grern 4 thousand square feet and 6 houses left and right. >> along ashbury and upper terrace are the plain clothes that's the homes i looked. >> and then the next question is. >> may i answer that question i have an exhibit. >> please. >> so here's 1110 ashbury the highway behind is is 3462, 35 eleven and a list here. >> that was what i was concerned with the ones dribble facing our property to the immediate left and right not the ones behind the property. >> i did not on the square footage and that's fine. >> i have a list of additional

homes up to 4 thousand and 6 thousand square feet. >> it should be pointed out the houses across the street are on downhill lots and the traditional patterns in san francisco is uphill lots are entertain building and shorter street. >> the square footage the last question how many meetings with the neighbors did you have. >> it's actually all the corresponds with the neighbors two pages i can dig up the exhibit numbers if you give me a second so let me get exhibit for - so i

had challenge predr met with the appellant mayor 3 times in person and chaijd 31 e-mails every communication. >> was there a time you and your architect and project sponsor held a short. >> sure. sure part of the preapplication meeting there was would be neighbor that showed up to the preapplication meeting appellant did not i reached out to appellant mayor prior to the meeting and asked her and showed her the planning and he was trying to i reached out and at that point only one person

showed up. >> i meeting with the adjacent neighbors after the dr when mary gallagher got involved we held i will tell you specifically 2 hundred and 23 minutes over a 10 day period of phone call and the duration the phone call she didn't want to meet in person she said that's not the way to do business. >> thank you, very much. you've answered my questions. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning staff well, i think that commissioner wilson nailed it on this one during any presentation too i

certainly don't want this to appear a slam dunk for the department are commission we had 3 discretionary review hearing and ultimately at the end the final motion to continue to work on the design that failed and the project moved in is a difficult one to deal with the excision has the same challenges we're having now going back briefly to code experience we believe in the department reviewed it he reviewed it the planning department buildings it met the planning code question we is a discretionary review process it was extend to the department and you don't get at that max out the building envelope changes can be made in this case, the project meets the

guidelines but that didn't mean that the board didn't have power to make the further changes i want to be clear on the ability to make changes in regards to the buildings that are maybe similar size or larger sorry i don't have that information either i note on the block behind as commissioner fung noted you get different size open the hill and it's in rhd 3 this is an rh2 district on ashbury this is something that is clear it is reasonable to struggle with and you know if he look to the board for some assistance here maybe not as this i would have as much and a couple of things neighborhood outreach that's important you may want to get

more input from the appellants but main what's missing in the discussion what will satisfy what concerns need to be addressed outlined open the appellants belief they've outlined two scenarios that will address their concerns i think if the board didn't find that either of the scenarios seem necessary to design with the guidelines they'll be encompassed in the board thinks the project is acceptable and a acceptable and is and not four votes it's going to continue it move forward a hearing request at this point but the process moving forward or smlg something in between does the board have the vision to say what's beyond what the the promotions is

impose that is a bit of a unique sighting given the typography and the relationship to the localities and the adjacent properties so i'm sorry i don't have a clear answer for your hopefully, you've had the authority to make whatever changes you feel appropriate. >> mr. sanchez the other question this is a property that is quite older 106 what's the historic takes and the changes proposed were acceptable yeah. it was found not to be a resource and those changes were acceptable another issues sfgov through out what if we remove a

compliance they'll run afoul the loss of dwelling units if the building were cut back and developed forward that's another issue at the hearing this is a complicated case it's not a clear-cut we say it's code compliant there's issues. >> the problem with the benefit of having the rear cottage to occupy the rear frontage space we see 3i9s it's been alternated to ply with the historic values and built out from the rear portion of the property but at this point and not trying to hold up the pretty he holders but the bulk in mass is

something for me to try to tackle roadway. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez i'm confused about the process at the commission had they voted to, dr and that's what was go on. >> yes. there was a vote to take dr that commissioner antonini made and that was to lower the height of the building that failed there was substantially discussion by commissioner moore to make other changes there was a proposal to the last one i'll look at the minutes their helpful to continue it a continuance indefinitely and that motion failed so, i mean the commission had the ability to continue the discussion but they had 3 hearings changes that were 40 square feet reduction in the building that doesn't

satisfy all of them they could have continued it 0 further but did not did do that there was a quote from commissioner sugaya you know it's kind of finished he has his building what or where are the minutes. >> i'm still confused i saw it there's a specific hearing as to whether the commission is going to take dr. >> no, we don't do that anywhere that was a much older process they'd have two hearings. >> careful. >> now you take dr and do it all the time and rather than than one hearing to whether they're taking dr there is one hearing even though there were 3 hearings they could resolve it in one hamburger they decided with commissioner moore we discussed some of the things they wanted to see that's a

bigger simulate we wanted to february specific feedback what they wanted to see comfortable with the project they annunciates we had a meeting with the staff and project sponsor we saw the changes that dealt with not i know everything that the commission asked for addressed it and brought it back to the commission and there's a motion to make more changes in height the continuance failed yeah. >> so because they couldn't take an action they punted it. >> if this board get a decision and default if this board as 4 votes to make changes it's the same two choices.

>> thank you. >> you need a super majority here. >> thank you for explaining that mr. sanchez. >> thank you hopefully it, it's only 10 o'clock. >> okay commissioners the matter is yours like it or not and. >> get it going arrest well, then i'll apologize in advance because i may not be a little bit long-winded you know the actually, i'm surprise they couldn't come to a - we're hearing this case and we'll need to deal with it when i alongside this project you know and there is no nothing about it site context that bothers me at all so the fact

that you know in terms of the scale at the front in terms of the dealing with the mid block open space in terms of it's relationship style wise and everything to its neighbors none of that bothers me and perhaps it is only clear in my mind and not clear to the other participants that the primary issue is the relationship of the new building that's being constructed that is clearly the front it occurs the relationship to the corner of the appellants that building the fact that they've tried to do those little small credential

notches they call it is rvktd that concern both parties rec recognize that there's inconsistent in both briefs yes. there's probably shadow impact is it as expensive as probably not you know if you look at the location of the project site this building it's impact occurs probably in the relating paramountly in the simmer the sin is fairly high-up and the fact this building occurs right

at the juncture with the appellants building that maybe that portion the radish will have less sun during the summertime if i look at the just a minute buildings the one to the south of the permitted building that probably for 2/3rd's of the year will be casting a significant shadow across the appellants rear yard so it's more of a perception of what happens with an open space adjacent that she's been used to adjacent to a one corner of her building and windows she's used is to seeing across that open space issue of ada i don't consider it

to be a major issue except if you consider booifth it into two buildings you're still having a assessable just not as easily as assessable by about the code it could be accessible that led to two things one is the fact whether it's two separate buildings which is probably what the first desire is of the appellants vs. the connect our of some types of and a central courtyard the connect our will provide the linkage across the floors i'm guess that appears that the project sponsor wants to aggregate his private

activity spaces around 1:00 particular floor and one location and that's his own personal desire i said that i don't see that the bathrooms in terms of their location or anything have anything go to do with the ada issues they could be located in turn of their placements it come down to me whether i accept to satisfy the neighbors concerns a large central courtyard that's 0 only thing that will satisfy them what side that do to the project sponsor and their property and i've made a decision in my mind i'm prepared to not force the central courtyard on the project

spons sponsor. >> what about the recommendations that are listed on page 2 of the appellants. >> it didn't do anything. >> no, no fromlogically it to 55 feet. >> they want the 10 foot clearance to match the ceiling floor line of the existing cottage. >> this is the same problem at the planning commission had as well and i defer to you, your the resident architect that's been here since 18 hundred. >> if you're accepting the floor the act it's one feet higher it didn't effect the shadow the bigger question whether the fourth floor is

consistent with either for the neighborhood or you know whether its intended use. >> what about what the commissioners wanted in terms of height does that make a defines of difference to you. >> no. there's no architect on the planning commission so - >> excuse me. you're not allowed to participate. >> the other thing i've heard on how much the neighborhood input they've worked with them and bring a project from 39 hundred to 39 hundred and 80 feet is not a compromised and that square feet occurred after the dr in terms of they've made certain reductions in the notch they increased the no such during the course the thirty

feet occurred after. >> in the - >> i believe to clarify the changes i see in the plans and the reductions of the 40 square feet were made between meetings 210 east two and 3. >> it oriental plan was that 917 so after all the 50 phone calls it went down 40 feet. >> but in terms of what was tracking 0 through the 311 notice what was ultimately approved available those are changes. >> can i get some clarity in the project sponsor. >> your dad and mom house you draw up initially what was the square footage of that. >> what we simpleminded. >> what was your original plan.

>> 3917. >> and if i may we took that 40 square feet first of all, thirty percent of the building is dug underground not to go up other floor we're allowed by code we took that 40 square feet with even though appellant wished for us to take it off we offered to take it off they had no interest. >> you're arguing your case i didn't ask for that. >> i want to say one more thing at the dr the project was approved at the 3917 all the other changes happened afterward. >> okay. thank you. >> voluntarily. >> that's what i thought.

>> scott sanchez planning staff just to clarify those are changes they had proposed between meetings two and three since the commission doesn't take dr they were not going to to make those changes they proposed between hearings two and three but made them anyway. >> like i said the original project started at 3917 they were in the dred they took off 40 square feet. >> they've proposed in between meetings two and three they honored those even though the commission didn't impose that. >> madam president you want to weigh in open that (laughter) and i'm stating is also (laughter) i mean i'm not sure we're going

to come out where the planning commission didn't. >> the tough things the smallest home on the block happens to be next to his house that's the most impacted they have the most to lose not other houses 3 or 6 doors down even though the house happens to be next door their the most impacted so when neighbors want to know why their claiming they're the most impacted a that's where they have their complaint before. >> they're not the only complaint. >> i don't know what to do i don't want to hold up the folks but there are quite a few concerns and property owners have been here since 5 o'clock.

>> i'll propose something they sit down and we continue this i know that kind of bites but it is just we got 50 on one side and 50 on the other we need more consensus here. >> i'm not sure i see a benefit in this particular case. >> i'm not sure i do either. >> so i hate to put everybody through an official case besides all the other meetings they had. >> but they're close at this point. >> we don't know that. >> then i'll bite the bullet and make a motion i'm going to move that the

appeal be denied and that the permit be issued as allowed. >> on the basis of code compliance. >> yes. >> we have a motion under president fong to uphold this as code compliant on that motion vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda. >> no and commissioner wilson. >> thank you. the vote is 2 to 24 votes are need to modify a

motion the motion fails bull, however, under the charter that permit is upheld by default. >> unless there's another motion made; right? >> no other motion. >> okay. the permit is upheld as stated by default. >> there's no further business. tonight we're adjourned

so, same time next week? well, of course.

>> october 9, 2014, like to remind public that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind please silence all electronic devices. that may speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners unfortunately, i'm battling a little bit of a cold i apologize for coughing commissioner president wu commissioner fong commissioner antonini commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner hillis first on your agenda is for continuance this is the first case at 815 on 1010 is