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 rear yard there's now this quite generous inverted wedding cake that will allow a great deal of light and air into the appellants yards and i think that the main impact existed in the project existed with the house was built at the rear portion of the lot the privacy impacts have also been there and the shading the project will to the propose a height go they're basically filling in a streetscape i urge

you to deny the appeal and let the project move forward and hope to welcome tie and molly to the neighborhood soon thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> hi good evening my name is barn i live at 1092 the front unit of building next to tie and michelles building my bedroom faces across the court yard to say i'm a visible person this is an assault this is my home by no means i've north envelope met those people inns i'm sure you're very nice people

the appellants i don't have a vendetta i'd rather be finishing up my work as you saw in the picture there is a significant impact on the sun shining into my bedroom i've worked hard to afford my the home in san francisco what could have been a reasonably resolved situation at the beginning i think a lot of that could be avoided who want to come a e to a compromised. >> how long have you lived on the property. >> may 2012 my first one was 3,000 square foot e square feet. >> where there's meeting that

were held to discuss with you. >> this is the first disconnect you involvement till when i first saw the plans i thought great as an property owner i'm happy to see people use their property in a way they feel fit but as an existing owner in the neighborhood we have balance that's why we have commissions like this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. i'm speaking on for hugh diamond open ashbury street wouldn't be here i'm here to obtain to the proposed structure it's not

consistent with the homes of the. >> excuse me. pull the microphone closer. >> overwhelm here to obtain to the proposed edition on ashbury streets it's not consistent with nearby homes none of the homes are had he feels they have substantially more rear yard i'm concerned the lack of the neighbors plight and privacy open my side of ashbury in april we don't get sun until it wraps around the hillside and if the building goes through the subject height of that goliath project creates a huge wall and

windows fatiguing their yards this is not acceptable and sets a dangerous precedent on our rights i agree that the owners should have the rights to expand the properties by not at the expels - expense of the neighborhood thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioner i'm dave ryan may i have the projector the proposed culture is not consistent with the neighborhood the culture of this neighborhood is not one of 4 to 5 story building more like 80 percent all buildings near the project site across the strts street on clayton or more than p than 3

stories halfway up the block is 4 story we look at exhibit 7 here's the subject property here the sole - open a row of 3 story houses the project site being make in the central it's colored as four stories but break the 3 story pattern all but a few properties on clayton and ashbury have yards between 25 and 45 percent of their lots and the anti layers are multiple family structures regarding a 45 percent lot and none of the upper terrace have smaller

graders or yards the yards are 80 so steep they can't be used for development on ashbury street shouldn't there be a trade off if i have a rear yard development trading off space i and my neighbors have asked you to reduce this project that is a ridiculous amount of conform on that lot i ask fewer consideration of this. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> name is romanian restraining order hospital i'm speaking for the owner of unit one he couldn't be here he ask me to read this i have reviewed

the plan for ashbury and concerned about the building and shadow studies have shown the fourth story about block sunlight to the rear unit and the rear yard for more than 3 months every year we have a flowering trees that rerely open sunlight and the proposed edition will result in a complete loss of sunlight into the rear months and it will drastic change our rear yard another major concern we've had a mold problem in the rear of the building and the shadow studies show the new studies will show the blockage and significantly increase the mold in the rear building first, the building will cover the majority of lot where buildings have 25

percent open space and second the just a minute homes are 3 stories the edition needed to be downsized to address the light and privacy issues and make the building more in line with the neighborhood i believe they should be allowed to expand but also to take into account the neighbors and they have b have a beautiful existing home while preserving the neighborhood character. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners i'm a 15 year resident of inform and times to talk about the editions i've known tie he's warm and thoughtful and someone that brings people together for year

and years he's had a sunday night dinner and cooked feeding food for etch that shows up often the neighbors and stranger i know of his condition and even if he can't continue with those tradition of those events i'm sure molly will bring people together including this neighbors to become better friends a year ago tie called me about this property he purchased he i was excited about how he found a home that he and molly could spent spend the rest of mar their life and he probably spent an hour talking about how well, the environmentalist that didn't surprise me he is anyone that cares about community and

the neighborhood and the feelings those things notion so this property this edition to the property will do all that but allow them of him to live in that by providing the handicap things he needs i want to say 4 years ago when tie was diagnosed he told few of us he lives for the positive it of life the fact he's talking about that openly at this hearing is a sign the designation on his part tie is a person i'd a lot to be like if you were face with this situation i hope you lowest tie and molly live in the home and bring together the joys with their families and friends. >> is there any additional

public comment seeping we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellants. >> limited building envelope changes the permit holders did make were at the direction of the planning commission at the end of the second hearing permit holders attempt it have you believe they voluntarily made the changes pause the oral direction in the planning commission was not attached to the formal planning it was the excision that sent the changes they didn't satisfy the commissioners i want to talk about what happened at the third and final planning commission hearing the financial truth is commissioner antonini made a motion to make dr commissioner antonini made a motion to take

dr and reduce the central portion by one foot and raise the windows to 36 inches commissioner wu and commissioner moore and commissioner hillis and commissioner fong voted no and commissioner moore's and commissioner johnck and commissioner fong said they didn't support the project so you had 6 commissioners who want this project changed the plans before the commission were the same envelope plans before you tonight so there will be no further misunderstanding the coordinators were produced in a certified transcript of the hearing the copy were sealed in an envelope with the original signatures should you decide to accept it i have a number of

copies with highlights that i'm going to read from until i run out of time do you have a copy for the planning department? well, the document is new the words is in the part of the administrative record and available o'ly want to emphasize from the transcript no doubt at least 6 commissioners wanted this envelope us reduced the envelope before you what's most unusual about the case not a 33 tie all 6 wanted dr that's a difference between what kind of changes they wanted they couldn't make up their mind

and the commission secretary closed the hearing we ask i goes some change that 3 of them wanted or the other 3 of them wanted before i read commissioner moore i read she want to larger courtyard and light well but informed by the pretty holder nothing con the top floor could be changed i'm going to read verbatim you're welcome to follow along on the page 18 commissioner antonini i will be supportive of the project sponsor to see what commissioner moore is suggesting, however, i'm going to make a motion to take dr and approve the project with the change we'll drop the roof height of what is considered the figured out floor i guess as

designated on the diagram to leveling feet i'm sorry you were ready it will be 10 feet he external height and raise the height of the windows facing the non-host north i assume commissioner borden i second that commissioner sugaya that is his complete testimony yeah. i'm going do vote against it the design is not well, it has less to do with light and air and more to do with the spanish and the rich to the rest of the neighborhood i believe there are many ways to notch or accommodate the ada there are opportunities that were and are possible but i can't vote for this testimony i agree i'm going to vote against it it didn't

really respond to the disconnection at least i thought we were going to get back the interior of the building overall you're getting this bonus of adding this enormous building in the front but at the same time taking a look at the neighbors this didn't do it's a vote 3 for the dr for a foot down 4 against it 3 of which have clarified a bigger court yard commissioner moore i suggest the entrance that was discussed in the direction given the previous time at least there were a number of people that expressed the feed need for in keeping with the court yard and i think the appellant has started with a good idea i want to come down to

the ground floor some variation is thereof it is possible to do so to my motions is that is being tried again she couldn't quantify anything because afraid of the 8 regulations so nothing happened no vote either way thank you >> okay. we can have rebuttal from the permit holder. >> tie permit holder i'm going to talk briefing about the magic of the sun that was addressed earlier this over here is north so starting a 1 o'clock in the afternoon appellants own building starts casting shadow on her backyard the sun comes and turns around and starts

shining on the building from 1 o'clock in the afternoon all the way up to 6 or 7 or 8 o'clock there's direct sunlight it's dubious to say i'm casting shadowing after 1 o'clock the other thick i find interesting in all the drawings that mary gallagher showed you you she didn't show f this this the 55 percent itself cast a shadow on the rear yard of her neighborhood i'm going to yield the rest of my time to my attorney thank you. >> thank you just a couple of points that have been brought up throughout this the context of this building and this neighborhood how it relates to the properties the size and scale and want to reiterate this is a

proomg that's been through the residential design team review 3 different time and been reviewed by the dbi and the planning department i have an image iemgsz to pit on and on occupy u up on the monitor it is showing the number of other buildings just along this stretch of ashbury that are had floors or taller a number of images the context that is not an unusual configuration it's not unusual you see here to have variations in building heights i also want to point out in terms of lot kefrj that is at the end of the day an 80 percent lot project we have an image that is included in our brief that is showing other buildings that are over higher lot coverage that's what's being proposed here i want to stress again that is

code compliant being said it's not a code of a project under the code but started with what can be done with the code and wieldled itself down to specifically address some reason made in response from the commented from the commissioners what they felt was a popular discussion on a set back on the upper floor in hopes of preventing other actions and in response to the privacy concern those with vera will i aforementioned on the part of the appellants in terms of reharshly comment by comment i believe at the end of the day there was no scenes in project

has southern modification and the project was allowed to move forward if the commission felt uniform and strongly that specific action needed to be taken they villaraigosa taken it in my event this board hears the commission i want to ask when the ada issue arises in response to the dr hearing unfortunately, when it was brought up as a proposal that building should be desecond into two structures it would not be work, work because of ties disability i want to say again, i've mentions f it in terms of the size of the set back this year above and beyond what are done for other homes the tie and michelle obama i didn't has gone beyond the president of the united states what's required in the code we

don't feel the modifications are needed it's been through a year and a half by a number of agencies and during the process is needing of $150,000 they've comprised with the city requirement and further delay will cause unnecessary expense and so we're requesting you deny in appeal and allow the project that's code compliant to move forward thank you very much we're available for questions about design and project his yes. >> when you say code xhiept is that one word do we not balance such privacy such a many of the things the appellants have talked about or is we're looking at code compliance and saying it's code compliant. >> you look at a number of

factors but to the extent there's a reason the code is set up maximize bulk limits and adjacent properties you have to go through the remain design review to was the impacts of our project will be in this case the concerns about privacy are fairly routine and there's been a lot done to the side of that this more than that the appellants building that has windows looking in this direction they've gone boulevard to reconfigure the windows in terms of shadow is there a potential to have shadows cast i think meantime you have residential development and in a dense urban area it's a potential foreshadow you look at all the factors i don't believe

there will be substantial you impacts no substantial shadow or impacts above any form of development on the site. >> and just one of the things that toubldz me is i think you've said that the planning commission you know this is looked it people have looked at it a lot and the decisions made but when i look at what the commission did and listen to the transcript they didn't sign anything it's like a punt so that says it's a harder issue than i understand your their advocate but it's a tougher issue. >> unfortunately, when you read. >> i'm sorry. >> a much tougher issue then

we're being lead to building it's not a response. >> i'll quickly is when you read portions of the transcript you don't get the entire picture they discuss the facts you could discuss that what you could or if there would be a change but not come to a conclusion there's not a reason to keep it from going forward they'll preferred the parties to come up with a decision among themselves but that was not possible. >> one more question since the disability issue has been race is there no other change that could be made that wouldn't impact pit quite a few when things get worse. >> we have before us a range of things you could theoretically would to a project but the

alternatives are extreme and we've already made a number of commemoration or concessions to get to the set backs it's possible to make the changes like the planning commission can make a range of changes there's no more needed here and no proof they have a positive impact. >> it might bring peace to the neighborhood. >> but during the process it stafrtd as a largely process and a larger number of concessions but not that things have not been done they've come to limit it as far as or far as they go. >> you said the project was dramatically reduce so how many spaces 39 one hundred plus sheet

e square feet what was the original square footage. >> that was actually, the original number we actually did not update that package to show it's reduced it's less than that if you want to know an exact neuron number by 40 feet i think the porcelain important thing to see. >> the question was so is it 3 thousand 9 hundred and 17 now. >> no, that's the original. >> we have what the current is at this point. >> thirty square feet less than that. >> so you reduce the mass by 40 square feet is that what you're telling me and since the dr yes and - okay. that's fine other question you mentioned

there's a lot of homes similar no square footage you have a plot map that indicates the nearby homes with the scheme on them. >> no, i don't i took a look at and run or ran through the map i found a large amount of homes 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 n