scale rear yard conditions can leaving residents boxed in and the proposed 3 story building is at all and deep. into the backyard making the neighbors feeling boxed in and cut off our sunlight. we're afraid that the large construction will turn into an apartment building are multi single-family home they're for the resale they want to build the biggest building possibly and make the most profit and burden the neighbors they'll be the one to suffer that will greatly hurt >> neighborhood and please reject that proposal until

they're willing to change the two stores. >> are you to the north or the south. >> i'm 8 flat. >> so the white house. >> yes. >> so you're on the south side of the property. >> he'd be to the west side. >> okay. the west side. >> so it will cut off most of not all of the sunlight. >> thank you very much. >> i have a pass to go to that side. >> thank you for being here.

>> i'm not the appellant. >> i see. >> did we check at the time. >> can you explain your relationship to the appellant. >> my amendment the boyfriend. >> you you know when the boyfriend gets involved. >> the households i was asking. >> we maintain separate households. >> i'm charles c.j. smith commissioner president lazarus and commissioners thank you for the opportunity to speaking speak in support of the appeal you should have any previously support it is the history of

sunny side i'll be happy to answer questions. the developers and lawyers will have you to building the permit complies with the planning codes this appeal is based on the cities failure to enforce their own guidelines. may i have the offend. the additional specification of the planning code they must conform to the residential guidelines that insurer the scale is in corners are the neighborhood. the proposed building will have a sloped roof mr. g corrected that it states there's with only

one window there are, in fact, two at the level one of which is the sole source of sunlight in the room. it includes a letter sent to ms. curry and me mipth e picket the report alleging to a meeting if the developer wants to negotiate in good faith neither of us received a response the purpose of the letter seemed to building cooperative before the board. the most glares omission is any responses to the concerns and the reason for ms.coriay filing the appeal. hesitate not concerned with the fencing open the neighbors or neighborhood he doesn't deny it is oversized for its location he

didn't deny it will create hardship for the neighbors those concerns are the core of the appeal this appeal is not about the legal limits but what's right and best for the neighborhood. please vote to limit the size of the project ms. curry doesn't want to stop the project only the limitation of the size if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> i have one question have you been involved from the very beginning. >> yes. i was one of the initial folks. >> what was are you aware there's a discretionary review process. >> yes. >> why didn't you participate in that. >> it's the planning department is somewhat of the appellants

have regular meetings with the department say, i understand i sent two letters to the planning department and the only response the letters were received. >> you're aware there's a discretionary review process review why explicit you file a discretionary review against this project earlier on. since upper involved from the beginning >> at the - well, i don't know i suppose i could file for a discretionary review it's an o pack process. >> a so you weren't aware you could apply. >> the developer was - >> so you thought it would iron itself out. >> they renewed the size from a

4 thousand square feet house they only wanted to reduce the size and say they reduce the size. >> thank you very much. okay >> is there any further public comment. >> good evening board of appeals. i am - i live in >> i'm sorry can you speak into the microphone i can't hear you. >> i live in 8 avenue i'm emily. i'm against them from the building a tall building 3 stories high building because

the building is only 2 stories high. i'm against them from building a big building standing all the way taller to the backyard. because it block our sunlight >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any further public comment. seeing none, we'll start our rebuttal ms. curry you have 3 minutes >> marry making video and his team indicated they've reduce the size of their project while that's try and the documentation

within the city shows that it doesn't get to the core of the matter which is that this new project is an enormous building filing most of the lot. and when compared to the homes not only my home but the homes in this whole neighborhood it's just significantly larger and it when you look at out the windows that it will be blocking it will a wall it extends the full stent of my home and above my home a wall completely blocking any home from front to back and it is true for the chang. a they certainly haven't

addressed the core concern. the neighbors have been specific in asking for a two-story home which is truly consistent with the neighborhood. and i just feel it necessary to call out again, this is proposed building is more than two times the square footage of my home or the chang's home think or average homes >> mr. silverman 3 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. very brief just a couple of things. there were three or four people who 0 testified tonight none of them claimed they didn't receive the notice in the mail that's required by planning department

informing them of their reporters rights none of them said they didn't receive the notice. in addition mr. g sent each of them on eel september 18, 2013, it says chang, raymond and a charles. the planning department informs me the scheduled thirty days notification period will begin and i'll forward you the agricultural drawings. i have that if anyone want to see it. i'm sure that marry sanchez will firm that and number 2 the city employes a professional planning staff including the architects to review the permit paksz to

make sure that any residential or any type of building is appropriate for the neighborhood it's built in and spent a lot of time on the residential design team examined this on several occasions and the planner spent over 16 months before and after on the design. we ousted to give cede as an to the planning department and the zoning person who said the third story is appropriate for a neighborhood with 2 story buildings. on the point of the residential guidelines that were put on the screen the guideline in question said the building should be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood not the same mass

they would have said that in the guidelines. the zoning administrator has explained why the planning department buildings it's consistent and don't want a longer rear yard structure. so i'll leave it at that >> i have a question counselor your first point was the fact all people had notice of the dr. >> right. >> we're at a dead note hearing. >> why is that relevant. >> they didn't file a request to the planning commission. >> are you suggesting they carton bring their containments to the board. >> oh, they failed to captive

their requirements. >> are you arguing they are denied. >> i'm suggesting. >> did you provide some sort of impact consequences about the structure. >> gary we'll ask the staff we had necessary discussions but it wasn't relevant because we brought in photographs the meeting notes that were forward to the staff. i didn't read through the meeting notes were there any concerns raise about the light >> mr. chang at 8 flood was concerned about the mass of the building and next to him we

notched the building all the way down to the ground we couldn't match it but cut it to the sky. >> the light issue is it about the structure to the side vs. the yard in the back or on top of the roof where's the impact on the light the adjacent properties. >> on the two at the 92 circular ms. occurring religious house has windows so the windows are not on the property line her building is at the time set back she's not required to cover the windows not on the property line. and please a chang on the west >> that's the light issue.

>> he didn't have appropriate line window and we explained over noon he'll get plenty of light the front of the building face south he's west of our building there will be a minimal impact of light in the morning but. >> that the part you've done the light no such. >> would you like for me to show you. >> yes. i don't understand all the light implementations. >> this is an exhibit in our brief; right? and so i can see

it. >> i can use the overhead. >> my vision isn't perfect. >> okay. i'll use the screen. >> tell me which document. >> sheet one point zero the site plan and the next is 8 point zero and the lower plan is the garage and the upper that's mr. chang's at 8 flood. >> are you referencing. >> i'm sorry 8.2 zero i apologize. >> so the bottom what does that reflect. >> on the bottom it's the adjacent ms. chang's building there's a door we've notched that portion of the building up to the sky and the notch on the

second floor too. >> could you point to it open the overhead. >> sure. >> okay. >> this is mr. chang's house this is our no such in our building here it continued up to the building on this floor the back of the building this is the back of our second floor and here's the back of ms. occurring religious house and mr. chang's house. >> so on mr. chang's side is the 8 flood avenue there are windows in the light well. >> there are no windows here. >> so why would you no such it. >> it was a gesture to mr. chang's house.

>> on the other side is the appellants property. >> correct. and where are the windows impacted here >> let me see if i can have a photograph the white trim those are the windows. >> okay. >> all right. and when you take a look at the site plan there's a space between the building here's that feet and the building is not at 90 degrees to the property line it gets bigger as it moves out to the street this is the set back at ms. occurringries house. >> so whatever the yard are they impacted at all by the structure. i see the deck >> this is a deck correct. >> so is the structure of the proposed project going to impact

the light on the deck. >> i'll show you a drawing that's a good question. as you see here in the east elevation of our building this is the online in ms. occurringries building the heavy doted line this is her deck right there that's her deck the top railing our survey surveyed that point our deck is maybe 6 inches >> show me your deck again. >> our deck is actually that property line wall that you see the heavy doted line is ms. occurringries deck. >> what about what further extends. >> that's a fence on the property. >> we didn't label it we apologize. >> okay. that's helpful

any other questions? >> anything else mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez much discussion about the residential guideline and so if i can have the overhead if this is successful. so there's a several examples nicole they show a 4 story buildings next to a row of 2 story building this is not an appropriate design it doesn't it is not capable with the neighborhood but the sets back the 4 story in this location

there is an existing 3 and two-story building and an immediatelyy building not to transition from the 3 to the 2 story building and what's a textbook example we have a row of 2 story building with a 3 that's set back from the proposed line i see a dashed outlining u outline of the fourth story with the 2 story buildings that's possible to set back the third floor, however, for the fourth floor it must be eliminated so the guidelines have expressing considered such examples you've considered here today, this is a textbook example when the guidelines so

additional in regards to the setbacks that's been 0 made one of the issues and we can see it on sheet a .2.1 that shows the third story. but we have the setback of the third story set back to line up with the appellants property and also a notch at the corner you'll see the sun again, this front property line is facing the south so as it streaks across the line in the afternoon hours it will get light and the setback on the third story is to help with the light with that, i'm available for questions

>> okay commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i guess i'll start i seemed like this preliminary concern is the light issue and based on the fact there is no analysis of impact on light by either side i would defer to the planning department determination a minimal impact on the adjacent

property lines it's not out of scale based on the residential guidelines so i'll be prepared to uphold the permit at this point. >> i would concur with that. >> i think it's probably different than a light issue more of a vision issue in how those neighbors see their own neighborhood. as mr. sanchez knows we've gone through the neighborhood fights subsequentially and there's been a couple of height limit changes to address some of the issues in rh2 zoning. and so in looking at those

things and i'm trying toy determine how objectionable this third story is over the balance of the other buildings. i understand and i'm hearing with the neighbors that saying i'm not i agree with them it's obviouslyable i think whether you want to do the little things that the rtc has or whether you want to bite the bullet and say is a third story inappropriate with this neighborhood i agree it can be appropriate and therefore i'll vote that way

>> make a motion. >> all right. i'll make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it is code compliant. >> thank you. mr. peck check >> we have a motion then from the vice president to uphold it is code compliant. >> on that motion communicating commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda. thank you. this vote is 5 to zero this permit is upheld take. medical cannabis of the san

francisco board of appeals i'm calling the next item 10 is neighbors of the green street garage the property as 1776 green street protesting the ownerships to larry of an alternative process for the heat detergent we should wait for the fifth commissioner to return to the seat. >> mr. patterson ask i consultation the second swearing in. >> you can do that. anyone else >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> good to see you. >> so with the communicating in

the room we'll begin with the appellant. you have 7 minutes >> thank you commissioner president lazarus and commissioners ryan patterson for the neighbors of the green street garage. this is one of most interesting appeals but i represent a group of 25 neighbors that live around the green street garbage that's an automobile body garage only for parking. it's for a new water system and heat detect our we suspect

something is being done the plans for example, don't show the spray boothd that's been heat by neighborhood we actually decided to withdraw the appeal no since fighting over nothing about the appellant attorney said this permit is used to entitle the spraying. i was national fy naturally shocked the permit holder cancelled the meeting. on a