these are three of the windows that will be impacted. >> to you have a copy for the planning department? >> we have extra up here. >> i can do that. >> there might be an extra. >> this is just a flavor, three of the windows that will be impacted. these are major living areas in our unit. they are not circulation areas. it is our dining room, kitchen, and our daughter's bedroom. as well as our back yard impacted by this. what we would like to suggest, and we hope they will accept,

the windows that are facing our property into the light well, they beat translucent so they cannot see into our kitchen and our daughter's bedroom. we would also like to propose that there be some modification to help us not feel constricted. we are going to be looking at all of these windows at a wall. what we are hoping they will agree to it is to push that back and by moving their staircase. they can actually push back that wall to give us a breathing space to preserve some of the southern light that comes into our we unit. -- our unit. we would also like to ask that the railing that faces into the

light well be pushed back so there will not be a view down into our kitchen and into our daughter's bedroom. these are the things we are hoping. i know they had indicated they were not willing to make further changes. past what the planning department suggested or mandated they do. but we feel like these are minor. we had an architect and look at it and he drew these up for us and felt it was inexpensive and minor changes that could help mitigate the impact to us. this is impacting the quality of our life and our home because it cuts off southern exposure to our home through seven windows.

it is also impacting our property value. we had a real to come over and give us an estimate of the impact. with those factors, we hope they will be willing to at least meet as part way to help mitigate some of these impacts. >> i put down on the overhead display of the railing, which you can see here, which looks a down into our well and has a visual access to all seven windows as well as our daughter's bedroom window, which is approximately here. what we would like to suggest is that that raving be pushed back somewhat -- railing be pushed back somewhat. >> the window frosting and the

reconfiguration of their stares to allow for a little more of visual space. we are constricted in the backyard as well. there is now going to be a while so we are feeling increased upon with this plan. we are looking for her ways to not feel constricted. -- for ways to not feel constricted. >> on the third floor, you are asking them to increase the size of their light well to mirror your light well. on the second floor, accommodating the changes? moving the stairs around? >> exactly. you would see the impact of that change. >> it does not change the footprint. >> they will not lose closets.

there is a minor impact to the interior functionality by doing this. the those closets are preserved. as is the landing at the top of the third floor. >> something has to give. there is something that is being reduced, whether it is the kitchen. that is all right. they know better than we do. we can hear from then on -- them on the proposal. >> we will hear from the permit holder now.

>> my name is jeff gibson representing the project for the permit holder. to begin with, i would like to take issue with the way this appeal is unfolding. it is unfair to prevent alternate versions like this with new demands, new suggestions, new alterations' this late in the game. this has been a long process. it was noticed one year ago. thre wa -- there was a dr filed. now what is a year later and at this time, we have a paper with red marks on them. it is difficult for us to do our job when we see these things at the last minute. in general, this has been a well reviewed project.

it went through extensive review by aaron stark and david lynsey. we made a lot of compromises to the original project, shrinking everything in relation to anticipated concerns before they filed their dr. from our point of view, we cannot make more changes at this point. we are compromising on a compromise on a compromise. every time we stand up, we have to give up something else. the project has been reviewed and found in full compliance with the residential design guidelines. 7-0 with the dr. let me address the conditions of this project.

there is a typology at work in the marina with these buildings that are paired with large white walls facing each other. that is a shared amenity between the properties. sometimes there is a small light well facing one on the other side of the property. there is a pairing that was done and it is a great urban pattern. i love it. fantastic. that pattern breaks down. this pattern stops working. they reside in an anomaly building.

it is a very unusual. our building has a large light well on one side. what we have been asked to do is make an hour glass building where we have to have a large light well on one side. and then at one and another side. every time -- let me put up another graphic. this is a diagram we did of the setbacks of the chipping away. this is a compromise on the compromise. through careful review, we loved a lot of their comments. they speak on behalf of the urban typology. these yellow areas, those

demonstrate to the areas where we have pulled back from the original proposal and are providing massive light wells. especially this one. that is adjacent to the appellant's property. take a look at that. does that look like any you have seen in a typical building? that is a massive amount of space given up for almost no benefit to my clients. this is the north side of the building. in general, all of that space we have chipped away is for the appellant's benefit. we have some windows facing that. after the hearing, we had a phone conversation with steve williams, offered to do frosted

windows. they never responded to us. it feels like a drag to the process out. there is another opportunity to spend a few more months slowing the project down. we have given a lot already and we cannot afford to keep revising the plans come at chipping away 6 inches here, 3 feet of air combat a cursory review of this last-minute proposal -- 3 feet there, acres review of this last-minute proposal, that is the absolute code minimum. it is ridiculous. you're not going to be able to move into these flats. what they are drying up does not work. they do not understand why and they do not care, they're trying to push the project in further

and further. it is not viable and it is unfair at this point. i think this is an appropriate project. it fits with the style of the street. it fits with the masting of the street. there are a number of four story buildings already. they all follow this a form of having a small penthouse element to it that is set from the front and back which is what we are proposing. really minimizing that impact. i would request you up hold a permit as it has been issued. i think it should stand. thank you for your attention.

>> dan snyder, as we have heard, this is the project that was reviewed by the planning commission. there were four requests in total that were part of a hearing at which this project was approved. that occurred in november. the commission granted its unanimous approval. it did condition that approval of the setting back in the northwest corner of the property 3 feet the deck. i think it is labeled as the west deck. the specific concerns from the appellant are adequately addressed. the planning commission felt they were adequately addressed.

concerns about the light lost, the project provides a matching light well, maintaining reasonable access to light and air. there were concerns regarding the backyard edition and how it might lead to a loss of air flow. it might box in the rear yard. the proposal only extends about four additional feet into the yard. the property itself is a small lot. it is a key lock. -- key lot. that the lands to a less than ideal situation. concerns about the loss of property, this concern persists despite the commission's reduction. as we have talked about, at this

is a privacy issue, which is very much expected and par for the course in the urban environment of san francisco. these impacts to do not rise to a significant or unusual level. this is a code-complying project. it comports to our guidelines. our staff worked tirelessly to hone their project into one that we do support and the commission supported. in keeping with these actions, and where we feel the project is, we are asking you deny the appeal and apple the permit and i would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

>> it says the maximum planning code and it shows by highlighting what is being chipped away. my question is, would that have been on its face approveable? that maximum build out? >> it would comply with the terms of the code on a cursory review. many of the guidelines would be addressed. i am inclined to say based on the review that not all the requirements of the guidelines would be met, there are

provisions relating to a matching or somewhat matching light wells. some of that the yellow areas are those matching light wells. while it is difficult to address that the hypothetical question, my best response would be that if the project were to be filed will -- with structures in that area, we would be less than inclined to recommend to the commission approve the project. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. mix -- i have lived in san francisco 20 years. my wife and i have been

neighbors 15 years. my daughter is nine years old. i spoke in support of them and their daughter at the dr hearing. what happened the week proceeding is supervisor ferrel was speaking on a problem we have throughout the city and in the marino where a lot of families with young children, we lose them from their neighborhood because there have grown -- they outgrow their flats. it happens with the families in our neighborhoods with young kids before they reach age 5. the families tend to move out if they cannot expand their homes or they have a problem with the schools. i spoke in support of this project not only because i like the family and the project, but it is one more family we do not

want to lose because they and outgrow their flat and have to leave because they cannot expand. at the hearing, the commissioners also underscored that in their support of this project, that growing young families like this need the ability to grow within their homes, within reason. it was something that i had mentioned, it had been focused on that week in the city in part of the reason why they supported the project. i am here to say that as one neighbor who, our bedroom windows, are back patio, our back yard, we can see the back of this house. it is something i am going to see throughout construction and when it is done, and we support this project. president hwang: is there any other public comment? we will take rebuttals starting

with the appellant. >> first off, there have been no compromises to accommodate us. the original plans were drawn in such a way that the planning department was never going to approve them. they were matched up against both sides. then the planning department asked them to make the setbacks in changes and from that, we are getting they have made accommodations. we have not asked for any specific accommodations other than, please modify your plan so we can have more privacy. no further modifications were made. we have these drawn to show they

can be done without impact to their project. this argument about growing families, they already have the same square footage they will have once this project is done. they are basically doubling the size. unless they are planning to live in the units, the addition of square footage is minimal. they could have developed to down to have gained the same amount of square footage they will have after this project. i feel that is a disingenuous argument in this case. the feeling of being boxed in, i think he made light of it by saying it was only going to be 3 feet. when we walked into our backyard, it is open. we can see out into the green space.

there is going to be a proper the wall up until about here. so we are feeling encroached on all sides and would really appreciate if they could back up a little bit to give us some breathing room. so we do not suffer such a negative impact. it is nothing that they have done to accommodate us. we have not, we are not coming at the last minute to throw branches in the process. we can voice our concerns because we got off to a rocky start for our neighborhood meeting. unfortunately, the project's sponsors called our neighbor a liar. it got intense. we want to use this process to take the emotion out of it and be heard.

are there any que>> thank you fe speak. my family lives at 3141. we love sampras's go. -- san francisco. we had a neighborhood meeting back in 2010. even if it was well within guidelines, it was met with disapproval.

we asked for personal meetings in their homes. unfortunately, the meeting was once again met with disapproval. in subsequent months, which worked diligently with the planning department for the benefit of the neighbor. i updated the neighbor with new plans back in june 2011. a month before the hearing and four months after the process, the neighbor sunday the request. after many e-mail communications with a neighbor, i send them to date my architect and i could meet. no response. tehe d.r. commissioner ruled in our favor. the neighbor's lawyer contacted

my are contested -- my architect. these white walls were built to give the neighbors more light than air. this made the project more difficult. we told people where we were willing to cross the windows in an effort to provide a confession to the neighbors. they never responded to our offer, again. this same month, the day requested access to our rules. in neighborly fashion, we granted full access. two years into the process, they are now appealing kafka we are a family trying to build family oriented units, making extreme concessions for our neighbor's benefit if, only to feel trampled on.

thank you very much. i am all done. >> thank you. do you have any questions? >> can you explain what you do it is the concessions -- concessions you gave? i agree keepnot think i have a d understanding of what the concessions were. >> we do not pretend week believe we could build to this. i'm showing you the envelops so you can understand we are not building to that. neighbors grow around terms like we are massing of properties. that line is there lightly for you to understand in context. the residential design guidelines advocate for the sword of mirroring. there are no specific numerical guidelines for that. in our case, a 15-foot long

light well at the third floor would be sort of appropriate. he felt like a 10-foot wide long would be prepared we provided a 15-foot. in typical scale, you see a light well 15-feet long in most properties. additionally, we provided a further light well down here at the second floor. this was not requested by the resentful design team. we felt like,, since we were chipping down there, we might as well go a little further. that was addressing a concern for one of the other filers who was in the unit alow them who did not file this appeal. we are trying to address multiple people's concerns. in the fourth floor, we set the entire plan house back 3 feet. creating basically a light well along that side, as well. the entire side of the property

is a setback. not specifically required coppi, but we felt like since we already providing it, it made more sense to continue and try to allow more sun at various times of the day into the light well windows. additionally, we cut off his back corner here to limit that kind of boxing in feeling that they were alluding to. >> can you show us on the diagram where the light wells are? >> it does not show that. >> can you approximate where they are? >> it may be better to show you a planned deal. -- plan view. if that would be ok. ok.

>> which page? >> sheeit says third floor plant the top of the sheet. we were, measuring the best we could the exact location of the light wells and the windows. they are unloaded here -- they are noted here. 4 feet in this location. our light well here, our 15-foot light well on the third floor, mirrors the shower portion. we wind blows up to try to give them the best benefit for the smallest part of their light well. on this upper floor plan, you can see the entire side wall of our fourth floor is set back to make a defacto light while all the way along, clearly foley m