In the evening, they will return to the barn from the streets. Auburn street is a small narrow residential alley between jackson and at the corner of jackson and auburn is a very busy corner most of the time. As the next door neighbors, we strongly object to the height and the bulk of the project. The project as it is proposed is too tall and too big for this neighborhood. It is not consistent with the characters of the neighborhood. It is not in harmony with the neighborhood buildings. We will withdraw our objections if our neighbor im sorry, your time is you have. Next speaker, please. Public speaker good evening, commissioners, my name is millana and live at 1421 taylor street. A property directly affected by the jackson 42 street project. One of the questions before you tonight is not whether to allow a project that adds an additional unit to the city housing supply. Nor is it weather whether to allow a building. The question which the standard must decide whether to use or request a feature at the size contemplated and the proposed location would provide a Development Necessary or desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood or the community. Thats the question on the conditional use. The standard decided on the packet is one of the bases for the recommendation. Yet no evidence is cited. Its sounds like it was assumed or the additional unit that was the need. With an i would like to say is the need isnt met. Building above 40 feet isnt necessary for the project or the neighborhood. The project can build an additional unit and improve the building significantly without going above 40 feet. Based on the architectural rendering which shows floor to ceiling windows on the northern eastern facade. Its clear this applicant seeks the extra height is to capture and enjoy and monetize the sweeping views of the bay and tour. Who tower. Who wouldnt want to see those views . Second, building above 40 feet isnt desirable for or compatible with the neighborhood. 52 neighbors and i mean neighbors on one petition alone say the project as currently contemplated isnt desirable with the neighborhood. The project in fact will cast a negative shadow literally and figurat