of those types of buildings >> thank you open this up for public comment. >> can i have the projector on for this, please. >> 2 minutes. >> it's two minutes. >> the character of the neighborhood is not a one of 4 to 5 story building all but a few properties at the merging of ashbury and one property have yards between 25 and 45 percent of the properties that are multi family buildings and so resulting in 55 percent coverage

they cover only 55 percent of the lots therefore live building on the subject site covers 55 percent of the lot if are not the adjacent buildings mean anything. all buildings near the project side and across the street on clayton are morning than 3 stories on one side of ashbury you have to go halfway down the block to arrive at the clayton. there is a previous proposal for the site that mission bay didn't contest and resulting in a coverage of '65 percent and small property owner of 35 percent this results in 17

percent of small property owner. as this high rush to expend so far and faster to have the ground floor small property owner. could someone explain the project sponsor has given to support his ada disability and whatever it's held to provide the ada supporting document >> thank you. is there any additional public comment >> commissioners i'm out of

town on may 1st but listened to the hearing and multiply design strategies were suggested, however, when i saw the new plans i became confused only to make the top that the dispensary moved it into 2 feet. the pictures my brother showed were not skating there's a different change i have a small rear unite with no windows and the sunlight i'll lose is the only sunlight i get from january 1st from some shadow studies currently you see the light an january 1st but not with the proposed buildings and same with february as well and

i'm not getting any more light and october payroll - michelle shows this this we want to permit more light that i i stress this isn't about the sun your be prostrate a full wall shouldn't there about a trade off the radish development for small property owner elsewhere michelle has offered now a 9 foot walkway each time the developer offers nothing. police dog incorporate either the courtyard or remove the fourth floor or include a walkw walkw

walkway and seeing none, public comment is closed >> i've spoken to the dr and project sponsor i have questions for the project sponsor we could call the dining room or the breezeway the area of contention for the dr requester and the others. >> after you've taken off the light well square feet. >> it would be 20 no.

>> 18 feet. >> and that's including there's an area i see on the bottom that's where the staircase is that's including the area. >> the weight of the walkway is 11, 8. >> so that's where what you're down you can't walk through the structures those are stairs so you're looking at 11, 8 you make a good case if you put a table there it's going to be fairly narrow and the table is about 4 feet in width and it could be wider than that. >> what i reviewed the meeting from last time the direction from 6 to 8 feet i meet with the

plaintiff 7 it is mothering most i can do await doing away if with the dining room. >> so your set back is that it sounds like this is fine. a couch other things the dr requester they want to drop the height of that section we're talking about called the dining room or is breezeway and i think the present height is 11 feet externally and 11 feet internally i can ask the staff about the height of that section >> according to plan yes. >> i'm trying to accommodate

some of the height if we drop that down to a 10 foot exterior height that brings us with the 9 foot interior this is a nice size room i'll suggest that and we could gain more light coming in the light well, and to the project dr requester and the other thing is on that section where the windows are i'm not i'm not sure it's part of the glazing it was optional a couple of feet away's raise that up to 3 feet at least 3 feet because that will give plenty which windows. so raise the window in the dining room >> not raise the window itself

but the part that's not glazed it will leave it a little bit better as far as that's not gaining anyone it's a low area. >> the lower sill of this is 36 above the level. >> 36 inches minimum it could be a little bit higher i want to make it a length people can look out but a minimum of 36 inches. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to mention the dimensions on the top floor is good if you want to talk about as a to whether or not you-all

your prepared to square out on the third floor to have the notch meet the corner of the existing building so your dimensions is 10 foot 2 and 6, 10 instead of that no such go to the meet the edge of the adjacent building. >> i'm so tuned in to what you need it's extremely important it's basically key do what we're discussing here. as to whether or not you're taking that no such down to the ground floor and wouldn't sacrifice any loss of the space relative to the movement but create from my prospective what

i call an enlarged courtyard separating our building from the adjacent one. the dimension string you set up on the top floor i fully support it based on the movement and the mobility requirement. but if it comes down to the area where you are on the first floor at the grade we'll have a solution from my prospective an extremely great solution but to deal with the sunlight although the light is not what we're recollecting we're trying to understand the impact on the joining neighbor. i'm wondering if you want to

look at that i'm only a using migrating my pen you're not losing anything on the second floor turning the bathroom to the locally log told you the only thing that moves with the laundry room. it's possible to get all you have your room requirements and not really separate or lose any of the mobility or spatial requirement >> i want to repeat it by pointing open the drawings actually, i'm going to get the 3-d drawings. you're talking about the section from here to this point on this floor >> it's business owner done. >> let me get the 3-d it is more clear.

>> the third floor you asked for the second floor. >> it is first change if you

move your finger from the glass wall and return to the edge of the building to the left. >> yeah. >> you're to the right. >> to the left exactly square out and take that down to the second floor as well. >> the reason i didn't do it that actually 3. it connects the existing top floor to the rear of the building. if i take that all the way over here i have to push it to the front that's something i didn't wish to do. this section is not a concern or interest to my understanding the least way to impact this is only

for 17 feet it's illegal to push it back 20 feet >> if i accept what you're saying then my idea is to take the entire no such eir receptionist all the by the way, to the ground floor with the idea this is only an idea of creating more of a courtyard it has to come down to the ground and it's noted not possible. >> that's the biggest problem anything else will not make sense if it sticks out from the property line. >> if you take the drill has the dimensions for ada that's still

fully and. >> it has two components one is the toilet and the area in front of the of the sink and there's a requirement for that a tub in size. the design of the building from the get-go is to get a wide light well, and the requirement is 3 feet i gave 4 feet because i pushed it to the minimums within the limitations i have that will do away with the ada bathroom anything less >> if the bathroom is elongate gaited i think you could meet the dimensional requirement but getting into a level of detail that for me it was the idea to

get the project on to the grade how we do that that is what i was trying to suggest but if you believe the internal unit that's a no go it's difficult to push this this is not for me to challenge. >> that's what i'm saying. >> i would like to see this come down it can be done but it's a question if you want to do that that's all i can say. i appreciate you thought about the upp the upper no such >> commissioner antonini. i'll be supportive of the project sponsor working with the staff and seeing if there's a possibility but i'm not to make a motion to take dr and approve

the project as currently designed with the change we drop the roof height of the what is considered the fourth floor on the area designated as the dining room down to a 11 feet external height. i'm sorry you're right 10 feet external height and that's on the third floor >> a question whether they're talking about the third or fourth the floor where the dining room is. >> and top. >> and to raise the height of the windows that are francis scott key to the north to a minimum of floor to the ceiling. >> i'm going to vote against

the motion by the way, the design response we're talking about has less to do with the light and air and in terms of small property owner and the relationship to the rest of the neighborhood and so - and i also building that in terms of the design there are many ways to approach a design whether a regular residents or one that needs to accommodate ada so i think there are opportunities that are possible to do that. by you can't vote for this project >> commissioner hillis. i'll agree i vote against it. the new design, you know, a little bit response but didn't respond to the direction i felt we were getting back the interior could be put elsewhere

overall you're getting this bonus of adding this enormous amount to the front but acknowledge the adjacent neighbors this has not done that >> commissioner borden. >> i'm primarily voting for this if with we have a better way we could debate this 65 times over i'm happyly entertain another motion if there's a think a alternative idea but no one wants to take a position that's the issue i'm having here. commissioner moore >> i want to add one comment that applies to all of us ada is a human right and something that expresses itself in code and you

can't avoid that this is a technical knowledge and i mentioned three-quarters of an inch i happened to consultant with someone that's an ada person skyline architect and just excuse me. ly speaking could this be done there was a clear answer to, yes this is a very large home and has a lot of spaces to do something we're not talking about the minimal dimensions to meet the code required for ada and access availability. it's not here as a group knowing the fact it was the triggers for the r a that's basically why their pulling back that leaves us with the other responsibility

of thinking about the neighbors and holding up both responsibilities. this is a huge huge responsibility we're not able to hold up both ends >> commissioners there's a motion and second by dropping the roof to 10 feet at the third level and ray's the north side windows to a height of 311 inches. >> commissioner antonini and commissioner borden. >> commissioner hillis. commissioner moore no. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. that motion fails three to four with commissioner moore's and commissioner fong and another commissioners voting against this project will be approved ass as in its curiosity state >> commissioner moore. >> i want to suggest that the

architect try to create the courtyard in principle that was discussed in the previous time and there was a number of people that expressed the need for an adjacent building keeping with the adjacent courtyard and the light well dimensions. i think that applicant has started with a very, very good idea i like it and the more rigorous way to come to the ground floor and i think it's possible to do that so my motion s this is being tried >> i'm sorry. >> my motion that the project be returned and the applicant try to modify the design as suggested. is that >> that's a motion to continue working on that. >> second.

>> i think some of the challenges i noted there wasn't a full agreement by commission so there what i remember there was who directs to move back the top floor or look at the small property owner meaning the 25 percent criteria exactly so i feel like we've been given something that was responded to i have to agree i really am challenged we've been spending so much opening statement on the case and i know it's important to the neighbors but i feel like it is very difficult for this commission to sit up here and design someone's project it's not fair to either of the project sponsor or the dr requester and not the right forum for this. >> commissioner johnck.

>> i agree we can propose something to extend the light well, all the way down but get rid of the storage this is kind of unnecessary and bring boxes in to the adjacent yard but we're not unfairly we should have people talk about this more detailed discussion come back to us. i don't mind spending more time on it and commissioner antonini >> i'm going to see if we can get this done i talked with the dr and project sponsor. >> our discussion had to do with 3 areas the dining room

section and one was the height of the windows which we were able to raise it might not be enough and the other with the height of the roof i believe your request was to bring it down 2 feet i brought it down 1 foot if we bring it down 2 feet the third part is the width of the dining room section but it looks it is a little bit tight. i'm asking if dr requester would be satisfied with dropping the roof one more foot in a total of 9 feet externally 8 foot inside the dining room and giving you more light if that would be satisfactory to the dr requester and no. >> no. again, i spent 20 more seconds

so we also have been torn over this issue with trying to find a way for the project sponsor to build a building that has reasonable size storage this is a problem you're going to come up with case by case of rare buildings this 25 percent is not addressed, however, that being the case the other option we thought was appropriate on the top floor in relationship to the wail factor it appears more than a 4 foot walls because the typography goes down lately we felt in the top floor is to become a breezeway it is a walkway no more dining room

table he has space for tomorrowal dining room at the back of the room. from 20 feet both his living room that narrows on the far side of the property to about 13 feet can it be greater than that yeah. it can be maybe that's where our middle ground is. the reason one of the reasons that's important in conjunction with the height of that floor is that's exactly are where the sun comes down so if it's further back and down we get more sun >> so we're going to come down to the section in the middle you're talking about 13 feet 13 feet total including the rooms along the side or 13 feet of passage way. >> 13 feet from the wall the stair and the elevator and the

11 feet of walkway you don't need 11 feet of walkway if you get rid of the dirp table. thank you for your comments. project sponsor can i ask a question we're going to try to get this finished. i know you want to have the dirp there and i'll be supportive of that we don't have the support but maybe a little bit extreme to cut you down to 13 feet after your 7 feet is it 19 feet or 18 i mean if he could compromise around 15 or 14 feet if the dr requester if you get take more off that section >> if you give me one second i want to respond i know i brought this up but the neighborhood

pattern there's a radish if we're saying we need to have a 25 percent rear yard i checked with my architect we can chop that but to say that the neighborhood pattern to have a courtyard in the middle there's no other home we want to have the 25 rear yard that's follow the code as commissioner moore that understands we can do p that otherwise we're chopping this random before mely i'm personally offered to drop it to 8 feet height is a person in a wheelchair is that okay. we've done i don't know how many shadow shoes it showed