buildings can be replaced rear yard cottages is not one finally this coverage at a policy level promotes the distribution of rear yard cottages and relatives in a building for two large in so doing blocks the sun unnecessarily and overwhelms the fabricated neighborhood this is the full rear the building again, it is just like your shadow analysis that the back the building at 8:50 a.m. no subpoena on a sunny day on november no sun sunny day this is today at 10:00 a.m. the sun is high in the sky this is

the{window no sun are we talking about a lot of sun no, not a lot but a large proportion of the little sun this effects michelles backroom and every room in their unit thank you. >> we can e okay. we'll hear from the permit holder. >> fwg commissioner president lazarus and commissioners my name is tie bash my mooivens are the permit holders at 910 ashbury i want to talk about the reason my wife and i with seeking the permit in 2010, i was diagnosed with muscular

disorder it is the loss of muscle control so severe lack of mobility and skill in the hands and severe pan in january 2013 following a search we got this home for disabled we worked intellectual with the staff to design a planning code that in an attempt to deal with my private matter does he discuss that or specifically ask for accumulation in the planning staff since my edition met all the requirement it simply was not necessary so for the first time during the planning commission meeting i pubically shared the information about my disbelieved i did see after a long personally battle and many

emotional conversation with my wife without this information or withholding this might block my ability prior my conditions were discussed with mar gallagher on the first week when the appellant talked about their proposal the same petition which was attached as an exhibit to the brief i walked around the neighborhood and talked about the edition most were horrified they had to oppose the project without any information many have not reviewed the plans on the misrepresented the proposed edition was a 5 story house mar said that the edition will industry my neighborhoods rear yard she has nothing growing in

her rear yard it will eliminate the fresh air i'm not sure how my edition do that and we didn't follow the proper notification because of my physical disabled we can't get both this home we spent $45,000 in property permits and still fighting for the site permit i expel it to grow to two hundred and thirty thousand more can be contributed to t to the drs appeal i'm hopefully, the board will agree with the agreement by the planning department and rdt 3 visits and

the planning commission choose not to take dr and although, my wife to build a edition i'm going to give the rest to my attorney i'll be available for questions. >> good evening commissioners melinda with rose we're asking together you deny the appeal for the following reasons first, as tie mentioned in the code project not asking for concessions or mischievous it is a project under the code could search warrant have been build larger it will fit within the scale of the neighborhood and second this is not a project that has slipped through the cranks it was thoroughly reviewed and mraufd by the planning department and dbi and checked by zoning administrator

and reviewed by the planning commission chose not to take a discretionary review and allow this project to proceed and third tie and molly have been receptive to remove a 6 foot tall fences and set back along the north property line the one point a that's important a number of the noechgsz o modifications were done after the discretionary review hearing although not action was required at this point further changes are necessary and will unreasonably he effect the property for tie i want to start off to talk about the project on the overhead here an aerial image of the site

there's a an existing cottage it's in the center and rear the lasted lot there's 11 and half foot set back a rear yard area to maintain and a 7 to the set back from the north side and a 2 foot set back for the north side and 7 foot for the south side an existing lot the approved project will expand the property horizontally in a 3 thousand you 90 square feet home this is not an unusual or unusual size, in fact, many of the nearby homes are substantially larger a number along ashbury 1010, 1032 ashbury that's only a few as well as 14 of the 29 homes are

had story not an unusual size and it will occupy about 80 percent of the lot not one hundred percent many homes are built over a larger propositions and this aerial view the adjacent properties month or providing very little to no set backs along the property lines so the set back are unusual for the area i'm going to put now an eastern elevation look at the home here this is the view from appellants property looking east you'll notice the lot is sloping steeply upwards from ashbury while the garage and first floor

they're low grade 25 feet if ashbury this line shows the grade level line east that will be - the practical effect is 2 heights in stories you'll perceive the finished garage will have a handicap van and an access to the upper floors the first floor the floor plans is the first exhibit to the floor plans will contain a bedroom and study and media room those had wish below grade and the second floor a matter of the bedroom with an ada bedroom and a careful suite and even though third floor is the bulk of the living area and the upper is the

kitchen and dining room a connecting to the existing building i also have a context the elevation of the building and sideways it easy to see i see the context as xardz to the neighbors we're not looking at a huge increase to the front of the property first liberalism looked like to address the issue by the permeating appellate their alleging this will dollars privacy while it they're concerned some loss of professes is keep in mind expected on the eastern elevation that was shown a number of concession have been made instead of one window there are a number of windows you'll see that have been trigsdz horizontally and above eye level

here, here and here second the appellants are asking this home be redesigned there will be some shadow to the property this request is unreasonable the allegations of the shadow we're hearing before and after a speculative no professional shadow study ways duplicate or required it is september that most designs will have some shadow, however, we attempted to have less shadows and those are the shadowing analysis in the packet showing n noticeable shadow keep in mind there are a lot of existing

property that will be thirty percent of the lot wealthy at the third

floor and at the beginning of the light well and extends to the existing building again that upper level will increase by 3 feet in the interest of responding inform appellants request you're seeing a set back along the side that's much more substantial than in the neighborhood and third, the appellants argue this will create a large wall across the property that is he simply not true i mentioned easily below grade approximately 20 feet for the effect the building links for the height are visible from the prospective and also the set backs are specific designed to break down the massing in the area and fourth the appellants argue that the zoning administrator should be required

to have a courtyard sierra club splitting the building we explained if our brief the da has looked at the open space it safer the interpretation as you. >> u saw in the aerial image there are space in to the rear and if they explicit apply with the open space to provide the space at the rear of the lot no to divide the home the interpretation gives the zoning administrator to looking at it as a case by case basis and finds this applies with the interpretation code finally, i want to brief touch on the alternatives that are put forth by itself appellant those are unreasonable the first as

you can see in the final exhibit of our brief alternative one will sierra club call for carve out on the upper floor and require a breezeway eliminating our living room and dining room areas it would also lower the floor height and impact the second floor ada bathroom in the areas and the second alternative is extreme remove the entire third floor of the building so you'd loss lifrm, difrm and kitchen and severely impact the second floor thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you skooz planning staff i'll try to be brief we've had an doesn't even briefing the

subject within a rh2 zoning district with regards to the rear yard requires an rh245 percent of the rear yard in this case, the work being proposed none of it is within the rear yard as denied in the planning code as pointed out there's an interpretation of the planning code that's been adapted over the years r&d a city council gent view when a building is set back with regards to the application i'll point out they proposed for their alternative that has a c shaped building that itself is not compiling with the appellants interpretation that central

courtyard as noted further it states thatarea-

it's something that the commission struggled with there should be changes to the project deferring opinions that was continued for several hearings for the sponsor to work with the department some changes were proposed and ultimately at the place planning commission hamburger no concession on the direction to move forward and because of that any failure will result in the project no discretionary review was taken and the project move forward that's the brief summary of the project as i say to the excision i think you already know even if a project is code compliant the

board of appeals are will have the discretion do make the changes the excision choose not to make changes some reason proposed by itself project sponsor but didn't go to the extent that the appellant wanted to have i'm available for questions. >> have you confirmed that the two or three changes that did project sponsor made after the dr hearing were incorporated into this set we have and i believe see because the real issue the significant issues with the planning commission was the amount of notch and how many levels the notch was from reviewing the plans it appears what they've proposed prior to that hearing has been incorporated into the plans. >> that was one anticipate the height of the sill of the

windows. >> so, yeah. >> did you look at that. >> on the proposed fte elevation those changes do purview to be nofrptd yes. >> you attended all the meetings at planning the 3. >> i believe so i was definitely there for the it out of 3. >> those two changes there was a third one i can't remember they reflected the more moderate feeling of the planning commission; is that correct. >> correct a vast of opinions on the project the debates were the department of that set back and was their proposal to have the set back more from the side property line that was one issue that the commission had discussions and also the extent

the number of stories that that notch features so those were as i recall two of the issues and commissioner moore wanted to see a more significant from the side property line and also to a lower level than proposing that's my recollection. >> the last thing i'm not sure why the ada question came up in discussion related to accommodations for that you know the design is either assessable or not. >> so that's the knowledge of that evolved over time in terms of reasonable accomodation requests often those come in the requests of the planning code

like an elevator they're not seek an exception in the code requirement but seung in terms of why the interior is that a couldn't be made smaller is because that will reduce the size of the bathroom at the lower level which is intended to be assessable. >> except the way those bathrooms are laid out they're not assessable. >> we don't implement ada requirements it's something that the project sponsor needed for their needs and so certainly i understand this board may have expertise are wisdom that will shed light. >> excuse me. mr. sanchez so looking at the plans i'm not

an architect so was the requirement for the side yard set backs. >> so there is the requirement for a side yard set back the requirement there this zoning district given a front yard or side yard there's no code for the side yard that helps to address the censures is of the dr requester that set back made the project xriept with the residential guidelines. >> you can build on the side. >> correct go in n this district yes. >> but this was something we wanted to see for design concerns. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. duffy has indicated he has nothing to say unless the board has questions public comment can i see a show of

hands how many people plan on speaking opium if you could line up on the side of the wall the wanting has indicated a one minute timeframe. >> two minutes. >> two minutes okay. >> he'll be back in one minute public school two minutes commissioner president lazarus that's because of the hour if you haven't filed out a speaker card please do that and hand is to mr. pacheco but please wait until commissioner fung returns to start your comments thank y to but please wait until commissioner fung returns to start your comments thank t to but please wait until commissioner fung returns to start your comments thank you.

>> okay. ready to start? per go ahead. >> good evening. i'm corey bash to read a letter. >> sorry you are a relative i believe of the permit holder. >> your time will speak under the time allocated to the permit

holder. >> thank you >> next speaker. >> is there anyone else that wants to speak i thought there was a lot of people a moment ago i asked for that, yes. >> good evening. i'm howard emancipation proclamation seen a property owner if the coal valley area over 20 years in the material you've been given everything about this project is code xrient and underground scrutiny i stand here shaking my head in disbelief all the departments are thoroughly reviewed and approved those plans the dollars to skyline a single-family home is now dragged on for an hour and a half i'm amazed by the appellants

resident proposal to gut those house to the half the square feet or to a more modest for gutting it i know that tie and monthly i didn't has given all the consideration nothing of strib their home i've reviewed the plans i think that light well set back they've proposed is accommodating a lot of the thing is very, very generous considering some of the claims seem unwarned for the past several years san francisco has been equipping many street corners with handicap ramps and trying to keep those folks in san francisco it is a strong proposal that folks should be xhoomd those are appellants have an ax to grind a personal have

an detective do not let the bitter wishes trumpet the needs of someone who is physically disabled this is a devastating disable i ask you allow them to build their home as demand. >> if your planning to speak continue to line up on the other side your blocking access that's not allowed thank you. >> good evening commissioners and chris my wife and i are in the process of building a home it should come as no surprises the individuals that oppose tie and molly have the same folks

that tried to stop my building my house i can't imagine what may find people to try to stop someone from building that has a handicap why write a 20-year brief and not have plans i'm disheartened with the people with those visions are my neighbors as well tie and molly have enough on their plate with respect to ties disability it is designed to modify with numerous considerations to their neighborhoods concerns over light and air including a generous side yard set back my cohorts are detailed tie and moll i didn't see condition and

add costs to tie and molly as well as abuse the city processes and waste the cities resources i ask you to approve that project the appellants appeal should be denied vote numbing to uphold the permit thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is kirk scott i live on ashbury i'm asking you ask asking you to deny the appeal and let the project go forward i believe this project represents a great deal of change both in terms of addressing light and privacy there are side set back on the north and setting a side set back and