the time period the taxi community is a small one despite the efforts and in conjunction with the things they said about american taxi when we went both sfmta to make the allegation it had an effect on the business. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. murray you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> good evening frankly i don't have much more to add bear in mind every time an enforcement action against a company there's an accusation of point of conduct to the company by the mta we're very used to that if there's a dilation by any

medallion holder or company or you said max cab regarding mta staff they canned go to another company we'll be modern happy to have it presented to the you and go from there we get a lot of accusations when we push on the enforcement issue without that i'm modern willingly you guys to get it and it would be great we don't know building this is happening. >> i'm sorry are you finished. >> yes. >> has that particular situation been brought to stooushgs regarding the sfmta personnel directing away from that dispatch company. >> no. well i take that back the gentleman routinely says that but no one has been

presented. >> no one. >> as the person that's been told this is truly the case but we're willing to have it submitted we'll allow it as sufficient evidence it is there. >> you know murray we haven't seen you in awhile. >> hopefully not too much. >> thank you, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, i wanted to say one thing as we start to deliberate there was an implications in some of the disagreements with the regulation and we're not here to say the regulations are good, bad or otherwise are neglectful we have to look at the regulation if we think it has an

impact that is a whole other question that's not our purview. >> is your comment referencing me? (laughter) >> was i looking at you. >> it is generally indirectly. >> i think this unfortunately singles out the small business before we get this matter ahead but the question is whether or not the the department had good cause in terms of doing the revocation and at this time i believe they had go cause for - >> i agree. >> motion? >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that sfmta had good

cause for the revocation of the dispatch services. >> permit. >> okay. on that motion to deny the appeal and uphold the rest indication that sfmta had good cause commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda's no commissioner wilson and commissioner swig is absent that motion carries with a vote of 3 to one. >> thank you next two items 7 ab will be called together michael is the first time appellant both are appealing against the department of building inspection with planning department approval

project only ashbury street protesting the permit to erect a building 4 story building with seven hundred square feet of empowering area i understand the appellants want they're two 7 minutes periods combined to present together with 14 minutes; is that correct? >> yes. i've made extra copies of the presentation. >> are you going to be using the overhead. >> that's probably sufficient. >> okay. you have 14 minutes on the clock. >> is reuben, junius & rose? sorry i need to make a

disclosure pardon me one second here god i lost my i have a previous business arrangement are reuben, junius & rose i'm hired them on a separate matter but feel i can hear this case without bias >> i have reservations burr one of the planning commissioners i know espoused himself you i understand you have the authority to make that decision you'll be absolutely. >> correct the decision to hear the case before us. >> all right. >> i wanted to make that point there's a precedent in that matter where i because of personal relationships and

people are espousedism. >> the relationship has been disclosed he didn't have to excuse himself. >> identify yours please. here's my card. >> so if i might have the overhead projector please you have it. >> i have it okay so i'm going to run through this in the series of blultsz and commissioners supported the appeal in the past the wiener legislation the monitor holmes legislation i'm going to talk about the 8 year occupant of the

adjacent lot and talk about the fact that the developer had the lot for sale and i'm going to talk about spur sized buildings and the impact to light and air and also going to say that i'm seeking variance reduction a very nominal 3 feet in the granted variance i want to point out there's been a significant neighborhood support with over 50 signatures each one line item represents a signature as you can see from many different areas in the neighborhood of actual neighbors on ashberg and downey the families the gentleman is here tonight to talk just an overview to show

you this is truly a monster building completely out of character both in the front and the back with that enormous structure 5 stories plus an objection deck 70 percent lot coverage it is extraordinarily massive we're going to focus on just the pattern of development and the impact on the pattern of development we looked at along the buildings on downey street here's the lot in red i've drawn a red line with exception of one building this building about impact the well-defined pattern of development so there's a - this is the alley impact the alley impact here is illustrated by virtue of me showing 105 is

ashburg with the red line so you see clearly the new building is much, much taller and deeper and therefore excuse me. all the most of the other buildings conform to this red contour so there's an enormous sorry about that barking pack we're looking at towards the south if we look if from the residents down significantly down at a thousand clayton street the proposed effect with this enormous structure of blocking light and air and view into the valley into the alley area so here's some of the buildings

effected around here there's thousand and 2 and 12 and 28 clayton and here we see the pattern of development as you can see the alley impact the pattern of development highly effected the light and . >> pull those down audible pull what do you think the microphone. >> not slides. >> sorry. >> a little bit further down to see the top. >> can you see that here again 1051 ashburg it was the telling on the effect of the neighborhood the vendors placed this for sale this is new and he's a well-known speculator he flipped 961 clayton and he's

created a design that is super sized to maximize the profit and put ash berg so as soon as you guys approve this he'll make a noise profit he highlights the views so basically the business model is to destroy the light and air for all the surrounding neighborhood and compliancy the property that is a basis for supervisor wiener's resolution that received announce approval this particular property falls into this category it is well over the 3 thousand square feet designation and at 70 percent lot conform it is way above it and supervisor scott wiener

terminology way out of whack with the neighborhood this didn't particularly apply i'm on the wrong side of the street but asking for president chiu do application it meets supervisor wiener's and i'm going to mention that the developer withheld key information in the past and recommend certain data that the zoning administrator are well aware of and no significant impact it is undeserve of the 7 foot grant i'd like to pass it over to the gentleman. >> thank you my name is michael thank you for your time and consideration i live on clayton street from the back of 5

ashberg i support the - i received the architecture plans in the mail on april 27, 2014, i e-mailed the parenthesis expressing my concerns basically those expressed here he did respond saying my comments will be added to the public folly e-mailed him again and signed the petition in 2014 i'm just stating this one the criticism was why didn't i speak up sooner i was not involved in the prior appeals or outlooks i knew my neighbors as my work didn't allow me to attend the prior hearing i filed this appeal i was shocked they were allowing this building and jet

out into the back alley effect my house 334 houses to the north i took the photo of the sun come up over the houses and dave showed to show how the homes to the net will be adversely effected i don't understand why the city allows a developer to build beyond the boundary in order to build a 3 thousand square feet home a luxury home as supervisor wiener used the term monster home the city has a duty to uphold the rules and we already live in a second more densely populated city and deserve to have our backyard protected by the city and cut down the dresses as the

developer suggested to me will not offset the negative impact to building we're not objecting to another 0 home being build built we're simply stating the home built should not be a 7 feet barrier he argued he can't build this house with - he can surely build a home with a less encroachment on the common back-alley and if he is going to sell it he we believe he is he should be able to fetch $200 million based on last months sale on ashbury berg about 2 thousand square feet it also has only one car garage

and not a new home i'll or he'll make a decent profit the only neighbors that are supportive were non-objective the prior owners the lot that sold the developer the lot another developer two houses away and the brand new neighbors going to have to live next door for about a year to the construction site and want favors with the developer they were away of the plan when we bought the home my immediate neighbors wouldn't be here because of a sick child but anna spoke in objection to the variance hearing and the next neighbor is not here an older man that lives alone but expressed his strong objections to the project therefore we're speaking on their behalf and to

protect their interests in go conclusion i ask the board to do the right thing and preserve the alley and not allow a this to happen please reduce the 7 foot variance thank you. >> thank you. >> any questions. >> no, thank you. >> okay. we'll hear if the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners john are reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the project sponsor i'm sorry to interrupt you i want you to understand the additional plans were not distributed they've over there

in the case you can have them if you want to ask the board. >> this simultaneously submittal it come in with the modifications in the variance so if the board wants to see the plans without the elevator and i did rear deck that was removed prior to the hearing they've over there and feel free to ask me questions i know on the variance appeal i'm going to be belief to summarize from the last hamburger the project open an irregular undersized lot if you can get the projector what you see is the rear building wall the new building actually sets back but with the building here's the adjacent building to the left the subject property and the next building is pulled

in more this is averaging kind of runs with the street sngz on a regular the elevator pop auto and the rear deck is removed so the floor area is consistent with the surrounding building two floors below grade was because of the set back the floors are acquit small you're looking on the screen right now at the very bottom floor a one bedroom you if you look to the right two small bedrooms it is a small house single-family home like i said this project is dental to the one in january the appellant brings up the supervisor wiener heights ordinance that was

infected first, the boundary of the district are clear that is outside of the district and the second the need for supervisor wiener's legislation had to do with the c0 in a heights neighborhood with one lot a number of approve open spaces that are throughout that area it is a different character of that block this is the only remain block if you do a circle of ashbury this is the only gap along the street it is different situation and finally supervisor wiener's legislation didn't change the substance of the code only a project needs to get a conditional use and, of course

this has gone through the planning commission and received the approval this is consisted with the neighborhood and preserves the open space and fills the gap on this subject block and this is a personal home and reviewed by the planning department staff and have zoning administrator and previously ones before we ask you deny this appeal and move forward i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> counselor. >> in this block in the adjacent block how many homes are 5 stories physical stories on the rear yard side. >> i'm sorry i don't have that information. >> okay in addition. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez platt given this item has been

heard i'll try to be belief the subject area is located within the rh2 zoning district and the property has encroached into the rear yard subject of the variance and the discretionary review you, of course, here the appeal in january of this year and unanimously upheld the variance decision this is a sleepingly down sloping lot from ash berg and in accordance to the gentleman's question i was going to show aerial sites if i can have the overhead it will show potentially here's the subject property and to the right the number of building and in particular this one appears to have potentially 5 stories i canned look inside but given the typography of the lot it is down sloping the mass is more

substantial and on the one side of ashbury or rh1 zoning district it allows for larger buildings there the subject building is one story about the adjacent property to the west those are the majority of points i wanted to raise it's been address the interim controls don't apply if they applied that would require a conditional use hearing and they'll need to look to see if there's lots constraint more than 55 percent in this case their encroaching into the rear yard a variance on this matter which the board has uphold and there's exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and the topographic that justified the greater lot coverage under the planning code

but not subject to the interim controls i don't see how the board can impose the interim controls all it will require a conditional use authorization and that's something this board can require without legislation i'm available to answer any questions. >> i to clarify it is clearly not not zone the supervisor specified but it is through mr. larkin or if it were in the you know what i'm asking. >> it is outside the interim controls they are ashburg as a boundary but it sets within this is noted within. >> rights if it were within it's been through planning. >> so let's say the second question let's say this is within the interim controls and that that was on appeal before

you now and the law states that it needs a conditional use authorization i believe the correct reading it would have to gastric e go back and the permit be denied and go for a confusion it states in the interim controls it didn't political to projects prior to the cat of the controls i believe this permit was issued prior to the date of the controls but not final so i think we need to discuss that. >> it is not applicable. >> no mr. sanchez back to the typography of the site west and east cross the back of this building it slopes downward; is that correct. >> this a has a bit of a latter slope as well going from ashburg

south it will go into two lanes does that make sense. >> the opposite side you showed the photo those would be uphill sites. >> yes. just purely i think i have a new annie might actually be able to - arrest. >> could you light even the overhead just a little bitlighten just a little bit you're not going to see it on that screen. >> let's see i'll come to that oh okay maybe very faint faint you, you

have to light even it up. >> the thin white lines are the top lines. >> give me a respect the bottom where your top finger is going up they'll be sloping upward. >> on ashbury is going to the low point which is the southwest corner of the property and contra. >> those are up sloping. >> yeah. okay. >> thank you. >> okay so sprushgs has no comments can i see a show of hands if you're able to line up on the far side of the room we'll appreciate that the first person can come

up and if you haven't filled out a speaker card please give it to the clerk that is helpful. >> we'll give 2 minutes. >> give the length of the agenda 2 minutes to speak please the first person to the microphone. >> thank you thank you for the opportunity to speak to this when i heard about this case i'm here to speak against the appeal and flafrp of the project when i first. >> could you identify yours. >> i'm a long time resident of north beach lived in san francisco for 23 years my eyes rolled into the back of my ahead head this is a highly technical appeal of someone's project this speaks to the issue of housing

supply every time we entertain a highly technical appeals we create a demand for existing properties where people lived i've lived here 23 years as a rent controlled that tenant i and other people get the sense of this we wonder what is going to do happen to our property that wouldn't happen if we created more housing unit in the hopefully technical appeal they've had to design their project you should support it and deny the appeal thanks for linking. >> if you're able to give us our name that would be helpful. >> i live two houses down from this 1, 2, 3 hou