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 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